STATE OF OREGON

COVER PAGE

Oregon Judicial Department

VETERANS TREATMENT COURT PROGRAM EXPANSION CONSULTING SERVICES

Request for Proposal (RFP)

S-19800-00014538

Date of Issue: November 5, 2025

Bid Closing Date: January 9, 2026

Single Point of Contact (SPC): Robert Baxter, CPPO, CPPB, Procurement Manager

Address: 1133 Chemeketa Street NE City, State, Zip Salem, OR 97301 Phone (voice) 503-986-6410 E-mail: robert.a.baxter@ojd.state.or.us mailto:robert.a.baxter@ojd.state.or.us

RFP No. S-19800-00014538 – Veterans Treatment Court Program Expansion Consulting Services

TABLE OF CONTENTS

SECTION 1: GENERAL INFORMATION

1.1 INTRODUCTION

1.2 SCHEDULE

1.3 SINGLE POINT OF CONTACT (SPC)

SECTION 2: AUTHORITY, OVERVIEW, AND SCOPE

2.1 AUTHORITY AND METHOD

2.2 DEFINITION OF TERMS

2.2.1 GENERAL DEFINITIONS

2.2.2 PROJECT SPECIFIC DEFINITIONS

2.3 OVERVIEW, BACKGROUND, AND PURPOSE

2.3.1 OJD Overview and Background

2.3.2 Project Background

2.3.3 Project Overview

2.4 SCOPE OF WORK

2.4.1 General

a. Anticipated project timeline

b. Proposed methodology for how resources will be identified

c. Proposed methodology for how key stakeholders will be identified

d. Proposed schedule for outreach and engagement, including any in-person trainings or events

SECTION 3: PROCUREMENT REQUIREMENTS

3.1 PROPOSER REQUIREMENTS

3.1.1 Minimum Proposer Qualification Requirements

3.1.2 Preferred Proposer Qualifications

3.2 MINIMUM SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS

3.2.1 Proposal Content Requirements

3.2.2 Proposal Format and Method

3.2.3 Authorized Representative

3.3 PROPOSAL CONTENT REQUIREMENTS

3.3.1 Proposal Certification Sheet

3.3.2 Proposer Information Sheet

3.3.3 Proposer Qualification Requirements

3.3.4 Proposer Overview

3.3.5 Prior Experience

3.3.6 Project Understanding and Assessment Methodology

3.3.7 Qualifications of Staff and Staffing Plan

3.3.8 References

3.3.9 Cost Proposal

3.3.10 Public Record/Confidential or Proprietary Information

SECTION 4: PROCUREMENT PROCESS

4.1 Public Notice

4.2 Questions / Requests for Clarification and Requests for Change

4.3 Pre-Proposal Conference

4.3.1 Attendance at Pre-Proposal Conference

4.4 Questions / Requests for Clarification and Requests for Change

4.5 Proposal Submission Method

4.6 Proposal Modification or Withdrawal

4.7 Proposal Due

4.8 Proposal Rejection

4.9 Opening of Proposal

4.10 EVALUATION PROCESS

4.10.1 Responsiveness Determination

4.10.2 Responsibility Determination

4.10.3 Evaluation Criteria

4.11 COST EVALUATION

4.12 POINT AND SCORE CALCULATIONS

4.13 NEXT STEP DETERMINATION

4.14 RANKING OF PROPOSERS

SECTION 5: AWARD AND NEGOTIATION

5.1 AWARD NOTIFICATION PROCESS

5.1.1 Award Consideration

5.1.2 Intent to Award Notice

5.1.3 Multiple Awards

5.2 INTENT TO AWARD PROTEST

5.2.1 Protest Submission

5.2.2 Response to Protest

5.3 APPARENT SUCCESSFUL PROPOSER SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS

5.3.1 Insurance

5.3.2 Taxpayer Identification Number

5.3.3 Business Registry

5.3.4 Pay Equity Certification

5.3.5 Nondiscrimination in Employment

5.4 CONTRACT NEGOTIATION

SECTION 6: ADDITIONAL INFORMATION

6.1 CERTIFICATION OFFICE FOR BUSINESS INCLUSION AND DIVERSITY (COBID)

6.2 GOVERNING LAWS AND REGULATIONS

6.3 OWNERSHIP/PERMISSION TO USE MATERIALS

6.4 CANCELLATION OF RFP; REJECTION OF PROPOSALS; NO DAMAGES

6.4.1 General

6.4.2 No Damages. Neither the State nor OJD is liable to any Proposer for any loss or expense caused by or resulting from the delay, suspension, or cancellation of the RFP, award, or rejection of any Proposal

6.4.3 Proposal Rejection:

6.5 COST OF SUBMITTING A PROPOSAL

6.6 RECYCLABLE PRODUCTS

6.7 CHECKLIST DISCLAIMER

SECTION 7: LIST OF ATTACHMENTS

ATTACHMENT A SAMPLE CONTRACT

ATTACHMENT B DISCLOSURE EXEMPTION AFFIDAVIT

ATTACHMENT C PROPOSER CERTIFICATION SHEET

ATTACHMENT D PROPOSER INFORMATION SHEET

ATTACHMENT E REFERENCE CHECK FORM

ATTACHMENT F COBID CERTIFICATION

ATTACHMENT G RESPONSIBILITY INQUIRY

ATTACHMENT H PROPOSAL CHECKLIST

ATTACHMENT I OJD’s GENERAL PROCUREMENT - INTERIM POLICY

ATTACHMENT J FEDERAL AWARD CONDITIONS

ATTACHMENT K ADULT TREATMENT COURT BEST PRACTICE STANDARDS

ATTACHMENT L OREGON SPECIALTY COURT STANDARDS

ATTACHMENT M SEQUENTIAL INTERCEPT MODEL

ATTACHMENT N VETERANS TREATMENT COURT STRATEGIC PLAN FACT SHEET

SECTION 1: GENERAL INFORMATION

1.1 INTRODUCTION

The State of Oregon (State), acting by and through the Oregon Judicial Department, (OJD), on behalf of its Court Programs Division, is issuing this Request for Proposal (RFP) to solicit Written responses to this RFP (Proposals) from experienced Proposers qualified to provide Veterans Treatment Court Program Expansion Services.

Additional details on the requested Services are included in Section 2.4 SCOPE OF WORK of this

RFP.

OJD may make a single award to one vendor. However, OJD reserves the right to award separate contracts to separate vendors for each task; and may award all or part of this solicitation, as OJD determines in its sole discretion.

This project is funded in whole or in part by a federal grant from the United States Department of Justice, award number 15PBJA-24-GG-03973. Vendor must be able to comply with all applicable provisions of the grant funding.

1.2 SCHEDULE

The table below represents a tentative schedule of events. All times are listed in Pacific Time. All dates listed are subject to change.

Event Date Time

Pre-Proposal Conference November 14, 2025 10:30 am

Questions / Requests for Clarification and Requests for Change Due

November 21, 2025 12:00 pm

Closing (Proposals Due) January 9, 2026 3:30 pm

Presentations, Demonstrations, or Interviews TBD

Issuance of Notice of Intent to Award (approx.) TBD

Award Protest Period Ends 7 calendar days after Notice of Intent to Award

1.3 SINGLE POINT OF CONTACT (SPC)

The SPC for this RFP is identified on the cover page, along with the SPC’s contact information.

Proposer shall direct all communications related to any provision of the RFP, whether about the technical requirements of the RFP, contractual requirements, the RFP process, or any other provision only to the SPC.

SECTION 2: AUTHORITY, OVERVIEW, AND SCOPE

2.1 AUTHORITY AND METHOD

OJD is issuing this RFP pursuant to its authority under ORS 1.002, 1.008(3), and 8.125(10).

OJD is using the Request for Proposals method, pursuant to the OJD’s General Procurement – Interim Policy, effective April 23, 2025 (Attachment I).

2.2 DEFINITION OF TERMS

2.2.1 GENERAL DEFINITIONS

2.2.1.1 For the purposes of this RFP, capitalized terms not specifically defined in this RFP are defined in OJD’s General Procurement – Interim Policy (Attachment I).

2.2.2 PROJECT SPECIFIC DEFINITIONS

2.2.2.1 Behavioral Health means the prevention, diagnosis, and treatment of mental health or substance use disorders.

2.2.2.2 Gap Analysis means the work product created to identify gaps in access, referrals and service delivery (including obstacles, barriers, and previously unidentified opportunities) in treatment courts pertaining to justice-involved Service Members and Veterans.

2.2.2.3 Oregon Treatment Court Standards means the statewide guidance provided in the Oregon Specialty Court Standards document (Attachment L), further defining best and promising practices by which treatment courts can best align with each component.

2.2.2.4 Sequential Intercept Model (SIM) means the framework designed to understand and improve interactions between individuals with mental health and substance use disorders and the criminal justice system. It helps communities identify resources and gaps in services at various intercept points, which are critical moments when individuals encounter the criminal justice system.

2.2.2.5 Service Member and Veteran (SMV) means any person who served in any branch of the United States military, regardless of length of active-duty time served.

2.2.2.6 Service Member, Veteran, and Family (SMVF) means the family member, or loved one, of any person who served in any branch of the United States military, regardless of length of active-duty time served.

2.2.2.7 Treatment Court(s) means court programs in which a person’s behavior and progress is overseen and responded to by a multidisciplinary team through regular judicial reviews; community supervision and support; and treatment, following the evidence-based treatment court model.

2.2.2.8 Treatment Court National Best Practice means the comprehensive framework designed to enhance the effectiveness of treatment courts across various models, including drug courts, mental health courts, and family treatment courts.

2.2.2.9 Veteran Treatment Court (VTC) means any one of the seven recognized VTC programs in Oregon following the evidence-based treatment court model and receiving financial or technical support from

OJD.

2.3 OVERVIEW, BACKGROUND, AND PURPOSE

2.3.1 OJD Overview and Background

This section provides an overview of OJD and includes information and organizational statistics.

Oregon state courts include the Supreme Court, Court of Appeals, 36 circuit courts in 27 Judicial Districts, and the Tax Court. These state courts are part of the OJD. Each of the 27 districts includes one or more counties. Because some Oregon counties have relatively small populations and caseloads, the legislature has combined them into multicounty Judicial Districts. Each of Oregon's 36 counties has a circuit court. In most counties, the court has its offices in the county courthouse. In a few counties, the court has offices and courtrooms in more than one location.

Figure 1 below provides an illustration of how Oregon’s 36 counties are assembled into 27 districts.

Figure 1

The Chief Justice of the Oregon Supreme Court is the administrative head and chief executive officer of OJD. The Chief Justice supervises the state court system, makes rules and issues orders to carry out the duties of the office, appoints the Chief Judge of the Court of Appeals and the presiding judges of the state judicial districts, adopts rules that establish procedures for all state courts, and supervises the statewide fiscal plan and budget for all state courts.

The State Court Administrator (SCA) is the OJD’s chief operating officer and assists the Chief Justice in administering and supervising the state courts through the various divisions of the Office of the State Court Administer (OSCA).

In each Judicial District, the Chief Justice appoints a presiding judge. The presiding judge has general administrative authority and supervision over the district to apportion the workload, make rules, and issue administrative orders. The presiding judge appoints a professional trial court administrator (TCA) to help the presiding judge manage the court's operations and local budget.

The circuit courts handle all case classes and types, including, but not limited to, all civil cases (e.g. small claims, probate, mental health, juvenile, domestic relations) and all criminal cases (e.g.

felony, misdemeanor, and violation cases).

2.3.2 Project Background

Treatment courts exist at the intersection of behavioral health treatment and the justice system. In a treatment court program, a person’s behavior and progress are overseen by a multidisciplinary team through regular judicial review, treatment, and community supervision and support. The 70 existing treatment courts (including seven VTCs) in Oregon circuit courts are guided by an evidence-based treatment court model, inclusive of national and state best practices standards.

In 2022, OJD began a VTC strategic planning process which included the development of a needs assessment and convening of strategic partners, to develop a VTC statewide strategic plan focused on enhancing and expanding SMV access to VTCs in Oregon. Published in 2023, the plan includes seven goals, which recognize the unique impacts military service may have on justice-involved SMV as well as the need to provide greater access to treatment court programming tailored to SMV participants.

The VTC strategic plan also aligns with OJD’s 2024-2027 Justice Campaign, which identifies four commitments, and nine initiatives intended to provide access to justice for Oregonians (please refer to Attachment N – Veterans Treatment Court Strategic Plan Fact Sheet for more information). The first commitment in the plan states, “[w]e will collaborate with community partners to improve services and access for people who are underserved, vulnerable, and marginalized.” The continued operation, expansion, and efforts to improve Oregon’s treatment courts are examples of the activities which support this commitment.

2.3.3 Project Overview

The purpose of this RFP is to solicit responses from vendors qualified to provide Veterans Treatment Court Program Expansion Consulting Services (Services) to support increased SMV access to the VTC model through statewide, regional, and local solutions in Oregon. The Services include conducting a statewide Gap Analysis; developing and providing training on a community and treatment court team readiness assessment to establish a VTC; and developing and providing training on an implementation toolkit.

Services will be closely coordinated with the OJD and will be guided by Oregon’s statewide VTC strategic plan, the Sequential Intercept Model (SIM) (Attachment M), Adult Treatment Court Best Practice Standards (Attachment K), Oregon Treatment Court Standards, and the OJD Justice Campaign. The selected contractor will ensure SMV population specific access to treatment court programs is incorporated into all Services, including considerations for communities within civilian and military populations, across military service types (National Guard, Active Duty, Reserve). Please see Attachment N – Strategic Plan Fact Sheet for an overview of the VTC Strategic Plan.

To meet project deliverables, work will be informed by key stakeholders such as members of OJD’s treatment court teams, treatment providers, other social service providers, law enforcement, health care systems, and organizations serving justice-involved Oregonians and the SMV population. The contractor will be expected to conduct outreach and engagement based on their own research, and by recommendation from the OJD, to identify key stakeholders and to develop an outreach and engagement plan. Any direct outreach to the VTC will be closely coordinated with the OJD.

2.4 SCOPE OF WORK

2.4.1 General

Contractor shall provide the following Services to OJD. Services shall include conducting a statewide Gap Analysis; developing and training on a community treatment court team readiness assessment; and developing and training on an implementation toolkit. The Services include the following tasks:

2.4.1.1 Project Plan - Contractor shall develop and submit a project plan no later than 60 days from contract execution and shall include the following:

a. Anticipated project timeline

b. Proposed methodology for how resources will be identified

c. Proposed methodology for how key stakeholders will be identified

d. Proposed schedule for outreach and engagement, including any in-person trainings or events.

2.4.1.2 Monthly Meetings – Upon execution of contract, Contractor shall schedule, at a minimum, monthly meetings with OJD for the duration of the contract for the purpose of reviewing contract deliverables, adherence to project plan, and identification of potential obstacles or barriers impacting project timeline.

2.4.1.3 Quarterly Reporting – Using an OJD provided template, Contractor shall submit quarterly reports every 90 days, starting from date of contract execution. Quarterly reports shall include the following:

a. Summary of progress over the quarter, including details from any in-person or virtual community partner visits, site visits, or community listening sessions.

b. Identification of any perceived barriers or obstacles which may impact Contractor’s ability to meet deliverables.

c. Summary of work planned for the following quarter.

d. Other elements as requested by OJD.

2.4.1.4 Gap Analysis – Contractor shall develop a statewide Gap Analysis identifying gaps in treatment courts and VTC coverage for SMV. Exact dates, activities, and deliverable due dates to be determined based on agreement of the Parties during the development of the project plan. The Gap Analysis shall include, but is not limited to, the following:

a. Identification of court programs and resources serving justice-involved SMV in addition to the established VTCs in Oregon.

b. Identification of common decision points, systemic barriers or sustainability concerns (such as local support, treatment provider capacity, court docket time, etc.)

communities have encountered when considering standing up a VTC or SMV specific track.

c. Development of a final report to include, but is not limited to the following:

i. Summary of methodology used while developing the gap analysis

ii. List of interviews, community forums, or other sources of information used to inform the gap analysis.

iii. Identification and description of treatment court resources and service gaps by county (as identified Subsections 2.4.1.5.a and 2.4.1.5.b). This may also include Veterans Health Administration (VHA) facilities serving Oregon SMV at VHA facilities located in Idaho or Washington.

2.4.1.5 Readiness Assessment – Contractor shall engage with circuit courts and statewide strategic partners to develop a readiness assessment tool and facilitate local site readiness conversations for the purpose of delivering services to SMV in alignment with OJD’s VTC expansion framework, and national and state best practice standards. The list below outlines the general activities Contractor will follow while developing and delivering the assessment tool. Exact dates, activities, and deliverables to be determined based on agreement of the Parties during the development of the project plan and Gap Analysis. This assessment shall include, but is not limited to the following:

a. Development of readiness assessment(s) applicable to all members of treatment court teams, including strategic community partners such as probation, treatment providers, and local SMV supports.

b. Inclusion of access considerations such as existing, or required, Memorandums of Understanding (MOUs), VA Community Care agreements, access to court and treatment court team members via teleservices.

c. Development of an outreach and engagement plan to inform development of readiness assessment and readiness assessment facilitation.

d. Development of an outreach, engagement, and facilitation plan to deliver readiness assessment tool to communities looking to expand treatment court services to justice-involved SMV.

2.4.1.6 Implementation Toolkit – Based on the Gap Analysis, readiness assessment, and VTC expansion framework developed by OJD, Contractor will, in partnership with OJD, engage with circuit courts and statewide strategic partners to develop an implementation toolkit and prepare identified programs for participation in a pilot program. The list below outlines the general activities Contractor will follow while developing and delivering the implementation toolkit.

Exact dates, activities, and deliverables may be updated based on agreement of the Parties during the development of the project plan and subsequent deliverables.

a. Development of an implementation toolkit inclusive of processes and steps sites would need to take to participate in the VTC expansion framework. Process mapping must be applicable to rural counties where the closest major VHA health facility may be in another state.

b. Identification of potential sites ready to pilot proposed OJD VTC expansion framework, ensuring all proposed sites have also completed readiness assessment.

c. Development of an outreach, engagement, and facilitation plan to deliver the implementation toolkit to selected sites.

SECTION 3: PROCUREMENT REQUIREMENTS

3.1 PROPOSER REQUIREMENTS

To be considered for evaluation, Proposal must demonstrate how Proposer meets all mandatory qualification requirements of in Section 3.1.1 and demonstrate if Proposer meets the preferred qualifications in Section 3.1.2.

3.1.1 Minimum Proposer Qualification Requirements

3.1.1.1 Proposer shall possess all licenses and certifications necessary to perform the Services called out in this RFP.

3.1.1.2 Proposer shall have a minimum of 5 years of experience providing Services similar in scope to what is identified in this RFP.

3.1.2 Preferred Proposer Qualifications

3.1.2.1 Proposer has received training to facilitate SIM sessions.

3.1.2.2 Proposer has education and awareness of military culture.

3.1.2.3 Proposer has education and awareness of treatment courts.

3.2 MINIMUM SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS

3.2.1 Proposal Content Requirements

To be considered for evaluation, Proposal must contain each of the following elements (further detailed in the Proposal Contents Requirements section below):

3.2.1.1 Proposer Overview

3.2.1.2 Proposal

3.2.1.3 Disclosure Exemption Affidavit (Attachment B) if applicable

3.2.1.4 Proposer Certification Sheet (Attachment C)

3.2.1.5 Proposer Information Sheet (Attachment D)

3.2.1.6 Reference Check Form (Attachment E)

3.2.1.7 COBID Certification (Attachment F)

3.2.1.8 Responsibility Inquiry (Attachment G)

3.2.1.9 Key Persons Resumes

3.2.2 Proposal Format and Method

Proposal should follow the format and reference the sections listed in the Proposal Content Requirements section. Responses to each section and subsection should be labeled to indicate the item being addressed. Proposal must describe in detail how requirements of this RFP will be met and may provide additional related information.

Proposer shall submit its Proposal without extensive artwork, unusual printing or other materials not essential to the utility and clarity of the Proposal.

Proposer shall submit its Proposal bearing the Proposer’s authorized representative’s Signature.

If Proposer believes any of its Proposal is exempt from disclosure under Oregon Public Records Law (ORS 192.311 through 192.478), Proposer shall complete and submit the Disclosure Exemption Affidavit (Attachment B) and a fully redacted version of its Proposal, clearly identified as the redacted version.

Proposer Certification Sheet, Proposer Information Sheet, and Proposer Responsibility Inquiry must bear the Proposer’s authorized representative Signature.

Proposer shall submit its Proposal as an electronic copy. Proposer shall email its Proposal and all other submittal requirements, to the SPC. Please note individual emails cannot exceed 25MB. If a Proposers total submission will exceed 25MB, Proposer should send its Proposal in parts via multiple emails. Proposer shall include in the subject line of the email the Proposer’s name and RFP #. If Proposers is sending multiple emails, Proposer should also include the subject line the total number of emails being sent (e.g., email 1 of 3).

Proposer’s electronic copy of the Proposal and all other submittal requirements submitted must be formatted using one of the following formats: Adobe Acrobat (pdf), Microsoft Word (docx), or Microsoft Excel (xlsx) as applicable. Annotated drawings must be formatted using Microsoft Office or Adobe product. Drawings must not be formatted using AutoCAD or similar products.

Cost Proposal and related information must be submitted as a separate file in the email to the SPC.

3.2.3 Authorized Representative

A representative authorized to bind the Proposer shall sign the Proposal. Failure of the authorized representative to sign the Proposal may subject the Proposal to rejection by OJD.

3.3 PROPOSAL CONTENT REQUIREMENTS

Proposal must address each of the items listed in this section and all other requirements set forth in this RFP. Proposer shall describe the Services to be performed. A Proposal that merely offers to provide the Services as stated in this RFP may be considered non-Responsive to this RFP and will not be considered further. Do not include marketing or advertising material in the Proposal. Proposal should be straightforward and address the requests of the RFP. Proposals containing unsolicited marketing or advertising material may receive a lower evaluation score if required information is difficult to locate.

3.3.1 Proposal Certification Sheet

The Proposer shall complete and submit the Proposal Certification Sheet (Attachment C).

3.3.2 Proposer Information Sheet

The Proposer shall complete and submit the Proposer Information Sheet (Attachment D).

3.3.3 Proposer Qualification Requirements

Proposer shall include in its Proposal a response to each of the requirements listed in this section.

Proposer’s response to each requirement shall follow a restatement of that respective requirement followed by Proposer’s response on how Proposer meets such requirement.

3.3.3.1 In order to support compliance with the minimum requirement in 3.1.1.1, Proposer shall include in its Proposal photocopies of all applicable licenses and certifications.

3.3.3.2 In order to support compliance with the minimum requirement 3.1.1.2, Proposer shall include in its Proposal the following for each customer being submitted as support of compliance with required experience:

(i) the customer’s name; and

(ii) a comprehensive description of Proposer’s experience providing services similar in scope to what is identified in this RFP to the customer; and

(iii) the duration that Proposer provided those services to the customer.

In order to be considered compliant with this minimum requirement, Proposer must provide at least one or more customers that singly or combined meet the minimum of 5 years’ experience.

3.3.3.3 In order to support compliance with the preferred qualification in 3.1.2, Proposer shall include in its Proposal documentation to support compliance with either or both of the preferred proposer qualifications outlined in Subsections 3.1.2.1 and 3.1.2.2.

3.3.4 Proposer Overview

Proposer shall include a description of professional services offered, number of dedicated staff resources, number of years in business, and any additional information relevant to the services requested for the project.

Additionally, while this information is not considered in any scored evaluation, Proposer shall also complete and submit the COBID Certification (Attachment F) indicating if Proposer is a minority-owned business, woman-owned business, business that service-disabled veterans own, or emerging small business.

3.3.5 Prior Experience

Proposer shall provide a detailed description of its background and experience with the following:

3.3.5.1 Treatment Courts

3.3.5.2 SIM

3.3.5.3 Service Member, Veteran, and Family (SMVF) population, or with systems which serve SMVF, including any unique populations within the military community.

3.3.5.4 Community outreach and engagement, facilitating focus groups and/or community meetings, including with rural and/or rural SMVF populations.

3.3.5.5 Conducting community mapping, gaps analysis, development and delivery of readiness assessments, and program specific toolkits.

3.3.6 Project Understanding and Assessment Methodology

3.3.6.1 Project Narrative: Proposer shall describe in detail, in paragraph form, how they would carry out the major activities of this project in the context of Section 2.4 Scope of Work. Proposer shall include a comprehensive narrative detailing how their proposed plans and approach will meet the needs and expectations for each component of the project. In providing the Project Narrative, Proposer shall include the details on how they will accomplish the proposed tasks.

Explain general procedures as well as the tools to be used during each component of the project. The Project Narrative should also reflect all start-up and close-out activities. The Project Narrative should align with the Project Schedule.

3.3.6.2 Project Schedule: Proposer shall describe in detail the proposed schedule for providing the Services related to each task being sought under this RFP. In providing the project schedule, Proposer shall include an estimated timeline reflecting all proposed tasks, start-up, and close-out activities identified in the Project Narrative.

3.3.7 Qualifications of Staff and Staffing Plan

Proposer shall include a detailed description and staffing plan for how the organization will staff the project. The description and plan shall include a roster of all staff, including any key personnel proposed to perform Services for this project. The description for each staff person proposed shall include the title of proposed staff, team role (if applicable), and a current resume or curriculum vitae (CV). Resumes or CV’s must detail the proposed staff’s certifications and licenses, skills, knowledge and experience, including experience in providing services similar to the Services called out in this RFP.

NOTE: All individuals performing services under a contract resulting from this RFP will be required to pass a criminal background check prior to performing those services.

3.3.8 References

Provide 3 references from current or former client firms for similar projects performed for any clients within the last 5 years. References must verify the quality of previous, related Work.

OJD may check to determine if references provided support Proposer’s ability to comply with the requirements of this RFP. OJD may use references to obtain additional information, break tie scores, or verify any information needed. OJD may contact any reference (submitted or not) to verify Proposer’s qualifications.

Proposer shall send the Reference Check Form (Attachment E) to its references. Reference forms must be completed by the reference and sent to the SPC directly by the reference.

Reference forms must be received prior to Closing. Reference forms not received before Closing may not be scored.

3.3.9 Cost Proposal

Proposer shall submit their Cost Proposal and all related information as a separate file in the electronic response.

The Cost Proposal shall specify the firm fixed price Proposer is proposing for all services required under this RFP. The firm fixed price shall be inclusive of all labor, goods, services, travel, and materials necessary to complete the required services, including items such as supplies, equipment, and incidentals.

3.3.10 Public Record/Confidential or Proprietary Information

This RFP and one copy of each Proposal received in response to it, together with copies of all documents pertaining to the award of a Contract, shall be kept by OJD and made a part of a file or record that may be open to public inspection. If a Proposer believes that any portion of its Proposal contains any information that is a trade secret under ORS Chapter 192.345(2) or otherwise is exempt from disclosure under the Oregon Public Records Law (ORS 192.311 through 192.478), Proposer shall complete and submit the Disclosure Exemption Affidavit (Attachment B) and a fully redacted version of its Proposal as set forth in Section 3.2.2 above.

Proposer is cautioned that cost information generally is not considered a trade secret under Oregon Public Records Law (ORS 192.311 through 192.478) and identifying the Proposal, in whole, as exempt from disclosure is not acceptable. OJD advises each Proposer to consult with its own legal counsel regarding disclosure issues.

If Proposer fails to identify the portions of the Proposal that Proposer claims are exempt from disclosure, Proposer has waived any future claim of non-disclosure of that information.

SECTION 4: PROCUREMENT PROCESS

4.1 PUBLIC NOTICE

The RFP, including all Addenda and attachments, is published in the OREGONBUYS eProcurement System (OregonBuys) at https://oregonbuys.gov/bso/. RFP documents will not be mailed to prospective Proposers.

OJD shall advertise all Addenda on OregonBuys. Prospective Proposer is solely responsible for checking OregonBuys to determine whether or not any Addenda have been issued. Addenda are incorporated into the RFP by this reference.

4.2 QUESTIONS / REQUESTS FOR CLARIFICATION AND REQUESTS FOR CHANGE

All inquiries, whether relating to the RFP process, administration, deadline or method of award, or to the intent or technical aspects of the RFP must:

• Be delivered to the SPC via email;

• Reference the RFP number;

• Identify Proposer’s name and contact information;

• Be sent by an authorized representative;

• Refer to the specific area of the RFP being questioned (i.e. page, section and paragraph number);

• Identify the specifics of the request for clarification or request for change; and

• Be received by the due date and time for Questions/Requests for Clarification identified in the Schedule.

4.3 PRE-PROPOSAL CONFERENCE

A pre-Proposal conference will be held at the date and time listed in the Schedule. Prospective Proposers’ participation in this conference is highly encouraged but not mandatory.

The purpose of the pre-Proposal conference is to:

• Provide an overview of the project;

• Explain the RFP process; and

• Answer any questions Proposers may have related to the project or the process.

Statements made at the pre-Proposal conference are not binding upon OJD. Proposers may be asked to submit questions in Writing.

4.3.1 Attendance at Pre-Proposal Conference

The pre-Proposal conference will be held via Microsoft Teams. Any prospective Proposers wishing to attend the pre-Proposal conference must provide their contact and email address to the SPC via email by November 13, 2025, by 12:00 p.m. (PT). For all prospective Proposers that timely provide their email and contact information to the SPC, the SPC will send to the email provided by prospective Proposers an invitation to the Microsoft Teams Pre-Proposal Conference.

https://oregonbuys.gov/bso/

4.4 QUESTIONS / REQUESTS FOR CLARIFICATION AND REQUESTS FOR CHANGE

All inquiries, whether relating to the RFP process, administration, deadline or method of award, or to the intent or technical aspects of the RFP must:

• Be delivered to the SPC via email;

• Reference the RFP number;

• Identify Proposer’s name and contact information;

• Be sent by an authorized representative;

• Refer to the specific area of the RFP being questioned (i.e. page, section and paragraph number);

• Identify the specifics of the request for clarification or request for change; and

• Be received by the due date and time for Questions/Requests for Clarification identified in the Schedule.

4.5 PROPOSAL SUBMISSION METHOD

As noted above in Subsection 3.2.2, Proposer shall submit its Proposal as an electronic copy.

Proposer shall email its Proposal and all other submittal requirements, to the SPC.

Proposer is solely responsible for ensuring its Proposal is received by the SPC in accordance with the RFP requirements before Closing. OJD is not responsible for any delays or failures in the email transmission. Proposal submitted by any means not authorized will be rejected.

4.6 PROPOSAL MODIFICATION OR WITHDRAWAL

Any Proposer who wishes to make modifications to a Proposal already received by OJD, but prior to Closing, shall submit its modification in one of the manners listed in the Proposal Submission Options section and must denote the specific change(s) to the Proposal submission.

If a Proposer wishes to withdraw a submitted Proposal, it shall do so prior to Closing. The Proposer shall submit a Written notice signed by an authorized representative of its intent to withdraw its Proposal. The notice must include the RFP number and be submitted to the SPC.

4.7 PROPOSAL DUE

Proposal and all required submittal items must be received by the SPC on or before Closing. Proposal received after the Closing will not be accepted. All Proposal modifications or withdrawals must be completed prior to Closing.

Proposals received after Closing are considered LATE and will NOT be accepted for evaluation. Late Proposals will be returned to the respective Proposer or destroyed.

4.8 PROPOSAL REJECTION

OJD may reject a Proposal for any of the following reasons:

• Proposer fails to substantially comply with all prescribed RFP procedures and requirements, including but not limited to the requirement that Proposer’s authorized representative sign the Proposal.

• Proposer fails to meet the responsibility requirements outlined below:

o General: Proposer is required to demonstrate their ability to perform satisfactorily under a contract.

o B. Considerations: In determining whether a Proposer has met the standards of responsibility, OJD must consider whether the Proposer has met the following criteria:

1. Business Qualifications: Has available the appropriate financial, material, equipment, facility, and personnel resources and expertise, or ability to obtain the resources and expertise, necessary to indicate the capability of the Proposer to meet all contractual responsibilities;

2. Record of Performance: Has a satisfactory record of contract performance. OJD must carefully scrutinize a Proposer’s record of contract performance if the Proposer is or recently has been materially deficient in contract performance. In reviewing the Proposer’s performance, OJD must determine whether the Proposer’s deficient performance was expressly excused under the terms of the contract or whether Proposer took appropriate corrective action. OJD may review Proposer’s performance on both private and public contracts in determining Proposer’s record of contract performance;

3. Record of Integrity: Has a satisfactory record of integrity. A Proposer may lack integrity if OJD determines Proposer demonstrates a lack of business ethics such as violation of state environmental laws or making of false certifications. OJD may find a Proposer nonresponsible based on the lack of integrity of any person having influence or control over the Proposer (such as a key employee of Proposer that has the authority to significantly influence Proposer’s performance of the contract or a parent company, predecessor, or successor person);

4. Legally Qualified: Is qualified legally to contract with OJD; and

5. Necessary Information: Has supplied all necessary information in connection with the inquiry concerning responsibility. If Proposer fails to promptly supply information requested by OJD concerning responsibility, OJD must base the determination of responsibility upon any available information or may find Proposer nonresponsible.

• Proposer makes any contact regarding this RFP with State representatives such as State employees or officials other than the SPC or those the SPC authorizes, or inappropriate contact with the SPC.

• Proposer attempts to inappropriately influence a member of the evaluation committee.

• Proposal is conditioned on OJD’s acceptance of any other terms and conditions or rights to negotiate any alternative terms and conditions that are not reasonably related to those expressly authorized for negotiation in the RFP or Addenda.

4.9 OPENING OF PROPOSAL

There will be no public opening of Proposals. Proposals received will not be available for inspection until after the evaluation process has been completed and the notice of the Award is issued. However, OJD will record and make available the identity of all Proposers after opening.

4.10 EVALUATION PROCESS

4.10.1 Responsiveness Determination

Proposals received prior to Closing will be reviewed to determine if they are Responsive to all RFP requirements including compliance with Minimum Submission Requirements section and Proposal Content Requirements section. If the Proposal is unclear, the SPC may request clarification from Proposer. However, clarifications may not be used to rehabilitate a non- Responsive Proposal. If the SPC finds the Proposal non-Responsive, the Proposal may be rejected, however, OJD may waive mistakes in accordance with the procedures outlined in this Section 4.10.

OJD reserves the right, in its sole discretion, to allow all Proposers submitting a Proposal in response to this RFP the ability to correct deficiencies in their respective Proposals for the purpose of determining responsiveness during evaluation.

4.10.1.1 OJD’s Treatment of Mistakes. OJD shall not allow a Proposer to correct or withdraw its Proposal for an error of judgment. If OJD discovers certain mistakes in a Proposal after closing, but before award of the contract, OJD may take the following action:

a. Minor Informality: OJD may waive or permit a Proposer to correct a minor informality. A minor informality is a matter of form rather than substance when it is evident on the face of the offer or an insignificant mistake that can be waived or corrected without prejudice to other Proposers. An examples of minor informality is, but is not limited to, a Proposer’s failure to sign its Proposal in the designated block, provided a signature appears elsewhere in the Proposal, evidencing an intent to be bound; and

b. Clerical Error: OJD may correct a clerical error if the error is evident on the face of the Proposal or other documents submitted with the Proposal and the Proposer confirms OJD’s correction in writing.

A clerical error is a Proposer’s error in transcribing its Proposal.

Examples include typographical mistakes, errors in extending unit prices, transposition errors, errors in arithmetic, and instances in which the intended correct unit or amount is evident by simple arithmetic calculations. In the event of a discrepancy, unit prices must prevail over extended prices.

c. Withdrawing Offers After Closing: OJD may permit a Proposer to withdraw its Proposal based on one or more clerical errors in the Proposal only if the Proposer shows with objective proof and by clear and convincing evidence:

• the nature of the error;

• that the error is not a minor informality under this subsection or an error of judgment;

• that the error cannot be corrected or waived as a minor informality or clerical above;

• that Proposer acted in good faith in submitting its Proposal that contained the claimed error and in claiming that alleged error in the Proposal exists;

• that Proposer acted without gross negligence in submitting its Proposal that contained a claimed error;

• that Proposer will suffer substantial detriment if OJD does not grant Proposer permission to withdraw its Proposal;

• that OJD’s status has not changed so significantly that Proposer’s relief from its obligation will work a substantial hardship on OJD;

and

• that Proposer promptly gave notice of the claimed error to OJD.

4.10.1.2 Rejection for Mistakes: OJD must reject a Proposal in which a mistake is evident on the face of the Proposal and the intended correct Proposal is not evident or cannot be substantiated from documents submitted with the Proposal.

4.10.1.3 Identification of Mistakes after Award: Following award, Proposer is bound by its Proposal unless a request to rescind a contract is approved by OJD.

4.10.2 Responsibility Determination

OJD will determine if an apparent successful Proposer is Responsible prior to award and execution of the Contract. Proposers shall submit a signed Responsibility Inquiry form (Attachment G) with Proposal.

At any time prior to award, Agency may reject a Proposer found to be not Responsible.

4.10.3 Evaluation Criteria

Proposals meeting the requirements outlined in the Proposal Content Requirements section will be evaluated by an evaluation committee. Evaluators will assign a score of 0 to 10 for each evaluation criterion listed below in this section.

SPC may request further clarification to assist the evaluation committee in gaining additional understanding of Proposals. A response to a clarification request must be to clarify or explain portions of the already submitted Proposal and may not contain new information not included in the original Proposal.

SCORE EXPLANATION

OUTSTANDING - Response meets all the requirements and has demonstrated in a clear and concise manner a thorough knowledge and understanding of the subject matter and project. The Proposer provides insight into its expertise, knowledge, and understanding of the subject matter.

6 – 9 VERY GOOD – Response provides useful information, while showing experience and knowledge within the category. Response demonstrates above average knowledge and ability with no apparent deficiencies noted.

ADEQUATE – Response meets all requirements in an adequate manner. Response demonstrates an ability to comply with guidelines, parameters, and requirements with no additional information put forth by the Proposer.

1 – 4 FAIR – Proposer meets minimum requirements but does not demonstrate sufficient knowledge of the subject matter.

RESPONSE OF NO VALUE – An unacceptable response that does not meet the requirements set forth in the RFP. Proposer has not demonstrated knowledge of the subject matter.

4.10.3.1 Preferred Proposer Qualifications

To what degree does the Proposer provide documented proof that they meet the preferred qualification outlined in Subsection 3.1.2.1?

To what degree does the Proposer provide documented proof that they meet the preferred qualification outlined in Subsection 3.1.2.2?

To what degree does the Proposer provide documented proof that they meet the preferred qualification outlined in Subsection 3.1.2.3?

4.10.3.2 Proposer Overview

How well does the Proposer provide an overview of its service offerings, dedicated staff resources, years in business, and additional relevant information.

4.10.3.3 Prior Experience

To what degree does the Proposer provided detailed descriptions of its background and experience with the following:

o Treatment Courts o SIM o SMVF population, or with systems which serve SMVF, including any unique populations within the military community.

o Community outreach and engagement, facilitating focus groups and/or community meetings. And if applicable, with rural and/or rural SMVF populations.

o Conducting community mapping, gaps analysis, development and delivery of readiness assessments, and program specific toolkits.

4.10.3.4 Proposer’s Understanding and Assessment Methodology

To what degree has the Proposer demonstrated a thorough understanding of the purpose and scope of the Services called for in this RFP?

• Project Narrative o How comprehensive is Proposer’s plan and approach for meeting the needs and expectations of each component of the project.

o To what degree does it reflect all start-up and close out activities?

o To what degree is the Proposer’s plan practical and feasible?

• Project Schedule o To what degree does Proposer include a comprehensive schedule detailing their proposed project activities and an estimated timeline?

o How comprehensive is Proposer’s schedule for providing the services related to each task in the RFP?

o To what degree is the Proposer’s plan practical and feasible?

o To what degree does project schedule align with project schedule?

4.10.3.5 Qualifications of Staff and Staffing Plan

• To what degree do the individuals assigned to perform the Services have experience providing similar Services?

• To what degree are resumes complete and do they demonstrate backgrounds that would be desirable for individuals engaged in performing the Services identified in this RFP?

4.10.3.6 References

• Proposer will be evaluated under this category using the scores provided by Proposer’s references in accordance with Subsection 3.3.8 above.

4.11 COST EVALUATION

The SPC will conduct the cost evaluation. The SPC will award a cost score to each Cost Proposal based upon the percentage of the proposed cost as compared to the lowest Proposer’s cost using the following formula:

lowest cost of all Proposers X cost points possible = cost score cost being scored

4.12 POINT AND SCORE CALCULATIONS

Scores are the values (0 through 10) assigned by each evaluator.

Points are the total possible value for each section as listed in the table below.

The SPC will average all scores for each evaluation criterion. The average score will be used as a percentage multiplier of the maximum possible points for that criterion. 1=10%, 5=50%, 9=90%, etc.

Cost points are calculated as stated in the Cost Evaluation section. Points possible are as follows:

Section Title Max Points

3.1.2 Preferred Proposer Qualification 30

3.3.4 Proposer Overview 80

3.3.5 Prior Experience 110

3.3.6 Project Understanding and Assessment Methodology 110

3.3.7 Qualifications of Staff and Staffing Plan 90

3.3.8 References 30

3.3.9 Cost 50

Total POINTS POSSIBLE 500

EXAMPLE:

Proposer A receives scores of 10, 9, and 8 for a criterion worth 50 points. The SPC averages 10, 9, and 8 for a score of 9. 9 is used as a 90% multiplier to the possible points of 50. 50 multiplied by 90% is 45. Proposer A’s points for the criterion is 45.

4.13 NEXT STEP DETERMINATION

OJD may conduct additional rounds of competition if in the best interest of OJD. Additional rounds of competition may consist of, but will not be limited to:

• Based on total scores calculated as set forth above, may establish a range of Proposals which are deemed to have a reasonable likelihood of being selected for Award (Competitive Range)

• Interviews/presentations/additional submittal items from Proposers within the Competitive Range

• Best and final offers from Proposers within the Competitive Range.

If OJD elects to conduct additional round(s), OJD shall provide written notice to all Proposers describing the next step. At any time, OJD may dispense with the selected additional round and: (1) issue a notice of intent to Award to the highest-ranking Responsible Proposer; or (2) elect to conduct an alternative round of competition; or (3) cancel the solicitation.

4.14 RANKING OF PROPOSERS

The SPC will total the final average score (calculated by totaling the points awarded by each evaluation committee member and dividing by the number of members), together with references, and final cost.

SPC will then determine rank order for each respective Proposal and Proposer, with the highest score receiving the highest rank, and successive rank order determined by the next highest score.

SECTION 5: AWARD AND NEGOTIATION

5.1 AWARD NOTIFICATION PROCESS

5.1.1 Award Consideration

OJD, if it awards a Contract, shall award a Contract to the highest-ranking Responsible Proposer(s) based upon the scoring methodology and process described in Section 4. OJD may award less than the full Scope defined in this RFP.

5.1.2 Intent to Award Notice

OJD will notify all Proposers in Writing that OJD intends to award a Contract to the selected Proposer(s) subject to successful negotiation of any negotiable provisions.

5.1.3 Multiple Awards

OJD reserves the right to make a single award to…