The OASIS+ Recompete Clock: Which Incumbents Are Vulnerable in 2026

Every IDIQ starts the same way: agencies lean on the incumbents they already trust. Three to four years in, that trust ossifies into a task-order concentration problem — and the agencies start looking for a reason to spread the work. That's the moment small-to-mid primes are supposed to be ready for. Most aren't.

Executive summary

OASIS+ is only two years into its ordering life and the observable spend map is already narrow. Scout's Lens A query — USASpending task orders whose description cites OASIS+ or its OASIS predecessor, 36-month window, filter block disclosed in the methodology section below — returns 97 orders worth $134.9M in obligations and $364.1M in ceiling value. A single incumbent, Intuitive Research and Technology Corporation, holds $84.1M of that (29 orders, 62% of observed obligations). Deloitte Consulting sits second at $21.0M; the rest of the observed top ten splits roughly $30M across seven firms.

The pattern matters because it's happening just as the vehicle enters its first real recompete window. Observed OASIS+ task-order spend jumped 2.9× between CY2024 ($28.1M) and CY2025 ($82.6M) as pools stood up and initial bridge orders closed — which means a meaningful chunk of today's awards will hit period-of-performance end dates in 2026–2027. Agencies uncomfortable with single-vendor concentration on a vehicle designed to spread work across 1,000+ primes will look for cover to re-solicit. That is the window.

The Lens A finding is reinforced by a Lens B signal that's harder to dismiss: across the four R-series PSCs OASIS+ was designed to compete for (R425, R499, R408, R706), 47–54% of awards are single-offer in the broader $135.7B professional-services universe — not a statistic about OASIS+ specifically, but about the market OASIS+ sits inside. Half of that market is being awarded today without real competition. Which means half the work hitting recompete windows is fundamentally contestable if a credible second bidder shows up.

This report names the incumbents, quantifies the concentration, maps the expiry timeline, and identifies four displacement lanes where small-to-mid primes on OASIS+ pools have a realistic shot. Two measurement lenses are disclosed upfront so readers can see where the numbers come from and where the underlying public data has gaps.

How to read this report — the two-lens view

Measuring OASIS+ activity honestly is harder than it looks, and we want to be explicit about that upfront. The vehicle is young, the ordering data in USASpending doesn't carry a clean “this was awarded under OASIS+” flag, and any single filter captures either more or less than the actual footprint. So we run two lenses in parallel and disclose what each one sees.

Lens A — Direct observation (lower bound). A USASpending keyword filter for “OASIS+ task order” applied to the free-text award description, plus predecessor OASIS bridge orders that carry forward. This captures only task orders where the vehicle is named in the description. It is therefore a conservative lower bound on OASIS+-specific activity. Every incumbent name, dollar figure, and concentration statistic in the body of this report is drawn from Lens A — because when we name an incumbent and call them vulnerable, we want the underlying task order to be verifiable in public records.

Lens A totals: 97 orders, $134.9M obligated, $364.1M ceiling, 36-month window.

Lens B — OASIS+-eligible PSC universe (upper bound). OASIS+ is built around seven published domains (Management & Advisory, Technical & Engineering, R&D, Intelligence, Environmental, Facilities, and Logistics), each of which maps to a well-defined cluster of Product Service Codes. Lens B sums obligations across four R-series professional-services PSCs most directly tied to OASIS+ domains over a 24-month window. It is not the OASIS+ footprint — those PSC obligations also flow through GSA MAS, Alliant 3, CIO-SP4, agency IDIQs, and standalone contracts — but it is the upper bound on what the vehicle could plausibly absorb.

That gap is the headline of this methodology section. The observable OASIS+ activity in Lens A is roughly 0.1% of the four-PSC professional-services universe that OASIS+ was designed to compete for. We are not claiming the other 99.9% “should” be flowing through OASIS+ — the other flow channels (GSA MAS, Alliant 3, CIO-SP4, agency IDIQs) are legitimate and long-established. What the gap tells you is that the real OASIS+ footprint almost certainly sits meaningfully above Lens A, and that agency concentration-reduction pressure, when it hits, has a very large adjacent pool to redirect into.

One finding in Lens B reinforces the displacement thesis more than any single Lens A statistic: across all four PSCs, single-offer awards range from 47% to 54% of transactions (R425: 50.2%, R499: 53.6%, R408: 52.5%, R706: 46.9%). Median offer count is 1 in three of the four. In other words, roughly half of the broader professional-services market is awarded without real competition today — and half the work sitting on recompete windows is therefore fundamentally contestable if a credible second bidder shows up. That is a category-level tailwind for any small-to-mid prime willing to invest in RFI responses and industry-day presence on named-target task orders.

The real OASIS+ footprint sits between the two bounds. We publish both numbers rather than pick one, because picking one is where market-intelligence errors compound. The filter block for every figure in this report is named explicitly in the methodology section at the end.

Three consistent scope rules across both lenses: IDIQ base vehicles are excluded (we count orders, not masters); records under $100K are outside Scout's cache by design; and all queries were run live on April 23, 2026.

Task area breakdown — where the money went

PSC-level grouping reveals the actual shape of OASIS+ demand. Three product service codes account for virtually all of the obligated dollars Scout surfaced:

The takeaway is uncomfortable for incumbents: one PSC (AC23) and one awardee carry the headline number. Strip that anchor out and OASIS+ / OASIS task order spend in Scout's window shrinks from $134.9M to roughly $50.9M spread across 96 orders — a $530K average. That's a recompete environment where small and mid-size primes can realistically compete on price, past performance, and agency relationships.

Incumbent vulnerability analysis

Scout's top-awardee view tells a concentration story that capture teams should read closely. The table below is every OASIS+ incumbent with more than one order in the 36-month window:

The concentration signal

Federal acquisition policy gets uncomfortable when a single vendor holds a dominant share of an IDIQ's obligations. Scout's transaction data shows Intuitive Research alone carrying 62% of the OASIS+ / OASIS task order spend we captured, with Deloitte at 16%. That's before you consider Intuitive's broader DoD footprint — $1.45B obligated across 41 contracts in Scout's 7-year cache, 22 of them under NAICS 541715 (R&D in Physical, Engineering, and Life Sciences).

This is not a criticism of Intuitive's performance. It's a structural observation about concentration risk on a flagship vehicle designed to spread professional-services spend across 1,000+ primes. When SBA, OIG, or GAO starts asking why 62% of identifiable OASIS+ task orders run through one awardee, contracting officers respond with one of two levers: broader competition on the next task order, or pool-level set-aside pressure on the recompete.

Past performance gaps to exploit

Three patterns in the incumbent data give capture teams defensible positioning on the next wave of OASIS+ task orders:

• Single-offer awards are 16.7% of OASIS+ task order transactions (Scout offers_summary). Median offer count is 2, average is 3.3 — signal that broader outreach routinely surfaces new bidders on the second go-round.
• Bridge orders from predecessor OASIS expired in mid-2023 without clean competition. Scout's recompete view shows CFTC's $694K data-analytics bridge with OASIS Systems LLC, DHS's $2.9M HM&E ship-systems bridge with Insight Technology Solutions, and USAID's $38.5M ASAP task with IntraHealth all ended before the OASIS+ ordering ramp — the scope didn't disappear, it moved under-the-radar.
• Sub-$500K task-order averages at Insight Technology Solutions, Solutions Through Innovative Technologies, Vector CSP, and Perspecta are the easiest recompete targets for on-contract small primes. Individual orders are small enough that agency relationship and technical fit beat scale every time.

Displacement opportunity map for small-to-mid primes

Scout's set-aside view of OASIS+ task orders shows where the small-business door is already open:

The structural problem for the incumbents: OASIS+ was designed with dedicated SB, 8(a), HUBZone, WOSB, and SDVOSB pools, and contracting agencies are under continuous small-business-goal pressure. The 14% of activity currently flowing through set-aside task orders is well below what agency small-business targets imply — which means set-aside task-order share should rise materially over the next 12–18 months.

The four realistic displacement lanes

Based on PSC concentration, incumbent vulnerability, and set-aside gap analysis, four capture lanes carry the highest win probability for small-to-mid primes sitting on an OASIS+ pool:

1. R499 Professional Support at HHS. Deloitte currently holds 8 orders worth $21.0M in this cluster. HHS is the agency most likely to convert a large-business R499 recompete into an SB set-aside or a reserved-pool task order, particularly as the 2024–2025 orders hit option years. Small primes with clinical-program, policy-analysis, or data-modernization past performance should pre-position now.

2. R425 Engineering/Technical Support at DoD service commands. Scout shows $39.7M across 8 orders, largely Army and Navy. The incumbent names that recur — Intuitive Research, Systems Plus, Insight Technology Solutions — are strong but beatable on scope-carved task orders, especially where the agency has a published small-business or SDVOSB goal.

3. Sub-$500K task-order band across civilian agencies. Twenty of Solutions Through Innovative Technologies' 20 orders and six of Perspecta Engineering's six orders sit under this threshold. Micro-recompetes favor on-contract primes with existing agency relationships and fast-turnaround cost proposals — not large-business scale.

4. The 8(a) expansion lane. KYM Advisors holds 8 orders at $1.7M obligated. That's the entire current 8(a) OASIS+ footprint in Scout's view — which means there is significant room for additional 8(a) primes to capture new task orders without displacing anyone. Capture leaders at 8(a) firms should be tracking every OASIS+ agency that has not yet issued an 8(a) task order — that list is short, and it's the leading indicator of where the next set-aside orders will land.

Timeline — when the clock hits zero

Scout's recompete intelligence view tracks period-of-performance end dates on the task orders above. The headline: a wave of predecessor-OASIS bridge orders already expired in mid-2023, and the first meaningful wave of OASIS+ task orders awarded in CY2024 is now sitting on 1-year and 3-year option decisions that close in the back half of 2026 and through 2027.

Strategic positioning recommendations

Three moves separate capture teams that win OASIS+ recompete share from teams that watch it happen:

1. Stop chasing OASIS+ as one market. It isn't. Scout's PSC view shows it's four or five sub-markets with different incumbents, different agencies, and different set-aside pressure. Pick the one where your past performance is strongest and build a named-target list of 5–10 expiring task orders over the next 18 months — not 50.

2. File RFIs on the unrestricted side — watch for the set-aside signal. When a contracting officer shifts a historically unrestricted OASIS+ requirement to an 8(a) or SB pool on the recompete, that's the single highest-signal event in capture. Scout's opportunity feed flags set-aside-type changes on the same PIID family. Build an alert for your target task orders and respond within 72 hours of any amendment.

3. Team «with» incumbents, not against them, where concentration is high. Intuitive Research's position is hard to displace head-on. But Intuitive isn't a small business on most of these awards, and agencies are going to want to see SB participation on the recompete. Approach concentrated incumbents as prime-to-sub partners on Q2 2026 white papers; the displacement lane opens from inside the incumbent's pursuit, not in opposition to it.

Fair disclosure

PrimeRFP operates Scout, the federal contract intelligence platform referenced throughout this report. Scout is a commercial product and PrimeRFP has a direct commercial interest in its adoption. Every dollar figure, incumbent name, PSC code, and task-order count above came from a live Scout query on April 23, 2026, and every figure in the report carries a disclosed filter block in the methodology section below.

That disclosure matters more than a single piece, so PrimeRFP wants to name the standard this report is trying to meet: anyone publishing federal-market-intelligence numbers — aggregators, analysts, long-experience veterans, AI tool builders, PrimeRFP included — should show their filters, their floors, their lens (PSC/Category vs NAICS), and their reproduction path. The critique that market-intelligence products too often sell opaque headlines as clarity is a fair one. The responsible answer is to publish methodology receipts with every figure and invite the rest of the category to do the same. This report is an attempt to operate inside that standard, not around it.

PrimeRFP has no business relationship with any of the incumbents named in this analysis. Intuitive Research, Deloitte, Systems Plus, Insight Technology Solutions, Solutions Through Innovative Technologies, Perspecta Engineering, KYM Advisors, Vector CSP, and Immersion Consulting are identified because they are the top OASIS+ / OASIS task-order awardees by public USASpending record — not because of any Scout customer or partner relationship. All of these firms are strong performers; the concentration observations reflect structural vehicle mechanics, not performance judgments.

We also want to be direct about what this report is and isn't. It's a pattern-recognition read on public procurement data aimed at BD and capture leaders. It is not a recommendation to protest any award, a forecast of specific contracting-officer decisions, or a substitute for teaming-partner and incumbent diligence on a specific pursuit.

Methodology — filters, floors, and the two lenses

Every figure in this report is produced by one of the two lenses described at the top. Below are the exact queries and filter blocks for each, so any reader can reproduce them against live USASpending data.

Lens A — Direct OASIS+ observation (lower bound)

This is the lens responsible for the 97 orders, $134.9M obligated, $364.1M ceiling, the 62% concentration figure, the 2.9× CY24–CY25 jump, and every named incumbent and incumbent-level dollar amount in the body of the report.

Queries run April 23, 2026:

• get_award_summary — query: “OASIS+ task order”; months_back: 36; contract_type_filter: obligations_only; keyword applied to award description field. Produces top-awardee, top-agency, top-PSC, by-year, and by-set-aside views.
• find_recompete_contracts — query: “OASIS task order”; within_months: 36; include_historical: true. Produces period-of-performance end dates and the expired-bridge-order view.
• get_award_history — awardee: INTUITIVE RESEARCH AND TECHNOLOGY CORPORATION; limit: 10. Produces the broader DoD footprint figures cited in the concentration-signal discussion (41 contracts, $1.45B obligated across 7 years, NAICS 541715 dominant).

Filter block applied to all Lens A figures: USASpending prime-award rows only; $100K floor applied at the award level on current_total_value_award (not per-transaction); IDIQ base-vehicle IDVs excluded; obligations summed at transaction level via federal_action_obligation. Classified awards are out of scope by USASpending design.

Lens A is a lower bound because it only captures task orders whose award description mentions OASIS+ or OASIS directly. Task orders awarded against OASIS+ pools whose contracting-officer-written description omits the vehicle name are invisible to this lens. That is an honest gap in the underlying public data, not a choice we made about scope. It biases every headline figure toward understatement, which makes the 62% concentration finding more conservative than the full OASIS+ footprint would likely show.

Lens B — OASIS+-eligible PSC universe (upper bound)

OASIS+ is structured around seven published domains. The professional-services R-series Product Service Codes most directly aligned with those domains, per the GSA solicitation package:

• Management & Advisory → R499 (Support, Professional: Other), R408 (Program Management), R410 (Program Evaluation / Review)
• Technical & Engineering → R425 (Support, Professional: Engineering/Technical), R414 (Systems Engineering), AC-series R&D where professional services are the scope
• Logistics → R706 (Logistics Support)
• Intelligence / Environmental / Facilities → additional PSC clusters not summed in Lens B for this report because the crosswalks are less clean and we'd rather under-report than over-claim

Queries run April 23, 2026: get_award_summary with psc_code set to R425, R499, R408, and R706 in turn; months_back: 24; contract_type_filter: obligations_only. Results:

• psc_code=R425 — 58,733 awards, $52.68B obligated, $175.78B ceiling. Top awardees: The Aerospace Corporation ($1.74B), Chemonics International ($1.73B), Northrop Grumman ($1.60B), Lockheed Martin ($1.30B), Booz Allen Hamilton ($1.23B), CACI ($1.15B), MITRE ($1.07B), Amentum ($858M). Top agency: DoD ($39.36B). Single-offer rate: 50.2% (median offers: 1). Set-aside share: $5.6B / ~10.6%.
• psc_code=R499 — 58,311 awards, $51.10B obligated, $177.85B ceiling. Top awardees: Booz Allen ($2.82B), Boeing ($2.56B), Savannah River Mission Completion ($1.87B), Maximus Federal Services ($1.61B), Deloitte Consulting ($1.23B), GDIT ($1.15B), SAIC ($1.09B), Leidos ($680M). Top agencies: DoD ($14.33B), HHS ($10.61B), GSA ($9.94B). Single-offer rate: 53.6%.
• psc_code=R408 — 32,805 awards, $18.70B obligated, $72.03B ceiling. Top awardees: Deloitte Consulting ($812M), Booz Allen ($674M), CGI Federal ($480M), BI Inc ($446M), OptumRx ($421M), Accenture Federal ($412M). Top agencies: DoD ($6.79B), State ($2.39B), DHS ($2.25B). Single-offer rate: 52.5%.
• psc_code=R706 — 9,583 awards, $13.23B obligated, $26.53B ceiling. Top awardees: Vectrus Systems ($2.00B), AMI Metals ($1.45B), Lockheed Martin ($1.35B), KBR Services ($972M), Acquisition Logistics ($870M), ManTech Advanced Systems ($416M), Amentum Parsons Logistics ($371M), Sierra Nevada ($332M). Top agency: DoD ($9.24B). Single-offer rate: 46.9%.
• Lens B aggregate: 159,432 awards, $135.71B obligated, $452.19B ceiling across four PSCs in 24 months. That is the broader addressable market OASIS+ competes for — it is not the OASIS+ footprint itself, because those PSC obligations also flow through GSA MAS, Alliant 3, CIO-SP4, agency IDIQs, and standalone awards.

Lens B is deliberately not used to produce any of the body-text incumbent-vulnerability figures in this report — those are all Lens A. Lens B exists so readers (and PrimeRFP SCOUT, in future quarterly updates) can track the relationship between “OASIS+-eligible market size” and “OASIS+ observed task-order share” over time — which is the real measure of whether the vehicle is capturing the market it was designed to capture. If future quarters show Lens A growing as a share of Lens B, the vehicle is eating into the broader professional-services pool; if not, agencies are continuing to route the same work elsewhere.

R410 (Program Evaluation) and R414 (Systems Engineering) are named in the domain crosswalk above but not summed in the Lens B aggregate for this report. Adding them would move the aggregate upward but not materially change the order-of-magnitude gap with Lens A. Future quarterly updates will include them for completeness.

Reproducing any figure in this report

Every Scout query above is reproducible against live USASpending data. If you run the same filters and see different numbers:

• Check the obligation_basis. Scout defaults to transaction-level sums (federal_action_obligation). Some USASpending front-end views default to award-level totals or prime-award-ceiling rollups, which will differ.
• Check the contract_type_filter. Scout's default of obligations_only excludes IDIQ base-vehicle IDVs; including IDVs produces significantly higher ceiling totals that double-count the master contract above the individual orders.
• Check whether your query is hitting description (Lens A, narrow) or psc_code (Lens B, broad). The two lenses answer different questions.
• Consistent narrow deltas of +3–10% between Scout and a direct USASpending pull are expected. They reflect snapshot lag between Scout's extract cycle and the live API, plus edge cases around modifications and IDV handling. Anything outside that band is worth a second look.

Reader corrections welcome. If any figure in this report looks off when measured against your own USASpending pull, we want to hear about it — the whole point of publishing the filter blocks is to make the numbers checkable.