Atch 02 HTRO Self Score Matrix (as of 20250613).xlsx
XLSX spreadsheet 33 KB Posted
- Attached to
- SOFGSD DRAFT CANCELLED - MOVED TO H9240026RE001
- Solicitation number
- H9240025RE002
- Issued by
-
United States Special Operations Command
About this file
The document is a Self-Scoring Matrix for the Special Operations Forces Global Services Delivery (SOFGSD) solicitation (H9240025RE002) issued by United States Special Operations Command. The matrix provides a complex scoring mechanism for offerors to self-evaluate their technical capabilities across seven distinct categories, including contract personnel, geographic performance sites, workforce transitions, labor category expertise, Statement of Work (SOW) requirements, personnel retention, and contractor performance assessments.
Key evaluation categories include scoring for total contract personnel (max 1000 points), concurrent performance at geographic sites (up to 500 points), workforce transitions (max 2000 points), and demonstrated expertise across 15 specific labor categories like Intelligence Analyst, Foreign Disclosure Officer, and Strategic Planner (max 4875 points). The matrix allows offerors to use up to five work samples across different tiers to document their capabilities, with specific instructions for documenting evidence in each scoring category. The total possible technical evaluation score is 13,325 points, with additional past performance scoring based on Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS) ratings.
View the file
Other files
Show all 34
On GovTribe
Work with this file
- 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 determing 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. |
| Scoring Category Instructions | |
| Category 1 | Using a single Tier 1 Work Sample (WS), Offerors shall provide evidence of the number of total # contracted personnel for 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). |
| Category 2 | 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 | 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. Documentation substantiating the Offeror's count shall clearly indicate the dates of the 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 | 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. If a WS required performance of only 1 of the specified LCATs but with 7 of that same LCAT provided, the Offeror would include a count of 5 for that WS. 1 point per LCAT; no more than 5 points per LCAT |
| Category 5 | 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, 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. |
| Category 6 | 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 work sample over the course of 9 months within a signle contract year. Percentages shall be calculated by the number of employed personnel in the first month and still employed in month 9. |
| Category 7 | 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 categories are Quality, Schedule, Cost Control, Management, and Regulatory Compliance.
Should a CPARS category be scored as N/A, it will not be included in the calculations.
For example: Assuming a total of 25 CPARS categories (5 per work sample) - if the Offeror received eleven (11) “satisfactory” rating across the CPARS, then the corresponding percentage for row 29/column E in the HTRO Scoring Matrix is 44% [Calculation: 11 (CPARS categories with a “satisfactory” rating) divided by 25 (sum of all CPARS categories across all five (5) work samples)].
DRAFT
Column Explanation
| General (Top section) Tab | ||
| 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. |
| 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
General Score Sheet
| Special Operations Forces Global Services Delivery (SOFGSD) | ||
| Solicitation Number: H9240025RE002 | Offeror Name: | |
| Attachment X: Self Scoring Matrix |
| 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 |
| L3.3 Category 1 | Total # of contract personnel on a single work sample | 1 | Tier 1 | 50 | 20 | 1000 | 0 | 0 | |||
| L3.3 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 (max of 5, no more than 2 per country or US Territory) | 25 | 20 | 500 | 0 | 0 | ||||||
| Any one site in Germany add 250 count. Any one site in Korea add 250 count. Maximum of 500 total count. (No more than 1 per country.) | 500 | 1 | 500 | 0 | 0 | ||||||
| L3.3 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 | |||
| L3.3 Category 4 | 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) Foreign Disclosure Officer
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; across all WS. | All | All Tiers | 75 | 65 | 4875 | 0 | 0 | |||||
| L3.3 Category 5 | 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 | |||||||
| L3.3 Category 6 | Retention: Provide retention rate for a 9-month PoP within a single contract year for a Tier 1 work sample as a Percentage.* | 1 | Tier 1 | 100 | 30 | 3000 | 0 | 0 | ||||
| General Scoring Categories Total | 13,325 | 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 | ||||||
| L3.3 Category 7 | Percentage of "exceptional", "very good", and "satisfactory" CPARS ratings over last 5 years | 0.0% | 0 | 0 | 0.00 | 0.0% | 0.00 | ||||
| Percentage of "marginal" CPARS ratings over last 5 years | 0.0% | (500) | 0 | 0.00 | 0.0% | 0.00 | |||||
| Percentage of "unsatisfactory" CPARS ratings over last 5 years | 0.0% | (2,000) | 0 | 0.00 | 0.0% | 0.00 | |||||
| Check percentage for 100% | 0.0% | ERROR:#REF! | ERROR:#REF! | 0.0% | |||||||
| Past Performance Scoring Categories Total | 0 | 0 | 0.00 | 0 | |||||||
| Totals: | 13,325 | 0 | 0 |
DRAFT
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 .