HomeMy WebLinkAbout20201566.tiff..cdcen.1
s a2- ,Zozo
WELD COUNTY
CODE ORDINANCE 2020-07
IN THE MATTER OF REPEALING AND REENACTING, WITH AMENDMENTS, CHAPTER 5
REVENUE AND FINANCE, OF THE WELD COUNTY CODE
BE IT ORDAINED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF THE COUNTY OF
WELD, STATE OF COLORADO:
WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners of the County of Weld, State of Colorado,
pursuant to Colorado statute and the Weld County Home Rule Charter, is vested with the authority
of administering the affairs of Weld County, Colorado, and
WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners, on December 28, 2000, adopted
Weld County Code Ordinance 2000-1, enacting a comprehensive Code for the County of Weld,
including the codification of all previously adopted ordinances of a general and permanent nature
enacted on or before said date of adoption, and
WHEREAS, the Weld County Code is in need of revision and clarification with regard to
procedures, terms, and requirements therein.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of County Commissioners of the County
of Weld, State of Colorado, that certain existing Chapters of the Weld County Code be, and hereby
are, repealed and re-enacted, with amendments, and the various Chapters are revised to read as
follows.
CHAPTER 5
REVENUE AND FINANCE
Appendix 5-Q Request for Qualifications (RFQ) Scoring Form — ATTACHED
Appendix 5-R Request for Proposals (Best Value) Scoring Form — ATTACHED
Appendix 5-S Request for Proposals (Qualification Based Selection Projects) Scoring Form —
ATTACHED
BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED by the Board that the Clerk to the Board be, and hereby is,
directed to arrange for Municode to supplement the Weld County Code with the amendments
contained herein, to coincide with chapters, articles, divisions, sections, and subsections as they
currently exist within said Code; and to resolve any inconsistencies regarding capitalization,
grammar, and numbering or placement of chapters, articles, divisions, sections, and subsections
in said Code.
BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED by the Board, if any section, subsection, paragraph, sentence,
clause, or phrase of this Ordinance is for any reason held or decided to be unconstitutional, such
decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions hereof. The Board of County
Commissioners hereby declares that it would have enacted this Ordinance in each and every
section, subsection, paragraph, sentence, clause, and phrase thereof irrespective of the fact that
any one or more sections, subsections, paragraphs, sentences, clauses, or phrases might be
declared to be unconstitutional or invalid.
PAGE 1
2020-1566
ORD2020-07
The above and foregoing Ordinance Number 2020-07 was, on motion duly made and
seconded, adopted by the following vote on the 15th day of June, A.D., 2020.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
WELD COUNTY, COLORADO
ATTEST:
Mike Freeman, Chair
Weld County Clerk to the Board
Steve Moreno, Pro-Tem
BY:
Deputy Clerk to the Board
Scott K. James
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Barbara Kirkmeyer
County Attorney
Kevin D. Ross
Date of signature:
First Reading:
Con't to:
Publication:
Second Reading:
Publication:
Final Reading:
Publication:
Effective:
April 22, 2020
May 4, 2020
May 13, 2020, in the Greeley Tribune
May 27, 2020
June 3, 2020, in the Greeley Tribune
June 15, 2020
June 24, 2020, in the Greeley Tribune
June 29, 2020
PAGE 2
2020-1566
ORD2020-07
APPENDIX 5-Q - REQUEST FOR QUALIFICATIONS (RFQ) SCORING FORM
FIRM NAME:
DATE:
The rating scale score 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
Evaluation Standards
Scoring
Weighting
Factors
Score %
Range
Project Team
• Qualifications and relevant experience of key team
members identified.
• Any unique knowledge of key team members identified
relating to the project.
• Evidence that the team has worked together on previous
projects.
• Amount of time commitment by key team members for the
project is adequate.
• All subconsultants are identified.
• The subconsultants' qualifications and relevant experience
were provided.
1 to 5
6.0
6% - 30%
Overall Firm
Capabilities
• Firm has demonstrated that it has the resources
(organizational structure, production facilities, assets, etc.)
to handle the project's scope.
• The subconsultant's capabilities were presented.
• The lines of authority and coordination were clearly
identified.
• All of the team members' responsibilities were clearly
identified.
• Current and projected workloads of the key team members
were presented.
1 to 5
5.0
5% - 25%
Performance on
Similar Projects
• Firm's team demonstrated performance on projects of
similar scope and complexity.
• Firm's team demonstrated its ability to produce successful
projects, meet project schedules and budgets, and fulfill
project goals on similar projects.
• The team has demonstrated successful completion of
projects for Weld County in the past.
1 to 5
4.0
4% - 20%
Work
Location/Familiarity
• The team's location does not affect the coordination of the
project with the County.
• The team is familiar with Weld County policies and design
criteria.
• Team has demonstrated knowledge of Weld County in
general.
1 to 5
2.0
2% - 10%
Project Approach
• Has the team outlined its methodology for controlling costs
and schedule?
• Has the team outlined its QA/QC methodology?
• Is the approach described in a logical manner resulting in a
successful completion of the project?
• Has the team demonstrated a clear understanding of the
project?
1 to 5
3.0
3% - 15%
PAGE 3
2020-1566
ORD2020-07
• The team has outlined its methodology for controlling costs
and schedule.
• Team has outlined its QA/QC methodology.
• The approach is described in a logical manner resulting in
a successful completion of the project.
• The team demonstrated a clear understanding of the
project.
Total
20% - 100%
PAGE 4
2020-1566
ORD2020-07
APPENDIX 5-R - REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS (BEST VALUE) SCORING FORM
FIRM NAME:
DATE:
The rating scale score shall be from 1 to 5, with 1 being a poor rating, 3 being an average rating, and 5 being an
outstanding rating.
RFP Review Scoring:
Evaluation Criteria
Evaluation Standards
Scoring
Weighting
Factors
Score
Range
Scope of Proposal
• The proposal clearly shows an understanding of the project
objectives.
• The proposed methodology meets the final results desired by
the County.
1 to 5
4.0
4% - 20%
Critical Issues
• The proposal demonstrates that the team clearly understands
the major issues associated with the project.
• The proposal offers realistic solutions to the critical issues.
1 to 5
4.0
4% - 20%
Project Control
• The team has described how it will control its design costs.
• The proposal describes how sub -consultant's costs will be
controlled.
• The team has demonstrated its ability to ensure that State
and Federal procedures are used where appropriate.
• The team has demonstrated a QA/QC process in place to
manage the quality of the product.
1 to 5
3.0
3% - 15%
Work
Location/Familiarity
• The team's location does not affect the coordination of the
project with the County.
• The team is familiar with Weld County policies and design
criteria.
• The team demonstrated knowledge of Weld County in
general.
1 to 5
1.0
1% - 5%
Cost & Work Hours
• The costs, work hours, and tasks were presented in a way
that is reasonable and consistent with the project goals.
• The cost and work hour estimate contain sufficient detail to
ensure the project goals are met.
1 to 5
8.0
8% 40%
RFP REVIEW SCORE:
20% -
100%
Interview Review (If Required):
Evaluation Criteria
Evaluation Standards
Work Approach
• Team proposed and clearly described their approach for completing the project.
• The team offered innovative ideas for the project.
Project Manager Qualifications
• The team's project manager has adequate qualifications and a proven track record
to complete projects of this scope and complexity.
• The team's project manager demonstrates effective communication skills.
PAGE 5
2020-1566
ORD2020-07
Quality of Presentation
• The team's presentation clear and easy to understand.
• The people being interviewed displayed effective communications skills.
• The team's use of audio-visual aids was effective.
Questions/Answers Session
• The team provided good answers to the questions asked by the selection
committee.
• The answers provided by the team demonstrated a clear understanding of the
project and the project goals.
All Evaluation Criteria Must Be Met
PAGE 6
2020-1566
ORD2020-07
APPENDIX 5-S - REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS (QUALIFICATION BASED SELECTION PROJECTS) SCORING FORM
FIRM NAME:
DATE:
The rating scale score shall be from 1 to 5, with 1 being a poor rating, 3 being an average rating, and 5 being an outstanding
rating.
RFP Review Scoring:
Evaluation Criteria
Evaluation Standards
Scoring
Weighting
Factors
Score
s"
Range
Scope of Proposal
• The proposal clearly shows an understanding of the project
objectives.
• The proposed methodology meets the desired goals of the County.
1 to 5
6.0
6°f°
30%
Critical Issues
• The proposal demonstrates that the team clearly understands the
major issues associated with the project.
• The proposal offers realistic solutions to the critical issues.
1 to 5
7.0
7%
35%
Project Control
• The team described how it will control its design costs.
• The proposal describes how sub -consultant costs will be controlled.
• The team has demonstrated the ability to ensure that State and
Federal procedures are used where appropriate.
• The team has a QA/QC process in place to manage the quality of the
product.
1 to 5
5.0
5%
25%
Work
Location/Familiarity
• The team's location does not affect the coordination of the project with
the County.
• The team is familiar with Weld County policies and design criteria.
• The team demonstrates knowledge of Weld County in general.
1 to 5
1.0
1% -
5%
UDBE GOAL
• The team provide documentation showing its ability to meet the UDBE
goal for the project.
• The UDBE sub -consultants have proven abilities that are consistent
with the project goals.
1 to 5
1.0
1%
5%
RFP REVIEW SCORE:
20%-
100%
Interview Review (If Reauiredl:
Evaluation Criteria
Evaluation Standards
Scoring
Weighting
Factors
Adjusted
Scoring
Work Approach
• Proposal clearly describes the team's approach for
completing the project.
• Innovative ideas for the project were presented
1 to 5
4.0
4% -
20%
Project Manager
Qualifications
• The team's project manager holds adequate qualifications
and a proven track record to complete projects of this
scope and complexity.
• The team's project manager demonstrates effective
communication skills.
1 to 5
4.0
4% -
20%
Quality of Presentation
• The team's presentation was clear and easy to
understand.
1 to 5
4.0
4% -
20%
PAGE 7
2020-1566
ORD2020-07
• The team being interviewed displayed effective
communications skills.
• The team's use of audio-visual aids was effective.
Questions/Answers Session
• The team provided good answers to the questions asked
by the selection committee.
• The answers provided by the team demonstrate a clear
understanding of the project and the goals.
1 to 5
8.0
8% -
40%
INTERVIEW REVIEW SCORE:
20% -
100%
TOTAL RFP + INTERVIEW SCORES:
40% -
200%
PAGE 8
2020-1566
ORD2020-07
Hello