Atch 4 - HTRO Self Score Matrix DRAFT.xlsx
XLSX spreadsheet 55 KB Posted
- Attached to
- SOFGSD DRAFT CANCELLED - MOVED TO H9240026RE001 Federal contract opportunity
- Solicitation number
- H9240025RE002
- Issued by
- United States Special Operations Command
About this file
The file is a draft Self-Scoring Matrix (Attachment 4) for the SOF Global Services Delivery (SOFGSD) solicitation, designed to help offerors self-evaluate their technical capabilities across four distinct scoring categories: General, Education, Exercise, and Intelligence. The matrix provides a detailed scoring mechanism with eight primary categories that assess past performance, including total contract positions, geographic performance sites, personnel transitions, security clearances, labor categories, Statement of Work requirements, employee retention, and Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS) ratings.
The scoring matrix allows offerors to demonstrate their capabilities by submitting work samples across different tiers, with potential maximum points ranging from 6,800 to 13,700 points depending on the category. Each category includes specific subcriteria such as number of positions, labor categories, geographic performance, training and instruction capabilities, intelligence support, and performance history. The document emphasizes that offerors must carefully complete yellow-shaded cells and provide substantiating documentation, with the understanding that the government will validate and potentially adjust submitted scores. The associated federal contract opportunity is for the United States Special Operations Command, with a draft solicitation number H9240025RE002.
View the file
Other files for this federal contract opportunity
Show all 34
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 and special category Score Sheet (i.e. Education, Exercise, or Intelligence) for which it intends to be considered for award. The Scoring Summary will update based on completed cells in each individual score sheet and is for adminstrative purposes only. Official scores for the purposes of determine an offeror's score or the Government's assessment of that score in support of any award determination will be based on the score sheets for each individual category. |
| 2 | Offerors shall not modify or make any changes to other cells within the spreadsheet, including content, formulae, format. |
| Scoring Category Instructions | |
| Category 1 | Applicable to all Score Sheets. Using a single Tier 1 Work Sample (WS), Offerors shall provide evidence of the number of total positions contracted for at any point in time during the period of performance. Evidence shall identify direct-chage 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 to LCATs, he or she may only be counted once). |
| Category 2 | General Score Sheet only. 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. All WS, at any Tier, may be used to determine the scores. |
| Category 3 | General Score Sheet only. Using one (1) Tier 1 WS, Offerors shall score itself based on the greatest number of non-incumbent positions (minmum of 25, maximum of 100) transistioned or hired within thirty (30) consecutive calendar days. The total number of positions shall be enterted into the Offeror's Count Column. This may be difficult to substantiate with contract documents or business records. Documentation substantiating the Offeror's count shall clearly indicate the dates of 30-day period. Sole source contract extenstions, 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. |
| Category 4 | General Score Sheet only. Using one (1) Tier 1 or Tier 3 WS the Offeror shall score itself based on on the total number of contract personnel maximum of 100) with a current, fully adjudicated Top Secret / Special Compartmented Information (TS/SCI) or above investgation, at a single point in time. "Current" is defined as verfified by the Offeror within five (5) calendar days before proposal submission. The Offeror shall provide the personnel clearance status verfication method as part of the WS substantiating documents. The total number of personnel with a current, fully adjudicated TS/SCI clearances shall be entered into the Offeror's Count column for this Category. Each inidividual shall only be counted once in determining the count. |
| Category 5 | Applicable to all Score Sheets. All five (5) WS, at any Tier may be used to score this category. The Offeror shall score itself based on the total number of LCATs specfied in the Category/Criterion for this category. For each WS, if the contract required performance of a listed LCAT the Offeror shall assign one point for each LCAT up to the maximum Offeror Count of 75. For example, if a WS required performance of 9 of the specified LCATs, the Offeror would include a count of 9 for that WS. |
| Category 6 | Applicable to all Score Sheets. All five (5) 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/Criterion specified for this category. For each WS, with the exception of the exercise role players, if the WS required that work in the SOW or PWS, the Offeror may count one (1) point up to a maximum of five (5) points for each specified SOW element. For exercise role players the Offeror may enter one (1) point for each role player provided amongst all WS with maximum count of 150. |
| Category 7 | Applicable to all Score Sheets. Using a single Tier 1 Work Sample (WS), Offerors shall provide evidence of the number of total positions contracted for at any point in time during the period of performance. Evidence shall identify corporate records documenting continued employment under the worksample over the course of months three through 12 of the base year. Percentages shall be calculated by the number of employed personnel in month three still employed in month 12. |
| Category 8 | General Score Sheet only. All five (5) 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, whichever method is chosen by the teaming or subcontractor arrangement. 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 it, and the Contractor has concurred on the CPARS. A CPARS report for EACH performance period for the work sample provided. For example, if a work sample PoP is three (3) years at the time of the solicitation release, the Offeror shall submit all three (3) CPARS reports that work sample. The Government may corroborate any past performance infomration submitted. |
Of the work samples submitted, the Offeror shall rate itself based on the total percent of CPARS categories that were rated “Exceptional”, “Very Good”, “Satisfactory”, “Marginal”, or “Unsatisfactory.” The CPARS/PPQ categories are Quality, Schedule, Cost Control, Management, and Regulatory Compliance.
For example: Assuming a total of 20 CPARS categories (4 per work sample) - if the Offeror received eleven (11) “satisfactory” rating across the CPARS, then the corresponding percentage for row 29/column K in the HTRO Scoring Matrix is 55% [Calculation: 11 (CPARS categories with a “satisfactory” rating) divided by 20 (sum of all CPARS categories across all five (5) work samples)].
If a work sample does not have a CPAR, then that work sample will not be scored in this category. If all work samples do not have a work sample, then the Offeror will receive zero (0) points in this category.
Organizational Structure Change History: many companies have acquired, been acquired by, or otherwise merged with other companies, and/or reorganized their divisions, business groups, subsidiary companies, etc. In many cases, these changes have taken place during the time of performance of relevant past efforts or between conclusion of recent past efforts and this source selection. As a result, it is sometimes difficult to determine what Past Performance is relevant to this acquisition. To facilitate this relevancy determination, include in this proposal volume a "roadmap" describing all such changes in the organization of your company, if necessary. A pamphlet or other commercial document describing such reorganizations may be used to describe the changes. As part of this explanation, describe how these changes impact the relevance of any efforts you identify for past performance evaluation/performance confidence assessment. Since the Government intends to consider Past Performance information provided by other sources as well as that provided by the Offeror(s), your "roadmap" should be both specifically applicable to the efforts you identify and general enough to apply to efforts on which the Government receives information from other sources.
DRAFT
Column Explanation
| General (Top section), Education, Exercise, Intelligence Tabs | ||
| 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 | Category / Criterion | Summarized description of the scoring category/criterion. Detailed instructions are provided in the Sect. L reference show in Column B |
| D | # of Work Samples | Total number of work samples that can be used as evidence for this category / criterion |
| E | Work Sample Tier | The Tier of Work Sample that is allowed for this category / criterion |
| F | Single Point in Time | Enter the "Single Point In Time" for this category. OFFERORS FILL IN THIS INFORMATION |
| 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 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 score for each category / criterion, in accordance with corresponding description and instructions in Sect. L. 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" score 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 "Total Self Score" for this portion of the spreadsheet. |
| 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 Sections L & 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. The sum of all values in this Column the Offeror's "Government Evaluated Score" for this portion of the spreadsheet. |
| K | SPARE - INTENTIONALLY BLANK | |
| O to S | Citation - Section/Page # -- WS-1 thru WS-5: Space allocated to the Offeror to provide "pointers" within each of their provided work samples (WS-1 thru WS-5) to enable quick reference for the Government to find and validate the Offeror's proposed score. OFFERORS FILL IN THIS INFORMATION | |
| General (CPAR 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 & F | Percentage of CPAR / PPQ Ratings | Enter the percentage (XX.X%) of 100% for the total number of ratings against all CPARS / PPQs. OFFERORS FILL IN THIS INFORMATION |
| G | Points for Each CPAR Rating | Points assigned for each CPAR Rating |
| H & I | SPARE - INTENTIONALLY BLANK | |
| J | Max Possible Points | Thee maximum possible score an Offeror can achieve in each category / criterion. The sum of all values in this Column is the "Total Max Possible" score an Offeror can achieve for evaluation purposes. |
| K | Offeror's Self Score | Mathematically derived by multiplying Column E & F (Percentage of CPAR / PPQ 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 the Offeror's "Total Self Score" for this portion of the spreadsheet for technical evaluation purposes. |
| 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 Sections L and 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 the Offeror's "USG Evaluated Score" for this portion of the spreadsheet. |
&"Calibri,Regular"&10&K737373DRAFT
Scoring Summary
| Special Operations Forces Global Services Delivery (SOFGSD) |
| Solicitation Number: XXXXX-XX-X-XXXX |
Attachment X: Self Scoring Matrix
OFFEROR NAME:
| Category / Pool | Max Points | Offeror's Score | USG Evaluated Score |
| General | 13,700 | 0 | 0 |
| Education | 7,400 | 0 | 0 |
| Exercise | 6,800 | 0 | 0 |
| Intelligence | 9,750 | 0 | 0 |
DRAFT
General Score Sheet
| Section L Reference | Category / Criterion | # of Work Samples | Work Sample Tier | Single Point in Time | Maximum Count | Offeror's Count | Weight Factor | Max Possible Points | Offeror's Self Score | USG Count | USG Evaluated Score | WS-1 | WS-2 | WS-3 | WS-4 | WS-5 |
| L X.X.X Category 1 | Total positions on a single work sample | 1 | Tier 1 | 50 | 20 | 1000 | 0 | 0 | ||||||||
| L X.X.X Category 2 | Concurrent performance at various geographic sites | All | All Tiers | |||||||||||||
| CONUS sites (max of 5 sites, all sites within a US State count as 1 site) | 25 | 10 | 250 | 0 | 0 | |||||||||||
| OCONUS sites excluding Korea and Germany (max of 5, no more than 2 per country) | 25 | 20 | 500 | 0 | 0 | |||||||||||
| Sites in Germany and Korea (max of 5 sites total) | 25 | 40 | 1000 | 0 | 0 | |||||||||||
| L X.X.X Category 3 | Percentage of awarded billets (minimum of 25 billets) hired or transitioned onto a contract within 30 days of award (enter % as numerals (e.g., .64) | 1 | Tier 1 | 100 | 20 | 2000 | 0 | 0 | ||||||||
| L X.X.X Category 4 | FTE Positions with TS/SCI (at a single point in time) | 1 | Tier 1 or Tier 3 | 100 | 15 | 1500 | 0 | 0 | ||||||||
| L X.X.X Category 5 | Work Samples that contain the following 15 LCATs |
1) Intelligence Analyst which includes areas such as: Identity Intelligence Exploitation, Information Operation, Counterintelligence (CI) / Human Intelligence (HUMINT), Socio-Cultural, Pattern Analysis Section (PAS), Identity Operations Manager, Signals Intelligence (SIGINT), Counter Unmanned Arial Surveillance
2) Intelligence Linguist
3) Executive Administrative Assistant
4) Logistic Analyst
5) Strategic Planner or Program Analyst
6) Role Players - LREC
7) Physical Security Manager
8) Survival, Evasion, Resistance, and Escape Training and Personnel Recovery Specialist
9) Analytical and Operational Planning SME
10) Exercise Planner or Instructor
11) Lessons Learned SME
12) Language Instructor or Developer
13) Regional and Cultural Instructor or Developer
14) Faculty and staff at the undergraduate or graduate-level (e.g., JSOU) to include such labor categories as: Instructional Systems Design (ISD), Learning Management Systems Specialist (LMS), Academic Instructors, Distance Learning Instructors,
15) Role Players - Exercise
| 1 point per LCAT; no more than 5 points per LCAT | All | All Tiers | 50 | 65 | 3250 | 0 | 0 | |||||
| L X.X.X Category 6 | Work Samples that cover the requirements in the SOW | All | All Tiers | |||||||||
| Number of non-SOF related Work Samples with demonstrated Education and Training - Curriculum Development (as referenced in SOW paragraph 5.1). | 5 | 10 | 50 | 0 | 0 | |||||||
| Number of SOF-related Work Samples with demonstrated Education and Training - Curriculum Development (as referenced in SOW paragraph 5.1). | 5 | 30 | 150 | 0 | 0 | |||||||
| Number of non-SOF related Work Samples with demonstrated Education and Training Instruction (as referenced in SOW paragraph 5.1). | 5 | 10 | 50 | 0 | 0 | |||||||
| Number of SOF-related Work Samples with demonstrated Education and Training Instruction (as referenced in SOW paragraph 5.1). | 5 | 30 | 150 | 0 | 0 | |||||||
| Number of non-SOF related Work Samples with demonstrated Exercise Planning (as referenced in SOW paragraph 5.1). | 5 | 10 | 50 | 0 | 0 | |||||||
| Number of SOF-related Work Samples with demonstrated Exercise Planning (as referenced in SOW paragraph 5.1). | 5 | 30 | 150 | 0 | 0 | |||||||
| Number of non-SOF related Work Samples with demonstrated Exercise Execution (as referenced in SOW paragraph 5.1). | 5 | 10 | 50 | 0 | 0 | |||||||
| Number of SOF-related Work Samples with demonstrated Exercise Execution (as referenced in SOW paragraph 5.1). | 5 | 30 | 150 | 0 | 0 | |||||||
| Number of non-SOF related Work Samples with demonstrated Strategic and Operational Planning or Analysis (as referenced in SOW paragraph 5.3). | 5 | 10 | 50 | 0 | 0 | |||||||
| Number of SOF-related Work Samples with demonstrated Strategic and Operational Planning or Analysis (as referenced in SOW paragraph 5.3). | 5 | 30 | 150 | 0 | 0 | |||||||
| Number of non-SOF related Work Samples with demonstrated Intelligence Support (as referenced in SOW paragraph 5.6). | 5 | 10 | 50 | 0 | 0 | |||||||
| Number of SOF-related Work Samples with demonstrated Intelligence Support (as referenced in SO paragraph 5.6). | 5 | 30 | 150 | 0 | 0 | |||||||
| L X.X.X Category 7 | Retention: Provide retention rate for months 3 - 12 of the base year of the PoP for a Tier 1 work sample as a Percentage.* | 1 | Tier 1 | 100 | 30 | 3000 | 0 | 0 | ||||
| General Scoring Categories Total | 13,700 | 0 | 0 |
| Section L Reference | Past Performance Scoring Category | Percentage of CPAR / PPQ Ratings | |||||||||
| (Can't Exceed 100% Total) | Points for Each CPAR Rating | Max Possible Points | Offeror's Self-Score | USG %s | USG Evaluated Score | ||||||
| L X.X.X Category 8 | Percentage of "exceptional" CPAR / PPQ ratings over last 5 years | 75.6% | 0 | 0 | 0.00 | 60.0% | 0.00 | ||||
| Percentage of "very good" CPAR / PPQ ratings over last 5 years | 2.2% | 0 | 0 | 0.00 | 10.0% | 0.00 | |||||
| Percentage of "satisfactory" CPAR / PPQ ratings over last 5 years | 2.2% | 0 | 0 | 0.00 | 10.0% | 0.00 | |||||
| Percentage of "marginal" CPAR / PPQ ratings over last 5 years | 10.0% | (500) | 0 | 0.00 | 15.0% | 0.00 | |||||
| Percentage of "unsatisfactory" CPAR / PPQ ratings over last 5 years | 10.0% | (2,000) | 0 | 0.00 | 5.0% | 0.00 | |||||
| Check percentage for 100% | 100.0% | ERROR:#REF! | ERROR:#REF! | 100.0% | |||||||
| Past Performance Scoring Categories Total | 0 | 0 | 0.00 | 0 | |||||||
| Totals: | 13,700 | 0 | 0 |
DRAFT
Education Score Sheet
| Section L Reference | Category / Criterion | # of Work Samples | Work Sample Tier | Single Point in Time | Maximum Count | Offeror's Count | Weight Factor | Max Possible Points | Offeror's Self Score | USG Count | USG Evaluated Score | WS-1 | WS-2 | WS-3 | WS-4 | WS-5 |
| L X.X.X Category 1 | Total Education and Training positions on a single work sample | 1 | Tier 1 | 150 | 10 | 1500 | 0 | 0 | ||||||||
| L X.X.X Category 5 | Work Samples that contain the following 5 LCATs |
1) Role Players - LREC
2) Exercise Instructor
3) Langauge Instructor or Developer
4) Reginal and Cultural Instructor or Developer
5) Faculty and staff at undergraduate or graduate-level (e.g., JSOU) to include such labor categories as: Instructional Systems Design (ISD), Learning Management Systems Specialist (LMS), Academic Instructors, Distance Learning Instructors
1 point per LCAT; no more than 15 points per LCAT tc={5A911A56-1175-4DC7-B97F-2E31987AD618}: [Threaded comment]
Your version of Excel allows you to read this threaded comment; however, any edits to it will get removed if the file is opened in a newer version of Excel. Learn more: https://go.microsoft.com/fwlink/?linkid=870924
Comment:
| No more than 15 points per WS? See last line | All | All Tiers | 75 | 50 | 3750 | 0 | 0 | |||||
| L X.X.X Category 6 | Work Samples that cover the Education and Training requirements in the SOW | All | All Tiers | |||||||||
| Number of non-SOF related Work Samples with demonstrated Policy Analysis (as referenced in SOW paragraph 5.1). | 5 | 20 | 100 | 0 | 0 | |||||||
| Number of SOF-related Work Samples with demonstrated Policy Analysis (as referenced in SOW paragraph 5.1). | 5 | 100 | 500 | 0 | 0 | |||||||
| Number of non-SOF related Work Samples with demonstrated Education and Training Instruction OCONUS (as referenced in SOW paragraph 5.1). | 5 | 20 | 100 | 0 | 0 | |||||||
| Number of SOF-related Work Samples with demonstrated Education and Training Instruction OCONUS (as referenced in SOW paragraph 5.1). | 5 | 100 | 500 | 0 | 0 | |||||||
| Number of Work Samples with demonstrated Instruction of International Partners (as referenced in SOW paragraph 5.1). | 5 | 30 | 150 | 0 | 0 | |||||||
| Number of Work Samples providing Professional Military Education (e.g. undergraduate or graduate level instruction) (as referenced in SOW paragraph 5.1). | 5 | 30 | 150 | 0 | 0 | |||||||
| Number of Work Samples providing concurrent Professional Military Education at multiple locations (e.g. undergraduate or graduate level instruction) (as referenced in SOW paragraph 5.1). | 5 | 30 | 150 | 0 | 0 | |||||||
| Number of Work Samples providing foreign language, regional expertise, or cultural training (as referenced in SOW paragraph 5.1). | 5 | 30 | 150 | 0 | 0 | |||||||
| Number of Work Samples providing concurrent foreign language, regional expertise, or cultural training in multiple locations (as referenced in SOW paragraph 5.1). | 5 | 30 | 150 | 0 | 0 | |||||||
| Number of Work Samples providing modeling and simulation, and wargaming (as referenced in SOW paragraph 5.1). | 5 | 40 | 200 | 0 | 0 | |||||||
| Education Scoring Categories Total | Totals: | 7,400 | 0 | 0 |
No more than 15 points per WS? See last line
&"Calibri,Regular"&10&K737373DRAFT
Exercise Score Sheet
| Section L Reference | Category / Criterion | # of Work Samples | Work Sample Tier | Single Point in Time | Maximum Count | Offeror's Count | Weight Factor | Max Possible Points | Offeror's Self Score | USG Count | USG Evaluated Score | WS-1 | WS-2 | WS-3 | WS-4 | WS-5 |
| L X.X.X Category 1 | Total Exercise Support positions on a single work sample | 1 | Tier 1 | 150 | 10 | 1500 | 0 | 0 | ||||||||
| L X.X.X Category 5 | Work Samples that contain the following 3 LCATs |
1) Survival, Evasion, Resistance, and Escape Training and Personnel Recovery Specialist
2) Exercise Planner or Instructor
3) Role Players - Exercise
| 1 point per LCAT; no more than 25 points per LCAT | All | All Tiers | 75 | 50 | 3750 | 0 | 0 | |||||
| L X.X.X Category 6 | Work Samples that cover the Exercise Planning and Execution requirements in the SOW | All | All Tiers | |||||||||
| Number of Work Samples that provide episodic training exercise support (as referenced in SOW paragraph 5.1) | 5 | 250 | 1250 | 0 | 0 | |||||||
| Number of exercise role players provided per Work Sample (as referenced in SOW paragraph 5.1) | 150 | 2 | 300 | 0 | 0 | |||||||
| Exercise Scoring Categories Total | Totals: | 6,800 | 0 | 0 |
&"Calibri,Regular"&10&K737373DRAFT
Intelligence Score Sheet
| Section L Reference | Category / Criterion | # of Work Samples | Work Sample Tier | Single Point in Time | Maximum Count | Offeror's Count | Weight Factor | Max Possible Points | Offeror's Self Score | USG Count | USG Evaluated Score | WS-1 | WS-2 | WS-3 | WS-4 | WS-5 |
| L X.X.X Category 1 | Total Intelligence Support positions on a single work sample | 1 | Tier 1 | 150 | 10 | 1500 | 0 | 0 | ||||||||
| L X.X.X Category 5 | Work Samples that contain the following 3 LCATs |
1) Intelligence Analyst which includes areas such as: Identity Intelligence Exploitation, Information Operation, Counterintelligence (CI) / Human Intelligence (HUMINT), Socio-Cultural, Pattern Analysis Section (PAS), Identity Operations Manager, Signals Intelligence (SIGINT), Counter Unmanned Arial Surveillance
2) Foreign Disclosure Officer (FDO)
3) Physical Security Manager
| 1 point per LCAT; no more than 25 points per LCAT | All | All Tiers | 75 | 60 | 4500 | 0 | 0 | |||||
| L X.X.X Category 6 | Work Samples that cover the Intelligence requirements in the SOW (as referenced in SOW 5.6) | All | All Tiers | |||||||||
| Number of Work Samples with Intelligence analysts | 5 | 250 | 1250 | 0 | 0 | |||||||
| Number of Work Samples with Technical Security and Signals Countermeasure Practitioners requirements | 5 | 100 | 500 | 0 | 0 | |||||||
| Number of Work Samples providing XXXINT (any INT type is acceptable) in CONUS locations | 5 | 200 | 1000 | 0 | 0 | |||||||
| Number of Work Samples providing XXXINT (any INT type is acceptable) in OCONUS locations | 5 | 200 | 1000 | 0 | 0 | |||||||
| Intelligence Scoring Categories Total | Totals: | 9,750 | 0 | 0 |
&"Calibri,Regular"&10&K737373DRAFT
ESRI_MAPINFO_SHEET
&"Calibri"&10&K737373 Serco Business&1#_x000D_
DO NOT EDIT
For Esri use only
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .