Attachment_IV_Vendor Questions_1.3_15BNAS26R00000020_CRN.pdf

Attachment_15BNAS26R00000020

Community Reentry Network (CRN)

Evaluation Criteria

Evaluation Process

The evaluation process consists of assessing each proposal strictly against the evaluation factors and significant subfactors identified in the solicitation. All proposals will be evaluated using the same standards, and no unstated criteria will be applied. Each factor will be reviewed to determine whether the offeror’s response meets the Government’s requirements and demonstrates the capability to perform the work successfully.

Relative Importance of Factors

Non‑price factors (Technical Factors 1–10) are significantly more important than Price.

However, Price will still be evaluated for reasonableness and will be considered in the overall best value determination.

Acceptable/Unacceptable Screening

The Government will first conduct an Acceptable/Unacceptable evaluation of all non‑price technical factors.

To be eligible for further consideration, an offeror must receive Acceptable on all technical evaluation factors.

Any proposal rated Unacceptable on any technical factor will be ineligible for award and will not proceed to the tradeoff stage.

Best Value Tradeoff (No LPTA Language)

Following the Acceptable/Unacceptable screening, the Government will evaluate price and may conduct a supplemental Best Value Tradeoff among technically Acceptable proposals.

In accordance with FAR 15.101‑1, the Government may determine that a higher‑priced proposal offers superior overall value when compared to lower‑priced proposals. Award will be made to the offeror whose proposal represents the best value to the Government, considering both non‑price and price factors.

The award will not necessarily be made to the lowest‑priced offeror if the Government concludes that the strengths of a higher‑rated, technically Acceptable proposal justify paying a higher price.

Documentation

The Source Selection Authority (SSA) will document all tradeoff decisions, including the benefits associated with selecting a higher‑priced, technically Acceptable proposal, in accordance with applicable source selection procedures.

Acceptable / Unacceptable Evaluation Criteria

Each technical factor will be rated Acceptable or Unacceptable, and these definitions constitute the minimum technical thresholds that must be met for award eligibility.

To be considered for award, the offeror must receive Acceptable on all non‑price factors.

Price is not rated Acceptable/Unacceptable and will be evaluated separately for reasonableness and overall best value contribution.

Technical Evaluation Factors

Factor 1 — Organizational Background & Experience

Describe your organization’s background and experience working with non-profit groups, particularly those involved in reentry, social services, or community-based support. Include specific examples that demonstrate depth of experience and the ability to collaborate effectively with diverse Faith-Based non-profit stakeholders

Acceptable:

The offeror provides clear, relevant experience working with non-profit, reentry, social services, or community-based organizations, including collaboration with diverse Faith-Based groups.

Unacceptable:

Experience is missing, irrelevant, or insufficient to demonstrate capability.

Factor 2 — Team Language Proficiency

Identify all languages in which members of your proposed team possess proficient written and spoken capability. Explain how these language skills enhance your ability to engage with community organizations participating in the Community Reentry Network (CRN).

Acceptable:

The offeror identifies team language capabilities and clearly explains how these skills support CRN engagement.

Language capabilities are missing or insufficient to support meaningful CRN interaction.

Factor 3 — Background Check Compliance

Confirm whether at least (4) four members of your proposed team will be able to pass a federal background check. Describe your internal vetting processes and staffing strategy to ensure continuous compliance with federal access requirements.

Acceptable:

The offeror confirms that at least four team members can pass federal background checks and describes internal vetting and staffing processes.

The offeror cannot confirm four eligible personnel or lacks an adequate vetting process.

Factor 4 — Verification Plan for Faith-Based Organizations

Describe in detail your systematic plan for verifying a Faith-Based Organization’s willingness to participate in the CRN. Include the methodologies, workflows, and tools your team will use to ensure accurate and timely verification.

Acceptable:

The offeror provides a systematic plan with defined workflows, tools, and reliable methods for verifying willingness to participate.

The plan is unclear, incomplete, or fails to demonstrate reliable verification processes.

Factor 5 — Annual Reverification Plan

Describe your systematic plan for annual reverification of Faith-Based Organizations participating in the CRN. Explain how your process ensures data accuracy, minimizes risk, and supports ongoing engagement with participating organizations.

Acceptable:

The offeror provides a structured plan ensuring accurate, timely reverification and ongoing engagement.

The plan lacks structure, does not ensure accuracy, or fails to address annual requirements.

Factor 6 — Team Faith Tradition Diversity

Describe the faith traditions represented within your proposed team. Explain how the diversity of these backgrounds strengthens your ability to effectively collaborate with major and minor faith traditions across the United States and minor outlying territories.

Acceptable:

The offeror identifies faith traditions represented within the team and explains how this diversity enhances collaboration.

Faith-tradition information is missing or lacks relevance to nationwide collaboration needs.

Factor 7 — Native American Reservation Outreach

Describe your process for identifying and increasing representation from Faith-Based Organizations located on Native American reservations. Include specific strategies for outreach, relationship building, and culturally informed engagement.

Acceptable:

Clear process and culturally informed outreach strategies are provided for engaging Native American reservation organizations.

No process, insufficient detail, or lack of culturally informed strategy.

Factor 8 — Hispanic Faith-Based Outreach

Describe your process for identifying and increasing representation from Faith-Based Organizations within Hispanic communities. Explain how your approach ensures meaningful inclusion, linguistic accessibility, and sustained participation.

Acceptable:

Provides meaningful, culturally responsive outreach methods, language accessibility, and participation strategies for Hispanic organizations.

Approach is insufficient, generic, or lacks linguistic/cultural considerations.

Factor 9 — Leadership Academic Qualifications

Describe the academic backgrounds of your leadership team. Explain how these qualifications strengthen your ability to identify, evaluate, and engage Faith-Based Organizations as partners within the CRN.

Acceptable:

The offeror demonstrates relevant academic backgrounds supporting CRN evaluation, collaboration, and program stewardship.

Academic backgrounds are missing or irrelevant to required functions.

Factor 10 — CRN Convention Booth Strategy

Describe your approach to planning, preparing, and staffing a booth representing the CRN at a Faith-Based reentry convention. Include your outreach strategy, materials development process, and methods for engaging potential partner organizations.

Acceptable:

The offeror provides a clear strategy for booth planning, staffing, outreach, materials, and engagement of partner organizations.

The strategy is superficial or fails to demonstrate ability to represent the CRN effectively.