Campus locker vendors should be evaluated against predefined requirements, weighted criteria, and evidence from each proposal. A strong campus locker system checklist goes beyond features to evaluate workflow fit, accessibility, data handling, integration, cost, and implementation requirements.
This guide shows how to compare locker systems for campus operations using a cross-functional evaluation process and a weighted scorecard that keeps competing proposals on the same basis.
Key takeaways
- A campus locker evaluation works best when Procurement, IT, Facilities, and the operational owner assess proposals together.
- Weighted scoring gives more influence to the criteria that matter most to the deployment, while a shared scoring scale keeps evaluators working from the same standard.
- Accessibility should be evaluated against the proposed installation because bay position, reach, clear floor space, and operable parts can affect whether a locker setup is accessible.
- Student-linked locker records may fall within FERPA obligations depending on what the system records and how the institution maintains and uses that information.
- Vendor comparisons should focus on how well each proposal meets the campus’s required workflows and operating conditions.
Who should be on a campus to evaluate smart locker systems?
A campus procurement committee evaluating locker vendors should include people who can assess procurement requirements, technical fit, physical deployment, and daily use of the locker. That mix gives the committee enough operational context to compare a request for proposal (RFP) against the institution’s actual requirements.
For a campus locker RFP, that principle usually calls for representation from four functions:
- Procurement manages the RFP process and keeps evaluation procedures consistent.
- IT assesses device handoff requirements and compatibility with campus technology systems.
- Facilities teams review placement, power, connectivity, and installation constraints.
- The operational owner evaluates how the system fits the service delivered at that location.
The operational owner depends on the project. Housing may be central to a residence-hall deployment, while Library Services may have a larger role in an equipment-loan program.
Additional specialists can review defined parts of the proposal when needed. Accessibility, information security, or legal teams may provide focused expertise without unnecessarily expanding the core committee.
For example, West Virginia University Research Corporation’s 2025 Procurement Manual distinguishes voting evaluators from subject-matter experts who may advise the committee on specific technical questions.
Read more: See why campuses are adopting smart lockers and how universities use them for device distribution, repairs, charging, and other campus handoff workflows.
Give every evaluator a defined role
Committee members should know what they are responsible for assessing before vendor proposals arrive. Otherwise, evaluations can drift toward individual preferences.
Technical specialists can examine the areas where their expertise matters most, but every proposal should still be judged against the same published criteria. That creates a consistent basis for comparing vendors across departments.
How to build a weighted scoring rubric for locker vendors
A weighted scoring rubric compares locker vendors by assigning more influence to requirements that matter most to the campus deployment. The committee should define the criteria, weights, and scoring scale before it begins evaluating proposals.
Universities reflect this approach in their own procurement procedures. For example, George Washington University’s procurement guidance requires RFP criteria to reflect their relative importance through weighting. Its example matrix assigns different percentages to criteria and totals those weights to 100%, providing a practical model for a campus smart locker scorecard.
The State University of New York (SUNY) System Administration’s RFP procedures add another useful control: it requires signed score sheets with an explanation of each evaluator’s scoring, which helps keep the final comparison tied to documented evidence rather than impressions formed during demonstrations or discussions.
|
Evaluation criterion |
What the committee should assess |
|
Workflow fit |
How well the proposed process matches the required device handoffs and records each transaction. |
|
Access and authentication |
Whether the proposed configuration works with the institution’s required identity or credential method. |
|
System integration |
How required identity, service-management, or asset data will move between systems. |
|
Physical accessibility |
Whether the proposed installation can support applicable accessibility requirements. |
|
Data handling |
What identity-linked activity the system records, who can access the information, and how long the institution retains it. |
|
Multi-building scalability |
How the institution would manage lockers, users, and activity across additional locations. |
|
Total cost of ownership |
The expected cost of hardware, software, implementation, support, and ongoing operation. |
|
Support and implementation |
Whether deployment and support arrangements match campus staffing and academic-calendar requirements. |
Weights should reflect the institution’s actual operating priorities and hardware and software requirements. A campus using lockers primarily for device loans may give workflow fit more weight, while a distributed deployment may place greater emphasis on integration and multi-building management.
Define the scoring scale before reviewing proposals
A score only becomes useful when evaluators share the same definition of what each value means. A five-point scale, for example, should distinguish between an unsupported response, partial fulfillment, and clear evidence that the requirement can be met.
That evidence-first approach keeps the weighted vendor scorecard tied to the RFP. It also reduces the chance that a polished demonstration or long feature list earns credit for requirements the proposal fails to address. The final weighted result should represent two decisions made in advance: how important each criterion is and how convincingly each vendor demonstrates that it can meet it.
Read more: Review these smart locker buying tips for a broader selection framework covering use cases, integrations, accessibility, and total cost of ownership.
ADA and accessibility: A criterion most locker checklists skip
Accessibility under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) shapes locker placement and configuration rather than serving as a generic product label. Even suitable hardware can create accessibility problems if the installation places bays, controls, or clear floor space outside applicable requirements.
Disclaimer: This section is informational, not legal advice. Institutions should confirm the ADA requirements that apply to their facilities and proposed installation with their own accessibility specialists or legal counsel.
Campus teams should evaluate the proposed locker layout, bay positions, and user interaction points before installation. According to 36 CFR Part 1191, Appendix B, where lockers are provided, at least 5% — and no fewer than one of each type — must comply with the accessibility requirements for storage.
According to 36 CFR Part 1191, Appendix D, the applicable technical requirements for accessible lockers include:
- Clear floor or ground space: provide at least 30 by 48 inches of clear space for a forward or parallel approach, with an unobstructed side adjoining an accessible route or another clear space (Sections 305 and 811.2).
- Reachable storage: place storage elements within an allowed reach range. For an unobstructed forward reach, Section 308 sets a 48-inch maximum high forward reach and a 15-inch minimum low forward reach above the finished floor or ground (Sections 308 and 811.3).
- Accessible operable parts: handles and other controls must be operable with one hand without tight grasping, pinching, or twisting of the wrist, and activation force must not exceed 5 pounds (Sections 309 and 811.4).
Evaluate accessibility against the proposed site
ForwardPass for higher education supports ADA-compliant ergonomic locker layouts, but campuses should still evaluate the proposed installation against applicable reach, floor-space, and operable-part requirements.
Campus teams should review whether users can approach and operate locker bays, and whether the surrounding space supports the required access. The same locker configuration may work differently in a library, residence hall, or other campus location.
Data handling and FERPA-adjacent considerations
A campus locker evaluation should examine what student-linked data the system creates, who can access it, and how long it is retained. The key question is whether records created through smart locker use may fall within the institution’s obligations under the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA).
The U.S. Department of Education notes that outside service providers may handle protected records under specific conditions, including institutional control over how those records are used and maintained.
For a locker system, the review should focus on the data generated around each handoff. That may include student identity, device assignment, transaction time, or access history, depending on the configuration.
The committee should ask vendors to explain:
- What data is recorded: Identify which user, device, and transaction details are created during a handoff.
- Who can access it: Define administrator permissions and whether the vendor can view, process, or support access to institution-linked records.
- How long it is kept: Define a data retention period and document how the vendor deletes records when they are no longer needed
- How the data can be used: Confirm whether records are limited to the purposes defined by the institution.
A sample weighted scorecard you can copy
A weighted scorecard turns the campus’s procurement priorities into a consistent framework for evaluating qualified locker vendors. Each criterion receives a percentage weight, while evaluators score the evidence in each proposal against the same scale.
The example below uses hypothetical vendor scores to show how the calculation works. The weights and scores are illustrative and should be replaced with the institution’s own requirements and evaluation results.
|
Criterion |
Weight |
Vendor A score |
Vendor A weighted points |
Vendor B score |
Vendor B weighted points |
|
Workflow fit |
20% |
4 |
16 |
5 |
20 |
|
Access and authentication |
10% |
5 |
10 |
3 |
6 |
|
System integration |
15% |
3 |
9 |
4 |
12 |
|
ADA accessibility |
10% |
4 |
8 |
5 |
10 |
|
Data handling and privacy |
10% |
4 |
8 |
3 |
6 |
|
Multi-building scalability |
10% |
3 |
6 |
5 |
10 |
|
Total cost of ownership |
15% |
4 |
12 |
3 |
9 |
|
Support and implementation |
10% |
5 |
10 |
4 |
8 |
|
Total |
100% |
|
79 |
|
81 |
To calculate weighted points, divide the vendor’s 1–5 score by five and multiply the result by the criterion weight. For example, Vendor A scores 4 out of 5 for workflow fit, so the 20% criterion contributes 16 points to its total score.
The example also shows why raw feature counts are not enough. Vendor A scores higher on authentication, cost, and implementation, while Vendor B performs better on workflow fit, scalability, and accessibility. Because each criterion carries a different weight, the final score reflects the priorities defined before the proposals were reviewed.
Common mistakes campus committees make when comparing vendors
Campus committees make weaker vendor comparisons when they evaluate features before defining operational requirements. Problems often arise when criteria are added too late, applied differently across departments, or disconnected from how the lockers will be used.
Several mistakes are worth avoiding:
- Letting one department define the whole evaluation: An IT-only review can miss installation, accessibility, procurement, or service-delivery requirements.
- Treating accessibility as a post-purchase check: Placement constraints can affect which bays are usable and where the system can be installed.
- Accepting vague integration claims: “Integrates with your systems” is not enough unless the proposal explains the required connection and how data will move.
- Ignoring the academic calendar: A technically suitable system can still create operational problems if installation, testing, or training cannot be completed before the required term.
- Scoring feature quantity instead of workflow fit: A longer feature list does not show that the system can support the institution’s actual handoff process.
These mistakes have the same underlying cause: the committee starts with vendor capabilities instead of campus requirements. A stronger process defines the required outcome first, then asks every vendor to show how its proposed configuration will meet it. That distinction also makes the final scoring easier to defend internally. Each point awarded can be traced back to a stated requirement, a defined weight, and evidence in the proposal.
Bottom line
Strong locker system evaluation criteria start with defined requirements, consistent scoring, and evidence that each proposal fits the institution’s operating model. That gives the committee a clearer basis for comparing vendors and documenting the final decision.
Book a Discovery to discuss how ForwardPass could fit your campus device handoff requirements.
Frequently asked questions
Who should be on a campus locker system evaluation committee?
A campus locker evaluation committee should include Procurement, IT, Facilities, and the department that will operate the locker service. Additional specialists, such as accessibility, information security, or legal staff, can review specific requirements when necessary.
Does ADA apply to smart locker placement on campus?
Yes, campus locker installations may need to meet accessibility requirements under the Americans with Disabilities Act Standards, including requirements for accessible storage, reach, clear floor space, and operable parts. When evaluating ADA-compliant lockers, campuses should also assess the proposed layout and installation.
Do campus smart lockers need to comply with FERPA?
A smart locker is not independently “FERPA compliant,” but records created through its use may fall under the institution’s obligations under the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA). When evaluating a FERPA smart locker, campuses should examine what student-linked data is recorded and how the institution maintains and uses those records.
How do you build a weighted vendor scorecard for an RFP?
Build a weighted vendor scorecard by defining the evaluation criteria, assigning each criterion a percentage weight, and setting a common scoring scale before reviewing proposals. Evaluators score each vendor against the same requirements and multiply those scores by the assigned weights to produce comparable totals.
What's the difference between a buying checklist and an RFP evaluation rubric?
A buying checklist identifies questions and requirements to consider, while an RFP evaluation rubric turns those requirements into defined criteria for consistent evaluation and scoring. A weighted rubric also assigns relative importance to each criterion, making it suitable for comparing competing proposals through a documented evaluation process.