1-Contract Performance Evaluation FOR REFERENCE USE ONLY.pdf
PDF 312 KB Posted
- Solicitation number
- AM27-112
- Issued by
- Tooele County, Utah
About this file
This document is a Rangeland Contract Performance Evaluation form used by the State of Utah Division of Wildlife Resources to assess contractor performance on rangeland treatment projects. The evaluation is mandated under Procurement Code 63G-6a-410(5)(e) and applies to all rangeland projects managed by the State. The form is completed by the State agency project manager and monitors contractor performance throughout the project duration. Performance reviews assess contractors across three primary criteria: Quality of Product or Service, Timeliness of Performance, and Contract Management. The State communicates performance issues verbally or through a 10-day cure letter, and contractors must complete any corrective actions requested or face documentation in their performance review scores.
Contractors must maintain a minimum average performance score of 60 to remain on the Rangeland Pre-Qualification list. Scores are calculated using a weighted formula in which Quality of Product or Service and Timeliness of Performance are each multiplied by eight, and Contract Management is multiplied by four, for a total possible score of 100 points. The rating scale ranges from 5 (Excellent) to 1 (Fail), with detailed performance descriptors for each level. If a contractor's average performance score drops below 60, they are removed from the pre-qualification list for that specific treatment and acreage category and all larger acreage within the same treatment category. Removed contractors may still bid on open solicitations and may reapply at the next open Request for Sealed Quotation (RFSQ).
View the file
Other files
| File | Type | Posted |
|---|---|---|
| 20260825_Ibapah_i_BH.dbf | DBF file | |
| 3-Ibapah i BH 8x11 vicinity.pdf | ||
| 9-AM27-112 Bid Results(UNOFFICIAL).xlsx | XLSX spreadsheet | |
| 5-Attachment A-PO Terms and Conditions.docx | DOCX document | |
| 20260825_Ibapah_i_BH.shp | — | |
| 20260825_Ibapah_i_BH.sbx | — | |
| 20260825_Ibapah_i_BH.prj | — | |
| 4-Ibapah i BH 8x11 imagery.pdf | ||
| 20260825_Ibapah_i_BH.kmz | KMZ file | |
| 20260825_Ibapah_i_BH.shx | — | |
| 20260825_Ibapah_i_BH.CPG | — | |
| 2-Vendor Prerequisites - IFB Agency.pdf | ||
| 8-Attachment B-Scope of Work.docx | DOCX document | |
| 7-Ibapah i BH 8x11 ownership.pdf | ||
| 20260825_Ibapah_i_BH.shp.xml | XML file | |
| 20260825_Ibapah_i_BH.sbn | — |
Show all 16
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 .