Attachment 2 Evaluation Criteria.pdf

Attachment 2 – Evaluation Criteria Asphalt Milling and Paving Training Program Federal Bureau of Prisons

The Federal Bureau of Prisons (FBOP) will utilize the tradeoff process when evaluating each offer received for the Asphalt Milling and Paving Training Program. The offeror’s proposal will be evaluated in three areas: Technical, Past Performance, and Price. It has been determined that all evaluation factors and sub-factors (other than price), when combined, are significantly more important than price itself.

Quoters should recognize that Price, although of lesser importance than Technical and Past Performance, might contribute substantially to the contract award decision. As the evaluation of competing proposals in the Technical and Past Performance areas become more equal in rating, the more important price will become in selecting the best value for the Government. Technical and Past Performance areas will be evaluated in accordance with FAR 13.106-2(b)(3), Evaluation of Proposals or Offers. The BOP desires to make an award to the offeror who can provide the best value, considering the evaluation criteria specified herein.

Definitions

For purposes of understanding the decisions made based upon the evaluation criteria selected for the Asphalt Milling and Paving Training Program, the following descriptive terms are defined as:

• Significant Weakness: A flaw in the proposal that appreciably increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance to an unacceptable level.

• Weakness: A flaw in the proposal that increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance.

• Adequate: An aspect of the proposal that neither increases the likelihood of successful contract performance nor the risk of unsuccessful contract performance. Adequate responses meet the minimum threshold of expectation outlined in the Statement of Work.

• Strength: An aspect of the proposal that increases the likelihood of successful contract performance.

• Significant Strength: An aspect of the proposal that appreciably increases the likelihood of successful contract performance through innovation or above-and-beyond delivery compared to the expectation outlined in the Statement of Work.

The proposal must clearly demonstrate, at the time of submission (unless otherwise stated), the capability to meet the Decisional Rule criteria. Proposals will be rated based on the Decisional Rule criteria. Proposals shall clearly demonstrate the capability to meet all the following criteria:

Factor 1 – Technical Capability

This factor will be evaluated to ensure the Government that the offeror completely understands the intent and requirements of the Asphalt Milling and Paving Training Program as outlined in the SOW.

Offerors must demonstrate a clear understanding of:

• The design and delivery of a vocational training program that will qualify adults in custody (AIC) for at least entry-level employment in the Asphalt Milling and Paving field upon release.

• The ability to deliver a program that leads to Continuing Education Units (CEUs) or college certificates/marketable certifications under the offeror’s umbrella of accreditation.

• A structured instructional approach, including both classroom and hands-on equipment-based training, aligned with industry standards and employer expectations.

• A flexible and creative approach to overcoming potential challenges in delivery (e.g., correctional environment delays, security-related interruptions).

• Effective control and management of all instructional components, including course content, delivery, and performance monitoring to ensure program outcomes.

• A clear plan for collaboration with BOP staff regarding the selection of instructional schedules, course duration, and recommendations for equipment and materials.

Factor 2 – Recent/Relevant Past Performance

A. Defining Past Performance

Offerors will have their recent and relevant past performance evaluated based upon their rated level of performance under existing and/or prior contracts. Emphasis will be placed on those contracts that most closely resemble the vocational/occupational training services required in the

SOW.

B. Purpose of Past Performance Evaluation

The purpose of evaluating past performance is to allow the Government to infer how the Offeror’s recent and historical contract experience translates to their probability of successfully meeting the solicitation requirements for this contract.

C. Content to be Included in Past Performance Evaluations

An Offeror’s past performance information shall include three (3) of the contractor’s most recent contractual relationships similar in nature to the services required in the SOW, occurring within the past five (5) years.

Contracts listed may include:

• Other federal government contracts, state or local government contracts, or private/commercial contracts.

Offerors shall address any instances of less than acceptable performance documented in the referenced contracts and explain how these problems were resolved. The Government may consider efforts performed by the Offeror for government agencies or commercial clients as potentially relevant.

D. Miscellaneous Guidance Related to the Evaluation of Past Performance

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 this factor.

References other than those identified by the Offeror may be contacted.

Information utilized may be obtained from:

• The references listed in the proposal

• Other customers known to the Government or of whom the Government becomes aware

• Reference portals (e.g., CPARS, SAM, or other credible sources).

Factor 3 – Price

Note pursuant to FAR 17.203(b), the Government’s evaluation of offers shall be inclusive of options. As such, price quotation in Schedule of Items will be evaluated on the sum of the base period cost and all applicable option periods in totality.

While Price is less important than Technical and Past Performance, it will still be considered in determining the best value to the Government. As Technical and Past Performance ratings between competing proposals become more equal, the importance of Price in the evaluation increases.

Award Without Discussions

Offerors are advised that an award may be made without discussions. The Contracting Officer cannot overemphasize the necessity for the initial quote to provide the Government with sufficient information identifying the quoter's best terms from a cost/price and technical standpoint.