Appendix A1 to A3 2026000049 FCF LU 7 Showers and ADA Impr..pdf
PDF 145 KB Posted
- Solicitation number
- RFQ1 CBAA 2026000049 1
- Issued by
- El Paso County, Colorado
About this file
This document consists of three prequalification and evaluation forms issued by the Colorado Office of the State Architect for the State Buildings Program related to the Living Unit 7 Shower Improvements and General Population ADA Improvements project at Fremont Correctional Facility. The evaluation forms are designed to assess the qualifications of architectural, engineering, and consulting services firms seeking to participate in this project through a Requests for Qualifications (RFQ) process. Appendix A1 provides a prequalification submittal evaluation form that scores firms across six primary categories: project team qualifications (weighted at 6.5 points), firm and team capabilities (weighted at 4.5 points), prior experience (weighted at 3 points), project approach (weighted at 2.5 points), equity, diversity, and inclusion initiatives (weighted at 1 point), and work location considerations (weighted at 2.5 points). Evaluators assign numerical ratings from 0 to 5 for each criterion, with 5 representing excellence and 0 indicating missing information, then multiply each rating by its assigned weight to calculate individual criterion scores.
Appendix A2 presents an oral interview evaluation form that assesses the same firm qualifications through an in-person interview process using identical evaluation categories but with different weighting: project team (5 points), team capabilities (4 points), prior experience (3 points), project approach (3 points), equity, diversity, and inclusion (2 points), and work location (3 points). Appendix A3 provides a ranking matrix template for consolidating prequalification and oral interview evaluation scores from six evaluators to determine the most qualified firm for selection. The forms require documentation of firm names, compliance with minimum requirements including surety letters, and signed acknowledgments and attestations. These evaluation documents establish the criteria and methodology through which the State of Colorado will identify the qualified contractor or consulting team for the Fremont Correctional Facility improvement project, with emphasis on relevant project experience, team stability, management capability, quality control processes, and commitment to diversity and local engagement.
View the file
Other files
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: Living Unit 7 Shower Improvements / General Population ADA Improvements, Fremont Correctional Facility 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 1.5 x = Unique knowledge of key team members 1.5 X = Experience on projects as a team 0.5 X = Key staff involvement in project management and on-site presence 1.5 X
Time commitment of key staff 0.5 X = Qualifications and relevant subconsultant experience 0.5 X =
2. FIRM/TEAM CAPABILITIES Weight X Rating = Score
Are the lines of authority and coordination clearly defined? 1 X =
Are essential management functions identified? 1 X = Are the functions effectively integrated? (e.g., subconsultants’ role delineated)? 1.5 X = Current and projected work load. 1 X =
3. PRIOR EXPERIENCE Weight X Rating = Score Experience of key staff and firm with projects of similar scope and complexity 2 X = Demonstrated success on past projects of similar scope and complexity 0.5 X
References 0.5 X =
4. PROJECT APPROACH Weight X Rating = Score Budget Methodology / Cost Control 0.5 X = Quality Control Methodology 1.5 X = Schedule 1 X =
5. EQUITY, DIVERSIY AND INCLUSION Weight X Rating = Score Incentives and promotion of diverse individuals 0.5 X = Partnering with SDVOSB or other disadvantaged businesses 0.5 X =
6. WORK LOCATION Weight X Rating = Score Location of prime and subconsultants 0.5 X = Familiarity with project area 0.5 X = Knowledge of local labor and material markets 1.5 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. EQUITY, DIVERSITY, & INCLUSION
6. 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 .