1-Request for Proposal 26-0203 - Campaign Readiness Feasibility Study.pdf

Utah Tech University

REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS #26-0203

CAMPAIGN READINESS FEASIBILITY STUDY

Posted: March 12, 2026

Submission Method: Electronically via U3P (Utah Public Procurement Place)

1. SOLICITATION DESCRIPTION

Utah Tech University (the “University”) is seeking proposals from qualified consulting firms to conduct an independent Campaign Readiness (Feasibility) Study to assess institutional preparedness for a potential comprehensive fundraising campaign. This solicitation is limited to Phase I – Feasibility Study only. Selection for this engagement does not guarantee selection for any future comprehensive campaign counsel services. The University reserves the right to issue a separate solicitation for subsequent phases.

The scope, expectations, and outcomes of this RFP is informed by prior consulting engagements and are intended to build upon lessons learned and best practices identified through those services.

2. BACKGROUND

Utah Tech University is an open, comprehensive polytechnic university in St. George, Utah, emphasizing active, applied learning to develop skilled, resilient, and lifelong learners. The university is committed to academic excellence, student success, innovation, and entrepreneurship, fostering responsible citizens, creative problem-solvers, and leaders. Utah Tech values opportunity and belonging, collaboration, public service, and engagement with local and global communities, with a focus on addressing regional needs through innovation and responsive initiatives.

3. PURPOSE OF THE RFP

The purpose of this RFP is to engage a qualified consulting firm to:

1. Conduct a comprehensive campaign readiness (feasibility) study

2. Assess institutional preparedness for a comprehensive fundraising campaign

3. Identify strengths, gaps, risks, and opportunities

4. Provide clear, data-informed recommendations regarding:

a. Whether the University should proceed with a campaign

b. Appropriate campaign goal range

c. Timing, scope, and structural considerations

The selected firm must demonstrate the ability to provide independent, objective, and candid recommendations, including advising against proceeding with a campaign if warranted.

4. EXPECTED TIMELINE

● The University anticipates awarding this solicitation within 30 days of the submission deadline, with an expected project start date of May 2026

5. IMPORTANT DATES

● Thursday, March 12, 2026, at noon - Request for Proposal posted to U3P

● Friday, March 20, 2026 at noon - Intent to Bid Due. All interested agencies declare their intent to submit a proposal. Failure to submit this document may result in automatic disqualification.

● Friday, March 27, 2026 at noon - Question Deadline - All questions must be submitted electronically via U3P; responses will be posted via U3P.

● Monday, April 6, 2026 at 5:00 pm (MST) - Submission Deadline (must be submitted electronically via U3P)

6. MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS

By submitting a Proposal, respondents agree to the following:

● Compliance with the University’s Supplemental Terms and Conditions. Vendors that do not agree in full may submit a redlined version for review by the University’s Legal Counsel. Submission of redlines does not guarantee approval. Failure to obtain approval of proposed changes may result in disqualification.

● Agreement to the University’s Purchasing Terms and Conditions.

● Proven experience providing consulting services to higher education institutions or comparable public-sector organizations

● Demonstrated expertise relevant to the scope of work

● Capacity to manage projects of similar size and complexity

● Ability to meet University timelines and reporting requirements

7. SCOPE OF SERVICES

The consultant will work collaboratively with University leadership and Advancement staff to complete the feasibility study, which may include but is not limited to:

● Assessment Activities

○ Review of institutional strategic plans, advancement plans, and fundraising history

○ Assessment of leadership, staffing, systems, and advancement infrastructure

○ Evaluation of donor pipeline, prospect capacity, and philanthropic culture

○ Review of campaign priorities, themes, and preliminary case for support

● Stakeholder Engagement

○ Confidential interviews with key stakeholders, which may include:

■ Major donors and prospects

■ Alumni and volunteers

■ University leadership and campus partners

● Analysis

○ Evaluation of campaign readiness indicators and risk factors

○ Assessment of campaign goal viability and donor alignment

○ Identification of internal capacity-building needs

8. DELIVERABLES

At a minimum, deliverables shall include:

● A written feasibility study report

● Assessment of overall campaign readiness

● Recommended campaign goal range, structure, and timeline

● Identification of strengths, gaps, and risks

● Clear recommendation to:

○ Proceed with a comprehensive campaign

○ Delay or modify the campaign approach

○ Not proceed at this time

Deliverables should be practical, data-informed, and actionable.

9. PROPOSAL REQUIREMENTS

Proposals are submitted as separate files (PDF format unless otherwise specified) and uploaded on the U3P website. Emailed or hard-copy proposals will not be accepted. Any additional information or files will be ignored and will not be considered as part of the evaluation. This RFP requires you to submit [6 files] Please title each file with the corresponding file number and your company name (e.g. “File 1 - ABC Corporation”).

● File #1 – Executive Summary - (1 - 2 pages only)

○ Respondents should provide the legal name, address, and contact information for their firm. The summary should include a brief overview of the firm’s history, size, and areas of expertise, as well as a description of team responsibilities.

● File #2 – Relevant Campaign/Feasibility Experience - (2 - 3 pages only)

○ Respondents should describe one representative project that demonstrates their ability to work within a higher education or public-sector environment. For this project, include the challenge faced, the approach your firm took, and the measurable outcomes achieved.

● File #3 – Approach and Methodology - (no page limits, but reasonable for a committee to review)

○ Respondents should provide an overview of their consulting approach, including methods for assessment, engagement, analysis, and delivery of recommendations. The submission should also describe how the firm engages institutional leadership, faculty, staff, and other stakeholders throughout the consulting process.

● File #4 – Work Plan, Deliverables - (no page limits, but reasonable for a committee to review)

○ Respondents should provide a representative implementation framework or sample approach that demonstrates how the firm typically structures and executes consulting engagements..

● File #5 – Cost Sheet

○ Respondents should provide a detailed and fully itemized cost proposal, including professional fees, travel, and any additional expenses associated with completing the feasibility study. All costs must be clearly disclosed

■ Quotations must remain valid for at least ninety (90) days. Utah Tech University is tax-exempt and can provide documentation upon request.

● File #6 – References

○ Current contact information for at least three (3) professional references from similar projects.

Redacted Copy(s) - Proposals may be made public if requested under GRAMA. It is your responsibility to upload any redacted versions of the files listed above. Please note that entire files cannot be redacted or labeled as confidential. If you submit redacted files, they must be named with the exact file title, with “REDACTED” added to the title. If redacted files are not provided, it will be assumed that your entire proposal may be considered public information. (File 1 - ABC Corporation - REDACTED)

10. AWARDING THE SOLICITATION

● The RFP will be awarded based on the bids as requested by the committee. Costs will not be a determining factor in selection;

however, after an agency is selected, costs will be negotiated to determine how much of the budget will be used. We will not agree to exceed the stated budget, if noted.

● Evaluation committee members will individually score each criteria as listed on the Evaluator Scoresheet. Each proposal will receive an average score for each criteria based on the scores from all evaluators. The average of all the criteria will be added together to determine a total score.

○ Interviews: The Scoring Committee shall determine whether interviews are necessary as part of the evaluation process.

If interviews are deemed necessary, the Purchasing Office shall provide written notification via email to the highest-scoring agencies.

● The maximum RFP score is 100 points. If interviews are conducted to assist in selecting an agency, an additional 50 points may be awarded. The agency with the highest total overall score will be awarded the RFP.

11. PROJECT START, INVOICING, AND PAYMENTS

● Utah Tech University's standard payment terms are Net 30. The University discourages and generally does not allow prepayments, deposits, or advance payments unless explicitly approved in writing prior to award. Progress payments may be requested in accordance with contract terms and are tax-exempt.

● No work may begin without an official Purchase Order (PO) issued by the University’s Purchasing Department. Purchase Orders are issued on a fiscal-year basis (July 1 – June 30). Multi-year engagements require a new PO each fiscal year

● Invoices must be itemized and include quantity, unit price, and total amount due. Each invoice must reference a valid Purchase Order number and be emailed to accounts.payable@utahtech.edu with the PO number included in the subject line (re: PO#) to ensure timely processing. Payment via ACH is strongly encouraged.

EVALUATION CRITERIA / EVALUATOR SCORESHEET

○ Evaluators are not permitted to discuss any details of this RFP outside the RFP Scoring Committee and the

Purchasing Department. This includes no direct communication with any vendors who submitted a proposal without the approval or supervision of the Purchasing Department.

○ Evaluators may not have any conflicts of interest with any vendor submitting a proposal. If any conflict of interest arises at any stage of the RFP, they must be removed from the evaluation committee.

Criteria Subject / Description Related Files Possible Points

Firm Qualifications & Relevant Experience

● Experience with non-profit organization, public universities or similarly governed institutions

● Clearly identified team members with defined roles and responsibilities

● Demonstrated experience of assigned staff on similar projects

● Evidence of sufficient capacity and continuity throughout the engagement

File #1 – Executive Summary 10

Relevant Campaign / Feasibility Experience

● Clear description of the challenge, approach, and measurable outcomes

● Evidence of data-driven recommendations to address challenge

● Detailed measurable results or impact achieved - success indicators

File #2 – Relevant Campaign/Feasibility 20

Approach & Methodology

● Clear and structured methodology for feasibility studies and campaigns

● Use of both qualitative and quantitative assessment tools

● Ability to recommend campaign actions, whether to proceed, delay, or modify.

File #3 – Approach & Methodology 35

Work Plan, Deliverables, and Timeline

● Logical sequencing of tasks and milestones

● Realistic timeline aligned with institutional capacity

● Clear and useful deliverables that support decision-making and implementation

File #4 – Work Plan and Deliverables 30

References

● References from higher education or comparable institutions

● Consistent feedback on effectiveness, professionalism, and outcomes

● Evidence of strong collaboration and follow-through

File #6 - References 5

TOTAL (without interview) 100

INTERVIEW BY INVITATION ONLY 50

TOTAL W/ INTERVIEW 150