9-Attachment G - Rangeland Contract Performance Evaluation - Informational.docx

DOCX document 21 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 rangeland contract performance evaluation form issued by the State of Utah, Division of Purchasing, for monitoring contractor performance on rangeland treatment projects. The evaluation assesses vendors providing services including Mastication, Lop & Scatter, Chaining, Harrowing, Cut & Pile, Cut & Chip, Tamarisk/Russian Olive Removal, and Drill Seeding across various acreage categories. The State's project manager completes the performance review throughout the contract period and communicates corrective actions to vendors either verbally or through a 10-day cure letter when deficiencies are identified. Vendors must comply with all corrective actions requested, with non-compliance reflected in their performance scores. The evaluation period aligns with the 12-month prequalification validity period established by the related RFSQ.

The performance evaluation employs a scoring system 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 possible points. Each category is rated on a scale of 1 to 5, with descriptors ranging from Fail to Excellent. Vendors 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 pre-qualification list for that specific treatment and acreage category and all larger acreages within the same treatment category. Removed vendors may reapply at the next open RFSQ or submit bids on Open Bid solicitations. This performance evaluation mechanism ensures accountability and quality standards for the State's rangeland restoration and management projects.

View the file

Other files

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 G

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 .