1-Contract Performance Evaluation FOR REFERENCE USE ONLY.pdf
PDF 312 KB Posted
- Attached to
- AS27-106 Boobe Hole Mastication Project 2026
- Solicitation number
- AS27-106
- Issued by
- Utah
About this file
This is a Rangeland Contract Performance Evaluation form used by the State of Utah Division of Wildlife Resources to assess contractor performance on rangeland management projects. The evaluation measures three primary categories—Quality of Product or Service, Timeliness of Performance, and Contract Management—each scored on a scale of 1 to 5, with weighted multipliers applied to calculate an overall rating out of 100 points. The Boobe Hole Mastication Project 2026, referenced in the related solicitation, requires contractors to provide mastication services with a performance period from December 1, 2026, through January 31, 2027. Participation in this Invitation for Bid is restricted to prequalified contractors only, with award anticipated to go to the lowest cost responsive and responsible vendor. No mandatory site visit or bidders' conference is specified for this project.
Contractors must maintain a minimum average performance score of 60 to remain on the Rangeland Pre-Qualification list; scores below 60 result in removal from the pre-qualification list for that specific treatment and acreage category, though vendors may still bid on open solicitations and reapply at the next open Request for Sealed Quotation. Vendors are monitored throughout project execution, with corrective actions communicated verbally or through 10-day cure letters as needed. Contractors must guarantee their pricing through project completion, and performance scores directly influence their eligibility for future rangeland contract opportunities within the State of Utah.
View the file
Other files
| File | Type | Posted |
|---|---|---|
| 9-Award Memo.pdf | ||
| 3-Att.-A-PO-Terms-and-Conditions (12).docx | DOCX document | |
| 8-AS27-106 bids - Unofficial.xlsx | XLSX spreadsheet | |
| 2-Vendor Prerequisites - IFB Agency.pdf | ||
| 10-AS27-106 bids - Awarded to lowest bid.xlsx | XLSX spreadsheet | |
| 7-Boobe Hole Mastication Phase III Map 2026.pdf | ||
| 5-Boobe Hole Mastication Phase III Map Access 2026.jpg | JPG image | |
| 6-Boobe Hole Mastication Phase III Map 2026 Topo.pdf | ||
| 4-Attachment B Scope of Work.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 .