ESBD_511002_1778256921019_SOL_ADD_2_EXH_E_371-00013_Vendor Reference Form.pdf
PDF 165 KB Posted
- Attached to
- Sovereign Terrain and Digital Border Defense
- Solicitation number
- 371-00013
- Issued by
- Travis County, Austin City, Texas
About this file
This is a Vendor Reference Form (Exhibit E) issued by Texas Cyber Command (TXCC) for Request for Offer 371-00013 regarding Sovereign Terrain and Digital Border Defense services. The form serves as a standardized evaluation tool for customers to provide feedback on vendor performance for the RFO, which was issued on April 29, 2026, with proposals due May 14, 2026, at 3:00 p.m. CST. Vendor references must be submitted directly to TXCC at txcc.procurement@txcc.texas.gov no later than May 5, 2026, at 3:00 p.m. CST. The reference deadline precedes the proposal submission deadline by nine days, allowing TXCC to incorporate vendor performance history into the evaluation process. The contract term is anticipated to be one year with two optional one-year renewals at TXCC's discretion, with possible extension up to an additional 180 calendar days upon 30 days' written notice.
The Vendor Reference Form evaluates vendor performance across ten criteria using a four-point rating scale: Unsatisfactory (0), Marginally Satisfactory (1), Satisfactory (2), and Exceeds Expectations (3), with a Not Applicable option available. Evaluation categories include quality of products or services, timeliness of delivery, cost management through invoice accuracy, adherence to schedules and milestones, business relations, and overall customer satisfaction. References are completed by past customers who have purchased products or services from the vendor within the preceding two years and are requested to provide ratings, comments, and recommendations regarding future vendor engagement and potential recommendations to other organizations. The form requires the customer reference provider to include organizational affiliation, contact information, and signature, establishing a formal mechanism for TXCC to assess vendor qualifications as part of the broader RFO evaluation, which weights Vendor Qualifications at 30 percent of the total score.
View the file
Other files
Show all 13
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
Version 1.0 Page 1 of 3 Rev. 3/21/23
EXHIBIT E - VENDOR REFERENCE
Sovereign Terrain and Digital Border Defense
Request for Offer 371-00013 REFERENCE DEADLINE TO TXCC: No later than May 5, 2026 at 3:00 PM CST
Texas Cyber Command (TXCC) requests your assistance in providing a Vendor reference for this Request for Offer (RFO) that has been issued. The Vendor that is responding to this RFO is providing this document for you to fill out and return directly to TXCC at the following email address: txcc.procurement@txcc.texas.gov.
This portion to be completed by the Vendor requesting reference information Vendor Name_________________________________ Insert Type of Product/Services Category (e.g., Software) _______________________________________________ Prime Contractor ______________________________________________________________________________ Subcontractor(s) ______________________________________________________________________________ Dates of Performance: Starting Date __________________ Ending Date _____________________ Total Est. Contract Dollar Amount $___________________
This portion to be completed by the Customer providing reference and returned to TXCC at txcc.procurement@txcc.texas.gov.
Rating: (0) Unsatisfactory; (1) Marginally Satisfactory; (2) Satisfactory; (3) Exceeds Expectations; N/A. Not Applicable Definitions for each rating category are contained on the following page.
Please provide your opinion by rating the following:
Quality of Solicitation Product/Services
1. Have you purchased any Product/Services from this Vendor in the past two (2) years? ☐Yes ☐No
2. Vendor’s ability to provide the products or services in a timely manner? ☐0 ☐1 ☐2 ☐3 ☐N/A
3. Vendor’s knowledge of and ability to answer questions about the products? ☐0 ☐1 ☐2 ☐3 ☐N/A
4. Vendor’s ability to resolve problems? ☐0 ☐1 ☐2 ☐3 ☐N/A
Cost
5. Timely, current, accurate & complete invoices. ☐0 ☐1 ☐2 ☐3 ☐N/A
Version 1.0 Page 2 of 3
Timeliness of Performance
6. Adherence to delivery schedule (major tasks, milestones) ☐0 ☐1 ☐2 ☐3 ☐N/A
Business Relations & Customer Satisfaction
7. Effectively communicated with customer management & staff. ☐0 ☐1 ☐2 ☐3 ☐N/A
8. Vendor personnel (professional, cooperative & flexible). ☐0 ☐1 ☐2 ☐3 ☐N/A
9. Vendor’s attitude toward customer service ☐0 ☐1 ☐2 ☐3 ☐N/A
10. Overall Satisfaction with Vendor ☐0 ☐1 ☐2 ☐3 ☐N/A
Comments: (Please use additional page if necessary)
In your opinion, should this Vendor be used again for Product/Services? ☐Yes ☐No In your opinion, should this Vendor be recommended to others? ☐Yes ☐No
Rater’s Name:___________________________________________________ Date:_______________ Organization:________________________________________________________________________________ Title:______________________________ Phone Number:__________________ Fax Number:_______________ Email address:______________________
Version 1.0 Page 3 of 3
Vendor Reference Evaluation Scoring
Excellent (3) There are no quality problems. There are no cost issues. There are no delays. Responses to inquiries, technical, service, and administrative issues are effective and responsive.
Satisfactory (2) Nonconformances do not impact achievement of contract requirements.
Cost issues do not impact achievement of contract requirements.
Delays do not impact achievement of contract requirements.
Response to inquiries, technical, service, and administrative issues is usually effective and responsive.
Marginal (1) Nonconformances require minor Agency resources to ensure achievement of contract requirements.
Cost issues require minor Agency resources to ensure achievement of contract requirements.
Delays require minor Agency resources to ensure achievement of contract requirements.
Response to inquiries, technical, service, and administrative issues is somewhat effective and responsive.
Unsatisfactory (0) Nonconformances are compromising the achievement of contract requirements.
Cost issues are compromising performance of contract requirements.
Delays are compromising the achievement of contract requirements.
Response to inquiries, technical, service, and administrative issues is not effective and responsive.
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .