Attachment_5_-_Customer_Reference_Form.docx

DOCX document 37 KB Posted

Attached to
General Transit Feed Specification - Realtime (GTFS-Realtime) Services Master Service Agreements REBID #1
Solicitation number
0000032011
Issued by
Sacramento County, San Francisco City, California

About this file

This document is the Customer Reference Form for the State of California's Request for Proposal (RFP) for General Transit Feed Specification - Realtime (GTFS-Realtime) Services. The RFP is being issued by the Department of General Services Procurement Division, seeking proposals from qualified firms to establish Master Service Agreements (MSAs) for GTFS-Realtime Services. The term of the MSAs will be for three (3) years, with options to extend for two (2) additional two (2) year periods. Bidders must submit three (3) customer references per the RFP requirements, which will be contacted for verification of the bidder's performance.

The RFP requires bidders to provide information on their ability to manage projects, provide timely customer support, meet product and service delivery requirements, and the overall quality and satisfaction with the bidder's services. Bidders must receive satisfactory or higher ratings from their references across these performance areas. This customer reference information will be used to evaluate the bidder's qualifications and capabilities to provide the required GTFS-Realtime Services for local governmental transit agencies in the state of California.

View the file

Other files

File Type Posted
Attachment_4_-_Technical_Questionnaire.xlsx XLSX spreadsheet
Addendum_2_-_Attachment_1_-_Key_Action_Dates.docx DOCX document
Addendum_2_-_Cover_Sheet_RFP_32011.docx DOCX document
Questions_and_Answers_-_08.06.2024_(FINAL).docx DOCX document
Attachment_3_-_Narrative_Response.docx DOCX document
Attachment_7_-_Proposed_Agreement.docx DOCX document
Addendum_2_-_Attachment_7_-_Proposed_Agreement.docx DOCX document
Attachment_6_-_Federal_Certification_Forms.docx DOCX document
Addendum_1_-_Cover_Sheet_RFP_32011.docx DOCX document
Attachment_1_-_Key_Action_Dates.docx DOCX document
Addendum_1_-_Attachment_1_-_Key_Action_Dates.docx DOCX document
Attachment_2_-_Cost_Workbook.xlsx XLSX spreadsheet
RFP_0000032011.docx DOCX document
APP_Cover_Page.docx DOCX document
Show all 14

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

State of CaliforniaGTFS-Realtime Services RFP
Department of General ServicesEvent ID: 0000032011
Procurement DivisionATTACHMENT 5

ATTACHMENT 5 – CUSTOMER REFERENCE FORM

Bidder must submit three (3) customer references for per RFP Section 3.2.1. Customer References may be contacted for verification. Please fill in electronically or print legibly.

CUSTOMER REFERENCE INFORMATION

Contractor Name (Bidder):
Company Name (Bidder’s Customer):
Customer Contact Name:
Customer Contact Title:
Customer Phone Number:
Customer E Mail Address:

Contract Period of Performance (e.g. 1/1/20 – 12/31/20):

Dollar amount of Contract:
Services provided similar to GTFS-Realtime Services as described in Exhibit A.1):

(continued on next page)

CUSTOMER REFERENCE RATINGS

Please summarize contractor performance and select the number in the right column which best corresponds to the performance rating for each question|_|. Please follow the rating guidelines below for description of rating scale Rating Scale:

· Exceptional (5) - Best-in-class performance. Performance met all contract requirements and exceeded several to the customer’s benefit. No issues were encountered|_|.

· Very Good (4) - Performance met all contract requirements and exceeded some to the customer’s benefit. There were a few minor issues, which were negligible|_|.

· Satisfactory (3) - Performance met contract requirements. There were some minor issues, and corrective actions taken by the contractor were acceptable|_|.

· Marginal (2) - Performance did not meet the contractual requirements. There were issues, some of a serious nature, for which corrective action was only somewhat effective|_|.

· Unsatisfactory (1) - Performance did not meet contractual requirements. There were serious issues and the contractor’s corrective actions were ineffective|_|.

Customer Reference Questions
Comments, if desired
Rating
1. How would you rate the Bidder's ability to manage the project and associated staff to meet project goals and objectives?
2. How would you rate the Bidder's turnaround time when contacted to provide customer support or address project issues?
3. How would you rate the Bidder's ability to meet all requirements for product and service delivery in a timely manner?
4. How would you rate the quality of Bidder's products and services?
5. How would you rate your company's overall satisfaction with the Bidder?

Rater’s Signature|_|: Date:

File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .