1-Contract Performance Evaluation FOR REFERENCE USE ONLY.pdf
PDF 312 KB Posted
- Solicitation number
- BD26-69
- Issued by
- Weber County, Hildale City, Utah
About this file
This is a Contract Performance Evaluation document issued by the State of Utah Division of Forestry, Fire, & State Lands in conjunction with the BD26-69 Wolf Creek Ranch Big Pole & Herd Hollow Forest Health Thinning project. The solicitation requests Cut & Pile services on 32 acres of private property in Wasatch County, with a completion deadline of June 30th, 2026. Participation is restricted to prequalified contractors only. A mandatory in-person site visit is required on Tuesday, May 5th, 2026 at 9:30 a.m., departing from the LDS Church located at 6250 E 1200 S Heber, UT 84032, where bidders will follow the project manager via 4x4 vehicles to the project site. An attendance log will be maintained documenting all attendees, their represented entities, contact information, and any verbal modifications made during the site visit, which will be published as an addendum to the solicitation. Authorized representatives must attend the entire duration of the mandatory site visit and may not use phones or engage in unrelated discussions during the visit; late arrivals will result in disqualification.
The performance evaluation document establishes the framework for monitoring contractor compliance throughout rangeland projects. Contractors are evaluated across three categories—Quality of Product or Service (weighted at 8 points), Timeliness of Performance (weighted at 8 points), and Contract Management (weighted at 4 points)—on a scale of 1 to 5, with ratings ranging from Excellent to Fail. To remain on the Rangeland Pre-Qualification list, vendors must maintain a minimum average performance score of 60. Vendors whose scores drop below 60 are removed from the pre-qualification list for that specific treatment/acreage category and all larger acreage within that same treatment category. Removed vendors may still submit bids on Open Bid solicitations and may reapply at the next open RFSQ. Corrective actions will be communicated verbally or via a 10-day cure letter, and failure to complete required corrective actions will be reflected in performance review scores.
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 .