1-Contract Performance Evaluation FOR REFERENCE USE ONLY.pdf
PDF 312 KB Posted
- Attached to
- AS27-109 Peter's Point Mastication
- Solicitation number
- AS27-109
- Issued by
- Utah
About this file
This is a Contract Performance Evaluation document for reference use only, prepared by the State of Utah Division of Purchasing in conjunction with the State of Utah Division of Wildlife Resources for the AS27-109 Peter's Point Mastication contract opportunity. The solicitation is structured as an Invitation for Bid (IFB) to procure mastication services as detailed in Attachment B. Participation is restricted to prequalified contractors currently listed on the State of Utah's Pre-approved/Pre-qualified Vendor list. The project must be completed within 120 calendar days from the issuance of the official Notice-to-Proceed and associated Purchase Order. No mandatory site visit is required for this solicitation, and it is anticipated that a single contract award will be made to the lowest cost responsive and responsible vendor.
The vendor must guarantee pricing through project completion. The evaluation document serves as a reference tool for assessing contractor performance against established criteria. Specific pricing terms, set-asides, funding sources, and contract amounts are referenced in the associated contract opportunity documentation and supporting attachments. This procurement is structured to ensure cost-effective delivery of mastication services while maintaining quality standards through the prequalification vendor screening process.
View the file
Other files
| File | Type | Posted |
|---|---|---|
| 3-Att.-A-PO-Terms-and-Conditions (15).docx | DOCX document | |
| 7-PetersPoint Travel.pdf | ||
| 4-Attachment B Scope of Work.docx | DOCX document | |
| 2-Vendor Prerequisites - IFB Agency.pdf | ||
| 6-PetersPoint Georeferenced.pdf | ||
| 8-AS27-109 Bids - Unofficial.xlsx | XLSX spreadsheet | |
| 63 acres nontreatment.kmz | KMZ file | |
| Surface Area 907 Contracted 844.kmz | KMZ file |
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 .