The URL can be used to link to this page

Browse Search

Home My WebLink About20201186.tiffAPPENDIX 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? • 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. 1 to 5 3.0 3% 15% Total 20% - 100% 2020-1186 Revised 3/11/2020 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 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. 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 Revised 03/11/2020 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 % 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% 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 Required): 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. • The team being interviewed displayed effective communications skills. • The team's use of audio-visual aids was effective. 1 to 5 4.0 4% - 20% 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% Revised 03/11/2020 Cheryl Hoffman From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Follow Up Flag: Flag Status: Esther Gesick Monday, April 6, 2020 10:48 AM Cheryl Hoffman Bri White RE: Ord2020-02, Ord2020-05 and Ord2020-07 Follow up Flagged Yes, please work to get confirmation from the relevant departments that they are good with the readings continuing to 5/4. After 4/22 takes place, then you can send out the resulting calendar appointments. As for the Agenda, by copy on this email, I'm asking Bri to add the notes under Future Items (TO BE CONT'D TBD), then after 4/22 we can update to show new readings on 5/4. Thanks! Esther E. Gesick Clerk to the Board 1150 O Street/P.O. Box 758/Greeley, CO 80632 tel: (970) 400-4226 Confidentiality Notice: This electronic transmission and any attached documents or other writings are intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain information that is privileged, confidential or otherwise protected from disclosure. If you have received this communication in error, please immediately notify sender by return e-mail and destroy the communication. Any disclosure, copying, distribution or the taking of any action concerning the contents of this communication or any attachments by anyone other than the named recipient is strictly prohibited. From: Cheryl Hoffman <choffman@weldgov.com> Sent: Monday, April 6, 2020 9:44 AM To: Esther Gesick <egesick@weldgov.com> Subject: Ord2020-02, Ord2020-05 and Ord2020-07 Good morning, Esther, So I brought these ords home with me which are all scheduled for April 22. I know they'll need to bring these all up on 04/22, but con't to possible 5/4, right? Just as clarification, you want me to just ask the various depts if May 4th is good, but I'm not to calendar yet until after 4/22, right? So, the agenda will continue just notifying of the 04/22 date, or will it reflect the 5/4 date if I get confirmation that 5/4 is good with the depts? Do I sound confused? /: Cheryl L. Hoffman Deputy Clerk to the Board 1150 O Street/P.O. Box 758 Greeley, CO 80632 Tel: (970) 400.4227 1 Cheryl Hoffman From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Thanks Barb. Cheryl L. Hoffman Deputy Clerk to the Board 1150 O Street/P.O. Box 758 Greeley, CO 80632 Tel: (970) 400.4227 choffman@weldgov.com Cheryl Hoffman Wednesday, March 18, 2020 8:14 AM Barb Connolly; CTB Rob Turf RE: Code Changes From: Barb Connolly <bconnolly@weldgov.com> Sent: Wednesday, March 18, 2020 8:09 AM To: Cheryl Hoffman <choffman@weldgov.com>; CTB <CTB@co.weld.co.us> Cc: Rob Turf <rturf@weldgov.com> Subject: RE: Code Changes You are the one that sets the date per the BOCC direction so when you can get it going will work for me. Vale eery, 6',1 Barbara Connolly, CPA Weld County Government Controller and Purchasing Director 1150 O Street Greeley, CO 80631 (970) 400-4445 Confidentiality Notice: This electronic transmission and any attached documents or other writings are intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain information that is privileged, confidential or otherwise protected from disclosure. If you have received this communication in error, please immediately notify sender by return e-mail and destroy the communication. Any disclosure, copying, distribution or the taking of any action concerning the contents of this communication or any attachments by anyone other than the named recipient is strictly prohibited. 1 From: Cheryl Hoffman <choffman@weldgov.com> Sent: Wednesday, March 18, 2020 8:08 AM To: Barb Connolly <bconnolly@weldgov.com>; CTB <CTB@co.weld.co.us> Cc: Rob Turf <rturf@weldgov.com> Subject: RE: Code Changes Thanks Barb. I'll work on the dates shortly. We're beginning public hearings (unless changed) on 4-22, so first reading could not be prior to that since no public can attend for public comment until then. Cheryl L. Hoffman Deputy Clerk to the Board 1150 O Street/P.O. Box 758 Greeley, CO 80632 Tel: (970) 400.4227 choffman@weldgov.com From: Barb Connolly <bconnolly@weldgov.com> Sent: Wednesday, March 18, 2020 8:06 AM To: CTB <CTB@co.weld.co.us> Cc: Rob Turf <rturf@weldgov.com> Subject: Code Changes Esther/Cheryl, Here are the Appendix's that we need to slate for 3 readings. When I talked with Esther we decided that it would be easiest to delete the existing appendix and replace with the new. Let me know the dates. Thanks. Sad 6~ 14, 6'70 Barbara Connolly, CPA Weld County Government Controller and Purchasing Director 1150 O Street Greeley, CO 80631 (970) 400-4445 Confidentiality Notice: This electronic transmission and any attached documents or other writings are intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain information that is privileged, confidential or otherwise protected from disclosure. If you have received this communication in error, please immediately notify sender by return e-mail and destroy the communication. Any disclosure, copying, distribution or the taking of any action concerning the contents of this communication or any attachments by anyone other than the named recipient is strictly prohibited. 2 Hello