N6660419R1317_Amendment_0006.pdf

AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION/MODIFICATION OF CONTRACT

Except as provided herein, all terms and conditions of the document referenced in Item 9A or 10A, as heretofore changed, remains unchanged and in full force and effect.

15A. NAME AND TITLE OF SIGNER (Type or print)

30-105-04EXCEPTION TO SF 30

APPROVED BY OIRM 11-84

STANDARD FORM 30 (Rev. 10-83) Prescribed by GSA

FAR (48 CFR) 53.243

See Continuation Page.

1. CONTRACT ID CODE PAGE OF PAGES

1 18

16A. NAME AND TITLE OF CONTRACTING OFFICER (Type or print)

16C. DATE SIGNED

BY 19-Jul-2019

16B. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA15C. DATE SIGNED15B. CONTRACTOR/OFFEROR

(Signature of Contracting Officer)(Signature of person authorized to sign)

8. NAME AND ADDRESS OF CONTRACTOR (No., Street, County, State and Zip Code) X N6660419R1317

X 9B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

05-Jun-2019

10B. DATED (SEE ITEM 13)

9A. AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION NO.

11. THIS ITEM ONLY APPLIES TO AMENDMENTS OF SOLICITATIONS

X The above numbered solicitation is amended as set forth in Item 14. The hour and date specified for receipt of Offer is extended, X is not extended.

Offer must acknowledge receipt of this amendment prior to the hour and date specified in the solicitation or as amended by one of the following methods:

(a) By completing Items 8 and 15, and returning copies of the amendment; (b) By acknowledging receipt of this amendment on each copy of the offer submitted;

or (c) By separate letter or telegram which includes a reference to the solicitation and amendment numbers. FAILURE OF YOUR ACKNOWLEDGMENT TO BE RECEIVED AT THE PLACE DESIGNATED FOR THE RECEIPT OF OFFERS PRIOR TO THE HOUR AND DATE SPECIFIED MAY RESULT IN

REJECTION OF YOUR OFFER. If by virtue of this amendment you desire to change an offer already submitted, such change may be made by telegram or letter, provided each telegram or letter makes reference to the solicitation and this amendment, and is received prior to the opening hour and date specified.

12. ACCOUNTING AND APPROPRIATION DATA (If required)

13. THIS ITEM APPLIES ONLY TO MODIFICATIONS OF CONTRACTS/ORDERS.

IT MODIFIES THE CONTRACT/ORDER NO. AS DESCRIBED IN ITEM 14.

A. THIS CHANGE ORDER IS ISSUED PURSUANT TO: (Specify authority) THE CHANGES SET FORTH IN ITEM 14 ARE MADE IN THE

CONTRACT ORDER NO. IN ITEM 10A.

B. THE ABOVE NUMBERED CONTRACT/ORDER IS MODIFIED TO REFLECT THE ADMINISTRATIVE CHANGES (such as changes in paying office, appropriation date, etc.) SET FORTH IN ITEM 14, PURSUANT TO THE AUTHORITY OF FAR 43.103(B).

C. THIS SUPPLEMENTAL AGREEMENT IS ENTERED INTO PURSUANT TO AUTHORITY OF:

D. OTHER (Specify type of modification and authority)

E. IMPORTANT: Contractor is not, is required to sign this document and return copies to the issuing office.

14. DESCRIPTION OF AMENDMENT/MODIFICATION (Organized by UCF section headings, including solicitation/contract subject matter where feasible.)

10A. MOD. OF CONTRACT/ORDER NO.

2. AMENDMENT/MODIFICATION NO. 5. PROJECT NO.(If applicable)

6. ISSUED BY

3. EFFECTIVE DATE

19-Jul-2019

CODE

NAVAL UNDERSEA WARFARE CENTER

JANNA BECKERT, CODE 0223

CONTRACTS DEPARTMENT

1176 HOWELL STREET, BLDG. 1258

NEWPORT RI 02841-1708

N66604 7. ADMINISTERED BY (If other than item 6)

4. REQUISITION/PURCHASE REQ. NO.

CODE

See Item 6

FACILITY CODECODE

EMAIL:TEL:

N6660419R1317

SECTION SF 30 BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE

SUMMARY OF CHANGES

SECTION A - SOLICITATION/CONTRACT FORM

The following have been modified:

GENERAL INFORMATION

Distribution: FILE, KR, NUWC 01, PI: TBD, WAWF Acceptor: TBD

NUWCDIVNPT Control Number: 191317

NUWCDIVNPT Requisition Number: 1300769865

NUWCDIVNPT POC: Janna Beckert (Phone: (401) 832-3560; Email: janna.beckert@navy.mil)

Amendment 0006 The purpose of Amendment 0006 is to:

1. Revise provisions as detailed below.

2. Insert Contract Data Requirements List, Exhibit A.

3. Address industry questions and provide Government responses.

QUESTION 1: Is NIST compliance required in order to submit a bid on the item above?

ANSWER 1: NIST is not applicable to this requirement.

QUESTION 2: How many patent applications per year would be given to the firms awarded the BPA?

ANSWER 2: The exact required number of patent applications are unknown at this time. Request for Quotes will be issued to all BPA holders when a requirement is determined.

QUESTION 3: How many firms will be awarded the BPA?

ANSWER 3: The BPA will be awarded to multiple vendors and quotes will be requested as calls against the order are made. There is no estimate for the number of awards that will be made.

QUESTION 4: How much time will be given for a patent search?

ANSWER 4: This is addressed in Block 16 of CDRL A002 on form DD Form 1423-2, AUG 96 (EG). In addition, individual BPA Calls will have Period of Performances identified.

QUESTION 5: How much time would be given for preparing the first draft of the patent application? (e.g. 30 days, 60 days, etc.)

ANSWER 5: This is addressed in Block 16 of CDRL A001 on form DD Form 1423-2, AUG 96 (EG).

QUESTION 6: How much time would be give for preparing the final draft of the patent application?

ANSWER 6: This is addressed in Block 16 of CDRL A001 on form DD Form 1423-2, AUG 96 (EG).

Question 7: If a group within a firm is less than the size standard but the overall firm is larger can an offeror provide a proposal?

Answer 7: All offerors small business size status will be verified in the System for Award Management (SAM.gov).

This requirement is set-aside 100% Small Businesses.

QUESTION 8: In Instructions to Offerors 2.0 Pass/Fail Requirements, on page 31 of 38, of the Solicitation, subparagraph (a) states that verification of an Offeror’s CAGE code is sufficient with regard to the Joint Certification Program (JCP). We have a CAGE code. Please confirm that a CAGE code by the Offeror is sufficient to meet this pass/fail requirement.

ANSWER 8: Offerors shall provide proof of registration in the Joint Certification Program. A statement that the Offeror is registered in JCP is not sufficient proof.

QUESTION 9: Section M – Evaluation Factors (b) states that each offer should contain the Offeror’s best terms from a technical and pricing standpoint. However, we don’t see any pricing factors in the evaluation, any requirement that Offeror should provide a separate pricing proposal, or otherwise how Offeror should provide pricing information. In other Government proposals, we have submitted pricing by task or hourly. Please confirm whether the Offeror is to provide pricing information as part of the proposal and, if so, what pricing information is to be provided.

ANSWER 9: This was an administrative error and section M has been revised to clarify that no pricing information is required at the master BPA level. Quotes will be requested as calls against the master BPA to all BPA holders.

QUESTION 10: Obtaining a patent involves many steps that can be separated into the following 4 stages:

1.Searching and reporting Prior Art 2.Preparing a patent application, including drafting figures;

3.Filing the application and figures with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office; and 4.Negotiating with the PTO until a patent issues from the application.

When I read the solicitation, I understand only stages 1 and 2 are out for bid based on my reading of the scope of work and deliverable product (reproduced below). Although I have seen instances where stages 1 and 2 are handled separately from stages 3 and 4, that is atypical for many clients.

Accordingly, I would just like to confirm whether I correctly understand the Scope and Deliverable Product portions of the solicitation.

ANSWER 10: The contractor shall be tasked in accordance with the Statement of Work (Stages one and two). The contractor shall not represent the Navy in any capacity.

QUESTION 11: Although this solicitation is for a blanket purchase agreement, is an estimate of the volume of work to be assigned among all award recipients available?

ANSWER 11: The exact required number of patent applications are unknown at this time. Request for Quotes will be issued to all BPA holders when a requirement is determined.

QUESTION 12: Will NUWC share in the cost of bringing an award recipient's IT infrastructure into compliance with DFARS 252.204-7012, e.g., as a separate billable line item rather than as an expense amortized within the charges billed for services provided?

ANSWER 12: No, the Government will not share this cost as it is not a direct cost to the contract.

QUESTION 13: The above-referenced solicitation repeatedly refers to PRICE as an evaluation factor in the award.

However, I am unable to find any place in the description of the proposal that allows me to enter any price information. Please help me understand how PRICE is an evaluation factor and where I am supposed to enter my pricing data.

ANSWER 13: This was an administrative error and section M has been revised to clarify that no pricing information is required at the master BPA level. Quotes will be requested as calls against the master BPA to all BPA holders

QUESTION 14: I submitted a bid last week and, upon further reading, I find that I needed to sign the amendments and include them in the package, which I did not do. What is the easiest way to update my filing – send a whole new replacement, send just the missing pages as an addenda, other?

ANSWER 15: How the offeror decides to submit a complete proposal is a business decision made by the offeror.

QUESTION 16: After further investigation with PTAC, I find I am not certified with JCP, as it takes about 30 days.

Is there a remedy or will I just miss the deadline?

ANSWER 16: Please refer to Instructions to Offerors 2.0 Pass/Fail requirements for information concerning the Pass/Fail requirements of the solicitation.

Section C:

1. Revise Statement of Work (SOW).

Section M:

1. Revise Section M – Evaluation Factors for Award.

Section J:

1. Insert Exhibit A DD Form 1423, CDRL.

All other solicitation terms and conditions remain unchanged.

Amendment 0005 The purpose of Amendment 0005 is to extend the closing date and time from 2:00 PM EST 16 July 2019 to 2:00 PM EST 30 July 2019.

All other solicitation terms and conditions remain unchanged.

Amendment 0004

The purpose of Amendment 0004 is to extend the closing date and time from 2:00 PM EST 09 July 2019 to 2:00 PM EST 16 July 2019.

Amendment 0003

The purpose of this amendment is to:

1. Extend the closing date and time from 2:00 PM EST 01 July 2019 to 2:00 PM EST 09 July 2019.

2. Address industry questions and provide Government responses.

QUESTION 7: There is an original solicitation posted June 5 and one posted June 14. I cannot access the one posted on the June 5 and it is not labeled as an amendment.

ANSWER 7: The solicitation posted on June 14 is the same as the one posted on June 5. It was reposted to revise access permissions due to an administrative error.

All other soliciation terms and conditions remain unchanged.

Amendment 0002

The purpose of Amendment 0002 is to correct an administrative error in Amendment 0001 and to extend the closing date and time from 2:00 PM EST 20 June 2019 to 2:00 PM EST 01 July 2019.

Amendment 0001

The purpose of this amendment is to:

1. Extend the closing date and time from 2:00 PM EST 20 June 2019 to 2:00 PM EST 01 July 2019.

2. Address industry questions and provide Government responses

QUESTION 1: Do we have to sign and return the cover sheet of the "Solicitation/Contract/Order For Commercial Items"?

ANSWER 1: The contractor is required the solicitation and all associated amendments in accordance with block 28 of the solicitation.

QUESTION 2: With regard to the requirement for a sample Prior Art Search Report, I assume that what is required is a copy of an actual prior art search report that we have done. My concern is that these reports are "Attorney- Client Privileged Communications" and that I may violate the Rules of Professional Conduct in submitting a prior art search report of another client. Do you have any recommendations?

ANSWER 2: Section L Instructions to Offerors 3.1(b) is revised to reflect and incorporate the below language:

- Provide a sample prior art search accomplished for a client that would waive privilege in writing.

- Provide a prior art search report produced for the vendor's own use.

- Provide a prior art search report produced for another U.S. Government agency. However, identify the agency (for Approval by us) before sending the report unless it is the U.S. Navy.

- Produce a prior art search report on an issued patent of the United States of America; as Represented by the Secretary of the Navy while attesting that the search results were not taken from the text of the issued U.S. patent.

Or

- Produce a new prior art search report for a field of technology of NUWCDIVNPT such as antennas, optics, pumps etc.

QUESTION 3: What are DCAA and DCMA office points of contact?

ANSWER 3: DCAA and DCMA activities will be identified at time of award as DCAA and DCMA POCs are determined by the contractor’s location. All post award administration for the BPAs will be done by NUWCDIVNPT. If an offeror does not have identified points of contact the offeror shall state that.

QUESTION 4: I would also like to request the bid packages.

ANSWER 4: This was due to an administrative error the solicitation and attachments are now accessible.

QUESTION 5: Technical Capability (3.1a): The requirement is a USPTO patent application or an issued USPTO patent; we have both. They each total well over 20 pages in length; what portion(s) shall we submit (i.e., first page showing patent info, drawing(s), etc.)?

ANSWER 5: In accordance with the solicitation the Government shall only evaluate 20 pages. Any additional pages over the page count will not be considered in the evaluation.

QUESTION 6: Technical Capability (3.1b): Does the required example in (b) need to be related to what is submitted in (a)?

ANSWER 6: The required example in (b) does not need to be related to what is submitted in (a).

SECTION G:

1. Insert provision G-232-H004 GOVERNMENT PURCHASE CARD METHOD OF PAY (NAVSEA) (OCT 2018).

SECTION L:

1. As a result of Answer 2, Section L Instructions to Offerors 3.1(b) is revised to reflect and incorporate this language.

SECTION C - DESCRIPTIONS AND SPECIFICATIONS

STATEMENT OF WORK (SOW)

Statement of Work

Task One: The contractor shall draft a non-provisional patent application for the Navy [patent] Case invention disclosure provided to the contractor under this statement of work. This shall include formal drawings suitable for acceptance by the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO).

Task Two: The contractor shall conduct a prior art search and submit a search report.

Protection of Information

The contractor shall ensure all documents, information and other technical data/data shall be protected by the contractor from unauthorized use and disclosure to persons or other entities except as specifically authorized by the Government.

Task One: Patent Application Drafting

1. Preparation and Delivery

a. Patent application preparation shall be conducted in accordance and in conformity with the US Patent and Trademark Office Manual for Patent Examination in force during drafting of the application, including changes subsequent to award of this contract as well as the provisions of Title 35, United States Code and with Title 37, Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) and any other applicable laws and legal authorities.

b. Contractor shall deliver patent application deliverables in read/write electronic form consisting of Microsoft Word .docx files or compatible files. The contractor shall deliver drafts, corrected drafts, and ultimately, final formal patent drawings by e-mail of a portable document format (.pdf) drawing file and the AutoCAD source file. Drawing files must be 100% compatible with AutoCAD LT 2012. Upon conclusion of the contract, all incomplete drawings shall be delivered.

c. The application shall be arranged as required by 37 C.F.R. 1.77 and follow the guidelines laid out in the Manual for Patent Examining Procedures (MPEP) 608.01(a). The Specification shall include the following statement after the “Title of the Invention” and Cross Reference to Related Applications” (when appropriate) and before reference to a table, or a computer program listing appendix submitted on a compact disk (when appropriate) or the Background of the Invention” :

“STATEMENT REGARDING FEDERALLY SPONSORED RESEARCH OR

DEVELOPMENT”

“The invention described herein may be manufactured and used by or for the Government of the United States of America for governmental purposes without the payment of any royalties thereon or therefor.”

d. The Specification shall be typed double-spaced on paper meeting the requirements of the US Patent and Trademark Office rules and requirements, currently 37 CFR 1.52. Paper size shall be

8.5 by 11 inches and utilize a left, right, top and bottom margins of 1 inch. Pages shall be consecutively numbered at the bottom center of each page. Paragraph numbers shall be placed at the left margin beginning with [0001] (in bold print) followed by 0.4 inches space and shall be sequential to the end of the specification. Autonumbering is required.

e. Contractor shall ensure that patent applications are suitably prepared for electronic filing. To this end, the proper type facing, margins, etc. which are required by the United States Patent & Trademark Office (USPTO) for electronic filing shall be used and an electronic document shall be delivered that can be immediately filed using the USPTO electronic filing system.

f. The US Navy docket number (i.e., Navy Case Number), referred to as “Attorney Docket No.

XXXXXX” shall be placed in the header of each page of the Specification in the upper right hand corner of each page. The Navy Case Number shall be provided to the contractor by the Government.

g. The contractor shall prepare formal patent drawings in an AutoCAD and Adobe Acrobat Portable Document (.pdf)PDF format, as part of the patent application that conform to the requirements of 37 CFR §1.84. The formal patent drawings shall conform to the requirements of the USPTO for character of lines, hatching and shading, scale, reference characters, symbols and legends, views, and arrangement of views.

h. Electronic drawings shall be prepared so that all text is at least 1/8 inch high given the sheet sizes specified hereinafter. The size of the sheets on which drawings are made must be 8 1/2 X 11, or 21.0 X 29.7 cm (DIN size A4 - international size). On 8 1/2 X 11 inch drawing sheets the drawing must include a top margin of 1 inch (2.5 cm), and bottom and side margins of 1/4 inch (.64 cm). On 21.0 by 29.7 cm drawing sheets the drawing must include a top margin of at least

2.5 cm, a left side margin of 2.5 cm, a right side margin of 1.5 cm, and a bottom margin of 1.0

cm. Margin border lines are not permitted. All work must be included within the "sight" defined by these margins.

i. All drawings must be described in the patent application specification. All drawing elements shall be described in the application with element numbers. Each figure label shall match description references in the specification of the application. Each figure element shall be described in the specification.

j. Claims shall cover a range of inventions including the broadest appropriate coverage reasonably permitted in view of the available prior art to the narrowest scope appropriate to the commercial applications relevant to the claims to ensure all patentable aspects of the invention are protected. Multiple dependent claims shall not be used. The effect of potential obviousness rejections will be considered in claim drafting to the extent that prior art references are available and known by the contractor. Claims shall not be autonumbered.

k. Contractor shall prepare patent claims to include an apparatus, method of manufacture for the apparatus and method of use claims as appropriate. The patent application shall include not more three independent claims and 20 total claims unless otherwise approved by the technical representative.

l. Contractor shall ensure that the title and claims cover both method and apparatus embodiments where appropriate. Contractor shall ensure the claims describe details or elements of the invention which show the invention is patentably distinct over the known prior art.

m. Contractor must ensure the application and drawings fully describe the claimed invention to clearly meet the 35 USC 112 enablement requirement. In particular, the application and drawings must clearly and fully describe enablement of novel aspects of an invention.

Contractor shall ensure that the full scope of each claim is enabled.

n. The contractor shall review the application for spelling and grammar errors with all errors corrected prior to delivery. Invention details shall be clearly stated, all acronyms spelled out in their first use and references as to the disclosed invention as well as the claims shall be examined for consistency throughout the application and all language/provisions/claims in the application which is inconsistent with other sections/provisions shall be corrected to eliminate any such inconsistency.

o. The title, summary and abstract shall clearly mirror the broadest claims to minimize any risk of being used to narrow or otherwise interpret the claims in a manner inconsistent with the plain meaning of the claims or the scope of the invention.

p. Contractor shall consider whether it is necessary to include definitions of key terms of art for terms and include such terms if the contractor deems necessary in view of a lack of a well understood meaning in the art area of the invention or potential for widely varying interpretations by experts in the art.

q. Subject to receipt of current inventor contact information concurrently with disclosure, contractor shall make reasonable efforts to communicate with at least first named inventor for discussion of invention novelty prior to preparation of a draft application. Contractor shall notify the technical representative if they have not received a response from an inventor within ten business days of a request for information or assistance.

r. Draft Application shall be delivered not later than 30 days after approval to proceed is received by contractor. Draft application to be delivered to technical representative for distribution to inventors. Government will review and comment to the contractor within 60 days after receipt of draft. Contractor shall have 15 days to provide Government with a copy of second and final draft application. A deviation from this schedule can be negotiated between the parties as a modification to the specific tasking.

s. If the final patent application requires major revisions and is not acceptable for legal or technical reasons, the application will be returned to the contractor within 60 days with a request for changes. A second draft shall be provided within 15 days after the application is returned.

Payment will be authorized within 30 days after receipt of the second draft.

t. Contractor shall confer with inventor(s) and the technical representative as required to ensure delivery of a patent application in accordance with this work statement and generally prevailing standards in the patent prosecution practice / industry.

2. Addition of Subject Matter by Inventor beyond Scope of Invention Disclosure:

The contractor shall notify the technical representative of any addition of subject matter not suggested or reasonably included or required to be included in view of the invention disclosure provided to the contractor for preparation under this work statement.

3. Compliance with United States Defense Trade Controls:

Contractor shall ensure non-US Citizens shall not have access to invention disclosures provided by the Government and the patent applications provided under this work statement unless they have a permanent resident card (Green Card) in order to avoid violations of the “deemed export” rule under the International Trafficking in Arms (ITAR) regulation and Arms Export Control Act as well as Export Administration Act, Export Administration Regulation (EAR) and Commerce Control List (CCL).

4. Files, Documents (tangible or electronic) and Papers in Possession of Contractor

All papers, files and associated papers relative to the invention disclosure and files, including patent file wrappers, are US Government property. The contractor shall ensure that patent file wrappers have non-final drafts removed. All references and copies of prior art found by the contractor shall be provided to the Government along with the completed patent application. All non-prior art, notes, old draft drawings, non-final patent application drafts and superseded papers and notes shall be purged from contractor’s files for work done under this work statement at the completion of work called for under this work statement. Contractor shall send its original files to technical representative 120 days after completion of work under this work statement unless otherwise directed. The contractor shall ensure that mailing of such files are accomplished with shipment tracking and delivered not later than the above referenced period of performance.

Task 2 Prior Art Search and Report:

Contractor shall conduct a prior art search for the invention disclosure provided by the Government. Contractor shall evaluate the invention disclosure, conduct a search and undertake an analysis to determine potential claims as to the invention, to include a method and apparatus claims. Contractor shall identify relevancy of identified prior art with regard to its understanding of the preliminary claims. The search shall include an examination of sources of art generally accessed in the course of a prior art search in the course of a patent prior art search according to patent prosecution industry standards (see e.g., http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/ac/ido/ptdl/step7.htm ), the patent files of the USPTO as well as art provided by the inventor(s) to ascertain the existence of prior art and publications relevant to the invention(s) searched. The search shall consider foreign art if available. Upon completion, electronic copies of the prior art and publications found in the search shall be provided to the technical representative. These electronic copies shall be in Adobe Acrobat Portable Document (.pdf) or a compatible format. The search report shall include:

- a brief description of the invention(s) searched

- identification of classes and subclasses searched (if not accomplished, so state)

- a list of US Patent and Trademark Office examiners, if any, contacted during the search

- a listing of relevant prior art in view of the invention disclosure and the claimed invention.

- a copy of all prior art not provided by the Government (inventor or technical representative) and other documents evaluated in the course of reviewing the relevant scientific and technical literature or rendering patentability determinations. If the references are unavailable at the time of delivery of the report they may be subsequently delivered but not later than 30 days after delivery of the report unless otherwise notified by the technical representative.

Contractor shall prepare a recommendation to abandon the application in the case where contractor believes potential claims for the invention disclosure are not likely to meet the requirements for patentability under U.S. law and USPTO regulations as well as federal case law.

SECTION J - LIST OF DOCUMENTS, EXHIBITS AND OTHER ATTACHMENTS

The Table of Contents has changed from:

Exhibit/Attachment Table of Contents

DOCUMENT TYPE DESCRIPTION PAGES DATE

Exhibit A Contract Data

Requirements List (CDRLs) to:

Exhibit/Attachment Table of Contents

DOCUMENT TYPE DESCRIPTION PAGES DATE

Attachment 1 Exhibit A DD Form 1423, CDRL

2 19-JUL-2019

SECTION L - INSTRUCTIONS, CONDITIONS AND NOTICES TO BIDDERS

INSTRUCTIONS TO OFFERORS

INSTRUCTIONS TO OFFERORS

1.0 INSTRUCTIONS FOR SUBMISSION OF PROPOSALS

1.1. General Information

All questions concerning this procurement, either technical or contractual, must be submitted via email. No direct discussion between the technical representative and prospective Offeror will be conducted.

Questions and proposals shall be submitted to the following point of contact:

Name: Janna Beckert Email: janna.beckert@navy.mil

1.2. Submission Requirements

(a) Each Offeror shall submit its entire proposal electronically. The Government will evaluate each

Offeror's understanding of the Government's requirements and ability to perform the work on the basis of its proposal. Offerors shall provide information and documentation in detail to clearly identify its overall qualifications.

(b) Offerors shall comply with the detailed instructions for the format and content of the proposals;

proposals that do not comply may be considered unacceptable and may render the Offeror ineligible for award.

1.3. Proposal Format

(a) The proposal shall be submitted in the English language. The narrative material in the proposal shall be prepared in no smaller than 10 point font, single-spaced with no less than a one inch margin on all sides. Written materials shall be properly formatted for presentation to the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO). Clear copies of issued patents may be presented as issued by the USPTO.

In the event photo reduction is used for tables, charts, and drawings, their presentation must be clear and legible. No hyperlinks are allowed.

(b) Proposals and all attachments shall be readable by Microsoft Office or Adobe Acrobat. The technical portion of the proposal shall not exceed twenty (20) pages in length

(c) Offerors are required to submit their proposals in separate volumes as follows:

VOLUME VOLUME TITLE MAXIMUM NUMBER OF PAGES

I Pass/Fail Requirements 2 II Technical Proposal 20 III Past Performance 6

NOTE: Offerors shall not include classified material in the volumes.

(d) Volume II shall not exceed a combined total page count of twenty (20) pages in length. NOTE: Cover

Pages; Acronym Tables/Lists; Tables of Contents; Resumes; the Labor Category Matrix; and the Labor Category Matrix rationale; are excluded from this page count.

(e) Offerors shall provide a cover letter with the following information:

(1) Solicitation number;

(2) The name, address, email address, telephone numbers, and Cage Code, DUNS Number, and Tax

Identification Number (TIN) of the Offeror;

(3) A statement specifying the extent of agreement with all terms, conditions, and provisions included in the solicitation and agreement to furnish any or all items upon which prices are offered at the price set opposite each item. Also identify any exceptions the Offeror takes to the terms and conditions of the solicitation;

(4) A statement that the proposal is valid through 60 calendar days from the date specified for receipt of proposals;

(5) Names, titles, telephone numbers, and e-mail addresses of persons authorized to negotiate on the

Offeror’s behalf with the Government in connection with this solicitation;

(6) DCAA and DCMA office points of contact, including branch location, contact name, telephone number, and email address;

(7) Name, title, and signature of a person authorized to sign the proposal; and,

(8) Identify all enclosures being transmitted as part of its proposal.

2.0 PASS/FAIL REQUIREMENTS

(a) The Offeror shall submit the following information with its proposal which will be evaluated as a pass or fail in relation to the solicitation requirements. The information provided in this section is subject to page count limit identified in paragraph 1.3(c).

Provide proof of registration in the Joint Certification Program (JCP). A statement that the Offeror is registered in JCP is not sufficient proof. The Government will confirm the registration by verifying the Offeror’s CAGE code.

NOTE: No award will be made to any offeror that is not registered in the Joint Certification Program at the time of solicitation closing.

(b) The Offeror shall provide an attorney or agent registration number for the United States Patent Trademark Office (USPTO). In addition, this number shall be confirmed with the USPTO Office of Enrollment and Discipline (OED). A statement that the Offeror is registered in the USPTO is not sufficient. The Government will confirm the registration by verifying the Offeror’s registration number.

NOTE: Any Offeror not in good standing with the OED will be considered a fail and be determined technically unacceptable.

3.0 NON-PRICE EVALUATION FACTORS

3.1 Technical Capability

a. As qualification for the patent application drafting tasking, the Offeror shall provide a

United States patent application and/or an issued United States patent.

b. As qualification for the prior art search tasking, the Offeror shall provide an example of a prior art search report. The search report shall indicate the patent and prior art which is closest to the invention disclosed.

Examples of Prior Art Searches shall include but are not limited to:

- Provide a sample prior art search accomplished for a client that would waive privilege in writing.

- Provide a prior art search report produced for the vendor's own use.

- Provide a prior art search report produced for another U.S. Government agency.

However, identify the agency (for Approval by us) before sending the report unless it is the U.S. Navy.

- Produce a prior art search report on an issued patent of the United States of America; as Represented by the Secretary of the Navy while attesting that the search results were not taken from the text of the issued U.S. patent.

Or

- Produce a new prior art search report for a field of technology of NUWCDIVNPT such as antennas, optics, pumps etc.

These examples must have been submitted and completed within two years at the time of solicitation closing date

3.2 Past Performance

(a) The Offeror shall provide up to three (3) past performance references, if available, that reflect recent and relevant experience performed within three (3) years of the solicitation closing date specified in this requirement. Past performance references shall include contract/task order number, contract/task order type, program name, total contract/task order cost, short description of work performed, and names and valid telephone numbers for the Procuring Contracting Officer (PCO), Contracting Officer’s Representative (COR), and Program Manager (PM).

(1) Past performance references shall demonstrate the ability to handle the scope and breadth of the tasking in the SOW. Discuss how the references provided are relevant to the work being proposed.

(2) Each past performance reference shall not exceed two (2) pages per reference, for a total of six (6) pages.

(b) Subcontractors performing more than twenty-five percent (25%) of the total effort shall also submit up to three (3) past performance references, if available, that reflect recent and relevant experience performed within the last three (3) years of the solicitation closing date specified in this requirement.

Past performance references shall include all of the information required in support of 3.2(a) above.

SECTION M - EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

EVALUATION FACTORS

EVALUATION FACTORS

(a) Award will be made to the responsible Offeror meeting all Pass/Fail requirements of the solicitation and whose proposal contains the combination of those criteria offering the best overall value to the Government. The best overall value to the Government will be determined by comparing the difference in value of technical (non-price) features of proposals to the Government.

(b) The Government intends to make an award on the basis of initial proposals without conducting discussions with Offerors (except clarifications), but reserves the right to conduct discussions if determined by the Contracting Officer to be necessary. Therefore, each initial offer should contain the Offeror’s best terms from a technical and pricing standpoint. If the Contracting Officer determines that the number of proposals that would otherwise be in the competitive range exceeds the number at which an efficient competition can be conducted, the Contracting Officer may limit the number of proposals in the competitive range to the greatest number that will permit an efficient competition among the most highly rated proposals.

(c) Offers will be evaluated based on a Pass/Fail rating for requirement listed below. Offerors must receive a

Pass rating under the Pass/Fail Requirement to be eligible for award. The Pass/Fail rating criteria is as follows:

Proof of registration in the Joint Certification Program (JCP). A statement that the Offeror is registered in JCP is not sufficient proof. The Government will confirm the registration by verifying the Offeror’s CAGE code within the JCP system.

Proof of registration number for the United States Patent Trademark Office (USPTO). In addition, this number shall be confirmed with the USPTO Office of Enrollment and Discipline (OED). A statement that the Offeror is registered in the USPTO is not sufficient. The Government will confirm the registration by verifying the Offeror ‘s registration number.

NOTE: No award will be made to any Offeror that is not registered in the Joint Certification Program at the time of solicitation closing. No award will be to any Offeror not in good standing with the OED.

Therefore, the Government reserves the right to not evaluate an offer further if the Offeror is not registered in the JCP and in good standing with the OED at time of proposal submission.

(d) Non-Price Factors.

Offeror proposals will be evaluated and assigned one of the adjectival ratings included in this solicitation (refer to Clause UW M-2-0001) for each of the following non-price factors and sub factors.

(1) Technical Proposal Capability.

The Government will separately evaluate the proposed United States Patent Application and/or the issued United States Patent as well as the prior art search report as separate qualifications for the patent application drafting tasking and the prior art search tasking. The Patent Application and/or issued Patent will be evaluated in accordance Manual Patent Examining Procedures (MPEP), the USPTO regulations, and applicable U.S. statutes. Further evaluation will occur for appropriate claim coverage, clarity of language, and usage of standard English grammar.

The Government will evaluate the proposed prior art search by ensure that the technology search is analogous to the technology of the invention.

a. Past Performance.

The past performance evaluation assesses the degree of confidence the Government has in the Offeror’s ability to provide products and services that meet its customers’ needs based on a demonstrated record of performance. The Government may consider past performance information contained in the Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS) and the Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System (FAPIIS). The Government may also contact all or some of each Offeror’s customers to obtain past performance information. The Government reserves the right to limit or expand the number of references it decides to contact, and contact references other than those provided by the Offeror. In the case of an Offeror without a record of relevant past performance or for whom information on past performance is not available, the Offeror will not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on past performance.

(e) Relative Importance. The following table indicates all significant factors and sub factors that will be considered in awarding the purchase order:

FACTORS SUB FACTORS

Technical Proposal (None) Past Performance (None)

Technical Capability sub factors are listed in descending order of importance.

The relative importance of the factors is as follows: Technical Capability and Past Performance are of equal importance.

(f) Adjectival Ratings

(1) The Government will perform an evaluation of the non-price evaluation factors and sub factors based on the Offeror’s proposal. This evaluation focuses on strengths and weaknesses of the Offeror’s proposal, resulting in the assignment of an adjectival rating for each factor and sub factor.

NOTE: The Pass/Fail Requirements in solicitation provision UW L-2-0001(3.0) will not be assigned an adjectival rating. A “Fail” rating in any Pass/Fail requirement in solicitation provision UW L-2- 0001 will result in the Offeror being determined ineligible for award.

(2) Combined Technical/Risk Rating: The following combined technical/risk ratings include consideration of risk in conjunction with the strengths, weaknesses, and deficiencies in determining technical ratings.

The following adjectival ratings/descriptions in Table 1 shall be used for the Technical Capability evaluation factors and sub factors:

Table 1: Combined Technical/Risk Ratings Rating Description Outstanding Proposal indicates an exceptional approach and understanding of the requirements; contains multiple strengths; and risk of unsuccessful performance is low.

Good Proposal indicates a thorough approach and understanding of the requirements;

contains at least one strength; and risk of unsuccessful performance is low to moderate.

Acceptable Proposal meets requirements and indicates an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements; and risk of unsuccessful performance is no worse than moderate.

Marginal Proposal has not demonstrated an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements; and/or risk of unsuccessful performance is high.

Unacceptable Proposal does not meet requirements of the solicitation, and thus, contains one or more deficiencies; and/or risk of unsuccessful performance is unacceptable.

Proposal is unawardable.

DEFINITIONS

Weakness is defined as a flaw in the proposal that increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance. See FAR 15.001.

Significant Weakness in the proposal is a flaw that appreciably increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance. See FAR 15.001.

Deficiency is the material failure of a proposal to meet a Government requirement or a combination of significant weaknesses in a proposal that increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance to an unacceptable level. See FAR 15.001.

Risk is the potential for unsuccessful contract performance. The consideration of risk assesses the degree to which an Offeror’s proposed approach to achieving the technical factor or sub factor may involve risk of disruption of schedule, increased cost or degradation of performance, the need for increased Government oversight, and the likelihood of unsuccessful contract performance (for firm-fixed-price contracts, the reference to increased cost may be removed from the risk definition.)

Strength is an aspect of an Offeror's proposal that has merit, or exceeds specified performance, or capability requirements, in a way that will be advantageous to the Government during contract performance.

(g) Past Performance Evaluation

The past performance evaluation will result in an assessment of the Offeror's probability of meeting the solicitation requirements. The past performance evaluation considers each Offeror’s demonstrated recent and relevant record of performance in supplying products and services that meet the contract’s requirements. In accordance with FAR 15.305(a)(2), the currency and relevance of the information, source of the information, context of the data, and general trends in contractor’s performance shall be considered.

These are combined to establish one performance confidence assessment rating for each Offeror.

There are three aspects to the past performance evaluation: recency, relevancy (including context of data), and quality (including general trends in contractor performance and source of information).

The first is to evaluate the recency of the Offeror’s past performance. Recency is generally expressed as a time period during which past performance references are considered relevant, and is critical to establishing the relevancy of past performance information.

The second is to determine how relevant a recent effort accomplished by the Offeror is to the effort to be acquired through the source selection. The criteria to establish what prior performance is recent and relevant shall be unique to each source selection and shall be stated in the solicitation. In establishing what is relevant for the acquisition, consideration should be given to those aspects of an Offeror’s history of contract (or subcontract) performance that would provide the most context and give the greatest ability to measure whether the Offeror will successfully satisfy the current requirement. Common aspects of relevancy include, but are not limited to, the following: similarity of product/service/support, complexity, dollar value, contract type, use of key personnel (for services), and extent of subcontracting/teaming.

There are four levels of relevancy as shown below. With respect to relevancy, more relevant past performance will typically be a stronger predictor of future success and have more influence on the past performance confidence assessment than past performance of lesser relevance.

Rating Description Very Relevant Present/past performance effort involved essentially the same scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

Relevant Present/past performance effort involved similar scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

Somewhat Relevant Present/past performance effort involved some of the scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

Not Relevant Present/past performance effort involved little or none of the scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

The third aspect of the past performance evaluation is to establish the overall quality of the Offeror’s past performance (see FAR 15.304(c)(2)). The past performance evaluation conducted in support of a current source selection does not establish, create, or change the existing record and history of the Offeror’s past performance on past contracts; rather, the past performance evaluation process gathers information from customers on how well the Offeror performed those past contracts. The Government will review all past performance information collected and determine the quality of the Offeror’s performance, general trends, and usefulness of the information and incorporate these into the performance confidence assessment.

The past performance confidence assessment rating is based on the Offeror’s overall record of recency, relevancy, and quality of performance.

(h) Performance Confidence Assessment

In conducting a performance confidence assessment, each Offeror shall be assigned one of the ratings shown below. (Reference FAR 15.305(2) for information on assigning an unknown/neutral confidence rating.)

Rating Description Substantial Based on the Offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has a

Confidence high expectation that the Offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

Satisfactory Confidence

Based on the Offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has a reasonable expectation that the Offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

Unknown Confidence (Neutral)

No recent/relevant performance record is available or the Offeror’s performance record is so sparse that no meaningful confidence assessment rating can be reasonably assigned. The Offeror may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on the factor of past performance.

Limited Confidence Based on the Offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has a low expectation that the Offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

No Confidence Based on the Offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has no expectation that the Offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

DEFINITIONS

Performance Confidence Assessment is an evaluation of the likelihood (or Government’s confidence) that the Offeror will successfully perform the solicitation’s requirements; the evaluation is based upon past performance information.

Recency, as it pertains to past performance information, is a measure of the time that has elapsed since the past performance reference occurred. Recency is generally expressed as a time period during which past performance references are considered relevant (Note: contracts performed within the last three years are considered recent for this requirement).

Relevancy, as it pertains to past performance information, is a measure of the extent of similarity between the service/support effort, complexity, dollar value, contract type, and subcontract/teaming or other comparable attributes of past performance examples and the source solicitation requirements; and a measure of the likelihood that the past performance is an indicator of future performance.

(End of Summary of Changes)

CONTRACT DATA REQUIREMENTS LIST

(1 Data Item)

Form Approved OMB No. 0704-0188

Public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 110 hours per response, including the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information. Send comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of information, including suggestions for reducing this burden, to Department of Defense, Washington Headquarters Service, Directorate for Information Operations and Reports, 1215 Jefferson Davis Highway, Suite 1204, Arlington, VA 22202-4302, and to the Office of Management and Budget, Paperwork Reduction Project (0704- 0188), Washington, DC 20503. Please DO NOT RETURN your form to either of these addresses. Send completed form to the Government Issuing Contracting Officer for the Contract/PR No. listed in Block E.

A. CONTRACT LINE ITEM NO.

TBD

B. EXHIBIT

B

C. CATEGORY

TDP_________ TM___________ OTHER_______MISC.__________

D. SYSTEM/ITEM

Draft Patent App.

E. CONTRACT / PR NO.

TBD

F. CONTRACTOR

TBD

1. DATA ITEM NO.

A001

2. TITLE OF DATA ITEM:

Technical Report - Study/Services

3. SUBTITLE

Draft Patent Application and Drawings

4. AUTHORITY (Date…