6-3 - APA 2026-04 Eagle Mountain K-6 Campus - Evaluation Score Sheet.xlsx
XLSX spreadsheet 15 KB Posted
- Attached to
- APA 2026-04 Eagle Mountain K-6 Campus Design
- Solicitation number
- 26-EM-K6DES
- Issued by
- Utah
About this file
This is an evaluation score sheet for a Request for Statements of Qualifications (RFSQ) issued by the State of Utah Division of Purchasing in conjunction with Utah Charter Academies (UCA) for design professional services for the Eagle Mountain K-6 Campus project (Project ID: 26-EM-K6DES). The procurement seeks a design professional services provider to develop a K-6 campus design based on UCA's two-story elementary prototype, adapted for an 8-acre parcel in Eagle Mountain. The project scope includes site and civil engineering coordination with seller-performed horizontal improvements, with construction documents required to be completed by August 2027. Responses were due by Monday, August 24, 2026, at 5:00 PM MDT through the Bonfire platform. The award will be made to the highest-ranked firm following a qualifications-based selection process, with compensation to be negotiated at an amount determined to be fair and reasonable.
The evaluation process employs a committee of at least three evaluators, as required by Utah Code Ann. 63G-6a, Part 15, using a 100-point scoring rubric that assesses three primary criteria: capability to complete a quality project (30 points), capability and commitment to meet required milestone dates (40 points), and clear understanding of project vision, scope, and site (30 points). The scoring guide rates responses on a scale of 0 to 5, with no price or cost component evaluated. Pricing information must not be included in responses; any fee or rate information discovered during evaluation is referred to the Procurement Officer and excluded from scoring. The evaluation sheet includes a responsiveness checklist with 17 mandatory and preferred requirements, and a ranking summary mechanism for identifying the three highest-scoring firms for contract negotiation.
View the file
Other files
| File | Type | Posted |
|---|---|---|
| 5-1 - APA 2026-04 Eagle Mountain K-6 Campus - Scope of Work.docx | DOCX document | |
| 3-Att B IT Terms and Conditions.docx.docx | DOCX document | |
| 7-2 - APA 2026-04 Eagle Mountain K-6 Campus - RFSQ Summary.docx | DOCX document | |
| 2-Vendor Prerequisites - Part 15.pdf.pdf | ||
| 4-Att A Agency Contract Terms and Condition GS.docx.docx | DOCX document | |
| 1-Claim of Business Confidentiality Updated.pdf.pdf |
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 Sheet- Evaluator
| APA 2026-04 Eagle Mountain K-6 Campus – Design | |||||
| Project ID: 26-EM-K6DES | RFSQ Evaluation Score Sheet | |||||
| INDIVIDUAL EVALUATOR SCORE SHEET | |||||
| One sheet per evaluator, per responding firm. Print or copy this tab as needed. | |||||
| Firm Name: | |||||
| Evaluator: | |||||
| Date: | |||||
| Criterion | Possible Points | Score (0-5) | Weight | Points Earned | Comments |
| A. Demonstrates capability of effectively completing a quality project | 30 | 0.0 | |||
| Experience – direct with similar K-6 and public charter school projects | 7.5 | x 1.5 | 0.0 | ||
| Qualifications (firm & key individuals; Utah-licensed Architect of Record and Utah-licensed PE identified) | 5.0 | x 1.0 | 0.0 | ||
| Financial strength | 5.0 | x 1.0 | 0.0 | ||
| References | 7.5 | x 1.5 | 0.0 | ||
| Reputation with subconsultants and reviewing agencies | 5.0 | x 1.0 | 0.0 | ||
| B. Demonstrates capability and commitment to completing the design by the required milestone dates | 40 | 0.0 | |||
| Staffing capacity and current workload relative to the schedule | 20.0 | x 4.0 | 0.0 | ||
| Proposed design schedule and milestone plan (CDs complete August 2027) | 10.0 | x 2.0 | 0.0 | ||
| Entitlement and permitting approach with Eagle Mountain City | 10.0 | x 2.0 | 0.0 | ||
| C. Demonstrates a clear understanding of project vision, scope, and site | 30 | 0.0 | |||
| Approach to adapting UCA's two-story elementary prototype to this site | 10.0 | x 2.0 | 0.0 | ||
| Site and civil approach for the 8-acre parcel, coordinated with seller-performed horizontal improvements | 10.0 | x 2.0 | 0.0 | ||
| Scale-up / phasing capability (1–3 classrooms per grade without core redesign) | 5.0 | x 1.0 | 0.0 | ||
| Quality control and consultant coordination | 5.0 | x 1.0 | 0.0 | ||
| TOTAL | 100 | 0.0 | |||
| HOW TO USE THIS SHEET | |||||
| • Enter a whole-number score from 0 to 5 in the yellow "Score (0-5)" cells only. Points Earned and all totals calculate automatically. | |||||
| • Scoring guide: 5 = Excellent | 4 = Above average | 3 = Acceptable | 2 = Below average | 1 = Poor | 0 = Not addressed. | |||||
| • Example entry — Score: 4, Comments: "Three UT charter K-6 campuses delivered since 2019; two adapted from a client prototype." | |||||
| • Leave a Score cell blank only if the criterion was not addressed; blank is treated as 0 points. | |||||
| • NO PRICE OR COST COMPONENT is evaluated. If a response contains fee or rate information, note it in Comments and refer it to the Procurement Officer — do not score it. | |||||
| • Utah Code Ann. § 63G-6a, Part 15 requires an evaluation committee of at least three members for design professional services. |
Score Sheet- Final
| APA 2026-04 Eagle Mountain K-6 Campus – Design | |||||
| Project ID: 26-EM-K6DES | RFSQ Evaluation Score Sheet | |||||
| COMMITTEE SUMMARY – FINAL | |||||
| Committee consensus score for the firm named below. Complete after individual evaluations are collected. | |||||
| Firm Name: | |||||
| Evaluator: | |||||
| Date: | |||||
| Criterion | Possible Points | Score (0-5) | Weight | Points Earned | Comments |
| A. Demonstrates capability of effectively completing a quality project | 30 | 0.0 | |||
| Experience – direct with similar K-6 and public charter school projects | 7.5 | x 1.5 | 0.0 | ||
| Qualifications (firm & key individuals; Utah-licensed Architect of Record and Utah-licensed PE identified) | 5.0 | x 1.0 | 0.0 | ||
| Financial strength | 5.0 | x 1.0 | 0.0 | ||
| References | 7.5 | x 1.5 | 0.0 | ||
| Reputation with subconsultants and reviewing agencies | 5.0 | x 1.0 | 0.0 | ||
| B. Demonstrates capability and commitment to completing the design by the required milestone dates | 40 | 0.0 | |||
| Staffing capacity and current workload relative to the schedule | 20.0 | x 4.0 | 0.0 | ||
| Proposed design schedule and milestone plan (CDs complete August 2027) | 10.0 | x 2.0 | 0.0 | ||
| Entitlement and permitting approach with Eagle Mountain City | 10.0 | x 2.0 | 0.0 | ||
| C. Demonstrates a clear understanding of project vision, scope, and site | 30 | 0.0 | |||
| Approach to adapting UCA's two-story elementary prototype to this site | 10.0 | x 2.0 | 0.0 | ||
| Site and civil approach for the 8-acre parcel, coordinated with seller-performed horizontal improvements | 10.0 | x 2.0 | 0.0 | ||
| Scale-up / phasing capability (1–3 classrooms per grade without core redesign) | 5.0 | x 1.0 | 0.0 | ||
| Quality control and consultant coordination | 5.0 | x 1.0 | 0.0 | ||
| TOTAL | 100 | 0.0 | |||
| HOW TO USE THIS SHEET | |||||
| • Enter a whole-number score from 0 to 5 in the yellow "Score (0-5)" cells only. Points Earned and all totals calculate automatically. | |||||
| • Scoring guide: 5 = Excellent | 4 = Above average | 3 = Acceptable | 2 = Below average | 1 = Poor | 0 = Not addressed. | |||||
| • Example entry — Score: 4, Comments: "Three UT charter K-6 campuses delivered since 2019; two adapted from a client prototype." | |||||
| • Leave a Score cell blank only if the criterion was not addressed; blank is treated as 0 points. | |||||
| • NO PRICE OR COST COMPONENT is evaluated. If a response contains fee or rate information, note it in Comments and refer it to the Procurement Officer — do not score it. | |||||
| • Utah Code Ann. § 63G-6a, Part 15 requires an evaluation committee of at least three members for design professional services. |
Ranking Summary
| APA 2026-04 Eagle Mountain K-6 Campus – Design | |||||||
| Project ID: 26-EM-K6DES | Committee Ranking Summary | |||||||
| Enter each evaluator's TOTAL score (from their individual score sheet) in the yellow cells. Average and Rank calculate automatically. | |||||||
| Responding Firm | Evaluator 1 | Evaluator 2 | Evaluator 3 | Evaluator 4 | Evaluator 5 | Average | Rank |
| SELECTION AND FEE NEGOTIATION |
| • Example row — Firm: "SPE Architects", Evaluator 1: 87.5, Evaluator 2: 84.0, Evaluator 3: 89.5 → Average 87.0. |
| • Utah Code Ann. § 63G-6a, Part 15: rank the three highest-scoring firms, then negotiate compensation with the highest-ranked firm at an amount determined in writing to be fair and reasonable. |
| • If negotiations with the highest-ranked firm fail, formally terminate them in writing before opening negotiations with the second-ranked firm. Terminated negotiations may not be reopened. |
| • Ties: the committee chair breaks a tie by documented consensus of the committee. |
Eval Notes
| APA 2026-04 Eagle Mountain K-6 Campus – Design | |||
| Responsiveness Checklist – complete before scoring | |||
| A response that fails a mandatory item should be referred to the Procurement Officer before the committee scores it. | |||
| # | Requirement | Met? (Y/N) | Notes |
| 1 | Response received through Bonfire on or before Monday, August 24, 2026, 5:00 PM MDT | ||
| 2 | Letter of Introduction signed by a person authorized to bind the firm | ||
| 3 | Executive Summary included (1–2 pages) | ||
| 4 | Architect of Record identified, with current State of Utah architect license | ||
| 5 | Utah-licensed professional engineer identified by name and license number, available to execute the Certificate of Consulting Engineer | ||
| 6 | Subconsultants identified by discipline, with evidence of current Utah licensure | ||
| 7 | Evidence of financial stability provided | ||
| 8 | Evidence of insurance, including professional liability (errors and omissions), provided | ||
| 9 | References provided | ||
| 10 | Proposed design schedule provided, showing construction documents complete by August 2027 | ||
| 11 | Approach to adapting UCA's two-story elementary prototype addressed | ||
| 12 | Scale-up / phasing approach addressed | ||
| 13 | Eagle Mountain City entitlement and permitting approach addressed | ||
| 14 | E-Verify statement provided (preferred) | ||
| 15 | Signed certification statement included | ||
| 16 | NO price, fee, rate or cost information included in the response | ||
| 17 | Claim of Business Confidentiality and Redacted Version included, if any information is marked PROTECTED | ||
| Example — Item 16, Met?: "Y", Notes: "Confirmed — no fee data anywhere in the 42-page submittal." | |||
| Yellow cells are the only cells to fill in on this tab. |
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .