Developing and submitting proposals for OASIS+ Total Small Business (TSB) can be deceptively challenging—even though GSA’s self-scoring approach is transparent, the intensive data collection and detailed verification of project experience can be overwhelming for many businesses. The following problems and challenges stood out in this effort:

1. Insufficient Qualifying Experience Projects
   Some of our clients did not have the required number of Qualifying Experience Projects (QEPs) to meet the minimum thresholds for OASIS+. Given the self-scoring nature of the solicitation, lacking even a single QEP could render an otherwise capable firm non-compliant. To address this, we tapped into our extensive Rolodex of partners and subcontractors with complementary past performance. Facilitating these partnerships allowed our clients to strengthen their proposal packages and maximize their score.
2. Discrepancies Between USG Records and FPDS
   We encountered discrepancies in the government’s interpretation of project values and durations compared to what was reflected in the Federal Procurement Data System (FPDS). At times, GSA would revise reported contract amounts or performance periods, making it critical to scrutinize all returned documentation to ensure accuracy. Any misalignment—no matter how small—could jeopardize the validity of a client’s project experience and threaten their bid.
3. Senior Leadership Misalignment and Expectations
   In several engagements, senior leadership teams were minimally involved or had a preconceived notion that a traditional “Shipley process” would directly translate to OASIS+. However, because OASIS+ did not require a classic technical or management narrative, the standard Shipley-based approach needed adaptation. Instead, the proposal work heavily revolved around gathering certifications, qualifications, past performance, and financial data. We often needed to hold targeted briefings for senior leaders to align them with the actual requirements, keep them engaged, and ensure they were prepared to provide critical approvals or clarifications at key junctures.

Despite the unique demands of the OASIS+ TSB pool, GDIC leveraged a proven, yet flexible, proposal development methodology. By combining best practices with domain-specific expertise, we guided our clients to successful contract awards. Below are key components of our approach:

1. 1. Detailed Compliance Matrices
      We created robust compliance matrices tailored specifically to OASIS+ TSB requirements. These matrices helped us break down the Qualification Matrix, documentation requirements, and self-scoring criteria into digestible tasks. We used them to track each piece of evidence—experience, certifications, financial documentation, and agency sign-offs—ensuring every requirement aligned perfectly with GSA’s instructions.
   2. Structured Battle Rhythm and Bi-Weekly Checkpoints
      To manage the highly iterative process of gathering, reviewing, and validating data, we established a battle rhythm consisting of bi-weekly status meetings. Each meeting served two purposes:
   3. Partnership Sourcing and Gap Filling
      When clients lacked sufficient QEPs, we quickly leveraged our professional network to identify potential teaming partners whose project portfolios could be integrated into the proposal. Our role involved facilitating introductions, drafting teaming agreements, and ensuring partner experience was presented in a compliant manner that maximized the total self-scoring points.
   4. Ongoing Leadership Engagement and Education
      Recognizing that some senior leadership teams had limited involvement initially, we organized tailored briefing sessions to keep decision-makers informed of crucial milestones. By clarifying the unique OASIS+ requirements—and emphasizing the heavy documentation aspect rather than a traditional narrative—we secured the leadership support needed to remove roadblocks and expedite final approvals.
   5. Comprehensive Review and Validation
      Once each client’s data package was close to final, we conducted full-spectrum reviews to cross-check compliance, verify accuracy of project data, and confirm alignment with FPDS records. Any inconsistencies flagged by GSA were systematically addressed through direct coordination with the client and relevant contracting officers, ensuring the final submission was both robust and compliant.