1-Contract Performance Evaluation FOR REFERENCE USE ONLY.pdf
PDF 312 KB Posted
- Solicitation number
- JH27-112
- Issued by
- Weber County, Utah
About this file
This is a Contract Performance Evaluation form from the State of Utah Division of Wildlife Resources used to assess rangeland contractor performance on state projects. The evaluation document establishes the framework for monitoring contractors throughout project execution and maintaining qualification standards for the rangeland pre-qualification vendor list. The related solicitation, JH27-112 Soapstone Meadows Encroachment, seeks cut and pile services for approximately 115 acres in the Soapstone Area near Kamas, Utah. A mandatory site visit is scheduled for September 22, 2026, at 10:00 AM at the Soapstone Area Parking Grounds (FR 142, Kamas, UT 84036). The project performance timeline is 60 calendar days from the Notice-to-Proceed, with a final invoice deadline of December 6, 2026. A single contract award will be made to the lowest cost responsive and responsible prequalified vendor, and vendor pricing must remain guaranteed through project completion.
The performance evaluation system uses a weighted scoring methodology across three categories: Quality of Product or Service (8-point multiplier), Timeliness of Performance (8-point multiplier), and Contract Management (4-point multiplier), with possible scores of 1 to 5 in each category, resulting in a total of 100 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 list for that specific treatment and acreage category as well as all larger acreages within the same treatment category. Removed vendors may reapply at the next open Request for Sealed Quotation (RFSQ). Participation in this solicitation is limited exclusively to prequalified contractors currently on the approved vendor list. Corrective actions for performance deficiencies are communicated verbally or through 10-day cure letters, with compliance reflected in final performance review scores.
View the file
Other files
| File | Type | Posted |
|---|---|---|
| 10-JH27-112 Unofficial Bid Results.xlsx | XLSX spreadsheet | |
| 6-ProjectMap - JPG File - revised.jpg | JPG image | |
| Soapstone.kmz | KMZ file | |
| 5-Att.-A-PO-Terms-and-Conditions.pdf | ||
| 8-JH27-112 Site Visit Sign-In Sheet.pdf | ||
| 4-Attachment B Scope of Work - ADA Compliant.pdf | ||
| 2-Vendor Prerequisites - IFB Agency.pdf | ||
| 9-JH27-112 Project Clarifications.docx | DOCX document | |
| 7-ProjectMap - PDF File - revised.pdf |
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 .