1-Contract Performance Evaluation FOR REFERENCE USE ONLY.pdf
PDF 312 KB Posted
- Attached to
- BD26-80 New Legacy Property Cut & Pile
- Solicitation number
- BD26-80
- Issued by
- Summit County, Utah
About this file
This is a Contract Performance Evaluation document for reference use related to an Invitation for Bid (IFB) issued by the State of Utah Division of Purchasing, conducted by the Division of Forestry, Fire, and State Lands. The solicitation seeks Hand Cut & Pile services on 31 acres of private property located in Summit County to improve forest health conditions through reduction of fuel buildup from dead standing, live standing, downed, and diseased trees. The project must be completed by October 9th, 2026. Participation is limited to prequalified contractors only, and bidders must attend a mandatory in-person site visit on Tuesday, June 9th, 2026 at 9:00 a.m. at Oakley City Hall parking lot (960 W Center St., Oakley, UT). An authorized representative of each bidding entity must attend the entire duration of the site visit without interruption from phone calls or texts, with phones permitted only for photography. Failure to attend or arriving late will result in disqualification. An attendance log documenting attendee names, entities represented, contact information, and minutes from the site visit will be maintained and published as an addendum.
The evaluation document provides reference guidance for assessing contractor performance on this project. Specific pricing terms, set-asides, funding amounts, and other financial details are referenced within the evaluation framework but require review of complete bid documentation and contract terms for comprehensive information.
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 .