1-Contract Performance Evaluation FOR REFERENCE USE ONLY.pdf
PDF 312 KB Posted
- Solicitation number
- AM27-10-1
- Issued by
- Salt Lake County, Utah
About this file
This is a Rangeland Contract Performance Evaluation form used by the State of Utah Division of Wildlife Resources to assess contractor performance on rangeland restoration projects. The evaluation document establishes the framework for monitoring and rating vendors working on rangeland treatment contracts across the state. The related solicitation (AM27-10-1) seeks a single contract award for Lop and Scatter services covering up to 89 acres in Salt Lake County's Wasatch Front/Parleys Watershed Restoration Project. The project performance period is scheduled from April 15 to June 15, 2027, and participation is limited exclusively to pre-qualified contractors listed on the current State of Utah Pre-approved/Pre-qualified Vendor list. The contract award will be determined on a lowest cost per acre basis, with vendors required to guarantee their pricing through project completion. No mandatory site visit is required for this solicitation.
The performance evaluation system establishes specific scoring criteria across three categories: Quality of Product or Service (weighted 8x), Timeliness of Performance (weighted 8x), and Contract Management (weighted 4x), with a total possible score of 100 points. Contractors are rated on a scale of 1 (Fail) to 5 (Excellent) based on compliance with specifications, schedule adherence, and responsiveness to inquiries and issues. Vendors must maintain a minimum average performance score of 60 to remain on the pre-qualification list; those falling below this threshold are removed from the list for the specific treatment and acreage category. Removal from the pre-qualification list does not prohibit vendors from bidding on open solicitations, and removed vendors may reapply at the next open Request for Sealed Quotation. Corrective actions are communicated either verbally or through a 10-day cure letter, with failure to comply reflected in performance scores.
View the file
Other files
| File | Type | Posted |
|---|---|---|
| 3-Attachment A-PO Terms and Conditions.docx | DOCX document | |
| 2-Vendor Prerequisites - IFB Agency.pdf | ||
| 5-Attachment B-Scope of Work.docx | DOCX document | |
| 6-AM27-10-1 Bid Results(UNOFFICIAL).xlsx | XLSX spreadsheet | |
| 4-Parleys Canyon map.pdf | ||
| 7-Award Memo.pdf | ||
| 8-AM27-10-1 Bid Results.xlsx | XLSX spreadsheet |
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
RANGELAND CONTRACT PERFORMANCE EVALUATION
DATE Address
Firm Name City, State & Zip Code
Firm Contact Phone Number
Solicitation Number & Name
Project Manager Contract Amount
Service Provided/# of Acres
Overall Rating
In accordance with Procurement Code 63G-6a-410(5)(e), the State of Utah has determined that it is in its best interest to conduct a contractor performance review for each rangeland project. The State agency project manager will complete a performance review according to the evaluation criteria listed.
Vendors will be aware of their performance status as they will be monitored throughout the project. Any corrective action will be communicated to the vendor verbally or through a 10-day letter to cure, depending on the issues. Vendors must complete any corrective action requested or required, if not this will be reflected in their performance review scores.
In order for a vendor to remain on the Rangeland Pre-Qualification list, they must maintain a minimum average performance score of 60. If a vendor's average performance score drops below 60, they will be removed from the pre-qualification list for that specific treatment/acreage category and all larger acreage within that same treatment category. If a vendor is removed from the pre-qualification list they may still be eligible to submit a bid on Open Bid solicitations. Once a vendor is removed from the pre-qualification list, the vendor may reapply at the next open RFSQ.
RATINGS GUIDE
Quality of Service
Timeliness of Performance Contract Management
5-Excellent Contractor has demonstrated an exceptional level in any of the above three categories that justifies adding a point to the score. Contractor performance clearly exceeds the performance levels described as "Good"
4-Good Contractor is in compliance with contract requirements and or delivers quality product or service.
Contractor is effective in meeting milestones and delivery schedule.
Response to inquiries, technical, service, administrative issues is effective.
3-Satisfactory Minor deficiencies in meeting contract specifications have been identified.
Contractor is usually effective in meeting milestones and delivery schedules.
Response to inquiries, technical, service, administrative issues is somewhat effective.
2-Unsatisfactory Major problems have been encountered.
Contractor is having major difficulty meeting milestones and delivery schedule.
Response to inquiries, technical, service, and administrative issues is marginally effective.
1-Fail Contractor is not in compliance & is jeopardizing achievement of contract objectives.
Contractor delays are jeopardizing performance of contract objectives.
Response to inquiries, technical, service, and administrative issues is not effective.
Rate the Following Score (1 – 5)
COMMENTS
Quality of Product or Service
_____ x 8 = _____
Timeliness of Performance
_____ x 8 = _____
Contract Management _____ x 4 = _____
Overall Rating _____/100 pts
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .