Amendment 1 M4 n Att 8 Matrix.pdf

AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION/MODIFICATION OF CONTRACT

1. CONTRACT ID CODE

PAGE OF PAGES

1 4

2. AMENDMENT/MODIFICATION NO.

A0001

3. EFFECTIVE DATE

See Block 16C

4. REQUISITION / PURCHASE REQ. NO.

PROJECT NO. (If Applicable)

6. ISSUED BY

Federal Bureau of Prisons Residential Reentry Contracting Office 320 First Street NW, Room 901-5 Washington, D.C. 20534

CODE 7. ADMINISTERED BY (If other than Item 6)

CODE

8. NAME AND ADDRESS OF CONTRACTOR (No., street, county, State and ZIP Code)

(√) 9A. AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION NO

RFP 15BRRC23R00000030

9B. DATED (See Item 11)

09/21/2023

10A. MODIFICATION OF CONTRACT/ORDER NO.

CODE FACILITY CODE 10B. DATED (See Item 13)

11. THIS ITEM ONLY APPLIES TO AMENDMENTS OF SOLICITATIONS

[X ] The above number solicitation is amended as set forth in Item 14. The hour and date specified for receipt of Offers [ ] is extended, [ x ] is not extended.

Offers must acknowledge receipt of this amendment prior to the hour and date specified in the solicitation or as amended, by one of the following methods.

(a) By completing Items 8 and 15, and returning 1 copy of the amendment; (b) By acknowledging receipt of this amendment on each copy of the offer submitted; or (c) By separate letter or telegram which includes a reference to the solicitation and amendment numbers. FAILURE OF YOUR ACKNOWLEDGMENT TO BE RECEIVED AT THE PLACE DESIGNATED FOR THE RECEIPT OF OFFERS PRIOR TO THE HOUR AND DATE SPECIFIED MAY RESULT IN REJECTION OF YOUR OFFER. If by virtue of this amendment you desire to change an offer already submitted, such change may be made by telegram or letter, provided each telegram or letter makes reference to the solicitation and this amendment, and is received prior to the opening hour and date specified.

12. ACCOUNTING AND APPROPRIATION DATA (If required)

13. THIS ITEM APPLIES ONLY TO MODIFICATIONS OR CONTRACTS/ORDERS,

IT MODIFIES THE CONTRACT/ORDER NO. AS DESCRIBED IN ITEM 14.

A. THE CHANGE ORDER IS ISSUED PURSUANT TO: (Specify Authority) THE CHANGES SET FORTH IN ITEM 14 ARE MADE IN THE CONTRACT ORDER NO. IN ITEM 10A.

x B. THE ABOVE NUMBERED CONTRACT/ORDER IS MODIFIED TO REFLECT THE ADMINISTRATIVE CHANGES (such as changes in paying office, appropriation data, etc.) SET FORTH IN ITEM 14, PURSUANT TO THE AUTHORITY OF FAR 43.103(b).

C. THIS SUPPLEMENTAL AGREEMENT IS ENTERED INTO PURSUANT TO AUTHORITY OF:

D. OTHER (Specify type of modification and authority)

E. IMPORTANT: Contractor [ ] is not [ x ] is required to sign this document and return 1 copies to the issuing office.

14. DESCRIPTION OF AMENDMENT/MODIFICATION (Organized by UCF section headings, including solicitation/contract subject matter where feasible).

RFP 15BRRC23R00000030, for Day Reporting Center (DRC) Services Located Within the City Limits of Fort Worth, Texas, is hereby amended as follows:

1. In Section M – Evaluation Factors for Award. M.4 has been updated (see attached).

2. In Section J – Attachment 8 DRC Compliance Matrix has been updated to September 2023 version and replaced the old version.

3. In Section J – Attachment 11 Subcontracting Plan has been updated to January 2023 version and replaced the old version.

//All other terms and conditions remain the same.//

Except as provided herein, all items and conditions of the document referenced in item 9A or 10A, as heretofore changed, remains unchanged and in full force and effect.

15A. NAME AND TITLE OF SIGNER (Type or print)

16A. NAME AND TITLE OF CONTRACTING OFFICER (Type or print)

Matthew Comstock

15B. CONTRACTOR/OFFEROR

(Signature of person authorized to sign)

15C. DATE SIGNED 16B. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

BY //s//

(Signature of Contracting Officer)

16C. DATE SIGNED

09/28/2023

STANDARD FORM 30 (REV. 11/2016)

PREVIOUS EDITION UNUSABLE Prescribed by GSA FAR (48 CFR) 53.243

M.4 Evaluation Criteria and Their Relative Importance

Offeror proposals will be evaluated in three areas: Past Performance, Technical/Management and Price. Technical/Management and Past Performance, when combined (Non-Price), are significantly more important than Price. In the Non-Price areas, Past Performance is more important than Technical/Management. The Technical/Management areas are composed of the five factors, listed in paragraph 2.0. Offerors should recognize that Price, although of lesser importance than Technical/Management and Past Performance, might contribute substantially to the Source Selection Official's (SSO's) contract award decision. As the evaluation of competing offeror proposals in the Technical/Management and Past Performance areas become more equal in rating, the more important Price will become in selecting the best value for the Government.

The Government will assign an adjectival rating to each of the factors/subfactors identified below as well as assigning an overall adjectival rating to each of the evaluation areas. The adjectival rating depicts how well the offeror meets the evaluation areas/factors/ subfactors and solicitation requirements. The adjectival definitions are defined below:

EXCEPTIONAL: Offeror's technical proposal exceeds requirements of the solicitation in many areas. Benefits to the Government/ Bureau are identifiable.

VERY GOOD: Offeror's technical proposal meets requirements of the solicitation and exceeds requirements in some areas. Benefits to the Government/Bureau are identifiable. Problems may exist, but are minor, and may be resolved through discussions.

SATISFACTORY: Offeror's technical proposal meets the requirements of the solicitation. Some minor problems exist, but can be resolved through discussions.

MARGINAL: Offeror's technical proposal does not meet some of the requirements of the solicitation. Contractor's technical proposal has identified problems that may result in a negative impact on service delivery (a negative impact on the Government). Problems are serious but can be resolved through discussions.

UNSATISFACTORY: Offeror's technical proposal fails to meet most of the requirements of the solicitation. Technical proposal has problems that will result in a negative impact on service delivery (a negative impact on the Government). Problems are serious, and it is not likely that they can be resolved through discussions.

1.0 Past Performance Evaluation Area

The Past Performance area addresses the Government's confidence in the offeror's probability of successfully performing the effort as proposed based on their record of performance in current and past relevant contract efforts. The Past Performance evaluation will be accomplished by reviewing aspects of an offeror's relevant present and recent past performance, focusing on and targeting performance that is relevant to the Past Performance factors outlined below.

The recency and relevancy of Past Performance information is critical to the Government's evaluation. More recent, more relevant performance information will have a greater positive impact on the Past Performance evaluation than less recent, less relevant performance. The Government may consider efforts performed by the offeror for agencies of the federal, state, or local governments and commercial customers as potentially relevant to the Past Performance evaluation. Where relevant performance record indicates performance problems, the Government will consider the number and severity of the problems and the appropriateness and effectiveness of any corrective actions taken (not just planned or promised). The Government may review more recent contracts or performance evaluations to ensure corrective actions have been implemented and to evaluate their effectiveness. Offerors without a record of relevant company past performance or for whom information on Past Performance is not available will not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on Past Performance.

1.1 FACTOR: Accountability

The offeror's record of performance and level of success in developing and implementing offender accountability programs.

1.2 FACTOR: Programs

The offeror's record of performance and level of success in assisting offenders in successfully reentering the community. The offeror's ability to leverage and network with other relevant community resources to offer offenders a more comprehensive and robust support structure.

1.3 FACTOR: Community Relations

The offeror's record of performance and level of success in acquiring and maintaining public support for residential reentry programs.

1.4 FACTOR: Personnel

The offeror's record of performance and level of success in recruiting, training and retaining an adequate staff of personnel with the necessary skills and integrity to ensure successful, continuous performance of the contract.

1.5 FACTOR: Communications and Responsiveness

The offeror's record of performance and level of success in ensuring open communications about and rapid response to customer needs and requirements.

2.0 Technical/Management Evaluation Area

The Technical/Management area is composed of five factors: (1) Site Location; (2) Accountability and Security; (3) Programs; (4) Facility; and (5) Personnel. Site Location is composed of two subfactors, which are equal in importance: (1) Site Validity and Suitability; and (2) Community Relations Program.

The specific Technical/Management area factors are described below:

This factor evaluates the comprehensiveness, credibility, and innovativeness of the offeror’s offender accountability program. The offeror will be evaluated on the plans, procedures, and practices they will employ to ensure offenders are accurately accounted for at all times, while (1) at the center; (2) while on home confinement; (3) at work assignments; and (4) in all other activities in the community. This factor also includes an evaluation of the contractor’s security plan that provides a safe and secure environment for both staff and offenders.

2.1 FACTOR: Site Location

This factor is composed of two subfactors: (1) Site Validity and Suitability and (2) Community Relations Program.

2.1.1 SUBFACTOR: Site Validity and Suitability

The Site Validity and Suitability subfactor evaluates the proposed site location and considers the validity of the offeror's right to use and zoning approval. The assessment of validity includes both the legality of the instrument and the nature of the interest and appropriate zoning as it relates to any potential risk it poses to the Government. This subfactor also evaluates the suitability of the site location with regards to local area concerns and the responsiveness to proximity requirements defined in the SOW and RFP Section J.

2.1.2 SUBFACTOR: Community Relations Program

The Community Relations Program subfactor evaluates the innovativeness, credibility and effectiveness of the offeror's proposed program for educating and interacting with the local community in order to acquire and maintain public support and includes the development of a Community Relations Board.

2.2 FACTOR: Accountability and Security

This factor evaluates the comprehensiveness, credibility, and innovativeness of the offeror’s offender accountability program. The offeror will be evaluated on the plans, procedures, and practices they will employ to ensure offenders are accurately accounted for at all times, while (1) at the center; (2) while on home confinement; (3) at work assignments; and (4) in all other activities in the community. This factor also includes an evaluation of the contractor’s security plan that provides a safe and secure environment for both staff and offenders.

2.3 FACTOR: Programs

This factor evaluates the quality, comprehensiveness, and innovativeness of the offeror’s plan to assist offender’s successful reentry into the community. This includes the evaluation of the offeror’s programs for assisting offenders in meeting the identified elements of their Individualized Program Plan (IPP). This encompasses but is not limited to employment, financial responsibility, further educational and vocational training, mental health treatment, etc. This factor also includes an evaluation of the offeror’s development of a cognitive-behavioral program and the offeror’s understanding of and ability to leverage and network with other relevant community resources in order to offer a more comprehensive and robust support structure for the offender.

2.4 FACTOR: Facility

This factor evaluates the offeror's proposed facility with regard to (1) facility design as indicated in the floor plans, site plans, and photographs; (2) degree of compliance to applicable local, state, national health, safety, environmental laws, regulations, Executive

Orders, building codes, and SOW; and (3) the soundness and credibility of the offeror's plan for ensuring operational availability within 120 days after contract award.

2.5 FACTOR: Personnel

This factor evaluates the comprehensiveness, credibility, and innovativeness of the offeror’s approach for recruiting, training, and retaining an adequate staff that will have the necessary skills to ensure successful, continuous performance of the contract. This also includes evaluating the offeror’s plan for ensuring all personnel will be aware of and abide by the standards of employee conduct as defined by the SOW, Chapter 2.

3.0 Price Evaluation Area

The Government will evaluate the offeror's price for the overall requirement to ensure it is reasonable. The offeror's evaluated price will be assessed against the evaluation results of the non-price areas in conducting possible tradeoff analysis and determining best value to the Government. However, as offerors' proposals become more equal in the non-price factors, the overall price of the entire contract will be given greater importance.

Risk Assessment Area

The Government will conduct a proposal risk assessment. The proposal risk assessment reflects the Government's degree of confidence in the offeror's ability to perform the effort described in their Technical/Management proposal. Proposal risk considers if any aspect of the proposed Technical/Management solution could pose potential adverse impacts on price, schedule or performance of the effort. A separate proposal risk assessment and rating may be applied to all evaluation criteria, with the exception of the subfactor "Site Validity and Suitability." In this subfactor, the level of risk associated with the offeror's proposal is inherent in the subfactor definition and will thus be reflected in the subfactor color/adjectival rating and rationale. The findings and results of the proposal risk assessment will be a general consideration in determining the best value offeror to the Government.