Exhibit A-3_Client Reference.docx
DOCX document 72 KB Posted
- Attached to
- LiDAR Processing Software
- Solicitation number
- RFQQ 2025 0501
- Issued by
- Adams County, Asotin County, Benton County, Chelan County, Clallam County, Clark County, Columbia County, Cowlitz County, Douglas County, Ferry County, Franklin County, Garfield County, Grant County, Grays Harbor County, Island County, Jefferson County, King County, Kitsap County, Kittitas County, Klickitat County, Lewis County, Lincoln County, Mason County, Okanogan County, Pacific County, Pend Oreille County, Pierce County, San Juan County, Skagit County, Skamania County, Snohomish County, Spokane County, Stevens County, Thurston County, Wahkiakum County, Walla Walla County, Whatcom County, Whitman County, Yakima County, Asotin City, Clarkston City, Clarkston Heights-Vineland CDP, West Clarkston-Highland CDP, Benton City, Chelan City, Chelan Falls CDP, Clallam Bay CDP, Lewisville CDP, Rock Island City, Pacific Beach CDP, Whidbey Island Station CDP, Mercer Island City, Pacific City, Bainbridge Island City, Kingston CDP, Kitsap Lake CDP, Kittitas City, Klickitat CDP, Okanogan City, Anderson Island CDP, Fort Lewis CDP, Fox Island CDP, Herron Island CDP, Ketron Island CDP, North Fort Lewis CDP, Raft Island CDP, Stevenson City, Hat Island CDP, Lake Stevens City, Snohomish City, Spokane City, Spokane Valley City, Puget Island CDP, Garfield Town, Yakima City, Washington
About this file
This document is a Client Reference Questionnaire for the Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) related to a LiDAR Processing Request for Qualifications and Quotations (RFQQ 2025 0501). The solicitation seeks vendors to provide LiDAR Mobile Mapping System Data Processing and Quality Control Software, with a reference form to be completed and submitted by June 13th, 2025, to Procurement Coordinator Chase Johnson. The form requires detailed feedback from previous clients, including assessments of the vendor's collaborative efforts, delivery performance, customer service, flexibility, and overall satisfaction, rated on a scale from 0 (Unsatisfactory) to 4 (Exceptional).
The reference questionnaire is designed to evaluate potential vendors for a software solution that will process and analyze datasets from the Riegl VMX-2HA Mobile Mapping System, including LiDAR data, MMS imagery, and Ladybug panoramic imagery. The form includes critical evaluation criteria such as on-time deliverables, responsiveness, problem resolution, and adaptability to changing requirements. The final section asks the reference contact whether they would select the vendor again, serving as a pass/fail mechanism for vendor qualification in the competitive procurement process.
View the file
Other files
| File | Type | Posted |
|---|---|---|
| Exhibit A-1_Bidders Certification.docx | DOCX document | |
| Exhibit C_Cost Proposal-ITsystem.docx | DOCX document | |
| Exhibit F_DiverseInclPlan-Subcontractors.docx | DOCX document | |
| Exhibit A-2_Bidders Profile.docx | DOCX document | |
| RFQQ 2025 0501-LiDAR Processing Solicitation.pdf | ||
| Exhibit B-Performance Requirements.docx | DOCX document | |
| Exhibit D - Contract.pdf | ||
| Exhibit D-1_Contract Issues List.docx | DOCX document | |
| Exhibit E - Scope of Work.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
EXHIBIT A-3 – CLIENT REFERENCE QUESTIONAIRE
Instructions: Please complete this reference form for the vendor bidding on WSDOT’s LiDAR Processing RFQQ below. Once completed, please sign, date, and electronically send to WSDOT’s Procurement Coordinator on page 2 by end of business June 13th, 2025.
Solicitation RFQQ 2025 0501
BIDDER NAME:
DATE OF REFERENCE:
REFERENCE COMPANY NAME:
NAME AND TITLE OF PERSON COMPLETING FORM:
TELEPHONE NUMBER (WITH AREA CODE):
1. Please describe this company’s efforts to develop a collaborative business relationship with you, the customer:
2. Did vendor deliver all scope and address defects prior to implementation according to agreed-upon schedule and budget?
Additional comments:
Please check the value which best represents your experience with this company using the following definitions:
0 = Unsatisfactory 1=Poor 2= Average 3=Good 4=Exceptional
3. Overall satisfaction with work deliverables (on-time with deliverables)?
0 |_| 1 |_| 2 |_| 3 |_| 4 |_|
Additional comments: Easy to contact and very responsive.
4. Overall customer service: What is your opinion of this company’s level of customer service?
0 |_| 1 |_| 2 |_| 3 |_| 4 |_|
Additional comments: Very responsive to questions and resolution to problems.
5. How flexible is/was this company in meeting changing requirements?
0 |_| 1 |_| 2 |_| 3 |_| 4 |_|
Additional comments: If we need them a different day or time they are always very accommodating.
6. Based on skill and working relationship, would you select this company again to provide services? |_| Yes |_| No
Thank you for your assistance in this evaluation process.
| Signature | Date |
| Representative Name: |
Please return this client reference by June 13th, 2025, no later than 11:59 pm Olympia, WA local time, to:
Procurement Coordinator
| Name: |
| Chase Johnson |
| Telephone: |
| 360-705-7741 |
| Email: |
| chase.johnson@wsdot.wa.gov |
Total points: Pass/Fail image1.png
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .