IPD_Appendix A 2025 Ranking Forms.docx
DOCX document 72 KB Posted
- Attached to
- Small Scale Housing- Craig Campus
- Solicitation number
- CNCC FY26-004
- Issued by
- Otero County, Colorado
About this file
This document is an evaluation form for an Integrated Project Delivery (IPD) contract from the State of Colorado Office of the State Architect State Buildings Program. The file contains multiple appendices (Appendix A, A1, and A2) detailing a comprehensive qualification and ranking matrix for potential contractors. The forms are specifically designed for evaluating firms seeking to participate in a project, with a structured scoring system that assesses various aspects of a firm's capabilities, including qualifications, project management approach, prior project experience, and equity and diversity practices.
The evaluation methodology uses a 60% qualifications and 40% fee proposal weighting system, with firms being scored across six primary categories: qualifications of the firm, qualifications of management team members, project management approach, prior project experience, equity/diversity/inclusion, and miscellaneous factors. Evaluators will use a rating scale from 0-5 (0 = not provided, 1 = unacceptable, 5 = excellent) and apply predetermined weights to each category. The final selection will be based on a comprehensive assessment that considers both the firm's qualifications and proposed fees, with the goal of identifying the most advantageous proposal for the state.
View the file
Other files
| File | Type | Posted |
|---|---|---|
| Appendix C - Response Sheet.pdf | ||
| SBP-6.14 Bid Bond_2025.docx | DOCX document | |
| FY26-02 Small Scale Housing DBGMP.pdf | ||
| SC9.1 DB GMP GC_2025.pdf | ||
| SBP6.18 Labor Burden Calc R8-2023 (9).docx | DOCX document | |
| SC-9.0 DB GMP A_2025.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 A: EVALUATION OF QUALIFICATIONS FORM: INTEGRATED PROJECT DELIVERY
Name of Firm:____________________________________________________________________ Name of Project: _________________________________________________________________ Evaluator No:_______________________________________ Date:______________________________________________
| RFP REFERENCE MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS | Y ____ N ____ | |
| ACKNOWLEDGEMENT AND ATTESTATION INCLUDED: | Y ____ N ____ |
If the minimum requirements have not been met, specify the reason(s): __________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
INSTRUCTIONS:
1. Weights are to be assigned prior to evaluation and are to be consistent on all evaluation forms.
2. Use only whole numbers.
3. Rating: 0 = not provided, 1 = Unacceptable, 2 = Poor, 3 = Fair, 4 = Good, 5 = Excellent
4. Total score includes the sum total of all criteria.
5. A passing score (as a percentage of the total points available) is to be established by the state prior to evaluation.
| 1. QUALIFICATIONS OF THE FIRM(S) |
| Weight |
| X |
| Rating |
| = |
| Score |
| · Overall qualifications |
| 5 |
| x |
| · Organizational structure/lines of authority |
| 5 |
| X |
| · Subcontractor selection and management |
| 5 |
| X |
| · Colorado workforce |
| 5 |
| X |
| · Safety/employee support |
| 5 |
| X |
| 2. QUALIFICATIONS OF MANAGEMENT TEAM MEMBERS |
| Weight |
| X |
| Rating |
| = |
| Score |
| · Qualifications and relevant experience of superintendent |
| 5 |
| X |
| · Qualifications and relevant experience of in-house staff |
| 5 |
| X |
| · Location/Access |
| 5 |
| 3. PROJECT MANAGEMENT APPROACH |
| Weight |
| X |
| Rating |
| = |
| Score |
| · Approach to successful CM/GC Services |
| 5 |
| Cost Effectiveness |
| 5 |
| X |
| Schedule effectiveness |
| 5 |
| X |
| Quality effectiveness |
| 5 |
| X |
| · Competitively Bid/Self Performed Work |
| 5 |
| 4. PRIOR PROJECT EXPERIENCE/SUCCESS |
| Weight |
| X |
| Rating |
| = |
| Score |
| · Project #1 |
| 5 |
| X |
Timeliness Disruption Budget Considerations Quality Acceptability/Punchlist Compliance
| · Project #2 |
| 5 |
| X |
Timeliness
Budget Considerations Quality
| · Project #3 |
| 5 |
| X |
Timeliness
Budget Considerations Quality
| 5. EQUITY, DIVERSITY AND INCLUSION |
| Weight |
| X |
| Rating |
| = |
| Score |
| · Hiring and Promotion Practices |
| 3 |
| X |
| · Subcontracting Practices |
| 3 |
| X |
| 6. MISCELLANEOUS |
| Weight |
| X |
| Rating |
| = |
| Score |
| · Claims/litigation history |
| 5 |
| X |
| · Apprenticeship Training Program |
| 5 |
| X |
| · Other |
| 3 |
| X |
Total Score: _________
IPD-GMP-App-A (R1)
STATE BUILDINGS PROGRAM
APPENDIX A1: EVALUATION OF QUALIFICATIONS FORM: INTEGRATED PROJECT DELIVERY (Interview) Name of Firm:____________________________________________________________________ Name of Project: _________________________________________________________________ Evaluator No:_______________________________________ Date:______________________________________________
INSTRUCTIONS:
1. Weights are to be assigned prior to evaluation and are to be consistent on all evaluation forms.
2. Use only whole numbers.
3. Rating: 0 = not provided, 1 = Unacceptable, 2 = Poor, 3 = Fair, 4 = Good, 5 = Excellent
4. Total score includes the sum total of all criteria.
5. A passing score (as a percentage of the total points available) is to be established by the state prior to evaluation.
| 1. QUALIFICATIONS OF THE FIRM(S) |
| Weight |
Rating
Score
| 5 |
| x |
2. QUALIFICATIONS OF MANAGEMENT TEAM MEMBERS
| 5 |
| X |
3. PROJECT MANAGEMENT APPROACH
| 5 |
| X |
4. PRIOR PROJECT EXPERIENCE/SUCCESS
| 5 |
| X |
5. EQUITY, DIVERSITY AND INCLUSION
| 5 |
| X |
6. MISCELLANEOUS
| 5 |
| X |
Total Score: _________
STATE BUILDINGS PROGRAM
APPENDIX A2: QUALIFICATIONS AND PROPOSAL RANKING MATRIX: INTEGRATED PROJECT DELIVERY
INSTRUCTIONS/EXAMPLE:
1. QUALIFICATIONS Example uses the 60% / Fee 40% split.
2. Insert total score from each evaluator's SUBMITTAL review.
3. Add all evaluators’ total scores and divide by the number of evaluators to determine the average score for each firm’s qualifications.
4. The maximum score for qualifications on the evaluation form is equivalent to 40 points and is equivalent to the maximum points available for qualifications. Therefore, each firm’s score is determined as a percentage of the maximum points available. To score each average qualification score, use the example formula.
5. Assume the highest score is 600.
SCORING OF QUALIFICATIONS
| FIRM B: | 600 X 40 points = 40 points |
| 600 |
| FIRM C: | 500 X 40 points = 33.33 points |
| 600 |
| FIRM A: | 400 X 40 points = 26.66 points |
| 600 |
6. Determine score for each firm’s sealed proposal with the lowest fee being equivalent to a maximum score of 60 points. To score each proposal, use the example formula.
7. Assume the lowest Proposal was $100,000.
SCORING OF PROPOSALS
| FIRM A: | $100,000 X 60 points = 60 points |
| $100,000 |
| FIRM B: | $100,000 X 60 points = 48 points |
| $125,000 |
| FIRM C: | $100,000 X 60 points = 39.99 points |
| $150,000 |
8. Add the average qualification score to the Proposal score to determine cumulative qualifications and fee score.
9. Numerically rank all firms with the highest scoring firm being the most qualified and advantageous to the state.
FIRM
QUALIFICATIONS
AVE.
QUALS
QUALS SCORE
PROPOSAL
SCORE
QUALS
& PROPOSAL SCORE
RANK
| EVAL #1 |
| EVAL #2 |
| EVAL #3 |
| EVAL #4 |
| EVAL #5 |
| EVAL #6 |
image2.jpeg image3.jpeg image1.jpeg
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .