1-Contract Performance Evaluation FOR REFERENCE USE ONLY.pdf
PDF 312 KB Posted
- Solicitation number
- BD27-110
- Issued by
- Utah
About this file
This file is a Rangeland Contract Performance Evaluation form used by the State of Utah Division of Purchasing to assess contractor performance on rangeland projects. The evaluation document establishes the framework for ongoing monitoring of vendor performance throughout project execution, with assessments conducted by the state agency project manager according to standardized criteria. The form is designed to be completed for each rangeland treatment project and references the specific solicitation number, project manager, contract amount, service provided, acreage, and overall performance rating. The contract period for the related project (BD27-110 Five Mile Brush Mowing and Chemical Application) spans from October 1st, 2026, through April 15th, 2027, with a strong preference for completion before winter. The project involves brush removal through mowing and herbicide application on 235 acres of private land near Panguitch, Utah, using a wet blade mowing system. A mandatory site visit is not required, though potential bidders are strongly encouraged to inspect the site independently. The anticipated contract will be awarded to the lowest cost responsive and responsible vendor, with vendors required to guarantee pricing through project completion.
The performance evaluation utilizes a weighted scoring system across three categories: Quality of Product or Service (multiplied by 8), Timeliness of Performance (multiplied by 8), and Contract Management (multiplied by 4), yielding a total score of 100 points. Ratings range from 5 (Excellent) to 1 (Fail), with detailed descriptions of performance expectations at each level. Vendors must maintain a minimum average performance score of 60 to remain on the Rangeland Pre-Qualification list; those dropping below this threshold are removed from the list for that specific treatment and acreage category and all larger acreages within the same treatment category. Removed vendors may reapply at the next open Request for Sealed Quote (RFSQ). Corrective actions are communicated verbally or via a 10-day cure letter, with failure to comply reflected in performance review scores. This evaluation structure ensures ongoing accountability and quality standards for rangeland contract performance.
View the file
Other files
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 .