Contact Trident Today!

Trident Blog

Keep up with all the latest content from Trident Proposals

Everything You Need to Know About GSA's OASIS+

gsa gwac oasis Apr 06, 2024
GSA OASIS+

GSA’s OASIS+ initial award period closed Oct. 20. We created this consolidated resource to help interested partners prepare for OASIS+ as well as stay up to date with the latest information for this exciting GWAC! We’ll be updating this blog with guidance, FAQs, and pro tips on how to prepare, so be sure to check back frequently for the latest news. Also, be sure to bookmark our OASIS+ Hub for access to our free downloads, past webinars, and more!

Table of Contents 


  • **NEW** April 5, 2024: GSA to Release Post-Solicitation Closing Amendment 0006 on April 22
  • Jan 29, 2024: GSA Releases Update; Seeking Website Usability Testers
  • Dec. 20, 2023: GSA Releases Tentative Award Timeline
  • Oct. 20: OASIS+ Submission Deadline TODAY!
  • Sept. 21: GSA Extends OASIS+ Deadline; Releases Amendment 0005
  • Sept. 14: GSA Releases Amendment 0004
  • Sept. 7: GSA Extends OASIS+ Deadline; Releases Amendment 0003 and Group 3 of Q&As
  • Sept 1: GSA Releases Amendment 0003 timeline update
  • Aug. 28: GSA Releases 2nd round of Q&As and Updates
  • Aug. 25: GSA Releases Amendment 0002 and Q&As
  • July 7: GSA Releases Amendment 0001
  • June 16: GSA Releases OASIS+
  • April 7: Update while we wait
  • What is OASIS+?
  • How do I know if I qualify?
  • How do I get started?
  • How do I evaluate my experience and self-score projects?
  • What do I need to know about teaming?
  • How can I boost my score? 

**New**


April 5, 2024: GSA to Release Post-Solicitation Closing Amendment 0006 on April 22

On April 5, 2024, GSA released the below update on OASIS+. This will require action/acknowledgement once it's released later this month.

Post-Solicitation Closing Amendment 0006 Notice for All Offerors who Responded to the Six OASIS+ Solicitations

OASIS+ Industry Partners:

On April 22, 2024, GSA’s Office of Professional Services and Human Capital Categories (PSHC) will issue a post closing solicitation amendment to incorporate the requirements of Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) Case 2020-11, as prescribed in FAR 4.2306(c), and to incorporate solicitation changes to update additional information in all six OASIS+ solicitations. The Amendment is number 0006.

The following are the specific updates that will be made to the solicitations:  

• The provision at FAR 52.204-29, Federal Acquisition Supply Chain Security Act Orders—Representation and Disclosures, is being incorporated into the solicitation.
• The clause at FAR 52.204-30 - Alternate 1, Federal Acquisition Supply Chain Security Act Orders - Prohibition, is incorporated by full text into the solicitation (and subsequent awarded contracts). 
• A revision is being made to correct an erroneous small business size standard corresponding to one North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) code in the Environmental Domain.
• Updates are being made to Section F and G administrative requirements to comply with FAR Clause 52.204-30 - Alternate 1, para (c)(3)(i).
• Sections F, G, and H are being revised to reflect changes made to 13 CFR § 125.6(d) that requires multi-agency set-aside contracts where more than one agency can issue orders under the contract to use the period of performance for each order to determine compliance with applicable limitations on subcontracting.
• Section G is being revised to replace [email protected] with FedConnect as the notification method for certain deliverables. FedConnect will be the primary method for requesting and initiating modifications. [email protected] may still be used for general post-award correspondence.
• Certain roles and responsibilities of Government Key Personnel are being revised within Section G.2. 
• Incorporated other minor grammatical and/or formatting changes.

The amendment will be issued via SAM.gov, in accordance with FAR 15.206(c), to all offerors who responded to the OASIS+ solicitation(s) prior to the closing date, and have not (at the time of the amendment posting) been removed from award consideration. The due date for response to Amendment 0006 will be May 15, 2024. Response to Amendment 0006 is mandatory. Offerors that do not respond to the amendment will be removed from award consideration. NOTE: New offers will not be accepted as a result of this amendment. GSA plans to reopen the solicitations for new offer submissions in FY25.


PAST UPDATES


Jan. 29, 2024: GSA Releases Update; Seeking Website Usability Testers

On Jan. 29, 2024, GSA released the below announcement with an update about their progress and a request for website testers:

GSA’s Office of Professional Services and Human Capital Categories (PSHC) and the OASIS+ team wish you a happy new year! The past year marked important milestones for the program including issuance and closing of the initial OASIS+ proposal submission period for all six Request for Proposals (RFPs) and the beginning of the proposal evaluation period.

We are moving full steam ahead and are currently focused on: evaluating proposals, developing an OASIS+ Ordering Guide, creating training that will equip customer agencies to start using the contract, and building a new OASIS+ website.

As we build our new website, we are looking for individuals, industry and customer agency representatives, to participate in website usability testing. If you are interested, and are either a vendor who has submitted a proposal or are with a customer agency who will use OASIS+, please send us an email with the following: 

Subject line: ‘OASIS+ website usability testing’
Your contact information
Profile: tell us if you are a supplier (who has submitted a proposal), or an agency customer (who will use the contract) 
Send the email to: [email protected]

As a reminder, technical evaluations and awards will focus first on OASIS+ Total Small Business, followed by socioeconomic contract families and finally OASIS+ Unrestricted. The awards will be on a rolling basis throughout Q3 and Q4 FY 2024. Ordering period will overlap between the legacy OASIS and OASIS+ programs to ensure acquisition planning cycle times for our customer agencies remain seamless. 

As we complete technical evaluations, our contracting team may reach out to offerors for clarifications on their proposals and supporting documentation. Clarifications are a standard practice as outlined in FAR15.306(a). Please note that a clarification request does not mean that an offeror’s proposal will be denied or accepted.

Finally, on January 11, we held our first customer focused OASIS+ overview training. You can now access the recording on our PSHC YouTube playlist and download the presentation for review. We will be scheduling additional training in the coming months. 

Thank you for your continued support and commitment in helping us meet the demand for complex, non-IT, services solutions through the OASIS+ best-in-class (BIC), multi-agency contract (MAC) program. We’ll continue to share details about our progress as the information becomes available. 

DIRECT COPY FROM INTERACT | SOURCE 

 

Dec. 20, 2023: GSA Releases Tentative Award Timeline

On Dec. 20, GSA released the below announcement with a forecasted award timeline:

Since late October, we have been focused on evaluating proposals, as well as, developing an OASIS+ Ordering Guide and creating the OASIS+ overview and Delegation of Procurement Authority (DPA) training so customer agencies will be ready to use the contract once awards are made. 

As noted in our October program update, technical evaluations and awards will focus first on the OASIS+ Total Small Business, followed by the socioeconomic contract families and finally OASIS+ Unrestricted. We are aiming for contracts to be awarded on a rolling basis throughout Q3 and Q4 FY 2024. Our goal is to have ordering period overlaps between the OASIS and OASIS+ programs throughout the award phase to avoid unduly interrupting acquisition planning cycle times for our customer agencies. 


Oct. 20: OASIS+ Submission Deadline

GSA closed the initial submission period via OASIS+ Symphony Portal (OSP) at 4 p.m. today, Oct. 20. Best of luck to all who bid on this effort


Sept. 21: GSA Extends OASIS+ Deadline; Releases Amendment 0004

GSA extended the OASIS+ deadline. Responses are now due Oct. 20, 2023 at 4 p.m. EDT. Read the update here


Sept. 14: GSA Releases Amendment 0004

GSA released Amendment 0004 for all six RFPs. Responses are still due no later than 4 p.m. on Friday, Sept. 22, 2023.


Sept. 7: GSA Extends OASIS+ Deadline; Releases Amendment 0003 and Group 3 of Q&As

Following the Labor Day weekend, GSA released a major announcement on Sept. 5 concerning OASIS+ – a deadline extension and Amendment 0003. Responses to proposals are now due no later than 4 p.m. EDT on Sept. 22, 2023 (a nine-day extension). They also released Amendment 0003 for all six RFPs, the final round of Q&As, and an update on the OASIS+ Submission Portal (OSP)/Symphony functionality. Below are the highlights from Tuesday’s release.

NEW Deadline: Proposals are now due no later than 4 p.m. EDT on Friday, Sept. 22, 2023. Our tip: A nine-day extension may seem like a lot of time, but we’d encourage you to jump into the changes and use this time to update all your current documentation to ensure it aligns with the latest amendment. More on that below.

OASIS+ Submission Portal (OSP)/Symphony: Submission capability will be activated on Sept. 11.

Questions & Answers Group 3: The final responses to questions that were submitted during the Q&A period in July were released on Sept. 5.  If you’re keeping track, GSA has now released 875 Q&As during the three groups. What is also notable about this release was this statement from GSA: “Additionally, given the most recent changes in Amendment 0003, some of PSHCs previously posted Q&A responses may no longer be accurate. All offerors are encouraged to read the most current version of the solicitations before proposal submission.”

This final statement is key if you’re operating off groups 1 and 2 questions or Amendment 0001 and 0002. Our Tip: Read the new RFP in its entirety and make sure you note new areas that may differ from your current approach.

Amendment 0003 Updates: Amendment 0003 saw the below highlights:

  1. *Post Award* There will be a 180-day cool-off period following unsuccessful Domain Enhancement attempts. This won’t come into play for a while, but GSA added the following clause: “If a Contractor submits a Domain Enhancement request and is found to be unqualified for award of the requested Domain(s) by the OASIS+ CO (i.e., its proposal does not meet all of the applicable criteria and/or did not receive an evaluated score equal to or higher than the applicable qualification threshold(s)), the Contractor shall be ineligible to submit another Domain Enhancement request for the same Domain(s) for 180 calendar days from notification of rejection.”
  2. Using IDIQ PWS is permitted in limited cases. “In exceptional cases where the task order or task order level PWS/SOW/SOO makes clear reference to and explicitly incorporates/invokes a specific section(s) of the PWS/SOW/SOO of the Master Contract, BPA, or BOA, that (those) section(s) of the Master Contract, BPA, or -BOA PWS/SOW/SOO, upon review, may be found acceptable to substantiate claimed credits.”
  3. You must submit the ENTIRE verification document (no excerpts), but you CAN redact proprietary information that relates to companies not on your bid. 
  4. Make sure you can ‘prove’ your average annual value claims. Relevant work does not need to be the primary purpose of the project, but the Offeror must demonstrate (e.g., via a distinct CLIN or section within a PWS) that the relevant portion of the work meets the minimum QP criteria for the proposed Domain (e.g., ≥$500K average annual value for Technical and Engineering Domain). “The average annual value of relevant work is not entered into the OSP, but the offeror shall identify within the submitted documentation that the relevant work meets or exceeds the average annual value for the proposed domain.”
  5. Make sure GSA can link your LCATs back to the seniority levels identified in the J-1 (i.e., you may need to define a Level 1 vs. Level 3 in terms of Junior, Senior, etc.). Different labor categories may be claimed for those positions that have different occupational classifications and/or vary in level of seniority in Attachment J-1 (e.g., Junior, Journeyman, Senior, SME) and level of experience. Offerors are not limited to the BLS SOC detailed occupations.
  6. For work where there are no CPARs (particularly subcontracting work), you can use an alternate rating form if it includes all of the same rating areas as the J.P-6. “If the Government has not finalized (either interim or final) past performance ratings in the CPARS database; or, if the project(s) is non-Federal, the Offeror shall submit a past performance assessment using Attachment J.P-6 Past Performance Rating Form, or address all of the evaluation areas outlined in Attachment J.P-6 in a format of their choosing. For example, past performance ratings provided to first-tier subcontractors in accordance with 13 § CFR 125.11 are acceptable as they are required to utilize the five-scale rating system found in FAR 42.1503 and rate on the same evaluation factors found in Attachment J.P-6.”
  7. OTAs are not considered Prime awards unless awarded directly to a company. 
  8. In many cases (except for Surge credits, for example), you only need one method/source of verification. For Surge, you need the J.P-3 plus contract documentation, unless the documentation stands on its own. ­­
  9. Offerors must include FPDS records with their proposals. According to the Q&A, “When multiple FPDS reports are available, the most recent report shall be submitted. Offerors may submit previous FPSS reports only as necessary for verification of claimed credits. The most recent report available at the time of submission should be included within the proposal”. See questions 18 and 83.
  10. Meetings: GSA added language that they “GSA may require attendance by the contractor at up to two OASIS+ Ecosystem (OE) meetings per year… Any Contractor costs associated with OE Meetings shall be at no direct cost to the Government.”
  11. Joint Venture (JV) Project Submission: If you’re planning to prove experience from a Joint Venture, Section L.5.1.7.3 was updated to reflect several updates.
    1. Identify the contract(s) by submitting the contract, FPDS report, J.P-3, or other documentation “that indicates the contract number issues to the JV entity.”
    2. The JV QP must be entered in Symphony/OSP.
    3. The work must be validated and only the work performed by the offeror will be considered. Additionally, the Project Verification Form or J.P-3 must be signed by a member of the JV, other than the offeror, in Part V (or Part IV if a signature is required from the CO, COR, Government employee, or corporate officer/official).
    4. Offerors must also submit a copy of the JV agreement.
    5. Offerors cannot use the same Qualifying Project/FEP in more than one proposal in a given domain and solicitation ­– it will be removed.
  12. J.P-1: This attachment was updated to amend/clarify the “environmental scorecard” QP – specialized functional experience form. They clarified to say, “Each specialized experience may be claimed a maximum of 2 times.”
  13. J.P-8: The direct labor rate ranges and associated calculations were updated based on changes to Section L.5.7.1.1.
  14. J.P-9: GSA updated the language on completing this form. Since this is a scorecard-based proposal and not a narrative, it’s important to review all the instructions on completing this form. If you have already submitted your J.P.-9, you must re-upload/resubmit your J.P-9 using the Amendment 0003 version.  

With the latest amendment, the SAM.gov links have been updated. As a reminder, there are six separate solicitations for OASIS+. **PLEASE NOTE: EACH IDIQ HAS ITS OWN SOLICITATION ID/SAM.GOV ENTRY** 

IDIQ


SAM.GOV link


Solicitation ID


Total SB


SAM.gov


47QRCA23R0001


8(a)


SAM.gov


47QRCA23R0002


HUBZone


SAM.gov


47QRCA23R0003


SDVOSB


SAM.gov


47QRCA23R0004


WOSB


SAM.gov


47QRCA23R0005


Unrestricted


SAM.gov


47QRCA23R0006


If you’re breathing a sigh of relief with this nine-day extension, we’d encourage you to review your applicable RFP, ensure you have the latest J.P-X forms downloaded, and review all your response material under the latest guidance.  

Bottom line update: OSP/Symphony functionality is expected by Monday, Sept. 11. With the final round of Q&As released and Amendment 0003 finally out, it’s important to review the RFP you’re competing against (or RFPs if competing on multiple socio-economic levels) and operate from the latest RFP. As GSA mentioned in this release, “…given the most recent changes in Amendment 0003, some of PSHCs previously posted Q&A responses may no longer be accurate. All offerors are encouraged to read the most current version of the solicitations before proposal submission.” 


Sept. 1: GSA Released Amendment 0003 timeline update

GSA released the following update on Sept. 1: PSHC will issue an OASIS+ Program Update the week of September 5, 2023. This update will include Amendment 3, the final round of responses to industry questions, and an announcement regarding a short extension of the proposal due date.

NOTE: A follow up notification received said:

September 1, 2023: Due to feedback received from our industry partners, we want to share our notional extension to the closing date for all OASIS+ solicitations, which is September 22, 2023. This extension date is not final without a formal published Amendment documenting the extension.


Aug. 28: GSA Releases 2nd Round of Q&As and Update

Q&As: On Monday, Aug. 28, GSA released the second round of Q&As on Interact and SAM.gov. With 367 questions and answers to review, the Trident team is already going through the response to ensure we identify any potential changes/impacts.  

Amendment 0003 coming! GSA also announced they will release Amendment 0003 on or about Thursday, Aug. 31. It will include the final Q&As and a possible deadline extension with this amendment.

See the full announcement here. Look for more updates later this week.


Aug. 25: GSA Releases Amendment 0002 and Q&As

GSA released the highly anticipated Amendment 0002 for all six OASIS+ RFPs on Aug. 15. In addition to the updated RFPs, they released the first round of Q&As. With time to absorb all the changes, here’s our recap:

Deadline: No change to the proposal submission date. All proposals are still due Sept. 13, 2023.

OASIS+ Submission Portal (OSP)/Symphony: While it’s been a sluggish start for full access to Symphony/ OSP, we now have full functionality for uploading and populating pricing files as well as the Project Verification Form. More updates to Symphony are expected by Aug. 28.

GSA Webinars: GSA is hosting weekly OSP/Symphony webinars to review frequently asked questions based on previous webinars and surveys. They hosted a webinar on Aug. 16 to demonstrate OSP/Symphony. You can watch the recording here. The upcoming webinars are:

Questions: According to GSA, most of the first batch of Q&As focused on addressing frequently asked questions. On Aug. 22, they released an update stating the next found of responses to questions will be released by Sept. 1 on SAM.gov and Interact.

So, what changed? Many of the changes in Amendment 0002 provided additional clarification to previous guidance and requirements. To make it easier, we broke the most significant updates down by volume.

  • Volume 1: General
    • GSA updated the language around annual Representations and Certifications. *Remember, if you are submitting as part of a team (including Joint Ventures), these requirements apply to all team members. [For More Information See: RFP Section K]
    • There are three formats in which you’re required to provide the Reps and Certs for your company and ALL your teammates:
      • Copy of Annual Reps and Certs from SAM.gov (you can download this as PDF from your SAM.Gov profile)
      • Complete Section K of the RFP
      • Fill out your Reps and Certs and company size within OSP/Symphony
  • Volumes 2/3 – Qualifying Project Experience & Federal Prime Experience
    • GSA updated the definition of an FTE to be 1,912 hours (previously it was 1,920 hours).
      • GSA also clarified that you cannot annualize labor hours if your project was less than 12 months.
    • GSA confirmed that an “Offeror can rely on J.P-3 to demonstrate/verify that a QP meets or exceeds the minimum average annual value of relevant work” (Q&A number 153)
      • Takeaway: The J.P-3 is enough. If your contract document does not prove what you are trying to claim, the J.P-3 can fix that.
    • There is no automatic relevance for subcontract work. That means you can’t just claim the same NAICS as the Prime contract.
      • Remember, too, that if you are using your work as a subcontractor as a qualifying project, you only get credit for the portion of work you performed as the subcontractor.
    • First-tier subcontractor/teaming partner documentation must directly correspond to the contract or task order number of the QP or have a clear record of connections.
      • If the subcontract does not line up with the prime contract number you can use the project name, periods of performance, or some other connection to line it up in your submission documents.
    • If an offeror has all supporting validation documentation (e.g., the FPDS record validates all the credit areas you are claiming for a given reference), then a signed J.P-3 is not required.
  • Volumes 3/4 – Systems, Rates, Clearances, and Certifications
    • Third-party audits will not be considered for evaluation credit under the Systems, Rates, and Clearances criteria.
    • For the Information Security Office (ISO) certification, either the 2013 or 2022 version is permissible.
  • Volume 6 – Past Performance
    • For collection of task orders (TOs) without records of past performance in CPARS, you can use the J.P-6 to obtain a consolidated past performance assessment.
      • Each TO must be listed in J.P-6, otherwise you must submit a J.P-6 for each task order without a CPARs reference.
    • If your CPAR is older than three years, the CPARs help desk can be contacted and you can ask them to unarchive older CPARs.
      • If this process does not work, complete the J.P-6 form and include the email you sent requesting assistance from the CPARs Help Desk as well as their response.
    • The CPAR must be TO specific; however, if the government called out your TO in an IDIQ CPAR, you can use that CPAR.
    • CPARs must be final and not labeled incomplete.
  • Volume 7 – Cost/Price
    • Only the direct labor rates from column C of the J.P-9 Cost/Price template and the proposed indirect cost rates will be evaluated for fair and reasonable price. The fully burdened ceiling rates will not be evaluated.
    • If you have multiple indirect rates for different sites/locations, then use the highest rate.
    • If you’re a SB without approved indirect rates, you must submit a Basis of Estimate narrative identifying the methodology you used to establish your indirect rates.
  • Volume 8 – Responsibilities
    • GSA clarified that they will store financial statements after contract award; but only those government representatives with a need to know will be allowed to access these.
    • When GSA asked for the “previous three years’ financial statements,” they are looking for the previous three complete years. In other words, if your company’s financial calendar runs from Jan – Dec, you would submit financial statements for 2020, 2021, and 2022. No interim report is required for 2023.
  • SBA Mentor-Protégé: A minimum of one relevant Qualifying Project must be from the protégé or the offering Mentor-Protégé joint venture for each proposed domain. [For More Information See: L.5.1.3]
  • Price/Cost: Only one cost/price submission may be submitted by the offering joint venture entity. [For More Information See: RFP Section L.5.1.3.1/L.5.7]
  • 8(a) and WOSB: Offerors for these IDIQs must but SBA-certified as either 8(a) or WOSB. For all SB IDIQs, all proposed subcontractors must represent as small businesses under the associate size standard(s), or qualify as a SB under one of the exceptions set for in 13 CFR § 121.103(b).
  • Joint Venture: All Section L.5.8 submissions must be submitted for each member of a joint venture. [For More Information See: L.5.1.3.1]

As a reminder, there are six separate solicitations for OASIS+. **PLEASE NOTE: EACH IDIQ HAS ITS OWN SOLICITATION ID/SAM.GOV ENTRY** 


IDIQ


SAM.GOV link


Solicitation ID


Total SB


SAM.gov


47QRCA23R0001


8(a)


SAM.gov


47QRCA23R0002


HUBZone


SAM.gov


47QRCA23R0003


SDVOSB


SAM.gov


47QRCA23R0004


WOSB


SAM.gov


47QRCA23R0005


Unrestricted



SAM.gov



47QRCA23R0006


Bottom line update: We still do not have full functionality for OSP/Symphony but hope to see that by the end of the month. With no anticipated deadline submission extension, it’s important to make sure you’re tracking these updates and working on your scorecard(s). If you’re looking for an extra set of eyes on your eligibility check, let Trident help you out. 


July 7: GSA Releases Amendment 0001

After a little churn and a lot of waiting, GSA released the final OASIS+ solicitations on June 16 with Amendment 0001 following close behind on July 5. Here is a quick update on where the dust settled.

As we expected, there are six separate solicitations for OASIS+.
**PLEASE NOTE: EACH IDIQ HAS ITS OWN SOLICITATION ID/SAM.GOV ENTRY** 

IDIQ


SAM.GOV link


Solicitation ID


Total SB


SAM.gov


47QRCA23R0001


8(a)


SAM.gov


47QRCA23R0002


HUBZone


SAM.gov


47QRCA23R0003


SDVOSB


SAM.gov


47QRCA23R0004


WOSB


SAM.gov


47QRCA23R0005


Unrestricted


SAM.gov


47QRCA23R0006


Timeline: Questions are due at 4 p.m. Eastern on July 14, 2023, and right now proposals are due September 13, 2023. Symphony (the submission portal for all OASIS+ bids) is slowly opening up as well and should be fully functional by July 15. If you haven’t registered yet, you can do so here.

Ok, so what changed? The biggest changes between the 2nd draft RFP and the final RFP (and now Amendment 0001) were adjustments to the scorecard to account for Protégé experience and the addition of a Cost/Price section. There were also a handful of updates and clarifications added:

  • Project Types: Big news, OTAs are now allowed as Qualifying Project types again. They disappeared briefly in the second draft RFP, but they are back. Interestingly, they are not one of the permitted project types eligible for Advanced R&D credit (the language there still just says “contracts and task orders.”) [For More Information See: RFP Section L.5.2.1]
  • Scorecard (if you’re a Protégé): The minimum threshold requirement has been lowered for Protégé projects to account for a more realistic $ value scale. [For More Information See: Attachment J.P-1+OASIS+Plus+Domain+Qualifications+Matrix+and+Scorecards+(Amd+0001)]
  • Price/Cost: ALL OFFERORS need to complete the Price/Cost section, which includes providing pricing data (direct labor rate ceilings) for 20 GSA-provided Labor Categories, indirect cost rates, and a narrative basis of estimate. [For More Information See: RFP Section L.5.7]
  • Responsibility Section – no more GSA 527 forms! Prime offerors need to provide balance and income statements from the previous three years (audited, if possible). Do not submit a GSA 527 form and do not submit your tax returns. [For More Information See: RFP Section L.5.8.3]
  • P-3 Forms – A revised form was released with Amendment 0001 that features separate narrative justification sections for multiple domains. This is good news because now you can use one form to describe how a project aligns with multiple domains (rather than needing to prepare separate forms for each domain a project covers). [For More Information See: Attachment J.P-3]
  • Past Performance Clarification – One of the defining requirements of a Qualifying Project (relevant or not) is that it cannot have a negative record of Past Performance. GSA has confirmed that “To verify that a project meets this criteria, the offeror must submit past performance information in accordance with Section L.5.6, either through the submission of a CPARS Report or the Attachment J.P-6, Past Performance Rating Form. A project with no record of past performance will be rated “neutral” in accordance with Section M.6.6.1 and is considered to meet this criteria; however, if it is discovered during the course of the evaluation that CPARS or other past performance information does exist for a project, the Government reserves the right to consider such information in its evaluation. See Sections L.5.6 and M.6.6 for more details.” Keep in mind this requirement is distinct from the Past Performance credits evaluated under M.6.6.2 – those credits will come only from relevant qualifying projects. [For More Information See: RFP Sections L.5.2.1, L.5.6, M.6.6]

Bottom line update: If you’re applying for OASIS+, review all Amendment 0001 changes and prep your questions before the deadline on July 14.  


June 16: GSA Releases OASIS+!

On June 15, "GSA’s Office of Professional Services and Human Capital (PSHC) has released the final Requests for Proposals (RFPs) for six contracts that encompass the OASIS+ program. This marks the final step in the acquisition phase of standing up the next generation best-in-class multi-agency contracts for complex non-Information Technology (IT) services."

Read the full announcement here


April 7: Update while we wait

On March 31, GSA announced that they anticipate releasing the final OASIS+ Solicitation in the next 30 days. So now that we have a little more time, what should you do with it? Here are three easy activities we recommend.

  1.  Build (or Update) your Qualifying Project Tracker. This doesn’t need to be anything complex but you should cover the project basics. Here’s a sample:


    Why do you need a tool like this? When we get the final RFP, you’ll be able to tell at a glance if any of your projects are eliminated based on foundational criteria like dates or average annual values. For example, you might be considering a project that ended in 2018. Depending on when the final OASIS+ solicitation is released, you might not be able to use that project because it will now fall outside of the permissible recency period. Or if the qualifying threshold changes for a domain you are pursuing, you’ll know right away whether your projects still make the cut (Note: this is just an example - we have no indicators that GSA is considering an adjustment to the domain thresholds at this time). Don’t forget that if you are using a project that will end by the time OASIS+ gets submitted, you might have to show the total obligated amount (vice being able to use the total contract ceiling for credit).

    A tool like this can also help inform your teaming conversations. Teaming guidance has been fluid on this opportunity from the start, so it makes sense that bidders are considering their options and probably having exploratory conversations right now. If you get “invited” to form a team, this tracker can help you understand where you already have project coverage and where you might need it. That means you can have a very clear, data-driven conversation about what type of qualifying experience will actually enhance your score.

  2. Check out those registrations and certifications. Is anything coming due for renewal or at risk of expiring between now and July 2023? If so, you might want to go ahead and initiate the update. Also, if you watched GSA’s OASIS+ Pre-Solicitation Industry Day on March 15, then you may have caught a nuance that we haven’t seen overtly emphasized – yet (Did you miss Industry Day? Get caught up here.) GSA is planning for six individual contract families:

    1. Small Business
    2.  SBA-Certified 8(a)
    3.  SBA-Certified HUBZone
    4. SBA-Certified SDVOSB
    5. SBA-Certified WOSB
    6. Unrestricted

      If you are a small business that also holds a socioeconomic designation (like WOSB or SDVOSB), you’re going to want to read the final solicitation VERY carefully to make sure your certification documentation matches the requirements. And if you haven’t applied for SBA certification in these socio-economic categories yet, we recommend getting that process started now! There is likely to be some sort of accommodation for the SDVOSB category since that certification authority just shifted from the VA to the SBA earlier this year, but, it will likely be temporary. The bottom line, however, is you’re going to have to get SBA certified eventually so you might as well start the paperwork and review process now.

  3. Start marking up your documents! It’s never too early to start getting organized and flagging exactly which tasks in the SOW/PWS show alignment to multiple functional areas, confirming which LCATs required clearances, or getting those first-tier subcontracts pulled and highlighted. Another useful activity? Drafting your 750-character description of relevance for the J.P-3 form (if you need it). Want extra credit? Get that description reviewed and validated by fresh eyes – does your reviewer reach the same conclusion about relevance? Does all your documentation include the correct contract number? Do you have any discrepancies between what you’re tracking internally for period of performance and obligation versus what’s in FPDS or on your signed documents? If you start highlighting now, you’ll be able to identify and resolve these vulnerabilities early (and who doesn’t love a low-stress submission)?

Bottom line: a little planning and preparation now can help keep the proposal pace nice and steady this summer. No one wants to be sprinting (or scrambling) at the end of June (or July, or August…) or having summer vacation plans ruined by proposal paperwork, so let’s take advantage of this pause to get organized and optimized for this GWAC bid!


What is OASIS+?

One Acquisition Solution for Integrated Services - Plus, or OASIS+, is the Best in Class follow on to GSA’s OASIS, a family of multiple award IDIQ contracts for professional (non-information technology) services. Here are the quick contract highlights based on the March 2023 2nd Draft as well as Questions and Answers.

 

How do I know if my company is a good candidate?

If you followed any of our Polaris campaign support, then you won’t be surprised that the first recommendation we have for you is to reframe that question. What you should be asking at this stage is, “Is OASIS+ the right prime contract for me?” In other words, is it a contract you can realistically manage and that your government clients can/will use? As with all IDIQs, the initial bid is the easy part. Winning work on task orders is going to require additional time, resources, and effort. We’d encourage a quick “time out” before you start tallying any points to ask yourself a few key qualifying questions:

  • Do you have current Federal customers who are likely to use OASIS+ for future acquisitions? (By the way, if you don’t know the answer to this question, contact us - our Business Analysts can help!)
  • Can you manage the administrative demands of a GSA contract within your current contract support infrastructure?
  • Are you willing and able to meet the marketing, minimum contracting thresholds, and participation requirements that come with a win?

Recommendation: Answering “No” to the questions above shouldn’t lead to an automatic “no bid,” but it should give you pause and help you calibrate your definition of what success looks like on OASIS+. Your goal should be staying on the contract for the long term and making it work for you, not just getting an initial award. Think through how you will manage work once you’re on the contract, and then let that plan of action inform your strategic bid, hiring, teaming, or business development decisions accordingly.


How do I get started?

If you don’t think your long-term contract success will be an issue, then there are three actions you can take immediately.

  1. Step 1: Read the 2nd Draft RFPThis sounds obvious, but this follow-on vehicle has been an iterative work in progress with some BIG revisions along the way. Make sure you understand the latest guidance – and don’t forget to read ALL of the attachments. This recent draft included changes to the scoresheet (Attachment J.P-8 OASIS+ Domain Qualifications Matrix and Scoresheet) as well as the J.P-3 Project Verification Form that may have big impacts to your bid depending on the Domain/Set Aside you are pursuing. As you read, keep track of any questions or feedback you have. You’ll need those for Step 2.
  2. Step 2: Register for Symphony. Symphony is the submission portal that will be used for OASIS+. It’s the same platform that GSA used for other GWACs like ASTRO and Polaris, however, OASIS+ has a different portal link that is distinct from other proposal instances. You can register for the OASIS+ section of Symphony here: Symphony. You’ll need a Multi-Factor authentication method as well as your company’s (or your Prime’s) UEI from SAM.Gov when you register.
  3. Step 3: Perform an eligibility check. Before you spend valuable time preparing documents and coordinating your response, make sure you don’t have any disqualifiers that will make you ineligible for award. Check out our OASIS+ Basic Eligibility Checklist if you’re not sure. Note: Most of the eligibility requirements are binary, but don’t be lulled into thinking you will be able to put your proposal together in a week. Preparing your response is going to take some time – especially if you are missing paperwork or need to renew any certifications. You must be able to prove that you have successful performance, not just assure the Government you have the potential to be successful.

BEWARE: Even the most organized companies can be surprised by the amount of time and effort it takes to prepare a response like this, but the investment you make to prepare now can pay dividends when the final RFP is released! Give yourself the best head start possible by preparing now.

What do I need to know about teaming?

Based on the success of the current OASIS program, GSA (and the rest of the Federal government) has big plans for OASIS+. It makes sense that you will want to consider forming a team to help improve the services you can offer as well as improve your score. Contractual teaming relationships can take many forms, and not all of these are equal when it comes to OASIS+. While the draft RFP doesn’t include a penalty for new teaming relationships (like we saw with Polaris, for example), your teaming strategy still requires careful consideration. We put together the most frequently asked questions about teaming to build this Quick Reference Guide about the ins and outs of teaming on OASIS+. Let’s dive in!

  1. What types of teams are allowed? On OASIS+ there are three main ways to bid. You can bid alone (no teammates), with a team under a Contract Teaming Arrangement (which models the traditional Prime/Sub relationships), or as part of a Joint Venture. Here are the high-level pros and cons of each relationship. 
    What changed with subcontracting requirements in the 2nd draft?

Section L.5.1.8 of the Unrestricted Draft RFP included some big revisions. Here’s what you need to know:

  • All Offerors that are Other than small business (OTSB) concerns for ANY NAICS within the proposed domain(s) shall provide an Individual Subcontracting Plan
  • Commercial and Master Subcontracting Plans will NOT be accepted: the Subcontracting Plan must apply to the OASIS+ program as a whole
  • All plans need to comply with FAR 19.704 and FAR 52.219-9
  • GSA included one attachment (J.P-9) to serve as a guide for the Subcontracting Plans, but this plan is NOT a fill-in-the-blank template and DOES NOT establish minimum requirements for an acceptable plan
  • Offerors must show their plan to provide opportunities to Small (SB), HUBZone, Small Disadvantaged (SDB), Women-Owned (WOSB), Veteran-Owned (VOSB), and Service-Disabled Veteran-Owned Small Businesses (SDVOSB)
    • Plans must represent a “creative and innovative program” for involving these set-asides
  • The Plan must include a description of the Offeror’s subcontracting strategies in previous contracts, as well as significant achievements, and how this Plan will build upon those achievements
  • The Plan must include “robust” SB subcontracting goals. For reference, GSA’s OASIS+ updated subcontracting goals are below. While Offerors must propose a plan that contains “challenging yet attainable” goals, these percentages are probably a good starting point:
    • SB: 50%
    • SDB: 7%
    • WOSB: 7%
    • HUBZone: 3%
    • VOSB: 3%
    • SDVOSB: 3%
  • The Subcontracting Plan will be incorporated by reference into any resulting OASIS+ MA-IDIQ.
  1. What do I need to know about Joint Ventures (JVs)? JVs can be a great way to pool resources because you’ll be permitted to use the experience and company certifications from any of the JV entities (or the JV itself) to qualify. There are, however, a couple of things to watch out for:
    1. The JV will only qualify for the contracting set-asides that the entities are eligible for (i.e., you can’t form a HUBZone JV if neither company is a HUBZone). The JV must be separately identified in writing with its own name, UEI number, and CAGE number in SAM.gov.
    2. If you’re working under a Mentor / Protégé construct, the Protégé must certify to SBA and the Contracting Officer that the JV complies with SBA requirements. SBA provides a template JV certificate (https://certify.sba.gov/).
    3. The JV must meet the requirements of 13 CFR § 125.8 and 13 CFR § 121.103(h).
  2. Can I submit multiple bids? The short answer is “yes,” but let’s break this down by asking some more specific questions.
  • Can I bid solo on one IDIQ (e.g., WOSB) and as a JV or part of a team in another IDIQ (e.g., HUBZone)? Yes, teaming arrangements in accordance with FAR Subpart 9.6 will be allowed under the OASIS+ contract. Organizations may propose solo on one IDIQ and as a JV on a different IDIQ, and would do so as different legal entities. For example, a SB offering on its own (with or without subcontractors) is a different legal entity than a JV.
  • Ok, so can a company subcontract with more than one prime? At the IDIQ level, yes; however, no project may be used in more than one proposal for the same Pool under this solicitation. Projects used in more than one proposal in a given Pool under this solicitation will be removed from all proposals and will not be evaluated as part of any Offeror’s proposal.
  • Are there any cross-teaming limitations? Actually, yes! This will come into play post-award once GSA starts releasing Task Orders, so you need to be aware that “an OASIS+ Contractor (including affiliates, divisions, subsidiaries, or joint venture participants) may only participate as a prime offeror or subcontractor in the submission of one proposal in response to a specific task order. For example, if an OASIS+ Prime awardee who is a Joint Venture submits a proposal for a task order solicitation, a Contractor designated in the OASIS+ IDIQ as a member of the Joint Venture may not also propose to the same task order solicitation as an order-level first tier subcontractor or separate OASIS+ Prime Offeror.”
  1. Is experience from my teammate eligible for as many points as my own experience? Yes – for qualifying projects, it doesn’t matter if they belong to the Prime Offeror or a teammate. We recommend having your checklists ready to ensure there are no duplicates that may disqualify you for that domain. The example from the Draft RFP explains it best by saying:
    1. QP/FEP#1 may be submitted to the Technical and Engineering Domain, Small Business solicitation; and may also be submitted to the Technical and Engineering Domain, HUBZone solicitation as these are not competing solicitations. However, if QP/FEP#1 is found twice within the Technical and Engineering Domain, HUBZone solicitation, QP/FEP#1 will be removed from all proposals and will not be evaluated as part of any Offeror’s proposal.
  2. Can the prime contractor add "un-named" subcontractors to the master contract and/or task order? Good news here! Yes, awarded OASIS+ contractors may utilize different subcontractors for task orders than those identified for the master contract – so the team you propose with doesn’t need to be static after award.

Teaming and Joint Ventures are meaty topics. How are you feeling about teaming now? We obviously can’t cover every teaming situation or point permutation in a single blog, so if you still have questions (or are feeling a little uneasy about your specific situation), then get in touch! We can walk you through your options and help you evaluate your viability objectively before you commit yourself to a teaming strategy that inadvertently puts your proposal at a points disadvantage! 


How do you evaluate your 'relevant' experience projects?

Evaluating your “relevant” experience doesn’t have to be overwhelming. We’re going to keep this as simple as possible and walk you through this in steps.

Step 1: Understand what type of work meets the Qualifying Project (QP) requirement. The information that follows comes from Section L.5.2.1 of the 2nd Draft RFP. For clarity, there are two types of QPs: Relevant Qualifying Projects (where the project work itself was relevant to the scope of the domain you are scoring it in), and Non-Relevant Qualifying Projects. Determining Relevant vs. Non-Relevant is something we’ll cover later because to get to that point, EVERY QP must first meet ALL the following criteria:

  1. Be one of the following types of contracts:
  • A single contract (including prime contracts, subcontracts, and commercial contracts); or
  • A single task order awarded under an indefinite delivery task order contract (Definite Quantity, Requirements, or Indefinite Quantity), Blanket Purchase Agreement (BPA), or Basic Ordering Agreement (BOA), including single or multiple award; or
  • A task order under a Federal Supply Schedule contract (FAR 8.405-2) or BPA (FAR 8.405-3); or
  • An Other Transaction Authority (OTA) award issued under 10 U.S.C. 4021 or other applicable authority; or
  • A “Collection of Task Orders” as defined in Section L.5.2.1. *You’ll want to note here that Offerors can only submit one aggregation of TOs per Domain submission*

**Yes, you read that correctly, OTAs are NO LONGER considered eligible!**

  1. Be a contract or order for services in accordance with FAR Part 37.

To save you some time, FAR Part 37 defines a service contract as “a contract that directly engages the time and effort of a contractor whose primary purpose is to perform an identifiable task rather than to furnish an end item of supply. A service contract may be either a non-personal or personal contract. It can also cover services performed by either professional or nonprofessional personnel whether on an individual or organizational basis.” There’s a lot more detail that you can check out here, but if you have questions, we’d love to get you in touch with one of our Contracts Specialists!  Bottom line, your contract should be for services (not products) and you should use the definition of “services” found in FAR Part 37.

  1. Meet or exceed a minimum annual value. This is going to be domain-specific (and there are variations!), so you’ll want to give Attachment 8 - Domain Qualifications Matrix a very close read. The proposed minimum values for the SB domains range from $250,000 to $1 million, while the Unrestricted domains have a range from $500,000 to $50 million! There are a couple of other nuances buried here that you need to be aware of:
    1. First, when you’re looking at your projects, make sure you’re calculating the annual value correctly. If you’re scoring your projects for scale (Section L.5.2.3.2), then you can use the total annual value of the project (even if the whole value wasn’t relevant to the Domain). BUT, if you’re evaluating project relevance/eligibility, keep this in mind: Section L.5.2.3.1 states “Relevant work does not need to be the primary purpose of the project, but the Offeror must clearly demonstrate (e.g., via a distinct CLIN or section within a PWS) that the relevant portion of the work meets the minimum QP criteria for the proposed Domain” (e.g., ≥$500,000 annual value for Technical & Engineering Domain).
    2. Second, there are different methods to determine a “total” based on whether the work is ongoing or completed. The methods include:

i. Project value for completed projects is determined by the total funded dollars. NOTE: This includes completed projects with a Period of Performance (PoP) of less than one year.

ii. Project value for ongoing projects is determined based on the total estimated value (value inclusive of all option periods; regardless of completed/funded status). NOTE: This includes ongoing projects with a PoP of less than one year.

iii. QPs with a PoP greater than 12 months will be prorated to the annual value. Total annual value will be calculated by dividing the total project value by the total number of days of PoP, and multiplying by 366.

- For example, a project valued at $3 million with a PoP of 450 days will be considered to have an annual value of ~$2.44 million ([$3,000,000 ÷ 450] x 366).

  1. Be recent and observed. To make the cut as a QP, each project must be ongoing (and have at least six months of completed performance by proposal submission) or if the project is completed, the end date must be within five years of the proposal due date. Note: It’s reasonable to expect that GSA will establish a specific cut-off date so that this criterion doesn’t create unnecessary churn if the final solicitation gets amended/extended.
  2. Have satisfactory past performance. Technically what the draft says is the QP cannot have an associated record of negative past performance. But if your project is relatively new (and/or perhaps hasn’t received a CPAR evaluation), you’ll need to get your customer to fill out a Past Performance Rating Form. That’s one reason why there’s a 6-month minimum performance time – GSA wants to know your client has observed your performance long enough to submit a qualified opinion!

Caveats and Considerations:

  • You’re allowed to use subcontract experience – but keep in mind: “only the work identified in the specific subcontract may be utilized for scoring as a QP.” This applies to relevance and dollar value!
  • Offerors may submit a maximum of five distinct QPs for each Domain. These five can be a combination of Relevant and Non-relevant QPs (but the Relevant QPs are going to score higher!) Also, these five projects can be any combination of federal government and non-federal projects.

Ok – so now we know what the minimum criteria are. What next?

Step 2: Draft your contract lineup. Make a list of your contracts that immediately come to mind as aligning to one or more of the OASIS+ Domains. Whether it’s one contract or 15 contracts, it will be faster to start your evaluations with a consolidated list and evaluate each project upfront, rather than chasing projects down one by one once the government finalizes (and refines) the evaluation criteria. 

Step 3: Down-select your projects -- fast! You don't have infinite time and resources, so you need to figure out your top projects fast. First, confirm that every project on your list meets the minimum qualifying criteria. If a project doesn't meet the minimum thresholds for recency, type, and magnitude, don't keep it on the list! Down-selecting early allows you to prioritize your efforts and spend time developing only the eligible projects that have the best chance of yielding you the most points. Warning: OASIS+ isn't a proposal you can creatively write your way onto by stretching definitions of relevance or adding a lot of additional justifying text. Best case, you’ll have 750 characters on the J.P-3 form to state your case. You have to prove - largely using documents authored and maintained by entities other than your company – that your experience qualifies.

Step 4: “Rack and Stack” your projects. This step will identify your strongest chance of winning the most points. Once you have your list of eligible projects, score them based on the draft point values in the Draft RFP (it’s Attachment 9!) This is a full cheat sheet for your submission that describes in detail the evaluation criteria GSA will use when they dig into your proposal. (Contact us if you need help understanding how your proposal will be graded!) 

Step 5: Get a second set of eyes on your scoresheet. I know we’re a little biased, but an independent review can help you objectively determine your qualifications and/or gaps and validate your potential score. We are experts at reading contract documentation and will be able to tell you – with fidelity – where your vulnerabilities are. Contact us to get an impartial, requirements-based review of your potential project documentation.

As contracting history has shown, the final RFP is likely to be released amid a flood of other contracts – don’t be left holding the bag of QP verification when you really need to focus on your technical response. If you think you’d like a second set of eyes, be sure to visit our website to see how our team of capture and proposal SMEs can help you prepare for OASIS+.


How Can I Boost my OASIS+ Score?

By this point, you’ve probably run through a self-assessment on the first second third fourth draft scorecard (the one from 8 March!) at least once. Maybe you’re feeling pretty good about your OASIS+ bid … or maybe you’re right on the edge of meeting that minimum point threshold to qualify for award. If that’s the case, you’re probably wondering, “How can I boost my score?” We have a few recommendations, but first, we want to make sure you understand some of the basic OASIS+ scorecard mechanics.  

  1. Each domain has a unique tab in the scorecard for a reason. Make sure you review and understand the scorecard for the domain(s) you’re pursuing before you start totaling credits (i.e., points). Why is that important? Because not every domain’s scorecard has the same criteria or the same weight for credits. For example, in almost every domain, you earn the majority of credits from maxing out the number of Relevant Qualifying Projects (QPs) you submit (up to five in total). But that’s not the case in the Intelligence domain: in that domain, each Relevant QP is only worth two credits, but having five or more cleared personnel on a QP (Relevant or not) will get you three credits for each QP. So, you actually get more credits for five QPs with five or more cleared personnel (15 credits) than you do for having five Relevant QPs (10 credits).   

Similarly, the minimum average annual value for projects is not consistent across all domains, and you can bet there are differences within domains based on whether you’re reading the small business or unrestricted RFP.  

  1. Larger, more complex projects (generally) help your score. But you must ensure you’re calculating things correctly. Keep in mind – the project end date is really important because you are calculating an average annual value, not getting credit for the total ceiling (like we saw on Polaris). Here’s what both RFPs (specifically Section L.5.2.1) say about determining QP Value: 

 The QP value is determined based on the following criteria:  

  • Project value for completed projects is determined by the total funded dollars. NOTE: This includes completed projects with a PoP of less than one year.  
  • Project value for ongoing projects is determined based on the total estimated value (value inclusive of all option periods; regardless of completed/funded status). NOTE: This includes ongoing projects with a PoP of less than one year.  
  • QPs with a PoP greater than 12 months will be prorated to the annual value. Total annual value will be calculated by dividing the total project value by the total number of days of PoP and multiplying by 366.  
    • For example, a project valued at $3M with a PoP of 450 days will be considered to have an annual value of ~$2.433M (($3M ÷ 450) x 366)  

A point I want to emphasize: for those ongoing projects, the total estimated value WILL include all option periods – you can’t opt to leave them out of the formula. When it comes to doing the math, that could actually hurt your calculation, especially if you have a long period of performance with multiple option years and a relatively low total ceiling. It is not uncommon for contracts (especially subcontracts) to raise the ceiling incrementally as the project progresses, but have all the option years listed in the original documentation (why not? They’re optional!) Make sure you read your contract documentation closely so that you’re basing your calculations (and subsequent qualifications) on the correct data.  

  1. Pay attention to those category maximums.Some of the categories on the scoresheet have an accompanying maximum number of credits that changed with the 2nd Draft RFP, and that value does not necessarily correspond to a one-for-one project-to-credit ratio. Check out this example from the SB T&E domain:

Based on this criteria, an individual project could earn 0, 1, 2, or 3 credits depending on the criteria it meets – but if you had five QPs that met all three criteria, you wouldn’t earn 15 credits – you’d still max out at seven credits.  

Here’s another example from the SB Intelligence domain. Again, you can aggregate credits at the project level, but you’re limited to claiming four TOTAL in this category: 

  • Relevant is best.Ok, it should be obvious that in general, you’d want to submit as many Relevant QPs as possible, but the return on investment here plays out in two ways. In addition to consistently being eligible for more points than just a qualifying project, you can ONLY earn past performance credits on Relevant QPs. In this category, you need a minimum of three (positive) Relevant QPs to get one credit. Four Relevant QPs will get you two credits, and you’ll max out at three credits with five positive past performance ratings Relevant QPs.   

Ok, so you’re clear on the basics. What do you do with this information?  

  1. Score your projects individually.The first thing you want to do is evaluate the possible credit total for each project to know how each project scores on its own. Then you can get a sense of which projects to discard and which to keep. You need to go through this exercise for every single project you think you *might*  want to use because of the way Section L is written. While it’s true that bigger is generally better, there’s no way to pick your highest-scoring projects by applying a one size fits all rule like, “Only use Prime experience.” You must crunch the numbers. Need some proof? 

A Relevant, low-value, low-complexity Federal Prime project and a non-Relevant, high-value, moderate-complexity project performed as a subcontractor could theoretically earn the same number of points. Check it out (we’ll use the updated SB T&E scorecard to make our point): 

  • Project A was a Prime Federal contract with an annual average value of $750,000. The work involved two labor categories, two functional areas, did not have a Surge requirement, no first-tier subcontractors were used, and all of the work was unclassified (no clearances required).  
  • Project B was work performed as a subcontractor with an annual average value of the subcontract being $2.1M. The subcontract specified six distinct labor categories, involved a surge capability that was exercised, and all of the 12 personnel from the subcontractor were required to have Secret or Top Secret clearances. 

As you can see, these projects both score 4 credits.  

Now, that’s not the end of the story, because we’ve already told you that only Relevant QPs will count for Past Performance, so for that criteria, Project A would carry an advantage over Project B. But whether or not Project A makes the final “project cut” is largely contingent on how the rest of the projects you’re considering score – both individually and as part of the portfolio.  

This might be a good time for four quick reminders: 

  1. If you are using subcontract work (or work performed as part of a Contractor Teaming Arrangement or Joint Venture), you’ll only be eligible to receive credit for the portion of work your entity completed (and can substantiate).  
  2. You can use DIFFERENT projects for your Prime Federal experience project credits – so don’t feel “locked in” to using them for Relevant QPs if they don’t score as high as commercial or subcontract experience would.  
  3. Think through your teaming options. Teaming has been a very hot topic recently, so while I wouldn’t recommend finalizing your strategy just yet (I know I previously said wait for the 2nd Draft RFP, but having listened in on the Industry Day, I’d wait for the Final RFP before signing anything in ink), it is a good time to start having conversations and understanding your options, especially if you are a SB. Right now, there is no requirement for teammates to demonstrate performance in a previous relationship, so building a small but qualified team might be a good way to boost your score solidly above the minimum.  
  4. Focus your efforts.This is all about making sure you make the most of the time you have remaining. Specifically, make sure you understand the maximum for additional points (see below) so that you can run different permutations of your relevant experience projects and come up with an accurate self-score. Don’t waste a lot of time gathering documentation for projects that are barely eligible (or may fall out of eligibility based on upcoming modifications, extensions, etc.). Similarly, we don’t want you to overlook potential points in Volumes 4 and 5, but we do want you to realize that you may not a) have time to lock in a CMMI or ISO certification before proposal submission (for example) and b) you might be better served by looking for a higher scoring project (like, one with a larger average annual value).  

This can be a lot to absorb and we know that. It's why our OASIS+ GWAC SMEs are standing by ready to help you with your OASIS+ eligibility check. If you still have questions after reading this contact us today! We're ready to help. 


Written By Rebecca Wayland

Rebecca is our HR and Development Manager. While Rebecca primarily wears the HR hat, she offers comprehensive proposal management, capture support, market research and training. She is also our GWAC lead so if you’re exploring Polaris, OASIS+, or Alliant 3, she is definitely your SME. As a U.S. Navy veteran and military spouse based in Honolulu, she supports clients around the world as part of our globally dispersed team.

Check out our latest blog posts

Everything You Need to Know About GSA's OASIS+

Apr 06, 2024

What’s the Scoop on NASA SEWP VI?

Mar 04, 2024

Benefits of Being a Defense Contractor in San Diego

Feb 14, 2024

Need expert advice on Government Contracting?
Contact us at (571) 477-1945.