Appendix A Evaluation Forms.pdf

PDF 143 KB Posted

Attached to
2027-026M26- Upgrade Heat Plant Controls Systems, Building 3
Solicitation number
RFQ1 IHHA 2026000047 2
Issued by
Pueblo County, Colorado

About this file

This file contains prequalification and evaluation forms issued by the Colorado Office of the State Architect for the State Buildings Program related to project 2027-026M26, the Upgrade of Heat Plant Controls System in Building 35 as part of the Colorado Mental Health Institute at Pueblo Phase 1 of 2. The document establishes the evaluation criteria and methodology for assessing architectural and engineering firms submitting qualifications for this project. The evaluation process includes two stages: a prequalification submittal evaluation and an oral interview evaluation, followed by a ranking matrix to determine the most qualified firm. Firms must demonstrate minimum requirements including submission of a letter from surety and an acknowledgment and attestation to proceed in the selection process.

The evaluation forms assign weighted criteria across six primary categories: Project Team (qualifications, experience, staff commitment, and subconsultant expertise), Firm/Team Capabilities (management structure and workload), Prior Experience (similar project scope and references), Project Approach (budget, quality control, and schedule methodology), Equity Diversity and Inclusion (promotion of diverse individuals and disadvantaged business partnerships), and Work Location (proximity and familiarity with local markets). Evaluators assess firm qualifications using a 0-5 numerical rating scale, with 0 representing missing information, 1 representing unacceptable qualifications, and 5 representing excellent qualifications. The prequalification evaluation assigns weights ranging from 2 to 5 points across individual criteria, while the oral interview evaluation uses simplified weighting. The ranking matrix allows agencies to compile scores from multiple evaluators to identify the most qualified consulting services firm for selection.

View the file

Other files

File Type Posted
Addendum 1 2027-026M26 Presentation.pptx PPTX presentation
RFQ 2027-026M26 Phase 1 Main.SL.docx DOCX document
Appendix B Sample AE Agreement with T&C.pdf PDF
2027-026M26 Sign in.pdf PDF

On GovTribe

Work with this file

  • Download the original file
  • Contacts named in this file
  • Similar government files
  • Ask GovTribe AI about this file

Text version

RFQ1-App-A

STATE OF COLORADO

OFFICE OF THE STATE ARCHITECT

STATE BUILDINGS PROGRAM

APPENDIX A1: PREQUALIFICATION SUBMITTAL

EVALUATION FORM

Name of Firm:____________________________________________________________________ Name of Project: 2027-026M26 /Upgrade Heat Plant Controls System, Building 35, CMHHIP Ph1 of 2 Evaluator No:_______________________________________ Date:______________________________________________

RFQ REFERENCE MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS Y ____ N ____

If the minimum requirements (including letter from surety) have not been met, specify the reason(s):

Acknowledgment and Attestation included: Y ____ N ____

INSTRUCTIONS:

1. Criteria: Agencies/Institutions are encouraged to include additional criteria that reflect unique characteristics of the project under each category to help determine the submitter’s overall qualifications.

2. Weights: Agency/Institutions to assign weights, using whole numbers, to all criteria on evaluation forms for inclusion into RFQ document and prior to evaluations.

3. Ratings: Evaluator to assess the strength of each firms qualifications and assign a numerical rating of 1 to 5 using whole numbers

4. Rating: 0 = Not provided, 1 = Unacceptable, 2 = Poor, 3 = Fair, 4 = Good, 5 = Excellent

5. Total Score: Includes the sum of all criteria.

1. PROJECT TEAM Weight X Rating = Score Qualifications and Relevant individual experience 5 x = Unique knowledge of key team members 4 X = Experience on projects as a team 5 X = Key staff involvement in project management and on-site presence

5 X

Time commitment of key staff 4 X = Qualifications and relevant subconsultant experience 5 X =

2. FIRM/TEAM CAPABILITIES Weight X Rating = Score

Are the lines of authority and coordination clearly defined? 5 X =

Are essential management functions identified? 5 X = Are the functions effectively integrated? (e.g., subconsultants’ role delineated)? 4 X = Current and projected work load. 3 X =

3. PRIOR EXPERIENCE Weight X Rating = Score Experience of key staff and firm with projects of similar scope and complexity 5 X = Demonstrated success on past projects of similar scope and complexity

5 X

References 5 X =

4. PROJECT APPROACH Weight X Rating = Score Budget Methodology / Cost Control 4 X = Quality Control Methodology 5 X = Schedule 4 X =

5. EQUITY, DIVERSIY AND INCLUSION Weight X Rating = Score Incentives and promotion of diverse individuals 2 X = Partnering with SDVOSB or other disadvantaged businesses 2 X =

6. WORK LOCATION Weight X Rating = Score Location of prime and subconsultants 3 X = Familiarity with project area 2 X = Knowledge of local labor and material markets 5 X =

Total Score: _________

STATE OF COLORADO

OFFICE OF THE STATE ARCHITECT

STATE BUILDINGS PROGRAM

APPENDIX A2: ORAL INTERVIEW EVALUATION FORM

INSTRUCTIONS/EXAMPLE:

1. Criteria: Agencies/Institutions are encouraged to include additional criteria that reflect unique characteristics of the project under each category to help determine the submitter’s overall qualifications.

2. Weights: Agency/Institutions to assign weights, using whole numbers, to all criteria on evaluation forms for inclusion into RFQ document and prior to evaluations.

3. Ratings: Evaluator to assess the strength of each firms qualifications and assign a numerical rating of 0 to 5 with 5 being the highest rating. (Use whole numbers), 0 is missing information.

4. Total Score: Includes the sum of all criteria. Note: a passing score (as a percentage of the total points available) is optional and should be assigned by the agency/institution prior to evaluation.

CRITERIA Weight X Rating = Score

1. PROJECT TEAM

5 x =

2. TEAM CAPABILITIES

3. PRIOR EXPERIENCE

4. PROJECT APPROACH

5. WORK LOCATION

TOTAL SCORE

APPENDIX A3: PREQUALIFICATION AND ORAL

INTERVIEW RANKING MATRIX

QUALIFICATION BASED SELECTION

(Use this form to rank and determine the most qualified architectural/engineering/consulting services firm for both the preliminary and interview evaluations.)

FIRM NAME

QUALIFICATIONS

QUALS

SCORE

RANK

EVAL

#1

EVAL

#2

EVAL

#3

EVAL

#4

EVAL

#5

EVAL

#6

File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .