Welcome Login

For current information from GSA about COVID19 please click HERE

You are here

Exploring OASIS: Input Requested on Pool Qualification

We’ve been receiving feedback on the revised OASIS draft solicitations and we want to thank everyone for their diligence in helping us make the solicitations clearer, better, and stronger.  We feel, and we have heard your feedback, that releasing the draft solicitations and collaborating on ideas has been beneficial to everyone involved in the process.

Included in the revised draft solicitations, based on feedback received from both Industry and customers, we required that one of your Relevant Experience projects come from work done in each pool in which you are bidding.  This was done to ensure that Offerors actually performed on requirements where the predominance of work was appropriate for the Pools being applied for.  This approach meets that goal, but we’ve received feedback that there might be unintended consequences as a result of this approach.  Basically, that the approach forced Offerors to either submit the projects that create the highest possible overall score OR submit projects that result in a lower overall score in order to apply for more Pools.  The feedback suggested that this could result in the Government not getting the best contractors in all Pools.  We see merit in this point, and feel that we may have developed a solution that still meets the goal of ensuring that we get experienced contractors in each Pool while not forcing an Offeror to sacrifice their best projects for scoring purposes.

Fundamentally, we plan to “decouple” the Pool application projects from the Relevant Experience projects.  Similar to how we are treating Mission Space projects and MA/IDIQ projects, we intend to make the projects associated with Pool application separate from the Relevant Experience projects.  For the Pools based upon exceptions, (Pools 3, 5, and 6) we would require demonstration of work applicable to that specific pool.  For example, if applying for Pool 6, you would have to provide examples of work done for Aircraft R&D.  Of course, if your Relevant Experience projects already cover the Pools you wish to apply for, that’s fine.  The requirements in this new approach would look like this:

Pass/Fail:

Relevant Experience Projects (5 for both SB and OASIS)

  • Meet the dollar values ($750K/year each on SB – Cumulative $25M/year on OASIS)
     
  • Meet the core discipline integration requirements (3 disciplines on SB – 4 disciplines on OASIS)
     
  • Completed within the past 5 years or ongoing
     
  • Can be any type of project so long as the core disciplines are present (Federal, Commercial, State, etc)

Pool Application Projects (2 per Pool for SB – 3 per Pool for OASIS)

  • Each project reported in FPDS under a NAICS code associated with the Pool being applied for
     
  • Each project must have a Past Performance score of 3.5 or better
     
  • Completed with the past 5 years or ongoing
     
  • No dollar minimum
     
  • No core discipline requirement

Scoring System – Unchanged.

Another change that we are considering doing (based upon customer input) is establishing subpools for Pool 5.  Because the exceptions are for distinct sets of work and focused in the type of work to be performed compared to most of the Pools, we are thinking of establishing Pool 5A for Aircraft Part R&D companies and Pool 5B for Space Systems R&D companies.  Each subpool would have 20 awards.

We feel this approach would tie the predominance of scoring to the scope of the OASIS contracts (core disciplines) through the Relevant Experience Projects and their associated Past Performance while simultaneously ensuring that Offerors have successfully performed within the Pools they are applying for without having to “game” the scoring system or make decisions (based on point value) of what Pools they wish to apply for.  As always, however, we want your feedback on this approach.  Do you think this is a better approach?  Let us know.

We are in the final stages of getting the draft solicitations ready for the review process that will turn them into final solicitations.  Accordingly, your input and feedback over the next week or two is very important to us.  Again, I want to sincerely thank you all for your input and ideas.  Please continue to monitor us here on Interact as we approach the final stretch.

Jim

721
Groups audience: 
Share

Views: 1248

Comments

mgerboth
<p>I have a comment regarding Section L.5.3.1 of the draft RFP, regarding pool qualification.&nbsp; NAICS Code 562910, Environmental Remediation Services with a 500 person size standard, is assigned to procurements that are &quot;...composed of activities in three or more separate industries with separate NAICS codes or, in some instances (e.g., engineering) small sub-components of NAICS codes with separate and distinct size standards.&nbsp; Thes activities may include, but are not limited to ... Heavy Construction; Special Trade Contractors; Engineering Services; Architectural Services; Management Consulting Services; Hazardous and Other Waste Collection; Remdiation Services; Testing Laboratories; and Research and Development in the Physical, Engineering, and Life Sciences.&quot; [SBA size standard regulations at 13 CFR 121.201].&nbsp; Engineering Services (NAICS 541330), Testing Laboratories (NAICS 541380), Administrative Management and General Management Consulting Services (NAICS 541611), Other Management Consulting Services (NAICS 541618), and Research and Development in the Physical, Engineering, and Life Sciences (NAICS 541712) are five of the separate NAICS codes that may be involved in executing a project under NAICS 562910 that also correspond to one or more of the OASIS pools.&nbsp; Provided that the project information submitted identifies the work elements performed that correspond to one or more of the five NAICS codes highlighted above, it seems that projects awarded under NAICS 562910 should be allowed for pool qualification.</p>
croot64
<p>In section L.5.3.1 Minimum Requirements for Relevant Experience Projects, there is a statement that &quot;the Offeror must submit Five (5) <strong><u>distinct<u> </u></u></strong>relevant experience projects...&quot;.&nbsp; If we were awarded and performed a contract that was from 10/1/2005-9/30/2010, and then the contract was recompeted, and we won it again from 10/1/2010-9/30/2015, would each of those contracts be eligble as two distinct relevant experience projects?&nbsp; Each has unique contract numbers and periods of performance.&nbsp;</p>
OASIS Blogger
<p>Yes.</p>
ccollette
<p><strong>1.&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;Reference Page 109, L5.3 Volume 3 Relevant Experience Project NAICS Code in Section H.4.2.1. </strong>This criterion disadvantages the Government because many relevant projects either do not have an assigned NAICS code or the single NAICS code does not reflect a significant amount of the work that was performed. For example, the NAICS Code for Pool 6 is 541712; while our experience shows that the USAF Pool 6 requires all the core services, NAICS Code 541712 does not include some expert, mission-critical services delivered to the USAF.</p><p><strong>Recommendation: </strong>We suggest the requirement be changed to allow demonstration of work specific to that pool in lieu of NAICS. The demonstration would be based on the SOW, SOO, or formal reports.<br /><br /><strong>2.&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;Reference Page 93, L.5.3.3.1 Mission Spaces. </strong>Currently requires that each project be awarded/signed by a Contracting Officer within five (5) years prior to the solicitation closing date. This differs from the Minimum Requirements for Relevant Experience projects in &ldquo;L.5.3.1&rdquo;.</p><p><strong>Recommendation: </strong>Change the criterion to match page 90, subparagraph 3, L.5.3.1. Each project must have been completed within the past Five (5) years prior to the solicitation closing date; or, be ongoing with at least One (1) year of performance completed prior to the solicitation closing date; (Note: a project may be ongoing with less than One (1) year of performance only if the project has a past performance assessment completed in the Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS) and finalized in the Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS)).<br /><br /><strong>3.&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;Reference Exploring OASIS: Input requested on Pool Qualification. </strong>The Government requirement that each Pool Application project be reported in FPDS under a NAICs code associated with the Pool being applied for will exclude projects which are directly relevant to the USAF, Pool 6, but do not have a the single NAICS Code 541712 in FPDS. This requirement will exclude many competent firms whose services to the USAF would be requested under OASIS.</p><p><strong>Recommendation:&nbsp; </strong>We suggest the requirement for Pool Application Projects to be reported in FPDS under a NAICS code associated with that Pool be changed to add a second method&mdash;demonstration of work specific to that pool in lieu of NAICS. The demonstration would be based on the SOW, SOO, or formal reports.</p>
OASIS Blogger
<p>Comment: 1.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Reference Page 109, L5.3 Volume 3 Relevant Experience Project NAICS Code in Section H.4.2.1. This criterion disadvantages the Government because many relevant projects either do not have an assigned NAICS code or the single NAICS code does not reflect a significant amount of the work that was performed. For example, the NAICS Code for Pool 6 is 541712; while our experience shows that the USAF Pool 6 requires all the core services, NAICS Code 541712 does not include some expert, mission-critical services delivered to the USAF.</p><p>Recommendation: We suggest the requirement be changed to allow demonstration of work specific to that pool in lieu of NAICS. The demonstration would be based on the SOW, SOO, or formal reports.</p><p>Response:&nbsp; Thank you for the recommendation, but we respectfully disagree with it.&nbsp; Points for projects performed under an OASIS NAICS code will be provided.&nbsp; We allow for all types of projects, but feel these are more relevant.&nbsp; Jim</p><p>2.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Reference Page 93, L.5.3.3.1 Mission Spaces. Currently requires that each project be awarded/signed by a Contracting Officer within five (5) years prior to the solicitation closing date. This differs from the Minimum Requirements for Relevant Experience projects in &ldquo;L.5.3.1&rdquo;.</p><p>Recommendation: Change the criterion to match page 90, subparagraph 3, L.5.3.1. Each project must have been completed within the past Five (5) years prior to the solicitation closing date; or, be ongoing with at least One (1) year of performance completed prior to the solicitation closing date; (Note: a project may be ongoing with less than One (1) year of performance only if the project has a past performance assessment completed in the Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS) and finalized in the Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS)).</p><p>Response:&nbsp; We&rsquo;ve edited the language.&nbsp; If you have worked on the project within the last 5 years, it may be included.&nbsp; Jim</p><p>3.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Reference Exploring OASIS: Input requested on Pool Qualification. The Government requirement that each Pool Application project be reported in FPDS under a NAICs code associated with the Pool being applied for will exclude projects which are directly relevant to the USAF, Pool 6, but do not have a the single NAICS Code 541712 in FPDS. This requirement will exclude many competent firms whose services to the USAF would be requested under OASIS.</p><p>Recommendation:&nbsp; We suggest the requirement for Pool Application Projects to be reported in FPDS under a NAICS code associated with that Pool be changed to add a second method&mdash;demonstration of work specific to that pool in lieu of NAICS. The demonstration would be based on the SOW, SOO, or formal reports.</p><p>Response:&nbsp; This recommendation would have the OASIS evaluation team make a subjective determination that contracting officer assignment of NAICS code is potentially incorrect.&nbsp; We shall not do that. Jim</p>
thague
<p>Hi Jim,</p><p>Can you please provide clarification on two items:</p><ul><li>H.6.10 - Security Clearance Requirements- states that individual task order proposal will include a provision to reimburse the Government for background investigations.&nbsp; (As&nbsp;a contractor with cleared personnel, I have never heard of a contractor reimbursing the Government, nor being required to do so, when the requirement is specifically for work on a Government contract.&nbsp; Can you please advise how this is done and why this is becoming a requirement under OASIS?)</li><li>L.5.3.3.2 - Multiple Award Contracts/Task Orders - Regarding extra awarded points in scoring, we understand the requirement for the MAC to be at least 1 year in performance, however, will credit be provided for Task Orders that are less than 1 year in performance under the MAC?</li></ul><p>Thank you very much.</p>
OASIS Blogger
<p>Hi and thanks for the questions.&nbsp; Responses follow:</p><p>1.&nbsp; H.6.10 does not state that task orders will include said provision, the section states that task orders may include said provision.&nbsp; These types of requirements are handled very differently by different agencies.&nbsp; The contract requirement is to be aware of task order requirements and be flexible in responding to them.</p><p>2.&nbsp; Multiple Award Contracts:&nbsp; will credit be provided for Task Orders that are less than 1 year in performance under the MAC?</p><p>Response:&nbsp; Yes.</p>
mabel
<p>Hi Jim,&nbsp; I submitted a comment/clarification on July 17 but have not seen a response; I wanted to make sure you recieved the comment and had a chance to respond.&nbsp; You can email me at <a href="mailto:mabel@castlemar.com">mabel@castlemar.com</a> or reply directly to the comment on this system.&nbsp; Thanks&nbsp; Mark Abel&nbsp;------------------&nbsp;&nbsp; Jim,&nbsp; Appreciate your collaboration and wanted to clarify acceptability of relevant experience projects under the small business competition.&nbsp; Section L.5.3.1 states that &quot;A relevant experience &#39;project&#39; is deined as a...single task order placed under an IDIQ, &#39;Task-Order&#39; contract (FAR 16.505-1).&quot;&nbsp; In a hypothetical scenario with a small business that has a large, prime single award IDIQ, task-order contract, please confirm that each individual task order issued that meets the $750K annual revenue requirement (and other requirements), could be used as&nbsp;a separate &quot;project&quot; to meet the mimimum experience requirements.&nbsp; Thank you.</p>
OASIS Blogger
<p>So long as each order meets the requirements identified in the solicitation, that is correct.&nbsp; Jim</p>
Lori Marracino
<p>In an example where an offeror is the prime contractor on a Full &amp; Open IDIQ contract which was awarded under 541712 using the 500 size standard and which includes Aircraft R&amp;D task orders, is it &nbsp;correct to assume that those Aircraft R&amp;D task orders may be used as Pool Application Projects for Pool 6 since they qualify for the 541712 exception?</p>
OASIS Blogger
<p>That is correct.&nbsp; Jim</p>
SHHolden
<p>Jim,</p><p>As always, thanks to you and the OASIS team for sharing the draft RFP for OASIS SB and asking for industry input.&nbsp; Unfortunately, we believe the recently announced changes regarding pool qualification released on Interact on July 3, 2013, will have had the effect of reducing the number of small businesses that will qualify for Pool 3 (a critical pool for businesses of greater than $14M rolling 3-year revenue).&nbsp; Our goal is to explain what we believe to be the unintended consequences of the proposed changes and to offer alternatives that support what we believe are GSA&rsquo;s and numerous Federal agencies&rsquo; goals for this program.</p><p>As a small business intending to compete for Pool 3 we have evaluated the proposed Pool approach and wish to advise GSA of several concerns that we have.&nbsp; We believe the current approach to pool qualification for Pool 3 will not provide GSA the breadth and depth of contractors in the Pool that it seeks nor do we believe it will attract the level of &lsquo;business&rsquo; in the form of either bidders or Task Order transactions to make it a truly useful Pool.&nbsp; Rather, we believe the Ordering Contracting Officer (OCO) ordering behavior and the inherent limitations in the pool of Contractors will render Pool 3 a relatively low-utility pool which will not meet GSA&rsquo;s ambitions and will unfairly penalize companies between $14M and $35.5M in three-year rolling revenue.</p><p>Our concerns fall into three categories: (a) Pool 3 is unlikely to be used by OCOs, (b) Pool 3 will not attract the most qualified Contractors nor will competition be sufficient, and (c) the pool structure unfairly penalizes firms with between $14M and $35.5M in rolling 3-year revenue.</p><p><strong>CONCERN 1: Pool 3 is unlikely to be used by OCOs</strong></p><p>We believe that the OCOs will use OASIS SB (versus OASIS unrestricted or other vehicles) for one of two reasons; either (a) to meet a Small Business utilization goal and/or (b) due to a preference for Small Business (vice a Large Business) for the specific type of work being performed based on scope, scale etc.&nbsp; Assuming that the former reason will be a significant number of use cases OCOs there are two reasons why we believe OCOs will <u>not</u> use Pool 3 for anything but the very narrow three Exceptions for 541330 (which are primarily military in nature) thereby limiting the utility of this pool for potential federal customers.</p><p>First, we believe OCOs will want to ensure that the businesses competing for a specific Task Order will, in fact, be small in order for the Agency to receive appropriate Small Business Utilization credit.&nbsp; To get this credit the vendor awarded must be characterized as Small under the predominant NAICS code.&nbsp; We believe OCOs will only compete true 541330 Exception A, B, and C requirements under Pool 3.&nbsp; While it has certainly possible that OCOs may exercise their discretion to use pools other than those associated with the qualifying NAICS code we do not believe this will be the case as the following example will illustrate.&nbsp; For example, a requirement correctly characterized as 541810 (Advertising Agencies) but contemplated for competition under Pool 3 would be competed among businesses with revenue both greater than and less than $14M in three-year average rolling basis because both 541330 and Exception references may be used to quality for Pool 3.&nbsp; Potential bidders are therefore both <u>large and small</u> when referencing 541810, a $14M NAICS.&nbsp; Since an agency cannot be sure they will receive appropriate credit competing a 541810 requirement under Pools 2 or 3 for this reason, we therefore believe they will default to Pool 1 where they can be certain they will get the appropriate credit.&nbsp; Therefore, we believe OCOs will only compete true 541330 Exception A, B, and C requirements under Pool 3. &nbsp;</p><p>Second, as discussed above we believe Pool 3 will be used <u>only</u> for requirements where the predominant portion of the work is appropriately characterized as 541330 Exception A, B, and C.&nbsp; We understand GSA&rsquo;s requirement that a business qualify for a Pool by submitting two references exists to provide a sense of the Offeror&rsquo;s past performance and experience; in levying this requirement GSA is substantiating the argument that these two proof points are necessary to establish the performance credibility of the competing vendors.&nbsp; Yet GSA&rsquo;s recent suggested change to pool qualification requirements for Pool 3 allows firms with no experience in the three exceptions to NAICS 541330 to qualify.&nbsp; &nbsp;We are concerned that by relaxing the requirement and allowing any 541330 requirement to qualify (not the Exceptions) GSA is inadvertently creating performance risk for the OCOs.&nbsp; This change means that a firm small firm with 541330 experience (not the Exceptions) could be qualified for Pool 3 where the work will, in fact, be for an Exception scope area and thus more specialized than general engineering services.&nbsp; We question why any program officer or OCO will take the risk to use this vehicle to meet requirements for the three exceptions for NAICS 541330 when they can only be certain the firms have qualified under 541330 generic engineering services.&nbsp; Furthermore, GSA&rsquo;s relaxing of the Exception calls into question whether there are sufficient number of firms that could qualify (and thus demonstrate experience) in the three Exceptions.&nbsp; In essence, we believe the strategy shows that there is an insufficient number of qualified 541330 Exception firms yet we believe OCOs will only use Pool 3 for 541330 Exceptions.</p><p>For these reasons we believe OCOs will seldom use Pool 3 and only for the exceptional circumstances in which their requirement aligns with the 541330 Exceptions A, B, C specifically which, given the civilian nature of the majority of the likely OCOs, we believe will be in very limited cases.</p><p><strong>CONCERN 2: Pool 3 will not attract an adequate number of qualified Contractors nor will competition be sufficient</strong></p><p>We believe the manner in which Pool 3 is structured is unique in the sense of the <u>limited</u> breadth of NAICS codes associated with the pool; only three (3) <u>Exception</u> NAICS codes to 541330 (not 541330 itself) and ones that are primarily military in nature.&nbsp; This is an extremely narrow pool by comparison to Pool 1 with 21 codes and Pool 2 with 5 codes.&nbsp; A search under FPDS reveals that very few contracts have ever been awarded using these exceptions.&nbsp; A search under 541330 reveals that a total of 1,030,067 contracts have been awarded.&nbsp; Of these only 300 (or 0.03% of the total 5414330 contracts) have been awarded under the exceptions.&nbsp; Under &ldquo;Military and Aerospace Equipment and Military Weapons&rdquo; 293 contracts have been awarded; under &ldquo;Contracts and Subcontracts for Engineering Services Awarded. Under the National Energy Policy Act of 1992&rdquo; 1 contract has been awarded; and under &ldquo;Marine Engineering and Naval Architecture&rdquo; 6 contracts have been awarded.&nbsp; This strongly suggests that there are very few Contractors who will be able to provide FPDS references associated with the exceptions and as a result very few Contractors will qualify for this pool.&nbsp; If GSA elects to loosen the requirement for 541330 Exceptions A, B, and C and allow any 541330 experience to qualify this further worsens the problems alluded to above.</p><p><strong>CONCERN 3: The pool structure unfairly penalizes firms with between $14M and $35.5M in rolling 3-year revenue</strong></p><p>We believe the current plan unintentionally penalizes these critical small firms.&nbsp; As the FPDS data above indicates there is very little contract work done in the 541330 Exceptions, an assertion borne out by this data and the fact of GSA&rsquo;s intent to relax the Pool 3 qualification requirement to be 541330 in general. &nbsp;Specifically, if there were sufficient firms with Exception A, B, and C references then there would be no need for GSA to relax the requirement.&nbsp; We can therefore reasonably assume GSA concurs with this problem.&nbsp; Relaxing the requirement for 541330 Exception references would seem to alleviate the problem of the number of qualified firms for the pool by &nbsp;allowing firms larger than $14M to qualify.&nbsp; But, the assertions made in the second point of Concern 1 above suggest that this very relaxing of the requirement will make it an unattractive vehicle for OCOs, thus putting these Small $14-$35.5M businesses on a seldom used vehicle.&nbsp; We believe this will limit the participation and impact of a number of highly qualified firms with mature processes and consistently high performance and we do not see how this is in GSA&rsquo;s or our mutual customers&rsquo; best interests.</p><p><strong>RECOMMENDATIONS</strong></p><p>To address the above concerns our recommendation is for GSA to add additional several additional NAICS codes to Pool 3, specifically 541511 - Custom Computer Programming Services, 541512 - Computer Systems Design Services, 541513 - Computer Facilities Management Services, and 541519 - Other Computer Related Services to allow additional companies to qualify in Pool 3 and for the vehicle to be used more broadly and by a greater proportion of OCOs.&nbsp; Although we recognize that these additional NAICS codes are IT-related NAICS codes (at $25.5M) and OASIS is NOT an IT vehicle we believe use of these codes will open the door for a much broader range of companies in the broad range between $14 and $35.5M to participate, thus increasing both the utility and attractiveness of the pool and the capability of the awarded vendors.&nbsp;</p><p>Alternatively, and to maintain the integrity of Pool 3, GSA may wish to require Pool qualification for only the three exceptions to NAICS 541330 (and not any 541330 reference) so only those firms that are truly qualified to provide those services are eligible to submit a proposal. &nbsp;&nbsp;</p><p>One final suggestion we would make related to pool qualification would be delete the requirement for past performance evaluation.&nbsp; Pool qualification should focus on whether the firm is qualified based on the work being entered into FPDS-NG.&nbsp; The quality of the work, as measured by client evaluation, is unrelated to qualification, which is already very heavily rated under &ldquo;Relevant Experience&rdquo; and &ldquo;Past Performance.&rdquo;</p><p>We thank GSA for reviewing our comments and look forward to a successful process.</p><p>&nbsp;</p>
OASIS Blogger
<p class="normal">Wow... Thanks for the feedback and investment of time to write it all!&nbsp; ;-)</p><p class="normal">On a serious note, there are a couple of principles that need to be made clear:</p><p class="normal">1.&nbsp; Ordering Contracting Officers do not have the authority or flexibility to select a NAICS code or size standard that does not properly match their requirement.&nbsp;</p><p class="normal">2.&nbsp; All Offerors applying for Pools based on exceptions (Pools 3, 5, and 6) will have to demonstrate that the exception was indeed performed.&nbsp; This verification will be very similar to the process for identifying core disciplines on Relevant Experience projects where Offerors are required to submit excerpts of contractual documents demonstrating that the exception was performed.&nbsp;</p><p class="normal">3.&nbsp; FPDS entries do not typically identify size standard exceptions.&nbsp; Actually, we anticipate that Pool 3 will likely have the highest number of task orders and the highest amount of dollars awarded of all Pools based on Government and DoD spending habits over the past few years.&nbsp; Furthermore, there are many contractors both small and otherwise performing in this area.&nbsp; On OASIS SB, we can&rsquo;t be discriminating against companies under $35.5M because that is the only kind of companies who will be in OASIS SB Pool 3.</p><p class="normal">4.&nbsp; The OASIS contracts are not IT contracts and will never include IT NAICS codes as primary NAICS codes for work to be performed.&nbsp; However, the OASIS contracts can support non-IT requirements (like National Security Systems) with services typically considered as being IT.&nbsp; Since the Department of Defense considers IT-related functions on non-IT systems to be a subpart of systems engineering, we have had a recommendation to allow IT NAICS codes as&nbsp; Pool Qualifiers for Pool 3.&nbsp; We are currently considering this recommendation, but we will never include IT NAICS codes on the OASIS contracts.&nbsp; While the OASIS contracts may contain Ancillary IT work on non-IT requirements and/or perform work that is commonly considered to be IT work on non-IT requirements, the OASIS contracts may never be used for IT requirements.</p><p class="normal">Finally, the past performance requirement will remain on Pool Qualification projects.&nbsp; Could you imagine how our customers would feel if we allowed an Offeror to qualify for a Pool with a project that they did a horrible job on?&nbsp; We don&rsquo;t feel that a past performance floor is too burdensome or asking too much for these projects.&nbsp; Jim</p>
dwalz
<p>Jim,</p><p>The latest DRAFT RFP (OASIS SB) and the blog post,&nbsp;Exploring OASIS: Input Requested on Pool Qualification, appears to be inconsistent in the requirement for pool qualification. &nbsp;The draft RFP says that vendors can bid into Pool 3 if they can demonstrate work beneath 541330, regardless of the Exceptions. On the other hand the blog post appears to say that a vendor must have performed a project that is an exact match to the code (which would include an Exception). Please confirm that the wording in the draft RFP is correct, and that a vendor that has performed under 541330 meets the pass/fail requirement for Pool 3.</p><p>Thank you very much.</p>
OASIS Blogger
<p>The blog was issued in response to feedback based on the revised draft RFP and thus represents the next stage in the evolution of our thinking.&nbsp; The final RFPs will clearly state the requirements to qualify for a particular pool. - Jim</p>
jchickery
<div>The revised Pool Qualification requirements state that &ldquo;Each small business will need to submit 2 projects for each pool they wish to apply for an award.&rdquo; This would allow a single contract (IDIQ) that has 2 Task Orders to meet the requirements. Is that the intent? Or is the intent to provide 2 separate IDIQ contracts?</div>
OASIS Blogger
<p>Any two orders will suffice.&nbsp; The intent is to verify that the Offeror has performed under the NAICS codes associated with the Pools being applied for.&nbsp; Jim</p>
jchickery
<p>In order to be eligible to apply for a Small Business Pool, you state the Offeror must submit 2 relevant projects reported in FPDS under the NAICS code associated with the pool. However Pools 3-6 are based on exceptions and FPDS lists the base NAICS with no mention of which, if any, exception was used. Will an Offeror with less than 500 employees, and at least 2 Pool Application Projects reported in FPDS under NAICS 541712 be eligible to apply for Pools 4-6 on that basis alone or will additional substantiation for each exception be required?</p>
OASIS Blogger
<p>No.&nbsp; Actually, Pool 4 is not based on an exception.&nbsp; Pools 5 and 6 are based on exceptions.&nbsp; An Offeror with less than 500 employees and projects performed under NAICS 541712 would be eligible to apply for Pool 4.&nbsp; In order to apply for Pools 5 or 6, the Offeror would have to also provide validation that work appropriate to the applicable exception for each Pool had been performed.&nbsp; Jim</p>
cbrockwell
<p>Jim - In reference to the VOSB question already asked, I would like to expand on that to reflect that VOSB is a designated socio-economic status and is not included in the OASIS or OASIS SB listing of socio-economic types that should be considered for subcontracting plans.&nbsp; We would like to request that it be added to that listing since many VOSB firms will qualify to bid Pool 1 in particular.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Also, could you please clarify the SB subcontracting percentages and how they will be submitted under our proposals?&nbsp;&nbsp; I read the revised draft but didn&#39;t connect the dots on the purpose of SB submitting this plan and how it impacts the various types of laterals and &quot;move ups&quot;....we also are not clear why a company growing organically is different than being acquired by another firm and growing out of the NAICS / Pool.&nbsp;&nbsp; The FAR doesn&#39;t make that designation.&nbsp;&nbsp; A couple of specific questions related to past performance:&nbsp; 1) L.5.3.3 mission areas - are these the same five relevant experience citations, the NAICS Pools citations, and are these to simply meet the mission area requirements or is this further requirements for the five PP?&nbsp; 2) L.5.3.1 - please confirm if federal subcontracts that meet all experience/PP criteria can be used or if all five (or 2 for NAICS/Pool qualification) should be .&nbsp; 3) M.4.4.1 - PP - we are clear to average the total number of projects where CPARS exist so then do we multiply that number by the number of projects or 5 as shown in the scoring table?&nbsp; 4) M.4.4.1 - PP - please clarify what qualifies as a customer satisfaction survey ie D&amp;B Open Ratings, company created survey, etc.&nbsp; 5) M.4.4.1&nbsp; - PP - if our customer will provide us a copy of recent PPQs, may these be submitted as proof of PP ratings vs the one provided as an attachment to the RFP L.5.3.1 PP Rating Form?&nbsp;&nbsp;6) L.5.3.2.3 Contractual and Proposal documents - now that FPDS can be used to qualify the SB in the Pool, are these still required, desired,&nbsp;or will they be used to verify&nbsp;qualification in Pools/Core Competency areas?&nbsp; 7)&nbsp;L.5.3 - NAICS Code Reporting - if our contract documents or PPQs show the NAICS will this qualify or&nbsp;must the contract/task order be reported in FPDS or other federal database?&nbsp;&nbsp; Thanks for your consideration of these questions.&nbsp;&nbsp; Cindy (sorry for running together - I wasn&#39;t able to use enter or spacing in my entries).&nbsp;</p>
OASIS Blogger
<p>Jim - In reference to the VOSB question already asked, I would like to expand on that to reflect that VOSB is a designated socio-economic status and is not included in the OASIS or OASIS SB listing of socio-economic types that should be considered for subcontracting plans.&nbsp; We would like to request that it be added to that listing since many VOSB firms will qualify to bid Pool 1 in particular.&nbsp;&nbsp;</p><p><strong>Response:</strong>&nbsp; The categories listed mirror the categories present in our GSA regulations.&nbsp; We are not authorized to change these categories.&nbsp; Jim</p><p>Also, could you please clarify the SB subcontracting percentages and how they will be submitted under our proposals?&nbsp;&nbsp; I read the revised draft but didn&#39;t connect the dots on the purpose of SB submitting this plan and how it impacts the various types of laterals and &quot;move ups&quot;....we also are not clear why a company growing organically is different than being acquired by another firm and growing out of the NAICS / Pool.&nbsp;&nbsp; The FAR doesn&#39;t make that designation.&nbsp;&nbsp; A couple of specific questions related to past performance:&nbsp;</p><p>1) L.5.3.3 mission areas - are these the same five relevant experience citations, the NAICS Pools citations, and are these to simply meet the mission area requirements or is this further requirements for the five PP?&nbsp;</p><p><strong>Response:</strong>&nbsp; The Relevant Experience projects can be the same as the Pool Qualification projects and/or the Mission Space projects, but they do not have to be.&nbsp; Jim</p><p>2) L.5.3.1 - please confirm if federal subcontracts that meet all experience/PP criteria can be used or if all five (or 2 for NAICS/Pool qualification) should be .&nbsp;</p><p><strong>Response:&nbsp;</strong> No subcontracts will be considered for any proposal submission on OASIS or OASIS SB. Jim</p><p>3) M.4.4.1 - PP - we are clear to average the total number of projects where CPARS exist so then do we multiply that number by the number of projects or 5 as shown in the scoring table?&nbsp;</p><p><strong>Response:&nbsp;</strong> Each project will have Past Performance scored independently. Jim</p><p>4) M.4.4.1 - PP - please clarify what qualifies as a customer satisfaction survey ie D&amp;B Open Ratings, company created survey, etc.&nbsp;</p><p><strong>Response:</strong>&nbsp; The only survey authorized for submission on OASIS or OASIS SB is Attachment J.6. Jim</p><p>5) M.4.4.1&nbsp; - PP - if our customer will provide us a copy of recent PPQs, may these be submitted as proof of PP ratings vs the one provided as an attachment to the RFP L.5.3.1 PP Rating Form?&nbsp;</p><p><strong>Response:</strong>&nbsp; No.&nbsp; Jim</p><p>6) L.5.3.2.3 Contractual and Proposal documents - now that FPDS can be used to qualify the SB in the Pool, are these still required, desired, or will they be used to verify qualification in Pools/Core Competency areas?&nbsp;</p><p><strong>Response:&nbsp; </strong>They will be required for Pool Qualification Projects.&nbsp; Specific instructions for submission will be included in the solicitation.&nbsp; Jim</p><p>7) L.5.3 - NAICS Code Reporting - if our contract documents or PPQs show the NAICS will this qualify or must the contract/task order be reported in FPDS or other federal database?&nbsp;</p><p><strong>Response:&nbsp;</strong> FPDS entries or contract documents will be accepted to demonstrate NAICS.&nbsp; Jim</p>
Ann Marie Bryant
<p>I can understand that&nbsp;you need to ensure your clients that awardees of OASIS can prove that they have experiance in the specified pool.&nbsp; However, this does present a challeng for ramping between pools. Specifically, if an OASIS awardee has the appropriate&nbsp;representative NAICS&nbsp;for smaller pools and not larger ones(especially 4, 5, 6), they will not be able to ramp to those larger pools.&nbsp; This seems especially complicated for SB OASIS.&nbsp; To minimize that challenge, can GSA only require one NAICS code contract reference for pool participation. &nbsp;This may be one of the five past performance references, or contractor may provide a sixth reference for NAICS experience proof only. As you have stated previously, if the contractor provides a sixth reference for NAICS participation, this NAICS experience reference does not need to meet the past performance size criteria and will not be considered for additional point scores...it will only provide entry into the appropriate pool.</p><p>This should minimize the challenge while meeting your clients needs and maintaining the ability for a small business to grow into these larger pools.</p><p>&nbsp;</p>
OASIS Blogger
<p>Thanks for the feedback.&nbsp; We will take it under consideration.&nbsp; Jim</p>
bharris253
I have a question regarding the dollar value of Relevant Experience Projects. Reference Section L.5.3.1, Minimum Requirements for Relevant Experience Projects. Our experience indicates that the requirement for 5 prime contracts with an annual project value over $750K will be overly restrictive in the lower NAICS pools (at least in Pools 1 and 2). Smaller companies regularly manage contracts as a prime/direct awardee, demonstrating all the requirements and necessary capabilities to manage contracts on a smaller scale. Would the government consider changing the minimum eligibility requirements to 5 projects with an annual project value exceeding $250K? Thank you.
OASIS Blogger
<p>Thank you for your question.&nbsp; The answer to this frequently asked question has not changed.&nbsp; We feel that $750K is an appropriate benchmark to demonstrate complexity and integration, which are the foundation of OASIS and OASIS SB.&nbsp; We are not going to change the number.&nbsp; Our research indicates that there are sufficient companies able to meet this threshold to ensure a competitive pool of&nbsp; bidders.&nbsp; Jim</p>
bharris253
I have a questions regarding prime awards. Reference Section L.5.3.1, Minimum Requirements for Relevant Experience Projects. Will direct awards issued under a BPA held by another company qualify as a prime contract for inclusion as one of the 5 required relevant experience projects? Thank you.
OASIS Blogger
<p>Hi and thanks for the question.&nbsp; We aren&rsquo;t quite sure what you mean by the term &ldquo;direct award&rdquo;, but bottom line, if your company has an order placed by the Government with your company as the awardee, then it is a prime project.&nbsp; If your company is not the awardee, then the order is not a prime project.&nbsp; Jim</p>
JackMO
<p>Pool 3 additional NAICS codes. My bad; the hospital codes are 622110, 622210 and 622310. Useful for healthcare, telehealth, telemedicine, teleradiology, radiopharma, clinical or medical informatics, imaging, scanning.&nbsp; All of these are common functional areas for Veterans Affairs, all branches of the military and rural affairs as well. Thus Federal customers that could use OASIS pool 3 might include USAC/FCC, USAF, NAVY, Marines, Army, DoD, VA and HHS.</p>
Lois Takara
<p>Good morning Jim-In your blog post dated 07/03/2013 2:27 PM, you provided new information regarding Pool Application Projects.&nbsp; We have several questions about this proposed new requirement:</p><p>1. If our Relevant Experience Projects cover the Pools for which we plan to propose, how does that work for their use as Pool Application Projects? If, for example, 3 of our 5 Relevant Experience projects have a NAICS Code of 541712 and demonstrate Aircraft Parts, Space Vehicle, and Aircraft Research &amp; Development, would we then be able to propose in Pools 4, 5, and 6 without also providing these projects as Pool Application Projects?</p><p>2. Along a similar line, can the same projects be used as Pool Application Projects for multiple Pools? For example, if we have three projects with NAICS Code 541330, which either were awarded with the $35.5M size standard exception or can demonstrate Engineering Services work in Military and Aerospace, can these projects be used to apply for both Pools 1 and 3?</p><p>3. Finally, the Pool Application Projects require a Past Performance score of 3.5 or better, yet there is no dollar minimum associated with these projects (which we appreciate).&nbsp; If the Pool Application Projects are under the minimum dollar requirement for CPARS, will it be acceptable for Offerors to use the past performance rating form provided for Relevant Experience Project performance to obtain feedback from customers on these Pool Application Projects to demonstrate the acceptable level of performance?</p>
OASIS Blogger
<p>Hi Lois,</p><p>Our responses to your three questions are as follows:</p><p>1. If our Relevant Experience Projects cover the Pools for which we plan to propose, how does that work for their use as Pool Application Projects? If, for example, 3 of our 5 Relevant Experience projects have a NAICS Code of 541712 and demonstrate Aircraft Parts, Space Vehicle, and Aircraft Research &amp; Development, would we then be able to propose in Pools 4, 5, and 6 without also providing these projects as Pool Application Projects?</p><p>Response:&nbsp; Yes, that is correct.&nbsp; We are updating the attachments and solicitations now to clarify the instructions for submittal.&nbsp;</p><p>2. Along a similar line, can the same projects be used as Pool Application Projects for multiple Pools? For example, if we have three projects with NAICS Code 541330, which either were awarded with the $35.5M size standard exception or can demonstrate Engineering Services work in Military and Aerospace, can these projects be used to apply for both Pools 1 and 3?</p><p>Response:&nbsp; Yes.</p><p>3. Finally, the Pool Application Projects require a Past Performance score of 3.5 or better, yet there is no dollar minimum associated with these projects (which we appreciate).&nbsp; If the Pool Application Projects are under the minimum dollar requirement for CPARS, will it be acceptable for Offerors to use the past performance rating form provided for Relevant Experience Project performance to obtain feedback from customers on these Pool Application Projects to demonstrate the acceptable level of performance?</p><p>Response:&nbsp;&nbsp; Yes.</p><p>Jim</p>
ClayHagan
<p>This comment is in reference to the idea of subpools for 5A and 5B. Please consider awarding the first 40 based on the highest score much like would occur in Pools 1-4 and then making additional awards under whichever subpool you feel is under-represented.</p><p>As a practical manner we have not been able to determine which exception (B or C) was used in making 541712 (size standard 1,000 employees) awards by the Army Aviation and Missile Life Cycle Management Command (AMCOM).&nbsp; We have examined all our RFPs, TORFQs, and award documents and they all either only list &ldquo;541712&rdquo; or they state &ldquo;NAICS 541712 and a size standard of 1,000 employees, will apply.&rdquo; No mention of exception&nbsp;B or&nbsp;C can be found in any of these documents. We then examined <a href="http://www.fpds.gov/">www.FPDS.gov</a> which only listed 541712 with no mention of which, if any, exception was used.&nbsp; We then examined well over 150 TORFQs on AMCOM EXPRESS and not a single one clarified if exception B, C, or both were applied to achieve the 1,000 employee size standard.&nbsp; While it is possible that this situation is unique to AMCOM since they are responsible for both missiles and aviation as well as the integration of missiles onto aircraft, it is also possible that this classification problem may be wide-spread. In light of the above, how does OASIS desire contractors to deal with subpools 5A &amp; 5B when their work on contracts involves both Aircraft and Missiles?</p>
OASIS Blogger
<p>That is an interesting recommendation that we will take under consideration.&nbsp; With regards to projects that deal with Research and Development for both Aircraft and Missiles, that would qualify an Offeror to apply for both subpools.&nbsp; Jim</p>
ClayHagan
<p>It is very refreshing to see such open exchanges and request for feedback as your team attempts to mitigate any unintended consequences from the draft point system. As you stated, the previous draft point system ensured that Offerors actually performed on requirements where the predominance of work was appropriate for the Pools being applied for.&nbsp; A potential &ldquo;gaming&rdquo; that would result in the Government not being presented the best projects would be the case where an Offerors best projects might have been on 541712 but due to the need to list at least one project in each pool the Offeror would have to use a 541360 project (Pool 1), a 541720 project (Pool 2), a 541330 project (Pool 3), and only two 541712 projects.</p><p>However, the first draft of the new approach appears to create a new unintended consequence in that &ldquo;Relevant Experience&rdquo; Projects from NAICS that do not appear in any OASIS Pool could be used.&nbsp; Thus, an Offerer could submit a &ldquo;Relevant Experience&rdquo; Project awarded with NAICS 541519 for OASIS despite the fact that 541519 does not show up in any OASIS Pool. Please consider adding to the Pass/Fail criteria of the new approach&nbsp;a requirement that each Relevant Experience Project must use a NAICS that is within the set of NAICS for the Pools that the Offerer is applying for.&nbsp; Thus, if an Offeror is applying for Pools 1-6 they could provide any combination of the 28 NAICS&rsquo; listed for OASIS.&nbsp; Likewise, if an Offeror is applying for Pools 5-6 then all Relevant Experience Projects must be 541712 NAICS.</p>
OASIS Blogger
<p>Thanks for the feedback, but we feel that we have addressed this by providing additional points if the project has an OASIS NAICS code assigned to it.&nbsp; The Relevant Experience projects are tied to the OASIS scope (core disciplines).&nbsp; The Pool Application projects demonstrate experience within a given Pool.&nbsp; We feel the balance between these two types of projects, along with the scoring mechanism, mitigates the concern you express.&nbsp; Jim</p>
Lois Takara
<p>Good evening Jim-In your blog post on this topic dated 07/10/2013 2:25 PM, you seemed to indicate that a company can win awards in both Subpools 5A and 5B.&nbsp; First, we would like to clarify that a company may propose in and win awards in both Pool 5 subpools, 5A and 5B, if in fact the Pool is split. If this is the case, we are concerned that creating the subpools may have an unintended result.</p><p>It is our experience that many of the companies that have Research &amp; Development (R&amp;D) experience in Space Vehicles also have experience in Aircraft R&amp;D, especially large companies. Splitting Pool 5 into two subpools and limiting the awards to 20 per subpool may easily result in the same 20 companies receiving awards in both subpools; thus having the unintended result of limiting the total awards across the two subpools to 20 awards for Pool 5. We recommend that if you go forward with the two subpools for Pool 5 that you set a minimum of 40 awards across the subpools to ensure adequate competition for Pool 5 overall.</p>
OASIS Blogger
<p>Thanks for the feedback, but this is not consistent with the opinion of our clients.&nbsp; Jim</p>
Brandon Smith
<p>Can a company with less than 1500 (more than 1000) employees but no projects reported in FPDS under a NAICS code associated with the pool (NAICS 541712) meet the qualification for relevant experience and pool application projects assuming the company has projects that meet the core disciplines and mission areas outlined in the draft RFP reported in FDPS under other NAICS?&nbsp;</p>
OASIS Blogger
<p>No.&nbsp; If you have no projects associated with a Pool, then you may not apply for that Pool.&nbsp; Jim</p>
mike.carrier@cs...
<p>With regard to the draft Oasis requirements i say &quot;less is more&quot;. &nbsp;Every time GSA moves away from what it permitted under the FAr or current SBA guidelines they create and avenue for discontent and an area of possible protest. &nbsp;Stick to the FAR and the SBA rulings. &nbsp;Do not plave dollar limits on past performance/experience. &nbsp;Small businesses are to be evaluated based on &quot;potential&quot; otherwise they would never grow. &nbsp;There are plenty Small Businesses who do not have a contract with an annualized value of $750K. &nbsp;And there are plenty of very highly revelant tasks that could fit under the NAICS codes identified that would be less than $750K. &nbsp;Performance evaluations will be provided by the Government, relevance should also be evaluated by the Government at the task order level. &nbsp;Three past performance should be sufficient for a company to demonstrate experience and the capability to succeed, especially when combined with performance evaluations. &nbsp;Finally why limit the number of awardees? &nbsp;O good company is a good company. &nbsp;The more the merrier let us compete at the task order level. &nbsp; &nbsp;</p>
OASIS Blogger
<p>Response:&nbsp; Thank you for the feedback.&nbsp; The OASIS contracts are competitive contracts for complex professional service requirements.&nbsp; We feel that the dollar value requirements are necessary as they represent complexity and integration.&nbsp; We know that dollar value is not a strict one-to-one map to complexity, but it is an indicator.&nbsp; Lower dollar value generally represents fewer people and at a certain point, how much complex integration is going on on a project with only a handful of people?&nbsp;&nbsp; Regarding the number of awardees:&nbsp; our goal is to ensure healthy competition at the task order level while also ensuring a high-level of quality such that customers know that, whoever wins their task, they will be getting a great solution provider.&nbsp; We feel that forty is sufficient to ensure healthy competition while still maintaining a standard of excellence.&nbsp; It is also integral to our objective scoring approach to set a limit to the number of awards.&nbsp; We will continuously monitor competition levels and activate on-ramps as necessary to ensure that we are getting enough good bids to satisfy our customers&rsquo; needs.&nbsp; - Jim</p>
psahady
<p>On your 07/03/2013 2:27 PM blog post you mentioned that &ldquo;The Pool Application Projects can be ANY project an Offeror has performed on within the past 5 years.&rdquo; Since an emphasis was placed on the word &ldquo;ANY&rdquo;, please confirm that a contractor can utilize a subcontract project where the prime contract was classified within a NAICS code for that pool as a Pool Application Project.</p>
OASIS Blogger
<p>Hi and thanks for the question.&nbsp; Subcontracting work will not be allowed or considered for any proposal submission on the OASIS contracts.&nbsp; This will not change.&nbsp; Jim</p>
mvanchau
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 8pt;"><b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><span style="line-height: 107%; font-size: 12pt; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt;"><font color="#000000"><font face="Calibri">Risks in limiting capable completion by incorporating Subpools<o:p></o:p></font></font></span></b></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 8pt;"><span style="line-height: 107%; font-size: 12pt; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt;"><font color="#000000"><font face="Calibri">Like many other companies who are likely to participate in Pools 5 and 6, we have invested significant time and energy to develop engineering and R&amp;D processes along with capabilities that can be applied equally to advanced technology systems such as aircraft and spacecraft.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">&nbsp; </span>We have met frequently with both aircraft and spacecraft R&amp;D customers over the past several years to discuss the issue of applicable capability and experience.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">&nbsp; </span>Without exception, they all concur that a company demonstrating strong R&amp;D capability for spacecraft systems is fully qualified to work on an R&amp;D contract for aircraft systems, and vice versa.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">&nbsp; </span>We have also competed on contracts under the 541712 NAICS code when our relevant experience citations did not match the technical disciplines associated with the relevant size standard exception, and were determined to have highly relevant experience.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">&nbsp; </span><o:p></o:p></font></font></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 8pt;"><span style="line-height: 107%; font-size: 12pt; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt;"><font color="#000000"><font face="Calibri">The proposed change to incorporate subpools under Pool 5 may add risks to competition and innovation by creating a perception with potential OASIS customers that companies categorized in one subpool may not be qualified to perform the requirements of another subpool.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">&nbsp; </span>If implemented, the requirement could have the effect of restricting companies from expanding into new disciplines or competing equally under Pool 6 when they have all the necessary technical qualifications, solely because they have not applied these qualifications to a specific platform.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">&nbsp; </span>It could also limit the ability of customers to achieve the benefits of applying novel spacecraft R&amp;D techniques to aircraft and novel aircraft R&amp;D techniques to spacecraft.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">&nbsp; </span>Since the customers who use the R&amp;D services in Pools 5 and 6 are predominantly DoD or NASA customers, the potential exists that implementation of this requirement could result in adverse impacts to mission requirements.<o:p></o:p></font></font></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 8pt;"><span style="line-height: 107%; font-size: 12pt; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt;"><font color="#000000"><font face="Calibri">We strongly recommend that the OASIS team eliminate any requirement for OASIS offerors to demonstrate contractual experience on a specific type of system as a pre-requisite for award of a contract in subpool categories.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">&nbsp; </span>We recommend that the evaluation focus on the specific technical capability required by the NAICS code itself (i.e., Engineering and R&amp;D Services) and not on the often arbitrary differences between the types of systems reflected in the size standard exceptions.<o:p></o:p></font></font></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 8pt;"><span style="line-height: 107%; font-size: 12pt; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt;"><font color="#000000"><font face="Calibri">For clarification, will awardees who qualify for Pool 6 but are categorized under one subpool in Pool 5 not be able to compete under Pool 6 if the Task Order focus is either spacecraft or aircraft, or both?</font></font></span></p>
OASIS Blogger
<p>We appreciate the feedback, but the input we have received from our clients does not coincide with your message.&nbsp; However, we will discuss this point with them based on your question.&nbsp; With regards to your question, while we aren&rsquo;t sure we fully understand the question, we can clarify Pool competition.&nbsp; If we implement subpools 5A and 5B, Offerors will be able to compete in whichever pool or subpool they receive a contract for.&nbsp; If you win an award in Pool 5A only, then that is the only Pool you may compete in.&nbsp; If you win an award in Pool 5B only, then that is the only Pool you may compete in.&nbsp; No awardees from Pool 5A or 5B will be able to compete in Pool 6 unless they win a Pool 6 award in addition to a Pool 5A or 5B award.&nbsp; The Pools and subpools are separate and distinct.&nbsp; Offerors may apply for multiple Pools, but only Offerors who win awards in a given Pool will be able to compete for task orders issued within that Pool.&nbsp; Jim</p>
David Zivich
<p>Jim,&nbsp; For qualifying Relevant Experience projects awarded&nbsp;prior to&nbsp;2007, NAICS 541710 was used, as NAICS 541711/541712 were not yet defined.&nbsp; Will NAICS 541710 be mapped into OASIS SB Pools 4, 5 and 6, and be acceptable for both the award of technical points under L.5.3.2.2&nbsp; Relevant Experience under an OASIS NAICS Code, as well as, Pool qualification?&nbsp; Thanks.</p>
OASIS Blogger
<p>Yes, NAICS 541710 is acceptable for those pools.</p>
JackMO
<p>Has the set-aside categories been expanded to include VOSBs? I also have not seen anything to indicate the expansion of NAICS codes for Pool 3 beyone the 541330 exceptions. I note that 541711 and 54172 (R&amp;D); 62110, 62210, 62310 for Hospitals; &nbsp;as well as the 334 computer and electronic manufacturing series would allow for a greater volume and diversity of bidders for Pool 3. Did I miss such an update?</p>
OASIS Blogger
<p>Hi and thanks for the questions.&nbsp; The FAR does not authorize set-asides for VOSBs.&nbsp; Accordingly, the OASIS contracts shall not either.&nbsp; You didn&rsquo;t miss any updates.&nbsp; Pool 3 has a $35.5M size standard based on an exception to NAICS code 541330.&nbsp; NAICS codes 541711 and 54712 are already included in Pool 4 with the appropriate size standard.&nbsp; There is no such NAICS codes as 62110, 62210, or 62310.&nbsp; Computer and electronic manufacturing are not within the scope of OASIS.&nbsp; Jim</p>
rick_meggison
<p>Jim, these are great changes.&nbsp; In your description you mentioned that for both Relevant Experience Projects (5 for both SB and OASIS) and Pool Application Projects (2 per Pool for SB &ndash; 3 per Pool for OASIS) that the referenced past performance &quot; Completed with the past 5 years or ongoing&quot;.&nbsp; Does that remove the small business inhibitor of a requirement for a minimum of one year&#39;s performance?&nbsp;</p>
OASIS Blogger
<p>For the pool application projects, there is no one year performance minimum.&nbsp; For the Relevant Experience (RE) projects, the requirements have not changed.&nbsp; For RE projects, we require a minimum of one year of performance or to have had the CPARS process completed for a shorter amount of time.&nbsp; Jim</p>

Pages

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