Atch 02 HTRO Self Score Matrix (Draft 20250710).xlsx
XLSX spreadsheet 35 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
This file is a draft Self Score Matrix for the SOF Global Services Delivery (SOFGSD) solicitation (H9240025RE002) issued by United States Special Operations Command. The matrix provides detailed scoring instructions for offerors across seven evaluation categories, including contract personnel count, geographic performance sites, workforce transitions, labor category requirements, management support, performance history, and contractor performance ratings. Each category has specific scoring criteria, maximum point allocations, and instructions for how contractors should self-score their past performance, with a total possible score of 16,850 points.
Key dates include an Industry Day scheduled for 16-17 June 2025 at SOFWERX in Tampa, Florida, with both in-person and virtual attendance options. The solicitation timeline indicates final draft RFP comments are due by the end of June 2025, with a final RFP release anticipated in early July 2025. The evaluation emphasizes detailed documentation of past performance, with requirements such as providing work samples demonstrating personnel management, geographic diversity, workforce transitions, and specific labor category expertise. The government reserves the right to validate and potentially adjust contractor-submitted scores during the evaluation process.
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. 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. |
| 3 | For Tier 1 Work Samples submitted by the JV protégé for Catergories 1, 3, and 6, meeting 80% of the count will earn the maximum score for that Category. The protege does NOT need to adjust their count in order to receive the adjusted score. The Government will make this adjustment during their evaluation. |
For example: In Category 1, the JV protégé will only need to have provided 40 LCATS to receive the full 50 points. A sliding scale will used to account for amounts less than the maximum score for Category 1.
| 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 | All five WS, at any Tier may be used to score this category. Offerors shall score itself based on the greatest number of non-incumbent positions (minimum of 25, maximum of 100) transistioned or hired within thirty (30) consecutive calendar days. For a JV protege, the WS must have a minimum of 20, maximum of 100 positions. 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 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 180. 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 15 points per LCAT across all WS. |
| 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) with a minimum of 25 positions, Offerors shall provide evidence of the number of total positions contracted for at any point in time during the period of performance. For a JV protege, the WS must have a minimum of 20 positions. Evidence shall identify corporate records documenting continued employment under the work sample over the course of 9 months within a single 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.
For example: Assuming a total of 25 CPARS categories (5 per work sample) - 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 30/columns titled "Percentage of CPAR Ratings" 80% (10+6+4)/25 and 20% in row 31/columns titled "Percentage of CPAR Ratings."
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" also yield a neutral rating. Only ratings that reflect marginal or unsatisfactory are assigned a numerical (negative) value.
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 | SPARE - 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 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 (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 |
| G | Points for Each CPAR Rating | Points assigned for each CPAR Rating |
| H - J | SPARE - INTENTIONALLY BLANK | |
| K | Offeror's Self Score | Mathematically derived by multiplying Column E & F (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 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 02 - HTRO Self Scoring Matrix |
| Section L Reference | Category / 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 |
| 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 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 | |||||
| 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) | All | All Tiers | 100 | 20 | 2000 | 0 | 0 | ||
| L3.3 Category 4 | Work Samples that contain the following 12 LCATs. |
1 point per LCAT; no more than 15 points per LCAT across all WS.
1) Intelligence Analyst
2) INT Specific
3) Linguist
4) Data Specialist
5) Operational Planner/Analyst
6) Mission Assurance
7) Financial Management
8) Strategic Planner
9) Role Player
10) Instructor
11) Regional/Cultural Advisor
| 12) SOF Specialty Trainer | All | All Tiers | 180 | 50 | 9000 | 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 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 withdemonstrated 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 | |||||||
| 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 | 16,850 | 0 | 0 |
| Section L Reference | 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 | |||||
| L3.3 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
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 .