LOGCAP VI HTRO Data Dictionary.xlsx
XLSX spreadsheet 46 KB Posted
- Solicitation number
- Not on record
About this file
This is a Data Dictionary for the LOGCAP VI Highest Technically Rated Offeror (HTRO) Self-Scoring Matrix, providing authoritative definitions for 58 terms used in the evaluation of contractor proposals. The dictionary is designed to ensure offerors and government evaluators apply consistent criteria when self-scoring and validating technical proposals. Key definitions are organized alphabetically across multiple categories including Scoring Structure, Operational, Personnel/Workforce, Supply & Logistics, Medical, Cybersecurity/IT, Legal/Regulatory, and General/Cross-Cutting. Critical terms include Demonstrated Performance (completed or actively ongoing work under U.S. Government or allied contracts with verifiable periods of performance and government points of contact), Base Performance Score (raw scores of 0, 200, 400, 600, 800, or 1000 based on single best-documented examples), Minimum Technical Threshold Requirement (60% of maximum achievable weighted score for MATOC base award eligibility), and multiple operational qualifiers such as Contingency Environment, Austere Environment, and Dispersed Nodes that define when contractor experience qualifies for scoring credit.
The dictionary establishes rigorous standards for what constitutes creditable experience, explicitly stating what counts toward scoring (such as government-finalized CPARS narratives, prime contract task orders, allied government contracts with U.S. government points of contact) and what does not (subcontract performance not visible at prime level, internal company documents, commercial contracts without government verification). Specialized terms address LSCO (Logistics in Support of Contested Operations) requirements including Counter-UAS operations, PACE Communications plans, A2/AD threat mitigation, RSOI contingency planning, and peer-threat scenario participation. Additional definitions cover critical capabilities such as Class V ammunition operations (ASP/AHA/ATHP facilities), GCSS-Army and SAAS system proficiency, medical facility operations (Role 1 and Role 2), cybersecurity standards (DISA STIG, IAVM compliance, SOC operations), additive manufacturing, digital twins, microgrids, and advanced logistics technologies. All definitions include specific regulatory and doctrinal basis citations, application notes clarifying scoring intent, and identification of affected sub-factors to guide both offeror self-evaluation and government validation assessments.
View the file
Other files
| File | Type | Posted |
|---|---|---|
| LOGCAP VI HTRO Matrix.xlsx | XLSX spreadsheet | |
| LOGCAP VI HTRO RFI.pdf | ||
| LOGCAPVI_HTRO_MATRIX_DRAFT_20260511.xlsx | XLSX spreadsheet | |
| 3.0 Feedback on Draft HTRO Matrix.pdf | ||
| LOGCAPVI_HTRO_MATRIX_DRAFT_20260511.xlsx | XLSX spreadsheet | |
| 5.0 CLIN Structure Feedback and White Paper Submission.pdf | ||
| 4.0 PWS Feedback and Future Capabilities.pdf | ||
| LOGCAP_VI_PWS_DRAFT_v6_20260209.pdf |
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
Data Dictionary
| LOGCAP VI HTRO Self-Scoring Matrix — Data Dictionary | ||||||||
| PURPOSE: This data dictionary provides authoritative definitions for all terms used in the LOGCAP VI HTRO Self-Scoring Matrix. Offerors must apply these definitions when self-scoring. The Government will apply these definitions during validation. Ambiguity resolved against the offeror. Terms are listed alphabetically within category. | ||||||||
| # | Term | Category | Definition | Scoring / Application Notes | What COUNTS Toward This Score | What Does NOT COUNT Toward This Score | Regulatory / Doctrinal Basis | Sub-Factors Affected |
| 1 | Base Performance Score | Scoring Structure | The raw score (0, 200, 400, 600, 800, or 1000) assigned by the offeror to a sub-factor based on the tier description that most accurately reflects the offeror's highest level of demonstrated performance on a prior contract or task order. | The base score must reflect the offeror's single best-documented example of performance for that sub-factor. Offerors may not average multiple contracts or combine partial performance across contracts to reach a higher tier. | Experience on a completed prime contract or task order that meets or exceeds all criteria for the selected tier, supported by a valid work sample. | Experience that partially meets tier criteria; performance on subcontracts not reflected in a prime contract work sample; internal company programs; prototype or pilot activities not performed under a government contract. | RFO FAR Part 15; LOGCAP VI Section L evaluation criteria | All scored sub-factors |
| 2 | Demonstrated Performance | Scoring Structure | Performance that has been completed or is actively ongoing under a prime contract or task order with the U.S. Government or an allied government, with a verifiable period of performance, a contracting officer or COR of record, and supporting documentation sufficient for government validation. | Demonstrated performance must be distinguishable from planned, proposed, or conceptual capability. The offeror must be able to provide a government point of contact for each cited performance example who can confirm the nature and scale of the work. | Completed task orders; active task orders with at least 6 months of experience at the cited scale; CPARS or equivalent performance assessments; government-signed delivery/acceptance records. Experience on non-DoD federal agency contracts (e.g., FEMA, DHS, DoS) and highly relevant commercial experience, provided the scale and complexity mirror LOGCAP requirements | White papers; unsolicited proposals; capability statements; internal R&D programs; academic or training exercises; commercial (non-government) contracts unless specifically noted as acceptable in the sub-factor criteria. | FAR 15.305(a)(2); RFO FAR Part 15; LOGCAP V CPARS precedent | All scored sub-factors |
| 3 | Minimum Technical Threshold Requirement (MTTR) | Scoring Structure | The minimum Government-Validated Total Weighted Score an offeror must achieve to be eligible for MATOC base award. The MTTR is set at 60% of the maximum possible total weighted score achievable under the revised matrix. | Offerors who do not meet the MTTR are not eligible for award regardless of price or other factors. The MTTR is calculated against the Government-Validated score, not the offeror's self-reported score. | N/A — threshold determination, not a scored element. | N/A | RFO FAR Part 15; LOGCAP VI Section M evaluation factors | Total score calculation |
| 4 | Unique COCOM | Scoring Structure | One of the six U.S. Geographic Combatant Commands — AFRICOM (U.S. Africa Command), CENTCOM (U.S. Central Command), EUCOM (U.S. European Command), INDOPACOM (U.S. Indo-Pacific Command), NORTHCOM (U.S. Northern Command), or SOUTHCOM (U.S. Southern Command) — in which the offeror has physically performed the cited services under a qualifying contract. | COCOM credit is assigned based on the geographic AOR of the location where services were physically performed, not the supported unit's command assignment. A contract supporting a CENTCOM-assigned unit but performed entirely within EUCOM's AOR counts toward EUCOM, not CENTCOM. Each COCOM may be claimed only once per sub-factor regardless of the number of contracts performed in that AOR. | Contracts where services were physically demonstrated within the geographic AOR of the claimed COCOM, verifiable by contract place of performance or task order location. | Performance in a COCOM's AOR under a subcontract where the offeror was not the prime contractor; performance in transit through a COCOM (e.g., aerial port staging); advisory or liaison roles without direct service delivery. | JP 1; CJCSM 3130.06; Geographic Combatant Command AOR boundaries | |
| 5 | Weight Factor | Scoring Structure | A multiplier (1 through 5) assigned to each sub-factor that reflects the relative operational importance of that capability to LOGCAP VI performance in a contested logistics environment. Higher weight factors indicate sub-factors with greater direct impact on LSCO mission success. | Weight factors are fixed and cannot be adjusted by the offeror. The four critical LSCO additions (Contested Logistics Planning Maturity, Class V Ammunition Operations, Cybersecurity and Network Resilience, Modernization and Innovation Capability) carry the highest weight factors (4 or 5) in the matrix. | N/A — assigned factor, not a scored element. | N/A | LOGCAP VI HTRO Scoring Methodology; RFO FAR Part 15 tradeoff authority | All scored sub-factors |
| 6 | Work Sample | Scoring Structure | A documented example of prior contract performance submitted by the offeror to support a self-reported score, consisting of a contract number or task order number, period of performance dates, place of performance (to include COCOM), a brief description of services performed and scale achieved, and a government point of contact (name, title, phone, and email) who can confirm the performance. | Each scored sub-factor line must be supported by at least one work sample citation. The same work sample may support multiple sub-factor lines if the underlying performance is relevant to each. The government will contact cited references during validation; misrepresentation constitutes a false statement under 18 U.S.C. § 1001. | Govnerment-finalized CPARS narratives; prime contract task orders; BOA task orders; IDIQ task orders where the offeror held the prime contract; allied government contracts where a U.S. government POC can confirm experience; and sanitized/redacted experience summaries for classified, Special Operations, or NDA-restriced commercial contracts (provided Government/Commercial KO validates the summary) | Subcontract task orders not visible at the prime level; internal company documents; commercial contracts without a government POC; contracts where the cited performance was performed by a teaming partner, not the offeror. | FAR 15.305(a)(2); 18 U.S.C. § 1001; LOGCAP VI Section L instructions | All scored sub-factors |
| 7 | Austere Environment | Operational | A location where the contractor must establish and sustain its own operational support due to the absence of permanent infrastructure, established supply chains, reliable commercial utility services, or routine garrison support. An austere environment is distinguished from a garrison or established installation by the contractor's requirement to self-generate power, self-source or treat water, and operate without access to established logistics networks. | Performance at an established garrison or forward operating base with existing permanent utilities and logistics infrastructure does not qualify as austere, even if the base is in a remote location. The austere environment qualifier is used in the maintenance sub-factor to credit contractors who have performed field-level maintenance without the benefit of established shop infrastructure. | Performance at remote or expeditionary locations requiring contractor-established utilities, water sourcing, and supply chain; documented in task order place of performance and contractor AARs. | Garrison installations; established COBs or FOBs with permanent utility infrastructure; CONUS installations; any location where the contractor operated from government-furnished facilities without self-establishing basic support. | FM 4-0 (Aug 2024); ATP 4-93; LOGCAP V task order performance records | 5.1, 5.2 |
| 8 | Contingency Environment | Operational | An operational area in which U.S. military forces are deployed under a Presidential directive, a Secretary of Defense order, a declared contingency, or a named operation, outside the continental United States (OCONUS), where contractor personnel are subject to theater entry requirements, CAAF accountability, and the authority of the supported Geographic Combatant Commander. | Domestic DSCA operations, CONUS training exercises, and peacetime garrison support do not qualify as contingency environments for scoring purposes, even when conducted under emergency conditions. The contingency environment qualifier is used in the human capital and mobilization sub-factors to ensure that scored experience reflects the regulatory and operational conditions relevant to LOGCAP VI employment. | Named operations (e.g., OIF, OEF, OIR, Atlantic Resolve); CCDR-directed deployments; operations under a CCDR execute order; theater entry-controlled deployments with issued LOAs. | DSCA operations within CONUS; National Guard activations without CCDR authority; peacetime exercises; CONUS training events; any deployment that did not require theater entry processing. | JP 4-10; DoDI 3020.41; AR 700-137; 10 U.S.C. § 101(a)(13) | 1.2, 1.4 |
| 9 | Dispersed Nodes | Operational | Three or more geographically non-contiguous sites operating independent utility, supply, or logistics systems under a single contract, with no shared physical infrastructure between sites, and each site located at a minimum of 10 kilometers from any other site under the same contract. | The dispersed nodes definition is used in the power generation and water sub-factors to distinguish contractors who have managed distributed, decentralized utility operations from those who managed a single large centralized system. Contractors claiming dispersed node credit must document each site's location and utility capacity independently in their work sample. | Three or more separate sites under the same contract, each with independent generators or water systems, 10+ km apart, with separate site-level performance records. | Multiple buildings or compounds within a single installation perimeter; co-located sites sharing a generator or water distribution network; sites that are operationally separate but share the same physical infrastructure. | PWS 04.02.04.01; Army Sustainment — Logistics Clusters and Battlefield Geometry (Spring 2025); FM 4-0 (Aug 2024) | 3.2, 3.3 |
| 10 | End-to-End Deployment | Operational | The complete lifecycle management of an expeditionary basing system — Force Provider (FP) or Base Expeditionary Airfield Resources (BEAR) — encompassing all of the following phases performed under a single contract or task order: (1) pre-deployment site survey, (2) transportation of all system components to the site, (3) site preparation and installation, (4) sustained operations for a minimum of 90 consecutive days, and (5) deinstallation, retrograde, and accountability of all components at contract close. | An offeror who performed only installation or only retrograde does not qualify for end-to-end credit. Partial lifecycle experience may be cited as supporting evidence for a lower tier but does not satisfy the end-to-end requirement for the top tier. The 90-day sustained operations minimum is a floor, not a ceiling — longer sustained operations periods strengthen the claim. | Task orders or contracts with documented performance across all five lifecycle phases; government-signed final accountability records; PDSS reports; as-built drawings; retrograde completion documentation. | Installation-only contracts; retrograde-only contracts; maintenance contracts for systems installed by another contractor; advisory or oversight roles without hands-on installation or retrograde responsibility. | PWS 02.03.01; PWS 03.04; ATP 4-93; Force Provider System TM | 2.3 |
| 11 | Operationally Relevant Scale | Operational | Performance at a scale sufficient to qualify for the 400-point (Acceptable-Lower) tier or above for the relevant sub-factor. Operationally relevant scale is the minimum threshold for COCOM | The intent is that each claimed COCOM reflects genuine operational experience at a scale that demonstrates the contractor's ability to execute that function in that theater. | Any performance that meets or exceeds the 400-point tier criteria for the relevant sub-factor in the cited COCOM. | Performance that only qualifies for the 200-point (Marginal) tier; advisory, liaison, or oversight roles; performance as a subcontractor without prime contract responsibility. | LOGCAP VI HTRO Scoring Methodology | |
| 12 | Simultaneously | Operational | Two or more contracts, task orders, or site operations that were active and performing services under the same offeror's management during an overlapping period of at least 90 consecutive calendar days. For workforce and LSA sub-factors, all cited operations must have been performing the relevant service (not merely under contract) during the same 90-day window. | The 90-day concurrent performance window prevents offerors from claiming simultaneous operations based on contracts that nominally overlapped but where one was in close-out and the other was in start-up. The offeror must be able to document concurrent active performance through invoices, headcount records, or task order status reports. | Two or more task orders with concurrent active performance periods of 90+ days, verifiable through invoice dates, labor reports, or COR correspondence. | Contracts that overlap only on paper (e.g., one in close-out and one in start-up with no actual concurrent service delivery); sequential contracts with a gap between active performance periods; contracts in the same COCOM that were never concurrently active. | LOGCAP VI HTRO Sub-Factor Criteria; standard government contract administration practice | 1.2, 1.5, 3.1, 3.2, 3.3, 3.4 |
| 13 | Validated (Playbook / Plan) | Operational | A mobilization playbook, contingency plan, or operational concept that has been reviewed, accepted, and formally acknowledged in writing by a U.S. Government stakeholder — including a Procuring Contracting Officer, Administrative Contracting Officer, supported command planner, LOGCAP Planner, or exercise control element — with documented results sufficient to confirm that the plan was stress-tested against the relevant operational scenario. | A plan that exists only as an internal corporate document, has been submitted to the government but not accepted, or has been briefed to a government audience without formal written acceptance does not qualify as validated. Exercise validation requires documented contractor participation in the exercise and a government-acknowledged AAR. | Government-accepted PMPs with contested logistics annexes; exercise AARs with documented contractor performance results; PCO/ACO acceptance letters; COR-signed plan reviews. | Internal corporate plans not submitted to the government; plans submitted but pending government review; plans referenced in proposals but not tied to a specific prior contract; verbal government acknowledgment without written documentation. | PWS 02.01.02; PWS 02.01.04; FAR 52.246-4 (inspection of services) | 1.4, 1.6, 7.4 |
| 14 | Notice to Proceed (NTP) | Operational | The formal, written direction from the Procuring Contracting Officer (PCO) authorizing the contractor to commence physical performance or incur costs for the specific site activation or construction project. | The date on the written NTP serves as "Day Zero" for calculating the LSA Velocity timeline for both IOC and FOC. Verbal authorizations to proceed do not count for scoring purposes unless formally ratified by the PCO in a subsequent contract modification. | Formal NTP letters signed by a warranted PCO; executed Task Order awards that serve as the authorization to begin work. | Verbal direction from a COR or supported commander; planning activities conducted prior to formal PCO authorization. | FAR 52.211-10, FAR 43.102, FAR 1.602-2, ATP 4-10 | |
| 15 | Initial Operating Capability (IOC) | Operational | For the purpose of scoring LSA Velocity, IOC is the operational milestone explicitly defined and mandated by the Procuring Contracting Officer (PCO) in the historical Task Order or Notice to Proceed (NTP). It represents the point at which the contractor successfully established the Government-directed minimum essential life support and infrastructure required to receive the initial echelon of the supported population. | Evaluators must review the cited Task Order, NTP, or accompanying Statement of Work (SOW) to verify the Government’s explicit definition of IOC for that specific mission. The Offeror must provide objective evidence (e.g., COR validation memo, CPARS) confirming that the specific IOC criteria were met within the required timeframe (e.g., 7 days or 14 days) measured from the NTP date. | ||||
| Formal confirmation that the contractor met the specific IOC criteria and timeline dictated by the PCO on the cited contract, evidenced by COR validation, PCO acceptance, or CPARS narratives. | Contractor-defined milestones that do not align with the PCO's directed IOC timeline; partial service establishment that failed to meet the PCO's minimum essential criteria. | ATP 3-37.10 / MCRP 3-17.7N (Base Camps); AR 700-137 (Logistics Civil Augmentation Program); FAR 16.505 (Ordering); FAR 52.246-4 & FAR 52.246-5 (Inspection of Services). | ||||||
| 16 | Full Operational Capability (FOC) | Operational | For the purpose of scoring LSA Velocity, FOC is the operational milestone explicitly defined by the PCO in the historical Task Order or NTP, representing the point at which the contractor fully established all infrastructure and services required to support the designated population at the Acceptable Quality Levels (AQLs) specified in the contract. | |||||
| Evaluators must verify the calendar days elapsed between the date of the formal NTP and the date of Government acceptance of FOC. If the historical contract experienced Government-directed delays (e.g., Stop Work Orders or delayed NTP for specific phases), evaluators shall exclude those documented Government-caused delays from the total LSA Velocity calculation. | Formal Government acceptance (e.g., DD Form 250) or COR validation confirming the contractor achieved the PCO-directed FOC criteria within the mandated timeline. | "Substantial completion" where critical services remained degraded or failed to meet the PCO's explicit FOC requirements. | ATP 3-37.10 / MCRP 3-17.7N (Base Camps); AR 700-137 (Logistics Civil Augmentation Program); FAR 16.505 (Ordering); FAR 52.246-4 & FAR 52.246-5 (Inspection of Services). | |||||
| 17 | Autonomous Systems (UxS) | Operational | Unmanned Aerial Systems (UAS), Unmanned Ground Vehicles (UGV), or Autonomous Surface Vessels (ASV) utilized to conduct logistics delivery, route reconnaissance, or recovery operations without a human operator physically on board. | Evaluators must differentiate between tactical/logistics UxS operations and basic commercial survey drones. Tiers 1000 and 800 require the system to be used for logistics delivery, recon, or recovery. Tier 400 is reserved for basic engineering/survey flights (e.g., FAA Part 107 roof or infrastructure inspections). | Documented operational hours or missions conducted under a Federal or commercial contract for logistics, resupply, or reconnaissance. | Documented operational hours or missions conducted under a Federal or commercial contract for logistics, resupply, or reconnaissance. | 14 CFR Part 107 (Small Unmanned Aircraft Systems); AR 95-20 / DCMA INST 8210.1C (Contractor's Flight and Ground Operations); FM 4-0 (Sustainment Operations); ATP 3-04.64 (UAS Tactical Employment) | |
| 18 | Counter-UAS (C-UAS) | Operational | Systems and personnel employed to detect, track, identify, and report unauthorized unmanned aircraft systems. For contractor operations, this is strictly limited to early warning and sensor operation. | Contractors are prohibited from conducting kinetic or non-kinetic (jamming) defeat actions. Evaluators shall only award points for the operation of detection sensors and the reporting of data to a command node. | Operation of early warning sensors; integration of C-UAS tracking data with a Base Defense Operations Center (BDOC) or equivalent C2 node. | Employment of kinetic defeat mechanisms or electronic warfare jamming. | PWS 04.06.05.04 (Counter-Unmanned Aircraft Systems [C-UAS] Support); 10 U.S.C. § 130i (Protection of certain facilities and assets from unmanned aircraft); ATP 3-01.81 (Counter-Unmanned Aircraft System Operations); JP 3-01 (Countering Air and Missile Threats); DoDD 3222.3 (DoD Electromagnetic Spectrum Management); AR 525-13 (Antiterrorism). | |
| 19 | Automated Data Integration (API) | Operational | The use of Application Programming Interfaces (APIs) or similar protocols that allow distinct software systems to communicate and exchange data automatically, eliminating the need for manual human data entry. | To achieve the 1000 tier, the evidence must explicitly demonstrate bi-directional (two-way) synchronization between the contractor and the Government/Client system. The 800 tier is satisfied by a one-way automated push into the client system. | Signed Authority to Connect (ATC) memorandums; Government-accepted Interface Control Documents (ICDs); CPARS explicitly detailing automated system-to-system data feeds. | Emailing PDF reports or Excel spreadsheets; manual "swivel-chair" data entry into a portal. | PWS 02.01.06 (Commercial Systems and Data Integration); DoDI 8500.01 (Cybersecurity); AR 25-2 (Army Cybersecurity); NIST SP 800-53 (Security and Privacy Controls for Information Systems). | |
| 20 | A2/AD (Anti-Access / Area Denial) | LSCO / Contested | A combination of capabilities employed by a peer or near-peer adversary to prevent or degrade U.S. and allied forces' ability to project power into or operate within a contested operational area. A2/AD capabilities relevant to LOGCAP VI include long-range precision fires, integrated air defense systems, electronic warfare, cyber operations, and undersea capabilities that can interdict logistics nodes, ports, airfields, and distribution routes. | References to A2/AD in the contested logistics planning sub-factor require that the offeror's cited planning products explicitly address the operational constraints imposed by adversary A2/AD capabilities — not merely acknowledge that they exist. The plan must propose specific mitigations such as alternate RSOI routes, distributed node architectures, or degraded-mode operating procedures. | Planning products that model specific A2/AD threat vectors and propose named mitigations; exercise participation where A2/AD injects were introduced and the contractor responded. | Generic references to A2/AD in capability statements; plans that acknowledge the threat without proposing operational responses; academic or theoretical treatments of A2/AD without operational application. | TRADOC Pam 525-92 (2024); ADP 3-0 (Mar 2025); FM 3-0 (Mar 2025); ATP 7-100.3 | 1.6 |
| 21 | Contested Logistics Environment | LSCO / Contested | An operational environment in which adversary forces actively threaten or interdict logistics operations through kinetic fires (direct and indirect), electronic warfare, cyber operations, unmanned systems, or special operations forces targeting sustainment nodes, distribution routes, ports, airfields, or contractor-operated facilities. Per PWS Section 1.0.3, LOGCAP VI is built on the assumption that all future operations may occur in a contested environment. | This term provides the operational context for the four critical LSCO additions to the HTRO matrix. Offerors citing experience in a contested logistics environment must document that the cited operations occurred under conditions where adversary interdiction of logistics was a demonstrated or credibly assessed threat — not merely a theoretical possibility. | Operations under active or credible indirect fire threat; operations in environments with documented adversary EW or cyber activity targeting logistics; operations where distribution routes were interdicted or threatened; documented force protection measures for logistics nodes. | Permissive peacetime garrison operations; DSCA operations without adversary threat; exercises that did not include realistic contested logistics injects; operations in stable environments where logistics were not a targeted function. | PWS Section 1.0.3; TRADOC Pam 525-92 (2024); FM 4-0 (Aug 2024); MWI — The Glass Backbone (Jun 2026) | 1.6, 7.4, 7.5 |
| 22 | PACE Communications | LSCO / Contested | A formally documented Primary, Alternate, Contingency, and Emergency communications plan that: (1) identifies a distinct communications pathway for each tier; (2) explicitly addresses GPS denial and SATCOM degradation as threat conditions; (3) assigns responsibility for activating each tier; and (4) has been tested in a field or exercise environment with results documented in an after-action report. | A PACE plan that exists only as a document without exercise validation does not qualify for the top scoring tier. The PACE requirement in the cybersecurity sub-factor reflects the adversary's demonstrated capability to degrade or deny SATCOM and GPS in a peer fight, which directly threatens contractor logistics C2 and asset visibility. Plans must address the specific LOGCAP mission-essential functions that would be affected by each degradation scenario. | PACE plans with documented exercise validation; field tests with GPS-denied conditions; SATCOM degradation drills with documented contractor response; AARs confirming PACE tier transitions were executed. | Generic communications plans that do not distinguish tiers; plans that address only primary and alternate pathways; plans that have not been tested; plans that do not address GPS denial or SATCOM degradation. | PWS 04.09.02; FM 3-12 (2021); CJCSM 6231.01; DoD SATCOM Policy | 7.4 |
| 23 | Peer-Threat Scenario | LSCO / Contested | An exercise, wargame, or planning event explicitly designed around an adversary possessing near-peer or peer military capabilities including long-range precision fires (range exceeding 70 km), integrated air defense systems, electronic warfare capabilities targeting GPS and SATCOM, cyber capabilities targeting logistics information systems, and the operational intent to contest logistics nodes from the Homeland to the tactical level. Consistent with the operational environment described in TRADOC Pam 525-92 (2024) and the pacing threat framework of ADP 3-0 (Mar 2025). | A peer-threat scenario must be explicitly designed to model peer-adversary capabilities — it is not sufficient that an exercise included indirect fire or cyber injects without a peer-adversary construct. The scenario design documentation (concept of operations, exercise control directive, or Master Scenario Events List) must reflect peer-threat framing. References to the PRC or Russia as the threat construct are sufficient but not required. | ASCC or GCC-level exercises with documented peer-threat scenario design; contractor-participated wargames with peer-threat constructs; planning events where the threat model was drawn from TRADOC Pam 525-92 or equivalent. | Exercises modeled on non-state actors or low-end threats; exercises without a defined adversary construct; generic readiness drills; tabletop exercises that did not include peer-threat fires, EW, or cyber injects. | TRADOC Pam 525-92 (2024); ADP 3-0 (Mar 2025); ATP 7-100.3 (2021); FM 3-0 (Mar 2025) | 1.6, 7.4, 7.5 |
| 24 | RSOI (Reception, Staging, Onward Movement, and Integration) | LSCO / Contested | The process of moving forces and materiel from points of debarkation through theater to tactical assembly areas, encompassing reception at aerial and seaport ports of debarkation (APODs/SPODs), staging at intermediate holding areas, onward movement to the area of operations, and integration with the supported force. In an LSCO context, RSOI nodes are high-value targets for adversary long-range precision fires and are a primary vulnerability in contractor surge and mobilization planning. | References to RSOI in the contested logistics planning and mobilization sub-factors require that the offeror's cited planning products address what happens when primary RSOI nodes are denied or degraded — not merely how to execute RSOI under permissive conditions. Alternate APOD/SPOD planning, land-based alternate routes, and prepositioned contractor assets are examples of relevant mitigations. | Mobilization playbooks with documented alternate RSOI routes; plans that address APOD/SPOD denial; exercise participation where RSOI interdiction was introduced as an inject. | Plans that address RSOI execution without contingency for node denial; generic RSOI flow diagrams without alternate routing; plans that assume uncontested access to primary APODs and SPODs. | FM 4-0 (Aug 2024); ATP 4-93; ATP 4-94; TRADOC Pam 525-25 (2025) | 1.4, 1.6 |
| 25 | CAAF (Contractors Authorized to Accompany the Force) | Personnel / Workforce | Contractor personnel who are authorized to accompany U.S. Armed Forces in a designated operational area, as defined in JP 4-10 and DoDI 3020.41. CAAF personnel are subject to theater entry requirements, SPOT-ES accountability, Letters of Authorization (LOAs), country clearances, and the authority of the supported Geographic Combatant Commander. CAAF status includes both U.S. citizens and third-country nationals employed by the prime contractor or subcontractors. | CAAF status is directly relevant to workforce mobilization, retrograde authority, and legal protections under LOAC. The distinction between CAAF and non-CAAF contractor personnel affects how the government counts workforce in contingency environments. Only CAAF-designated personnel count toward the contingency workforce numbers used in the human capital sub-factor. | Personnel deployed under LOAs to designated operational areas; personnel processed through an IRDO or N-m IRDO; personnel listed in SPOT-ES as CAAF. | Local national employees who are not processed as CAAF; third-country nationals employed only in non-operational areas; corporate home-office personnel supporting contingency operations from CONUS without theater entry. | JP 4-10 (2019); DoDI 3020.41; AR 700-137; DFARS Part 225.74; DoW DFARS RFO Class Deviations (DPCAP Mar 2026) | 1.2, 1.4 |
| 26 | Key Personnel | Personnel / Workforce | Contractor personnel in positions identified in the contract as requiring government approval for assignment, substitution, or replacement. For LOGCAP VI, key personnel positions include at minimum the Program Manager, Deputy Program Manager, and Embedded Planners. Key personnel qualifications are defined in PWS sections 02.02.02 and 02.02.03. | Key personnel are distinct from the general contractor workforce and are subject to government interview and approval rights. Changes to key personnel require government notification and, in some cases, government approval. This term is relevant to the corporate governance sub-factor when offerors cite specific personnel experience. | Positions formally designated as key personnel in a prior LOGCAP or similar contract with documented government approval of incumbents. | General workforce personnel not subject to government approval; subcontractor key personnel not visible at the prime contract level. | PWS 02.02.02; PWS 02.02.03; FAR 52.237-10 | 1.1 |
| 27 | ASP / AHA / ATHP | Supply & Logistics | Three distinct Class V ammunition storage and handling facilities. An Ammunition Supply Point (ASP) is a fixed or semi-fixed storage and issue point at the operational or tactical level. An Ammunition Holding Area (AHA) is a temporary storage area at the tactical level. An Ammunition Transfer Holding Point (ATHP) is a temporary point where ammunition is transferred between carriers. Each facility type has distinct physical security, storage compatibility, and accountability requirements. | The Class V sub-factor requires that the offeror demonstrate experience operating at least one ASP as the primary facility type, with AHA and ATHP experience contributing to higher tier scores. Operations must have been performed under direct contractor accountability with access to SAAS and coordination with a government-assigned QASAS. | Prime contract or task order performance operating an ASP, AHA, or ATHP with documented SAAS transactions and QASAS coordination records. | Ammunition escort or transport without facility operations; ammunition receipt at a non-Class V SSA; convoy escort of ammunition without accountability responsibility; range safety support without storage operations. | PWS 05.04; AR 190-11; AR 710-2; DA PAM 385-64; ATP 4-35 | 4.5 |
| 28 | Class V | Supply & Logistics | Ammunition and explosives as defined by the Army supply system, including all lethal munitions, guided missiles, rockets, and associated components managed under the Standard Army Ammunition System (SAAS) and subject to the physical security requirements of AR 190-11 and the storage safety requirements of DA PAM 385-64. | Class V is the only supply class in the revised HTRO that requires a dedicated sub-factor due to its unique legal constraints, physical security requirements, CAAF implications, and operational criticality in LSCO. Contractors citing Class V experience must demonstrate familiarity with SAAS, QASAS coordination, and AR 190-11 physical security standards — not merely with general supply operations that incidentally handled ammunition. | SAAS-documented transactions; QASAS coordination records; AR 190-11 physical security compliance documentation; ASP/AHA/ATHP performance under a government contract. | Class IX repair parts; Class III fuel; general supply operations at an SSA that did not include ammunition; Transportation of ammunition as a carrier without storage or accountability responsibility. | PWS 05.04; AR 190-11; DA PAM 385-64; AR 710-2; ATP 4-35; 10 U.S.C. § 2465 | 4.5 |
| 29 | GCSS-Army | Supply & Logistics | The Global Combat Support System — Army, the Army's primary enterprise logistics information system used for supply, maintenance, and property accountability. GCSS-Army proficiency for HTRO scoring purposes means the ability to perform transactions, generate reports, and manage records in a live or deployed GCSS-Army environment, demonstrated by completing government-approved training and performing transactions under a government contract. | GCSS-Army proficiency is assessed by the number of qualified operators cited, not merely by the existence of training certifications. Operators must have performed live transactions under a government contract — training certifications alone without operational use do not qualify for top-tier scoring. | Operators with documented GCSS-Army training certificates who have performed live transactions on a government contract; transaction records from a deployed GCSS-Army environment. | Operators trained on GCSS-Army but with no live transaction experience; operators trained on predecessor systems (ULLS-S4, SARSS) without GCSS-Army experience; GCSS-Army familiarity claimed without documentation. | PWS 05.01.01; AR 710-2; GCSS-Army training and certification policy | 4.1, 4.2, 4.3 |
| 30 | In-Transit Visibility (ITV) | Supply & Logistics | The ability to track and report the identity, location, status, and quantity of materiel moving through the distribution pipeline, from point of origin to point of delivery, using AIT (automatic identification technology) devices including RFID tags, bar codes, and satellite tracking, integrated with DoD and Army logistics information systems. | ITV maintenance under GPS-degraded conditions — referenced in the inventory management sub-factor — requires that the offeror demonstrate a documented backup ITV methodology that does not rely exclusively on GPS-based satellite tracking. Examples include RF-ITV with non-GPS positioning, manual tracking with AIT scanning at fixed nodes, or terrestrial radio-based asset tracking. | Documented ITV operations using RFID, bar codes, or satellite tracking on a government contract; GPS-degraded backup ITV procedures documented in SOPs or AARs. | ITV claims based solely on commercial tracking systems not integrated with DoD systems; tracking that relies exclusively on carrier-provided GPS without redundancy; ITV plans without demonstrated operational use. | PWS 05.01.02; DTR 4500.9-R; MIL-STD-129; FM 3-12 (2021) | 4.2 |
| 31 | Period of Performance | Supply & Logistics | The authorized time period during which a contractor is required to perform services under a contract or task order, as established by the contract terms and any authorized modifications. For HTRO scoring purposes, a minimum period of performance of 12 months is required for most sub-factors unless otherwise specified. | The 12-month minimum reflects the operational requirement for sustained performance experience rather than surge or initial capability demonstration. Task orders extended through modifications count toward the 12-month minimum if services were continuously performed — periods of stop-work or administrative suspension are excluded. Subcontract periods of performance are not independently credited; only prime contract periods count. | Prime contract or task order periods of performance of 12+ months with continuous active service delivery, documented by contract records and invoices. | Subcontract-only performance periods; performance periods padded by administrative extensions with no active service delivery; sequential task orders with gaps between active performance periods that, when combined, total 12 months. | FAR Part 12; standard LOGCAP task order terms; LOGCAP VI PWS Section I | All time-bound sub-factors |
| 32 | SAAS (Standard Army Ammunition System) | Supply & Logistics | The automated information system used by the Army for ammunition supply management, accountability, and reporting. SAAS proficiency for HTRO scoring purposes means the ability to process receipts, issues, inventories, and reports in a live SAAS environment under a government contract, with a government-assigned accountable officer of record. | SAAS proficiency is distinct from general supply AIS proficiency. Contractors must demonstrate actual SAAS transaction experience under a government Class V contract — familiarity with other Army supply systems does not substitute. | Documented SAAS transactions under a government Class V contract; training records showing SAAS certification; QASAS coordination records confirming SAAS-based accountability. | Familiarity with SAAS through training only without operational use; experience with predecessor ammunition systems without SAAS experience; supply AIS proficiency on non-Class V systems. | PWS 05.04; AR 710-2; DA PAM 710-2-1; ATP 4-35 | 4.5 |
| 33 | Task Order | Supply & Logistics | For HTRO scoring purposes, a task order issued under the LOGCAP MATOC or a comparable IDIQ contract by a U.S. Government contracting officer, under which the offeror served as the prime contractor with primary performance responsibility. Subcontract task orders issued by a prime contractor to a subcontractor do not independently qualify as cited performance unless the sub-factor criteria specifically authorize subcontract experience. | This definition directly affects the breadth and depth of experience offerors can cite. Subcontractors on prior LOGCAP task orders — who may have performed a significant portion of the actual work — may only cite that performance as prime contract performance if they held the prime contract, not if they were a subcontractor. Teaming partners on a prior LOGCAP task order must clearly identify their specific scope of performance and may only claim credit for the scope they directly executed. | Prime IDIQ task orders on LOGCAP or comparable contracts where the offeror held the prime contract; BOA task orders; single-award IDIQ task orders. | Subcontract task orders for Buckets 1-6. Subcontract task orders MAY be counted for Bucket 7 ONLY IF accompanied by a binding Teaming Arrangement designating the Subcontractor for that specific capability; performance under a teaming arrangement where another entity held the prime contract; performance cited without documentation of the offeror's specific scope. | FAR Part 16; LOGCAP V contract structure; LOGCAP VI solicitation Section H | All scored sub-factors |
| 34 | MACP (Mortuary Affairs Collection Point) | Medical | A forward-positioned mortuary affairs facility that receives human remains and personal effects from the point of recovery, establishes chain of custody, makes tentative identification, and evacuates remains to a Theater Mortuary Affairs Evacuation Point (TMEP). Per PWS 04.08.03, each MACP shall be capable of processing up to 20 human remains per day during LSCO, operating on two 12-hour shifts during 24-hour operations. | MACP and TMEP experience is referenced in the Role 2 medical sub-factor as evidence of LSCO casualty rate planning. Contractors citing MACP/TMEP experience must demonstrate that the cited operations involved actual human remains processing — not merely facility establishment or equipment fielding. | Documented performance operating a MACP or TMEP under a government contract; chain of custody records; MARTS (Mortuary Affairs Reporting and Tracking System) transaction records. | Mortuary affairs training exercises without operational performance; facility establishment contracts without remains processing; casualty reporting functions without physical mortuary operations. | PWS 04.08.03; DoDD 1300.22; AR 638-2; ATP 4-46 | 7.2 |
| 35 | MASCAL (Mass Casualty) | Medical | For HTRO scoring purposes, a mass casualty event is defined as an incident involving 10 or more casualties requiring simultaneous medical processing at a single contractor-operated medical facility or MACP, where the contractor's medical staff were actively involved in triage, treatment, stabilization, or evacuation coordination. The 10-casualty threshold aligns with Army medical doctrine thresholds for MASCAL declaration. | MASCAL experience is cited in the medical sub-factor to assess contractor readiness for the casualty rates associated with LSCO. Contractors must be able to document the incident, their response, and the outcomes through medical records, AAR documentation, or COR-verified incident reports. Table-top exercises and simulated MASCAL drills do not substitute for actual MASCAL response experience. | Documented MASCAL incidents at contractor-operated medical facilities with 10+ simultaneous casualties; government-acknowledged AAR or incident report; MEDEVAC coordination records. | Tabletop MASCAL exercises; simulated drills without actual casualties; general high-volume patient days without a declared mass casualty event; training events. | PWS 04.08; PWS 08.01.03; ATP 4-02.2; MWI Podcast — Prolonged Casualty Care in LSCO (Apr 2025) | 7.2 |
| 36 | Prolonged Casualty Care | Medical | Medical care provided to a casualty for a period exceeding the standard evacuation timeline — typically defined as more than one hour beyond point of injury or Role 1 treatment — due to evacuation delay caused by tactical conditions, degraded MEDEVAC availability, or hostile threat to evacuation assets. Relevant to LSCO contexts where the MWI podcast record identifies contractor medical workforce assumptions as a specific failure risk under peer-threat casualty rates. | Experience with prolonged casualty care protocols is cited in the medical sub-factor as an LSCO discriminator. Contractors must demonstrate familiarity with Joint Trauma System guidance on prolonged field care and the clinical capability to sustain a casualty beyond standard evacuation timelines. | Documented performance under conditions requiring prolonged field care; protocols for extended patient holding beyond standard MEDEVAC timelines; Role 2 facility experience with inpatient holding capability. | Standard Role 1 sick call operations without prolonged care capability; medical operations in permissive environments with rapid MEDEVAC availability throughout. | PWS 08.01.03; JTS Clinical Practice Guidelines; MWI Podcast — Prolonged Casualty Care in LSCO (Apr 2025) | 7.2 |
| 37 | Role 1 Medical Facility | Medical | A medical treatment facility providing first-level medical care, including immediate lifesaving measures, triage, stabilization, and evacuation — operated by a physician, physician assistant, or nurse practitioner as the supervising provider. Role 1 facilities are not intended to provide surgical capability or prolonged patient holding under standard conditions per PWS 08.01.02. | Role 1 experience is cited in the medical sub-factor as baseline clinical governance evidence. A contractor citing Role 1 experience must demonstrate that the cited facility operated under clinical governance consistent with PWS 08.01.01, with a Medical Director of record and credentialed providers. | Documented Role 1 facility operations under a government contract with a Medical Director of record and credentialed providers; CPARS or equivalent performance assessments. | First aid stations without licensed medical provider oversight; buddy care or Combat Lifesaver positions; non-medical contractor wellness programs. | PWS 08.01.02; AR 40-3; DHAPM 6025.13 Vol 4 | 7.2 |
| 38 | Role 2 Medical Facility | Medical | A medical treatment facility providing basic primary care and emergent care in a clinical environment, including emergency medicine, primary care, advanced trauma management, and patient holding — as defined in PWS 08.01.03. Role 2 facilities require physician or advanced practice provider governance and support ancillary services including radiology, laboratory, dental, and pharmacy as activated by the supported command. | Role 2 experience is cited in the medical sub-factor at a higher tier than Role 1, reflecting the greater clinical complexity and governance requirements. Full scope Role 2 experience requires that the facility activated at least the core medical services described in PWS 08.01.03.02, not merely Role 1 functions co-located in a larger facility. | Documented Role 2 facility operations with full scope clinical services; physician or advanced practice provider of record; ancillary service activation records. | Role 1 facilities with expanded equipment but without Role 2 clinical staffing; facilities that nominally held Role 2 designation but only delivered Role 1 services; advisory or management roles without direct clinical operations. | PWS 08.01.03; AR 40-3; DHAPM 6025.13 Vol 4; ATP 4-02.2 | 7.2 |
| 39 | DISA STIG (Security Technical Implementation Guide) | Cybersecurity / IT | A cybersecurity configuration standard developed by the Defense Information Systems Agency that defines required security settings for hardware, software, and networks used in DoD environments. Per PWS 04.09.02, all contractor-managed networks must comply with the latest applicable DISA STIGs as a condition of operation. | STIG compliance is referenced in the cybersecurity sub-factor as a baseline indicator of network security posture. Contractors must demonstrate that their deployed logistics networks were configured and maintained in compliance with applicable STIGs — not merely that STIG compliance was planned or that a compliance program existed. | Documented STIG compliance assessments on deployed contractor networks; IAVM compliance records; ACAS scan results showing STIG baseline compliance. | Plans to implement STIG compliance; STIG familiarity without deployed network experience; STIG compliance on CONUS corporate IT systems not connected to DoD networks. | PWS 04.09.02; PWS 04.09.03; DoDI 8500.01; DISA STIG Library | 7.4 |
| 40 | IAVM (Information Assurance Vulnerability Management) | Cybersecurity / IT | The DoD program for identifying, reporting, and remediating vulnerabilities in information systems. Per PWS 04.09.03, contractors must patch Critical vulnerabilities within 14 days of IAVM release and High vulnerabilities within 30 days, with 100% compliance required for Critical patches and 98% compliance required for High patches. | IAVM compliance history is a scored element in the cybersecurity sub-factor. Contractors must be able to document their patching compliance rates on deployed logistics networks — not merely on corporate IT systems. IAVM compliance on networks not connected to DoD systems is not relevant for this sub-factor. | Documented patching compliance rates on deployed contractor logistics networks; ACAS or equivalent vulnerability scan records showing patch status; IAVM reporting to government IAO. | IAVM compliance on corporate IT systems not connected to DoD networks; planned compliance programs without operational records; compliance on systems other than those supporting LOGCAP operations. | PWS 04.09.03; DoDI 8500.01; CJCSM 6510.01; DoD IAVM Program | 7.4 |
This is the start of the file's text. The full file is on GovTribe.
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .