Questions_and_Answers.docx

RFQ - SOLICITATION DOC-52-PAPT-15-00021

ID/IQ Program for General Purpose Information Technology (IT) Equipment and Software Attachment 2 - Questions and Answers

Solicitation Response Due Date: Monday, May 18, 2015 at 1:00pm Contracting Officer’s Local Time

1. Should the Capabilities Statement, D&B and Other Value Added Factors all be submitted within the same file? Or should all three be separate files?

Answer: In the electronic copy of your quote we ask that these documents be separate files. The D&B report should be sent directly from Open Ratings to USPTO. A copy of your open ratings report should be included in your quote.

2. There are many very capable small, HUBZone, SDV, (8)a, etc companies (including ourselves) that would like to submit a competitive proposal for your current IDIQ solicitation: DOC-52-PAPT-15-00021. But the one major restriction is the minimum of 5 years in business. Would you please consider lowering that requirement to 2 or 3 years instead of 5?

Answer: No. The requirement will remain at a minimum of 5 years in business.

3. We would like to request that amendments either include a “tracked changes” feature to easily follow any changes in the solicitation or are accompanied by a “summary of changes” document that describes any changes made within the solicitation.

Answer: Amendments will include a “summary of changes” document. Please reference Attachment 1 – Summary of Changes – Amendment 2.

4. Is there a place where I can find information on the current incumbents for this requirement?

Answer: The current incumbents are as follows: Immix Technology, Blue Tech Solutions, Counter Trade Products, Government Acquisitions, Koi Computers, Intelligent Decisions, Norseman Defense Technologies, ZiBiz Data Management, Advanced Computer Concepts, FCN Technology Solutions, Technology Integration Group, Four Point Technology, Lyme Computer Systems, Millennium Computer Products, Provideo Management, Red River Computer Company, Strategic Communications, Unistar Sparco, Ideal System Solutions, New Tech Solutions, NikSoft Systems Corporation, and Digital Technologies.

5. Will status as an authorized reseller through distribution be adequate for the products proposed on Attachment A? Or do offerors need to demonstrate status as a direct authorized reseller?

Answer: Reference Section 52.212-1 –Instructions to Offerors – Commercial Items, Item 5.

“…The offeror may price any of the item specifications, regardless of whether or not they are currently authorized to sell the items. Once the ID/IQ contracts are awarded, the offeror must be authorized to sell the products which they are quoting in response to the RFQ.”

6. Should letters from the OEM/distributor be provided to demonstrate authorized reseller status? If so, do these count towards the page limit?

Answer: Any documentation that the vendor feels addresses their qualifications, relevant experience, and ability to provide a broad range of IT products should be included. Letters from OEM or distributors will not count toward the 20 page limit.

7. Vendor 123 Inc. is a current contract holder of the USPTO ID/IQ Program for General Purpose IT Equipment and Software under contract number DOC50PAPTXXXXXXX. Our current contract will expire on 05/30/2017 should the USPTO choose to exercise all option periods. We see that the USPTO has issued a new solicitation, number DOC-52-PAPT-15-00021, for the same ID/IQ Program. Given that we are an incumbent, we were wondering if we will automatically be included among the awardees or do we need to submit a proposal in order to be considered for contract award.

Answer: Contractors are advised to submit a quote to this solicitation if they wish to continue in USPTO’s General Purpose Hardware and Software IDIQ program. In an effort to streamline and consolidate the IDIQ program, USPTO will not be exercising options on any existing contracts.

8. Can you please give me the contract number under which you currently run the Symantec subscription? Or the date of performance? We need to get a quote for Symantec.

Answer: The delivery order number is DOC40PAPT1402153.

9. In the Instructions to Offerors, the RFP states the requirement for, “A capabilities statement addressing its relevant experience, qualifications (i.e. OEM reseller certifications or authorizations), and ability to provide a broad range of general purpose IT products,” Does the Government require offerors to provide actual copies of Letters of Authorization or actual copies of OEM Reseller certifications covering all products being quoted in the pricing volume by the given offeror? If so, please confirm that these documents are outside of the page count.

Answer: See Question 6 above.

10. In the Instructions to Offerors, the RFP states the requirement for, “Past performance, including use of D&B Open Ratings reports”. For GSA Federal Supply Schedules (FSS), the Government allows the use of a D&B Open Ratings report if they are dated within the last 12 months. Please confirm that D&B Open Ratings reports which are dated more recently than 1 year before the first submission date for this solicitation are acceptable for the purposes of past performance. If this is not the case, we request that the Government provide an adequate extension of the submission deadline so that offerors with Open Ratings reports that do not meet the cutoff date can arrange for new Open Ratings reports.

Answer: That is correct. D&B Open Ratings reports that are dated more recently than 1 year before the first submission date for this solicitation are acceptable for the purposes of past performance. The D&B report must come from Open Ratings directly to be considered acceptable.

11. Regarding the Dun & Bradstreet/Open Ratings (D&B) for the referenced RFQ, Please confirm the Government will accept previous Open Ratings reports as long as they have been completed within the last year and that we can forward the completed report to the point of contact listed in the Solicitation.

Answer: Refer to Question 10.

12. 52.212-1 -- Instructions to Offerors -- Commercial Items, Item 5, page 4 – Price Samples Please confirm that offerors should complete their Pricing Sample within the PTO’s “PTO FBO DOC-52-PAPT-15-00021 Attachment_A_DOC-52-PAPT-15-00021” by adding the following columns:

1. Commercial List Price

2. Percentage Discount

3. Dollar Amount Discount

4. Quantity One Offer Price

5. Extended Offer Price (Item three above multiplied times the quantities shown in Column E) If this interpretation is not correct, please describe how the price sample should be provided.

Answer: This interpretation is correct. However, the vendor does not have to use Attachment A to provide their pricing; a separate PDF file with the pricing is acceptable as well.

13. 52.212-1 -- Instructions to Offerors -- Commercial Items, Item 5, page 4 – Price Samples and “PTO FBO DOC-52-PAPT-15-00021 Attachment_A_DOC-52-PAPT-15-00021” Please define the terms used in Column F, Period of Performance (“One year from date of Award”, “Within 30 Days of Award”, and “30 days from date of award”) and explain how the terms used in this column affect the pricing to be offered for line items 1-18.

Answer: Column F is meant to inform vendors of the period of performance of the specified item. For example, hardware purchases must be delivered to USPTO within 30 days from the date of award whereas a software license agreement may be 1 year, or specified as “one year from date of award”. This may affect pricing to be offered for line items 1-18 if these were to change, for example hardware must be delivered to USPTO within 2 weeks or a software license agreement is 3 years.

14. Where should offerors include the response to Representations and Certifications in the proposal?

Answer: Vendors should include Representations and Certifications as an attachment to their quote. No page limitations are subject to this attachment.

15. Has the USPTO considered putting printers and MFD’s on this IDIQ?

Answer: At this time USPTO has decided not to include printers and MFD’s on this IDIQ, as we have another vehicle for those items.

16. Amendment 0001, Page 5, If hand-delivered (non-US Postal Service, i.e. FedEx or UPS): For any hand-delivered quotes, it is noted that the receipt office is in a secured building. Please call Cielo Ibarra at 571-272-8825 upon arrival for pickup in the lobby. Please confirm that hand delivery by contractor personnel is allowed. (i.e., non-courier such as FedEx or UPS).

Answer: Hand delivery by contractor personnel is acceptable but must adhere to the due date outlined in the solicitation.

17. RFQ Page 2, 2 Maximum Order Amount: The maximum ordering amount per ID/IQ contract shall not exceed $13,000,000.00 over the life of the contract, or the seven (7) year period. We recommend the government consider creating an overall contract level ceiling instead of individual IDIQ contract maximum. Given that this is a seven (7) year contract, and USPTO’s IT product requirements for fiscal year (FY) 2014 were approximately $48 million, the individual IDIQ $13M ceiling would prohibit USPTO from obtaining sufficient task order competition since many of the best performing IDIQ holders will reach this ceiling within the first years of the contract.

Answer: Please see Amendment 2 to this solicitation. The USPTO has increased the maximum ordering amount to $20,000,000.00 over the life of the contract.

18. Would the Government consider removing the requirement for physical proposal delivery? If not, would the Government consider allowing for electronic submissions on the due date with physical delivery to follow two business days later? (Reference Section 5, Submission Instructions).

Answer: No. Physical proposal delivery is a requirement for this solicitation. It is advised that the Contractor plan accordingly. However, the response due date is hereby changed to Monday, May 18, 2015, 1:00pm, Contracting Officer’s Local Time.

19. This section indicates a ceiling per contract of $13M over 7 years, for an average of less than $2M per year. Given historical information, this seems to be quite low and would likely result in many contracts being unusable well in advance of the 7 year expiration. Would the Government consider revising this ceiling so as to make the contracts useful for a longer period of time? (Reference Section 2, Maximum Ordering Amount).

Answer: See Answer to Question 17.

20. Our company completed the Dun & Bradstreet open ratings process a few months ago for another Federal agency, and we have the report in hand. Is it acceptable to forward this recent completed report to the Contract Specialist instead of asking our customers to go through this process again? (Reference Section 3, Dun and Bradstreet).

Answer: See Answer to Question 10.

21. Should the D&B order screenshot be included in the Offeror's capabilities statement, and, if so, does it count against page count? (Reference Section 4, Dun and Bradstreet).

Answer: The requirement for a screenshot/receipt is hereby removed from the solicitation and is no longer a requirement.

22. Should the Offeror include its response to the representations and certifications in the capabilities statement, and, if so, does it count against page count? (Reference Section 6, Representations and Certifications).

Answer: See Answer to Question 14.

23. Page 4, paragraph 2 states: “D&B charges $190.00 for the past performance evaluation service and Offerors are responsible for direct payment to D&B.”Does the $190.00 fee to D&B cover all references we submit, or do we have to pay $190.00 for each reference?

Answer: The $190.00 fee to D&B covers all references submitted.

24. Section 3 page 4, last paragraph states: “References are specific to the offeror. If the offeror was recently acquired or merged with another entity, the references submitted must directly pertain to the experience of the offeror. The experience of parent corporations, subsidiaries, or affiliates will not be considered.”Question: Will references where we are a joint venture (JV) member be acceptable as a reference?

Answer: Joint Venture references will not be accepted.

25. If USPTO spent $48M in 2014 in IT Products, why has the ceiling for this IDIQ been set at only $13M for the life of the contract? This would make the annual average ceiling approximately $1.85M, which seems very low based on previous years’ IT spend. The previous IDIQ contract award had a maximum of $10M per year. (Reference Page 2, Paragraph 2)

Answer: See Answer to Question 17.

26. What will USPTO do if/when the maximum spending ceiling of $13M is met significantly sooner than the 7 year life expectancy of this IDIQ? (Reference Page 2, Paragraph 2)

Answer: See Answer to Question 17.

27. Please confirm that USPTO requires that only a receipt/screen shot of submitting our Past Performance evaluation request to D&B is included with our final quote to the government, and it is not required to have D&B submit our four (4) Past Performances to USPTO prior to or on May 11, 2015 at 1pm EST? (Reference Page 4, Instructions to Offerors)

Answer: No, D&B must submit references to USPTO prior to or on May 18, 2015. This must be sent to the Contract Specialist and come directly from Open Ratings. A receipt/screenshot is no longer required for this solicitation. Please note that the response due date has been extended to Monday, May 18, 2015, 1:00pm, Contracting Officer’s Local Time.

28. Page 6 Representation and Certification states that the offeror shall complete only paragraph (b) of this provision if the offeror has completed the annual representations and certification electronically via the System for Award Management (SAM). On page 19 completion of item (p) Ownership or Control of Offeror is required if the solicitation requires an offeror to be registered in SAM or a requirement to have a DUNS Number in the solicitation. As these are requirements of this solicitation, please confirm if the offeror should completed both paragraphs (b) and (p) or only completed paragraph (b)? (Reference Page 6 and 19)

Answer: If the offeror is already registered in System for Award Management (SAM), only paragraph (b) should be completed. If the offeror is not already registered in SAM, the offeror shall complete only paragraphs (c) through (p) of this solicitation.

29. Will the Government consider extending the due date of the solicitation to Friday, May 15th? (Reference Page 5)

Answer: See Answer to Question 18.

30. Would PTO consider increasing the ceiling on the contract?

Answer: See Answer to Question 17.

31. Would PTO consider revising the ceiling to be at the IDIQ level versus the individual contract level and revise it to account for the project total IT spend, average of $50M a year over 7 years.

Answer: See Answer to Question 17.

32. Please provide the total number of transaction per annum along with the revenue per annum and the average order size.

Answer: This information is not pertinent in order to provide a response to the solicitation and therefore will not be answered.

33. Please clarify how comparisons between bids for the contract will compare if optional responses will result in different part numbers / reflective price point. IE will consideration be placed on a percentage off historical price submissions?

Answer: Pricing will be compared to historical pricing, however; please reference section 52.212-2 Evaluation – Commercial items which states, evaluation factors 1,2,3, and 4, are considered equal and when combined are significantly more important than Factor 5, price.

34. How often does PTO open this contract for potential new bidders?

Answer: This IDIQ program will not be opened to potential new bidders after the closing of this solicitation.

35. When do the balance of the existing IDIQs expire?

Answer: See Answer to Question 7. Existing IDIQ’s will not have options exercised should any remain. All existing contracts will expire June 30, 2015.

36. How many contracts does the PTO anticipate awarding as a result of this competition?

37. Will companies that provide a catalog be evaluated more favorably? Or will clear demonstration of our breadth and depth in the written section be sufficient to receive the highest rating?

Answer: Companies that provide a catalog will not be evaluated more favorably, as this is not a requirement. The way in which the offeror demonstrates the breadth and depth of their product offering is an internal business decision.

38. Does a letter from an authorized distributor who will act as the exclusive source of supply satisfy this requirement to ensure supply chain risk management?

Answer: Yes. Also see Answer to Question 6 for further information.

39. Can these be the “other value added factors” of team members? I assume it can because they acknowledge the use of “other small business team members” as other value added factor.

Answer: Yes.