1-Contract Performance Evaluation FOR REFERENCE USE ONLY.pdf
PDF 312 KB Posted
- Attached to
- BD27-115 Porcupine Knoll Lop & Scatter
- Solicitation number
- BD27-115
- Issued by
- Summit County, Utah
About this file
This is a Contract Performance Evaluation document related to a prequalified vendor solicitation issued by the State of Utah Division of Purchasing on behalf of the Division of Wildlife Resources for forest restoration services. The invitation for bid (IFB) seeks hand cut and pile services on encroaching conifers across 390 acres in the Twelve Mile drainage within the South Manti Big Game Habitat Restoration project on the Sanpete Ranger District of the Manti La Sal National Forest. The project must be completed by November 31st, 2026. A mandatory site visit will not be held prior to bidding; however, potential bidders are strongly encouraged to inspect the site to familiarize themselves with general and local conditions that may affect cost estimates. Failure to conduct a site inspection does not constitute grounds for claims after contract award. The contract award is anticipated to be made to the lowest cost responsive and responsible vendor, with the contract term extending from the time of award until November 31st, 2026.
Participation in this solicitation is limited exclusively to prequalified contractors currently listed on the state's pre-approved/pre-qualified vendor list; contractors not on this list are prohibited from submitting bids. Vendors must guarantee their pricing through project completion. The evaluation referenced in this document serves as a performance assessment tool to determine contractor suitability for award. No additional information regarding pricing terms, set-asides, funding sources, or amounts is specified in the provided materials.
View the file
Other files
| File | Type | Posted |
|---|---|---|
| Polygons.prj | — | |
| Polygons.cpg | — | |
| Polygons.shp.xml | XML file | |
| 3-ATT B BD27-115 Porcupine knoll Lop Scatter.pdf | ||
| Polygons.sbn | — | |
| Polygons.shx | — | |
| 7-PorcupineKnollTravel 2026.pdf | ||
| 2-Vendor Prerequisites - IFB Agency.pdf | ||
| Polygons.sbx | — | |
| 6-PorcupineKnollLocation lop and scatter 2026.pdf | ||
| Lop scatter 2026 Porcupine knoll.kmz | KMZ file | |
| Polygons.shp | — | |
| Polygons.dbf | DBF file |
Show all 13
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 .