1-Contract Performance Evaluation FOR REFERENCE USE ONLY.pdf
PDF 312 KB Posted
- Attached to
- BD27-112 Green River District Herbicide
- Solicitation number
- BD27-112
- Issued by
- Utah County, Utah
About this file
This is a Contract Performance Evaluation form issued by the State of Utah Division of Purchasing for rangeland management projects. The evaluation document establishes standardized criteria for assessing contractor performance on rangeland treatment contracts, including herbicide application projects such as the BD27-112 Green River District Herbicide project near Vernal, UT, which involves aerial herbicide application on 10,934.2 acres. The State of Utah requires project managers to conduct performance reviews throughout the contract period, which extends from the time of award until October 3rd, 2026. Contractors are evaluated on three primary categories: Quality of Product or Service, Timeliness of Performance, and Contract Management, each weighted differently in the overall scoring calculation. Vendors are monitored continuously throughout project execution, and any corrective actions required are communicated verbally or through a 10-day cure letter, with compliance directly affecting performance review scores.
Contractors must maintain a minimum average performance score of 60 to remain on the Rangeland Pre-Qualification list. Scoring uses a five-point scale with Excellent (5), Good (4), Satisfactory (3), Unsatisfactory (2), and Fail (1) designations, with Quality of Product or Service weighted at 8 points, Timeliness of Performance at 8 points, and Contract Management at 4 points, for a total possible score of 100 points. If a vendor's average performance score drops below 60, they 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 at the next open Request for Sealed Quote (RFSQ) and remain eligible to bid on open solicitations. This performance evaluation framework ensures contractors delivering rangeland management services maintain quality standards and timely delivery while providing the State with a mechanism to identify and address performance deficiencies.
View the file
Other files
Show all 15
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 .