The file's text, extracted by GovTribe without its formatting.
USPTO Full Classification Services Questions and Responses
| # |
| RFP Section |
| Question |
| USPTO Response |
| 1 |
| N/A |
| Can you provide a list of participants from the vendor matchmaking session? |
| Yes, attached is a list of those that were in attendance. |
| 2 |
| Synopsis |
| The solicitation states that offerors can submit a maximum of one proposal. Does this limit also apply to subcontractors (i.e. can subcontractors be attached to multiple proposals, or just a single proposal)? |
| No, this limit does not apply to subcontractors. |
| 3 |
| 1.1 (pg. 1) |
| The RFP specifies that the minimum, estimated and maximum quantities are based on a single contract award (page 1) and requires a fixed unit price according to these estimated quantities (page 56). Page 56 of the RFP states that the USPTO anticipates awarding up to two (2) IDIQ contracts for CLINs 0001/1A and 0002/2A; while page 58 further echoes that multiple awards may be made (up to two (2) for CLINS #001/A and #002/A). Estimated quantities (per contract) would obviously differ from the schedule in 1.1 if multiple contracts are awarded. This would substantially impact fixed unit price (overhead and other costs, e.g. CA costs from 2.4.4, spread over smaller quantity). Please clarify what will happen in the event of multiple contract awards in CLINS #001/A and #002/A? Does the USPTO anticipate an alternative price negotiation procedure in a multiple award situation? |
| The minimums in Section 1.1 have been adjusted such that they reflect the guaranteed minimum quantity per contract. Also in Section 1.1, the language in the paragraph above the pricing tables has been revised. |
| 4 |
| 1.1 & 1.2 (pg. 4) |
| On pg. 4 of the RFP, optional CLINs #001A and #002A are discussed. Can you provide additional information on the expected timing for this switch, and any accompanying ramp down / ramp up or training that may occur in support of the switch? |
| The USPTO is currently working on eliminating routing by USPC and any associated organizational change but no reliable estimate of the implementation date can be made at this time. As stated in 1.1, the Contractor will be notified at least 60 days prior to these changes. If CLINs 1A and 2A are exercised, the USPTO does not envision any ramp down or ramp up associated with this change. The USPTO does not envision any formalized training for the changeover but will provide guidance on any change to the definition of the CPC first classification and an updated Classes Arranged Numerically (CAN) report which sets forth the CPC classification ranges that are assigned to each Group Art Unit. |
| 5 |
| 2.3 (pg. 8) |
| On pg. 8 of the RFP, it is mentioned that files would be initially be received as images (.tif) files, but that the format may be later changed to text or xml. Can you provide additional information on the expected timing for this switch, and any accompanying ramp down / ramp up or training that may occur in support of the switch? As may be appreciated, such a switch may necessitate IT & IS changes by the vendor, so ample time to ensure that files can be received and processed without interruption would be greatly appreciated. |
The USPTO is currently working to convert to .xml but no reliable estimate of the implementation date can be made at this time. The USPTO will provide sufficient prior notification to the Contractor of any source document formatting change to ensure that any IT & IS changes needed by the Contractor are completed prior to implementation. It is not seen how such a change could include any ramp down or ramp up. The USPTO does not envision any formalized training for the changeover but will provide guidance and work with the contractor(s) to ensure sufficient time is allowed to implementation.
| 6 |
| 2.4.4 (pg. 18-19) |
| On pg. 18 of the RFP ATOs are discussed. If the winning bidder has an existing ATO, is that ATO understood to be portable, or would the process need to be duplicated/completed independently in support of this contract? |
| If the existing ATO is with USPTO, it may be portable pending USPTO review and approval of the system before work can commence. The determination of whether a current ATO is portable will greatly depend on the extent that the current system is being changed to accommodate the new work. If the existing ATO is with another Government agency, the process would need to be completed through USPTO but may be more expeditious. See answer to Question #24. |
| 7 |
| 52.212-1 (pg. 53) |
| At the top of pg. 53 of the RFP, the sentence reads, “The offeror will demonstrate its technical ability to perform classification services required in Section C of the RFP…” However, the RFP is not broken down by letter. Should this should refer to “Section 2.4” or “Section 2”? |
| Yes, this has been corrected to “Section 2”. |
| 8 |
| 52.212-2 (pg. 57) |
| Factor 4: Price on pg. 57 of the RFP requests pricing per CLIN utilizing the maximum quantities, however, as may be appreciated, pricing breaks are often directly tied to larger workloads. Since it is our understanding that the USPTO desires to make this contract a multi-vendor award, if practical, would it be acceptable to submit pricing schemes for either a full or a partial award of the contract (i.e., pricing schemes for 100% and 50% of the listed maximum quantities)? |
| This has been revised to read, “The USPTO will evaluate the Offeror’s proposal and pricing per CLIN for the base period and all option periods listed in Section 1.” See answer to Question #3. |
| 9 |
| 1.2 (pg. 4) |
| Section 1.2 cites that for the base period, the USPTO may employ a “ramp-up” period followed by a possible “phase-in” period in which limited volumes by CLIN would be provided for classification. If volumes are limited as described, is it correct to assume the limited volume will be distributed across the entire breadth of USPC and CPC technical subject areas in a similar manner to the relative subject matter distribution within the entire volume? |
| Yes |
| 10 |
| 2.4.1 A (pg. 10-12; Exhibit C) |
| The RFP requirements for USPC routing classification found within 2.4.1 A cite five tests for identifying a controlling claim and PR class and additionally cite the Examiner Handbook and Exhibit C as providing additional guidance. The Examiner Handbook and Exhibit C include guidance for selecting the appropriate PR subclass within the PR class. Please confirm that the government’s intent is that the contractor is required to provide a USPC routing classification which meets the subclass selection criteria defined in the Examiner Handbook and Exhibit C. For example, if all subclasses within a PR class fall within a single GAU, the contractor is required to select the PR subclass of the PR class in accordance with the PR subclass criteria of Exhibit C and the Examiner Handbook. |
| The Contractor should select the PR subclass of the PR class in accordance with the PR subclass criteria of Exhibit C and the Examiner Handbook. However, the error rate determination only requires that the assigned PR class and PR subclass be in the correct group art unit as set for in the CAN report. |
| 11 |
| 2.5.8 (pg. 22) |
| The numerator of the E4 error rate formula includes (number of incorrect classification(s) + number of omitted classification(s) + number of incorrect symbol(s) in the sample]. It would appear in this formula as if incorrect classification is counted twice. Please clarify the correct calculation formula. |
| The numerator for the E4 error rate formula has been corrected to indicate number of invalid classification(s) + number of omitted classification(s) + number of incorrect symbol(s) in the sample. |
| 12 |
| 2.7 (pg. 23-24) |
| The RFP reads: “For this contract, the Contractor shall establish, maintain, and adhere to a Small Business Subcontracting Plan that commits the maximum practicable opportunity for small businesses within the contract. The plan shall be accordance with FAR Part 19, with specific attention paid to FAR 19.7 and FAR 52.219.9, alternate II. This includes, but is not limited to: Estimating the value and percentage goals of the services to be subcontracted to small businesses, based off of total contract value….” We request that the wording highlighted be changed to read “of total planned subcontracting dollars...” as required in FAR 52.219-9 (d)(1) The offeror’s subcontracting plan shall include Goals, expressed in terms of percentages of “total planned subcontracting dollars.” |
| This language has been removed. Item (e) on pg. 56 has been revised to state, “…expressed in terms of percentages of total planned subcontracting dollars.” |
| 13 |
| 2.7 (pg. 24) |
| In Section 2.7, the final bulleted statement appears to be incomplete. It currently reads “Stipulating the plans for mentoring emerging and small businesses during their .” Please provide the clarification and/or the complete statement intended for this section. |
| This language has been removed. |
| 14 |
| 52.212-1 (pg. 52) |
| The RFP reads, “Volume II shall not exceed 25 pages inclusive of the Small Business Subcontracting & Participation Plan.” Usually the SB Subcontracting Plan is excluded from page count. Considering that a proper Small Business Subcontracting plan might be 25 pages in itself, or at least the larger part of 25 pages, would you revise this sentence to exclude the SB Subcontracting & Participation Plan from the page count? |
| This has been revised to state, “Volume II shall not exceed 15 pages excluding the Small Business Subcontracting & Participation Plan.” |
| 15 |
| N/A |
| Given the RFP requirement to process high volumes within stringent timeframes, fully accommodating any potential classification volume/workload fluctuations, please verify if the Department of Labor – Wage and Hour Division final rule on defining exemptions for Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) is applicable to this solicitation. This rule, published on May 23, 2016 increases the salary level test for FLSA exemption from $23,660 to $47,476. The rule will become effective on December 1, 2016 and under this contract could significantly impact an employer’s costs when estimating projected overtime requirements as a broader class of employees (FLSA Non-Exempt under $47,476) must be paid time and a half for all hours worked in excess of 40 per week. |
| Presently there is no Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) pertaining to FLSA for contracts not subject to Service Contract Labor Standards. Contractors will need to determine how best to comply with this rule. |
| 16 |
| 2.4.4 (pg. 18-19) |
| It states it takes a minimum of three months to obtain an ATO and that it must be obtained by March 1, 2017. It further states that Security Packages must be submitted by January 31, 2017. If it takes a minimum of three months, the time frame cited in the RFP covered by the package submission date of January 31, 2017 and achieving ATO by March 1, 2017 is only 28 days. We believe this to be an error and that the correct date should be Security Packages must be submitted by November 1, 2016 in order to meet the requirement of obtaining an ATO on March 1, 2017. Can USPTO clarify the correct dates? |
| The process, in totality, to obtain an ATO takes a minimum of three (3) months. The complete security package, once submitted to USPTO, takes approximately one (1) month to review and approve. |
| 17 |
| N/A |
| Should a company only bid on one CLIN, does it eliminate their chance of obtaining work under the remaining CLINS at a later date if all other requirements/conditions are met? |
| Yes. |
| 18 |
| 1.1 (pg. 1) |
| What are the minimum quantities when there are multiple awards? For instance, if two awards are made for CLIN 0001/1A, is the minimum for the base period 250,000 for each contractor? |
| See answer to Question #3. |
| 19 |
| 1.1 (pg. 1) |
| We assume we are required to submit a Fixed Unit Price for CLIN #001A and CLIN #002A (# represents the contract period that this change occurs) even though there are no volumes associated with the two CLIN’s. Is this correct? If so, how will the USPTO evaluate pricing for CLIN #001A and CLIN #002A? |
| Yes. When/if optional CLINs #001A and #002A are exercised, the volumes for CLIN #001 (# represents the contract period that this change occurs) will be moved to CLIN #001A and the pricing for CLIN #001A will take effect. In addition, the USPTO will no longer need the services provided by CLIN #002 (# represents the contract period that this change occurs) and the USPTO may either terminate CLIN #002 or transition to CLIN #002A. The guaranteed minimums, estimates, and maximums listed in CLIN #001 and CLIN #002 are aggregate totals of CLIN #001 plus #001A and #002 plus #002A, respectively, for the period. |
USPTO will evaluate the fixed unit price per CLIN. The extended price column has been removed in Section 1.
| 20 |
| 1.2 (pg. 4) |
| If the USPTO issues a multiple award for CLIN’s 0001/1A and CLIN’s 0002/2A to two contractors will the USPTO divide work evenly between the two contractors once the initial 6 month start up period is over. |
| No, the USPTO will issue delivery orders by considering the Contractor’s price, quality, timeliness, and capacity. |
| 21 |
| 1.2 & 2.4.3.B (pg. 2-4, 5, 16) |
| What is the relationship between unit prices in the Reclassification CLINs and those in the Task Order bids for specific reclassification projects? Can the prices in the Task Order bids be different from the CLIN prices in the contract? Can they be either lower or higher? |
| Contractors awarded CLIN #003 will have an opportunity to further discount this unit price when bidding for the specific reclassification project(s). The proposed task order unit price may not exceed the unit price in the contract. |
| 22 |
| 1.2 & 2.4.3.B (pg. 2-4, 5, 16) |
| According to section 1.2 (p. 5), Task Order projects can vary from “less than 200 documents to more than 10,000 documents.” This is a very large range. Assuming the proposed CLIN 0003 price for reclassification work is the upper limit for the prices that can be bid for specific projects, an offeror can propose a relatively low CLIN unit price (one appropriate for a fairly large project), and then simply not bid on smaller quantity projects. Will the government consider creating a tiered pricing model for CLIN 0003 to allow offerors to propose different prices for different size projects (e.g. 0 – 1000, 1001 – 5,000, 5001-10,000, etc). |
| The Government will not create a tiered pricing model for CLIN 0003. See response to Question #21. |
| 23 |
| 2.4 (pg. 9) |
| The previous RFP included CLIN’s for Combination Sets and Document Research, the recent RFI mentions Combination Sets, but not Document Research. The current RFP has no mention of either of them. Does the PTO no longer require Combination Sets and Document Research? |
| Combination sets and Document Research are not part of this requirement. |
| 24 |
| 2.4.4 (pg. 19) |
| Regarding the statement “…the USPTO must review and approve the system before work on the instant contract can commence:” 1) What are the deliverables the contractor must provide to USPTO for this review and approval, and 2) When relying upon an existing ATO, what are the anticipated deadlines for deliverable submission and subsequent USPTO review and approval of the system post-award? |
| The required deliverables for a moderate or high risk ATO would consist of the following: System Security Plan (SSP), Risk Assessment Report (RAR), existing ATO letter (Authorization Decision Document), and current/active Plan of Action and Milestones (POA&Ms) delivered to the COR. |
| 25 |
| 2.5.9 (pg. 23) |
| The table cross references RFP sections that do not exist. Should that column be removed from the table? |
| The column references have been corrected. |
| 26 |
| PTO-03 (pg. 39) |
| Since this is a FFP contract should items a, b and c be removed as a requirement from the RFP. |
| No, USPTO’s Invoicing and payment instructions are applicable to all contracts. |
| 27 |
| N/A |
| What is the anticipated award date? |
| Award is anticipated by November 22, 2016. |