PDDM RFP Questions and Responses.pdf

QUESTION NO. RFP REFERENCE OFFEROR COMMENT/QUESTION USPTO RESPONSE

Section B.3

Page 5 Is there a minimum volume of work each contractor will be assigned?

Once a contractor meets all of the contract start‐up requirements, the minimum volume for contractors would average at least 25% for each year. The percentages will be applied at the main CLIN level and not at the component (subCLIN) level. For example, a 25% minimum means the total of CLIN 0001 will average 25% and not individually for 0001A‐

0001L.

Section C.1

Page 6 How many hours of development are consumed per year?

This is not a development contract.

Section C.2

Will all applications be in English or will contractor need to support other languages? All applications are in English.

Section C.2

Page 8 How many designated locations are there?

Please review ALL technical references. See Attachment 13, Appendix

One, page 26.

Section C.2

Will contractor(s) be responsible for direct interaction for customer support or will requests come to contractor from USPTO?

SOW C.4 has been modified to state that the Contractor shall provide customer support to resolve issues sent to the Contractor by designated

USPTO officials. The designated official will be identified by Contract award. Attachment 13 will be updated to reflect this change and will be provided to the Contractor(s) at award.

Section C.2

Page 8 What is monthly volume of paper mail notices to applicants?

Please review the entire Statement of Work and ALL technical references. Section C.6.1 indicates that notices are mailed in approximately 4% of applications.

Section C.2

Page 8 What is monthly volume of abandonment notices?

SOW Section C.6.2 has been updated to indicate that abandonment notices are mailed in approximately 2% of applications.

Section C.2

Are there any other types of hard copy notices that need to be issued? If yes, what is the monthly volume of each?

Please review the entire Statement of Work and ALL technical references. Section C.6.2 indicates that one‐third of applications have

Post Allowance correspondence beyond the Issue Fee. The majority of these one‐third applications requires mailing of some type of response.

See Attachment 24: File Maintenance Final Data Capture and Issue Build.

Section C.2

Page 8 Are participants allowed to pursue part of RFP instead of complete RFP?

No, an offeror has to be capable of performing all of work for each CLIN and up to 100% of the volumes.

Section C.6.1

Please provide examples of the types of errors the contractor(s) will be required to correct.

Please review the entire Statement of Work and ALL technical references. Attachment 22: Data Entry Manual Utility, Attachment 23:

Data Entry Manual Non‐Utility. These manuals document situations where a contractor should provide a correction and provides examples under each scenario.

Attachment 40

CLIN 0001

Is the preference to see pricing at the field level or application level? If the latter, how many fields are on each application?

CLIN 0001 references Front End Processing (indexing and scanning)

Column C on Attachment 40 contains the units to be priced. See

Attachment 8 and Attachment 13, page 9 for explanations and definitions of “follow‐on documents”, “new applications”,“residual paper applications", and "package".

Attachment 40

CLIN 0001 What is the average page count per application?

Parts of this CLIN are not built at the application level, but at the package level. See the response to Question 11 for complete clarification. See updated Attachment 5a that provides page count estimates.

Attachment 40

CLIN 0001 Are there any large format documents (larger than 8.5”x11”)?

Please review the entire Statement of Work and ALL technical references. Attachment 13: Front End Processing (FEP) Manual for

Indexing and Scanning, Pg. 5 discusses page sizes of paper documents and how they are to be handled.

14 Attachment 39

Attachment 39 Transition Plan Framework. On page 1 of 9, the framework states "due to limitations of USPTO systems and the sequential batch nature of the deliverables produced under this contract, the USPTO cannot accept partial deliverables from multiple Contractors." Yet, later on page 5 of 9 it states "The Contractor(s) and the predecessor Contract shall work simultaneously. The Contractor(s) shall ramp up production as the predecessor Contract ramps down. This approach insures there will be no gap in requirements, nor any reduction in workflow timeliness or the quality of work product provided to the USPTO." These seem mutually exclusive. Ramping down and ramping up in parallel suggests that both contractors would be providing partial deliverables and is in conflict with the statement on page 1.

Question: Can the USPTO clarify this discrepancy? Attachment 39 has been updated to clarify the discrepancy.

Section L

RFP section L, Factor C, RFP page 117: "The resumes and letters of commitment shall not exceed two pages each." Two pages for each

Resume and two pages for each letter or two pages for each person

(resume and letter in a combined two pages)?

Each resume shall not exceed two pages and each letter of commitment shall not exceed two pages.

16 Attachment 39

Technical reference 39a, bottom of page 7, requests vendors identify the

"Method to ensure performance of USPTO mission essential functions."

Question: Can the USPTO clarify the definitive list of "mission essential" functions?

Everything described in the Statement of Work is deemed mission essential functions.

RFP Clause PTO‐12 (b), Page 70, is missing, given the existence of paragraphs (a) and (c) through (h)

Question: Should there be a paragraph "(b)?" The USPTO has updated this clause.

18 Attachment 39

Attachment 39 Transition Plan Framework Indicates under "Expectations"

(at the top of page 2) that "The full transition should be complete no later than March 01, 2023, but the offeror may propose a more accelerated timeline." While RFP B.3 indicates (on page 4) "If two awards are made, before each option year, the USPTO will notify the contractors, consistent with any contract notice requirements, of the assigned percentage of volumes for that forthcoming option year." These seem inconsistent, as it suggests that the USPTO could allocate any percentage of work between the multiple awardees beyond the March 01, 2023 date in Attachment 39.

Question: Please clarify the relationship of the March 01, 2023 objective with the assignment of percentage volumes before each option year?

The percentage of work assigned to each contractor during the base year will be determined based on a best value analysis of the proposals. In a two award scenario, each contractor will be notified of their base year assigned percentages at time of award. The percentages assigned in the base period are contingent upon the contractor meeting the milestones put forth in their transition plan and all start‐up requirements.

19 Section B

RFP B.3 indicates (on page 4) "If two awards are made, before each option year, the USPTO will notify the contractors, consistent with any contract notice requirements, of the assigned percentage of volumes for that forthcoming option year." Question:

This implies that only at option year time will percentages be changed and that it can happen for any option year. If it applies to all option years, this suggests that the USPTO is contemplating splitting work between multiple vendors over the life of the contract. Can the USPTO clarify if this is there intent?

If the USPTO makes two awards, the base year work assigned percentages will be assigned at time of award. The initial base year assignmed percentages will be based on a best value analysis of the proposals. For the option years, the USPTO will make decisions unilaterally in accordance with FAR Part 17; however, both contractors are guaranteed at least 25% of the volumes presuming a contractor's applicable option period is exercised. In a two award scenario, the

USPTO anticipates splitting the work between two contractors for the entirety of the contract.

20 Section B

RFP B.3 indicates (on page 4) "If two awards are made, before each option year, the USPTO will notify the contractors, consistent with any contract notice requirements, of the assigned percentage of volumes for that forthcoming option year." Question:

This seems to suggest that percentages, once assigned at the start of an option year, will be stable for the applicable option year. That is, if the

USPTO assigns 25% volume to a vendor, it won't be until the next option year when the percentage assignment can change (up or down). Can the

USPTO please clarify this?

The percentage of work assigned to each Contractor before the beginning of each option period will be an average assigned percentage of volumes. As such, if one Contractor were to be assigned an average of

25% the Contractor could start an option year at 10% and ramp up to

40+% to achieve an average of at least 25%. In turn, the other contractor would start at 90% and ramp down to 60‐% to achieve an average of at least 65%. However, the USPTO will not change the assigned average percentage within any given period of performance. The assigned average percentage may only change before a following option year.

21 Attachment 39

Attachment 39 Transition Plan Framework Indicates (near the bottom of page 1) "due to limitations of USPTO systems and the sequential and batch nature of the deliverables produced under this contract, the USPTO cannot accept partial deliverables from multiple Contractors. Therefore, work products produced by the Contractor(s) will not be placed into USPTO systems or disseminated to the public until such time the USPTO is confident of the Contractor(s)’ ability to meet and maintain all work timelines and quality standards."

Question: We interpret "therefore" as being equivalent with the phrase

"for that reason." Yet the two sentences connected with "therefore" seem unrelated. While it makes perfect sense that products will not be placed into production until the USPTO is confident of the vendor's results, we don't understand what that has to do with system limitations? We would expect that the system limitations might limit the ability of the USPTO to process vendor deliverables until the day when they are operating at 100%

(no partial deliveries). If a vendor is operating at less than 100% assigned volumes, then it implies that the other vendor is doing some of the assigned volume also, resulting in both companies providing partial deliveries (which cannot be used). Can the USPTO clarify this? Attachment 39 has been updated to clarify the discrepancy.

Section B and

Attachment 39

B.5 Contractor Initiated Price Reduction (bottom of page 5) And Attachment

39 (top of page 2) "full transition should be complete no late than March

01, 2023."

Question: Is it the Government's intent to have multiple awardees possibly reducing their prices ahead of an option year in an attempt to win more assigned volumes? If a full transition must be completed by March 01, 2023, this suggests only a single provider exists from March 01, 2023 forward. Can the USPTO clarify their intent by requiring a provider to submit reduced pricing 90 days before the expiration of the current period of contract performance?

At the Contractor's discretion, they may submit a price reduction at any time during contract performance. However, for the price reduction to be considered for a following option year, the price reduction must be submitted at least 90 days prior to the expiration of the current period of contract performance. It is expected that contractor(s) will realize some efficiencies once they have perfected their processes. Price is part of the analysis required by FAR Part 17.

The "full transition" language has been clarified in Attachment 39

Transition Plan Framework. In a two award scenario, the USPTO antipicates splitting work over the 10‐year life of the contract.

23 Attachment 39

Attachment 39 Transition Plan Framework Indicates (near the bottom of page 1) "due to limitations of USPTO systems and the sequential and batch nature of the deliverables produced under this contract, the USPTO cannot accept partial deliverables from multiple Contractors. Attachment 6 lists the reports and deliverables, yet doesn't identify which deliverables must be received by the USPTO as a complete batch versus split between two contractors. Question:

Can the USPTO clarify which deliverables in Attachment 6 must be received in whole from only a single contractor, because partial deliveries are not acceptable? What does the UPSTO mean by "partial deliveries?" What does the USPTO envision doing with those deliverables if a vendor is operating at less than 100% volume? Attachment 39 has been updated to clarify the discrepancy.

24 Section B

RFP B.3 indicates (on page 4) "If two awards are made, before each option year, the USPTO will notify the contractors, consistent with any contract notice requirements, of the assigned percentage of volumes for that forthcoming option year."

Question: How does the USPTO envision splitting work between two vendors? For example, 50% of PG Publication to one vendor and 50% to the other? 50% of post allowance processing to one vendor and 50% to the other? Or, alternately, does the USPTO envision giving one vendor the full week's PG Publication every four weeks (equating to 25% of the volume)?

Splitting work between two vendors is confusing and clarification is greatly appreciated.

For each publication date, the work will be split according to the assigned average percentage of work. Exports for post allowance work will also be split according to the same. The FEP main CLIN may be exercised at a different percentage than the other main CLINs, but contractors are guaranteed at least 25% of all main CLINs. CLINs other than FEP will be exercised at the same percentage. This means a contractor could be assigned a different percentage of FEP as compared to the other main CLINs.

25 Section B

RFP B.3 indicates (on page 4) "If two awards are made, before each option year, the USPTO will notify the contractors, consistent with any contract notice requirements, of the assigned percentage of volumes for that forthcoming option year." Question:

a company is fortunate enough to get an award, once they achieve their

Authority to Operate is that company guaranteed a minimum of 25% volume each year?

If all contract start up requirements are met, including meeting the milestones in the offeror's proposed transition plan, and the offeror's transition plan states that the offeror is capable of performing 25% of the volumes after achieving all start up requirements, then the contractor will be guaranteed at least an average of 25% of volumes each year. This is assuming the contractor is not so delayed in achieving all the start up requirements in a given period of performance, that 25% is not possible for that remaining period of performance given the contractor's own ramp up timeline.

Attachment 40

Pricing Template

CLIN 0007A

Is it anticipated that CLIN 0007A would only be used in the base period or extend into the option years, as deemed needed by bidders?

The pricing template has been revised to allow CLIN 0007A to extend into Option Year 1.

27 General

• RFP L, page 115. RFP stipulates: “The proposal shall be written in enough detail so that an evaluation panel can adequately judge its full merits.”

• RFP L, page 115: RFP specifies: Font size no smaller than 12‐point. Single‐ spaced 8 ½ X 11 inch page, Factor B Technical Approach Page Limitation of

55 pages.

• RFP L, page 116, Factor B: Technical Approach specifies: “The offeror will demonstrate its ability to perform the services required in the SOW and its approach to all elements of performing each detailed task in the SOW.

• RFP C, pages 6‐50: Contains the detailed tasks in the SOW (~45 pages)

• RFP M, page 125: lists specifics that will be evaluated for each sub‐factor, including process flow diagrams, work plans, and timelines for completion of all tasks.

Analysis: With the SOW itself containing 45 pages, we believe it is unrealistic to provide a description of how a bidder will approach “all elements of performing each detailed task in the SOW” and include process flow diagrams, workplans, and timelines for the completion of all tasks in the 55 page maximum allowed given the font size restriction of no smaller than 12 point. Given the level of detail requested by the USPTO, and font size restriction, we believe a higher page maximum is justifiable by allowing bidders to provide “all elements of performing each detailed task in the

SOW” using a ratio of 3 pages of proposal material per SOW page

(3X45=135). Increasing the page maximum to this level empowers bidders to thoroughly document “its approach to all elements of performing each detailed task in the SOW” and will improve the evaluation panel’s ability to

"judge" the “full merits” of each bidder’s approach.

We request the USPTO increase the maximum page count for Factor B, Technical Approach, from 55 pages to 135. The USPTO will increase the Technical Approach page count to 85 pages.

28 Attachment 39

Attachment 39, page 3, says "The USPTO will consider any offer that contains an Offeror’s expected maximum capacity that is less than the lowest volume tier of 25% of the estimated volume unsatisfactory."

Does this mandate bidders propose a maximum capacity of at least 25% of the estimated volumes for all CLINs or are bidders allowed to bid a subset of CLINs (not all) provided the ones they propose against satisfy the 25% requirement? For example, if a bidder wanted to propose 100% of the estimated volumes for FEP but nothing else?

No, the offeror must bid all CLINs and must be capable of performing up to 100% of the volumes.

29 General

After some lengthy analysis, we believe an extra three weeks preparation time will offset COVID 19 challenges and, therefore, respectfully request an extension in the due date, making proposal due 31 August 2020.

The USPTO has extended the proposal and past performance questionnaire due date to noon ET on August 31, 2020.

30 B.2, page 4

The contract requires firm fixed prices for 10 years. Will USPTO consider an economic price adjustment clause based on an appropriate price index?

See FAR 16.203. No.

31 B.3, page 4

Would each contractor receive the same applications for all CLINs they process or would each contractor receive work that was processed by the other contractor in a previous CLIN?

There is no guarantee that a contractor will receive the same application throughout the process, especially between FEP and PG PUB/Grant. It is the USPTO's intent that an application would remain with the same contractor through PG PUB/Grant; however, this is not guaranteed.

32 B.3, page 4

What factors will USPTO use to determine the allocation of volumes before each option year (e.g., price, capacity, quality, timeliness)? What weighting will each of these factors have?

The USPTO has the unilateral right to exercise the optional percentages of volumes in accordance with FAR Part 17.

33 B.3, page 4

Please confirm that USPTO will provide no less than 25% of the volume of all CLIN's, during a period of performance, so long as the contractor has an

ATO and is able to process that volume of work. In the two award scenario, how is a minimum award of 25% of volume defined?

Correct, the USPTO will guarantee an average of 25% of the volumes once all contract start up requirements are met. However, please see the response to Question 25 above. In a two award scenario, it will be an average of 25% of the total volumes at the main CLIN level contingent upon the contractor meeting the milestones put forth in their transition plan.

34 B.3, page 4

Is the 25% of volume across all CLINs or of individual CLINs? Is it measured weekly, monthly or annually?

This is across all CLINs at the main CLIN level, and it is measured annually.

35 B.3, page 4

Will the USPTO only make volume assignments at the start of each period of performance? If contractor obtains ATO during a period of performance will they be able to process live volumes that will be loaded to USPTO systems before the start of the next period of performance?

Yes, the intent it to assign volumes before each period of performance in accordance with contract notification requirements. Yes, once the contractor meets all contract start‐up requirements (including successfully processing of the test batches referenced in Attachment 39 and meeting the milestones set forth in the contractor's transition plan), they may begin processing live data within the period that they meet the start up requirements. Please also see response to Question 25.

36 B.3, page 4

Will USPTO commit to a minimum 90 day notice period for an assigned volume percentage that is an increase or decrease given the significant resource implications? The 30‐day notice for option exercise is insufficient to ensure efficiency and continuity of operations. The USPTO will provide 60 days notice.

37 B.3, page 4

Will changes in volumes take effect at the beginning of each option period or will they be phased in during the option period? If the latter, how much time will be given?

The intent is to assign the average volumes before the beginning of each period of performance in accordance with contract notification requirements. Because it is an average percentage, the initial volumes may be lower or higher than the assigned average percentage, but the volumes will finish at the assigned average percentage by period of performance end.

38 B.3, page 4

In the event of two awards, is it possible for a contractor to be awarded some CLINs but not others or would each contractor receive applications for all CLINS? A contractor would receive applications for all CLINs.

39 B.3, page 4

Patent applications vary widely in size and complexity. Because all applications are priced the same, how will the USPTO ensure that each contractor receives an allocation of applications that is equitable (i.e., allocated volumes contain applications of comparable complexity and size)?

The USPTO will randomly assign volumes while ensuring the assigned average volume percentages are met.

40 B.3, page 4

The terms of the RFP describe a multiple vendor award scenario. How will

USPTO separate and protect proprietary information or data across multiple trusted partners? Is the intent to share this information?

Anything that is USPTO owned will be shared, but proprietary information submitted to the agency and appropriately marked as proprietary will not be shared.

41 C.1, page 6

Do you anticipate the PE2E system will impact the contract during the first five years. If so, by what magnitude?

Yes, we expect there to be some impact but the magnitude is unknown at this time.

42 C.1, page 6

Given the magnitude of change likely associated with PE2E system‐related changes, does the government anticipate conducting an early procurement against a revised SOW before the 10‐year period of performance is complete?

The USPTO does not anticipate conducting an early procurement against a revised SOW.

43 C.1, page 6

Which tasks currently outlined in the RFP are anticipated to be brought back in‐house during the period of performance of the contract as a result of PE2E? Unknown at this time.

44 C.1, page 6

In the event that volumes in any CLIN are materially impacted by PE2E or any other factor and the government does not conduct an additional procurement against a revised SOW, what recourse will contractor(s) have to adjust prices to account for the reduced volumes and the contractor’s resultant higher per unit expenses?

If a material impact were to occur, it would be dealt with by an appropriate FAR clause.

45 C.3.3, page 10

The SOW states that the Contractor shall provide the workstations necessary to access USPTO systems. Some functionality is not Web‐based and is currently accessed via the Client Manager. How would the contractor access PALM Expo, Application Patent Case and Mail Outgoing

Correspondence to perform functions such as 1935 transactions, address, applicant and title changes and the softscan of AppFileReceipts?

Please see the revised section C.3.2 of the SOW. The USPTO will provide a reasonable number of workstations (i.e. laptops or desktops ‐ excluding peripherals such as printers, scanners, keyboards, mice and monitors) only for performance of tasks that require access to USPTO systems such as, but not limited to, Quality Assurance (QA) of Web‐

Based Submissions (C.4.4) and File Maintenance (C.6.2).

46 C.3.7, page 12

In reference to the RFP COOP requirement, it is not clear what the USPTO requirements are if there is a catastrophic event. Could you clarify your expectations of a Recovery Time Objective (RTO) and an acceptable

Recovery Point Objective (RPO). In other words, what is an acceptable interruption of service.

The recovery time should be structured so the contractor will continue to be able to meet all timelines established in the SOW, for example publications timelines.

47 C.5, page 19

The SOW states that the contractor will include every application in the deliverable for the assigned PPD unless it was identified as being no longer eligible for publication. At times there are extremely large/complicated applications or applications returned from query at a late stage in the process that may not be ready for the publication. Would the USPTO be willing to consider a minimum requirement of 99.95% of applications be included in the deliverable for the assigned PPD (average over last 10 years)?

The SOW Section C.5 has been updated to reflect a minimum requirement of 99.9%.

48 C.5.1, page 20

The documentation does not address how the Pre‐Grant file naming process will be handled in the event of two awards. How does the USPTO envision that process?

Once the contract is awarded, file naming conventions for deliverables will be defined and clarified for each contractor.

49 C.6, page 29

The RFP states that “At the beginning of each fiscal year, the USPTO will provide the Contractor with a weekly issue schedule showing the planned weekly issue sizes and the total yearly volume." If there are 2 awards made, will each vendor have responsibility for the same percentage of issues as the percentage of volume they are awarded? The USPTO does not understand the question.

50 C.6.1, page 29

The SOW states that the contractor shall complete Initial Data Capture within 5 weeks of receipt. How will this requirement be measured as the

IDC exports can vary widely particularly at mid‐year and year end?

The SOW Section C.6.1 has been updated. Compliance will be evaluated based on the percent of applications completed within the time periods.

51 C.6.1, page 30

Is there an expectation that one contractor would re‐use the output of another contractor? If so, how do you envision that re‐use process would work?

No, there is no expectation that one contractor will re‐use work from

PGPUB at grant time.

52 C.6.3, page 37

The documentation does not address how the Grant patent number assignment will be handled in the event of two awards. How does the

USPTO envision that process?

Once the USPTO award the contract(s), the USPTO will establish a process by which patent numbers are assigned.

53 C.6.4.4, page 46

In a multi award scenario, will both contractors perform the Patent Grant

Assembly and preparation for mailing tasks in the SOW?

Yes. Each contractor will assemble the patent grants for which they performed data capture.

E.3.2.2, page 53 and

The SOW states that the PG Pub inspection will be broken down by Front

Page, Specification, Claims and Abstract. The PG Pub Front Page data is provided by the USPTO and is not inspected by the contractor other than to insure correct composition. What will the PG Pub Front Page inspection entail? The SOW Section E.3.2.2 has been updated to clarify this requirement.

E.3.2.2, page 53 and

There is no mention of providing an updated Red Book deliverable following a failed inspection. Is that no longer a requirement under this contract? Correct, this is no longer a requirement.

E.3.2.2, page 53 and

In the event of two awards and a scenario where both contractors perform work on the same application, how will the USPTO insure that one contractor is not charged with an error made by another contractor?

USPTO will track what work is done by which contractor and charge errors accordingly.

E.3.2.2, page 53 and

In the case of two contractors, will inspection results be available only to the USPTO, or will they be shared between contractors? Each contractor will only receive their own inspection results.

58 F.2, page 56

The SOW states that liquidated damage charges apply even when the deliverable has met all other inspection criteria. Does this mean a contractor can be charged $158 for an error even though the application met the USPTO criteria of 10.0 errors or less?

Yes, Contractors will pay liquidated damages if a Certificate of Correction is required based solely on a Contractor error.

59 F.2, page 56

Please provide greater detail into the descriptions of liquidated damages as the following items appear to incorporate any error that could occur in a completed application. (1) An application that has a serious error based on the judgment of the USPTO or omission of content as supplied by the

USPTO and (2) Any error in which application data present in the application documents available to the Contractor is not correctly captured in accordance with the technical references. Could the USPTO be more specific about these error categories?

Section F2 provides a representative list of errors. Providing an exhaustive list of every potential error that a Contractor could possibly make is not practical.

Section I, FAR

52.215‐21, page 80

The FAR instructions for Alt. IV state: “Insert description of the data and the format that are required, including the access to records necessary to permit an adequate evaluation of the proposed price in accordance with

15.403‐3.” Is it PTO’s intention to follow the process in FAR 15.403‐3 in determining price reasonableness of contract modifications?

The USPTO will comply with FAR requirements for price reasonableness determinations. In addition, please see RFP FAR Clause 52.215‐21 Alt IV on page 80 of the RFP.

Section I, FAR

52.215‐23, page 80

Since this is not a cost‐reimbursement contract, we believe this clause is not appropriate. Will the USPTO remove it? Also reference FAR

15.408(n)(2). This clause and its associated provision are removed.

Section M, Factor F ‐

Price, page 127 How will the Government evaluate the prices for volumes under 100%?

Please read RFP Section M pages 127 and 128. The USPTO will perform a price fairness and reasonableness determination for each pricing tier.

Transition Plan

Framework

Attachment 39, pages 3‐5

During the transition period, how will work be parsed out for each major

CLIN phase? Will the approach be different in a single award versus multiple awards? Would work remain with the same contractor in all CLINs?

If not, how would it work?

Base year volumes will be assigned based on a best value analysis of the proposals. In a single award scenario, the contractor will receive 100% of all CLINs once they meet the contract start up requirements and in accordance with its transition plan and the transition timeframe allotted.

In a two award scenario, the contractors will receive the assigned average volume percentage for the base year at time of award.

Transition Plan

Framework

Attachment 39, pages 3‐5

In a multi award scenario, who will have responsibility for a final yellow book and red book? How would the publishing be done? If transitioning from one contractor to another, how would the publishing be done?

Each contractor will be responsible for delivering red book and yellow book for the work they produced.

65 General Do you have a target volume per month of scans or is it in a state of flux?

Please review the entire Statement of Work and ALL technical references. All estimated volumes are in Attachment 40 and historic volumes are found in Attachments 5a‐5d.

SECRECY AND USE

OF PATENT

INFORMATION (IF

APPLICABLE), page

Is it the USPTO's intention to delete the first sentence of the paragraph, "Work under this contract does not affect national security..."

There is a minor national security element to this contract. For this reason, the requirements have been updated to include one personnel who holds secret clearance to handle these national security issues when and if they arise.

Attachment 40, Row

Can the USPTO help us to understand the following two sentences from

Attachment 40 as they appear in conflict with each other.

“NOTE**** CLIN 0007B Transition out will only be paid for the last exercised option period. This CLIN is only applicable to the Base Period.”

The first sentence in the note appears to say the transition out will be paid only for the last exercised option period, which suggests it can be paid at the conclusion of any of the 9 potential option periods. The second sentence in the note appears to say the transition out will be paid only during or at the conclusion of the Base Period. Attachment 40 has been updated.

Attachment 40, Row

Will the Transition Out CLIN be exercised if, in a multi‐award scenario, a new vendor is unable to meet the requirements of achieving an ATO and processing test documents?

No, however Contractors are advised to review Section H.1. The failure to obtain and maintain a valid Assessment and Authorization shall be grounds for termination of the contract or suspension of work.

Attachment 40, Row

Attachment 40 allows CLIN 0007B entries in all 4 volume levels cells across the Base Period and all 9 Option Periods. Does the USPTO only want

Transition Out pricing for the 100% volume CLIN or can it vary across volume levels?

It is anticipated that transition out could vary depending on the volume of work being performed.

70 C.12, page 50

The Transition Out section states that "The Contractor must fully cooperate with the successor contractor and the Government during transition out...."

Does the government anticipate that the transition period for any future procurement will be approximately the same length as the transition period for this contract (25 months).

Transition out for a future procurement could take 25 months. However, the transition out expense should only be estimated for 12 months. In the event of a 25 month transition period, the contractor would still be able to bill for work that they are producing and transition expense will be limited to 12 months.