1-Contract Performance Evaluation FOR REFERENCE USE ONLY.pdf
PDF 312 KB Posted
- Solicitation number
- AM27-104
- Issued by
- Utah 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 establishes criteria for monitoring vendor compliance and service delivery throughout the duration of rangeland projects. Contractors are evaluated on three primary categories: Quality of Product or Service, Timeliness of Performance, and Contract Management. The solicitation referenced—AM27-104 Goshen Valley Lop and Scatter—seeks lop and scatter services for up to 1,310 acres in Utah County, with a performance period from September 21, 2026, through November 20, 2026. Participation is limited to prequalified contractors only, and the contract will be awarded to the lowest cost responsive and responsible vendor based on cost per acre methodology. No mandatory site visit is required for this solicitation.
The performance evaluation uses a five-point rating scale (1 through 5) with specific descriptors for each level: Excellent, Good, Satisfactory, Unsatisfactory, and Fail. Contractors are scored across the three evaluation categories using weighted multipliers—Quality of Product or Service and Timeliness of Performance are each multiplied by 8, while Contract Management is multiplied by 4—resulting in a maximum overall rating of 100 points. To maintain eligibility on the Rangeland Pre-Qualification list, vendors must sustain a minimum average performance score of 60; scores below this threshold result in removal from the prequalification list for that specific treatment and acreage category. Vendors removed from the list may reapply at the next open Request for Statement of Qualifications, and corrective actions are communicated verbally or through formal 10-day cure letters. Vendors must guarantee their pricing through project completion.
View the file
Other files
| File | Type | Posted |
|---|---|---|
| 20260824_GoshenValley_i_LS.CPG | — | |
| 20260824_GoshenValley_i_LS.sbx | — | |
| 9-Award Memo.pdf | ||
| 5-GoshenValley i LS 8x11 ownership.pdf | ||
| 20260824_GoshenValley_i_LS.shp | — | |
| 3-Attachment A-PO Terms and Conditions.docx | DOCX document | |
| 7-GoshenValley i LS 8x11 imagery.pdf | ||
| 20260824_GoshenValley_i_LS.sbn | — | |
| 2-Vendor Prerequisites - IFB Agency.pdf | ||
| 20260824_GoshenValley_i_LS.shp.xml | XML file | |
| 20260824_GoshenValley_i_LS.prj | — | |
| 6-Attachment B-Scope of Work.docx | DOCX document | |
| 4-GoshenValley i LS 8x11 vicinity.pdf | ||
| 20260824_GoshenValley_i_LS.kmz | KMZ file | |
| 20260824_GoshenValley_i_LS.shx | — | |
| 10-AM27-104 Bid Results.xlsx | XLSX spreadsheet | |
| 20260824_GoshenValley_i_LS.dbf | DBF file |
Show all 17
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 .