The client had an impressive portfolio of technology-driven service offerings. However, all of their past performances were as a subcontractor. They wanted to pursue three domains—T&E, M&A, and Intel—under the 8(a) category. However, they had limited contract documentation to support their claims against the size, relevancy, and complexity criteria.

An offeror needed to show relevant work for each domain, whether as a CLIN, Task Area, set of LCATs, or percentage of funding. If pursuing multiple domains, they needed to calculate and demonstrate the value of relevant work for each one individually, rather than applying 100% to each. The subcontract award documents lacked detail, and distributing the workshare across the target domains posed a challenge. In addition, the client was losing critical points due to a lack of any federal and/or IDIQ experience.

The client also lacked key industry certifications, credentials, and security clearances, resulting in an insufficient score to meet the threshold for an award under any of the targeted domains. The RFP had already been published, leaving no time to secure additional credentials or undergo audits. Moreover, no subcontract arrangement could be materialized that might have strengthened the past performance portfolio.

Faced with these challenges, the client began reconsidering its decision to bid on OASIS+ altogether.

Our client came to us when the RFP was in the solicitation stage, requesting eligibility evaluation, capture management, and proposal development services. We began with several strategic meetings involving assessment, identification, and mapping of the best combination of qualified contracts. Following these sessions, we developed a comprehensive proposal development plan with a single goal: securing one of the awards for our client in this multiple-award solicitation. Our proposal roadmap consisted of the following components:

1. Phase 0 – Eligibility Assessment (Qualification)

GDIC conducted a comprehensive assessment to determine whether the client met the minimum scoring threshold, evaluating key criteria such as the size, relevance, and scalability of past contracts within applicable service domains. We also verified compliance with socioeconomic qualifications, regulatory requirements, and essential industry credentials.

A preliminary eligibility assessment identified existing gaps. Even with certain assumptions, the client barely reached the 36-point threshold in only one of the three domains. Our next objective was to identify qualified contracts (QPs) and develop the necessary artifacts based on those assumptions.
The client’s trust in GDIC’s expertise and proven track record provided the confidence needed to move forward, allowing us to craft a strategic approach aimed at achieving a successful outcome.

2. Phase I – Collect & Verify Evidence for the Target Score

The GDIC Proposal Team collaborated closely with the client to gather essential artifacts, including subcontract documents issued by the prime contractor. However, since these documents did not explicitly outline the detailed scope of work relevant to the OASIS+ target domains, we conducted extensive research using SAM.gov, GovWin, and other sources to obtain the prime contractor’s scope of work documentation. Additionally, we collected invoices billed to the prime contractor for the relevant contracts to further substantiate the claims.

For each qualified contract (QP) proposed, we conducted a thorough scope assessment to ensure domain relevance, capturing distinct labor categories, Full-Time Equivalent (FTE) counts, and invoiced values. To establish compliance with the proposed NAICS codes, we developed a strategy for completing J.P-3 forms for each QP.

Leveraging our proprietary AI tool, extensively trained for OASIS+ evaluations, we systematically extracted and populated relevant data from the available artifacts under the 8(a) category. The tool optimized the best combination of qualified contracts, achieving a target score of 39—successfully surpassing the threshold for both Technical & Engineering (T&E) and Management & Advisory (M&A) domains. However, the score for the Intelligence (Intel) domain initially stood at 34, raising concerns.

To address this, we reconfigured the QP combinations, ultimately meeting the threshold for the Intel domain. This required strategic redistribution of workshare across different domains, ensuring an optimal balance while maintaining compliance with OASIS+ evaluation criteria.

3. Phase II – Proposal Package Development

In this phase, we tagged, highlighted, and cross-referenced the artifacts for the shortlisted qualified projects (QPs) under OASIS+ to ensure clarity, accuracy, and compliance with GSA’s evaluation criteria. We populated the J.P-3 forms for each domain with the relevant scope of work and required attributes from the contract documents.

The OASIS+ scoring system on the Symphony Portal required bidders to provide clear and verifiable evidence supporting their qualifications, past performance, and technical capabilities. Proper tagging and highlighting were essential to help evaluators quickly locate and validate key information within large volumes of documentation, reducing the risk of missing critical details.

For each evaluation factor, we cross-referenced artifacts across multiple sections of the proposal to ensure consistency and demonstrate alignment with the specific scoring requirements. Our approach minimized ambiguity, strengthened the credibility of claims, and improved the likelihood of earning maximum points in the evaluation process.

Though pricing was not scored, reasonableness was a mandate. We advised on and cross-verified the proposed price, comparing rates against benchmarks such as Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) data and prevailing market rates.

Our QA Team conducted PINK, RED, and GOLD reviews to ensure that the proposal package was compliant and scored as needed. Given the client was barely exceeding the threshold for the OASIS+ 8(a) category under the T&E, M&A, and Intel domains, our well-organized approach ensured no points were lost—ultimately enhancing their chances of award.

4. Phase III – Proposal Upload & Post-Upload QA

To facilitate a seamless and accurate submission, GDIC leveraged a comprehensive checklist that included detailed artifact mapping, standardized naming conventions, appropriate tags, and a structured order. Our team collaborated via Microsoft Teams, using shared-screen coordination to keep the client informed during the upload process.

Maintaining an error-free, well-structured, and fully compliant submission was critical in preventing disqualifications or scoring penalties, thereby maximizing the client’s evaluation success. GDIC’s Quality Assurance (QA) Team conducted a final compliance review of the uploaded data in the Symphony Portal, ensuring that all artifacts were accurately uploaded, properly tagged, and correctly cross-referenced.

5. Post-Submission Services

Following the client’s proposal submission, GDIC provided ongoing support throughout the evaluation process, assisting in responding to inquiries from the contracting officer. We facilitated the client’s acknowledgment of new amendments, requests for proposal validity extensions, and adjustments to contractual terms as required.

We assisted in responding to clarifications related to the compensation plan, overtime policy, and basis of pricing. Our team collaborated via Microsoft Teams to efficiently upload clarifications, submit requested artifacts, and process signed amendments. As the government announced contract awardees in multiple phases, our client was successful under all three proposed domains: M&A, T&E, and Intel.

GDIC concluded this several-month engagement by conducting a comprehensive review, capturing lessons learned, and identifying strategic insights to enhance the success of future proposals.