Assess whether past performance will score or be deemed not relevant (b39131)

SITUATION Price-to-win analyst at an 8(a) teaming on a civilian shared-services RFP is reviewing teaming agreement with IP and workshare holes after a modification adding cybersecurity work not in the PWS. The question on that extract is whether past performance will score or be deemed not relevant. The packet does not yet prove Past performance will score versus Be deemed not relevant.

DECISION Price-to-win analyst in an 8(a) teaming on a civilian shared-services RFP must choose Past performance will score / Be deemed not relevant using teaming agreement with IP and workshare holes after a modification adding cybersecurity work not in the PWS.

HYPOTHESES TO TEST 1. Authorize Past performance will score now; teaming agreement with IP and workshare holes already has the discriminator after a modification adding cybersecurity work not in the PWS. 2. Keep Be deemed not relevant in force until teaming agreement with IP and workshare holes is completed after a modification adding cybersecurity work not in the PWS for price-to-win analyst. 3. Treat teaming agreement with IP and workshare holes as Past performance will score because both readings appear after a modification adding cybersecurity work not in the PWS. 4. Refuse a Government RFP close: price-to-win analyst does not have the decision past performance will score turns on in teaming agreement with IP and workshare holes.

ANALYSIS REQUIRED 1. Normalize pricing and exceptions against the solicitation that governs past performance will score. 2. Score competitive posture if price-to-win analyst pursues, partners, or no-bids. 3. Test OCI, QASP, and mandatory evaluation rights an 8(a) teaming on a civilian shared-services RFP cannot waive quietly. 4. For this Government RFP Compliance and Cyber Requirements file, read teaming agreement with IP and workshare holes against a modification adding cybersecurity work not in the PWS and write the one fact that would move past performance will score for price-to-win analyst.

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 modification adding cybersecurity work not in the PWS). The follow-on Compliance and Cyber Requirements action is what price-to-win analyst does next: implement the option, assign an owner, and log the missing fact.

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 price-to-win analyst - Hypothesis scorecard against teaming agreement with IP and workshare holes: supported / rejected / untestable - Missing page in teaming agreement with IP and workshare holes after a modification adding cybersecurity work not in the PWS, if any - Regulatory or exam hook Compliance and Cyber Requirements would cite