Attch A Evaluation Criteria.docx

ATTACHMENT 2 – EVALUATION CRITERIA (PR15697979)

PROPOSAL EVALUATION

The Government contemplates award of a single-award purchase order Firm-Fixed Unit Price contract resulting from this solicitation. It is the intent of the Government to make an award based on the initial proposal without discussions.

TECHNICAL EVALUATION FACTORS

The Technical Evaluation Factors (i.e., non-Cost/Price) will be evaluated using an adjectival (Outstanding, Acceptable, Unacceptable) rating scheme. The basis of award will be Best Value using Tradeoffs, price and non-price factors considered. The following technical factors and evaluation criteria shall be used, with the percentage of overall rating representing the level of importance (weight) for that factor (i.e Factors 1 through 3 are of equal importance):

FACTOR 1 – Experience and Expertise in AML Certification Training (15% of overall rating) Offeror's proposal must clearly demonstrate experience and proven capabilities in providing Anti-Money Laundering (AML) specialist certification or diploma training programs. Proposal must document successful delivery of comprehensive exam preparation covering certification domains, with minimum 40 hours of instruction per certification type. Offeror must demonstrate capability to provide digital and/or print study materials, practice exams, case studies, and 12-month access to online learning management systems. Must result in an internationally recognized certification.

FACTOR 2 – Experience and Expertise in Cryptocurrency/Virtual Asset Training (15% of overall rating) Offeror's proposal must clearly demonstrate experience and expertise in delivering cryptocurrency specialist certification or diploma training. Proposal must document capability to provide training on blockchain fundamentals, cryptocurrency types, VASPs and AML obligations, FATF Travel Rule, DeFi risks, transaction monitoring, blockchain analytics, sanctions evasion, and related topics. Offeror must demonstrate ability to provide 30-day training licenses for blockchain analytics platforms (Chainalysis, Elliptic, TRM Labs, or equivalent) with sandbox environments. Must result in internationally recognized certification.

FACTOR 3 – Language Adaptability and Bilingual Training Capability (40% of overall rating) Offeror's proposal must clearly demonstrate capability to deliver all training materials, instruction, examinations, and certifications in Spanish. Proposal must document experience providing professional-level training in Spanish to law enforcement, prosecutors, financial intelligence analysts, or regulatory officials in Latin America or similar contexts.

FACTOR 4 – Hybrid Delivery Model (In-Person and Virtual) (30% of overall rating) Offeror's proposal must clearly demonstrate capability to provide both in-person and virtual training delivery. Proposal must document ability to provide a primary in-person instructor in Bogotá, Colombia, while maintaining secure, concurrent virtual instructor-led training for remote participants. System must allow students to attend live or access recorded sessions on demand. Offeror must demonstrate platform reliability with minimum 98% uptime capability.

TECHNICAL RATING

The following technical ratings will be assigned to each technical factor:

Rating Description

meets and, in some cases, exceed criteria. Shows exceptional experience and expertise that will significantly benefit the Government.

PAST PERFORMANCE

For the purpose of evaluating past performance, the Government will consider the collective past performance of the proposed contract team in delivering services that meet the contract’s requirements. For evaluation purposes, the proposed contract team includes the Prime Offeror, joint venture partner, and major subcontractor(s), if applicable. For the purposes of this solicitation, a major subcontractor is defined as any subcontractor that will likely perform more than 15% of the required effort. The Government reserves the right to use both the information provided in the Offeror's Past Performance proposal and information obtained from other sources available to the Government.

(a) Recency Assessment: To be recent, past performance must not be older than three (3) years from the date of issuance of this solicitation. Past performance information that does not meet this condition will not be evaluated.

(b) Relevancy Assessment: The Government will evaluate how closely the services performed under previous contracts relate to AML/cryptocurrency training, certification programs, bilingual training delivery, and hybrid in-person/virtual instruction models.

(c) Assigning Rating: Offerors will receive a Performance Confidence Assessment rating.

With respect to relevancy, the Government will consider more relevant Past Performance to be a stronger predictor of future success and have more influence on the Past Performance evaluation than Past Performance of lesser relevance.

Assigning Ratings. As a result of the relevancy and quality assessments of the recent contracts evaluated, offerors will receive an integrated performance confidence assessment rating.

More recent performance will have a greater impact on the Performance Confidence Assessment than less recent or relevant effort. A strong record of relevant past performance may be considered more advantageous to the Government than an "Unknown Confidence" rating. Likewise, a more relevant past performance record may receive a higher confidence rating and be considered more favorably than a less relevant record of favorable performance.

NOTE: In the case of an offeror without a record of relevant past performance or for whom information on past performance is not available or so sparse that no meaningful past performance rating can be reasonably assigned, the offeror may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on past performance. Therefore, the offeror shall be determined to have unknown past performance and will be rated as “Unknown Confidence (Neutral)”.

In determining the rating for the past performance evaluation factor, the Government will give greater consideration to the contracts which the Government feels are most relevant to the Government's requirement. There are two aspects to the past performance evaluation. The first is to determine how relevant a recent effort accomplished by the offeror is to the effort to be acquired under this solicitation. The second aspect of past performance evaluation is to determine how well the offeror performed on the contracts.

The Government will use the following definitions when assessing the relevancy of past performance.

PAST PERFORMANCE RELEVANCY CONSIDERATIONS

Rating Definition Very Relevant: Present/past performance effort involved comparable scope and magnitude of effort and complexities as this solicitation requires.

Relevant: Present/past performance effort involved much of the magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

Somewhat Relevant: Present/past performance effort involved some of the scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

Not Relevant: Present/past performance effort involved little or none of the scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

PRICE EVALUATION

The Government will evaluate price for award purposes by evaluating the total price proposed for all line items in the offeror's Cost/Price Proposal.

BASIS OF AWARD

The Government will select the proposal that represents the best value to the Government, considering both technical requirements, as specified in the Statement of Work, and price. Technical factors, when combined, are significantly more important than price. However, as technical merit becomes more equal between proposals, price will become more important in the selection decision. The Government reserves the right to make award to other than the lowest priced offeror or other than the highest technically rated offeror if the Government determines that to do so would result in the best value to the Government.