Past Performance Evaluation Fort Worth TX.pdf

PAST PERFORMANCE EVALUATION

FEDERAL BUREAU OF PRISONS

15BCTS24Q00000027

CTS in Fort Worth, Texas

In accordance with FAR Subparts 15.101-1, Past Performance will be evaluated as part of the Best Value and Trade-Off process standards. Past Performance will be evaluated using the following criteria and method:

The past performance area addresses the Government’s confidence in the offeror’s probability of successfully performing the effort as proposed based on their record of performance in current and past relevant contract efforts. The Past Performance evaluation will be accomplished by reviewing aspects of the offeror’s relevant present and recent past performance, focusing on and targeting performance that is relevant to the Past Performance factors outlined below. The Past Performance information is critical to the Government’s evaluation. More recent, more relevant Performance information will have a greater positive impact on the Past Performance evaluation than less recent, less relevant performance. The Contract Officer will be responsible for making final evaluation decisions regarding past performance.

The Government may consider efforts performed by the offeror for agencies of the federal, state, or local governments and commercial customers as potentially relevant to the Past Performance evaluation. Where relevant performance record indicates performance problems, the Government will consider the number and severity of the problems and the appropriateness and effectiveness of any corrective actions taken (not just planned or promised). The Government may review more recent contracts or performance evaluations to ensure corrective actions have been implemented and to evaluate their effectiveness. Offerors without a record of relevant company past performance or for whom information on Past Performance is not available will not be evaluated favorable or unfavorable on Past Performance and will be considered Neutral.

The Government will assign an adjectival rating to each of the past performance factors, as well as assign an overall adjectival rating to past performance. The adjectival rating depicts how well the offeror meets the solicitation requirements. Technical and Past Performance when combined are significantly more important than price. In the Non-Price areas, Technical is more important than Past Performance.

The adjectival ratings are defined below:

Exceptional: Offeror’s past performance exceeds many of the requirements of the program. Their past performance shows they have an exceptional record for exceeding the needs and objectives of the program.

Very Good: Offeror’s past performance exceeds some of the requirements of the program. Their past performance shows they have a very good record for exceeding some of the needs and objectives of the program.

Satisfactory: Offeror’s past performance satisfies the requirements of the program. Their past performance shows they have a satisfactory record for meeting the needs and objectives of the program.

Marginal: Offeror’s past performance does not satisfy some of the requirements of the program.

Their past performance shows they have a marginal record of meeting the needs and objectives of the program.

Unsatisfactory: Offeror’s past performance fails to meet the requirements of the program. Their past performance shows they have an unsatisfactory record of meeting the needs and objectives of the program.

The Past Performance area addresses the Government’s confidence in the offeror’s ability of successfully performing the effort as proposed based on their record of performance in current and past relevant contract efforts. Specific considerations include the following subfactors which are equal in importance: Treatment Services, Communication, and Administration.

The source selection authority shall determine the relevance of similar past performance information [FAR 15.305(a)(2)(ii)].

The specific Past Performance Evaluation Factors are described below and are all equal in importance. Each factor considers the offeror’s record of performance and level of success in:

Factor 1: Treatment Services- This factor evaluates the contractor’s timeliness in conducting intake screening and/or assessments, quality of counseling services, quality of treatment related documents (i.e., assessments, treatment plans, monthly progress reports), ability to deliver services that are compatible to the Bureau of Prisons’ (Bureau) philosophy and approach, ability to provide counseling space conductive to counseling, and their adherence in providing the type and frequency of counseling services directed by the Bureau.

Factor 2: Communication- This factor evaluates the contractor’s flexibility, pro-activeness, professionalism, and cooperation in their relationships with Community Treatment Services (CTS) staff, RRC’s, the U.S. Probation office, or other companies. This factor also includes an evaluation of the contractor’s compliance in reporting accountability issues, behavior concerns, and staffing difficult cases timely with the CTS or other staff.

Factor 3: Administration – This factor evaluates the contractor’s accuracy and timeliness of bill submissions, maintenance of inmate treatment files, responsiveness to requests, and technical direction as provided by the CTS or other staff. This factor also includes an evaluation of the contractor’s compliance with licensure and certification requirement of all staff providing services to inmates, and participation in Bureau contractor events.

Kathaleen Cannon Contracting Officer