D - Reference Check form.doc

DOC document 52 KB Posted

Attached to
RFP for Fire Protection System Maintenance Upgrades - Pendleton
Solicitation number
S-44300-00005148
Issued by
Union County, Oregon

About this file

This document is a Reference Check Form related to an RFP issued by the Oregon State Hospital for Fire Protection System Maintenance Upgrades to be performed at three buildings located in Pendleton, Oregon. The RFP seeks an experienced and qualified contractor to replace detection devices and system equipment in order to bring the current fire protection system up to code. The Reference Check Form requests information about the proposer's services, customer service, problem resolution methods, timeline and cost performance, and overall satisfaction with the business relationship.

The RFP is seeking services within Umatilla County, Oregon. No further details are provided regarding pricing terms, set asides, incumbents, funding requirements, or other salient information.

View the file

Other files

Show all 19

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-44300-00005148 – Fire Protection System Maintenance Upgrades - Pendleton Att D

ATTACHMENT D - REFERENCE CHECK FORM

Proposer Name:

Reference Entity/Business Name:

Reference Contact Name:

Contact Telephone Number:

Contact Email Address:

Please respond to the following questions:

1. For what type of services did you engage Proposer?

2. Describe the services listed in response to question 1.

3. Describe Proposer’s customer service.

4. Describe your satisfaction with the business relationship with Proposer.

5. Describe Proposer’s methods for problem resolution.

6. How likely would you be to use Proposer’s services again?

7. With which aspect(s) of Proposer’s services are you the most satisfied?

8. With which aspect(s) of Proposer’s services are you the least satisfied?

9. How well did Proposer stay within the proposed timeline?

10. How did the final project cost compare to the initial proposed cost?

Version 1.0 - November 19, 2014 DAS Procurement Services, Version 2.0 – December 9, 2016

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