RFP_Technical_and_Past_Performance_Evaluation_Factors.docx

2.1 SCHEDULE OF SUPPLIES/SERVICES

The contractor shall be capable of providing outpatient substance abuse and mental health treatment services to offenders confined in community-based programs. The location where services are to be provided shall be within 10 miles radius from the Honolulu Satellite City Hall, located at 1450 Ala Moana Boulevard #1286, Honolulu, HI 96814.

All references to Residential Re-Entry Center (RRC) and Community Correctional Center (CCC) shall be treated equally for the purpose of this contract.

The performance period for the resulting contract will be a one-year base period (to begin upon the effective date of contract award) and four additional one-year option periods. The anticipated total contract period is five years. The anticipated performance start date is October 1, 2014.

Community Treatment Services Evaluation Factors

Evaluation Factors for Award

Award will be made to the offeror whose proposal, conforming to this solicitation is determined to be in the best interests of the Government, price and other factors considered. Other factors include:

(A) The offeror's compliance with those minimum standards to an affirmative determination of responsibility as defined by Section 9.104-1 of the Federal Acquisition Regulation.

(B) The offeror's compliance with minimum or mandatory technical/management requirements to the extent specified in the Terms and Conditions and/or specifications contained in this solicitation.

(C) All factors as identified below, upon which a comparative rating of proposals will be based, in accordance with the relative order of importance accorded each respectively.

Technical Evaluation Panel

The evaluation criteria identified below will be utilized by the Technical Evaluation Panel in analyzing each Technical Proposal submitted in response to this solicitation. The Technical Evaluation Panel will rate each element, giving the highest rating to the best overall approach outlined in the proposal. All elements will be considered when determining the overall rating.

Award Without Discussions

Offerors are advised an award may be made without discussions. The Contracting Officer cannot overemphasize the necessity for the initial proposal of an offeror to provide the Government with sufficient information identifying the offeror's best terms from a cost or price and technical/management standpoint.

Evaluation Criteria and their Relative Importance

Offeror proposals will be evaluated in three areas: Technical, Past Performance, and Price. Technical and Past Performance (Non-Price), when combined, are significantly more important than Price. In the Non-Price areas, Past Performance and Technical/Management are of equal value. The Technical/Management areas are composed of three factors as listed below. Offerors should recognize that Price, although of lesser importance than Technical and Past Performance, might contribute substantially to the Source Selection Official's (SSO's) contract award decision. As the evaluation of competing proposals in the Technical and Past Performance areas become more equal in rating, the more important Price will become in selecting the best value for the Government.

The Government will assign an adjectival rating to each of the factors/subfactors identified below as well as assigning an overall color/adjectival rating to each of the evaluation areas. The color/adjectival rating depicts how well the offeror meets the evaluation areas/factors/subfactors and solicitation requirements. The color/adjectival definitions are defined below:

DARK BLUE/Exceptional: Offeror’s proposal exceeds the requirements of the solicitation. Their proposal shows they have an exceptional solution for meeting the needs and objectives of the program. Two or more significant strengths exist. No weakness or deficiencies exist.

PURPLE/Very Good: Offeror's proposal meets and exceeds the requirements of the solicitation. Their proposal shows they have a very good solution for meeting the needs and objectives of the program. One or more significant strengths exist. No deficiencies exist. Weaknesses may exist, but none are considered significant and are easily correctable.

GREEN/Satisfactory: Offeror's proposal meets the minimum requirements of the solicitation. Their proposal shows they have a satisfactory solution for meeting the needs and objectives of the program. No deficiencies exist. Strengths and weaknesses may exist. The weaknesses are correctable.

YELLOW/Marginal: Offeror's proposal does not meet some of the requirements of the solicitation. Their proposal shows they have a marginal solution for meeting the needs and objectives of the program. Weaknesses/deficiencies outweigh any strength that may exist. The weaknesses/deficiencies are difficult to correct.

RED/Unsatisfactory: Offeror's proposal fails to meet the requirements of the solicitation. Their proposal shows they have an unsatisfactory solution for meeting the needs and objectives of the program. There are numerous weaknesses/deficiencies. The weaknesses/deficiencies will be very difficult to correct or are not correctable.

Technical Evaluation Factors

Factor 1: Clinical Services: This factor evaluates the offeror’s approach to treatment and how it adheres to the cognitive behavioral therapy or a theoretical model compatible with CBT (e.g. Motivational Interviewing, Cognitive Mapping, etc.). This factor also evaluates the type of service the offeror provides. This factor evaluates the offeror’s rules and regulations to ensure they are not in conflict with the Bureau of Prisons (Bureau) rules. This factor also demonstrates the offeror’s plan for emergency situations to include a contingency plan for suicidal inmates and a notification plan in the event of adverse weather conditions and significant/lengthy staff absences. This factor will also evaluate the offeror’s hours of operation and services to include varying morning and evening hours to accommodate inmates’ schedules.

Offeror should submit the following:

· Detailed summary of the offeror’s treatment philosophy.

· Documentation showing all services provided by the offeror.

· Detailed summary of the offeror’s client orientation procedures, including a copy of the offeror’s rules and regulations.

· A detailed summary of the offeror’s plans for emergency situations to include a contingency plan for suicidal inmates and the notification plan in the event of adverse weather conditions significant/lengthy staff absences.

· A listing of the hours of operation and services provided.

Factor 2: Administration: This factor evaluates the qualification and experience of each staff member. All proposed staff members must be licensed in Hawaii to provide drug abuse and/or mental health treatment. Offeror must have on staff an individual licensed to provide clinical supervision in Hawaii. Offeror must have on staff, or a subcontracting agreement, with a board-certified/board eligible member of the American Osteopathic Board of Neurology and Psychiatry on staff to conduct psychiatric evaluations and to monitor medication. The Offeror may also have the name/s and license/s of other qualified practitioners with prescriptive authority to refill medications as allowed by law and they must also meet the standards of practice established in Hawaii. If a primary contractor is subcontracting services, the primary contractor must be licensed in Hawaii. The factor also considers the Offeror’s ability to serve our non-English speaking population. This factor evaluates the offeror’s staff to client ratio.

Offeror should submit the following:

· A separate page listing the names of each proposed staff member, experience and their position. Also identify on this list an individual licensed to provide clinical supervision in Hawaii.

· Documentation on each staff member clearly demonstrating the number of years and experience in the drug and alcohol field and/or experience in treating substance abuse issues. Documentation must include at a minimum: job descriptions and resumes on all staff providing counseling services to inmates.

· Documentation of the education of each staff member to include degrees.

· Copies of licenses for all proposed staff members showing they are licensed in Hawaii to provide drug abuse and/or mental health treatment.

· Documentation that the offeror has on staff, or has a subcontracting agreement with an individual to provide clinical supervision. Offeror must provide a copy of the subcontracting agreement and the individual’s license in Hawaii.

· Documentation that the offeror has on staff, or has a subcontracting agreement, with a board-certified/board eligible member of the American Osteopathic Board of Neurology and Psychiatry (licensed in Hawaii) on staff to conduct psychiatric evaluations and to monitor medication. Include copies of the subcontracting agreement and licenses that meet state requirements for the proposed board certified/board eligible member.

· Documentation that the offeror has name/s and license/s of other qualified practitioners with prescriptive authority to refill medications as allowed by law and proof that they meet the standards of practice established in the state where service is located. Include copies of licenses that meet state requirements for the proposed qualified practitioner with prescriptive authority.

· Documentation the primary contractor is licensed in Hawaii to conduct drug abuse and mental health treatment.

· A detailed summary of the offeror’s ability to serve non-English speaking clients.

· A detailed summary of the offeror’s staff to client ratio with an explanation of how the offeror will meet the Bureau of Prisons requirements.

Factor 3: Facility Operations: This factor evaluates the proposed site location. The proposed location must meet the geographic restrictions as specified in the solicitation. The offeror currently has a signed lease or has a letter of intent signed by the property owner and offeror stating a finalized lease will be completed upon award of contract. The proposed location is capable of meeting the space requirements for the population. The proposed location is accessible to inmates with disabilities or accommodations are made to provide services to inmates with disabilities. The proposed location is in compliance with Hawaii’s license and/or certification requirements and is capable of providing drug abuse treatment and mental health treatment, if required.

If performance will occur at a residential reentry center (RRC), the factor evaluates the RRC adherence to state licensure requirements to provide drug treatment and mental health treatment. An approval memorandum/or a space usage agreement from the RRC authorized negotiator is required for the duration of the contract.

The approval memorandum/space usage agreement shall address any rental fee for space and or equipment. The approval memorandum/space usage agreement shall also include a statement from the RRC authorized negotiator that all video and audio surveillance equipment will remain off during all treatment sessions.

This factor evaluates the proposed facility’s access to public transportation during hours in which clients will be seen. If public transportation is limited, this factor will evaluate the offeror’s plan of how clients without access to public transportation may access the proposed facility.

Offeror should submit the following:

· Documentation that clearly shows the proposed facility is within the geographic restrictions.

· A signed lease or letter of intent between property owner/leasing agent and the offeror.

· Documentation showing that the proposed facility meets the space requirements for the population.

· Documentation showing the proposed facility is accessible to or can accommodate inmates with disabilities.

· If required in Hawaii, a copy of the facility license showing the facility is licensed/certified to provide drug abuse treatment and mental health treatment services.

· If services are to be performed at the RRC, submit an approval memorandum from the RRC authorized negotiator addressing any rental fees and confidentiality during treatment sessions (no audio or video surveillance). Approval shall cover the duration of the contract.

· Description of proposed facility’s access to public transportation. If public transportation is limited, include a proposed plan of how clients without access to transportation may access the proposed facility.

· A listing of the hours of operation and services provided. Morning and evening hours are necessary to accommodate inmates’ schedules.

Past Performance Evaluation Factors

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 Contractor 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.

The Government will assign a color/adjectival rating to each of the past performance factors, as well as assign an overall color/adjectival rating to past performance. The color/adjectival rating depict 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 equal to past performance.

The color/adjectival ratings are defined below:

DARK BLUE/Exceptional: Offeror's past performance exceeds the requirements of the program. Their past performance shows they have an exceptional record for meeting the needs and objectives of the program.

PURPLE/Very Good: Offeror's past performance exceeds the requirements of the program. Their past performance shows they have a very good record for meeting the needs and objectives of the program.

GREEN/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.

YELLOW/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.

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

Factor 1: Drug 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 Prison’s (BOP) 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 BOP.

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.

Price Evaluation area

The Government will not specifically score or rate the offeror’s price. The Government will evaluate the offeror’s prices to ensure it is reasonable. The offeror’s evaluated price will be assessed against the evaluation results of the Non-Price areas in conducting possible tradeoff analysis and determining the best value to the Government. Technical and Past Performance when combined are significantly more important than price. The offeror’s Price, although of lesser importance than Technical and Past Performance, might contribute substantially to the SSA’s contract award decision. As the offeror’s proposals become more equal in the non-price factors, the overall price of the entire contract will be given greater importance.

DELIVERIES

In accordance with Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) 16.505, and the clause located in FAR 52.216 -18, Ordering, states that any supplies or services to be furnished under this contract shall be ordered by issuance of task orders by a warranted Contracting Officer in the TDAT Contracting Office.

BILLING INFORMATION

The Government will make payment on a monthly basis via Electronic Fund Transfer. Invoices with the contract number should be submitted on a monthly basis in duplicate to the Regional CTS Coordinator indicated in Item 15 of the SF-1449. Contractors that are classified as a small business are required to indicate their small business size status on each invoice submitted for payment.