EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD 05192001.pdf

EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

A.1 Selection and Award Criteria

A.1.1 General Conditions

(a) In order to be considered eligible for award, proposals must meet the following general conditions:

(1) The offeror’s technical proposals are determined to be acceptable in accordance with the evaluation factors set forth in Section A.2;

(2) The offeror’s proposed unit prices are determined to be fair and reasonable in accordance with Section A.3;

(3) The offeror's proposal complies with the requirements of law, regulation, and conditions set forth in the solicitation; and

(4) The offeror is determined to be "responsible," as defined in Federal Acquisition Regulation Subpart 9.1. Meets all standards contained therein, and is otherwise eligible for receiving award.

(b) The offeror’s technical and price proposals must demonstrate a clear understanding of the nature and scope of the services required. Failure to provide a realistic, reasonable, and complete technical and price proposal may reflect a lack of understanding of the contract requirements and may result in a determination that the offer is unacceptable.

A.1.2 Award Criteria

(a) The Government will evaluate proposals on the basis of three factors: technical merit, past performance, and price. Technical merit is comprised of the technical evaluation factors listed below. The Government's assessment of technical merit will be based on information provided with the offeror’s proposal as may be augmented by information gathered from checking the past performance references and discussions (if held). If a team is proposed for the work, the team will be evaluated as a whole.

The Government will assess the offeror’s past performance as provided by the offeror and via other available sources. The

Government reserves the sole right to determine the relevance of and assess all past performance information provided or collected. The Government will confirm the accuracy of each offeror's total evaluated price calculation and assess whether it is fair and reasonable.

(b) In deciding which offeror(s) represent(s) the best overall value, the Government will consider the non-price factors of technical merit and past performance to be significantly more important than the proposed price. The best value selection decision will be made as described below:

(1) Technical merit and past performance combined are significantly more important than price. However, as offeror’s proposals become more equal in the non-price factors, the overall price of the entire contract will be given greater importance.

(c) If the Government determines that there are differences in technical merit among competing proposals that warrant award to a higher priced offeror, it reserves the right to conduct a price/technical tradeoff and award to the higher priced offeror.

A.1.3 Evaluation Process

The Government will evaluate each proposal to determine which offer represents the best overall value to the Government, price and other factors considered. Other factors include the various technical evaluation factors and past performance described in this section. In making this comparison, the Government is more concerned with obtaining superior technical and management excellence and low risk than in making an award at the lowest price to the Government. This will involve an overall assessment of each proposal judged in terms of an offeror's potential for successfully completing anticipated requirements within reasonable costs.

A.2 Technical Evaluation

(a) The Government will assess technical merit using the adjectival ratings listed below.

Adjectival Ratings

Exceptional Offeror's technical proposal exceeds requirements of the solicitation in many areas.

Benefits to the Government/BOP are identifiable.

Very Good Offeror's technical proposal meets requirements of the solicitation and exceeds requirements in some areas. Benefits to the Government/BOP 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 may be resolved through discussions.

Marginal Offeror's technical proposal does not meet some of the requirements of the solicitation. The 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 may be resolved through discussions.

Unsatisfactory Offeror's technical proposal fails to meet most of the requirements of the solicitation. The 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 may be resolved through discussions.

(b) Mere restatement of the requirements or assertions that the proposal is compliant with the RFP without containing an appropriate description of the offeror's capabilities may negatively impact an offeror’s ratings for those evaluation factors. Generally speaking, generic information may be rated lower than i nformation well-tailored to the Government’s requirements.

A.2.1 Technical Evaluation Factors

(1) Management: The Government will assess each offeror’s understanding of the proposed contract and ability to manage the contract in an efficient and effective manner. The evaluation will take into account the offeror's management structure and processes, key personnel qualifications, and resources.

The Government will evaluate the offeror's concept for Gender

Responsive and Trauma Informed Management of Female Offenders

Training. The Government will evaluate the likelihood that the

Quoter’s concept for Gender Responsive and Trauma Informed

Management of Female Offenders Training will enhance the BOP’s leadership and impact in Gender-responsive prisons (also known as gender-responsive corrections or gender-responsive programming). Gender-responsive programs vary in intent and implementation and are based on the idea that female offenders differ from their male counterparts.

The Government will evaluate the relevance and realism of the major assumptions (i.e., evidence based) on which the Quoter’s concept for Gender Responsive and Trauma Informed Management of

Female Offenders Training approach is based and the degree to which the success of the concept and approach relies on these assumptions.

The Government will evaluate the Quoter’s concept for Gender

Responsive and Trauma Informed Management of Female Offenders

Training and approach of adult education in creating a training environment of collaboration, innovation, and motivation. As part of this evaluation the Government will evaluate the

Quoter’s concept of in-vivo teaching activities. In-vivo teaching activities are focused on assisting participants in learning (e.g., comprehension, application, analysis, synthesis, evaluation and application) of information in real time (e.g., using software allowing instructors to ask interactive questions, track participant progress and receive instant feedback while participants answer).

The Government will evaluate the offeror's ability to direct, monitor, and control multiple assignments under the contract.

(2) Staffing: The Government will assess each offeror's ability to recruit and employ a sufficient number highly qualified personnel capable of adequately providing Gender Responsive and

Trauma Informed Care Training. The Government will also assess each offeror's ability to retain an adequate pool of qualified personnel.

a) The offeror’s assigned staff shall possess the necessary skills, abilities, and credentials to develop trauma informed and gender responsive programming curriculums and training. Professional staff shall only perform those duties for which their position, certification and degree dictates.

b) The offeror’s assigned staff must demonstrate professional staff have the experience, knowledge and familiarity with the following: advocacy for justice-involved women and/or their families, female offender populations, treatment approaches used for victims of abuse and the potential ensuing trauma, and cognitive-behavioral interventions.

This must have been gained on the national and international level and demonstrated through evidence of publications they have authored or about their programming/initiatives, evidence of training executive leadership of correctional agencies on the state, national or international level on these topics.

c) The offeror’s assigned staff must have experience working collaboratively with agencies inside female correctional facilities directly with female offenders.

d) The offeror’s assigned staff must have and demonstrate experience that they have knowledge of Bureau of Prisons programs and policies, implementation of PREA (Prison Rape

Elimination Act) standards and auditing procedures at female institutions.

e) The offeror’s assigned staff must have experience training high level female institution staff (i.e. Wardens).

f) The offeror’s assigned staff must have experience in developing curricula for incarcerated women focused on trauma and paths leading to incarceration.

g) The offeror’s assigned staff must have and demonstrate experience and knowledge in female offender dynamics, gender responsive methods and counseling female offenders as well as the delivery of cognitive behavioral therapy methods.

h) The offeror’s assigned staff must demonstrate experience providing training, fostering institutional culture change to include gender responsive approaches, staff mentoring and coaching related to incarcerated female offenders in at least a statewide female correctional system.

(3) Corporate Experience: The Government will assess the extent and relevance of each offeror's work history to determine whether the offeror has had experience in effectively performing the services specified in this RFP. The Federal Bureau of

Prisons is a law enforcement agency with unique security restrictions. Accordingly, the offeror will demonstrate its ability to perform the required services at a low risk within a law enforcement agency and the environments common to the

Federal Bureau of Prisons mission.

A.2.2 Past Performance

Past Performance is a measure of the degree to which the offeror, as an organization, has performed previous contracts and satisfied its customers. Offerors will submit past performance information with their proposal, to include recent and relevant contracts for the same or similar items and other references (including contract numbers, points of contact with telephone numbers and other relevant information). The

Government will check, to the extent it deems necessary, each offeror's past performance information and reserves the right contact references to inquire about: the quality and timeliness of the offeror's work; ability to stay within budget;

reasonableness of its business behavior; and technical and management capabilities. The Government may expand the evaluation to include references or information not contained in the offeror's submission including, but not limited to, past evaluations and other available information. The actual number of references checked is at the Government's discretion.

A.2.3 Pricing Evaluation

To be considered for award, the offeror must submit prices that comply with pertinent regulatory requirements and are deemed to be fair and reasonable. The Government may evaluate the reasonableness of each offeror's proposed unit prices and multipliers by comparing them to each other and, where necessary, other contracts for similar items. Prices that represent a probable loss position for the offeror may be judged unrealistic. Prices which are extreme or excessive may be judged unreasonable.

The Government may reject an offer as being unacceptable if it is materially unbalanced as to prices for individual special item numbers within the same contract period and prices for the base period and the option periods.

Evaluation of Option Periods

For award purposes, in addition to an offeror's response to the base period requirements, the Government will evaluate the offeror's technical and price response to all contract option periods. Evaluation of option period(s) will not obligate the

Government to exercise the options.