1-Contract Performance Evaluation FOR REFERENCE USE ONLY.pdf
PDF 312 KB Posted
- Attached to
- BD26-28 South Canyon Big Flat Mastication
- Solicitation number
- BD26-28
- Issued by
- Carbon County, Utah
About this file
The document is a Rangeland Contract Performance Evaluation form from the State of Utah, designed to systematically assess contractor performance for rangeland projects. The form provides a comprehensive evaluation framework with ratings from 1-5 across three key performance categories: Quality of Service, Timeliness of Performance, and Contract Management. Contractors are monitored throughout their project, with potential corrective actions communicated via verbal notifications or 10-day cure letters, and their ongoing performance directly impacts their eligibility to remain on the Rangeland Pre-Qualification list.
To remain pre-qualified, vendors must maintain a minimum average performance score of 60, with scores calculated by multiplying category ratings by specific weights (Quality of Product/Service: 8 points, Timeliness of Performance: 8 points, Contract Management: 4 points, for a total possible 100-point evaluation). If a vendor's average performance score drops below 60, they will be removed from the pre-qualification list for specific treatment/acreage categories. However, removed vendors may still submit bids on Open Bid solicitations and can reapply during the next Request for Statement of Qualifications (RFSQ) cycle. The evaluation form allows project managers to provide detailed comments and specific numerical ratings to document contractor performance comprehensively.
View the file
Other files
| File | Type | Posted |
|---|---|---|
| 2-Vendor Prerequisites - IFB Agency.pdf | ||
| 4-ATT B Scope of Work BD26-28.pdf | ||
| 3-20250814 BigFlat Bullhog.zip | ZIP file | |
| 5-2025 BigFlat Bullhog Vicinity 11x17P.pdf | ||
| 6-2025 BigFlat Bullhog 11x17P.pdf | ||
| 7-Big Flat Bullhog KMZ.zip | ZIP file |
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 .