9-26RM02P5 - Attachment G - Evaluation Scoresheet - 04.20.2026.xlsx
XLSX spreadsheet 17 KB Posted
- Solicitation number
- 26RM02P5
- Issued by
- Salt Lake County, Utah
About this file
This is an RFP evaluation scoresheet for an athletic uniform and apparel discount incentive agreement between Jordan School District (JSD) and Bingham High School (BHS). The solicitation (26RM02P5) seeks competitive proposals from qualified offerors to provide exclusive uniforms, footwear, and branded apparel to BHS athletic teams in exchange for mutually agreed-upon marketing opportunities and advertising exposure. BHS currently expends approximately $400,000 annually on athletic uniforms and apparel and intends to consolidate purchases through a single contracted offeror while maintaining flexibility to select from multiple brands for non-game-day and miscellaneous apparel items. The school has established a preference for Under Armour based on prior experience with customer service, product quality, and brand alignment; however, offerors may propose Under Armour, Nike, Adidas, or other equivalent high-quality brands capable of meeting the athletic programs' needs. Offerors proposing alternative brands must clearly demonstrate how their customer service and products equal or exceed Under Armour's quality, durability, performance, and breadth of offerings.
The evaluation scoresheet allocates 1,425 total possible points across technical, cost, and mandatory requirements. Technical evaluation comprises 70.18 percent (1,000 points) and includes five primary categories: brand quality and partnership requirements (75 points), service requirements (185 points), and marketing requirements (40 points). A minimum threshold of 75 percent (750 points) of technical points is required for proposal approval. Cost evaluation comprises 29.82 percent (425 points) based on the lowest proposed price. Mandatory requirements in RFP Section 2.1 include State of Utah licensure, experience and references, local representative designation, artwork ownership, and compliance with Utah Code 63G-27 public contract boycott restrictions. All mandatory requirements must be satisfied on a pass/fail basis prior to technical and cost evaluation consideration.
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 Sheet
| ATTACHMENT G | ||||
| Athletic Uniform and Apparel Discount Incentive for Bingham High School | ||||
| SOLICITATION # 26RM02P5 | ||||
| RFP EVALUATION SCORESHEET | ||||
| DRAFT: This document is intended to be a draft. Please return this document to the evaluation committee chairperson. | ||||
| This document is not subject to GRAMA pursuant to Utah Administrative Code R33-7-702(2). | ||||
| 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 due to missing information | ||||
| Offeror Name: | 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 | ||||
| Evaluator: | 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 | ||||
| Date: | 5 = Excellent, the proposal addresses and exceeds all of the requirements or criteria described in the RFP | |||
| Minimum Mandatory Requirements | RFP Section | Evaluation (Pass/Fail) | ||
| A | State of Utah Licensure | 2.1 | ||
| B | Experience and References | 2.1 | ||
| C | Local Representative | 2.1 | ||
| D | Artwork Ownership | 2.1 | ||
| E | Compliance with Utah Code 63G-27 Public Contract Boycott Restrictions | 2.1 |
Scoreable Technical Criteria RFP Section Evaluator Score (0-5) Criteria Weight % of Tech Criteria Points Possible Points Earned
| Brand Quality and Partnership Requirements | ||||||
| A1 | Partnership(s) with Under Armour or other high-quality brand | 3.2 | 15 | 7.50% | 75.0 | 0.0 |
| A2 | Offeror serves as liason between BHS and brand partner | 3.2 | 10 | 5.00% | 50.0 | 0.0 |
| A3 | Sufficient product catalog and continuity plan | 3.2 | 10 | 5.00% | 50.0 | 0.0 |
| A4 | Product warranty coverage | 3.2 | 10 | 5.00% | 50.0 | 0.0 |
| A5 | Product range meeting BHS team needs and UHSAA standards | 3.2 | 25 | 12.50% | 125.0 | 0.0 |
| Service Requirements | ||||||
| B1 | Dedicated account representative and local support | 3.2 | 10 | 5.00% | 50.0 | 0.0 |
| B2 | Clearly defined ordering process and capabilities | 3.2 | 10 | 5.00% | 50.0 | 0.0 |
| B3 | Order-by dates for seasonal sports and proactive order placement | 3.2 | 10 | 5.00% | 50.0 | 0.0 |
| B4 | Collaboration with BHS and customization options for uniform and apparel design | 3.2 | 20 | 10.00% | 100.0 | 0.0 |
| B5 | Quality assurance process | 3.2 | 10 | 5.00% | 50.0 | 0.0 |
| B6 | Online portal options, setup, and security | 3.2 | 15 | 7.50% | 75.0 | 0.0 |
| B7 | Quotes that clearly reflect contract pricing and transparency on additional charges | 3.2 | 10 | 5.00% | 50.0 | 0.0 |
| B8 | Policies for returns, exchanges, and replacements | 3.2 | 10 | 5.00% | 50.0 | 0.0 |
| B9 | Issue resolution process | 3.2 | 10 | 5.00% | 50.0 | 0.0 |
| Marketing Requirements | ||||||
| C1 | Promotional incentive program | 3.2 | 10 | 5.00% | 50.0 | 0.0 |
| C2 | Marketing or promotional activities requested from BHS | 3.2 | 15 | 7.50% | 75.0 | 0.0 |
| TOTAL: | 100.0% | 1,000.0 | 0.0 |
| Required Technical Point Threshold | RFP Section | Min Percent | Min Points Required | Points Earned | Percent Earned | Evaluation |
| 5.1 | 75% | 750.0 | 0.0 | 0.0% |
| Cost | RFP Section | Low Cost Option | Offered Cost | Percent of Total | Points Possible | Points Earned |
| 5.1 | 29.82% | 425.0 | 0.0 | |||
| Cost Formula: Cost Points x (Lowest Proposed Price/Proposed Price) |
| Total Evaluation Points | Percent of Total | Points Possible | Points Earned |
| Total Technical Evaluation Points | 70.18% | 1,000.0 | 0.0 |
| Total Cost Evaluation Points | 29.82% | 425.0 | 0.0 |
| Total Evaluation Points | 100% | 1,425.0 | 0.0 |
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .