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
| File | Type | Posted |
|---|---|---|
| 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 | |
| 11-Attachment H - Reference Check Score Sheet - for informational purposes only.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 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 .