Form USPTO-OP-013_.pdf

USPTO-OP-013.v4.0 (11/2023)

GIPA Simultaneous Interpretation System

LIMITED SOURCES JUSTIFICATION (LSJ)

(BRAND NAME)

(FAR 8.405-6(b)) (These authorities are not tailorable)

SECTION I. COMPLETED BY THE PROGRAM OFFICE

Program Office: OPIA Program Office POC: Richard Montgomery

Title of Procurement: GIPA SI System Acquisition Package #: ACQ-25-0150 Estimated Value (including options)

$570,000.00

Contracting Officer: Richard Montgomery Contracting Officer Phone: (571) 268-2499 Vendor Name (if applicable): Televic, Inc Contract or Order # (if applicable):

The following LSJ has been prepared to meet the requirements of Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) 8.405-6, and FAR 17.502-1(a).

1. Program Office Anticipated Type of LSJ (select from the drop-down box) [ o Brand Name and Sole Source (limited to one vendor who can fulfil the brand name (FAR subpart 8.4) ]

2. Identification of the agency and contracting activity

United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) Office of the Chief Financial Officer (OCFO) Office of Procurement (OP) Alexandria, VA

3. Nature and/or description of the action requiring approval

The Global Intellectual Property Academy (GIPA) and Office of Chief Information Office (OCIO), two branches within the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) have determined that the current Simultaneous Interpretation (SI) system does not meet current cyber security standards and must be replaced with a brand that meets all compliance regulations. GIPA intends to negotiate and award a vendor to install a new multi-lingual SI system to allow secure support for GIPA events, many of which require interpretation of multiple languages.

USPTO OP intends to negotiate and award a new order to a manufacturer for Televic brand. For this New Award: A firm fixed price order is contemplated for award.

4. Description of the supplies or services required and the estimated value thereof

The Televic brand system will replace the current, in use Taiden system. This system consists of microphones, receivers, and rack mounted periphery (control systems, audio processors, amplifiers.)

5. Any other facts supporting the justification

(a) There are only a handful of manufacturers that specialize in this kind of product and even fewer that meet Trade Agreements Act (TAA) compliance. Televic does both.

(b) Due to the fact that the current system in use is not TAA compliant replacement of the system is a top priority. GIPA conducts frequent meetings requiring SI or multiple languages, and security is paramount.

(c) Televic is a leading expert in the field of design and manufacture of SI equipment and based in Beltsville, Maryland, allowing for local support which allows for cost savings.

GIPA has determined the Televic product meets both the security requirements as well as state of the art technology to allow for higher quality transmission of voice, but in room and virtually.

Market research has also shown the Televic brand name to be a good value and has a proven and robust track record in use cases where it is currently deployed. While USPTO/GIPA have determined the Televic product to be the best option for this project, Televic only manufactures the product, the product is to be installed by a capable vendor on the GSA schedule. This award will be firm, fixed price consisting of a base year period of twelve months.

SECTION II. COLLABORATION BETWEEN THE PROGRAM OFFICE AND OP

6. Adjudicated Type of LSJ (select from the drop-down box) [ o Brand Name Limited Competition (competitive to all the vendors who can fulfill the brand name or limited to 2 or more vendors—FAR subpart 8.4) ]

7. Authority and supporting rationale: Authority and supporting rationale (see FAR 8.405-6(b)(1)) and, if applicable, a demonstration of the proposed contractor’s unique qualifications to provide the required supply or service.

This acquisition is conducted under the authority of the 35 U.S.C. 2(b)(4)(A) (Patent and Trademark Office Efficiency Act). Consideration of schedule contractors will be restricted only to the item peculiar to one manufacturer as provided in FAR 8.405-6(a)(2) [see FAR 8.401, FAR

8.405-1, FAR 8.405-2].

8. Market Research: Description of the market research conducted among schedule holders and the results, or a statement of the reason market research was not conducted.

A Request for Information (RFI) was posted on the System for Award Management (SAM) website on February 8, 2024 and closed on February 23, 2024.There were three responses to the RFI;

Televic, TransPerfect and Translinguist. Based upon a review of the responses by the technical team, the following was determined: TransPerfect’s response to the RFI showed that their their offering does not meet our needs at this time. The RFI requested a solution for SI, both hardware and software. This vendor responded with a lot of information about their company and experience in providing translators, no other solutions were offered other than that.

In short they did not seem to respond to the RFI that was sent out, only offering a fully managed solution for interpreters, which was not what we had initially requested. Similarly Translinguist did not provide an RFI response that gave confidence in the RFI since their offering too did not meet our needs only offering a fully managed solution. Translinguist offered a cloud based solution built around human interpreters, using their virtual system to connect.. Our requirement stated the need for replacing our current, in use system with a new one which meets cyber-security and technical requirements. This would not work for GIPA as we would not be permitted to connect to their proprietary virtual system Televic was the only brand that had a manufacturer who best fits the stated needs for a new SI system as they met all aspects listed within our RFI and give confidence that their brand represent a wholesome solution. Subsequently, further market research was done with the Televic manufacture to gain further insights into where their brand is distributed. Based upon further thorough research, a determination was made to compete the requirement on GSA as there were several (more than 3) distributor of the Televic brand.

9. Agency Actions: Actions if any, the agency may make to remove or overcome any barriers that led to the restricted consideration before any subsequent acquisition.

SECTION III. COMPLETED BY OP

10. CO Determination: Determination by the ordering activity Contracting Officer that the order will represent the best value to the Government consistent with FAR 8.404(d), and “determination of best procurement approach” consistent with FAR 17.502-1(a).

Pursuant to FAR 8.404(d), GSA has already determined the prices of supplies and fixed-price services, and rates for services offered at hourly rates, under schedule contracts to be fair and reasonable; however, prior to the award of the proposed order, pricing information will be obtained from the proposed contractor and price analysis will be performed and documented to sufficiently determine that the order represents the best value and results in the lowest overall cost alternative (considering price, special features, administrative cost) to meet the Government’s needs.”

SECTION IV. REVIEW AND APPROVAL

1. Technical Certification

By signature below, the Technical Representative certifies that the supporting data necessary to form the basis for this justification is accurate and complete to the best of their knowledge and belief. Furthermore, the Technical Representative certifies that the justification has been adjudicated by the Program Office and OP.

Technical Representative Digital Signature

2. Contracting Officer’s Certification

By signature below, the ordering activity Contracting Officer certifies that this justification is accurate and complete to the best of their knowledge and belief.

Contracting Officer’s Digital Signature

3. Level above Review (LAR) (see PM 2017-01 for definition) (required for actions at all dollar values)

Type text here

By signature below, the ordering activity LAR certifies that this justification is accurate and complete to the best of their knowledge and belief.

Level Above Review’s Digital Signature

4. Office of General Law (OGL) Counsel (required for actions valued >$750K) N/A

By signature below, the ordering activity OGL Counsel deems this justification legally sufficient.

Office of General Law Counsel’s Digital Signature

5. Competition Advocate Approval: Approval (required for actions valued >$750K to $15M)/Concurrence (required for actions valued above $15M) N/A

In accordance with FAR 8.405-6(d)(2), the Competition Advocate, certifies that they have reviewed this justification and has determined that sufficient facts exist to support the justification.

Competition Advocate Digital Signature

6. Bureau Procurement Official (BPO)/ Director of OP (or Designee) (required for actions valued at $5M) N/A

By signature below, the ordering activity BPO/Director of OP certifies that this justification is accurate and complete to the best of their knowledge and belief.

BPO/Director of OP (or Designee) Digital Signature

7. Head of the Contracting Activity (HCA) (or Designee) Approval (required for actions valued >$15M to

)/Concurrence (required for actions valued above $75M) N/A

In accordance with FAR 8.405-6(d)(3), the HCA certifies that they have reviewed this justification and has determined that sufficient facts exist to support the justification.

HCA (or Designee) Digital Signature

8. Senior Procurement Executive (SPE) Approval (required for actions valued above $75M)

N/A

In accordance with FAR 8.405-6(d)(4), the SPE certifies that they have reviewed this justification and has determined that sufficient facts exist to support the justification.

HCA (or Designee) Digital Signature

Section V. Attachments [AS REQUIRED]