Article

Evolving MAPS: Breakdown of the Army MAPS third draft RFP 

Feb. 20, 2025 · Authored by Leo Alvarez, Dylan Schreiner, Steven Pomykalski

The next iteration of the Army MAPS solicitation is finally here as draft RFP 3! On Feb. 7, the Army released the third iteration of its new consolidated contract vehicle known as the Marketplace for the Acquisition of Professional Services (MAPS), which is set to replace Information Technology Enterprise Solutions 3 – Services (ITES-3S) and Responsive Strategic Sourcing for Services (RS3). 

This comes almost a month after industry submitted its feedback on draft RFP 2 on Jan.13. While it was originally suggested that the final solicitation was to be released in February, we are instead getting another draft with plenty of changes and a new timeline. All of which we will break down right here.  

There are several changes when compared to the second draft RFP. For more background, explore Baker Tilly’s deep dive on the second draft RFP. 

We have listed out the main updates to draft RFP 3 here and will cover each area in further detail below: 

1. Revised timeline 
2. Revised awardee language 
3. Gate criteria updates 
4. Qualifying projects North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) code 
5. Scorecard updates 

First glance takeaways 

Revised timeline 

With the release of draft RFP 3, the Army also released a new timeline for the MAPS contract. The upcoming important dates regarding this contract vehicle are as follows: 

• Industry feedback on the draft RFP 3 was to be submitted to the Army by Feb. 14, 2025, at 5 p.m. EST 
• The new solicitation release date for the MAPS contract is April 28, 2025 
• The revised proposal due date is now May 28, 2025 
• Evaluations for the contract are set to be completed in September of 2025, with the MAPS awards being granted in November of 2025 

Given the timeline thus far and communications from the Army, there is a chance for an additional draft RFP to be released which we would expect to have an impact on the updated timeline laid out above. 

Revised awardee language 

The Army still anticipates making 100 awards for the MAPS contract, with 20 awards per domain. However, draft RFP 3 includes new language stating that the Army reserves the right to award more than or less than the 100 total awards expected but will still offer small business reserves when it comes to each domain. 

Additionally, the offerors ranked within the top 20 of each domain after being graded on the revised scorecard will move to the final gate criteria step. Here, the Army will utilize the Determination of Responsibility Assistant (DORA) Contractor Responsibility bot to determine the responsibility of each prospective awardee in accordance with Army Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (AFARS) Subpart 5109.1. 

Gate criteria updates 

With the release of draft RFP 3, the Army has provided separate attachments for the passing of the gate criteria for large businesses and small businesses. The gate criteria for large businesses has become stricter with an added requirement around government approved systems. Large businesses are now required to show documentation that they have a government approved accounting system, as well as a government approved purchasing system and a government approved property management system. 

Initially in draft RFP 2, only a government approved accounting system was required for the large business gate criteria. Another change to the gate criteria that affects both large and small businesses is that the Army is allowing the submission of International Organization for Standardization (ISO) 9001:2015 or ISO 9001:2013 for its certification requirement. Finally, the Army has reduced the percentage of Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS) ratings that are marginal and below to 15% and 30%, respectively, for large and small businesses. 

Qualifying projects NAICS code 

While there is no change to the draft RFP 3 about using qualifying projects (QPs) from teaming partners, the Army did release new language regarding the NAICS code associated with the submitted QPs. The NAICS codes for each QP must align as follows for each of the five domains: 

Additionally, a qualifying project form for all QPs submitted as part of the proposal must now be completed by the offeror and signed by a government or corporate official to ensure the offeror’s claims are complete and accurate. 

Scorecard updates 

The Army did a complete revamp of the MAPS scorecard, adding in more criteria and increasing the total possible point value per offeror for both small and large business offerors. The most significant change was the removal of Volume III (Technical) altogether, which led to Volume II (Past performance) being expanded and now accounting for more points. There were changes to the scoring totals for both Volume I and Volume II and those are detailed below:  

Volume I: Government approved systems, agreements and certifications: 

• For large businesses (LB): Previously 4 points, now 8 points 
• For small businesses (SB): Previously 2 points, now 11 points 

1 point for having each of the following: 

• Approved rate agreement (e.g., forward pricing/billing) 
• Approved purchasing system (only for SB) 
• Approved accounting system (only for SB) 
• Approved estimating system 
• Approved property management system (only for SB) 
• Approved earned value management system 
• Active top secret facility clearance 
• Active and approved Cybersecurity Maturity Model Certification (CMMC) Level 2 certification 
• Active and approved ISO/IEC 27001:2022 certification 

2 points for having the following: 

• Active and approved CMMC Level 3 certification (new in draft RFP 3) 

Volume II: Past performance: 

• For large and small businesses: Previously 36 points, now 81 points 

The two major changes from above were the addition of the “Dollar value” and “Retention” elements. For the “Dollar value” element, offerors will be evaluated based on the dollar value of the QP used in submission. Since the required dollar value is $2 million, each QP must exceed that amount, and additional points will be awarded with the maximum per QP being three points: 

• Offeror will receive 3 points if the total contract value is greater than $50 million 
• Offeror will receive 2 points if the total contract value is between $25 million and $50 million 
• Offeror will receive 1 point if the total contract value is less than $25 million 

For the “Retention” element of Volume II, offerors will be evaluated on the retention rate of each QP. That rate will be calculated by the number of employees at the end of the contract minus the number of new hires made within the period of performance divided by the number of employees proposed at the start of that period, multiplied by 100. This formula is simplified below: 

(# of employees at end of contract - # employees hired) / (# of employees proposed x 100) 

The scoring for this new Retention element is as follows: 

• Offeror will receive 10 points per QP that meets a 100% retention rate 
• Offeror will receive 7 points per QP that meets a 90-99% retention rate 
• Offeror will receive 4 points per QP that meets an 80-89% retention rate 
• Offeror will receive 2 points per QP that meets a 70-79% retention rate 
• Offeror will receive 1 point per QP that meets a 60-69% retention rate 
• Offeror will receive 0 points per QP that meets a 59% or below retention rate 

What do we still not know? 

Teaming or meaningful relationship commitment letters? 

Noticeably absent from the current draft RFP—or from the previously drafted RFPs—is any mention of the possibility of contractor teaming arrangements, including joint ventures, or the sharing of resources from the same corporate structure via a meaningful relationship commitment letter. Within the Dec. 13 industry feedback form, the Army alluded to the possibility of neither being included in MAPS—under the reasoning that doing so would help promote competition. Specifically, the Army is looking for industry’s feedback on possibly limiting the number of proposals submitted to one for each domain per company, to include parent companies, affiliates and subsidiaries. Additionally, the government is considering excluding joint ventures all together. This would be a substantial departure from what has been done on previous governmentwide acquisition contracts (GWACs) and multiple award contracts (MACs).