Welcome Login

For current information from GSA about COVID19 please click HERE

You are here

Exploring OASIS: The Revised RFPs (Posted on June 27)

A few days ago we posted the revised RFPs which we promised at our Industry Day in mid-May.  I hope by now that you’ve had time to review the documents and look forward to your comments and feedback.  In this blog entry I’d like to discuss some of the major changes we made.

One of the themes which we heard over and over again in our One-on-One sessions and in the comments received in response to the draft RFPs was that there seemed to be no connection between the pools and the disciplines as defined in Section C.  As things stood in the original, companies with no R&D experience at all, for example, could win in Pools 4 thru 6, which will involve predominantly R&D work.  Our initial response, which still stands to a large degree, was that the scope of OASIS and OASIS SB involves integration of complex professional services across multiple disciplines.  Companies which could successfully integrate those disciplines in one area could likely do it in any area.  Based on the feedback we received from industry and our customers, however, we saw that there was great value in ensuring that companies which win in a particular pool demonstrate at least some experience specific to that pool.  For this reason, we’ve decided to require that one of your Relevant Experiences come from work done in each pool in which you are bidding.  There are 6 pools, but 3 of them represent exceptions to NAICS codes listed in other pools.  If you qualify for Pools 1, 2, and 4, you qualify for them all. What this means is that companies in the R&D pools, for example, will have some demonstrated experience in doing R&D work.  We think this change will result in greater variety between the pools and allow greater opportunity for more focused, mid-sized companies to compete on a more even playing field, which was also a theme we heard repeatedly. 

The next major areas to be addressed are related to how we scored commercial experience as opposed to federal experience. First, we did not (and still do not) believe that OASIS should be a company’s first foray into government contracting.  There are a great deal of unique features to government contracting and there is great value to our customers in knowing that all OASIS and OASIS SB primes know how to manage the federal procurement process.  Second, we had concerns about the relative trustworthiness of past performance reports from warranted Contracting Officers versus those received from commercial business partners.  It is not, and never was, our intent to prevent companies with outstanding and innovative commercial solutions from bidding successfully.  Thus, we realized that our initial scoring system penalized commercial work in multiple areas:  we required 3 out of 5 experiences to be federal, we gave points to various systems, etc. which are unique to government contracting, and then we also gave fewer points for equivalently-rated commercial past performance.  We’ve listened and made adjustments, however.  Our decision to require experiences tied to the pools being bid removed the need to require experiences to be government.  By definition, only federal experience will have a NAICS code formally associated with it; therefore, we do not need additional restrictions on commercial experience.  We also realized that enough scoring factors lean favorably toward government work that we do not need to explicitly downgrade the scores of commercial experiences.   There are a number of factors in play for any given Relevant Experience.  As I’ve stated before, we don’t expect any perfect scores, even for individual experiences.  Some commercial work will score out higher than some federal and vice versa and that is fine with us.

The last major change I’d like to discuss today relates to Key Personnel.  We initially had scoring elements related to the education, experience, and certifications held by proposed Key Personnel.  We heard over and over again, however, that this was encouraging companies to bypass otherwise excellent candidates for these positions so as not to “give away” points.  It was certainly not our intent to keep good people out of the program.  Upon further consideration and discussion, we decided to simply eliminate these factors from the scoring.  All OASIS and OASIS SB contractors will have to manage their contracts successfully and they will need solid people to do that.  If they fail to do so, we can hold them accountable as needed.  Dormancy provides a great tool in this area.  We trust that companies will bring the right people to the task and we will hold them accountable if they do not.  That will more than suffice.

Of course, there are a number of other changes and I may address those in the future, based on your feedback and questions.  I hope that it is abundantly clear, however, that we did listen to the feedback received, that we did consider it thoughtfully; and that it did impact the procurement.  We have learned a great deal and gotten immense value out of the ongoing dialog that has taken place in this community and we hope to continue in that vein for the life of the program.

Jim

511
Groups audience: 
Share

Views: 1162

Comments

Anita Sardo
<p>This question references Section L.5.4.2., Past Performance.&nbsp; There is a single CPARS entry for the project, but it covers a PoP many years ago, early in the contract (10/1/2007 &ndash; 9/30/2008).&nbsp; The project completed March 2012.&nbsp; Since the CPARS entry is so outdated, and no new CPARS data has been submitted, will the government permit us to submit a Past Performance Rating Form in lieu of the CPARS report?</p>
dpm
<p>Oasis Team -</p><p>In Section L.5.3.1 #5 - At least one relevant experience project must have reported a NAICS Code in the Federal Procurement Data System - Next Generation (FPDS-NG) that corresponds directly to a NAICS Code Pool being applied for. &nbsp;We have a project that was awarded under NAICS code 541712 that we would like to use as 1 of the 5 relevant experience projects and its in a respective pool we are appling for - that is with a classified customer and its not reported in the FPDS-NG, FPDS has confirmed that classified contracts are not reported in FPDS and cited FAR 4.603(a) and 4.606(a)(6). &nbsp;Will you accept a written confirmation from the Contracting Officer that a specific contract/task order falls under the NAICS code in lieu of that contract/task order being listed in FPDS? &nbsp;This would be similiar to the exception that already appears in L.5.3.1 of the solicitation for contract/task orders that has an incorrect NAICS code reported in FPDS.</p><p>Thanks so much</p>
Anita Sardo
<p>Do GSA Schedules (MOBIS, IT, FABS)&nbsp;qualify for points toward the requirement for award of at least 2 multiple award contracts with at least 10 total task orders combined?</p><p>Also, how will you measure scenarios where the&nbsp;project reference had no small business plan associated with the contract?&nbsp;</p>
jnaubel
<p>Hi Jim,</p><p>I have a follow-on question regarding Attachment 8. You state here and also in the draft Q&amp;A that bidders must propose pricing for all labor categories. If a bidding company does not have any actuaries on staff, for example,&nbsp;what should the basis for their pricing for the actuary categories be? I saw that you mentioned that salary surveys might be accepted in the draft Q&amp;A, but I didn&#39;t see anything else about this. Thanks!</p><p>Jennifer</p>
croot64
<p>Attachment 8 - Cost/Price Template has many labor categories that seem to span all pools.&nbsp; Is there an expectation that if a company is qualified for a single pool, Pool 1 for example, that they are required to fill out Attachment 8 in its entirety?&nbsp; </p>
OASIS Blogger
<p>All Offerors shall fill out Attachment 8 in its entirety or not be eligible for award.</p>
ClayHagan
<p>Follow-Up to Topic: Points for Demonstrated Relevant Experience that includes Small Business subcontracting at 50% or more on OASIS Full &amp; Open RFP.</p><p>Your response was greatly appreciated.&nbsp; As a follow-up to consider, we believe your pass/fail criteria and current point system across each Relevant Experience Project is&nbsp;very robust and already mitigates the gaming of the system.&nbsp; For example, the minimum threshold for a Relevant Experience Project on the Full&amp; Open RFP is $2M/year.&nbsp; Thus, to reach a 50% Small Business subcontracting level would require at least $1M/year which eliminates the possibility of a $50K gaming.&nbsp; Furthermore, 400 points per project are in play in Volume 3 in areas that encourage offerors to provide you with 5 very large Relevant Experience Projects.&nbsp; Thus, an offeror would not select a project just to get the 100 points for achieving the 50% small business threshold and then sacrifice 100 points each for $50M Project Value, 6-Core Disciplines, 5+ Locations and 4+ teaming partners. &nbsp;Additionally, since this only applies to the Full &amp; Open competition the companies submitting will likely have 50+ projects to choose from.&nbsp; If these large businesses can not find 5 Relevant Experience Projects that were large values and also met the 50% small business subcontracting level maybe that tells you something useful in your selection process.&nbsp; &nbsp;Our goal is to offer suggestions on how you might achieve additional criteria that is going to be part of the OASIS Full &amp; Open execution goals. &nbsp;We respect whatever final decision you make.&nbsp; We appreciate&nbsp;and acknowledge that you have done a great job balancing all the various critieria and scores in a transparent and open environment.&nbsp;</p>
OASIS Blogger
<p class="normal">We&rsquo;ve designed the scoring system to be as robust as possible.&nbsp; Through this collaborative process we&rsquo;ve undergone with our customers and Industry, we feel as though we have dialed in a solid approach.&nbsp; Of course, not everyone agrees and you never make everyone happy, but at least everyone involved had a voice in the matter.&nbsp; Thanks for the feedback.&nbsp; Jim</p>
ClayHagan
<p><span lang="EN" style="color: rgb(34, 34, 34); font-family: &quot;Arial&quot;,&quot;sans-serif&quot;; font-size: 9pt; mso-ansi-language: EN;">Topic: Points for Demonstrated Relevant Experience that includes Small Business subcontracting at 50% or more on OASIS Full &amp; Open RFP.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p><span lang="EN" style="color: rgb(34, 34, 34); font-family: &quot;Arial&quot;,&quot;sans-serif&quot;; font-size: 9pt; mso-ansi-language: EN;">The Small Business subcontracting goal of 50% has received a great deal of discussion across 100s of questions to the DRFPs and Blogs. The current point system does not appear to reward primes that have successfully executed at this level of small business subcontracting. As currently presented in the DRFP a Large Business that set a goal of 10% and achieved 11% would get full points while a Large Business that set a goal of 60% and achieved 59% would get no points. In response to Q&amp;A concerning&nbsp;this type of dilemma the OASIS moderator has often asked for suggestions. Please consider adding 200 points for each Relevant Experience Project that achieved at least 50% small business subcontracting. This addition is intended to compliment, not replace, the 200 points already awarded for those Relevant Experience Projects where the prime met or exceeded its Small Business Goals. Adding a complimentary set of points for actually achieving &gt;50% would help balance the points in that both of the companies above would each get half of the points. Furthermore, the current point system for Volume 4 can likely carve out the 1,000 points needed without losing the desired comparative selectivity. The point scale for the Past Performance Adjectival Rating currently applies 100 points for each 0.50 point in the Adjectival Rating with the exception of 350 points applied to the first 0.50-0.74 points above the 3.0 minimum acceptable rating. As currently presented in the DRFP going from 3.00 to 3.50 results in a delta of 350 points while going from 3.50 to 4.00 only results in a delta of 100 points. Leaving the relative scale at 100 points per 0.50 point but reducing the entry step by 200 points would result in: 150 pts &ndash; Rating 3.50 to 3.74; 200 pts &ndash; Rating 3.75 to 3.99; 250 pts &ndash; Rating 4.00 to 4.24; 300 pts &ndash; Rating 4.25 to 4.49; 350 pts &ndash; Rating 4.50 to 4.74; 400 pts &ndash; Rating 4.75 to 5.00. This would free up the 200 points per project needed to reward primes for actually achieving the 50% small business subcontracting goal without removing the relative point difference between a prime who customers rated their execution at 4.75 and versus 3.75. Please consider this change, or some other change, that would recognize and reward those offerors with proven Relevant Experience Projects that achieved 50% small business subcontracting.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
OASIS Blogger
<p>Topic: Points for Demonstrated Relevant Experience that includes Small Business subcontracting at 50% or more on OASIS Full &amp; Open RFP.</p><p>The Small Business subcontracting goal of 50% has received a great deal of discussion across 100s of questions to the DRFPs and Blogs. The current point system does not appear to reward primes that have successfully executed at this level of small business subcontracting. As currently presented in the DRFP a Large Business that set a goal of 10% and achieved 11% would get full points while a Large Business that set a goal of 60% and achieved 59% would get no points. In response to Q&amp;A concerning this type of dilemma the OASIS moderator has often asked for suggestions. Please consider adding 200 points for each Relevant Experience Project that achieved at least 50% small business subcontracting. This addition is intended to complement, not replace, the 200 points already awarded for those Relevant Experience Projects where the prime met or exceeded its Small Business Goals. Adding a complementary set of points for actually achieving &gt;50% would help balance the points in that both of the companies above would each get half of the points.</p><p><strong>Response:</strong>&nbsp; We&rsquo;ll consider the recommendation, but the points are intended to reward both the ability to establish goals and meet them.&nbsp; While we understand the point of your comment here, implementing it opens up an infinite number of other considerations.&nbsp; For example, the same consideration could be requested for a company who doesn&rsquo;t meet a percentage goal for subcontracting, but still awarded $100M to small business versus a contractor who met their goal, but only awarded $50K to small business.&nbsp; There are many similar arguable positions depending on the company you examine and the argument that favors them.&nbsp; The way the points are structured for this now follows much of the rest of the scoring system in that you either met an established goal or you did not.&nbsp; Jim</p><p>Furthermore, the current point system for Volume 4 can likely carve out the 1,000 points needed without losing the desired comparative selectivity. The point scale for the Past Performance Adjectival Rating currently applies 100 points for each 0.50 point in the Adjectival Rating with the exception of 350 points applied to the first 0.50-0.74 points above the 3.0 minimum acceptable rating. As currently presented in the DRFP going from 3.00 to 3.50 results in a delta of 350 points while going from 3.50 to 4.00 only results in a delta of 100 points. Leaving the relative scale at 100 points per 0.50 point but reducing the entry step by 200 points would result in: 150 pts &ndash; Rating 3.50 to 3.74; 200 pts &ndash; Rating 3.75 to 3.99; 250 pts &ndash; Rating 4.00 to 4.24; 300 pts &ndash; Rating 4.25 to 4.49; 350 pts &ndash; Rating 4.50 to 4.74; 400 pts &ndash; Rating 4.75 to 5.00. This would free up the 200 points per project needed to reward primes for actually achieving the 50% small business subcontracting goal without removing the relative point difference between a prime who customers rated their execution at 4.75 and versus 3.75. Please consider this change, or some other change, that would recognize and reward those offerors with proven Relevant Experience Projects that achieved 50% small business subcontracting.</p><p><strong>Response:&nbsp; </strong>This is an interesting recommendation and we will take this under consideration.&nbsp; However, for clarification purposes, the 50% subcontracting goal is the stated goal for the OASIS contract.&nbsp; The points in the scoring scheme are based on attainment of goals for each Relevant Experience project, whatever those goals might be.&nbsp; Jim.</p>
Talega80
<p>Jim,</p><p>I have a question about Mission Space. Assuming that all the basic contract requirement are meet,&nbsp;if a contract was awarded by the Department of Interior on the GSA MOBIS Schedule and the work was being perfromed for the US Air Force, would this constitute three Mission Spaces? (Mission Space 1 - DoD, Mission Space 3- GSA, &amp; Mission Space 4- Department of Interior)</p><p>Hope youhad a great 4th of July</p><p>&nbsp;</p>
OASIS Blogger
<p>Hello and thanks for the question.&nbsp; We hope you had a great holiday as well.&nbsp; For that example, we would award Mission Space credit for Mission Space 1 only.&nbsp; We are awarding credit based upon the agency whose actual requirement was supported.&nbsp; For the Relevant Experience (General) areas of Mission Space and IDIQ, we will have Offerors provide a list of contracts/task orders that we will verify in FPDS.&nbsp; Offerors will be responsible for verifying the information is in FPDS prior to proposal submission.&nbsp; In the event that an identified contract/task order is not in FPDS, the Offeror will be required to submit enough contract documentation to support the points being claimed.&nbsp; For IDIQs, this would simply be a copy of the award documents cover pages.&nbsp; For Mission Spaces, this would be whatever contract documentation would be necessary to identify the requiring agency, which in most cases, would also be the contract award document cover page.&nbsp; Jim</p>
Day2013
<p>Jim,</p><p>We are concerned with the recent proposed change with the eligibility criteria, found in Section L.5.3.1 - #5, dealing with the application of NAICS codes. Our concern is with the potential impact on small business to qualify for the OASIS program. This change appears to place more emphasis on an academic standard vs. relevant experience and &ldquo;will&rdquo; eliminate many small and mid-size companies from being eligible to compete for an OASIS award.&nbsp;</p><p>Example, we are a small business, but due to our size, experience and performance, we are currently eligible for Pools 3, 4, 5, and 6. With your proposed criteria, only NAICS codes 541330, 541711, 541712 will be used for these pools and to outline relevant experience consideration. Unwittingly, this may eliminate a number of small companies, who otherwise are proven capable to meet your experience criteria of &ldquo;integrating complex professional services across multiple disciplines&rdquo;.&nbsp; More specifically, prior to this new draft proposal, our company was able to compete in 4 of the 6 Pools, but as result of this change and NAICS codes currently associated with our projects, we are totally eliminated and no longer eligible to compete for any pools. We believe this new criteria is counter to your stated intentions to &ldquo;increase the variety between the pools and allow greater opportunity for more focused, mid-sized companies to compete on a more even playing field&rdquo;. It is also counter to the sensible approach to place emphasis on proven, verifiable and relevant experience vice an arbitrary NAICS code.</p><p>During Industry Day and in several responses to questions posted on the OASIS website, the program office stated that the purpose of the NAICS codes was to set the size standard for the pools and having a contract in the NAICS codes was not necessary. &nbsp;This made sense because the requirements of many NAICS overlap and a company could have exemplary experience with all the requirements of a NAICS without ever having a contract in that particular NAICS.&nbsp; Under the current requirement, the size standards are based on a single NAICS code/industry/line of work - switching the requirement to this focus goes against GSA&rsquo;s stated objective of having a wide spread vehicle with Pools covering many industries/disciplines for integrating complex professional services.&nbsp;</p><p>In summary:</p><p>We disagree with your change because you&rsquo;re limiting Pools 3, 4, 5, and 6 to R&amp;D and engineering companies &ndash; and only NAICS codes 541330, 541711, 541712.</p><p>Recommendation:</p><p>Remove this requirement, Section L.5.3.1 - #5, and let the relevant experience projects showcase companies&rsquo; capabilities.</p><p>Thank you!</p>
OASIS Blogger
<p>Thanks for the feedback.&nbsp; We plan on removing the NAICS code examination for Pool application from the Relevant Experience projects.&nbsp; Please see the update released on July 3rd.&nbsp; However, in Pool 3, the predominance of work performed on any given task order competed in that Pool will be Engineering.&nbsp; In Pools 4, 5, and 6 the predominance of work performed on any given task order will be Research and Development.&nbsp; In our opinion and in the opinion of our customers, the companies who obtain contracts in these Pools should be experienced in Engineering and Research and Development work as applicable.&nbsp; We are sorry you don&rsquo;t agree with this, but this seems perfectly legitimate to us.&nbsp; Jim</p>
psahady
<p>Thanks for the revised Draft RFP and communications. GSA is doing a good job of communicating on this solicitation. Many of the revisions to the Draft RFP have helped improve the solicitation.</p><p>We are very concerned with one requirement, where GSA is using NAICS codes of the offeror&rsquo;s Relevant Experience contracts to as one method to determine contractors eligibility to bid on OASIS SB and OASIS. Section L.5.3.1. Minimum Requirements for Relevant Experience Projects, on pages 89 and 90 requires that at least one Relevant Experience have a reported NAICS code that directly corresponds to the pool the contractor is responding to.</p><p>According to the US Census; &ldquo;NAICS is based on a production-oriented concept, meaning that it groups establishments into &lsquo;industries&rsquo; according to similarity in the processes used to produce goods or services.&rdquo; The intent of the NAICS code was never to classify the &ldquo;type of work performed within a contract&rdquo;, but to classify businesses into industries and set small business size standards.</p><p>According to the Federal Procurement Data System Product and Service Codes Manual, August 2011 Edition published by GSA, &ldquo;product/service codes are used to record the products and services being purchased by the Federal Government. In many cases, a given contract/task order/purchase order will include more than one product and/or service. In such cases, the Product or Service Code data element code should be selected based on the predominant product or service that is being purchased.&rdquo;</p><p>Thus, we believe that for OASIS and OASIS SB, GSA is utilizing the wrong federal classification code (NAICS) to determine the types of services on a offeror&rsquo;s Relevant Experience contract. We believe that GSA should follow their own guidance published in the FPDS PSC Manual and utilize the Product Service Codes (PSC) on contracts within FPDS to determine the types of services on a offeror&rsquo;s Relevant Experience contract, not the NAICS code that is used to loosely group companies into industries and to set small business size standards. This slight change will be beneficial to GSA as it would:</p><ul><li>provide consistency in the use of NAICS and PSC codes per their definitions and practical use by the federal government</li><li>utilize FPDS and the PSC Codes to confirm the services procured on a contract (as defined by GSA in the FPDS Manual) are appropriate for OASIS via the PSC code (Codes including &ldquo;CXXX&rdquo;, &ldquo;RXXX&rdquo;, and possibly a few others)</li><li>utilize NAICS codes appropriately to classify businesses by their actual size still utilizing the Pool groupings and definitions within the solicitation</li><li>provide GSA offerors that have the proven, past experience (via validation of PSC codes) to perform the scope of services defined within OASIS.</li></ul><p>This change also removes some of the issues and flaws with the use of NAICS codes to determine types of services procured, including:</p><ul><li>NAICS codes were never intended to be utilized to determine the services or products procured</li><li>Contracting Officers (CO) utilize NAICS codes for size standards. Thus, many times a CO will utilize a NAICS code such as 541519 to procure Project Management services and to open the bid to organizations under $25.5M, even though there are not IT services being procured. As opposed to using a NAICS code of 541611 or 541990 ($14M size standard) &nbsp;&nbsp;</li><li>Does not penalize contractors that competed above their size standard on a solicitation (For example, many procurements for OASIS type services are released under NAICS code 54151X to reach contractors within the $25.5M size standard. If the services that are procured are non-IT, OASIS type services (verifiable via the PSC), contractors that fall within the $14M size standard that win this work are the types of proven contractors GSA has stated they are looking for (proven contractors that can compete with larger organizations for OASIS type services).</li></ul><p>In speaking with other contractors, I know others have the same view point. Anyone else want to chime in here???</p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>Thanks!&nbsp; Phil</p>
OASIS Blogger
<p>Hi Phil and thanks for the feedback.&nbsp; We plan on removing the NAICS code examination for Pool application from the Relevant Experience projects.&nbsp; Please see the update released on July 3rd.&nbsp; Btw, a situation where a contracting officer intentionally uses an incorrect NAICS code to increase the size standard is both inappropriate and unethical.&nbsp; If intentional, that would likely be grounds for having his/her warrant taken away.&nbsp; Jim</p>
ginostef
<p>Jim - we do a lot of work in the classified arena, for Intel and DoD. I see it is one of the mission areas also. These projects are almost always classified. Given that&#39;s the case, I don&#39;t see a way to submit them for consideration under OASIS. Is there a process to handle s/TS/SCI level project submittals? Thanks for the continuing thread of information.</p><p>&nbsp;</p>
OASIS Blogger
<p>Please see previous response on this topic.&nbsp; Jim</p>
ginostef
<p>If any of the projects being considered are classified at the S or TS level, are they ineligible for submittal or is there a process whereby this can be accomplished?</p>
OASIS Blogger
<p>I am sorry to say that we do not have the capability to accept classified materials as part of proposals.&nbsp; We explored various options, but eventually determined that there was no satisfactory solution which we could implement while still meeting our milestone schedule.&nbsp; Data submitted as part of a proposal will thus need to be redacted.&nbsp; Jim</p>
YJHAMEL
<p>Jim,</p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>The line: &quot;<span style="color: rgb(76, 76, 76); font-family: Arial, 'Arial Unicode MS', Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 21px;">If you qualify for Pools 1, 2, and 4, <em><strong>you qualify for them all.</strong></em> What this means is that companies in the R&amp;D pools, for example, will have some demonstrated experience in doing R&amp;D work.&quot;</span></p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>By stating 1, 2, and 4 are you saying an offeror would need &nbsp;&quot;all three&quot; pools to qualify for them all or, <strong>any </strong>of the three pools (1, 2, and/or 4) would qualify the offeror for for them all?</p>
OASIS Blogger
<p>We have an upcoming blog related to Pool qualification that addresses this issue.&nbsp; Please monitor the next couple of days.&nbsp; Jim</p>
PMenard
<p>Hi Jim</p><p><strong>COMMENT: </strong>We are a small business that specializes in the Project Management, Management Consulting, and Financial Management Services which directly aligns to the scope of OASIS. We are excited about the opportunity to provide services to new customers under this new program. However, with OASIS six NAICS Pools and designated size standards, we see a critical challenge responding to or qualifying for the task orders under our core services. Because the growth our firm has experienced as a small business, we have outgrown the OASIS size standards ($14 M &amp; $19M) for the NAICS codes we perform (541611, 541618, 541219), and which our relevant experiences and contracts fall. As a result, we are challenged&nbsp;with the size standard limits outlined by GSA for this new program. The updates to this round of Draft&nbsp;RFP as you&nbsp;stated above&nbsp;that&nbsp;requires relevant experience&nbsp;for a particular NAICS to be able to qualify for a pool further complicates things.&nbsp;The size standards conflicts with our core services under the larger pool area designations, and appears we would only qualify for Pools 3-6 ($35.5M plus), which refer to Military and Aerospace Equipment and Military Weapons, Research and Development in Biotechnology or Life Sciences, Aircraft Parts, Space Vehicles, and Aircraft. These NAICS are equipment based (besides R&amp;D), and aren&rsquo;t aligned to the Core Disciplines of OASIS, which is professional services, not space vehicles, aircraft and parts. Even the R&amp;D refers to more of the life sciences and lab-type work, not the management consulting scope of OASIS that our customers would use for contracting purposes.</p><p><strong>QUESTIONS: </strong>Would GSA consider removing (or upgrading ) the size standards set for the six pool areas to allow more small businesses to qualify for OASIS? First, our firm, that provides the core disciplines that would benefit OASIS customers will probably not be able to participate as current constructed as we don&#39;t have contracts with NAICS associate with R&amp;D, Aircraft, or Space vehicles. Second, please advise how the larger Pools, particularly Pools 5 &amp; 6 pertain to the OASIS Core Disciplines for services, not equipment? Under the revised DRAFT PWS, Section L.5.3.1, it states &nbsp;that one of our 5 relevant experiences must have a reported NAICS code that applies to the pools we are applying for. Our relevant past experiences fall under Pools 1 &amp; 2 (multiple NAICS), but due to our growth we no longer qualify for those NAICS size standards. Does this imply we<strike> </strike>need relevant past experiences that only align within the NAICS codes&nbsp; for Pools 3-6? How does a growing small business where we have been successul and are currently supporting contracts with $14M NAICS participate in this opportunity if we no longer qualify from the Pools 1 and 2 size standards? OASIS isn&#39;t an option as the $ thresholds for relevant experience are too high for small businesses.</p><p>This would appear that OASIS federal customers who have managment consulting, financial consulting, or project management needs, will only&nbsp;have the smaller&nbsp;small businesses (Pools 1 or 2 only)&nbsp;to choose from, thereby severly limiting their options and not make OASIS an attractive contracting alternative.</p><p>Thanks</p><p>&nbsp;</p>
OASIS Blogger
<p>Hello.&nbsp; We see that you have asked this question before via email and we have addressed it.&nbsp; The answer has not changed.&nbsp; Simply stated, the fact that you have outgrown the size standard for the NAICS codes for which you normally perform in means that you are no longer a small business and need to apply for the appropriate Pools on OASIS and not OASIS SB.&nbsp; If you do not meet the qualifications to apply for OASIS now, then perhaps you will in the future and could be on-ramped.</p><p>OASIS and OASIS SB are competitively awarded contracts.&nbsp; No company, regardless of status, position, or current situation is entitled to be on these contracts.&nbsp; Small businesses will compete with other small businesses on the OASIS SB contract.&nbsp; It is full and open competition on the OASIS contract.&nbsp; There is no &ldquo;we were recently small&rdquo;, &ldquo;newly large&rdquo;, &ldquo;large but not large&rdquo; category.&nbsp; We hear from every self-considered &ldquo;tier&rdquo; of business imaginable.&nbsp; We can only structure the OASIS contracts to consider those recognized by law and regulation.</p><p>GSA does not establish NAICS codes or size standards.&nbsp; Clients do not have the right or authority to arbitrarily select a size standard.&nbsp; You cannot outgrow your size standard and then attempt to be on a small business set aside contract under a different size standard for the same type of work you were performing as a small business.&nbsp; This is called size standard abuse and we will not allow for it or tolerate it from contractors or clients on our contracts.&nbsp; It is illegal and completely unfair to the legitimate small business community.</p><p>Research and Development, regardless of what field it is conducted for, involves work directed toward the innovation, introduction, and improvement of products and processes.&nbsp; This involves services in all manners of disciplines including consulting, engineering, science, logistics, etc.&nbsp; Research and Development is not manufacturing.&nbsp; The size standards associated with these Pools are for Research and Development companies.&nbsp; If research and development could not be performed on the OASIS contracts, these Pools would not exist on our contracts.&nbsp; These Pools do not exist for companies who are not Research and Development companies to operate as a small business because they couldn&rsquo;t certify as a Small Business in the Pools in which they really do business.</p><p>Regarding the selection options for clients who have management consulting, financial consulting, or project management needs, the OASIS program offers two contracts.&nbsp; If a set aside is appropriate for the requirement, the client can select OASIS SB and be assured that they will obtain a well-qualified small business that is accurately considered a small business for the work being performed.&nbsp; Given the new SBA proposed rule, we feel this will make the OASIS contracts a very attractive contracting alternative.&nbsp; Jim</p>
Bill Hack
<p>When do you anticipate posting Section J-7, Subcontracting Plan Template?&nbsp; It was not provided in the earlier draft and I do not see it.&nbsp; Am I missing something?</p>
OASIS Blogger
<p>As we mentioned in the blog, we didn&rsquo;t release the attachments yet as we are still working on them.&nbsp; For this particular attachment, however, please see the Attachment 7 from the OASIS draft solicitation.&nbsp; They should be very similar.&nbsp; Jim</p>
Welcome to the One Acquisition Solution for Integrated Services Community; a forum to connect GSA’s industry partners and the federal acquisition... More

Interested in reading and reviewing OASIS pre-decisional and market research info? Click here for archived content.

  • annietran's picture
    annietran
  • katrinanmcdow's picture
    katrinanmcdow
  • kenneth.harry's picture
    kenneth.harry