1-Contract Performance Evaluation FOR REFERENCE USE ONLY.pdf
PDF 312 KB Posted
- Attached to
- AS27-113 Clarks Valley Lop and Scatter
- Solicitation number
- AS27-113
- Issued by
- Utah
About this file
This is a Rangeland Contract Performance Evaluation form issued by the State of Utah Division of Purchasing and State of Utah Division of Wildlife Resources for monitoring contractor performance on rangeland management projects. The document establishes the evaluation framework for assessing vendor performance on rangeland treatment contracts, with specific reference to the AS27-113 Clarks Valley Lop and Scatter project. The evaluation criteria measure three primary performance categories: Quality of Product or Service, Timeliness of Performance, and Contract Management. The work must be completed between October 12, 2026, and November 30, 2026, with contractors required to work diligently and complete all activities before the November 30 deadline. Extensions beyond this date are possible only with prior Project Manager approval and only if weather conditions permit. The contractor must guarantee pricing through project completion, and mandatory site visits are not required for this particular solicitation.
The performance evaluation uses a weighted scoring system where Quality of Product or Service and Timeliness of Performance are each weighted at 8 points, Contract Management is weighted at 4 points, for a total of 100 possible points. Contractors must maintain a minimum average performance score of 60 to remain on the Rangeland Pre-Qualification list; those falling below this threshold are removed from the pre-qualification list for that specific treatment and acreage category, though they may still bid on open solicitations. Participation in this solicitation is limited to prequalified contractors only, and vendors not on the current pre-approved/pre-qualified vendor list are prohibited from submitting bids. The evaluation form tracks overall ratings across Quality of Service, Timeliness of Performance, and Contract Management, with corrective actions communicated verbally or through 10-day cure letters as needed.
View the file
Other files
| File | Type | Posted |
|---|---|---|
| 2-Vendor Prerequisites - IFB Agency.pdf | ||
| 4-ClarksValleyLopAndScatter 36x48Map 20260911.pdf | ||
| 3-Attachment B Scope of Work.docx | DOCX document | |
| 6-ClarksValleyLopAndScatter OverviewMap 20260911.pdf | ||
| ClarksValleyLopAndScatter_kmz.kmz | KMZ file | |
| 7-Att.-A-PO-Terms-and-Conditions (16).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 .