Exploring OASIS - The Myth of the Perfect Score

Submitted by OASIS Blogger on Thursday, May 23, 2013 - 11:38 AM

We here on the OASIS Team put a lot of thought into the Highest Technically Rated with Acceptable Pricing approach, as well as our objective, quantitative scoring methodology. We think it provides a great deal of information to our Industry Partners and helps them make informed business decisions. In my various meetings with Industry, in our OASIS mailbox, and in our community here, I see a lot of vibrant discussion about the different scoring factors we have proposed. Based on some of my observations and conversations, I’d like to share some thoughts on the process.

As you’ve guessed from the title of this blog entry, the OASIS Team does not expect to see any Offeror on either OASIS or OASIS SB get a “perfect score”, or the theoretical maximum number of points. The purpose of the point structure is to differentiate between offerors. We do not have a minimum in mind. We have no idea what the cutoff will be, actually. The goal is to weigh the various capabilities, experience, and performance of potential offerors and identify the best 40 in each pool. It does not matter how many points you score. It matters if your score is in the top 40 and if your pricing is in line.

Yes, we could assign a point score to the minimum dollar threshold for task order size, in effect giving every offeror X additional points. That would have absolutely no impact on the outcome. Yes, it is possible that absolutely no small businesses that qualify for Pool 1 ($14M/yr revenue) have a Level 5 CMMI certification. In that case, the points impact no one. (Of course, if one or two companies do, then they are getting credit for that achievement, as they should.)

I encourage all potential bidders not to get wrapped around the axle of whether or not you can get the maximum score. We’ve shared the points. You know your score. The only real question that remain are: Among the pool of potential bidders, is my score in the top 40, and is my pricing in line? I know we all like to get an “A” and you might be dismayed to see that your score is only 70% of the maximum, and thus potentially a “C.” Fear not. We’re grading on a curve here, folks.

We’ll be adjusting the relative scores in the final RFPs and appreciate all your great feedback in that area.

Jim

621

Groups audience:

OASIS Interact Community

Views: 1505

Comments

rudysutherland

<div>OP-ED: Exploring OASIS - The "Myth of Transparency" & the working poor of federal contracting</div><div>--------------------------</div><div>On Thursday, May 23, 2013, Jim Ghiloni submitted a blog post titled "Exploring OASIS - The Myth of the Perfect Score." In this post, Jim explains how in various hypothetical situations, firms that objectively score themselves as "average or below" using the criteria established in the inital draft RFP, should not fret and submit proposals anyway. Further, he goes on to say these firms are "encouraged" to not be concerned about their score, that the only real question that remain are, and I quote:  </div><div> </div><div>"Among the pool of potential bidders, is my score in the top 40, and is my pricing in line?  I know we all like to get an “A” and you might be dismayed to see that your score is only 70% of the maximum, and thus potentially a “C.”  Fear not. We’re grading on a curve here, folks."</div><div> </div><div>Well, Jim is a nice enough guy; but this is as akin to a Freudian slip as ever was one.  Folks, let me qualify what I am about to say before I say it; if you play the lottery for any purpose other than sheer entertainment or beleive in the Easter Bunny, please do not read any further.</div><div> </div><div>Now that the room is cleared and only the sober remain > for your small business, this is not an academic exercise; this is business. The fact that - based upon the hype, the anemic number of solicitations out for bid right in the federal market, and the sheer pmtential of the opportunity;  - the majority of professional services companies in the country are planning to submit proposals on OASIS gives it a lottery persona. That is, one in which the herd theory applies because Smalls are hungry. </div><div> </div><div>When this happens, you get a large noise quotient in your market equation for success; and as a result everyones probabilty of winning is reduced significantly. And, who benefits for this type of mass hysteria you ask? The GSA does of course. The reason is, because this is a new contract instrument; the GSA does not have a legitimate government estimate - and they desperastely need one. In short, whether you win or not; your pricing is going to help the GSA build its own price curve - and this curve is going to be used to negotiate down the prices on yet to be awarded task-orders.</div><div> </div><div>What is the significance of this to you, you ask? Well, those of you who realistically know that you have average or sub-par quals are probably going to try to over-compensate this weakness with lower pricing than the market will bear. You're so low on Maslow's Heirarchy that you'll do anything for a crumb. But quess what, you're not going to win - the only thing you will do is insure that if you ever get on a team, the margins will be so low you and your partners will be eating sardines as a result. It will be the GSA Schedule wars all over again... </div><div> </div><div>FLASH-BACK --> remember how the GSA in the 80's incrementally beat everbody down to a 90% or lower price point the best price they gave their best private sector customer? Don't be stupid.</div><div> </div><div>So in sum; if you score yourself at anything less than the 85th percentile; don't submit a proposal and contaminate the pool, team afterward instead. And, if you score in the 85th percentile or above, don't low-ball your pricing. Many of you don't realize how important this intial baseline is going to be in determining whether there is a middle-class for this contract vehicle or just the working poor.  Hold the line and stay unified, as with all new vehiCles; Smalls will never have this opportunity again. </div><div> </div><div>Remember, Smalls are the middle-class of federal contracting, and don't you ever forget it.  OneVoice...</div><div> </div><div>-----------]</div><div>ABOUT</div><div>Rudy Sutherland is a small business advocate and the founder of the "Voive of Small Business in America" on LinkedIn</div>

Posted 06/04/2013 8:09 AM

OASIS Blogger

<p class="normal">Thank you for Op-Ed, Rudy.  I’m not sure I understand how your thoughts on pricing relate directly to my blog about the “Myth of the Perfect Score” but I do share your opinion that “low-ball” pricing is not in anyone’s best interest.  As we’ve stated, we will be evaluating pricing to determine whether it is Fair and Reasonable.  Simply offering low pricing will have no bearing whatsoever on your ability to win on OASIS or OASIS SB.  - Jim</p>

Posted 06/05/2013 11:55 AM

Dimorris

<p>Jim- At industry day, your presentation mentioned that "You know GSA's view on teaming?" Is the GSA encouraging teaming for OASIS, or would they rather see individual companies have the breadth of experience to cover all the areas? I know sometimes team</p>

Posted 05/24/2013 1:38 PM

OASIS Blogger

<p dir="ltr">Thanks for the question.  As apparent in the questions and answers, we encourage teaming at the task order level, but see very limited value in teaming at the contract level.  Jim</p>

Posted 05/28/2013 3:06 PM

Ron Kubacki

<p>Jim,</p><p>Will GSA consider adding capabilities/certifications not in the current Draft RFP?  Some DOD clients should be interested in one or more of the following:</p><ul><li>Export licensing</li><li>ITAR knowledge and experience</li><li>State Department/DOD Foreign Military Sales (FMS) Cases</li></ul><p>If added, these and other capabilities might increase the client pool, potentially increase OASIS capacity, and add more "tie breakers" as well.</p><p>Thanks,</p><p>Ron</p><p> </p>

Posted 05/23/2013 2:35 PM

OASIS Blogger

<p>We are open to all suggestions.  Please provide specific recommendations, preferably with additional recommendation about scoring and validation, to our OASIS inbox at <a href="mailto:oasis@gsa.gov">oasis@gsa.gov</a>.  Jim</p>

Posted 05/28/2013 3:04 PM

OASIS Interact Community

You are here