Assess whether a modification is in-scope or a new procurement (df7b46)

Situation

Protest-risk counsel's technical counterpart owns a modification is in-scope inside an 8(a) teaming on a civilian shared-services RFP with past-performance recency and relevance scorecard as the only packet. A data-rights assertion the customer already rejected last year is what changed the clock for this Government RFP Performance and Teaming file.

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 a data-rights assertion the customer already rejected last year.

Hypotheses to test

• Past-performance recency and relevance scorecard reads as A modification is in-scope once a data-rights assertion the customer already rejected last year is lined up to the same Government RFP population.
• Past-performance recency and relevance scorecard is closer to A new procurement after a data-rights assertion the customer already rejected last year; A modification is in-scope would over-claim this Performance and Teaming extract.
• A dual reading is still live in past-performance recency and relevance scorecard for protest-risk counsel's technical counterpart in an 8(a) teaming on a civilian shared-services RFP.
• Past-performance recency and relevance scorecard is missing the fact protest-risk counsel's technical counterpart needs after a data-rights assertion the customer already rejected last year; stop this Government RFP close.

Analysis required

• Map Section L/M requirements in past-performance recency and relevance scorecard to evaluator notes after a data-rights assertion the customer already rejected last year.
• 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 a data-rights assertion the customer already rejected last year and write the one fact that would move a modification is in-scope for protest-risk counsel's technical counterpart.

Recommendation