Attachment 13 - HTRO Explained for First Time Users -- Aug 2026 v3.pdf

Warfighters Supporting Warfighters!UNCLASSIFIED Warfighters Supporting Warfighters!

Air Force Installation & Mission Support Center

Highest Technically Rated Offeror

(HTRO) Explained for First Time Users

David Ward MACC Program Manager

AFICC OL-AMC/KM/PMO

Version 3

Emilio “V” Varcarcel Director of Program Management

AFICC OL-AMC/KM/DPM

Warfighters Supporting Warfighters!UNCLASSIFIED

◼ HTRO Definition

◼ Why Use HTRO?

◼ MACC HTRO Approach

◼ Self-Scoring Matrix Breakdown

◼ Estimating Capability Further Explained

◼ HTRO Example Walkthrough

◼ On-Ramping & Off-Ramping

◼ Schedule & Next Steps

Agenda

◼ Also known as Highest Technically Rated Offer/Reasonable Price

◼ Definition: An evaluation method where the government ranks proposals strictly by technical merit

◼ Process: Price is only evaluated for the top-ranked technical offeror. If their price is fair and reasonable, they win the contract

◼ For this IDIQ competition the Top 8 companies make it into the MACC pool

◼ Goal: Focuses heavily on quality, past performance, and capabilities rather than the lowest bid

Highest Technically Rated Offeror

(HTRO) Definition

◼ Primary Objectives:

◼ To simplify standard Part 15 source selection

◼ Speed up award timelines

◼ Clearly identify responsive, high-performing small businesses

◼ Maintain a robust pool of companies through easy on-ramping & off-ramping

◼ NOTE: Award of an IDIQ contract does not guarantee task orders beyond the guaranteed minimum. Competition occurs at the task order level.

Why use HTRO?

◼ Phase 1: Technical Experience & Self-Scoring

◼ Offerors score themselves on objective criteria

◼ Generates an official ranked score list from highest to lowest

◼ Phase 2: Past Performance & Price Verification

◼ Starting from top of the ranked list, the Government validates the documentation

◼ CO verifies acceptable past performance

◼ MACC will not evaluate proposed pricing to be fair and reasonable

◼ Instead, MACC will assess offerors’ ability to accurately estimate costs

◼ IDIQ Awards made to the top 8 offerors with the highest scores

◼ Winners receive a one-time guaranteed minimum award of $500

MACC HTRO Approach

Actual Self-Scoring Matrix Category 1: Relevant Construction Experience

◼ What is being assessed:

◼ Valuing prime contractor commercial, multi-trade, secure environment, and specialized trade projects experience

◼ All Selected Projects:

◼ Can be submitted multiple times if applicable to more than one category

◼ Must have taken place over past 7 years

◼ Must be at least 80% completed NLT 30 Jul 26

◼ Max score: 10,900 Pts

Category 2: Design Experience

◼ What is being assessed:

◼ Validating design-build leadership, construction cost thresholds, and breadth of architectural, civil, and electrical scope elements

◼ All Selected Projects:

◼ Can be submitted multiple times if applicable to more than one category

◼ Must have taken place over past 7 years

◼ Must be at least 80% completed NLT 30 Jul 26

◼ Max score: 2,080 Pts

Category 3: Past Performance

◼ What is being assessed:

◼ Tallying up to 50 individual Exceptional, Very Good, or Satisfactory rating counts directly from formal CPARS or PPQs

◼ Max score: 1,000 Pts

Category 4: Staffing Qualifications

◼ What is being assessed:

◼ Confirming direct employment of construction workers, architects, safety managers, fire protection engineers, and hazmat personnel

◼ Max score: 1,000 Pts

Category 5: Geographic Expertise

◼ What is being assessed:

◼ Validating regional footprint with physical offices within 100 miles of LRAFB

◼ Or within 101-500 miles of LRAFB

◼ Or more than 500 miles away from LRAFB

◼ Max score: 50 Pts

Category 6: Estimating Capability

◼ What is being assessed:

◼ Evaluating completeness, realism, and precision of cost estimates for the sample project estimate in Volume IV

◼ Max score: 2,000 Pts

◼ Pivoting from traditional “Pricing” to “Ability to Accurately Estimate”

◼ MACC NOT evaluating pricing based on an unseen Independent Government Estimate (IGE) at the IDIQ stage – pricing will be evaluated at individual Task Order level

◼ MACC recompete has pivoted Category 6 to evaluate offerors’ Estimating Capability

◼ Offerors will submit a highly detailed, line-by-line cost estimate with quantity takeoff & unit price breakdown for the Category 6 project sample (AF Form 3052)

◼ Estimating Capability Scoring Levels

Category 6: Estimating Capability

Further Explained

Superior 2,000 Fully detailed, well-documented quantity takeoff; unit prices consistent with current market rates

Proficient 900 Generally complete cost breakdown with minor gaps or minor estimating inconsistencies

Marginal 50 Basic estimating approach; lacks sufficient supporting documentation, or utilizes generic nation-wide indexes without local adjustments

Deficient 0 Incomplete, highly inconsistent cost estimate, or a fundamental misunderstanding of project scope

◼ Consistency & document linkage

◼ Volume II is evaluated as an integrated three-document package

◼ Offerors must ensure absolute consistency between all 3 elements

◼ Claimed points that cannot be independently verified through exact narrative cross-referencing will be adjusted downward

◼ Government evaluation:

◼ The Government will not search for substantiating data

◼ The burden of proof rests entirely with the offeror to justify their self-scoring

The “Burden of Proof” Package

Volume II Contents

HTRO Source Selection Example Example Max Points = 1,000 points [ MACC Max pts = 17,030 ]

• Goal is 8 companies in the MACC pool

• Companies self-score based on clearly defined criteria specified by the USG in a matrix (0-1000 points max)

• Top 8 eligible companies to make it into the pool (assuming they pass our government SS evaluation)

• In this example, 15 companies self-scored themselves and there is a clear break between 800 and 650, so the top 8 are initially considered

• Then the USG evaluation shows 2 companies scored themselves improperly (awarded themselves more points)

• ENs sent to those two companies

• After discussions, the company scoring 1000 agrees to an

850 score, so they remain in the pool

• The company that scored themselves 800 cannot validate that score, and only score 550, so they fall out of the pool

• We award IDIQ contracts to 7 companies

Proposals Received

Initial Pool

1000 850

800 550

USG

Eval

Final Award

15 Minute Break

◼ Maintaining a robust pool of 8 active vendors

◼ Rather than re-evaluating the pool annually (which drains resources)

◼ The MFT has established a structured on-ramp/off-ramp process at the 3-year mark of this 7-year contract vehicle.

On-Ramping Process

◼ Pre-vetted contractors (e.g., those ranked #9, #10, etc. in initial HTRO source selection) can be brought in to replace off-ramped vendors without full re-competition

Off-Ramping Process

◼ Government reserves the right to off-ramp contractors who fail to actively compete, do not win task orders, or perform unsatisfactorily (e.g. consecutive Marginal CPARS)

On-Ramping & Off-Ramping

◼ Prepare for RFP Release

◼ Draft RFP & Draft Sections L & M are now posted on SAM.gov

◼ We encourage feedback, teaming agreements, and coordinate bonding capacity as early as possible

◼ Leverage your local APEX Accelerator professional to ensue compliance with HTRO self-scoring matrix rules

Schedule & Next Steps

Key Procurement Milestones Date

Hybrid Industry Day Event Aug 26, 2026

RFP Clarification Q&A Deadline Aug 31, 2026

Final Solicitation RFP Release Sep 10, 2027 (Est.)

Proposal Submissions Due Oct 12, 2027 (Est.)

Questions?