1-Southwest Tech RFP Score Sheet (1).pdf

PDF 145 KB Posted

Attached to
GJ26-95 STECH Website Migration / Redesign
Solicitation number
GJ26-95
Issued by
Utah

About this file

This is an RFP evaluation scoresheet for Southwest Technical College (STECH) in Utah for a website migration and redesign project (GJ26-95). The procurement seeks a qualified firm to handle website migration, redesign, hosting, security setup, theme development and customization, and data migration services. The RFP submission deadline is March 1, 2026, with questions due by February 28, 2026, directed to Karyn Keanaaina at kkeanaaina@stech.edu. The evaluation scoresheet indicates this is a formal competitive procurement process with specific technical and cost evaluation components.

The evaluation scoresheet establishes a 75/25 split between technical and cost scoring, with total possible points of 6,000. Technical evaluation carries 4,500 points across five weighted criteria: Quality of Designs Proposed (1,250 points, 27.8%), Ease of Use - End-User (750 points, 16.7%), Quality of Training (750 points, 16.7%), Optional Services/Add-ons (1,000 points, 22.2%), and WCAG 2.1 Accessibility Standard Compliance (750 points, 16.7%). Cost evaluation carries 1,500 points, with the lowest proposal receiving 100% of cost points and other proposals receiving proportional points based on the formula: Cost Points × (Lowest Proposed Price/Proposed Price). Proposals must achieve a minimum of 2,700 technical points (60% of 4,500) to pass evaluation. Scoring uses a 0-5 scale ranging from Fail to Excellent, with 3 being satisfactory, 4 being good, and 5 being excellent. The scoresheet does not indicate set-asides, incumbent information, or specific funding amounts.

View the file

Other files

On GovTribe

Work with this file

  • Download the original file
  • Contacts named in this file
  • Similar government files
  • Ask GovTribe AI about this file

Text version

Score will be assigned as follows:

0 = Fail, the proposal fails to address the requirements or criteria described in the RFP or cannot be assessed du to missing information

1 = Poor, the proposal inadequately addresses the requirements or criteria described in the RFP or cannot be assessed due to incomplete information

2 = Unsatisfactory, the proposal addresses the requirements or criteria described in the RFP in an unsatisfactory manner

3 = Satisfactory, the proposal addresses all requirements or criteria described in the RFP in a minimum satisfactory manner

4 = Good, the proposal addresses all requirements or criteria described in the RFP and in some respects exceeds them

5 = Excellent, the proposal addresses and exceeds all of the requirements or criteria described in the RFP

RFP

Section

Evaluation (Pass/Fail)

RFP

Section

Evaluator Score (0-5)

Criteria Weight

% of Tech Criteria

Points Possible

Points Earned

Minimum Required

1 3 250 27.8% 1250.00 750.00 750.0 2 3 150 16.7% 750.00 450.00 450.0 3 3 150 16.7% 750.00 450.00 450.0 4 3 200 22.2% 1000.00 600.00 600.0 5 3 150 16.7% 750.00 450.00 450.0

100.0% 4500.00 2700.00 2700.00

RFP

Section

Min Percent

Min Points Required

Points Earned

Percent Earned

Evaluation

17% 2700.0 2700.0 60.0% Pass

RFP

Section

Low Cost Option

Offered Cost

Percent of Total

Points Possible Points Earned

25% 1,500.0 0.0

Percent of Total

Points Possible

Points Earned

75% 4,500.0 2700.0 25% 1,500.0 0.0

100% 6,000.0 2700.0

Total Evaluation Points

Total Technical Evaluation Points

* Purchasing will use the following cost formula: The points assigned to each offerors cost proposal will be based on the lowest proposal price. The offeror with the lowest Proposed Price will receive 100% of the price points. All other offerors will receive a portion of the total cost points based on what percentage higher their Proposed Price is than the Lowest Proposed Price. The formula to compute the points is: Cost Points x (Lowest Proposed Price/Proposed Price).

Total Cost Evaluation Points Total Evaluation Points

Required Technical Point Threshold

Cost

Quality of Designs Proposed Ease of Use - End-User Quality of Training

Optional services/add-ons

Scoreable Technical Criteria

Proposed Work Plan Hosting & Security Setup

Theme development and customization Data migration Hosting setup Training and documentation WCAG 2.1 Accessibility Standard Compliance

Evaluator:

Date:

Minimum Mandatory Requirements

Southwest Tech Website Migration/Redesign

RFP EVALUATION SCORESHEET

Firm Name:

Score Sheet

File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .