RFP582XXXX Draft Scoring Wloo RC Add-Alt.xlsx
XLSX spreadsheet 28 KB Posted
- Solicitation number
- 582-RFP-2782-2026
- Issued by
- Black Hawk County, Iowa
About this file
This is a scoring rubric and evaluation template for the Department of Public Defense, on behalf of the Iowa National Guard, for the selection of an Architecture/Engineering (A/E) design firm to provide professional design services for an addition and alteration project at the Waterloo Readiness Center in Black Hawk County, Iowa. The solicitation was posted on May 21, 2026, with proposals due June 23, 2026. The evaluation process utilizes a two-phase approach wherein technical proposals are evaluated and scored before cost proposals are opened and considered. Respondents must achieve a minimum technical score of 630 points to advance to the cost evaluation phase; those failing to meet this threshold will have their cost proposals returned unopened. The technical evaluation comprises nine criteria worth a combined 900 points, including organizational chart and staffing requirements, resumes of key personnel (project manager, architect, mechanical engineer, electrical engineer, structural engineer, civil engineer, LEED consultant, and RCDD certified communications engineer), relevant project history from the past seven years with references and cost comparisons, team member involvement charts, firm design approach and methodology, design contracts with the Department of Public Defense within the past ten years, and design development timeline scheduling.
The cost proposal evaluation employs a weighted scoring methodology wherein the lowest cost proposal receives 100 percent of available points, with all other proposals scored proportionally using the lowest cost as the numerator. The cost proposal is worth 100 points. The evaluation template utilizes a 0-5 rating scale where 0 indicates missing information or no response, 1 indicates failure to meet requirements, 2 indicates partial requirement fulfillment, 3 indicates fulfillment with minor compromises, 4 indicates fulfillment with minimal compromises, and 5 indicates complete requirement fulfillment. Individual evaluation criteria carry specific point weightings, with project manager resumes weighted at 100 points, architect resumes at 75 points, and supporting criteria such as mechanical, electrical, and structural engineer resumes weighted at 50 points each. The total possible score is 1,000 points, combining the 900-point technical evaluation and 100-point cost proposal evaluation.
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
Scoring Info
RATING SCALE
| 0 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 |
| Missing information or no response | Does not meet requirements | Meets some of the requirements | Meets many of the requirements, but requires some compromises | Meets almost all of the requirements | Meets all of the requirements |
| o Weighted scoring. Score of 0-5 distributes actual points | |||||
| COST PROPOSALS SCORING | |||||
| The Cost Proposals will remain sealed during the evaluation of the Technical Proposals and any demonstrations. Only prospective Respondents who obtain the minimum score for their Technical Proposal will be considered during the cost evaluation phase of the review process. When a Technical Proposal does not meet the minimum score, the associated Cost Proposal will remain unopened and will be returned to the Respondent upon request after the Agency issues a Notice of Intent to Award the Contract. After the Technical Proposals are evaluated and scored, the Cost Proposals will be opened and scored. |
| Cost Proposals may be evaluated and points awarded as follows: |
| 1) The Cost Proposals will be ranked from least to most expensive. |
| 2) The least expensive Cost Proposal shall receive the maximum number of points available. |
| 3) To determine the number of points to be awarded to all other Cost Proposals, the least expensive Cost Proposal will be used in all cases as the numerator. Each of the other Cost Proposals will be used as the denominator per the example below. |
4) The percentage will then be multiplied by the maximum number of available points and the resulting number will be the cost points awarded to other compliant Respondents. Percentages and points will be rounded to the nearest whole value.
| Example: | ||
| Respondent A quotes $35,000, Respondent B quotes $45,000, and Respondent C quotes $65,000. | ||
| Respondent A: | $35,000 | = receives 100% of available points on cost |
| $35,000 | ||
| Respondent B: | $35,000 | = receives 78% of available points on cost |
| $45,000 | ||
| Respondent A: | $35,000 | = receives 54% of available points on cost |
| $65,000 |
Eval Template
| RFP582XXXX Criteria Weighting | [Firm Name] | |||
| Evaluation Criteria | Pass/Fail | |||
| Mandatory requirements | ||||
| Criterion | Using Response(s) to RFP Section(s) among others: | Score on scale of 0 - 5 | Possible Points (weight) | Actual Points Scored |
| Provide an organizational chart for your team for the staff that will be assigned. Staff members must include at a minimum: project manager, architect (can be same as project manager), mechanical engineer, electrical engineer, structural engineer, civil engineer, LEED consultant, and RCDD certified communications engineer. | 1.1.1 | NA | 0 | NA |
| Provide resumes of key individual(s) from Item 1.1.1, including education, relevant experience, and certifications/licensing. Identify and describe qualifications, experience, and expertise in providing services for similar, or relevant, projects. Information may be submitted in the Standard Form 330, but the SF 330 format is not required. Maximum two (2) pages per individual. | 1.1.2 | |||
| Project Manager | 0 | 100 | 0 | |
| Architect (can be same as Project Manager) | 0 | 75 | 0 | |
| Mechanical Engineer | 0 | 50 | 0 | |
| Electrical Engineer | 0 | 50 | 0 | |
| Structural Engineer | 0 | 50 | 0 | |
| Civil Engineer | 0 | 50 | 0 | |
| LEED Consultant | 0 | 25 | 0 | |
| RCDD Communications Engineer | 0 | 25 | 0 | |
| For the staff that will be assigned, provide a list of past similar or relevant projects completed in the last 7 years, and include brief descriptions of what the projects entailed and a contact name and phone number (reference). In addition, provide estimated project cost, final project cost at acceptance, and whether the project was completed on time. Maximum two (2) pages per staff member. | 1.1.3 | 0 | 150 | 0 |
| Provide a chart with the submitted projects on one axis and the consulting team firms / members on the other axis, showing which team members proposed for this project were involved in the design of the submitted project(s). | 1.1.3.1 | |||
| Provide a narrative statement of your Firm’s approach to large project design and the methodology you propose to use to deliver the required products on time. This should be a short section that gives the Selection Committee a clear understanding of how the team will be organized and managed from contract execution through bid acceptance. Describe the tools the Firm will use to produce the design documents required by the contracts resulting from this RFP, and any other information you feel may set your Firm apart from other prospective companies. | 1.1.4 | 0 | 150 | 0 |
| Provide a list of design contracts entered into with the Department of Public Defense in the last ten years, that were awarded as result of a project specific request for proposal. List project name, location, and dollar amount of the DESIGN contract. | 1.1.5 | 0 | 75 | 0 |
| Schedule - Design development timeline | 1.2 | 0 | 100 | 0 |
| minimum score of 630 | SUBTOTAL | 900 | 0 | |
| COST PROPOSAL | Actual Total Dollars Proposed | % to Lowest | Possible Points (weight) | Actual Points Scored |
| Actual Cost | 1.1.6 | 100 | ||
| TOTAL SCORE: | 0 |
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .