1-Contract Performance Evaluation FOR REFERENCE USE ONLY.pdf
PDF 312 KB Posted
- Attached to
- BD27-111-1 Triangle Uplands Aerial Seeding
- Solicitation number
- BD27-111-1
- Issued by
- Garfield County, Utah
About this file
This is a Contract Performance Evaluation form used by the State of Utah Division of Purchasing to assess contractor performance on rangeland projects. The evaluation applies to vendors bidding on state contracts, including the Triangle Uplands Aerial Seeding project (BD27-111-1) in Grand County, Utah, which requires aerial seeding services on a base acreage of 1,776 acres with an optional 50 acres. Base acreage units M01-M15 must be completed by November 1st, 2026, while units S01-S03 and optional acreage must be completed by November 15th, 2026. The contract includes transport of seed to the airport in addition to seeding services. No mandatory site visit is required prior to bidding, though potential bidders are strongly encouraged to inspect the site. The IFB anticipates a single contract award to the lowest cost responsive and responsible vendor, and vendors must guarantee pricing for the duration of the contract.
The performance evaluation document establishes minimum performance standards that vendors must maintain to remain on the State of Utah's Rangeland Pre-Qualification list. Vendors are rated on three categories—Quality of Product or Service, Timeliness of Performance, and Contract Management—each weighted differently to produce an overall score out of 100 points. A minimum average performance score of 60 is required to remain on the pre-qualification list; vendors scoring below 60 are removed from the list for their specific treatment and acreage category and all larger acreages within that category, though they may still bid on open solicitations. The evaluation criteria include ratings from Excellent (5) to Fail (1), with detailed descriptions of compliance expectations and corrective action procedures. Vendors are monitored throughout project performance, and any deficiencies are communicated verbally or through a 10-day cure notice.
View the file
Other files
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 .