When it comes to scoring, the first 15 of the 18 scoring criterion are related to “work samples” (i.e., relevant project experience). Work samples are defined as “contracts/orders” which demonstrate the offerors technical capability and experience. Offerors can submit up to 12 work samples with their proposal response that can be utilized across multiple criterion. Additionally, of the 12 work samples, large businesses offerors may include up to two subcontracts, while small business offerors may include up to five subcontracts. This caveat is further explained by the Category 1 and Category 2 definitions of work samples below.
Category 1: Prime offeror work samples shall be used. To be used, the offeror shall have acted as the prime contractor for the submitted work sample. For joint ventures (JV), the work of any JV member may be utilized.
Category 2: Subcontractor work samples may be used. To be used, the prime offeror shall have acted as a subcontractor for the submitted work sample.
Offerors can maximize their scoring by identifying work samples that meet the minimum recency criteria of at least six months of performance or completed within four years of the solicitation’s release date and address as many of the 15 work sample technical area scoring criterion definitions outlined in the AAMAC RFP.
The remaining three scoring criterion are scored on whether the offeror has a valid ISO/IEC 27001, CMMI-SVC Level 3, and CMMI-DEV Level 3 certifications.
Other considerations
While AAMAC may seem like a typical self-evaluation, scorecard proposal, there are several unique considerations that offerors should be aware of before preparing their proposals.
Contractor teaming arrangements
While the requirements and limitations of teaming arrangements are not explicitly defined in the latest draft RFP, the government has stated via the latest SAM.gov announcement—and again within the industry feedback Q&A responses—that, “Based on the preponderance of the initial draft RFP feedback, teaming for purposes of enhancing a prime offeror’s score for an AAMAC IDIQ is no longer allowed.”
However, this appears to contradict Section L of the latest draft RFP that still states “for joint ventures (JV), the work of any JV member may be utilized” as a work sample under Category 1. It remains to be seen what requirements and limitations AAMAC will have on teaming.
Cost and/or price
The government has elected to not evaluate price or cost at the time of establishing AAMAC IDIQ contracts, as authorized by Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) 15.304(c)(1)(ii)(A) due to the broadly defined scope of AAMAC, as well as the emergent nature of the data management, analytics and artificial intelligence capabilities to be acquired.
Burden of proof
The government has made it clear that the burden of proof for substantiating points in the offeror’s self-score rests with the offeror, and not the government. Offerors are advised to provide sufficient substantiation documentation to validate all points claimed.
Cross-reference matrix
A cross-reference matrix, a separate RFP attachment, will need to be completed by the offeror to clearly identify the exact location of the substantiating data within the work samples submitted.
Expected number of awards
The government intends to award IDIQ contracts to each and all qualifying offerors under the UR Pool and SB Pool. The number of contracts to be awarded under each competitive pool is not known at this time.
Status (open/closed)
AAMAC is currently in the planning and development stage. While no official proposed timeline was released with the Feb. 2 draft RFP materials, the government did allude to an estimated final RFP release date of March 31, 2025, in the Q&A responses.
Potential offerors would be wise to start reviewing the draft solicitation materials, identifying possible work samples, assessing their maximum scoring ability, collecting substantiation documentation and beginning to prepare their proposals.
How can Baker Tilly help?
With the upcoming release of the final solicitation, many companies are working diligently to understand the RFP requirements and how to prepare qualified, high-scoring proposals within the allotted timeframe. Timely, accurate and responsive proposals will be critical to scoring high and capturing this highly coveted IDIQ contract.
- Baker Tilly stands ready to assist in the following areas:
- Bid/no bid evaluation
- Scorecard/RFP readiness
- Proposal support and preparation
- Proposal compliance assessment (red team reviews)
Baker Tilly is familiar with the self-scoring methodology employed for complex governmentwide acquisition contract (GWAC) vehicles like Alliant 2, Alliant 3, HCaTS, ASTRO, CIO-SP4, OASIS, OASIS+ and NASA SEWP VI. These types of acquisitions place maximum burden on the offeror to prove that they have the requisite experience and capabilities to meet government requirements.
Baker Tilly has assisted leading government contractors through the relevant experience review process, facilitating the successful selection of the right combination of projects to achieve an organization’s maximum score. Baker Tilly has also advised during the pre-proposal stage on teaming and partnering arrangements should it appear an offeror’s ability to achieve a successful award is in doubt. Whether an offeror is seeking support in making a bid/no-bid decision or would like assistance with ‘soup-to-nuts’ proposal preparation, we offer tailor-made assistance to address your unique needs.
