Appendix A1 to A3 RFQ 2026000050 CSP Sec. Sys. Repl..pdf
PDF 145 KB Posted
- Solicitation number
- RFQ1 CBAA 2026000050 1
- Issued by
- El Paso County, Colorado
About this file
This document consists of prequalification and oral interview evaluation forms for a Request for Qualifications (RFQ) issued by the State of Colorado Office of the State Architect, State Buildings Program, for the Electronic Security System Replacement project at the Colorado State Penitentiary. The RFQ uses a qualification-based selection process to identify the most qualified architectural, engineering, or consulting services firm. The evaluation process involves two stages: a prequalification submittal evaluation and an oral interview evaluation. Firms must meet minimum requirements, including submission of a letter from surety and acknowledgment and attestation documents. The prequalification evaluation assesses six categories: Project Team (weighted at 6.5 points), Firm/Team Capabilities (weighted at 4.5 points), Prior Experience (weighted at 3 points), Project Approach (weighted at 3 points), Equity, Diversity and Inclusion (weighted at 1 point), and Work Location (weighted at 2.5 points). The oral interview evaluation follows a similar categorical structure with weights assigned to 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).
Evaluators assess firm qualifications using a numerical rating scale of 0 to 5, with 0 indicating missing information, 1 representing unacceptable qualifications, 2 poor, 3 fair, 4 good, and 5 excellent. The evaluation forms require multiple evaluators to score each firm, with ratings multiplied by assigned weights to calculate individual criterion scores and an overall total score. The prequalification and oral interview ranking matrix consolidates scores from multiple evaluators to determine final firm rankings. The document does not specify pricing terms, contract duration, funding sources, or award dates, as these evaluation forms serve as procedural templates rather than substantive bid documentation.
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: Electronic Security System Replacement, Colorado State Penitentiary 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 .