1-Contract Performance Evaluation FOR REFERENCE USE ONLY.pdf
PDF 312 KB Posted
- Attached to
- AM26-69 Paradise Springs Mastication
- Solicitation number
- AM26-69
- Issued by
- Grand County, Utah
About this file
This is a Rangeland Contract Performance Evaluation form prepared by the State of Utah Division of Wildlife Resources to assess contractor performance on rangeland projects. The evaluation document establishes the framework for monitoring vendor compliance and service delivery on mastication and other rangeland treatment contracts. The related solicitation (AM26-69 Paradise Springs Mastication) seeks mastication services for 338 acres in Iron County, with a project performance period from March 15, 2026 through June 15, 2026. No mandatory site visit is required for this invitation for bid, and award will be made to the lowest cost responsive and responsible vendor based on cost per acre. Participation is limited to prequalified contractors only, with vendors required to guarantee pricing through project completion.
The performance evaluation form assesses contractors across three weighted criteria: Quality of Product or Service (8x multiplier), Timeliness of Performance (8x multiplier), and Contract Management (4x multiplier), with ratings on a scale of 1 to 5 resulting in a total score of 100 points. To remain on the Rangeland Pre-Qualification list, vendors must maintain a minimum average performance score of 60; those falling below this threshold are removed from the pre-qualification list for the specific treatment and acreage category and all larger acreage within that category. Removed vendors may still bid on open solicitations and may reapply at the next open request for statement of qualifications. The State communicates corrective actions verbally or through 10-day cure letters, and contractor performance is monitored throughout project execution in accordance with Utah Procurement Code 63G-6a-410(5)(e).
View the file
Other files
| File | Type | Posted |
|---|---|---|
| 7-Attachment A-PO Terms and Conditions.docx | DOCX document | |
| 6-Paradise Springs Mastication Map - Stan Gurley.pdf | ||
| 4-Attachment B- Scope of Work.docx | DOCX document | |
| 3-Paradise Springs Mastication.zip | ZIP file | |
| 5-General Location Map - Stan Gurley (1) (1).pdf | ||
| 2-Vendor Prerequisites - IFB Agency.pdf |
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 .