Atch 02 SOFGSD HTRO Self Score Matrix.xlsx
XLSX spreadsheet 37 KB Posted
- Attached to
- SOF Global Services Delivery (SOFGSD) Federal contract opportunity
- Solicitation number
- H9240026RE001
- Issued by
- United States Special Operations Command
About this file
This is a self-scoring matrix template for offerors responding to the SOF Global Services Delivery (SOFGSD) solicitation H9240026RE001, issued by United States Special Operations Command (USSOCOM). The matrix serves as the official scoring mechanism for evaluation purposes and must be completed by all offerors with self-assessed scores in yellow-shaded cells only, with no modifications to other spreadsheet elements.
The scoring framework comprises seven categories with a total maximum possible score of 16,850 points. Category 1 (1,000 or 1,250 points) measures total contract personnel on a single work sample, with different thresholds for Small Business primes (50 personnel maximum) versus Joint Venture proteges (40 personnel maximum). Category 2 (1,250 points total) evaluates concurrent geographic performance across CONUS sites (maximum 5, weighted at 10 points each), OCONUS sites (maximum 5 with no more than 2 per country, weighted at 20 points each), and specific sites in Germany and Korea (maximum 2 combined, weighted at 250 points each). Category 3 (2,000 points) scores the percentage of awarded positions hired or transitioned within 30 days of award, while Category 4 (9,000 points) awards points for work samples containing twelve specified labor categories including Intelligence Analyst, Linguist, Data Manager, Operational Planner, Financial Analyst, Strategic Planner, Role Player, Instructor, and SOF Specialty Trainer (maximum 15 points per LCAT across all work samples). Category 5 (600 points) measures work samples demonstrating management support, program management, and professional services for both SOF and non-SOF related requirements. Category 6 (3,000 points) evaluates retention rates over 12 consecutive months using a single Tier 1 work sample. Category 7 (Past Performance) assigns points based on Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS) ratings, with positive scoring for Exceptional/Very Good/Satisfactory ratings and negative scoring (penalties) for Marginal and Unsatisfactory ratings. The Government reserves the right to validate offeror-provided counts and adjust scores accordingly based on documented evidence.
View the file
Other files for this federal contract opportunity
Show all 23
On GovTribe
Work with this file on GovTribe
- Download the original file
- Contacts named in this file
- Similar government files
- Ask GovTribe AI about this file
Text version
Instructions
| General Instructions | |
| 1 | All Offerors shall fill in the yellow shaded cells for the General Score Sheet. Official scores for the purposes of determining an Offeror's score or the Government's assessment of that score in support of any award determination will be based on the General Score Sheet. |
| 2 | Offerors shall not modify or make any changes to other cells within the spreadsheet, including content, formulae, format. |
| 3 | Tiers are defined in Section L as |
- Tier 1: Proposed SOFGSD Prime Offeror Small Business or the JV protégé performing as the prime contractor on the Work Sample. At least one Work Sample shall be Tier 1.
- Tier 2: All other SOFGSD Prime Offerors (to include JV mentors) and subcontractors performing as the prime or as a subcontractor on the Work Sample
| Scoring Category Instructions | |
| Category 1: | |
| Total number of contract personnel on a single work sample | Offerors shall complete only one row for Category 1 based on their Work Sample (WS) status. Non-JVs are limited to 50 total # of contracted personnel, JV protégés are limited to 40 personnel. The weighting is different for each row to calculate the same weighted score for both rows. Using a single Tier 1 WS, Offerors shall provide evidence of the total number of contracted personnel at any point in time during the period of performance. Evidence shall identify direct-charge employees (prime or subcontractor, by name and company) and the specific role or labor category (LCAT) to meet contract requirements. Any direct charge LCAT may be used as evidence of performance (i.e. Offerors are not limited to LCATs identified elsewhere in this solicitation). Any employee (prime or subcontractor) may only be counted once to obtain a score (for example if an employee fulfilled two LCATs, he or she may only be counted once). |
Note: Any Offeroros who submit numbers in both rows may be considered non-compliant and determined ineligible for award
| Category 2: Concurrent performance at various geographic sites | The Offeror shall score itself based on the number of sites where contracted work is performed. The Offeror shall count each site as indicated for CONUS, OCONUS, and Germany and Korea. For CONUS, all locations within the same city (city also includes Washington, DC) count as one site. City can only be counted once across all WS. For example, if an Offeror submits 5 work samples all with performance in Tampa, FL, that counts as 1 point. For example, if an Offeror submits 2 WSs with performance in Tampa, FL; and 3 WSs with performance in Pensacola, FL; that counts as 2 points. All WS, at any Tier, may be used to determine the scores. | |
| Category 3: | ||
| Percentage of awarded positions (minimum of 20 positions) hired or transitioned.... | All five WS, at any Tier may be used to score this category. Offerors shall score itself based on the percentage of non-incumbent awarded positions (minimum of 20, maximum of 100) transitioned or hired within thirty (30) consecutive calendar days. For a JV protégé, the WS must have a minimum of 16, maximum of 100 positions per WS. The percentage of positions hired/transitioned shall be entered into the Offeror's Count Column. The totals in the numerator and denominator for the percentage should be summed across all WSs. For example, if the numbers positions hired/transitioned for 5 WS are: WS1: 21 of 30; WS2: 35 of 40; WS3: 10 of 20; WS4: 55 of 80; WS5: 30 of 50 the percentage will be (21+35+10+55+30)/(30+40+20+80+50)*100% = 151/220*100% = 68.6%. Enter as rounded whole numbers (e.g., 68.6% hired/transitioned, enter "69"). Documentation substantiating the Offeror's count shall clearly indicate the dates of the 30-day period. Sole source contract extensions, bridge contracts, follow-on contracts, and winning recompete contracts within the recency requirement as the incumbent shall not be considered transitions for the purposes of scoring this category and are not included in the calculations. | |
| Category 4: | ||
| Work Samples that contain the following 12 LCATs. | All five WS, at any Tier may be used to score this category. The Offeror shall score itself based on the total number of LCATs specified in this Category. For each WS, if the contract required performance of a listed LCAT the Offeror shall assign one point for each position on that LCAT up to the maximum Offeror Count of 15 per LCAT across all WSs. For example, if a WS required performance of 9 of the 12 specified LCATs with 1 position per LCAT, the Offeror would include a count of 9 for that WS. If a WS required performance of only 1 of the 12 specified LCATs but with 7 positions of the LCAT provided, the Offeror would include a count of 7 for that WS. If an Offeror identifes 20 positions for one LCAT across all WSs, the maximum count for that LCAT is 15. | |
| Category 5: | ||
| Work Samples that cover the requirements in the SOW | All five WS, at any Tier may be used to score this category. The Offeror shall score itself for each WS sample that required work identified in the Category. For each WS, the Offeror may count 1 point up to a maximum of 5 points for each specified SOW element. |
The combined value of the Work Sample Count for each of the three SOW areas cannot equal more than 5 work samples between SOF and Non-SOF. (E.g., if non-SOF equals 3, then SOF cannot equal more than 2).
| Category 6: | |
| Retention | Using a single Tier 1 WS (minimum of 20, maximum of 100 positions) or for a single JV protégé Tier 1 WS (minimum of 16, maximum of 100 positions), Offerors shall provide evidence of the percentage of total positions retained. Evidence shall identify corporate records documenting continued employment under the work sample over the course of any 12 consecutive months. Percentages shall be calculated by the number of employed personnel in the first month still employed in month 12. If an Offeror submits an IDIQ as the WS, then the Offeror may only select one TO to calculate retention. Enter as rounded whole numbers (e.g., 75.7% retained, enter "76"). For example, if 35 of 100 positions were retained during the course of any 12 consecutive months, then the Offerors shall submit "35"; (35/100)*100%=35%. Offerors may redact PII information. |
| Category 7: | |
| CPARs | All five WS, at any Tier may be used to score this category. If available, a fully completed Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS) shall be provided for each work sample. Team Member or subcontractor CPARS reports, if used, may be submitted directly to the Government, or included in the Offeror’s proposal. If a subcontractor or teammate consents to providing CPARS data via the primer offeror's proposal, the Offeror shall include written evidence of such consent from the subcontractor or teammate. A fully completed CPARS report means that the Government is able to verify that the Assessing Official has signed, and the Contractor has concurred on the CPARS. A CPARS report for EACH performance period for the WS shall be provided. For example, if a work sample PoP is three years at the time of the solicitation release, the Offeror shall submit all three fully completed CPARS reports with that WS. The Government may corroborate any past performance information submitted. |
Of the WS submitted, the Offeror shall rate itself based on the total percent of CPARS categories that were rated “Exceptional,” “Very Good,” “Satisfactory,” “Marginal,” or “Unsatisfactory.” in the CPARS Quality, Schedule, Cost Control, Management, and Regulatory Compliance categories.
For example: Assuming a total of 25 CPARS categories (5 per WS) - if the Offeror received ten (10) “satisfactory” ratings, six (6) "very good" ratings, four (4) "excellent" ratings, and five (5) "marginal" ratings across all 25 CPAR categories, then the corresponding percentage for row titled, "Percentage of "exceptional", "very good", and "satisfactory" CPARS ratings over last 5 years" is 80% (10+6+4)/25 and 20% (5/25) in row titled "Percentage of "marginal" CPARS ratings over last 5 years" and 0% (0/25) in the row titled, "Percentage of "unsatisfactory" CPARS ratings over last 5 years"
Should a CPARS category be scored as N/A, it will not be included in the calculations.
CPARS rated as "very good,” “excellent,” and “satisfactory" will not change the Offeror's score. Only ratings that reflect marginal or unsatisfactory are assigned a numerical (negative) value.
DRAFT
Column Explanation
| Top Section | ||
| Column | Column Title | Explanation |
| B | Category | Category number |
| C | Scoring Criterion | Summarized description of the scoring criterion. All the instructions are contained in this excel file. |
| D | # of Work Samples | Total number of work samples that can be used as evidence for this category |
| E | Work Sample Tier | The Tier of Work Sample that is allowed for this category |
| F | INTENTIONALLY BLANK | |
| G | Maximum Count | The highest allowable count an Offeror can enter. These max values are selected either because a higher number is not mathematically possible (for example, retention cannot be higher than 100%), or a higher number is not relevant to the requirement. For example, it doesn't matter if your largest work sample includes MORE than 50 (or 40) positions, but the Government DOES want to know that your management experience includes oversight of a contracts/task order UP TO that size, comparable to the anticipated requirement, with growth |
| H | Offeror's Count | Offeror's count for each category / criterion, in accordance with corresponding description and instructions in this file. OFFERORS FILL IN THIS INFORMATION |
| I | Weight Factor | Weight factor assigned to this category / criterion |
| J | Max Possible Points | The maximum possible score an Offeror can receive in each category / criterion. The sum of all values in this Column is the "Total Max Possible Points" in the "General Scoring Categories Total" that an Offeror can achieve for evaluation purposes. |
| K | Offeror's Self Score | Mathematically derived by multiplying Column H (Offeror's Count) by Column I (Weight Factor). This represents the Offeror's score for each category. The sum of all values in this Column is the Offeror's "General Scoring Categories Total" |
| L | USG Count | Reserved for Government Evaluator use. If the Government finds discrepancies during validation of Offeror provided counts, the Government reserves the right to reduce the score to align with validated information provided by the Offeror. See Section M for further details. |
| M | USG Evaluated Score | Mathematically derived by multiplying Column L (USG Count) by Column I (Weight Factor). This represents the Government's validated score for each category/criterion. The sum of all values in this Column is the Offeror's "Total USG Evaluated Score" in the "General Scoring Categories Total". |
| CPARS Section | ||
| Column | Column Title | Explanation |
| B | Section L Reference | Points to the section in the solicitation that corresponds to the Category/Criterion described in that row |
| C & D | Past Performance Scoring Category | Summarized description of the required measurement - with further detail available in the section identified in Column B |
| E | Percentage of CPARS Ratings | Enter the percentage (XX.X%) of 100% for the total number of ratings against all CPARS. OFFERORS FILL IN THIS INFORMATION |
| F | INTENTIONALLY BLANK | |
| G | Points for Each CPAR Rating | Points assigned for each CPAR Rating |
| H - J | INTENTIONALLY BLANK | |
| K | Offeror's Self Score | Mathematically derived by multiplying Column E (Percentage of CPARS Ratings) by Column G (Points for Each CPAR). This represents the Offeror's score for each category. The sum of all values in this Column is the Offeror's "Total Self Score" for the "Past Performance Scoring Categories Total" |
| L | USG % | Reserved for Government Evaluator use. If the Government finds discrepancies during validation of Offeror provided %, the Government reserves the right to downgrade the % to align with validated information. See Section M for further details. |
| M | USG Evaluated Score | Mathematically derived by multiplying Column L (USG Count) by Column G (Points for Each CPAR). This represents the Government's validated score for each category. The sum of all values in this Column is the Offeror's "USG Evaluated Score" for the "Past Performance Scoring Categories Total" |
The sum of the General Scoring Categories Total section and the Past Performance Scoring Categories section is the Total points
&"Calibri,Regular"&10&K737373DRAFT
ESRI_MAPINFO_SHEET
&"Calibri"&10&K737373 Serco Business&1#_x000D_
DO NOT EDIT
For Esri use only
General Score Sheet
| Special Operations Forces Global Services Delivery (SOFGSD) | ||
| Solicitation Number: H9240026RE001 | Offeror Name: | |
| Attachment 02 - HTRO Self Scoring Matrix |
| Category | Scoring Criterion | # of Work Samples | Work Sample Tier | Maximum Count | Offeror's Count | Weight Factor | Max Possible Points | Offeror's Self Score | USG Count | USG Evaluated Score |
| Category 1 (enter only one row) | For SB Prime, total number of contract personnel on a single work sample | 1 | Tier 1 | 50 | 20 | 1000 | 0 | 0 | ||
| For JV Protégé Prime, total number of contract personnel on a single work sample | 1 | Tier 1 | 40 | 25 | ||||||
| Category 2 | Concurrent performance at various geographic sites | All | All Tiers | |||||||
| CONUS sites (max of 5 sites, all sites within a city count as 1 site) | 25 | 10 | 250 | 0 | 0 | |||||
| OCONUS sites (max of 5, no more than 2 per country or US Territory) | 25 | 20 | 500 | 0 | 0 | |||||
| Any one site in Germany add 1 count. Any one site in Korea add 1 count. Maximum of 2 total count. (No more than 1 per country.) | 2 | 250 | 500 | 0 | 0 | |||||
| Category 3 | Percentage of awarded positions hired or transitioned onto a contract within 30 days of award. Enter as rounded whole numbers (e.g., 64.4% hired/transitioned, enter "64") | All | All Tiers | 100 | 20 | 2000 | 0 | 0 | ||
| Category 4 | Work Samples that contain the following 12 LCATs. |
1 point per position per LCAT; no more than 15 points per LCAT across all WS.
1) Intelligence Analyst
2) INT Specific
3) Linguist
4) Data Manager/Management
5) Operational Planner/Analyst
6) Mission Assurance
7) Financial Analysis
8) Strategic Planner
9) Role Player
10) Instructor
11) Regional/Cultural Advisor
| 12) SOF Specialty Trainer | All | All Tiers | 180 | 50 | 9000 | 0 | 0 | |||||
| Category 5 | Work Samples that cover the following requirements in the SOFGSD SOW | All | All Tiers | |||||||||
| Number of non-SOF related Work Samples with demonstrated Management Support (as referenced in SOW paragraph 5.2). | 5 | 10 | 50 | 0 | 0 | |||||||
| Number of SOF-related Work Samples with demonstrated Mangement Support (as referenced in SOW paragraph 5.2). | 5 | 30 | 150 | 0 | 0 | |||||||
| Number of non-SOF related Work Samples with demonstrated Program Management (as referenced in SOW paragraph 5.3). | 5 | 10 | 50 | 0 | 0 | |||||||
| Number of SOF-related Work Samples with demonstrated Program Management (as referenced in SOW paragraph 5.3). | 5 | 30 | 150 | 0 | 0 | |||||||
| Number of non-SOF related Work Samples with demonstrated Professional Services (as referenced in SOW paragraph 5.5). | 5 | 10 | 50 | 0 | 0 | |||||||
| Number of SOF-related Work Samples with demonstrated Professional Services (as referenced in SOW paragraph 5.5). | 5 | 30 | 150 | 0 | 0 | |||||||
| Category 6 | Retention: Provide retention rate for a 12-month period for a single work sample as a percentage. Enter as rounded whole numbers (e.g., 75.7% retention, enter "76") | 1 | Tier 1 | 100 | 30 | 3000 | 0 | 0 | ||||
| General Scoring Categories Total | 16,850 | 0 | 0 |
| Category | Past Performance Scoring Category | Percentage of CPARS Ratings | |||||||
| (Can't Exceed 100% Total) | Points for Each CPARS Rating | Offeror's Self-Score | USG %s | USG Evaluated Score | |||||
| Category 7 | Percentage of "Exceptional", "Very Good", and "Satisfactory" CPARS ratings over last 5 years | 0.0% | 0 | 0.00 | 0.0% | 0.00 | |||
| Percentage of "Marginal" CPARS ratings over last 5 years | 0.0% | (500) | 0.00 | 0.0% | 0.00 | ||||
| Percentage of "Unsatisfactory" CPARS ratings over last 5 years | 0.0% | (2,000) | 0.00 | 0.0% | 0.00 | ||||
| Check percentage for 100% | 0.0% | 0.0% | |||||||
| Past Performance Scoring Categories Total | 0.00 | 0 |
Totals: 16,850 0 0
DRAFT
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .