Attachment D -ReferenceCheckForm.docx

DOCX document 38 KB Posted

Attached to
Restoration of Vintage McGiffert Log Loader and 3 Skeleton Rail Cars Damaged in 242 Fire.
Solicitation number
S-63400-00002859
Issued by
Jackson County, Cheshire CDP, Oregon

About this file

This document is an Attachment D - Reference Check Form related to an RFP (RFP [###-####-##]) for the "Restoration of McGiffert Log Loader and 3 Skeleton Rail Cars Damaged in 242 Fire" contract opportunity in the state of Oregon. The project is being managed by the Oregon Parks and Recreation Department (OPRD). The form instructs the proposer to provide 3 references, including contact information, and notes that the SPC (State Procurement Coordinator) will contact the references to rate the proposer's services on a scale of 0-10 across several criteria, including overall quality, delivery of service, responsiveness, problem solving, and timeliness. The contract is anticipated to end before July 31, 2024 due to FEMA FMAG funding availability, but the Agency may extend the term to September 15, 2024 through an amendment.

The RFP is for the restoration of a vintage McGiffert Log Loader and 3 Skeleton Rail Cars that were damaged in the 242 Fire. The project is located in Klamath County, Oregon. No pricing, set-aside, incumbent, or funding details are provided in this attachment. The document focuses solely on the reference check process as part of the proposer evaluation.

View the file

Other files

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 OregonBuys# S-63400-00002859 OPRD# 9086 Attachment D

RESTORATION OF MCGIFFERT LOG LOADER AND 3 SKELETON RAIL CARS DAMAGED IN 242 FIRE

ATTACHMENT D - REFERENCE CHECK FORM

Instruction: Proposer shall complete Part I – References #1-3 below.

PART I – REFERENCES

REFERENCE# 1

Proposer Name

Reference Entity

Reference Primary Contact Name

Reference Secondary Contact Name

Primary Contact Ph #

Secondary Contact Ph #

Primary Contact Email

Secondary Contact Email

REFERENCE# 2

Proposer Name

Reference Entity

Reference Primary Contact Name

Reference Secondary Contact Name

Primary Contact Ph #

Secondary Contact Ph #

Primary Contact Email

Secondary Contact Email

REFERENCE# 3

Proposer Name

Reference Entity

Reference Primary Contact Name

Reference Secondary Contact Name

Primary Contact Ph #

Secondary Contact Ph #

Primary Contact Email

Secondary Contact Email

PLEASE NOTE: DO NOT COMPLETE THE PART II ON THE FOLLOWING PAGE.

The SPC will contact references provided above by Proposer to answer questions and to rate the Proposer’s services on a scale of 0-10 and score each reference, if OPRD determines to rate and score References by using the scale and questions listed in Part II of this form.

PART II – RATING and SCORING (Maximum Total 30 Points – Maximum 10 points per Reference) Rate the following questions on a scale of 0-10: 0 = Not satisfied (0pt) 5 = Moderately satisfied (1pt) 10 = Extremely satisfied (2pts) REFERENCE# 1 Contact Name: ______________________________ Reference Check Date: ___________ Total Pts _______

1. How would you rate the Proposer’s overall quality of services provided and your overall relationship with the Proposer? Rate:________
Comments:

2. How would you rate the Proposer’s delivery of service?

Rate:________ Comments:

3. How would you rate the Proposer’s responsiveness to customer service issues and special requests (e.g., reported problems, changes billing, etc.)? Rate:________
Comments:
4. How would you rate the Proposer’s methods for problem solution? Rate:________
Comments:
5. How would you rate the Proposer’s timeliness in completing tasks within proposed timeline? Rate:________
Comments:

REFERENCE# 2 Contact Name: ______________________________Reference Check Date: ____________ Total Pts _______

1. How would you rate the Proposer’s overall quality of services provided and your overall relationship with the Proposer? Rate:________
Comments:

2. How would you rate the Proposer’s delivery of service?

Rate:________ Comments:

3. How would you rate the Proposer’s responsiveness to customer service issues and special requests (e.g., reported problems, changes billing, etc.)? Rate:________
Comments:
4. How would you rate the Proposer’s methods for problem solution? Rate:________
Comments:
5. How would you rate the Proposer’s timeliness in completing tasks within proposed timeline? Rate:________
Comments:

REFERENCE# 3 Contact Name: ______________________________Reference Check Date: ____________ Total Pts _______

1. How would you rate the Proposer’s overall quality of services provided and your overall relationship with the Proposer? Rate:________
Comments:

2. How would you rate the Proposer’s delivery of service?

Rate:________ Comments:

3. How would you rate the Proposer’s responsiveness to customer service issues and special requests (e.g., reported problems, changes billing, etc.)? Rate:________
Comments:
4. How would you rate the Proposer’s methods for problem solution? Rate:________
Comments:
5. How would you rate the Proposer’s timeliness in completing tasks within proposed timeline? Rate:________
Comments:
Version 1.0 - November 19, 2014Page 1 of 2
DAS Procurement Services, Version 2.0 – December 9, 2016Page 1 of 2

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