Appendix A123.docx
DOCX document 45 KB Posted
- Attached to
- Ft Lyon Inspection, Lab Analysis & Testing
- Solicitation number
- RFQ NHAA 2027000004 1
- Issued by
- Denver County, Denver City, Colorado
About this file
This document is a prequalification and oral interview evaluation form package issued by the State of Colorado Office of the State Architect State Buildings Program for the Ft Lyon Inspection, Lab Analysis & Testing project. The package contains three evaluation templates designed to assess the qualifications of architectural, engineering, and consulting services firms competing for selection. Appendix A1 provides a prequalification submittal evaluation form that requires evaluators to confirm minimum requirements have been met, including submission of a letter from a surety. The evaluation criteria are organized into six weighted categories: Project Team (including qualifications, relevant experience, team experience, key staff involvement, time commitment, and subconsultant experience); Firm/Team Capabilities (including organizational structure, management functions, integration, and workload); Prior Experience (including similar project experience, demonstrated success, and references); Project Approach (including budget methodology, quality control, and schedule); Equity, Diversity and Inclusion (including diverse individual promotion and disadvantaged business partnerships); and Work Location (including prime and subconsultant location, area familiarity, and local market knowledge).
Appendix A2 provides an oral interview evaluation form using similar criteria weighted by the agency and rated on a scale of 0 to 5, with 0 indicating missing information and 5 representing excellent qualifications. Appendix A3 presents a ranking matrix for qualification-based selection that consolidates prequalification and oral interview scores across multiple evaluators to identify the most qualified firm. Evaluators assign numerical ratings of 1 to 5 on prequalification submissions using standardized definitions: 1 equals unacceptable, 2 equals poor, 3 equals fair, 4 equals good, and 5 equals excellent. Agencies are encouraged to customize criteria within each category to reflect unique project characteristics and establish passing score thresholds prior to evaluation.
View the file
Other files
| File | Type | Posted |
|---|---|---|
| Fort Lyon_RFQ_AE 2025-R3_FINAL.docx | DOCX document | |
| Appendix F Fort Lyon Campus Map.pdf | ||
| Appendix E Fort Lyon Master Building Inventory Table.docx | DOCX document | |
| SOW 6.16.2023 - Ft. Lyons Exterior Scope Only-20260922T151335Z-1-001.zip | ZIP file | |
| Appendix B SC5.3 Consultant Agrmt_2026.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
STATE OF COLORADO
OFFICE OF THE STATE ARCHITECT
STATE BUILDINGS PROGRAM
APPENDIX A1: PREQUALIFICATION SUBMITTAL EVALUATION FORM
Name of Firm:____________________________________________________________________ Name of Project: _________________________________________________________________ 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 x
· Unique knowledge of key team members
X
· Experience on projects as a team
X
· Key staff involvement in project management and on-site presence
X
· Time commitment of key staff
X
· Qualifications and relevant subconsultant experience
X
| 2. FIRM/TEAM CAPABILITIES |
| Weight |
| X |
| Rating |
| = |
| Score |
· Are the lines of authority and coordination clearly defined?
X
· Are essential management functions identified?
X
· Are the functions effectively integrated? (e.g., subconsultants’ role delineated)?
X
· Current and projected work load.
X
| 3. PRIOR EXPERIENCE |
| Weight |
| X |
| Rating |
| = |
| Score |
· Experience of key staff and firm with projects of similar scope and complexity
X
· Demonstrated success on past projects of similar scope and complexity
X
· References
X
| 4. PROJECT APPROACH |
| Weight |
| X |
| Rating |
| = |
| Score |
· Budget Methodology / Cost Control
X
· Quality Control Methodology
X
· Schedule
X
| 5. EQUITY, DIVERSIY AND INCLUSION |
| Weight |
| X |
| Rating |
| = |
| Score |
· Incentives and promotion of diverse individuals
X
· Partnering with SDVOSB or other disadvantaged businesses
X
| 6. WORK LOCATION |
| Weight |
| X |
| Rating |
| = |
| Score |
· Location of prime and subconsultants
X
· Familiarity with project area
X
· Knowledge of local labor and material markets
X
Total Score: _________
RFQ1-App-A
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
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 |
image1.jpeg
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .