Can you use the current possesion of security clearance as an evaluation factor?

The Scenario?

The Navy's Seaport MAC specifically prohibits the current possession of a security clearance as an evaluation factor via their con-ops. Seaport instructs you to, "include language stating that the contractor must have or be eligible to obtain the clearance".

Outside of seaport, in a normal contracting arena, can you use a contractor's current possesion of a security clearance as an evaluation factor? Secert, Top Secert, etc. Or do have to use language similar to seaport's, stated above?

I tried posting this to DAU's ask a professor but they didn't provide a regulation or policy for a prohibition. I work for the Navy so DFARS and NMCARS would apply to my situation.

When you use the term "evaluation creiteria", I understand you to mean a criterion for use in a trade-off process to select a best-value offeror. In this light, I recommend against using security clearance as a trade-off criterion -- either your acquisition requires a security clearance, or it doesn't -- but it is difficult for me to see how this ( a ) represents a key area of importance and emphasis to be cosidered in the source selection decision; or ( b ) supports meaningful comparison and discrimination between and among competing proposals ( see FAR 15.304 ).

If you're doing low-price technically acceptable, you can state that possession of a security clearance at the time work begins ( or at the time proposals are submitted? ) is a requirement which an offeror either meets or does not meet. Yes/no. Pass/fail.

I hope this is helpful.

ji

apologies for typos... ji

Can you use the current possesion of security clearance as an evaluation factor?

The Scenario?

The Navy's Seaport MAC specifically prohibits the current possession of a security clearance as an evaluation factor via their con-ops. Seaport instructs you to, "include language stating that the contractor must have or be eligible to obtain the clearance".

Outside of seaport, in a normal contracting arena, can you use a contractor's current possesion of a security clearance as an evaluation factor? Secert, Top Secert, etc. Or do have to use language similar to seaport's, stated above?

I tried posting this to DAU's ask a professor but they didn't provide a regulation or policy for a prohibition. I work for the Navy so DFARS and NMCARS would apply to my situation.

I'm not military, so I don't know specifically if it can work. But why not skip the whole problem by putting an evaluation factor in for how quick they can start? If clearances are an issue just saying that you will evaluate contractors who can start work in a 60 day period would guarantee clearances, I would think.

This assumes you would have a justification for such a quick turnaround. It may not work for you, but in some cases I can see it being a legitimate factor.

If a security clearance is necessary for performance, then possession of or ability to obtain a security clearance is a matter of responsibility. See Calian Technology (US) Ltd., Comp. Gen. Dec. B-284814, 2000 CPD ? 85. If you make it an evaluation factor you must evaluate it on a pass or fail basis.

We just did exactly what Vern stated. All contractor personnel are required to have a TS/SCI before they can start work. We asked for a sealed envelope from each offeror with clearance information in it so clearances could be verified. The presence of the envelope with the appropriate information inside is being evaluated as pass/fail. The CO is having the Security Officer verify the clearance info provided and the technical eval team never evens sees the contents of the envelope.

thanks everyone! Vern i appreciate the CPD references.

.

Followup:

this thread includes mention of hard-copy documents to prove security clearances. I thought that the only acceptable proof of a clearance today was a Security Officer checking in JPAS. An employee just got a clearance in the last couple of weeks from State, and there was no hard-copy document sent to me.

comments ?

.

The information we required on clearances in our sealed envelope was the elements of PII needed by the Security Officer to check in JPAS. Name, DOB, SSN

The information we required on clearances in our sealed envelope was the elements of PII needed by the Security Officer to check in JPAS. Name, DOB, SSN

Thanks. That shouldda been obvious to me, but it wasn't.

.

Silly me! I thought a clearance belonged to a job, not an individual. In that situation, it would be impossible for anyone other than an employee of an incumbent (on at least some classified contract) to have a clearance. What did I miss?

The clearance belongs to the individual - you can't investigate the background of a position. The requirement for the clearance and/or the need for access belongs to the position. If individual not in position that requires clearance, clearance gets made inactive and can stay that way for 2 years. Any time during that 2 years, can be reactivated without going through another investigation UNLESS the investigation periodic review period has passed (5 yrs for TS, 10 for S). Plus any solicitation that involves access to classified material should have a DD-254 included. Company can use the DD-254 and their intention to bid solicitation as reason to initiate clearances. If they decide not to bid or lose, they must cancel investigation request.