Evaluation Criteria-Attachment III.pdf

1 | P a g e

Prison Rape Elimination Act (PREA) Audit Service Contract for FY2025-2029

EVALUATION CRITERIA

National Acquisitions Section

The Federal Bureau of Prisons (FBOP) will utilize the Tradeoff Process when evaluating each offer received for the PREA Audit Service Contract. Given the legal requirement this service contract seeks to satisfy, it has been determined all evaluation factors and sub-factors (other than price) when combined, are significantly more important than price itself. Evaluations will note the strengths, deficiencies, weaknesses (to include significant weaknesses) and risks of each proposal, in a summary format with supporting narrative.

Definitions: For purposes of better understanding the decisions made based upon evaluation criteria selected for the PREA Service Contract for FY2025-2029 the descriptive terms have been defined as follows:

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

• Risk: A potential to cause disruption of schedule, increased cost or degradation of performance.

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

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

• Deficiency: A material failure of a proposal to meet a government requirement or a combination of significant weaknesses in a proposal that increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance to an unacceptable level.

NON-PRICED EVALUATION CRITERIA:

Factor 1: Technical

Technical factors will be utilized to assess whether the offeror’s proposal will effectively satisfy the requirements of the contract. For purposes of the PREA contract, the technical factors reviewed will include the following:

A. Compliance with Prison Rape Elimination Act (PREA) Audit Cycle

• Given the number of FBOP institutions required to receive a PREA audit in a given year to meet the criteria for compliance with the audit cycle, the Offeror shall demonstrate a plan to provide multiple FBOP audits simultaneously and present with both the auditor roster and support staff necessary to run 2-3 FBOP audits in a week in addition to their additional commitments.

2 | P a g e

• Offeror shall demonstrate 3 years’ experience providing timely correctional system audit reports.

(Two (2) examples requested for submission).

B. Receipt of PREA Documents

• Offeror shall demonstrate experience with handling large amounts of correctional system data/information.

• Offeror shall demonstrate a data/information system that ensures the privacy/confidentiality of Personally Identifiable Information (PII) of both FBOP employees, and the Adults in Custody (AIC) served.

• Offeror shall demonstrate experience with the requirements of Freedom of Information Act (5 USC 552) regarding disclosure of records and information furnished or created in an audit process and Privacy Act (5 USC 552s) regarding sampling of inmate records or similar experience.

• Offeror shall demonstrate a process its auditors utilize to for the secure storing of confidential information post-audit for the time required by the PREA Management Office (PMO).

C. Communication with Institutions

• Offeror shall demonstrate experience in communicating with both institution employees and administrative contracting staff. This demonstration shall indicate communication that is concise, coherent, and timely.

• The Offeror shall demonstrate an understanding of governmental chain of command and the ability/willingness of their auditors and support staff to communicate with FBOP Central Office Administrative and Management Analyst staff to avoid any inherent bias present through direct communication with institution staff.

D. Corrective Action Process

• Offeror shall demonstrate a plan and corresponding timeline template for audit corrective action periods.

• Offeror will describe company policy and viewpoint regarding corrective action, as well as the expectations they have for their auditors during corrective action periods.

• Offeror will provide two (2) examples of preliminary reports, which shall demonstrate corrective action rationale, auditor recommendations, and expectations clearly defined for corrective action periods.

E. Final Report Process

• Offeror will demonstrate adherence to timelines for the providing the client the contracted deliverable (a.k.a. final report).

3 | P a g e

• Offeror will demonstrate an ability to provide a deliverable that states auditor rationale for opinion related to compliance as well as indicate resolution (whether positive or negative) of any corrective action required as a result of the audit.

• Offeror will provide two (2) examples of final reports.

F. Quality Assurrance

• Offeror will demonstrate the process they engage to ensure a quality work product.

• Offeror will describe in detail the expectations of their auditors for producing grammatic and contentment correct reports for distribution to the client.

• Offeror will demonstrate ability to work with client when client voices issues related to the quality of the deliverable.

• Offeror will provide two examples of a work sample before and after quality assurance occurs at the auditor and/or contractor level.

G. Academic and Special Qualification of the Auditors

• Offeror shall provide assurance all auditors assigned to FBOP PREA Audits are certified by the Department of Justice.

• Offeror shall ensure all FBOP audits are conducted by:

o A member of a correctional monitoring body that is not part of, or under the authority of, the agency (but may be part of, or authorized by, the relevant State or local government);

o A member of an auditing entity such as an inspector general’s or ombudsperson’s office that is external to the agency; or o Other outside individuals with relevant experience.

• Offeror shall demonstrate academic experience and qualifications of auditors that illustrates compliance with PREA law.

• Offeror will submit a list of auditor names with Department of Justice certification date and a 1-page resume of each auditor who will be conducting FBOP audits. Offeror should supply such information for auditors added post-contract signing prior to assigning him/her an FBOP audit.

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 Request for Proposal

(RFP).

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 meeting the solicitation requirements for this contract.

4 | P a g e

C. Responsibility for Past Performance Submissions: Note it is the Offeror’s responsibility to provide the questionnaire to their current/past clients to complete and return to the Offeror for submittal at the time of proposal submission.

D. 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 Statement of Work, occurring within the past five years.

Contracts listed may include other federal government contracts, agencies of state and local government contracts, and/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 agencies of the federal, state, or local governments and commercial clients as potentially relevant to the evaluation of past performance.

Offerors should not provide personal antidotes or general information on their performance in the contracts identified for evaluation; rather general performance information MUST be obtained from the references on the Past Performance Questionnaire.

E. Miscellaneous Guidance Related to the Evaluation of Past Performance: Offeror’s 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 it becomes aware, and any reference portals who may have useful and relevant information (i.e. Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS), System for Award Management (SAM), Federal Awardee Performance & Integrity Information System (FAPIIS), and the internet).

Factor 3: Price

Price is defined as the Offeror’s price proposal. This third factor will be evaluated independently by the contracting officer. Note pursuant to FAR 17.203(b), the Government’s evaluation of offers shall be inclusive of options. As such, price proposal in Schedule of Items will be evaluated on the sum of the base period cost and all applicable option periods in totality.