Assess whether past performance will score or be deemed not relevant (3b761a)

SITUATION A key person who just resigned put teaming agreement with IP and workshare holes in front of CMMC implementation lead in an incumbent defending a recompete with thin past performance. This Government RFP / Compliance and Cyber Requirements close is past performance will score from teaming agreement with IP and workshare holes, and the live options are Past performance will score, Be deemed not relevant.

DECISION CMMC implementation lead in an incumbent defending a recompete with thin past performance must choose Past performance will score / Be deemed not relevant using teaming agreement with IP and workshare holes after a key person who just resigned.

HYPOTHESES TO TEST 1. Teaming agreement with IP and workshare holes reads as Past performance will score once a key person who just resigned is lined up to the same Government RFP population. 2. Teaming agreement with IP and workshare holes is closer to Be deemed not relevant after a key person who just resigned; Past performance will score would over-claim this Compliance and Cyber Requirements extract. 3. A dual reading is still live in teaming agreement with IP and workshare holes for CMMC implementation lead in an incumbent defending a recompete with thin past performance. 4. Teaming agreement with IP and workshare holes is missing the fact CMMC implementation lead needs after a key person who just resigned; stop this Government RFP close.

ANALYSIS REQUIRED 1. Map Section L/M requirements in teaming agreement with IP and workshare holes to evaluator notes after a key person who just resigned. 2. Compare teaming and past-performance claims to what teaming agreement with IP and workshare holes attaches. 3. Normalize pricing and exceptions against the solicitation that governs past performance will score. 4. For this Government RFP Compliance and Cyber Requirements file, read teaming agreement with IP and workshare holes against a key person who just resigned and write the one fact that would move past performance will score for CMMC implementation lead.

RECOMMENDATION Choose Past performance will score / Be deemed not relevant on this Government RFP / Compliance and Cyber Requirements packet (teaming agreement with IP and workshare holes after a key person who just resigned). If teaming agreement with IP and workshare holes cannot force a Government RFP label under Compliance and Cyber Requirements, stop. Do not invent missing evidence an incumbent defending a recompete with thin past performance does not have.

COMMAND RETURNS - Bottom-line Government RFP option on past performance will score, then the evidence in teaming agreement with IP and workshare holes, then the action for CMMC implementation lead - Hypothesis scorecard against teaming agreement with IP and workshare holes: supported / rejected / untestable - Regulatory or exam hook Compliance and Cyber Requirements would cite - Compliance and Cyber Requirements finding in teaming agreement with IP and workshare holes that a second reviewer can re-perform