Final scoring and ranking · consensus comments

Selection scoring analysis, Aspen Mills Middle School CM-at-risk

The district's final scoring and ranking was rebuilt criterion by criterion for all four construction manager-at-risk proposals. Brockway & Lund ranked second, 4.32 points behind Tillman-Shaw Construction, despite the lowest evaluated fee. One rating step in Proposed Personnel would have won; closing the gap on fee alone would have taken nearly half our CM fee.

Aspen Mills Community School District, RFP 2026-03 Construction manager-at-risk under Iowa Code chapter 26A Board selection Oct 19, 2026 Prepared Nov 5, 2026

Summary

Total score

We lost by 4.32 points, worth $289,380 in fee, 0.84% of the cost of the work

Our evaluated fee was the lowest, $45,800 below Tillman-Shaw's, but we trailed by 5.00 technical points. Totals: 76.00 against 80.32 of 100. The fee equivalent is measured against the $34.6M estimated cost of the work. Sources: Final Scoring and Ranking, p. 2; RFP Section 6, pp. 14–16.

Proposed Personnel

One rating step in Proposed Personnel was worth more than the whole gap

A step in Proposed Personnel is 6.00 points, about $402,000 of fee here. Going from 3 to 4 would have won by 1.68 points. No other criterion closes the gap with one step. The committee's reason: reference projects were not tied to the proposed roles (Consensus Comments, p. 3).

Action: state role, contract value and dates on every key person's reference projects.

Fee and tie-breaker

Winning on fee alone meant cutting our CM fee by 45%

It took $289,381 off the evaluated fee, $1 more than the gap, because the RFP breaks ties on Proposed Personnel points, where Tillman-Shaw had 24.00 and we had 18.00. Our CM fee of 1.85% ($640,100) would have dropped to 1.01% (Fee Buildup, Summary tab).

Simulate our proposal against the scoring

Change Brockway & Lund's consensus ratings and evaluated fee. Points follow RFP Section 6: each 0–5 rating converts to a share of the criterion's maximum, and fee points are 25 × lowest evaluated fee ÷ proposer's evaluated fee. The other proposals stay as scored. Select a criterion to see the committee's comments next to what our proposal contained.

Presets

Consensus ratings 0–5 by criterion, converted to points as rating ÷ 5 × maximum. Highest total score ranks first.

What would have closed the gap?

    Points per rating step, in fee dollars

    Points for one rating step in each criterion, with the fee cut that would gain the same margin. Dashed line: current gap to the firm ahead of or behind us. Thin line: a cut of 10% of our CM fee.

    Comments by criterion

    Actions for the next proposal

    1. Tie every reference project to the role. Build a matrix for each key person with the role held on the reference project, contract value, dates, owner contact and how it maps to the role proposed. Name alternates for the project manager and superintendent.
    2. Convert the scoring to dollars before setting the fee. Here one rating step in Proposed Personnel was worth about $402,000 of fee, more than the whole gap.
    3. Treat the tie-breaker as a criterion. The criterion that breaks ties counts twice. In this RFP it was Proposed Personnel.
    4. Tie risks to the schedule. Tillman-Shaw was rated 4 in Schedule and Risk Management with risks linked to activities, owners and mitigations. Our generic register was rated 3.
    5. Don't chase the gap with fee. The fee cut that would have won equals 45% of our CM fee. Put the effort into the personnel section instead.

    Sources and method

    Sources

    • Notice_of_Selection_RFP_2026-03.pdfBoard of Directors action selecting Tillman-Shaw Construction as CM-at-risk, with the ranking of four proposers2 pp.
    • Final_Scoring_and_Ranking_RFP_2026-03.pdfConsensus ratings, points by criterion, evaluated fees and ranking, made public under Iowa Code §26A.3(4)(d)3 pp.
    • Evaluation_Committee_Consensus_Comments.pdfCommittee comments by criterion and proposer, obtained through an Iowa Code chapter 22 public records request12 pp.
    • RFP_2026-03_CMAR_Services_Aspen_Mills_MS.pdfSection 6 Evaluation and Selection: criteria, rating scale, point conversion, fee formula and tie-breaker. Attachment C Fee Proposal Form36 pp.
    • BLB_Proposal_Aspen_Mills_MS.pdfOur proposal: Tab 2 Proposed Personnel, Tab 3 Approach and Methodology, Tab 4 Schedule and Risk Management, Tab 5 Safety, Tab 6 Fee Proposal48 pp.
    • BLB_Fee_Buildup_Aspen_Mills_MS.xlsxFee buildup, Summary tab: preconstruction services fee, general conditions and CM fee6 tabs

    Method

    1. The scoring model was read from RFP Section 6: best-value selection of a CM-at-risk, four technical criteria rated 0–5 by committee consensus and converted to points, plus 25 fee points.
    2. Ratings by criterion and proposer were taken from the Final Scoring and Ranking (p. 2) and checked against the consensus comments (pp. 3–9).
    3. Totals were recalculated for all four proposers. Points and ranking match the published scoring and the notice of selection.
    4. Evaluated fee = preconstruction services fee + general conditions + CM fee % × $34,600,000 estimated cost of the work (Attachment C). Fee points = 25 × lowest evaluated fee ÷ proposer's evaluated fee, unrounded.
    5. The fee cut needed to win was found by search to the nearest dollar, with every proposer's fee points recalculated at each step, and compared with the CM fee in our fee buildup.

    Assumptions and limitations

    • Only our proposal changes. Because the lowest fee sets the scale, a change in our fee recalculates every proposer's fee points.
    • Ratings are the committee's consensus. What a revised section would have been rated is a judgment, not a calculation.
    • Tie-breaker per RFP Section 6.5: the higher Proposed Personnel points rank first; if still tied, the Board selects by lot.
    • Firm experience in the public and private sector was scored at the RFQ step, which shortlisted the four firms, and is not part of these points.
    • The guaranteed maximum price is negotiated after selection. The $34.6M cost of the work is the district's estimate, used here only to evaluate fees.
    • This analysis does not assess whether the selection could be protested or whether the procurement met chapter 26A; both are questions for procurement counsel licensed in Iowa. Whether the District could have withheld any committee comments under chapter 22 was not assessed either.