The URL can be used to link to this page

Browse Search

Home My WebLink About20253313 Facilities Department (970) 400-2023 1 105 H St., P.O. Box 758 COUNTY, CO Greeley, CO 80632 November 21, 2025 To: Board of County Commissioners From: Patrick O'Neill Subject: Weld County Judicial Center Representative - RFP (B2500123) This solicitation is for the Weld County Judicial Center Owners Representative Request for Proposal (RFP). The RFP consisted of two rounds of grading criteria the first round was based off all proposals submitted and were graded by an evaluation committee which included: Scope of Proposal, Critical Issues, Project Control, Work Location / Familiarity, & Cost and Schedule. The evaluation committee received ten (10) proposals for the Weld County Judicial Center Owners Representative. The committee evaluated the proposals based on Best Value for the County and shortlisted three consultants to move to the second round of grading criteria for interviews conducted by the Board of County Commissioners. The Board of County Commissioners evaluated each consultant interviewed based on the published RFP grading criteria which included: Work Approach, Owners Representative / Project Manager Qualifications, Quality of Presentation, and Questions and Answers Session. The score results (shown in Attachment A) show Levels Collaborative as the overall best value for this solicitation. Therefore, the Facilities Department is recommending the award to Level5 Collaborative in the amount of $9,325,000.00. If you have any questions, please contact me on extension 2023. Sincerely, Patrick O'Neill Facilities Director 2025-3313 IZ/ BC6OZ1 Weld County Facilities Department PROJECT: - _\_1861, (RFP#B2500123 -Judicial Center Development - Owners Rep] El RFP Due Date: U C C J N T Y Summary of Committee Member Scoring Consultant Name Total Adjusted Score Total Adjusted Score Total Score Ranking (RFQ-RFP) (Interview) Vanir 336 182.00 518.00 2 Connect Advisors 307 133.00 440.00 3 Level 5 311 241.00 552.00 1 Infrastructure Strategies 272 4 Shrews berry 241 7 Accenture 270 5 Capital 238.5 8 Wember 233.5 9 Artaic 248 6 Servant 186.5 10 Shortlisted Consultants for Interview Final Best Value Determination (PROJECT NAME: Judicial Center Development-Owners Representative Vanir RIP Score Consultant Name: Vanir The rating scale shall be from 1 to 5,with 1 being a poor rating,3 being an average rating,and 5 being an outstanding rating. Evaluation Criteria Standard Evaluator#1 Evaluator#2 Evaluator#3 Evaluator Weight Adjusted Factors Score -The proposal clearly shows and understanding of Scope of Proposal the project objectives. 5.00 3.00 5.00 4.00 4.0 68.00 -The proposed methodology meets the desired goals of the County. -The proposal demonstrates that the learn clearly understands the major issues associated with the Critical Issues project. 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.0 64.00 -The proposal offers realistic solutions to the critical issues. - I he team has descnbed how it will control its construction costs. -The proposal describes how project team costs will be controlled. -The team has demonstrated its ability to ensure Project Control that State and Federal procedures are used where 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 3.0 60.00 appropriate. -The team has demonstrated its ability to effectively communicate and coordinate with the Weld County project team. -The team's location does not affect the Work Location/Familiarity coordination of the project with the County. 4.00 4.00 3.00 5.00 1.0 16.00 -The team demonstrated knowledge of Weld County in general for this development. -The costs were presented in a way that is Cost and Schedule reasonable and consistent with the project goals. 5.00 3.00 5.00 3.00 8.0 128.00 -The schedule contains sufficient detail to ensure the project goals are met. Total Adjusted Score: 336 The lowest possible score is 80,the best score possible is 400. ( Accumulated Average Score: 84 'PROJECT NAME: Judicial Center Development-Owners Representative Connect Advisors RkP Score Consultant Name: Connect Advisors The rating scale shall be from 1 to 5,with 1 being a poor rating,3 being an average rating,and 5 being an outstanding rating. Evaluation Criteria Standard Evaluator#1 Evaluator#2 Evaluator#3 Evaluator#4 Weight Adjusted Factors Score -The proposal clearly shows and understanding of Scope of Proposal the project objectives. 5.00 5.00 5.00 3.00 4.0 72.00 -The proposed methodology meets the desired goals of the County. -The proposal demonstrates that the team clearly understands the major issues associated with the Critical Issues project. 4.50 3.00 4.00 2.00 4.0 54.00 -The proposal offers realistic solutions to the critical issues. -I he team has descnbed how it will control its construction costs. -The proposal describes how project team costs will be controlled. -The team has demonstrated its ability to ensure Project Control that State and Federal procedures are used where 5.00 3.00 4.00 2.00 3.0 42.00 appropriate. -The team has demonstrated its ability to effectively communicate and coordinate with the Weld County project team. -The team's location does not affect the Work Location/Familiarity coordination of the project with the County. 3.00 4.00 3.00 5.00 1.0 15.00 -The team demonstrated knowledge of Weld County in general for this development. -The costs were presented in a way that is Cost and Schedule reasonable and consistent with the project goals. 4.50 4.00 5.00 2.00 8 0 124.00 -The schedule contains sufficient detail to ensure the project goals are met. Total Adjusted Score: 307 The lowest possible score is 80,the best score possible is 400. Accumulated Average Scorer 76.75 'PROJECT NAME: Judicial Center Development-Owners Representative Level 5 Rfr Score Consultant Name: Level 5 The rating scale shall be from 1 to 5,with 1 being a poor rating,3 being an average rating,and 5 being an outstanding rating. Evaluation Criteria Standard Evaluator#1 Evaluator#2 Evaluator#3 Evaluator#4 Weight Adjusted Factors Score -The proposal clearly shows and understanding of Scope of Proposal the project objectives. 4.00 2.00 5.00 5.00 4.0 64.00 -The proposed methodology meets the desired goals of the County. -The proposal demonstrates that the team clearly understands the major issues associated with the Critical Issues project. 5.00 3.00 5.00 5.00 4.0 72.00 -The proposal offers realistic solutions to the critical issues. - I he team has descnbea how it will control Its - construction costs. -The proposal describes how project team costs will be controlled. -The team has demonstrated its ability to ensure Project Control that State and Federal procedures are used where 5.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 3.0 51.00 appropriate. -The team has demonstrated its ability to effectively communicate and coordinate with the Weld County project team. -The team's location does not affect the Work Location/Familiarity coordination of the project with the County. 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 1.0 20.00 -The team demonstrated knowledge of Weld County in general for this development. -The costs were presented in a way that is Cost and Schedule reasonable and consistent with the project goals. 4.00 2.00 4.00 3.00 8.0 104.00 -The schedule contains sufficient detail to ensure the project goals are met. Total Adjusted Score: 311 The lowest possible score is 80,the best score possible is 400. ' Accumulated Average Score:1 77.75 PROJECT NAME: Judicial Center Development-Owners Representative Infrastructure RtP Score Consultant Name: Infrastructure Strategies The rating scale shall be from 1 to 5,with 1 being a poor rating,3 being an average rating,and 5 being an outstanding rating. Evaluation Criteria Standard Evaluator#1 Evaluator#2 Evaluator#3 Evaluator#4 Weight Adjusted Factors Score -The proposal clearly shows and understanding of Scope of Proposal the project objectives. 5.00 4.00 5.00 2.00 4.0 64.00 -The proposed methodology meets the desired goals of the County. -The proposal demonstrates that the team clearly understands the major issues associated with the Critical Issues project. 5.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 4.0 68.00 -The proposal offers realistic solutions to the critical issues. -I he team has described how it will control its construction costs. -The proposal describes how project team costs will be controlled. -The team has demonstrated its ability to ensure Project Control that State and Federal procedures are used where 5.00 3.00 4.00 2.00 3.0 42.00 appropriate. -The team has demonstrated its ability to effectively communicate and coordinate with the Weld County project team. -The team's location does not affect the Work Location/Familiarity coordination of the project with the County. 5.00 4.00 4.00 5.00 1.0 18.00 -The team demonstrated knowledge of Weld County in general for this development. -The costs were presented in a way that is Cost and Schedule reasonable and consistent with the project goals. 4.00 2.00 3.00 1.00 8.0 80.00 -The schedule contains sufficient detail to ensure the project goals are met. Total Adjusted Score: 272 The lowest possible score is 80,the best score possible is 400. I Accumulated Average Scorer 68 'PROJECT NAME: Judicial Center Development-Owners Representative Shrewsberry RtP Score Consultant Name: Shrewsberry The rating scale shall be from 1 to 5,with 1 being a poor rating,3 being an average rating,and 5 being an outstanding rating. Evaluation Criteria Standard Evaluator#1 Evaluator#2 Evaluator#3 Evaluator#4 Weight Adjusted Factors Score -The proposal clearly shows and understanding of Scope of Proposal the project objectives. 5.00 3.00 5.00 1.00 4.0 56.00 -The proposed methodology meets the desired goals of the County. -The proposal demonstrates that the team clearly understands the major issues associated with the Critical Issues project. 4.00 4.00 3.00 2.00 4.0 52.00 -The proposal offers realistic solutions to the critical issues. -I he team has descnbed how it will control its construction costs. -The proposal describes how project team costs will be controlled. -The team has demonstrated its ability to ensure Project Control that State and Federal procedures are used where 4.00 3.00 4.00 3.00 3.0 42.00 appropriate. -The team has demonstrated its ability to effectively communicate and coordinate with the Weld County project team. -The team's location does not affect the Work Location/Familiarity coordination of the project with the County. 4.00 4.00 2.00 1.00 1.0 11.00 -The team demonstrated knowledge of Weld County in general for this development. -The costs were presented in a way that is Cost and Schedule reasonable and consistent with the project goals. 4.00 2.00 3.00 1.00 8.0 80.00 -The schedule contains sufficient detail to ensure the project goals are met. Total Adjusted Score: 241 The lowest possible score is 80,the best score possible is 400. I Accumulated Average Score:I 60.25 1 'PROJECT NAME: Judicial Center Development-Owners Representative Accenture 413 Score Consultant Name: Accenture The rating scale shall be from 1 to 5,with 1 being a poor rating,3 being an average rating,and 5 being an outstanding rating. Evaluation Criteria Standard Evaluator#1 Evaluator#2 Evaluator#3 Evaluator#4 Weight Adjusted Factors Score -The proposal clearly shows and understanding of Scope of Proposal the project objectives. 4.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 4.0 52.00 -The proposed methodology meets the desired goals of the County. -The proposal demonstrates that the team clearly understands the major issues associated with the Critical Issues project. 3.00 4.00 3.00 3.00 4.0 52.00 -The proposal offers realistic solutions to the critical issues. -I ne team has descnbed how it will control its construction costs. -The proposal describes how project team costs will be controlled. -The team has demonstrated its ability to ensure Project Control that State and Federal procedures are used where 3.00 3.00 4.00 2.00 3.0 36.00 appropriate. -The team has demonstrated its ability to effectively communicate and coordinate with the Weld County project team. -The team's location does not affect the Work Location/Familiarity coordination of the project with the County. 5.00 4.00 4.00 5.00 1.0 18.00 -The team demonstrated knowledge of Weld County in general for this development. -The costs were presented in a way that is Cost and Schedule reasonable and consistent with the project goals. 4.00 5.00 3.00 2.00 8.0 112.00 -The schedule contains sufficient detail to ensure the project goals are met. Total Adjusted Score: 270 The lowest possible score is 80,the best score possible is 400. Accumulated Average Score:1 67.5 (PROJECT NAME: Judicial Center Development-Owners Representative Capital RtP Score Consultant Name: Capital Projects The rating scale shall be from 1 to 5,with 1 being a poor rating,3 being an average rating,and 5 being an outstanding rating. Evaluation Criteria Standard Evaluator#1 Evaluator#2 Evaluator#3 Evaluator#4 Weight Adjusted Factors Score -The proposal clearly shows and understanding of Scope of Proposal the project objectives. 4.00 2.00 3.00 1.00 4.0 40.00 -The proposed methodology meets the desired goals of the County. -The proposal demonstrates that the team clearly understands the major issues associated with the Critical Issues project. 3.50 3.00 3.00 3.00 4.0 50.00 -The proposal offers realistic solutions to the critical issues. -I he team has descnbed how it will control its --- construction costs. -The proposal describes how project team costs will be controlled. -The team has demonstrated its ability to ensure Project Control that State and Federal procedures are used where 3.50 2.00 4.00 3.00 3.0 37 50 appropriate. -The team has demonstrated its ability to effectively communicate and coordinate with the Weld County project team. -The team's location does not affect the Work Location/Familiarity coordination of the project with the County. 5.00 4.00 3.00 3.00 1.0 15.00 -The team demonstrated knowledge of Weld County in general for this development. -The costs were presented in a way that is Cost and Schedule reasonable and consistent with the project goals. 4.00 3.00 3.00 2.00 8.0 96.00 -The schedule contains sufficient detail to ensure the project goals are met. Total Adjusted Score: 238.5 The lowest possible score is 80,the best score possible is 400. I Accumulated Average Score:I 59.625 (PROJECT NAME: Judicial Center Development-Owners Representative Wember I*Score Consultant Name: Wember The rating scale shall be from 1 to 5,with 1 being a poor rating,3 being an average rating,and 5 being an outstanding rating. Evaluation Criteria Standard Evaluator#1 Evaluator#2 Evaluator#3 Evaluator#4 Weight Adjusted Factors Score -The proposal clearly shows and understanding of Scope of Proposal the project objectives. 4.00 2.00 3.00 1.00 4.0 40.00 -The proposed methodology meets the desired goals of the County. -The proposal demonstrates that the team clearly understands the major issues associated with the Critical Issues project. 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 4.0 48.00 -The proposal offers realistic solutions to the critical issues. -the team nas described how it will control its construction costs. -The proposal describes how project team costs will be controlled. -The team has demonstrated its ability to ensure Project Control that State and Federal procedures are used where 2.50 3.00 2.00 2.00 3.0 28.50 appropriate. -The team has demonstrated its ability to effectively communicate and coordinate with the Weld County project team. -The team's location does not affect the Work Location/Familiarity coordination of the project with the County. 5.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 1 0 17.00 -The team demonstrated knowledge of Weld County in general for this development. -The costs were presented in a way that is Cost and Schedule reasonable and consistent with the project goals. 3.50 5.00 2.00 2.00 8.0 100.00 -The schedule contains sufficient detail to ensure the project goals are met. Total Adjusted Score: 233.5 the lowest possible score is 80,the best score possible is 400. I Accumulated Average Scorer 58.375 1 (PROJECT NAME: Judicial Center Development-Owners Representative Artaic RtP Score Consultant Name: Artaic The rating scale shall be from 1 to 5,with 1 being a poor rating,3 being an average rating,and 5 being an outstanding rating. Evaluation Criteria Standard Evaluator#1 Evaluator#2 Evaluator#3 Evaluator#4 Weight Adjusted Factors Score -The proposal clearly shows and understanding of Scope of Proposal the project objectives. 4.00 3.00 3.00 1.00 4.0 44.00 -The proposed methodology meets the desired goals of the County. -The proposal demonstrates that the team clearly understands the major issues associated with the Critical Issues project. 3.00 3.00 3.00 2.00 4.0 44.00 -The proposal offers realistic solutions to the critical issues. -I he team has described how it will control its construction costs. -The proposal describes how project team costs will be controlled. -The team has demonstrated its ability to ensure Project Control that State and Federal procedures are used where 4.00 4.00 3.00 2.00 3.0 39.00 appropriate. -The team has demonstrated its ability to effectively communicate and coordinate with the Weld County project team. -The team's location does not affect the Work Location/Familiarity LOordinalion of the project with the County. 4.00 4.00 4.00 5.00 1.0 17.00 -The team demonstrated knowledge of Weld County in general for this development. -The costs were presented in a way that is Cost and Schedule reasonable and consistent with the project goals. 4.00 5.00 2.00 2.00 8 0 104 00 -The schedule contains sufficient detail to ensure the project goals are met. Total Adjusted Score: 248 The lowest possible score is 80,the best score possible is 400. I Accumulated Average Scorer 62 'PROJECT NAME: Judicial Center Development-Owners Representative Servant Rfr Score Consultant Name: The rating scale shall be from 1 to 5,with 1 being a poor rating,3 being an average rating,and 5 being an outstanding rating. Evaluation Criteria Standard Evaluator#1 Evaluator#2 Evaluator#3 Evaluator#4 Weight Adjusted Factors Score -The proposal clearly shows and understanding of Scope of Proposal the project objectives. 3.00 2.00 3 00 1.00 4.0 36 00 -The proposed methodology meets the desired goals of the County. -The proposal demonstrates that the team clearly understands the major issues associated with the Critical Issues project. 2.50 2.00 2.00 1.00 4.0 30.00 -The proposal offers realistic solutions to the critical issues. -I he team has oescnbed how it will control its construction costs. -The proposal describes how project team costs will be controlled. -The team has demonstrated its ability to ensure Project Control that State and Federal procedures are used where 3.00 2.00 3.00 1.00 3.0 27.00 appropriate. -The team has demonstrated its ability to effectively communicate and coordinate with the Weld County project team. -The team's location does not affect the Work Location/Familiarity coordination of the project with the County. 2 50 4.00 2.00 5.00 1 0 13.50 The team demonstrated knowledge of Weld County in general for this development. -The costs were presented in a way that is Cost and Schedule reasonable and consistent with the project goals. 3.00 3.00 2.00 2.00 8.0 80.00 -The schedule contains sufficient detail to ensure the project goals are met. Total Adjusted Score: 186.5 The lowest possible score is 80,the best score possible is 400. I Accumulated Average Score:1 46.625 Weld County Facilities Department 'PROJECT NAME: Judicial Center Development - Owners Rep Consultant Name: Vanir The rating scale shall be from 1 to 5, with 1 being a poor rating, 3 being an average rating, and 5 bi Evaluation Criteria Evaluation Standards Evaluator 1 •Team proposed and clearly described its approach for Work Approach completing the project. 3 •The team offered innovative ideas for this project. •The team's Project Manager has adequate qualifications and Project Manager Qualifications a proven track record to complete projects of this scope and 3 complexity. • The team demonstrates effective communication skills. • The team's presentation was clear and easy to understand. Quality of Presentation • The people being interviewed displayed effective 4 communication skills. • The team's use of audio-visual aids were effective • The team provided good answers to the questions asked by the selection committee. Questions/Answers Session •The answers provided by the team demonstrated a clear understanding of the project and goals. The lowest possible score is 50, the best score possible is 250. Scorer Comments: Scored By: I sing an outstanding rating. Evaluator Evaluator Evaluator Evaluator Weighting Adjusted 2 3 4 5 Factors Scoring 3.5 4 5 4 2 39.00 4 4 5 5 2 42.00 4.5 4 5 4 2 43.00 3 4 4.5 2 4 58.00 INTERVIEW SCORE: 182.00 Accumulated Average Score 36.4 Weld County Facilities Department (PROJECT NAME: Judicial Center Development - Owners Rep Consultant Name: Connect Advisors The rating scale shall be from 1 to 5, with 1 being a poor rating, 3 being an average rating, and 5 bi Evaluation Criteria Evaluation Standards Evaluator 1 •Team proposed and clearly described its approach for Work Approach completing the project. 2 • The team offered innovative ideas for this project. •The team's Project Manager has adequate qualifications and Project Manager Qualifications a proven track record to complete projects of this scope and 3 complexity. • The team demonstrates effective communication skills. • The team's presentation was clear and easy to understand. • The people being interviewed displayed effective Quality of Presentation 2 communication skills. • The team's use of audio-visual aids were effective • The team provided good answers to the questions asked by the selection committee. Questions/Answers Session • The answers provided by the team demonstrated a clear understanding of the project and goals. The lowest possible score is 50, the best score possible is 250. Scorer Comments: Scored By: I wing an outstanding rating. Evaluator Evaluator Evaluator Evaluator Weighting Adjusted 2 3 4 5 Factors Scoring 2.5 2 4.5 3 2 28.00 3.5 2 4 4 2 33.00 2.5 2 4.5 3 2 28.00 3 2 3 2 4 44.00 INTERVIEW SCORE: 133.00 Accumulated Average Score _ 26.6 J Weld County Facilities Department (PROJECT NAME: Judicial Center Development - Owners Rep Consultant Name: Level 5 The rating scale shall be from 1 to 5, with 1 being a poor rating, 3 being an average rating, and 5 bi Evaluation Criteria Evaluation Standards Evaluator 1 • Team proposed and clearly described its approach for Work Approach completing the project. 5 • The team offered innovative ideas for this project. •The team's Project Manager has adequate qualifications and Project Manager Qualifications a proven track record to complete projects of this scope and 5 complexity. • The team demonstrates effective communication skills. • The team's presentation was clear and easy to understand. Quality of Presentation • The people being interviewed displayed effective 5 communication skills. • The team's use of audio-visual aids were effective • The team provided good answers to the questions asked by the selection committee. Questions/Answers Session 5 •The answers provided by the team demonstrated a clear understanding of the project and goals. The lowest possible score is 50, the best score possible is 250. Scorer Comments: Scored By: I sing an outstanding rating. Evaluator Evaluator Evaluator Evaluator Weighting Adjusted 2 3 4 5 Factors Scoring 5 5 5 4 2 48.00 5 5 4 5 2 48.00 4.5 5 5 5 2 49.00 4.5 5 4.5 5 4 96.00 INTERVIEW SCORE: 241.00 Accumulated Average Score 48.2 1861 ' •+ Weld County Finance Department \ !i �1 ( Purchasing Division p. bidsweld.gov MaiV o N Y 1301 North 17th Avenue Greeley, Colorado 80631 Bid Opening Tabulation Title: Weld County Judicial Center Development— Owner Representation Bid Number: B2500123 Department: Facilities Bid Opening Date: October 31, 2025 Approval Date: December 8, 2025 Vendor(s) Name Infrastructure Strategies LLC 10419 County Road 76 1/2 Windsor, CO 80550 Shrewsberry & Associates, LLC 7321 Shadeland Station, Sute 160 Indianapolis, IN 46256 Servant Builders, LLC 3918 Surrey Ridge Loveland, CO 80537 Vanir Construction Management, Inc. 4540 Duckhorn Drive, Suite 300 Sacramento, CA 95834 Connect Advisors 104 S. Missouri Avenue, Suite 204 Claremore, OK The Facilities Department is reviewing the proposals. Accenture Infrastructure and Capital Projects, LLC 601 Gyrfalcon Court, Unit A Windsor, CO 80550 Capital Projects, LLC 2679 W. Main Street, Suite #300-346 Littleton, CO 80120 Wember Inc. 7350 E. Progress Place #100 Greenwood Village, CO 80111 Artaic Group 2650 18th Street, Suite 301 Denver, CO 80211 Levels Collaborative 1613 Pelican Lakes Point, Suite 200 Windsor, CO 80550 The Facilities Department is reviewing the proposals. Hello