1-Contract Performance Evaluation FOR REFERENCE USE ONLY.pdf
PDF 312 KB Posted
- Attached to
- AS27-100 Scipio North Lop and Scatter
- Solicitation number
- AS27-100
- Issued by
- Utah
About this file
This is a Rangeland Contract Performance Evaluation form issued by the State of Utah Division of Wildlife Resources for use in assessing contractor performance on rangeland management projects. The evaluation is conducted by state agency project managers and monitors vendor performance throughout the duration of rangeland contracts. The document establishes a standardized rating system to assess three primary categories: Quality of Product or Service, Timeliness of Performance, and Contract Management. Each category is scored on a scale of 1 to 5, with specific performance descriptors ranging from "Excellent" to "Fail." The overall rating is calculated using a weighted formula: Quality of Product or Service multiplied by 8, Timeliness of Performance multiplied by 8, and Contract Management multiplied by 4, resulting in a total possible score of 100 points. Vendors are informed of their performance status during project execution, and corrective actions are communicated either verbally or through a 10-day cure letter depending on the nature of deficiencies identified.
To maintain eligibility on the Rangeland Pre-Qualification list, vendors must sustain a minimum average performance score of 60. Vendors whose scores fall below this threshold are removed from the pre-qualification list for that specific treatment and acreage category and all larger acreages within the same treatment category. Removed vendors may reapply during the next open Request for Sealed Quotation cycle and remain eligible to bid on open solicitations. The evaluation process ensures accountability and continuous performance monitoring, with documented ratings serving as a basis for vendor qualification status and future contract opportunities within the State of Utah's rangeland management program.
View the file
Other files
Show all 18
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 .