1-Contract Performance Evaluation FOR REFERENCE USE ONLY.pdf
PDF 312 KB Posted
- Attached to
- NC27-4 American Fork Cut and Chip
- Solicitation number
- NC27-4
- Issued by
- Utah
About this file
This is a Contract Performance Evaluation document for reference use prepared by the State of Utah Division of Purchasing in coordination with the Wildlife agency for the NC27-4 American Fork Cut and Chip contract opportunity. The project involves cut and chip work in American Fork Canyon, with a performance period running from April 1st through November 30th. Participation in this Invitation for Bid is limited exclusively to prequalified contractors on the current Pre-approved/Pre-qualified Vendor list, and no mandatory site visit is required. The solicitation is anticipated to result in a single contract award to the lowest cost responsive and responsible vendor.
Vendors must guarantee their pricing through completion of the project. The evaluation document serves as a reference tool for assessing contractor performance against established criteria throughout the contract term. No specific pricing information, set-asides, or renewal options are detailed in this reference evaluation document, which functions primarily as a performance measurement instrument rather than a pricing or terms specification sheet.
View the file
Other files
| File | Type | Posted |
|---|---|---|
| 5-LowerAFCnC 3Ac NPS Contractor (1).pdf | ||
| 2-Vendor Prerequisites - IFB Agency.pdf | ||
| LowerAFCnC_21Ac_FSContractor.pdf | ||
| 8-Attachment B Scope of Work.docx | DOCX document | |
| LowerAF CnC_Contractor21Ac (1).kmz | KMZ file | |
| LowerAF_NPS CnC_Contractor3Ac.kmz | KMZ file | |
| 3-Att.-A-PO-Terms-and-Conditions.docx | DOCX document | |
| FS_SOW_LowerAF Cut Chip FY 26.docx | DOCX document | |
| 6-LowerAFCnC 21Ac FSContractor (1).pdf | ||
| LowerAFCnC_3Ac_NPS_Contractor.pdf | ||
| LowerAF CnC_Contractor21Ac.kmz | KMZ file | |
| LowerAF_NPS CnC_Contractor3Ac (1).kmz | KMZ file |
Show all 12
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 .