ATTACHMENT D Reference Check Form.docx
DOCX document 41 KB Posted
- Solicitation number
- S-DASOBO-00015289
- Issued by
- Marion County, Oregon
About this file
This is an Attachment D Reference Check Form for RFP S-DASOBO-00015289, issued by the Department of Administrative Services (DAS) Procurement Services for GPS Satellite Tracking Collars and Associated Equipment for Various Species. The reference check form establishes the evaluation criteria for proposer references as outlined in Section 3.3.2 of the RFP. Each proposer must submit three completed Reference Check Forms, with one form per reference entity. The reference check process is administered by DAS Procurement Services, which will make up to three contact attempts for each provided reference. If DAS Procurement Services cannot successfully contact a reference, the proposer receives a score of zero for that reference.
The reference evaluation is scored on a total of 30 possible points, with a maximum of 10 points awarded per reference. Each reference is assessed using 10 rating questions scored on a 0-10 scale, with the total scores averaged to determine the final reference score. The evaluation criteria address overall service quality and business relationship, timeline adherence, customer service responsiveness, business satisfaction, likelihood of future service use, premature battery failure rates, firmware or software failure rates, incorrect mortality identification rates, proactive communication regarding changes, and quality of device updates or improvements. Performance thresholds are provided for technical metrics including battery reliability, software reliability, and mortality identification accuracy, each with specific percentage ranges corresponding to numerical ratings from 0 to 10.
View the file
Other files
| File | Type | Posted |
|---|---|---|
| ATTACHMENT A EXHIBIT A-1 Specifications.xlsx | XLSX spreadsheet | |
| ATTACHMENT B Disclosure Exemption Affidavit.docx | DOCX document | |
| RFP S-DASOBO-00015289.pdf | ||
| ATTACHMENT F Certified Disadvantaged Business Outreach Plan.docx | DOCX document | |
| RFP S-DASOBO-00015289 Amendment 1.pdf | ||
| ATTACHMENT C Proposer Information Certification Sheet.docx | DOCX document | |
| PL2126-Sample Contract - Attachment C.pdf | ||
| ATTACHMENT H Scored Proposal Components Form.docx | DOCX document | |
| ATTACHMENT G Responsibility Inquiry.docx | DOCX document | |
| Bid Proposal Questions-Clarifications.pdf | ||
| ATTACHMENT E Price Proposal.xlsx | XLSX spreadsheet | |
| ATTACHMENT A Sample Price Agreement.docx | DOCX document |
Show all 12
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
RFP [###-####-##] – [RFP title]
ATTACHMENT F - REFERENCE CHECK FORM
RFP # S-DASOBO-00015289 GPS Satellite Tracking Collars and Associated Equipment for Various Species Att D
ATTACHMENT D - REFERENCE CHECK FORM
Grand Total Points Possible (30), 10 Maximum Points for Each Reference As required in Section 3.3.2 of the RFP, Proposer shall submit completed Section I - Reference Information section of the Reference Check Form from three (3) References.
Proposer must submit one (1) Attachment D for each Reference .
SECTION I – REFERENCE INFORMATION
| Proposer Name: | __________________________________________ |
| Reference Entity: | __________________________________________ |
| Reference Contact Name: | __________________________________________ |
| Contact Telephone Number: | __________________________________________ |
| Contact Email Address: | __________________________________________ |
SECTION II – REFERENCE CHECK
DO NOT COMPLETE THIS SECTION II - DAS SPS will make three (3) attempts to contact each of the references provided by the Proposer. If these attempts are unsuccessful, the Proposer will receive a score of zero for that reference.
When DAS SPS contacts each Reference, the following questions will be rated on a scale of 0-10:
Each reference has 10 questions to rate on a scale of 0 to 10. The total number of rated scores will be averaged for each reference score.
1. How would you rate the Proposer’s overall quality of services provided and your overall relationship with the Proposer? (0 means “very poor”; 5 means “average”; and 10 means “excellent”) Rating:________
2. How would you rate the Proposer’s adherence to the proposed timeline? (0 means “very poor”;
5 means “average”; and 10 means “excellent”) Rating:________
3. How would you rate the Proposer’s responsiveness to customer service issues and special requests (e.g., reported problems, changes in billing, etc.)? (0 means “not responsive at all”; 5 means “average”; and 10 means “extremely responsive and timely”) Rating:________
4. How satisfied are you with your overall business relationship with the Proposer? (0 means “dissatisfied; 5 means “satisfied”; and 10 means “highly satisfied”) Rating:________
5. How likely are you to use the Proposer’s services again? (0 means “not at all likely”; 5 means “likely”; and 10 means “extremely likely”) Rating:________
6. What percentage of collars stopped transmitting due to battery failure prior to the minimum estimated battery life of the collars (see table below for rating)?
Rating: ________
| Premature Battery Failure Rate |
| Performance Interpretation |
| Rating (0–10) |
| 0% – 5% |
| Excellent battery reliability |
| 9 – 10 |
| 6% – 10% |
| Good performance; minor concerns |
| 7 – 8 |
| 11% – 20% |
| Acceptable, but improvement needed |
| 5 – 6 |
| 21% – 30% |
| Poor battery performance; recurring issue |
| 3 – 4 |
| 31% – 50% |
| Very poor; unreliable in field conditions |
| 1 – 2 |
| Over 50% |
| Unacceptable; significant performance failure |
| 0 |
7. What percentage of collars stopped transmitting data as a result of firmware or software issues associated with the transmitters (see table below for rating)?
Rating: ________
| Firmware/Software Failure Rate |
| Performance Interpretation |
| Rating (0–10) |
| 0% – 5% |
| Excellent software reliability |
| 9 – 10 |
| 6% – 10% |
| Good; minor technical issues |
| 7 – 8 |
| 11% – 20% |
| Moderate; some impact on reliability |
| 5 – 6 |
| 21% – 30% |
| Poor performance; frequent technical failures |
| 3 – 4 |
| 31% – 50% |
| Very poor; major software reliability issues |
| 1 – 2 |
| Over 50% |
| Unacceptable; systemic software failure |
| 0 |
8. What percentage of the collars incorrectly identified mortality of the individual (see table below for rating)?
Rating: ________
| Incorrect Mortality ID Rate |
| Interpretation |
| Rating (0–10) |
| 0% – 5% |
| Excellent accuracy |
| 9 – 10 |
| 6% – 10% |
| Good; minor issues |
| 7 – 8 |
| 11% – 20% |
| Moderate accuracy: some concern |
| 5 – 6 |
| 21% – 30% |
| Poor accuracy; needs improvement |
| 3 – 4 |
| 31% – 50% |
| Very poor; unreliable |
| 1 – 2 |
| Over 50% |
| Unacceptable performance |
| 0 |
How proactively did the Proposer inform you on any changes (e.g., pricing changes, any interruption of services, maintenance, etc.)? (0 means “not proactive at all”; 5 means “average”; and 10 means “extremely proactive and timely”) Rating: _________
9. How would you rate the updates or improvements made to the Proposer’s device or data reports? (0 means “no improvements or updates”; 5 means “average”; and 10 means “significant and valuable improvements”) Rating: _________
| Page 1 of 2 | |
| DAS Procurement Services, Version 2.0 – December 9, 2016 | Page 1 of 2 |
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .