Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAddenda - RFP - P939 BUILDING COMMISSIONING ANNUAL CSU PHASE II COMMISSIONINGAdministrative Services Purchasing Division CITY OF FORT COLLINS City of Fort Collins ADDENDUM No. 1 P-939 CSU PHASE II COMMISSIONING SPECIFICATIONS AND CONTRACT DOCUMENTS Description of Proposal #P939 CSU Phase II Commissioning OPENING DATE: May 18, 2004 To all prospective bidders under the specifications and contract documents described above, the following changes are hereby made. This proposal shall be a qualification proposal which shall include general titles with hourly billing rates. Attached is the rating criteria that will be used to evaluate the proposals If you have questions please contact John Stephen, CPPO, Senior Buyer, at 970-221-6777. RECEIPT OF THIS ADDENDUM MUST BE ACKNOWLEDGED BY A WRITTEN STATEMENT ENCLOSED WITH THE BID/QUOTE STATING THAT THIS ADDENDUM HAS BEEN RECEIVED. 215 North Mason Street • 2nd Floor • P.O. Box 580 • Fort Collins, CO 80522-0580 • (970) 221-6775 • FAX (970) 221-6707 REVIEW AND ASSESSMENT Professional firms will be evaluated on the following criteria. These criteria will be the basis for review of the written proposals and interview session. 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. WEIGHTING QUALIFICATION STANDARD FACTOR 2.0 Scope of Proposal Does the proposal show an understanding of the project objective, methodology to be used and results that are desired from the project? 2.0 Assigned Personnel Do the persons who will be working on the project have the necessary skills? Are sufficient people of the requisite skills assigned to the project? 1.0 Availability Can the work be completed in the necessary time? Can the target start and completion dates be met? Are other qualified personnel available to assist in meeting the project schedule if required? Is the project team available to attend meetings as required by the Scope of Work? 1.0 Motivation Is the firm interested and are they capable of doing the work in the required time frame? 2.0 Cost and Do the proposed cost and work hours compare Work Hours favorably with the project Manager's estimate? Are the work hours presented reasonable for the effort required in each project task or phase? 2.0 Firm Capability Does the firm have the support capabilities the assigned personnel require? Has the firm done previous projects of this type and scope? Reference evaluation (Top Ranked Firm) The project Manager will check references using the following criteria. The evaluation rankings will be labeled Satisfactory/Unsatisfactory. QUALIFICATION STANDARD Overall Performance Would you hire this Professional again? Did they show the skills required by this project? Timetable Was the original Scope of Work completed within the specified time? Were interim deadlines met in a timely manner? Completeness Was the Professional responsive to client needs; did the Professional anticipate problems? Were problems solved quickly and effectively? Budget Was the original Scope of Work completed within the project budget? Job Knowledge a) If a study, did it meet the Scope of Work? b) If Professional administered a construction contract, was the project functional upon completion and did it operate properly? Were problems corrected quickly and effectively?