RFP Screener & Go/No-Go AI

The following conditions generate an automatic No-Go recommendation. The engine does not proceed to scoring analysis if any of these conditions are present. These are not risks — they are fatal flaws.

Full Scoring Framework

Overall Strategic Assessment

The Overall Strategic Assessment is the top-level Go/No-Go determination derived from aggregate scoring across all dimensions. It uses a three-tier classification:

The Overall Strategic Assessment narrative explains the alignment of the RFP to the client's strategic capabilities, industry focus, and business model. It references core competencies from the Capability Statement, past performance scale, contract type familiarity, and mission alignment with the issuing agency.

Dimension 1: Technical & Scope of Work Alignment

What Is Evaluated:

A line-by-line analysis of the Statement of Work or Performance Work Statement against the client's documented capabilities. This is not a keyword match — it is a substantive evaluation of whether the client can actually perform each major task area.

Scoring Criteria:

• Can the client perform each SOW task with their existing workforce and processes?

• Do the client's service lines match the technical requirements (e.g., IT systems integration, construction management, environmental services, professional staffing)?

• Are there task areas where the client has no experience or track record?

• If subcontracting is required for certain tasks, does the client have established subcontractor relationships or the capacity to establish them?

• Do the client's proposed management systems (QA/QC, project controls, reporting) match RFP expectations?

Evidence Sources:

The analysis cites specific SOW sections and matches them against specific CS service lines. No assumption is made about capability not documented in the CS.

Common Findings:

• Full alignment: Client services directly mirror SOW task areas with documented past performance

• Partial alignment: Client covers 70–80% of SOW with gaps in 1–2 task areas manageable through subcontracting

• Low alignment: Core SOW task areas are outside the client's documented service portfolio

Dimension 2: Personnel & Expertise Match

What Is Evaluated:

Comparison of RFP-required personnel roles and certifications against the client's documented key personnel.

Key Certifications Evaluated:

Scoring Criteria:

• Does the client have a qualified candidate for the Key Personnel roles named in the RFP?

• Are required certifications current and verifiable from the CS?

• Is there sufficient depth in the staffing plan to cover the required labor categories?

• Are there personnel gaps that could be filled through teaming, subcontracting, or hiring within the proposal timeline?

Note: Missing personnel for non-key personnel roles is a mitigatable risk (recruitment plan can address). Missing key personnel with named certification requirements is a potential fatal flaw if no alternative is available.

Dimension 3: Compliance & Certification Status

What Is Evaluated:

Verification of mandatory certifications, licenses, socioeconomic status, and regulatory compliance requirements.

Socioeconomic Set-Aside Certifications:

Scoring Logic:

• If RFP is set aside exclusively for a specific program (e.g., 8(a) sole source), the client must hold that certification — this is an auto-disqualifier if missing

• If RFP is a full and open competition with small business evaluation preference, the absence of a set-aside certification is a competitive disadvantage but not disqualifying

• Holding a relevant set-aside certification when the RFP is set aside for that category is a significant competitive advantage that increases win probability substantially

Additional Compliance Items Reviewed:

• SAM.gov active registration status

• Applicable state contractor licenses

• Insurance requirements (general liability minimums, professional liability, workers' comp)

• Any agency-specific pre-qualification requirements (e.g., GSA Schedule, CIO-SP3 vehicle)

Dimension 4: Geographic & Logistical Feasibility

What Is Evaluated:

The client's ability to perform the work at the required Place of Performance.

Analysis Framework:

• Local Operations (client has existing office/employees in the Place of Performance area): No geographic barrier; score as fully favorable

• Nearby Operations (within reasonable commuting distance or short mobilization): Minor barrier; mitigatable through daily/weekly travel or satellite office establishment

• Remote Performance with Travel Requirements: Moderate barrier; evaluate travel cost impact and personnel willingness to travel; may require subcontractor with local presence

• No Geographic Connection: Significant barrier; client must establish local presence or teaming partner before performance start; evaluate feasibility within timeline

Important Distinction:

Lack of a local office is a mitigatable risk, not a disqualifier — unless the RFP explicitly requires a local office or the nature of the work (e.g., daily on-site presence at a specific facility) makes remote performance impossible. The engine does not conflate geographic inconvenience with geographic impossibility.

OCONUS Automatic Rejection:

Any Place of Performance outside the continental United States, including APO/FPO military addresses, overseas territories, and foreign locations, results in automatic disqualification unless the client has documented operational capacity in that specific location.

Dimension 5: Financial & Operational Scale

What Is Evaluated:

Whether the client has the financial capacity and operational infrastructure to perform the contract at the required scale.

Key Financial Metrics Evaluated:

Scoring Logic:

• A contract that is appropriately scaled for the client (consistent with existing contract portfolio size) scores high on this dimension

• A contract significantly larger than the client's current portfolio is a moderate-to-high risk requiring explicit mitigation planning (teaming, credit facilities, performance bonds)

• A contract that exceeds the client's financial capacity to perform is a fatal flaw

Dimension 6: Competitive Positioning

What Is Evaluated:

The client's strength relative to likely competitors within the set-aside category, based on available intelligence.

Analysis Components:

• Incumbent Status: Is there a known incumbent contractor? Incumbents win 65–70% of recompetes. The analysis flags incumbent presence and assesses whether the client has differentiators strong enough to overcome this advantage.

• Set-Aside Competition Pool: Within the specific set-aside category (8(a), SDVOSB, etc.), how many qualified competitors likely exist in this geography and NAICS?

• Client Differentiators: What specific, documentable advantages does the client hold? (e.g., superior past performance ratings, unique technical certifications, local presence, lower overhead rates, specialized equipment)

• Price Competitiveness: Based on the contract type (FFP, T&M, CPFF) and estimated value, is the client likely to be price-competitive?

• Agency Relationship: Does the client have an existing relationship or past performance with this specific agency or office?

Common Competitive Scenarios:

Dimension 7: Identified Gaps & Critical Risks

This dimension produces the structured risk register that separates the analysis from a simple yes/no scoring exercise.

Risk Classification:

The Most Common Mitigatable Risks (never classified as fatal flaws):

• Absence of local office (when remote performance is operationally feasible)

• Minor personnel certification gaps (when equivalent credentials can be documented)

• Slightly below-threshold past performance value (when scope and complexity alignment is strong)

• Single missing technical capability (when subcontractor can credibly fill the gap)

Adjustment Factors

After the seven-dimension scoring is complete, the following factors adjust the final win probability estimate:

Complete Output Template

Every Fit-Gap Analysis follows this exact output structure, producing a minimum of 7,000 characters of substantive analysis:

```

Is this RFP a fit for the client? [Yes / No]

(One-word bold answer on its own line above all analysis)

📝 Comprehensive Fit-Gap Analysis & Reasoning

Overall Strategic Assessment

[Explain alignment of RFP to client's strategic capabilities, industry focus, and business model.

Reference core competencies, past performance, contract scale, and mission from CS.

State alignment tier: HIGH (>80%) / MEDIUM (50-80%) / LOW (<50%)]

Technical & Scope of Work Alignment

[Line-by-line SOW analysis against CS services, interpreted through client business model.

Highlight management, QA, technical, and reporting overlaps.

Cite specific SOW sections and CS service lines.]

Personnel & Expertise Match

[Compare RFP-required roles/certifications against CS team descriptions.

Focus on PMP, PE, CCM, or domain-specific credentials.

Distinguish key personnel requirements from general staffing requirements.]

Compliance & Certification Status

[Verify mandatory certs, licenses, socioeconomic statuses (8a, SDVOSB, WOSB, HUBZone).

Note competitive advantage if applicable.

Cross-reference SAM.gov registration status.]

Geographic & Logistical Feasibility

[Assess client location vs. RFP Place of Performance.

Frame lack of local office as mitigatable risk, not disqualifier.

Identify specific logistical actions required if geographic gap exists.]

Financial & Operational Scale Assessment

[Evaluate bonding capacity, staffing scale, and operational infrastructure

against RFP scope and estimated contract value.

Flag any financial capacity concerns explicitly.]

Identified Gaps & Critical Risks

[Separate into two sections:

FATAL FLAWS (no-go conditions): [List with specific evidence]

MITIGATABLE RISKS (manageable with action): [List with recommended mitigation for each]

NEVER conflate fatal flaws with mitigatable risks.]

Competitive Positioning

[Analyze strength vs. likely competition within set-aside category.

Highlight CS differentiators.

Note incumbent status if known.

Provide honest win probability assessment.]

Final Summary Recommendation

[Definitive Go / Conditional Go / No-Go statement.

For Go: list immediate next steps for proposal development.

For Conditional Go: list specific conditions that must be met before proceeding.

For No-Go: explain why resources are better deployed elsewhere.]

```