MSOFS 2.0 Pre Proposal Conference_Sept24_FINAL.pptx

Maritime Special Operations Forces Support (MSOFS) 2.0 Pre-Proposal Conference Michelle Riisma, Contracting Officer 10 September 2024 Overall brief classification: [UNCLASSIFIED]

Welcome & Administrative Remarks

UNCLASSIFIED

Agenda 0830 – 0900 Registration 0900 – 0915 Welcome & Administrative Remarks 0915 – 0930 NSW Command Overview Organization Mission Capabilities 0930 – 0945 MSOFS 2.0 Acquisition Overview 0945 – 1030 Draft RFP Review & Timeline 1030 – 1045 Break 1045 – 1115 Questions & Answers 1145 – 1615 One-on-Ones

SOF Organization

(U) We recruit, organize, train, man, equip, educate, sustain, secure, and maintain combat readiness, and deploy AC/RC NSW forces and personnel to accomplish special warfare missions assigned by USSOCOM or COCOMs employing SOF.

(U) BLUF: We provide maritime special operations forces to conduct full spectrum irregular warfare operations, unilaterally or with partners, to support national and strategic objectives.

(U) We leverage our access, placement, and expertise to influence and enable solutions in the most challenging environments with precision, lethality, speed, and certainty.

(U) Its mission is to provide leadership, doctrinal guidance, resources and oversight to special operations carried out in maritime and littoral environments.[4] WARCOM specializes in a broad range of tactical areas, including unconventional warfare, direct action, counterterrorism, special reconnaissance, and personnel recovery.

Chief of Naval Operations

Naval Special Warfare Command

Army Special Operations Command

Air Force Special Operations Command

Marine Corps Special Operations Command

Joint Special Operations Command

U.S. Special Operations Command

NSW Task Organization

UNCLASSIFIED

NSWG-1: West Coast SEAL Teams

NSWG-2: East Coast SEAL Teams

NSWG-4: Special Boat Teams

NSWG-8: Undersea/Special Recon

NSWG-11: Reserve

NSWCEN: Assessment, Training, & Selection

DEVGRU: Warfare Development & Evaluate

NLEAD: Education and Leadership Development

8,153 Active Duty Personnel

2,869 SEAL

755 SWCC

4,529 Fleet Personnel 70+ Ratings 1,201 Civilians 860 Reserve Personnel 10,214 Total People NSW active duty force accounts for 2.5% of Navy personnel and 15% of SOCOM personnel.

Virginia Beach San Diego

Stennis Pearl Harbor US Locations

Kodiak

(U) Our active duty force account for 2.5% of the Navy's overall personnel and 15% of U.S. Special Operations Command's (USSOCOM) personnel. Our funding represents under 1% of the Department of the Navy, and less than 9% of USSOCOM’s MFP-11 budget.

NSW Task Group

The NSWTG (250-350 PAX) is commanded by a SEAL Commander. Although the exact composition varies with the requirement, the baseline NSWTG is a SEAL Team with three fully enabled SEAL Task Units. Enabling forces may include combat support and service support, explosive ordnance disposal, multi-purpose canine, and other special operators from NSW.

BLUF

Mission Statement COMNAVSPECWARCOM shall recruit, organize, train, man, equip, educate, sustain, secure, maintain combat readiness, and deploy Active Component and Reserve Component NSW forces and personnel to accomplish special warfare missions assigned by Commander, United States Special Operations Command (CDR USSOCOM) or, as authorized, combatant commanders (CCDRs) employing special operations forces (SOF).

Surface Capability

Special Ops Craft-Riverine (SOC-R)

Combatant Craft Assault (CCA)

Non-Standard Maritime

UNCLASSIFIED

UNCLASSIFIED

Combatant Craft Medium (CCM)

Combatant Craft Heavy (CCH) Special Boat Teams provide mobility and access in denied and contested maritime environments with emphasis on survivability and interoperability.

Undersea Capability

Dry Deck Shelter onboard Virginia Class

Dry Deck Shelters onboard SSGN

Mk 8 SEAL Delivery Vehicle

Mk-11 SEAL Delivery Vehicle

UNCLASSIFIED

UNCLASSIFIED

SEAL Delivery Vehicle Teams provide unique ability to engage in Strategic Competition, access restricted environments, conduct subsea seabed warfare, and action maritime targets.

Dry Combat Submersible

Un-Crewed Systems (UxS)

UNCLASSIFIED

UNCLASSIFIED

T-38 Devil Ray

Puma RQ-20

VBAT

Scan Eagle

Mk 18 Mod 2 The global security environment necessitates human and machine teaming to scale SOF to best support the Fleet, Joint Force, allies, and partners.

Readiness Cycle

Mission Partners

We procure the full range of training, gear and contractor support for all aspects of the NSW mission.

MSOFS 2.0 Acquisition Overview

MSOFS History Combined disparate manpower requirements into a single NSW enterprise IDIQ in 2020 Multiple Award SDVOSB IDIQ with $245M ceiling and 5-year ordering period awarded to:

Lukos, PTP, RMGS, and Spathe Current ordering period ends 19 March 2025 80+ task orders issued; $175M expended to date; would reach $300M if all options exercised

Challenges with recruitment

MSOFS 2.0 Acquisition As a Component under the U.S. Special Operations Command (USSOCOM), the Naval Special Warfare (NSW) Command has a mission to organize, train, equip, and deploy NSW forces.

NSW is the premier full spectrum Special Operations Force with absolute primacy in the maritime domain to conduct full spectrum operations, unilaterally or with partners, to support national objectives.

The purpose of the MSOFS 2.0 contract is to obtain highly qualified services in support of NSW day-to-day operations in all mission areas.

Acquisition Plan & Contract Type SBSA; no socioeconomic restriction under NAICS 541990 Multiple award IDIQ with $399M ceiling over five-year base ordering period, with a 2-year optional ordering period Hybrid Contract with FFP, CPFF, CR, T&M and LH CLINs Anticipate predominant labor will be FFP CPFF CLIN included for certain requirements where the level of effort required is unknown and results in an end product deliverable T&M/LH CLIN included for certain requirements that are less predictable, experience significant turnover, and/or have unknown surge/sag capacity CR (no fee) CLINs available for travel and ancillary other direct costs

Types of Services Logistics Support Services – logistics management, sustainment activities, DPAS supply chain, could be subject to SCA Equipment Related Services – FSRs, minor equipment mod, install of equipment, maintenance of SOF equipment (Combatant Craft, RHIBs, SDV, DCS/DDS, etc) Management Support Services – Strategic planning, facilities management (Ranges), KM, FIAR, human capital programs Intelligence Related Services – OSINT, HUMINT, ELINT, ISR, METOC Engineering and Technical Related Services – engineering documentation support; technical analysis/evaluation Administrative and Other Services

MSOFS 2.0 Draft RFP Review

Source Selection Plan Competitive, best value source selection, utilizing Highest Technically Rated Offeror (HTRO) process that will be conducted in accordance with FAR Part 15.3, DFARS 215.3, and DoD Source Selection Procedures, 20 Aug 2022 Initial proposals must contain the best and final offer as the Government plans to award without discussions. The Government may conduct clarifications as described in FAR 15.306. The Government reserves the right to conduct discussions if determined necessary.

CAUTION: In the event the evaluation team discovers an inaccurate Self-Score with numerous point deductions based on ambiguous, deceptive, faulty, misleading, or inadequate supporting documentation, the Offeror shall immediately be eliminated from further consideration for award.

Proposal Format & Content

Acceptable / Unacceptable Factor 1 –Technical Substantiating Data Volume II (No Limit) HTRO Self Score Matrix Factor 2 – Cost/Price Volume 3 (No Limit) Offerors shall provide Total Compensation Plan (TCP) Offerors shall submit NTE Ceiling rates across labor categories and geographic locations for entire ordering period, including optional ordering period Total Evaluated Price (TEP) will be auto-calculated by pre-determined, hidden calculation utilizing rates submitted

Evaluation Criteria The Government intends to award a multiple-award IDIQ contract to up to 5 Offerors so long as 5 proposals eligible for award The source selection process under this Solicitation will not be based on the LPTA or Tradeoff process The best value basis for awards will be determined by the Highest Technically Rated Offeror (HTRO) approach Factor 1 – Technical Substantiating Data is significantly more important than Factor 2 – Price The Government will rank all proposals received in numeric order based on the Offeror’s submitted self-score. “Top 5” will start at Step One Step One: Perform Acceptability (solicitation conformance) Step Two: Transition Plan Evaluation (Acceptable/Unacceptable) Step Three: Validate/Substantiate Offeror’s Self-Score (Factor 1) “Top 5” offers then begin price evaluation (Factor 2) “Top 5” offers then assessed for responsibility

Restart at Step One to get to “Top 5”

Step One – Perform Acceptability (Qualifying Criteria) Checks that support documentation (i.e., work samples, cross reference matrix, self-scoring worksheet, price template, etc.) exists for all evaluation criteria and completed IAW RFP If proposal does not conform to the solicitation or lacks supporting documentation, the Government will eliminate the proposal from further evaluation and consideration Includes NISS Check for FCL requirements

Step Two – Transition Plan The Government will evaluate the adequacy of the Offeror’s proposed Transition Plan including elements addressing transition of the contract and planned task orders to determine the Offeror’s capability to meet key milestones and reach FOC.

A plan will be determined acceptable or unacceptable based on addressing the requirements in the PWS. The following elements will be considered acceptable:

(1) meeting with government stakeholders within three business days from the start of the transition period;

(2) methods and resources to communicate with and provide offer letters to incumbent employees targeted for transition within 14 calendar days of start of transition period;

(3) additional/new hires identified with offers issued NLT 20 calendar days from the start of transition period;

(4) CAC issuance and clearance transfer process initiated NLT 25 calendar days from the start of the transition period;

(5) Contractor employees ready to begin performance NLT 30 days from the start of the transition period.

Step Three - Self-Score Matrix (Factor 1)

Work Samples Maximum of 5 work samples can be submitted Can submit fewer, but not less than 3 Minimum of 2 MUST be performed by the Offeror (Category 1) Maximum of 2 CAN be performed by Team Member (Category 2) ALL Work Samples must be a federal contract or task order Can be “stand alone” contract, or task order under a master IDIQ An IDIQ with specified scope, including ALL TOs is acceptable as 1 work sample An IDIQ without any awarded TOs is not acceptable work sample Cannot submit IDIQ including ALL TOs AND an individual TO under same IDIQ PoP at least 6 months and no more than five years prior to RFP release CPARS, or equivalent, must be Satisfactory or above. N/A ok.

Work Sample Categories Category 1 – Performed by Offeror (Prime for MSOFS 2.0) 1A: Work samples performed with the Offeror acting as the prime contractor 1B: Work samples performed with the Offeror acting as a subcontractor Must provide substantiating evidence that personnel employed by the Offeror actually performed the relevant portion(s) of the work for these samples to count If the Offeror is a Joint Venture under the Small Business Mentor-Protégé Program, work samples from either the managing or non-managing venturer are acceptable as a Category 1 Category 2 – Performed by Team Member Team Member must be considered major subcontractor who will perform > 10% on MSOFS 2.0 & have signed teaming agreement 2A: Work samples performed with Team Member acting as the prime contractor 2B: Work samples performed with Team Member acting as a subcontractor

Category 1 – Total Positions on a single work sample

Definition: Of the work samples submitted, the Offeror shall rate itself based on the total number of filled positions (i.e., excluding vacancies) at any moment in time against the requirements of a single selected work sample, with a maximum number of 25 filled full-time positions. All labor categories in the work sample may be included and can include subcontractors performing in support of the work sample.

Restrictions: This category is restricted to a single work sample chosen from among the maximum five submitted and must be PRIMED by the OFFEROR (to include either of the partners of a Joint Venture). Work samples wherein the Offeror was a subcontractor or work samples of teaming subcontractors are not acceptable. The work sample chosen must also have a period of performance of at least a consecutive six months or more. Episodic support in which the positions are not full-time during the period of performance (i.e., supporting an event for 1 week out of the month) shall not be counted.

Category 2 – Geographic Locations

Definition: The Offeror shall rate itself based on the number of submitted work samples where performance occurred in at least 2 separate geographic locations on each work sample, not including TDY assignments. Performance must have occurred concurrently and be separated by at least 500 miles.

Restrictions: The Offeror’s headquarters does not count toward the 2 separate geographic locations regardless of if a PM is not onsite at the performance location.

Category 3 – Positions Transitioned within 14 days

Definition: Of the work samples submitted, the Offeror shall rate itself based on the number of positions (with a maximum of 50), across all samples, staffed with properly qualified and experienced personnel, within 14 days of PoP start.

Restrictions: The work samples chosen must also have a period of performance of at least a consecutive six months or more.

Category 4 – Positions for Logistics Support

Definition: Of the work samples submitted, the Offeror shall rate itself based on the number of positions (with a maximum of 25) across all samples whose primary purpose is providing logistics support. In order for a position from one of the five provided work samples to count against this category score, that position must contractually require at least one of the following minimum qualifications/certifications/experience:

1.Support Craft Maritime Mechanic: Must be factory certified mechanic on a Suzuki DF250APXX outboard engine with a minimum of 5 years’ experience as an Original Equipment Manufacturer (OEM) certified mechanic with either Evinrude, Honda, Mercury, or Yamaha commercial outboard engines and ancillary equipment. In addition to those requirements, the Lead Maritime Mechanics shall have a minimum of one (1) year of experience in aluminum and glass reinforced plastic (GRP) hull repair at the depot level.

2.Tactical and Heavy Equipment Mechanic: Each mechanic, shall have a minimum of six (6) years’ experience as an Original Equipment Manufacturer (OEM) mechanic at semi-truck dealership, commercial fleet service shop, Intermediate level military maintenance facility, or have equivalent military experience. Additionally, each respective mechanic shall possess an Automotive Service Excellence (ASE) certification in diesel engines and at least two (2) other Heavy Truck Categories such as, Drive Train; Brakes; Suspension & Steering; Electrical; Heating & A/C and Preventative Maintenance.

3.Dive Equipment Support: Possess Navy Dive School certification (NEC 5342/5342 or higher); possess qualification as Material Maintenance Management (3M) Maintenance Man, 3M QA Craftsman, and 3M Work Center Supervisor.

Restrictions: The work samples chosen do not have to match the exact position name but must clearly meet the minimum qualifications/certifications/experience.

Category 5 – Positions for Intelligence Program Support

Definition: Of the work samples submitted, the Offeror shall rate itself based on the number of positions (with a maximum of 10) across all samples whose primary purpose is providing Intelligence Program support. In order for a position from one of the five provided work samples to count against this category score, that position must contractually require at least one of the following minimum qualifications/certifications/experience:

1. Intel Analyst: Any Bachelor’s Degree and/or Minimum of 5 years’ of experience conducting operational intelligence in support of US Department of Defense operations in the maritime or special warfare environment.

2. Special Security Officer (SSO) Support: Minimum of 6 years’ physical, personnel and special security experience with DoD or equivalent Government agencies required; experience with compartmented programs in DoD U.S. Intelligence Community.

3. Scripter: Minimum of 5 years’ experience within the last ten years as a Naval Intel Analyst, with experience in Naval Maritime Operations, preferably SOF or Joint Special Operations plans, operations, training or exercise positions at JSOTF, SOJTF, JSOC or TSOC level.

Restrictions: The work samples chosen do not have to match the exact position name but must clearly meet the minimum qualifications/certifications/experience.

Category 6 – Positions for Training Support

Definition: Of the work samples submitted, the Offeror shall rate itself based on the number of positions (with a maximum of 10) across all samples whose primary purpose is providing training support. In order for a position from one of the five provided work samples to count against this category score, that position must contractually require at least one of the following minimum qualifications/certifications/experience:

1. Technical Instructor: Minimum of 2 years’ experience planning, coordinating, and instructing SOF operators in their assigned discipline.

2. SOF Training Specialist: Minimum of 5 years’ experience as NAVY/NSW Instructor supporting or augmenting active-duty training cadre with subject matter expertise; experience with scheduling/planning, classroom instruction, practical field training, and final training exercises.

3. Tech Writer: Bachelor’s Degree from an Accredited U.S. College; 10 years’ collective experience working with DoD, USSOCOM, or DoN agencies with in-depth understanding of SOF warfighter skill sets, employment methods, and tasking; experience in JCIDS or SOFCIDS requirements generation processes and/or POM processes.

Restrictions: The work samples chosen do not have to match the exact position name but must clearly meet the minimum qualifications/certifications/experience.

Category 7 – Retention Rate

Definition: The Offeror shall rate itself based on the aggregated annual retention rate percentage (not to exceed 100%) for all submitted work samples. The Offeror shall select either the last annual accounting period on which the company bases its financial system, the last annual period of performance for the involved work sample, or the 365-day period ending on the release date of this solicitation – whichever best enables the Offeror to document/prove its self-score. The Offeror need not select the same annual period for each work sample. The Offeror shall identify the number of its employees performing on each work sample at the beginning of the selected annual period, and then identify how many of those employees remained employed by the Offeror at the end of that annual period.

The aggregated rate is developed by adding the headcounts (beginning and ending/retained) of all work samples, and calculating the resulting percentage of the sums of each set of five numbers. It is NOT an average of the retention rates of each of the samples, individually calculated. This precludes a large task order with 200+ employees that experienced only an 80% retention rate from being masked by four task orders that all have less than 10 employees but retained all but one or two. In cases where the Government either increased or decreased the number of positions, the Offeror shall not include the increased/decreased positions in calculating the retention rate; however, as applicable, the Offeror shall provide proof of the Government directed change to the number of positions from the beginning of the selected annual period.

Restrictions: This category must use all the work samples submitted in the proposal (either three, four or five). As an example, it is unacceptable for the Offeror to only use three work samples when a total of five were submitted.

1- 9/10 = 90% 2-10/10 = 100% 3-80/100 = 80% 4-1/1 = 100% 5-4/5 = 80% AVG would be = 90%

INSTEAD:

Sum of all positions = 104 / 126 = 83%

Category 8 – TS/SCI Positions

Definition: The Offeror shall rate itself based on the total number of positions filled (with a maximum of 15), from the submitted work samples, that include a requirement for a TOP SECRET security clearance with eligibility for SCI read-on in the mandatory qualifications for the position.

Restrictions: None

Category 9 – Safeguarding & Reporting

Definition: The Offeror shall rate itself based on its summary level scores of the NIST SP 800-171 DoD Assessment. The Offeror shall sum and average the assessment scores for the last 24 months from date of this solicitation. If the Offeror has no assessment that is current (i.e., not more than 3 years old from time of the solicitation), no points may be counted. The following points shall be entered into the HTRO Self Score Matrix based on the average assessment score for the Offeror:

Restrictions: None

Price (Factor 2) Step One: Price Fair and Reasonable (F&R) Determination The HTRO’s “Top 5” Prices will be evaluated using one or more of the techniques defined in FAR 15.404-1 to determine F&R Competition alone does not determine F&R Price analysis or cost analysis required Spreadsheet (Attachment 3 - Price Worksheet) Price Narrative Step Two: If determined F&R, Offeror’s TCP evaluated for price realism Unburdened Wage Rates and Fringe Benefits to support FAR 52.222-46 Unrealistically low or unreasonably high TCP will render offer ineligible for award (unless discussions conducted) SubK shall submit a separate TCP; can be submitted directly to KO

Tentative Timeline Pre-Proposal Conference – 10 September 2024 Acquisition Strategy Approval – 9 October 2024 Final RFP Released – 1 November 2024 Proposals Due – 4 December 2024 Awards Announcement – 28 February 2025

BREAK

Questions and Answers

One-on-One Sessions

image3.png image1.png image2.png image6.png image7.png image8.png image9.png image10.png image4.png image5.jpeg image17.png image18.png image11.png image12.png image13.png image14.png image15.png image16.png image19.jpeg image20.jpeg image21.jpeg image22.jpeg image23.jpeg image24.png image25.png image26.png image27.jpg image28.jpeg image29.png image30.png image31.png image32.png image33.jpg image34.jpeg image35.jpeg image36.png image37.png image38.png image39.png image47.jpeg image48.jpeg image40.jpeg image41.jpg image42.jpg image43.jpeg image44.jpeg image45.jpg image46.jpeg

Microsoft_Excel_Worksheet.xlsx

HTRO MSOFS 2.0

HTRO Self Score Matrix Citation - Section/Page #

Eval Section Category / Criterion Maximum Count Offeror's Count Points per Count Weight Factor Max Possible Resulting Score Down-grade WS-1 WS-2 WS-3 WS-4 WS-5

5.2.2 Category 2 Geographic locations 5 20 1 100 0

5.2.3 Category 3 Positions transitioned within 14 days 50 2 3 300 0

5.2.7 Category 7 Retention Rate 100 1 4 400 0

5.2.9 Category 9 Safeguarding Covered Defense Information & Cyber Incident Reporting 100 1 1 100 0

TOTAL MAX POSSIBLE: 2500

TOTAL SELF SCORE: 0

Column Definitions

Column Explanation

B Eval Section: Points to the section in the Evaluation Criteria that corresponds to the Category/Criteria described in that row

C Category/Criterion: Summarized description of the required measurment - with further detail available in the section identified in Column B

D Maximum Count: The highest allowable count an Offeror can enter in Column E. 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)

E Offeror's Count: Response provided by the Offeror for each criterion, in accordance with corresponding description and instructions in Atch 06. THIS IS THE ONLY COLUMN TO THE LEFT OF COLUMN J IN WHICH OFFERORS SHALL MAKE ENTRIES.

F Points per Count: Mathematically derived by dividing the Maximum Count into 100, thus normalizing each category to a baseline of 100 for arithmetic evaluation/comparison purposes - equally weighted categories will equally impact the totals score regardless of the "unit of measure". Offerors then can achieve the maximum score for the Category/Criterion if their provided work sample(s) support(s) the maximum allowable count(s).

G Weight Factor: Value designated by the Government for the purpose, as the name implies, of assigning weight to selected criteria to reflect relative importance to each category that impacts scoring totals proportionally to that weight.

H Max Possible: Mathematically derived by multiplying 100 by the weight factor, and representing the maximum possible score an offeror can achieve in each category; done by achieving a validated maximum count. The sum of all values in Columns H is the "Total Max Possible" score an Offeror can achieve for technical evaluation purposes.

I Resulting Score: Mathematically derived by multiplying Column E (Offeror's Count) by Column F (Points per Count), and then multiplying that product by Column G (Weight Factor). This represents the Offeror's score for each category. The sum of all values in Column I is the Offeror's "Total Self Score" for technical evaluation purposes.

J Downgrade: Reserved for Governmnet Evaluator use. If the Government finds discrpencies during validation of Offeror provided counts, the Government reserves the right to downgrade scores to align with validated information. The governmnet will not upgrade scores in this process. See Atch 06 for further details pertinent to downgrading Offeror provided counts/scores.

K SPARE - INTENTIONALLY BLANK

L-P 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 validation of Offeror's provided counts.

ESRI_MAPINFO_SHEET

DO NOT EDIT

For Esri use only image49.emf image50.emf

Microsoft_Excel_Worksheet1.xlsx

HTRO MSOFS 2.0

HTRO Self Score Matrix Citation - Section/Page #

Eval Section Category / Criterion Maximum Count Offeror's Count Points per Count Weight Factor Max Possible Resulting Score Down-grade WS-1 WS-2 WS-3 WS-4 WS-5

5.2.2 Category 2 Geographic locations 5 20 1 100 0

5.2.3 Category 3 Positions transitioned within 14 days 50 2 3 300 0

5.2.7 Category 7 Retention Rate 100 1 4 400 0

5.2.9 Category 9 Safeguarding Covered Defense Information & Cyber Incident Reporting 100 1 1 100 0

TOTAL MAX POSSIBLE: 2500

TOTAL SELF SCORE: 0

Column Explanation

B Eval Section: Points to the section in the Evaluation Criteria that corresponds to the Category/Criteria described in that row

C Category/Criterion: Summarized description of the required measurment - with further detail available in the section identified in Column B

D Maximum Count: The highest allowable count an Offeror can enter in Column E. 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)

E Offeror's Count: Response provided by the Offeror for each criterion, in accordance with corresponding description and instructions in Atch 06. THIS IS THE ONLY COLUMN TO THE LEFT OF COLUMN J IN WHICH OFFERORS SHALL MAKE ENTRIES.

F Points per Count: Mathematically derived by dividing the Maximum Count into 100, thus normalizing each category to a baseline of 100 for arithmetic evaluation/comparison purposes - equally weighted categories will equally impact the totals score regardless of the "unit of measure". Offerors then can achieve the maximum score for the Category/Criterion if their provided work sample(s) support(s) the maximum allowable count(s).

G Weight Factor: Value designated by the Government for the purpose, as the name implies, of assigning weight to selected criteria to reflect relative importance to each category that impacts scoring totals proportionally to that weight.

H Max Possible: Mathematically derived by multiplying 100 by the weight factor, and representing the maximum possible score an offeror can achieve in each category; done by achieving a validated maximum count. The sum of all values in Columns H is the "Total Max Possible" score an Offeror can achieve for technical evaluation purposes.

I Resulting Score: Mathematically derived by multiplying Column E (Offeror's Count) by Column F (Points per Count), and then multiplying that product by Column G (Weight Factor). This represents the Offeror's score for each category. The sum of all values in Column I is the Offeror's "Total Self Score" for technical evaluation purposes.

J Downgrade: Reserved for Governmnet Evaluator use. If the Government finds discrpencies during validation of Offeror provided counts, the Government reserves the right to downgrade scores to align with validated information. The governmnet will not upgrade scores in this process. See Atch 06 for further details pertinent to downgrading Offeror provided counts/scores.

K SPARE - INTENTIONALLY BLANK

L-P 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 validation of Offeror's provided counts.

image51.emf

Microsoft_Excel_Worksheet2.xlsx

HTRO MSOFS 2.0

HTRO Self Score Matrix Citation - Section/Page #

Eval Section Category / Criterion Maximum Count Offeror's Count Points per Count Weight Factor Max Possible Resulting Score Down-grade WS-1 WS-2 WS-3 WS-4 WS-5

5.2.2 Category 2 Geographic locations 5 20 1 100 0

5.2.3 Category 3 Positions transitioned within 14 days 50 2 3 300 0

5.2.7 Category 7 Retention Rate 100 1 4 400 0

5.2.9 Category 9 Safeguarding Covered Defense Information & Cyber Incident Reporting 100 1 1 100 0

TOTAL MAX POSSIBLE: 2500

TOTAL SELF SCORE: 0

Column Explanation

B Eval Section: Points to the section in the Evaluation Criteria that corresponds to the Category/Criteria described in that row

C Category/Criterion: Summarized description of the required measurment - with further detail available in the section identified in Column B

D Maximum Count: The highest allowable count an Offeror can enter in Column E. 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)

E Offeror's Count: Response provided by the Offeror for each criterion, in accordance with corresponding description and instructions in Atch 06. THIS IS THE ONLY COLUMN TO THE LEFT OF COLUMN J IN WHICH OFFERORS SHALL MAKE ENTRIES.

F Points per Count: Mathematically derived by dividing the Maximum Count into 100, thus normalizing each category to a baseline of 100 for arithmetic evaluation/comparison purposes - equally weighted categories will equally impact the totals score regardless of the "unit of measure". Offerors then can achieve the maximum score for the Category/Criterion if their provided work sample(s) support(s) the maximum allowable count(s).

G Weight Factor: Value designated by the Government for the purpose, as the name implies, of assigning weight to selected criteria to reflect relative importance to each category that impacts scoring totals proportionally to that weight.

H Max Possible: Mathematically derived by multiplying 100 by the weight factor, and representing the maximum possible score an offeror can achieve in each category; done by achieving a validated maximum count. The sum of all values in Columns H is the "Total Max Possible" score an Offeror can achieve for technical evaluation purposes.

I Resulting Score: Mathematically derived by multiplying Column E (Offeror's Count) by Column F (Points per Count), and then multiplying that product by Column G (Weight Factor). This represents the Offeror's score for each category. The sum of all values in Column I is the Offeror's "Total Self Score" for technical evaluation purposes.

J Downgrade: Reserved for Governmnet Evaluator use. If the Government finds discrpencies during validation of Offeror provided counts, the Government reserves the right to downgrade scores to align with validated information. The governmnet will not upgrade scores in this process. See Atch 06 for further details pertinent to downgrading Offeror provided counts/scores.

K SPARE - INTENTIONALLY BLANK

L-P 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 validation of Offeror's provided counts.

image52.emf

Microsoft_Excel_Worksheet3.xlsx

HTRO MSOFS 2.0

HTRO Self Score Matrix Citation - Section/Page #

Eval Section Category / Criterion Maximum Count Offeror's Count Points per Count Weight Factor Max Possible Resulting Score Down-grade WS-1 WS-2 WS-3 WS-4 WS-5

5.2.2 Category 2 Geographic locations 5 20 1 100 0

5.2.3 Category 3 Positions transitioned within 14 days 50 2 3 300 0

5.2.7 Category 7 Retention Rate 100 1 4 400 0

5.2.9 Category 9 Safeguarding Covered Defense Information & Cyber Incident Reporting 100 1 1 100 0

TOTAL MAX POSSIBLE: 2500

TOTAL SELF SCORE: 0

Column Explanation

B Eval Section: Points to the section in the Evaluation Criteria that corresponds to the Category/Criteria described in that row

C Category/Criterion: Summarized description of the required measurment - with further detail available in the section identified in Column B

D Maximum Count: The highest allowable count an Offeror can enter in Column E. 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)

E Offeror's Count: Response provided by the Offeror for each criterion, in accordance with corresponding description and instructions in Atch 06. THIS IS THE ONLY COLUMN TO THE LEFT OF COLUMN J IN WHICH OFFERORS SHALL MAKE ENTRIES.

F Points per Count: Mathematically derived by dividing the Maximum Count into 100, thus normalizing each category to a baseline of 100 for arithmetic evaluation/comparison purposes - equally weighted categories will equally impact the totals score regardless of the "unit of measure". Offerors then can achieve the maximum score for the Category/Criterion if their provided work sample(s) support(s) the maximum allowable count(s).

G Weight Factor: Value designated by the Government for the purpose, as the name implies, of assigning weight to selected criteria to reflect relative importance to each category that impacts scoring totals proportionally to that weight.

H Max Possible: Mathematically derived by multiplying 100 by the weight factor, and representing the maximum possible score an offeror can achieve in each category; done by achieving a validated maximum count. The sum of all values in Columns H is the "Total Max Possible" score an Offeror can achieve for technical evaluation purposes.

I Resulting Score: Mathematically derived by multiplying Column E (Offeror's Count) by Column F (Points per Count), and then multiplying that product by Column G (Weight Factor). This represents the Offeror's score for each category. The sum of all values in Column I is the Offeror's "Total Self Score" for technical evaluation purposes.

J Downgrade: Reserved for Governmnet Evaluator use. If the Government finds discrpencies during validation of Offeror provided counts, the Government reserves the right to downgrade scores to align with validated information. The governmnet will not upgrade scores in this process. See Atch 06 for further details pertinent to downgrading Offeror provided counts/scores.

K SPARE - INTENTIONALLY BLANK

L-P 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 validation of Offeror's provided counts.

image53.emf

Microsoft_Excel_Worksheet4.xlsx

HTRO MSOFS 2.0

HTRO Self Score Matrix Citation - Section/Page #

Eval Section Category / Criterion Maximum Count Offeror's Count Points per Count Weight Factor Max Possible Resulting Score Down-grade WS-1 WS-2 WS-3 WS-4 WS-5

5.2.2 Category 2 Geographic locations 5 20 1 100 0

5.2.3 Category 3 Positions transitioned within 14 days 50 2 3 300 0

5.2.7 Category 7 Retention Rate 100 1 4 400 0

5.2.9 Category 9 Safeguarding Covered Defense Information & Cyber Incident Reporting 100 1 1 100 0

TOTAL MAX POSSIBLE: 2500

TOTAL SELF SCORE: 0

Column Explanation

B Eval Section: Points to the section in the Evaluation Criteria that corresponds to the Category/Criteria described in that row

C Category/Criterion: Summarized description of the required measurment - with further detail available in the section identified in Column B

D Maximum Count: The highest allowable count an Offeror can enter in Column E. 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)

E Offeror's Count: Response provided by the Offeror for each criterion, in accordance with corresponding description and instructions in Atch 06. THIS IS THE ONLY COLUMN TO THE LEFT OF COLUMN J IN WHICH OFFERORS SHALL MAKE ENTRIES.

F Points per Count: Mathematically derived by dividing the Maximum Count into 100, thus normalizing each category to a baseline of 100 for arithmetic evaluation/comparison purposes - equally weighted categories will equally impact the totals score regardless of the "unit of measure". Offerors then can achieve the maximum score for the Category/Criterion if their provided work sample(s) support(s) the maximum allowable count(s).

G Weight Factor: Value designated by the Government for the purpose, as the name implies, of assigning weight to selected criteria to reflect relative importance to each category that impacts scoring totals proportionally to that weight.

H Max Possible: Mathematically derived by multiplying 100 by the weight factor, and representing the maximum possible score an offeror can achieve in each category; done by achieving a validated maximum count. The sum of all values in Columns H is the "Total Max Possible" score an Offeror can achieve for technical evaluation purposes.

I Resulting Score: Mathematically derived by multiplying Column E (Offeror's Count) by Column F (Points per Count), and then multiplying that product by Column G (Weight Factor). This represents the Offeror's score for each category. The sum of all values in Column I is the Offeror's "Total Self Score" for technical evaluation purposes.

J Downgrade: Reserved for Governmnet Evaluator use. If the Government finds discrpencies during validation of Offeror provided counts, the Government reserves the right to downgrade scores to align with validated information. The governmnet will not upgrade scores in this process. See Atch 06 for further details pertinent to downgrading Offeror provided counts/scores.

K SPARE - INTENTIONALLY BLANK

L-P 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 validation of Offeror's provided counts.

image54.emf

Microsoft_Excel_Worksheet5.xlsx

HTRO MSOFS 2.0

HTRO Self Score Matrix Citation - Section/Page #

Eval Section Category / Criterion Maximum Count Offeror's Count Points per Count Weight Factor Max Possible Resulting Score Down-grade WS-1 WS-2 WS-3 WS-4 WS-5

5.2.2 Category 2 Geographic locations 5 20 1 100 0

5.2.3 Category 3 Positions transitioned within 14 days 50 2 3 300 0

5.2.7 Category 7 Retention Rate 100 1 4 400 0

5.2.9 Category 9 Safeguarding Covered Defense Information & Cyber Incident Reporting 100 1 1 100 0

TOTAL MAX POSSIBLE: 2500

TOTAL SELF SCORE: 0

Column Explanation

B Eval Section: Points to the section in the Evaluation Criteria that corresponds to the Category/Criteria described in that row

C Category/Criterion: Summarized description of the required measurment - with further detail available in the section identified in Column B

D Maximum Count: The highest allowable count an Offeror can enter in Column E. 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)

E Offeror's Count: Response provided by the Offeror for each criterion, in accordance with corresponding description and instructions in Atch 06. THIS IS THE ONLY COLUMN TO THE LEFT OF COLUMN J IN WHICH OFFERORS SHALL MAKE ENTRIES.

F Points per Count: Mathematically derived by dividing the Maximum Count into 100, thus normalizing each category to a baseline of 100 for arithmetic evaluation/comparison purposes - equally weighted categories will equally impact the totals score regardless of the "unit of measure". Offerors then can achieve the maximum score for the Category/Criterion if their provided work sample(s) support(s) the maximum allowable count(s).

G Weight Factor: Value designated by the Government for the purpose, as the name implies, of assigning weight to selected criteria to reflect relative importance to each category that impacts scoring totals proportionally to that weight.

H Max Possible: Mathematically derived by multiplying 100 by the weight factor, and representing the maximum possible score an offeror can achieve in each category; done by achieving a validated maximum count. The sum of all values in Columns H is the "Total Max Possible" score an Offeror can achieve for technical evaluation purposes.

I Resulting Score: Mathematically derived by multiplying Column E (Offeror's Count) by Column F (Points per Count), and then multiplying that product by Column G (Weight Factor). This represents the Offeror's score for each category. The sum of all values in Column I is the Offeror's "Total Self Score" for technical evaluation purposes.

J Downgrade: Reserved for Governmnet Evaluator use. If the Government finds discrpencies during validation of Offeror provided counts, the Government reserves the right to downgrade scores to align with validated information. The governmnet will not upgrade scores in this process. See Atch 06 for further details pertinent to downgrading Offeror provided counts/scores.

K SPARE - INTENTIONALLY BLANK

L-P 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 validation of Offeror's provided counts.

image55.emf

Microsoft_Excel_Worksheet6.xlsx

HTRO MSOFS 2.0

HTRO Self Score Matrix…