1-Contract Performance Evaluation FOR REFERENCE USE ONLY.pdf
PDF 312 KB Posted
- Attached to
- BD27-105-1 Triangle Uplands Mastication - Repost
- Solicitation number
- BD27-105-1
- Issued by
- Garfield County, Utah
About this file
This is a Rangeland Contract Performance Evaluation form used by the State of Utah Division of Purchasing and Wildlife Resources to assess contractor performance on rangeland treatment projects. The evaluation document establishes the criteria and methodology for monitoring vendor performance throughout project execution, with particular application to the Triangle Uplands Mastication project requiring mastication treatments on 1,100.3 base acres and 527.1 optional acres of pinyon/juniper vegetation in Grand County. The project performance period spans November 1, 2026 through February 28, 2027 and August 1, 2027 through September 28, 2027, with no work permitted between March 1 and July 31, 2027 due to wildlife restrictions. No mandatory site visit is required prior to bidding, though potential bidders are strongly encouraged to inspect the site. The solicitation is limited to prequalified contractors only, and a single contract award is anticipated to the lowest cost responsive and responsible vendor.
The evaluation form assesses contractor performance across three primary categories—Quality of Product or Service, Timeliness of Performance, and Contract Management—using a five-point rating scale (Excellent to Fail) with weighted scoring that produces an overall rating out of 100 points. Vendors must maintain a minimum average performance score of 60 to remain on the Rangeland Pre-Qualification list; those scoring below 60 are removed from the pre-qualification list for the specific treatment and acreage category and all larger acreages within that category, though they may still bid on open solicitations. The contract budget for the Triangle Uplands project is $721,079 for all acres, and vendors must guarantee pricing through project completion. Corrective action for performance deficiencies will be communicated verbally or through a 10-day cure letter, with results reflected in performance review scores.
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 .