1-Contract Performance Evaluation FOR REFERENCE USE ONLY.pdf
PDF 312 KB Posted
- Attached to
- NC27-107 Meadow Canyon Cut and Pile
- Solicitation number
- NC27-107
- Issued by
- Utah
About this file
This is a Contract Performance Evaluation document issued by the State of Utah Division of Purchasing for rangeland projects. The evaluation framework applies to contractors performing rangeland management services, including the referenced Meadow Canyon Cut and Pile project near Alton, Utah, which involves cut and pile work. The solicitation is limited to prequalified contractors only, and there is no mandatory site visit requirement. The State anticipates awarding a single contract to the lowest cost responsive and responsible vendor. Contractors must guarantee their pricing through project completion. Performance evaluations are conducted throughout each project lifecycle in accordance with Utah Procurement Code 63G-6a-410(5)(e).
The evaluation criteria assess contractors across three categories—Quality of Product or Service (weighted at 8 points), Timeliness of Performance (weighted at 8 points), and Contract Management (weighted at 4 points)—for a total of 100 points. Scores range from 5 (Excellent) to 1 (Fail) based on compliance with contract requirements, delivery of quality products or services, effectiveness in meeting milestones and schedules, and responsiveness to inquiries and administrative issues. Contractors must maintain a minimum average performance score of 60 to remain on the Rangeland Pre-Qualification list. Those falling below 60 are removed from the prequalification list for their specific treatment and acreage category and all larger acreages within that category, though they may still bid on open solicitations and reapply at the next open Request for Sealed Quotation. Corrective actions are communicated verbally or through 10-day cure letters, and failure to complete corrective actions is reflected in performance scores.
View the file
Other files
| File | Type | Posted |
|---|---|---|
| 6-DeerSprings MeadowCanyonVicinityCutAndPile 20260518.pdf | ||
| 4-Attachment B Scope of Work.docx | DOCX document | |
| 2-Vendor Prerequisites - IFB Agency.pdf | ||
| 3-Att.-A-PO-Terms-and-Conditions..docx | DOCX document | |
| 5-DeerSprings MeadowCanyonCutAndPileUnits 20260518.pdf | ||
| 8-Award Memo.pdf | ||
| 7-NC27-107 Bid Table Official.xlsx | XLSX spreadsheet |
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 .