The Army has signaled its intent for the Marketplace for the Acquisition of Professional Services (MAPS) indefinite delivery, indefinite quantity. With the industry day set for this Wednesday (Jan. 28), the stakes for the incumbent base have never been higher. The acquisition strategy is clear. By merging RS3 and ITES-3S into a single $50 billion contract, the Army is prioritizing portfolio efficiency over vendor diversity.
The Army has officially moved this week’s MAPS industry day to a virtual-only event due to inclement weather.
For the industry, specifically the incumbent base of over 400 prime contractors, the release of the draft self-scoring scorecards changes the calculus. We are no longer speculating on whether the merger will happen. We are analyzing the structural barriers to entry.
A review of the draft requirements shows a solicitation aimed at consolidating the supplier base. For the small businesses on ITES-3S and RS3, the MAPS scorecard poses a significant barrier to recompete.
Below is a technical breakdown of the risks in the draft criteria and their implications for your bid/no-bid decision.
The consolidation math: Scale vs. specialization
The draft scorecard highlights a clear mismatch between the legacy ITES-3S task order profile and the new MAPS qualifying project (QP) definition.
Currently, RS3 and ITES-3S support a diverse base of about 400 prime contractors. The Army aims to award roughly 50 MAPS per domain. Even with possible on-ramps, this could displace over 60% of current incumbents.
The draft evaluation criteria emphasize programmatic scale. To earn the maximum points for a qualifying project, bidders must demonstrate experience across all subtasks within a domain. This approach favors systems integrators like RS3 incumbents, such as General Dynamics IT (GDIT) or CACI, who manage large, multidisciplinary programs.
This structure disadvantages ITES-3S incumbents. Many high-performing small businesses built their reputations on specialized IT task orders, such as $5 million-to-$8 million software development projects. While technically strong, these contracts likely lack the broad scope needed to score well on the MAPS scorecard.
High past performance ratings will not offset a limited scope. If your portfolio is mainly narrow or specialized task orders, you may not meet the relevancy thresholds to remain competitive.
The CPARS total portfolio review
The draft solicitation establishes a strict compliance requirement for past performance information (PPI).
Unlike standard best-value procurements, where a “marginal” contractor performance assessment reporting system (CPARS) rating can be explained, the MAPS draft criteria require a pass/fail review of all active CPARS for the relevant NAICS codes, likely including 541715 and related services.
A single “marginal” or “unsatisfactory” rating on any record may result in immediate disqualification, regardless of the record’s age or relevance to the current scope.
This creates a disproportionate risk. Large businesses managing many task orders are more likely to receive an outlier rating. For small businesses, a single negative interaction with a contracting officer’s representative years ago could now threaten their bid.
Capture teams should review all CPARS reports immediately. If a marginal rating is found, clarifying the adjudication process should be a top priority during the question and answer period. If the Army enforces a strict zero-tolerance policy on CPARS, this will be a critical go/no-go decision point.
The one-step bid cost
Typically, an IDIQ of this size uses a two-step down-select process to reduce industry bid and proposal costs. The government usually reviews a white paper or corporate experience volume first to advise non-competitive offerors to withdraw.
MAPS is currently structured as a one-step procurement.
Offerors are required to submit the full proposal package upfront:
Volume I: Systems, rates and mandatory accounting system approvals.
Volume II: Past performance (qualifying projects).
Volume III: Technical approach (recruitment, retention and risk management).
This approach requires a significant upfront investment for a proposal with high displacement risk. Additionally, gate criteria, such as the Cybersecurity Maturity Model Certification (CMMC) Level 2 requirement, appear to be pass/fail. If a firm misses a single compliance check after submitting a full proposal, the entire investment is lost.
Guidance for industry
The industry day on Jan. 28 is the critical moment to shift the discussion to move beyond high-level mission vision and focus on acquisition mechanics. The shift from RS3/ITES-3S to MAPS is not a simple recompete but a fundamental restructuring of the Army’s professional services market.
Contractors should focus their engagement on three specific clarifications:
Adjudication of CPARS: Will the government allow a narrative justification for a single outlying CPARS rating to prevent automatic disqualification?
Relevancy definitions: Will the definition of a qualifying project be adjusted to account for the smaller task order size typical of the ITES-3S incumbent base?
CMMC implementation: Is the CMMC Level 2 requirement based on a self-assessment at the time of proposal, or will final certification be required at the time of award?
The “super vehicle” era offers efficiency for the government but requires rigorous analysis from industry.
Brittany Winkler is a senior go-to-market (GTM) enablement manager for GovDash.
The post The MAPS merger: Army’s new acquisition strategy signals major incumbent displacement first appeared on Federal News Network.