11-Attachment H - Reference Check Score Sheet - for informational purposes only.docx
DOCX document 16 KB Posted
- Attached to
- NC27-118 FY27 State of Utah Rangeland Pre-Qual List -- Request for Statement of Qualifications (RFSQ)
- Solicitation number
- NC27-118
- Issued by
- Utah
About this file
This is a Reference Check Score Sheet developed by the State of Utah for evaluating contractor performance on rangeland services projects. The sheet is designed to assess qualified vendors being considered for Utah's Rangeland Pre-Qualification list, which includes services such as Mastication, Lop & Scatter, Chaining, Harrowing, Cut & Pile, Cut & Chip, Tamarisk/Russian Olive Removal, and Drill Seeding. The reference evaluation process utilizes a standardized scoring methodology to assess contractor capabilities across five key performance dimensions: overall work quality and specification compliance, ability to meet project timelines and schedules, initiative and proactive project management, adaptability to changing conditions and weather challenges, and communication effectiveness with project managers. The scoring instrument accommodates the unpredictable nature of rangeland work, recognizing that weather variations and terrain challenges require contractor flexibility and responsiveness.
The Reference Check Score Sheet employs a five-point numerical scale with standardized definitions: 1 = Fail (inadequate, fails to meet requirements), 2 = Unsatisfactory (major performance problems), 3 = Satisfactory (meets requirements), 4 = Good (exceeds requirements), and 5 = Excellent (performance exceeds requirements in multiple areas). Reference providers answer each of the five evaluation questions and may provide additional comments. This assessment tool serves as an informational resource for the State of Utah's Division of Purchasing to evaluate contractor qualifications for inclusion on the 12-month Rangeland Pre-Qualification list, which is reopened annually for new vendor submissions and can be reopened at any time at the State's discretion.
View the file
Other files
| File | Type | Posted |
|---|---|---|
| 9-Attachment G - Rangeland Contract Performance Evaluation - Informational.docx | DOCX document | |
| 5-2026-Rangeland-PreQual-per-Contractor-02.03.2026.doc | DOC document | |
| 6-Attachment C - Technical Criteria.docx | DOCX document | |
| 8-Attachment E - Reference Experience Form.xlsx | XLSX spreadsheet | |
| 7-Attachment D General Job Descriptions.pdf | ||
| 2-Vendor Prerequisites - Part 15.pdf | ||
| 1-Claim of Business Confidentiality Updated.pdf.pdf | ||
| 3-Att.-A-PO-Terms-and-Conditions.docx | DOCX document | |
| 4-Attachment B Work Requirements.docx | DOCX document | |
| 10-Attachment F - Rangeland Job Categories and Sizes.doc | DOC document |
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
Attachment H
Reference Check Score Sheet
Reference Questions:
1. What was the overall quality of the work that this contractor performed? On a scale of 1-5, how were quality specifications met?
2. Was the contractor able to start and complete the project within the timeframe specified by the Statement of Work (SOW)? How would you rate their ability to complete the job in a timely manner?
3. Once the work on a contract has started, it is the responsibility of the contractor to take the initiative to stay on schedule and see that the work meets the quality and time frame stated in the SOW. How would you rate the initiative taken by this supervisor and their crew?
4. The type of work that we do is very unpredictable. Weather changes quickly and terrain can create challenges. How would you rate this contractor on their ability to adapt to changing situations?
5. Due to the unpredictable nature of this type of work, it is also important to maintain active communication between the project manager and the contractor. How would you rate this contractor on their communication? Were there any communication barriers to overcome, and, if so, how well did the contractor work through those issues?
Any additional comments?
Scoring Criteria:
All questions will be answered using a scale of 1-5. Scores will be assigned as follows:
1 = Fail – inadequate, fails to meet requirements 2 = Unsatisfactory – major problems with performance 3 = Satisfactory – meets requirements 4 = Good – exceeds requirements 5 = Excellent – performance exceeds requirements in multiple areas
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .