DRFP Amd 2 SOFGSD QnA (20250904).xlsx

Questions and Answers

Please clarify if offerors should: (a) enter the percentage of awarded billets calculated across all work samples (WS), or (b) enter the total number of positions.

- If the answer to the last question is (b), please also confirm that the Maximum Count should be 125 (up to 25 billets x 5 WS), not 100.

-If the answer to the last question is 125, please confirm that Maximum Possible Points should be 2,500 (125 max x 20 Weight Factor), not 2,000.

If we use an IDIQ for a WS and use this WS to substantiate the transition and retention portions of the HTRO matrix, is your intent to show these percentages based of a specific Task Order within that IDIQ, or must we use an average of all the task orders awarded within that IDIQ?

In the HTRO instructions, General instructions, line 3 states, “For Tier 1 Work Samples (WS) submitted by the JV protégé for Categories 1, 3, and 6, meeting 80% of the count will earn the maximum score for that Category.” We are planning on submitting 2 Tier 1 WS; 1 WS from the Mentor and 1 WS from the Protégé. L3.1.3 states either are acceptable. We are planning on using a Mentor WS for these categories. Please clarify, are categories 1 and 6 for either partner in the JV or solely for the Protégé?

We are planning on submitting 2 Tier 1 WS; 1 WS from the Mentor and 1 WS from the Protégé. Please clarify, for the Category 6 Tier 1 Work Sample (WS), can we use either of the Tier 1 WS, OR if we have a Mentor-protégé JV, then we must use the Protégé WS for this score?

Government Response: Tier 1 WS shall be submitted IAW Section L3.1.7. Categories 1 and 6 WS may only be submitted by the protégé. Mentor WS for either category will not be accepted.

IAW 13 C.F.R. § 125.8(e), “a procuring activity must consider work done and qualifications held individually by each partner to the joint venture”. Further, in (1) it states, “A procuring activity has discretion whether to require a protégé or lead small business member of a joint venture to demonstrate some level of past performance and/or experience”. And then in (2) states, “successful performance by the protégé or lead small business firm on the contracts it identifies shall be rated equivalently to successful performance by the mentor or non-similarly situated partner to the joint venture or any other individual offeror on the higher valued contracts they identify.”

Based on these statements in the CFR, the Government: 1) MUST evaluate work done by BOTH the mentor AND the protégé, 2) may require a protégé to demonstrate some level of experience, and (3) evaluate performance of the protégé differently than that of other offerors.

The Government is accomplishing all these requirements by 1) requiring WS submissions from the protégé for specific categories, and 2) allowing the protégé to meet a lower requirement to receive full points.

9 ITO L3.1.8, L3.1.3, M4.1.6, HTRO Matrix Instructions Q:

Is a Protégé Tier 1 WS with less than 20 personnel acceptable?

Considering these multiple relaxed thresholds—both in LCAT count and WS size—available exclusively to JV protégés, we are concerned this introduces a disproportionate scoring advantage for the small business JV entities, particularly when small businesses competing independently must meet higher benchmarks to earn comparable points.

Can the Government clarify how these allowances maintain a level playing field across all Offerors for a Small Business Set-Aside contract? Moreover, would the Government consider scoring adjustments or compensatory methods to ensure equitable treatment for non-JV small businesses, who may otherwise be disadvantaged under this framework?

Government Response: IAW 13 C.F.R. § 125.8(e), “a procuring activity must consider work done and qualifications held individually by each partner to the joint venture”. Further, in (1) it states, “A procuring activity has discretion whether to require a protégé or lead small business member of a joint venture to demonstrate some level of past performance and/or experience”. And then in (2) states, “successful performance by the protégé or lead small business firm on the contracts it identifies shall be rated equivalently to successful performance by the mentor or non-similarly situated partner to the joint venture or any other individual offeror on the higher valued contracts they identify.”

Based on these statements in the CFR, the Government: 1) MUST evaluate work done by BOTH the mentor AND the protégé, 2) may require a protégé to demonstrate some level of experience, and (3) evaluate performance of the protégé differently than that of other offerors.

The current draft limits Tier 1 work samples to only the small business prime or the protégé in a mentor-protégé joint venture (MPJV). The mentor’s experience, even when it was the prime contractor, is relegated to Tier 2. This contradicts SBA’s regulations which state that when an MPJV lacks its own past performance, the experience of both the mentor and the protégé must be considered in evaluation (13 CFR 125.9(d)(1)(ii)). By excluding mentor-led work from Tier 1 scoring, the solicitation undervalues proven performance and violates the intent of SBA’s rules. It also penalizes small businesses that lack a deep bench of prior contracts but are backed by an experienced mentor.

Recommendation:

Allow work samples performed by either the mentor or the protégé in an MPJV to count as Tier 1, as long as at least one submission comes from the protégé. This keeps the scoring fair, aligned with SBA guidance, and ensures all MPJVs are evaluated based on the full capabilities of the team.

Government Response: IAW 13 C.F.R. § 125.8(e), “a procuring activity must consider work done and qualifications held individually by each partner to the joint venture”. Further, in (1) it states, “A procuring activity has discretion whether to require a protégé or lead small business member of a joint venture to demonstrate some level of past performance and/or experience”. And then in (2) states, “successful performance by the protégé or lead small business firm on the contracts it identifies shall be rated equivalently to successful performance by the mentor or non-similarly situated partner to the joint venture or any other individual offeror on the higher valued contracts they identify.”

Based on these statements in the CFR, the Government: 1) MUST evaluate work done by BOTH the mentor AND the protégé, 2) may require a protégé to demonstrate some level of experience, and (3) evaluate performance of the protégé differently than that of other offerors.

The Government is accomplishing all these requirements by 1) requiring WS submissions from the protégé for specific categories, and 2) allowing the protégé to meet a lower requirement to receive full points.

16 Impact of Tier 1 Restriction on Retention Scoring (Category 6) Attachment 02 – HTRO Self Score Matrix, Category 6 (Retention); Section L3.1.7 and L3.1.8 Comment:

Retention scoring under Category 6 only applies to Tier 1 work samples. Since the draft restricts Tier 1 to the small business or protégé, MPJVs are unable to use the mentor’s large-scale, long-standing programs to demonstrate retention. This creates an artificial scoring gap, especially when the protégé is a new or smaller entity that lacks 9 months of continuous performance on a relevant contract. This approach unfairly penalizes MPJVs and directly conflicts with SBA’s guidance to evaluate both mentor and protégé experience.

Recommendation:

Allow the Offeror to use any prime-performed work sample from the MPJV (mentor or protégé) to demonstrate retention, as long as one Tier 1 work sample is submitted by the protégé elsewhere in the proposal. This change ensures all teams are assessed based on their ability to retain talent, which is a key indicator of stability, regardless of which JV partner performed the work.

Page: "Instructions" Cell: 12B The government says: "The Offeror shall score itself based on the total number of LCATs specified 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."

With 12 LCATs and one point per LCAT, can the government confirm the maximum Offeror Count should be 12 points per WS. With a total of five WS's, this would lead to an overall Offeror Count of 60 rather than 180. Can the government please confirm this is correct?

Page: "Instructions" Cell: 12B The government states: " 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."

Can the government please explain this scoring? If there is one point per LCAT and 7 of that same LCAT provided, it is confusing how the government arrives at 5 points rather than either 1 point (for the overall LCAT) or 7 points (for the seven FTEs within that LCAT).

Page: "Instructions" Cell: 12B The government states: "1 point per LCAT; no more than 15 points per LCAT across all WS."

If there is 1 point per LCAT and 5 total WS's, can the government confirm that the guidance should read "no more than 5 points per LCAT across all WS"?

Based on these statements in the CFR, the Government: 1) MUST evaluate work done by BOTH the mentor AND the protégé, 2) may require a protégé to demonstrate some level of experience, and (3) evaluate performance of the protégé differently than that of other offerors.

The Government is accomplishing all these requirements by 1) requiring WS submissions from the protégé for specific categories, and 2) allowing the protégé to meet a lower requirement to receive full points.

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. ** Q: But yet the government will require standalone small business Prime contractors to provide 50 to get the full 50 points, while JV protégé only need to provide 40 LCATS to receive the full 50 points? ** Q: Shouldn't all offers be evaluated with the same level of effort? This seemingly simple question carries significant implications for fairness, transparency, and the ultimate quality of the decisions made.

Government Response: IAW 13 C.F.R. § 125.8(e), “a procuring activity must consider work done and qualifications held individually by each partner to the joint venture”. Further, in (1) it states, “A procuring activity has discretion whether to require a protégé or lead small business member of a joint venture to demonstrate some level of past performance and/or experience”. And then in (2) states, “successful performance by the protégé or lead small business firm on the contracts it identifies shall be rated equivalently to successful performance by the mentor or non-similarly situated partner to the joint venture or any other individual offeror on the higher valued contracts they identify.”

Based on these statements in the CFR, the Government: 1) MUST evaluate work done by BOTH the mentor AND the protégé, 2) may require a protégé to demonstrate some level of experience, and (3) evaluate performance of the protégé differently than that of other offerors.

The Government is accomplishing all these requirements by 1) requiring WS submissions from the protégé for specific categories, and 2) allowing the protégé to meet a lower requirement to receive full points.

Based on these statements in the CFR, the Government: 1) MUST evaluate work done by BOTH the mentor AND the protégé, 2) may require a protégé to demonstrate some level of experience, and (3) evaluate performance of the protégé differently than that of other offerors.

The Government is accomplishing all these requirements by 1) requiring WS submissions from the protégé for specific categories, and 2) allowing the protégé to meet a lower requirement to receive full points.

Based on these statements in the CFR, the Government: 1) MUST evaluate work done by BOTH the mentor AND the protégé, 2) may require a protégé to demonstrate some level of experience, and (3) evaluate performance of the protégé differently than that of other offerors.

The Government is accomplishing all these requirements by 1) requiring WS submissions from the protégé for specific categories, and 2) allowing the protégé to meet a lower requirement to receive full points.

Based on these statements in the CFR, the Government: 1) MUST evaluate work done by BOTH the mentor AND the protégé, 2) may require a protégé to demonstrate some level of experience, and (3) evaluate performance of the protégé differently than that of other offerors.

The Government is accomplishing all these requirements by 1) requiring WS submissions from the protégé for specific categories, and 2) allowing the protégé to meet a lower requirement to receive full points.

31 Other Atch 02, HTRO, Category 5 Within the General Score Sheet, Category 5 has rows for Number of non-SOF related work samples and Number of SOF related examples for each category.

Are these rows meant to be mutually exclusive, or can the same work sample apply to both if, for example, it is a SOF contract that also supports the Non-SOF Joint community?

At Industry Day, SOCOM stated the reason for the Germany and Republic of Korea specifics was to ensure the company understands how to navigate the DOCPERS/TESA system as well as ROK SOFA. A sub’s sample will only reflect that the sub understands the process, but not the prime. The reason this is important is that the vast majority of positions on these types of contracts are Analytical Support (AS) and not Technical Expert (TE), as classified by DOCPERS. TE is authorized unlimited subcontractor manning, but AS only permits a “small” number of positions to be subcontracted (though DOCPERS never defines “small number”). This means, by definition, that the prime will be required to put the majority of employees in Germany and by default, must know how the DOCPERS/TESA system works firsthand. Simply having a subcontractor on the team who has done it before will not get a prime through this labor-intensive difficult process.

Is “maximum of 100” meant to be “100%” and not a max of 100 FTEs?

Government Response: See revised Atch 2, HTRO Self Scoring Matrix.

100 is the maximum number of POSITIONS that can be used to calculate the PERCENTAGE in the scoring.

35 Other L 3.1.3 Acceptable Work Samples Given the current language in this section as stated in the July draft, large multi-award, multi-agency contract vehicles such as GSA MAS, ALLIANT, STARS, and OASIS, which have no overarching SOW/PWS at the IDIQ level may become single work samples. These IDIQ vehicles encompass separate Task Order awards from various agencies spanning both DoD and non-DoD agencies each with their own unique SOW/PWS.

Recommend the Government consider reverting back to its original Section L instruction in this section to include "An IDIQ contract with a specified scope of work, including all task orders, is acceptable as one work sample."

Alternatively, SOCOM may consider using language similar to what the SEWP VI vehicle recently used, “An Offeror may submit a single award IDIQ/BPA at the contract/agreement level as a single past performance reference. However, Offerors are not permitted to submit a multiple award IDIQ contract as an individual past performance reference.”

For example, does this encompass any graduate of any instructor course? Any school or institution?

If the Gov's intent is to allow only qualified instructors, recommend that the Gov include language such as "Graduate of any DoD or Service Instructor Qualification Course, having received DoD or Service school instructor qualifications."

If the Gov's intent is to allow only qualified instructors, recommend that the Gov include language such as "Graduate of any DoD or Service Instructor Qualification Course, having received DoD or Service school instructor qualifications."

Government documentation that includes similar labor categories as the INT Specific specify the type of poly that is required in their descriptions, typically CI. Given that the USG Considerations state "CI is ok" recommend the Government amend the Clearance language for this LCAT to state, "Clearance: TS/SCI plus must be able to obtain CI poly"

However, if the Gov's intent is that the work sample SOW/PWS must specify "must be able to obtain a poly", then recommend that the Gov include language such as "must be able to obtain a poly as specified by the work sample SOW/PWS".

Recommend that the Gov't define LCAT qualifications with language for each LCAT that describes the skills and competencies needed to achieve the possible range of deliverables for each LCAT.

If the Govt's intent is to allow a broader range of SOF and non-SOF work samples, recommend the Gov, switches requirement owner from "US Agency" to "DoD and US Gov agencies", and includes "Support to SOF and non-SOF". If the Govt's intent is to include only work that supports SOF specifically, recommend the Gov switches requirement owner to DoD.

Government Response: Yes, all four of the phrases are required.

"US Agency" already means holistically the entire Federal Government.

Under the current scoring structure:

Categories 1 and 6 require Tier 1 work samples, many protégés do not have contracts that meet the 20+ FTE threshold. As a result, these JVs start the HTRO scoring process with a deficit of up to 4,000 points—nearly 24% of the total available points.

The impact is compounded in Category 3, which also requires 20+ FTEs, further reducing the scoring potential of otherwise qualified Mentor-Protégé teams.

This structure effectively limits the ability of the mentor to contribute to the HTRO score, despite the JV being formed specifically to develop the protégé under SBA’s Mentor-Protégé programs.

We recommend that SOCOM revise the Tier 1 work sample definition to allow contracts from either the protégé or the mentor in an approved SBA Mentor-Protégé JV.

This change would:

· Enable SOCOM to access more competitive, experienced, and developmentally aligned teams

· Support long-term growth of small businesses capable of meeting future SOCOM requirements

· Increase SOCOM’s access to high-quality solutions Government Response: See revised Atch 2 HTRO Self Score Matrix.

IAW 13 C.F.R. § 125.8(e), “a procuring activity must consider work done and qualifications held individually by each partner to the joint venture”. Further, in (1) it states, “A procuring activity has discretion whether to require a protégé or lead small business member of a joint venture to demonstrate some level of past performance and/or experience”. And then in (2) states, “successful performance by the protégé or lead small business firm on the contracts it identifies shall be rated equivalently to successful performance by the mentor or non-similarly situated partner to the joint venture or any other individual offeror on the higher valued contracts they identify.”

Based on these statements in the CFR, the Government: 1) MUST evaluate work done by BOTH the mentor AND the protégé, 2) may require a protégé to demonstrate some level of experience, and (3) evaluate performance of the protégé differently than that of other offerors.

The Government is accomplishing all these requirements by 1) requiring WS submissions from the protégé for specific categories, and 2) allowing the protégé to meet a lower requirement to receive full points.

Q. Will the government consider changing this verbiage to the following: Offeror’s … shall provide a copy of their approved Mentor Protégé Agreement (MPA), and a copy of their signed JV Agreement outlining the roles and responsibilities of both joint venture partners

Q: Does the government intend that this WS should reference 40 different labor categories or is the government using the term LCAT intending for it to be synonymous with Full Time Employees (FTE) Government Response: LCAT and FTE are not synonymous.

See revised Atch 2 HTRO Self Score Matrix. Any direct charge LCAT may be used as evidence of performance (i.e. Offerors are not limited to LCATs identified elsewhere in this solicitation).

53 Other HTRO Instructions Tab Category 3 General Instruction #3 states …Work Samples submitted by the JV protégé for Categories 1, 3, and 6, meeting 80% of the count will earn the maximum score for that Category… The Category 3 instructions state …For a JV protege, the WS must have a minimum of 20, maximum of 100 positions… Q: Based upon the General Instruction #3, does a JV WS require a minimum of 16 positions (20 x 80%) in order to qualify for a score?

Q: Since the Foreign Disclosure Office resides within the J2, and there are currently existing requirements under the SCS contract supporting both SOCOM HQ and Components, will the gov consider adding FD as either a separate LCAT, or…