Attachment E - Reference Questionnaire.docx
DOCX document 22 KB Posted
- Solicitation number
- S-P00140-00003627
- Issued by
- Lane County, Elmira CDP, Oregon
About this file
This is a Reference Questionnaire Form used by the Lane Council of Governments (LCOG) for evaluating consultant services on state and local contract opportunities in Oregon. The form is completed by clients to assess consultant performance on completed projects and serves as a reference evaluation tool for future procurement decisions. Proposers submit this form with the names and contact information of previous clients who can speak to their work quality, with clients returning completed questionnaires directly to LCOG at procurement@lcog.org by the deadline specified by the consulting firm. The form accommodates both primary and alternate references as permitted by the relevant Request for Proposal (RFP).
The Reference Questionnaire evaluates consultant performance across nine criteria using a standardized rating scale from 0-10 points: responsiveness and issue resolution; coordination and communication; budget management; schedule performance; creative problem-solving; staff resources and expertise; deliverable quality; expertise in travel demand modeling; and overall client experience. Ratings are defined as Exceptional (9-10), Very Good (7-8), Satisfactory (4-6), Marginal (1-3), and Unsatisfactory (0), with the final score calculated as the average of all criteria ratings provided by the client contact. The form is limited to two pages maximum, with sections for project details, client information, and rating responses. This questionnaire tool appears specifically designed for evaluating consulting firms on projects involving travel demand modeling and related transportation planning services.
View the file
Other files
| File | Type | Posted |
|---|---|---|
| Addendum No.1 ITB 22-027-PW.pdf | ||
| Bid Tab- ITB 22-027-PW.pdf | ||
| ITB 22-027-PW Highland Dr Pump Station Construction.pdf |
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 E REFERENCE QUESTIONNAIRE FORM- page 1 (Note: Proposer completes sections A and B. Text boxes may be expanded, but the entire form must not exceed 2 pages.)
A. Consultant and Project Information
| Project Title: |
| Consultant Name: |
Email:
Ph:
Location:
Project Type:
Brief Project Description and Proposing Firm’s Role:
| Contract #: |
| Contract Start (Mo/Yr): |
| Contract Complete (Mo/Yr): |
Client’s Budget for the Project (if applicable):
Consultant Services (including as amended):
(check one) This is a: |_| primary reference; or |_| alternate reference (must be allowed for in the RFP)
B. Client Information
Client Name: Michigan
Client’s PM:
Email:
Ph #:
Alt contact for client:
Title:
Email:
Ph #:
C. Reference Responses INSTRUCTIONS: This is a reference questionnaire for the above named firm for consultant services provided on the above named project. Do not submit reference questionnaire forms used on prior solicitations, as they may include different questions and scoring. Please complete section C of this form by providing ratings for the criteria below using the Ratings Guidelines. If any of the criteria are outside of your area, please obtain input from the appropriate individual who may have information. Please email the completed Reference Form directly to the Lane Council of Governments no later than the date instructed by the consulting firm requesting this reference. Send to Elena Kuhnhenn at the following email address: procurement@lcog.org Phone number for questions: 541-682-6295
REFERENCE QUESTIONNAIRE FORM (page 2)
| Ratings Guidelines: | |
| Exceptional | 9-10 points: Exceeded expectations and well above average to work with. Very high user satisfaction. |
Very Good 7-8 points: Met all expectations and exceeded in some areas.
Satisfactory 4-6 points: Met all contract requirements and/or professional expectations; may have had minor problems but implemented satisfactory corrective actions.
Marginal 1-3 points: Some performance and/or professional expectations not met; ineffective corrective actions for some problems.
Unsatisfactory 0 points: Technical, budget or schedule performance expectations not met. Low user satisfaction.
Not Applicable (N/A): Enter NA if not applicable for the project.
Rating Scores
For the firm, listed in Section A, please respond to the following:
| 1 |
| Rate their responsiveness to questions and efforts to collaboratively resolve issues throughout the contract term and the firm’s method of escalating unresolved issues. |
| 2 |
| How well did they coordinate/communicate with its staff, subcontractors, client staff, and other stakeholders? |
| 3 |
| How well did they manage the budget? Did they demonstrate efforts to control costs and conduct tasks, meetings, travel, etc. in an efficient manner? Were the consultant services completed within the original budget (for each phase, if phased)? |
| 4 |
| How well did they perform on meeting schedule requirements? Were critical path items effectively managed and deliverable schedules met - specifically timing of survey deployment? |
| 5 |
| How well did they come up with creative or innovative solutions when presented with issues/problems? |
| 6 |
| How well did they appear to apply sufficient staff resources with the appropriate skills and expertise? |
| 7 |
| Rate the quality of the firm’s draft and/or final deliverables. (Was significant input by client or revision by firm required to meet contract requirements or applicable industry standards?) |
| 8 |
| Rate how the firm demonstrated expertise in travel demand modeling. |
| 9 |
| How would you rate your overall experience with the firm? |
SCORE AVERAGE ______________
Note: The score for this Reference Questionnaire will be the average of all rating scores provided by the client contact. If some of the criteria are not responded to or marked as “N/A”, total the scores provided and divide by the number of criteria responded to.
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .