The file's text, extracted by GovTribe without its formatting.
Award Justification Statement Solicitation #GJ27-17 Manti High APEX Center & Gunnison Valley High School APEX Center:
I. Result Overall, the evaluation committee determined that the proposal response submitted by Westland Construction provides the best value to South Sanpete School District as the highest scoring, responsive and responsible offeror and will be awarded the contract for the APEX Centers at Manti High and Gunnison Valley High.
II. Evaluation Process A request for proposals (RFP) was issued by the District to select a vendor to provide CM/GC services. Pursuant to Utah Code § 63G-6a-701, the RFP process was used because criteria other than cost were considered important in determining which vendor’s proposal provides the best value to the District.
Proposals were evaluated in accordance with Part 7 of the Utah Procurement Code by an Evaluation Committee comprised of District Administrators including the Superintendent, Business Administrator, Maintenance Director, Maintenance Support, and the District’s architect firm.
Stage 1 Mandatory Minimum Requirements This RFP received eight submissions from qualified contractors and all met the minimum submittal requirements.
Stage 2 Proposal Evaluation Evaluator scores for each proposal were recorded and the scores for each RFP contractor were averaged to come to a final average score.
III. Total Proposal Evaluation Conclusion This RFP was conducted as a single contract award to the responsive and responsible Offeror with the highest total score. Of a possible 100 points, Westland Construction scored 92.1 points. Based on the justifications outlined above, it is the opinion of the District Evaluation Committee that an award of a contract to Westland Construction be recommended to the South Sanpete School Board as it provides the best value to the District. The South Sanpete School Board approved this recommendation and award on September 9, 2026 at their school board meeting.
See Attachment A –(Below)
Attachment A
Evaluator
| SUMMARY of Evaluation Scores (100 Points) |
| Vendor A |
| Vendor B |
| Westland |
| Vendor D |
| Vendor E |
| Vendor F |
| Vendor G |
| Vendor H |
| 93 |
| 69.74 |
| 91.73 |
| 75.44 |
| 71.98 |
| 84.38 |
| 75.74 |
| 76.25 |
| 88 |
| 62.74 |
| 88.73 |
| 75.44 |
| 70.98 |
| 85.38 |
| 76.74 |
| 76.25 |
| 90 |
| 68.74 |
| 95.73 |
| 75.44 |
| 77.98 |
| 84 |
| 57.74 |
| 95.73 |
| 66.44 |
| 68.98 |
| 77.38 |
| 69.74 |
| 60.25 |
| 89 |
| 68.74 |
| 88.73 |
| 75.44 |
| 77.98 |
| 85.38 |
| 74.74 |
| 77.25 |
| Total Averaged Scores |
| 88.8 |
| 65.5 |
| 92.1 |
| 73.6 |
| 73.6 |
| 84.2 |
| 75.5 |
| 73.9 |
Evaluator
| Project Team Evaluation Scores (30 Points) |
| Vendor A |
| Vendor B |
| Westland |
| Vendor D |
| Vendor E |
| Vendor F |
| Vendor G |
| Vendor H |
| Total Averaged Scores |
| 27.8 |
| 23 |
| 28.4 |
| 26 |
| 26.8 |
| 26.8 |
| 26.6 |
| 28 |
Evaluator
| Experience Evaluation Scores (25 Points) |
| Vendor A |
| Vendor B |
| Westland |
| Vendor D |
| Vendor E |
| Vendor F |
| Vendor G |
| Vendor H |
| Total Averaged Scores |
| 16.8 |
| 15.2 |
| 24.6 |
| 15.0 |
| 14.2 |
| 16.0 |
| 15.2 |
| 14.4 |
Evaluator
| Mgmt Plan Evaluation Scores (30 Points) |
| Vendor A |
| Vendor B |
| Westland |
| Vendor D |
| Vendor E |
| Vendor F |
| Vendor G |
| Vendor H |
| Total Averaged Scores |
| 29.2 |
| 25.6 |
| 28.4 |
| 27.2 |
| 27.6 |
| 28.0 |
| 28.0 |
| 27.2 |
Evaluator
| Cost Proposal Evaluation Scores (15 Points) |
| Vendor A |
| Vendor B |
| Westland |
| Vendor D |
| Vendor E |
| Vendor F |
| Vendor G |
| Vendor H |
| 15 |
| 1.74 |
| 10.73 |
| 5.44 |
| 4.98 |
| 13.38 |
| 5.74 |
| 4.25 |
| 15 |
| 1.74 |
| 10.73 |
| 5.44 |
| 4.98 |
| 13.38 |
| 5.74 |
| 4.25 |
| 15 |
| 1.74 |
| 10.73 |
| 5.44 |
| 4.98 |
| 13.38 |
| 5.744 |
| 4.25 |
| 15 |
| 1.74 |
| 10.73 |
| 5.44 |
| 4.98 |
| 13.38 |
| 5.74 |
| 4.25 |
| Total Averaged Scores |
| 15 |
| 1.74 |
| 10.73 |
| 5.44 |
| 4.98 |
| 13.38 |
| 5.74 |
| 4.25 |
Evaluation Summary