Assess whether a modification is in-scope or a new procurement (3b4ac5)

Situation

Performance and Teaming work in an 8(a) teaming on a civilian shared-services RFP now turns on a modification is in-scope because an incumbent protest rumor on the street put past-performance recency and relevance scorecard in play. Protest-risk counsel's technical counterpart should say what past-performance recency and relevance scorecard proves.

Decision

Protest-risk counsel's technical counterpart in an 8(a) teaming on a civilian shared-services RFP must choose A modification is in-scope / A new procurement using past-performance recency and relevance scorecard after an incumbent protest rumor on the street.

Hypotheses to test

• The population in past-performance recency and relevance scorecard is the one an incumbent protest rumor on the street named, so A modification is in-scope follows for this Performance and Teaming file.
• The population in past-performance recency and relevance scorecard is adjacent only to an incumbent protest rumor on the street; A new procurement is the honest Government RFP call.
• An 8(a) teaming on a civilian shared-services RFP already contained an incumbent protest rumor on the street before past-performance recency and relevance scorecard arrived; no new Performance and Teaming path.
• Provenance on past-performance recency and relevance scorecard after an incumbent protest rumor on the street is broken; do not pick A modification is in-scope or A new procurement yet.

Analysis required

• Map Section L/M requirements in past-performance recency and relevance scorecard to evaluator notes after an incumbent protest rumor on the street.
• Compare teaming and past-performance claims to what past-performance recency and relevance scorecard attaches.
• Normalize pricing and exceptions against the solicitation that governs a modification is in-scope.
• For this Government RFP Performance and Teaming file, read past-performance recency and relevance scorecard against an incumbent protest rumor on the street and write the one fact that would move a modification is in-scope for protest-risk counsel's technical counterpart.

Recommendation

Choose A modification is in-scope / A new procurement on this Government RFP / Performance and Teaming packet (past-performance recency and relevance scorecard after an incumbent protest rumor on the street). Lead with the Government RFP option past-performance recency and relevance scorecard can support after an incumbent protest rumor on the street, then the two facts that force it, then the Monday action for protest-risk counsel's technical counterpart in an 8(a) teaming on a civilian shared-services RFP.