This scorecard outlined above shows the maximum number of points an offeror may be awarded per submission. The offeror may submit up to five submissions, one for each of the five domains of the contract which are explained further below.
Qualifying projects (QPs)
Per the second draft RFP, prospective offerors will be allowed to demonstrate their past performance by submitting qualifying projects (QPs). A QP may be any of the following: a single contract, single task order, or a task order under a Federal Supply Schedule (FSS). Offerors may submit a maximum of three distinct QPs for each of the following domains being proposed on:
- Technical services (NAICS 541330)
- Management and advisory services (NAICS 541611)
- Research development testing and evaluation (RDT&E) services (NAICS 541715)
- Emerging information technology (IT) services (NAICS 541512)
- Foundational IT services (NAICS 541519)
The NAICS code of the QP must be associated with one of the NAICS codes assigned to the five domains but does not have to match the exact NAICS code of the proposed domain. However, the current RFP does note that offerors may not use QP’s of their teaming partners.
QPs must also adhere to recency and total contract value minimums. Currently they must have at least one year of performance or be completed within the last four years of the final proposal submission due date. The total contract value per QP must be equal to or greater than $2 million, however it is unclear how that value will be determined.
If the offerors’ QP is not CPARS qualified, then the offeror can provide a past performance questionnaire as a substitute.
What we still don’t know
Teaming or meaningful relationship commitment letters?
Noticeably absent from the current draft RFP is any mention of the possibility of contractor teaming arrangements, including joint ventures (JV), 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. The government is considering excluding joint ventures altogether. This would be a big departure from what has been done on previous governmentwide acquisition contracts (GWACs) and multiple award contracts (MACs).
Third-party audited systems?
For large businesses, MAPS allows offerors to gain up to two additional scoring credits by proving they have government-approved contractor business systems referenced in the scorecard. The updated draft RFP stresses the need for an official letter or audit report from the Defense Contract Audit Agency (DCAA), Defense Contract Management Agency (DCMA), or any cognizant federal agency (CFA) that verifies the approval and acceptability of the applicable system or rate. It remains to be seen if third-party certified public accountant (CPA) audits of contractor business systems will be allowed for point scoring purposes, most recently observed on Alliant 3.
Certification scoring flexibility?
The current draft RFP includes scoring for CMMC Level 2 or higher. However, the CMMC final rule only took effect on Dec. 16, 2024. With the delayed release and the limited number of certifying bodies, appraisers are backlogged on performing audits. With a shortened RFP timeline, it will be difficult for many contractors to get the certification in place before a potential March 2025 submission due date. Industry feedback will provide valuable input on how the Army should approach using CMMC certification as a scoring element.
In addition to the CMMC, MAPS allows offerors to score credit for an ISO 27001:2022 certification. However, industry who maintains ISO 27001:2013 certifications have until October 2025 to transition to ISO 27001:2022. Surveillance audits are conducted on an annual basis and, depending on dates, many companies have their next audit scheduled within the next 12 months to transition to the updated 2022 standard. ISO recognizes the current 27001:2013 until that date. Will the Army soften its stance and allow for scoring credit for an active ISO 27001:2013 in lieu of the 2022 version?
How to prepare for MAPS
