Appendix A Evaluation Forms.pdf
PDF 144 KB Posted
- Solicitation number
- RFQ1 IHHA 2027000001 3
- Issued by
- Pueblo County, Colorado
About this file
This file contains prequalification and oral interview evaluation forms for the State of Colorado Office of the State Architect's State Buildings Program for project 2027-031M26, Building Stabilization at CMHHIP Buildings Phase 1. The evaluation documents establish standardized criteria and scoring methodologies for assessing architectural, engineering, and consulting services firms competing for project delivery. The prequalification submittal evaluation form (Appendix A1) assesses firms across six weighted categories: Project Team, Firm/Team Capabilities, Prior Experience, Project Approach, Equity/Diversity/Inclusion, and Work Location. Each criterion receives a numerical rating from 0 to 5, with evaluators multiplying assigned weights by ratings to generate individual scores that sum to a total qualification score. The oral interview evaluation form (Appendix A2) mirrors the prequalification structure but focuses on firms advancing to interview rounds, evaluating Project Team, Team Capabilities, Prior Experience, Project Approach, and Work Location across weighted categories. Both evaluation forms utilize whole number ratings and weights to ensure consistent, quantifiable assessment of competing firms.
The evaluation framework emphasizes demonstrated experience and local knowledge, with particular weight assigned to prior project success of similar scope and complexity (5-point weight each), quality control methodology (5-point weight), and knowledge of local labor and material markets (5-point weight). The documents include a ranking matrix (Appendix A3) for consolidating multiple evaluators' assessments to determine the most qualified firm through comparative scoring. The State includes equity, diversity, and inclusion considerations in the evaluation process, with weighted criteria for promotion of diverse individuals and partnerships with small disadvantaged veteran-owned small businesses (SDVOSB). No specific contract values, response deadlines, or award dates are identified within these evaluation templates, which serve as administrative instruments for the selection process rather than standalone bid documents.
View the file
Other files
| File | Type | Posted |
|---|---|---|
| Addendum 1.docx | DOCX document | |
| Addendum_2_Answers.docx | DOCX document | |
| Appendix B Sample AE Agreement with T&C.pdf | ||
| RFQ AE 2027-031M26.SL.docx | DOCX document |
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: 2027-031M26 / Building Stabilization, CMHHIP Buildings 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 5 X = defined?
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 .