1-Contract Performance Evaluation FOR REFERENCE USE ONLY.pdf
PDF 312 KB Posted
- Attached to
- NC27-127 Hurricane Cliffs
- Solicitation number
- NC27-127
- Issued by
- Grand County, Utah
About this file
This document is a Rangeland Contract Performance Evaluation form utilized by the State of Utah Division of Purchasing to assess contractor performance on rangeland projects. The evaluation template is designed for use by state agency project managers to monitor vendor compliance and service quality throughout the duration of rangeland treatment contracts. The form captures essential project information including the solicitation number, contract amount, acres treated, and service type provided. Performance ratings are assessed across three primary categories: Quality of Product or Service, Timeliness of Performance, and Contract Management, each scored on a scale of 1 to 5, with weighted multipliers applied to calculate an overall rating out of 100 points. Related to the NC27-127 Hurricane Cliffs contract opportunity in Iron County, Utah, this evaluation framework establishes the performance monitoring mechanism for prequalified contractors selected to perform Cut and Pile work, with project completion required by December 31, 2027.
Contractors must maintain a minimum average performance score of 60 to remain on the Rangeland Pre-Qualification list; failure to meet this threshold results in removal from the list for that specific treatment and acreage category, though vendors may still bid on open solicitations and reapply at the next Request for Sealed Quotation opening. Corrective actions for performance deficiencies are communicated either verbally or through a 10-day cure letter, and vendors are required to complete all requested corrections or face negative performance review documentation. The evaluation criteria are structured to reward exceptional performance with a rating of 5 ("Excellent"), while ratings of 1 ("Fail") indicate non-compliance and jeopardy to contract objectives. Quality of Product or Service is weighted most heavily at 8 points, followed by Timeliness of Performance at 8 points, and Contract Management at 4 points, ensuring comprehensive assessment of contractor accountability and service delivery.
View the file
Other files
| File | Type | Posted |
|---|---|---|
| 5-2026 HurricaneCliffs CutPile Vicinity 11x17L 1.pdf | ||
| 3-Att.-A-PO-Terms-and-Conditions (6).docx | DOCX document | |
| 2-Vendor Prerequisites - IFB Agency.pdf | ||
| 4-2026 HurricaneCliffs CutPile 11x17L 1.pdf | ||
| 6-Attachment B Scope of Work-Shurtz Canyon Cut and Pile.docx | DOCX document |
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 .