1-Contract Performance Evaluation FOR REFERENCE USE ONLY.pdf
PDF 312 KB Posted
- Attached to
- Strawberry Ridge Point of Pines Lop and Scatter
- Solicitation number
- KL27-103
- Issued by
- Utah
About this file
This is a Contract Performance Evaluation Form for rangeland projects issued by the State of Utah Division of Purchasing in coordination with the Department of Natural Resources. The evaluation document establishes the framework for assessing contractor performance on rangeland treatment contracts, including the Strawberry Ridge Point of Pines Lop and Scatter project. The performance review evaluates vendors across three primary categories: Quality of Product or Service, Timeliness of Performance, and Contract Management. All projects must be completed by December 1, 2026, with vendors required to guarantee pricing through project completion. Participation is restricted to prequalified contractors only, with no mandatory site visits specified for this particular solicitation. The contract is anticipated to result in a single award to the lowest cost responsive and responsible vendor.
Contractor performance is rated on a scale of 1 to 5, with weighted scoring: Quality of Product or Service (multiplied by 8), Timeliness of Performance (multiplied by 8), and Contract Management (multiplied by 4), for a maximum of 100 points. Vendors must maintain a minimum average performance score of 60 to remain on the Rangeland Pre-Qualification list; those scoring below 60 are removed from the pre-qualification list for that specific treatment and acreage category and all larger acreage within the same category. Removed vendors may reapply at the next open Request for Sealed Quotation (RFSQ). The evaluation process includes monitoring throughout project execution, with corrective action communicated via verbal notification or 10-day cure letters as appropriate. Vendor performance status directly impacts future eligibility and contract opportunities within the prequalification system.
View the file
Other files
| File | Type | Posted |
|---|---|---|
| 2-Vendor Prerequisites - IFB Agency.pdf | ||
| 4-Attachment B - Scope of Work.docx | DOCX document | |
| point_of_pines_188ac.cpg | — | |
| 9-Award Memo (1).pdf | ||
| 10-KL27-103 Bids - Official.xlsx | XLSX spreadsheet | |
| 7-PointofPinesLopandScatter transportation.pdf | ||
| point_of_pines_188ac.sbx | — | |
| point_of_pines_188ac.dbf | DBF file | |
| 3-Att.-A-PO-Terms-and-Conditions (5).docx | DOCX document | |
| 5-PointofPinesLopandScatter topography.pdf | ||
| point_of_pines_188ac.shp.xml | XML file | |
| point_of_pines_188ac.shx | — | |
| 6-PointoPinesLopandScatter satelite.pdf | ||
| point_of_pines_188ac.prj | — | |
| point_of_pines_188ac.sbn | — | |
| point_of_pines_188ac.shp | — |
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 .