The URL can be used to link to this page

Browse Search

Home My WebLink About20201184.tiffCODE ORDINANCE 2020-07 Jac, WELD COUNTY At o2o 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. NO�_��°�' 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of the County of Weld, State of Colorado, that certain existing Chapters of the Weld County Code be, and hereby are, repealed and re-enacted, with amendments, and the various Chapters are revised to read as follows.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 ORDINED 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 2020-1184 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 2020-1184 ORD2020-07 I+ II I NAME: R 9 -VA -LIFT -CATION DATE: 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 Scoring Weight Factors Adjusted Scoring Project Team of working Qua uifications, years team personnel. team. of relevant Experience experience and on similar projects proven abilities as a 5 5.0 25 key Overall Firm Capabilities Firm's structure, consultants size in production which relation will to the facilities be project and a part of size, organizational assets. Capabilities the project team sub - 5 5.0 25 of Performance on Similar Projects Demonstrated schedules, similar meet projects. ability project to produce budgets successful and fulfill results, project meet goals project on 5 4.0 20 Work Location/Familiarity Project team's work Key team members' of the Department. location familiarity relative with to the Weld project site County and location. the goals 5 3.0 15 Project Approach The successful demonstrated firer has described completion a clear a of understanding logical the project. approach The of the towards firm project. has ensuring a 5 3.0 15 Total 100 The lowest possible score is 20, the best score possible is 100. Scorer Comments: Scored By: PAGE 3 2020-1184 ORD2020-07 FIRM NAME: DATE: 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. RFP REVIEW SCORING: Evaluation Criteria Standard Scoring Weight Factors Adjusted Scoring Scope of Proposal The proposal clearly shows an understanding of the project 5 5.0 25 objectives, methodology to be used and final results that are desired by the Department. Critical Issues 5 5.0 95 The proposal demonstrates that the firm clearly understands the major issues associated with the project and offers realistic solutions to those issues. Project Control 5 4.0 20 The firm has described its methods of controlling its design and construction cost. The firm has demonstrated an ability to ensure that state or federal the firm have a quality procedures control are used process in where place appropriate. to manage the Does qua ity of its product. Work Location/Familiarity Project team's work location Key team member's familiarity relative to the project site location. with Weld County and the goals of 5 4.0 20 the Department. Cost and Work Hours Are the consistent cost, with work project hours and goals? tasks The presented lowest cost reasonable that includes and all 5 15.0 75 tasks necessary to successfully complete the project scores the highest. RFP REVIEW SCORE: 165 INTERVIEW REVIEW: Evaluation Criteria Standard Work Approach The firm proposed and clearly described its approach towards completing the work. The consultant offered innovative ideas for this project. Project Manager Qualifications The firm's Project Manager has adequate qualifications and a proven track record. The Project Manager demonstrates effective communication skills. '_'he demonstrated interview presentation effective was clear and easy to understand. The communication skills and audio-visual aids people being interviewed were effective. Quality of Presentation Questions/Answers Session The firm was able to provide good answers to the questions asked by the selection committee. Answers given demonstrated clear understanding of the project and goals. All Evaluation Criteria Must Be Met PAGE 4 2020-1184 ORD2020-07 Scorer Comments: Scored By: PAGE 5 2020-1184 ORD2020-07 PR OJ1 FIRM NAME: DATE: 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. RFP REVIEW SCORING: Evaluation Criteria Standard Scoring Weight Factors AOusted Scoring Scope of Proposal The proposal objectives, methodology clearly shows an understanding to be used and final of the results project that are 5 5.0 25 desired by the Department. Critical Issues The proposal demonstrates that the firm clearly understands the 5 5.0 25 major solutions issues to those associated issues. with the project and offers realistic Project Control The firm has described its methods of controlling its design and 5 4.0 20 construction ensure that appropriate. place to cost. The state or Does the manage the federal quality firm firm procedures has demonstrated have of its a quality product. are used control an where ability process to in Work Location/Familiarity Project Key team's work location team member's familiarity relative to the with Weld project site County and the location. goals 5 4.0 20 of the Department. UDBE Goal The firm has provided documentation which supports its ability 5 2.0 10 to meet the subconsultant(s) UDBE goal for this project. have proven abilities. The designated UDBE REP REVIEW SCORE: 100 INTERVIEW REVIEW SCORING: Evaluation Criteria Standard Scoring Weight Factors A4iust tent Scoring Work Approach The firm proposed and clearly described its approach towards 5 4.0 20 completing for the work. The this project. consultant offered innovative ideas Project Manager Qualifications The firm's Project Manager has adequate qualifications and a 5 4.0 20 proven effective track communication record. The Project Manager .demonstrates skills. Quality of Presentation The The communication interview presentation people being skills interviewed and was audio-visual demonstrated clear and easy aids to understand. effective were effective. 5 4.0 20 The firm was able to provide good answers to the questions 5 8.0 40 Questions/Answers Session asked a clear by the understanding selection committee. of the Answers project and given demonstrated goals. 100 INTERVIEW REVIEW SCORE: TOTAL RFP + INTERVIEW SCORES: 200 PAGE 6 2020-1184 ORD2020-07 Scorer Comments: Scored By: PAGE 7 2020-1184 ORD2020-07 FHRi7V1 NAME: AP ENDHX - REQUEST FOR QUAL HCA T HONS (RFQ) SCORING FORM DA 1E: 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 Score Range Factors Project Team e Qualifications and relevant experience of key team 1 to 5 6.0 6% - 30% members identified. ® Any unique knowledge of key team members identified relating to the proect. • 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. Overall Firm co Firm has demonstrated that it has the resources 1 to 5 5.0 5% - 25% Capabilities (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. o Current and projected workloads of the key team members were presented. Performance on O Firm's team demonstrated performance on projects of 1 to 5 4.0 4% - 20% Similar Projects 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. O The team has demonstrated successful completion of projects for Weld County in the past. Work ® The team's location does not affect the coordination of the 1 to 5 2.0 2% - 10% Location/Familiarity project with the County. • The team is familiar with Weld County policies and design criteria. ® Team has demonstrated knowledge of Weld County in general. Project Approach ® Has the team outlined its methodology for controlling costs 1 to 5 3.0 3% - 15% 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? :F Has the team demonstrated a clear understandinc of the project? PAGE 8 2020-1184 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 rp oject. T L I 20% - 100% PAGE 9 2020-1184 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 eview Scor Evaluation Criteria Evaluation Standards Scoring Weit htint Score Factors Range Scope of Proposal ® The proposal clearly shows an understanding of the project 1 to 5 4.0 4% - 20% objectives. • The proposed methodology meets the final results desired by the County, Critical Issues 1 to 5 4.0 4% - 20% ® The proposal demonstrates that the team clearly understands the major issues associated with the project. ® The proposal offers realistic solutions to the critical issues. Project Control © The team has described how it will control its design costs. 1 to 5 3.0 3% - 15% o 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. Work The team's location does not affect the coordination of the 1 to 5 1.0 1% - 5% Location/Familiarity project with the County. The team is familiar with Weld County policies and design criteria. ® The team demonstrated knowledge of Weld County in general. Cost & Work Hours 0 The costs, work hours, and tasks were presented in a way 1 to 5 $.0 8% - 40% 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. RFP REVIEW SCORE: 20% - 100% Interview Review (Bf Require d, EvaluationCriteria Work Approach Project Manap er Qualifications Standards Team proposed and clearly described their approach for completing the project. The team offered innovative ideas for the project. The team's oro-ect manager has adec uate c ualifications and a proven track record to complete protects of this scope and complexity. ® The team's project manager demonstrates effective communication skills. PAGE 10 2020-1184 ORD2020-07 Quality of Presentation ® The team's presentation clear and easy to understand. © The people being interviewed displayed effective communications skills. O 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 11 2020-1184 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 C Evaluation Standards Scoring It fe,I J fl 'Ong 11 �eaY core ®mom w % d a 'L. to r s �a Ranae Scope of Proposal • The proposal clearly shows an understanding of the project 1 to 5 6.0 6°/0 - objectives. 30% 0 The proposed methodology meets the desired goals of the County. Critical Issues 0 The proposal demonstrates that the team clearly understands the 1 to 5 7.0 7% - major issues associated with the project. 35% 0 The proposal offers realistic solutions to the critical issues. Project Control „s. The team described how it will control its design costs. 1 to 5 5.0 5% - G The proposal describes how sub -consultant costs will be controlled. c The team has demonstrated the ability to ensure that State and 25% Federal procedures are used where appropriate. The team has a QA/QC process in place to manage the quality of the product. Work The team's location does not affect the coordination of the project with 1 to 5 1.0 1% - Location/Familiarity the County. O The team is familiar with Weld County policies and design criteria. a The team demonstrates knowledge of Weld County in general. 5% UDBE GOAL ® The team provide documentation showing its ability to meet the UDBE 1 to 5 1.0 1 % - ,goal for the project. o The UDBE sub -consultants have proven abilities that are consistent 5% with the project goals. RFP REVIEW SCORE: 20%- 100% ➢nt- view Revief Require �� /El/r�n Criteria.Weighting Evaluation Standards Scoring Adjusted' Factors Scoring g Work Approach 0 Proposal clearly describes the team's approach for 1 to 5 4.0 4 ° - /o completing the project. ® Innovative ideas for the project were presented 20% Project Manager 0 The team's project manager holds adequate qualifications 1 to 5 4.0 4% - Qualifications and a proven track record to complete pro acts of this scope and complexity. 20% ® The team's project manager demonstrates effective communication skills. Quality of Presentation 0 The team's presentation was clear and easy to 1 to 5 4.0 4% understand. 20% PAGE 12 2020-1184 ORD2020-07 e 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 1 to 5 8.0 8% - by the selection committee. =i The answers provided by the team demonstrate a clear 40% understanding of the pro.ect and the goals. INTERVIEW REVIEW SCORE: 20% - 100 TOTAL RFP 4- INTERVIEW SCORES: 40% - 200% PAGE 13 2020-1184 ORD2020-07 Hello