Commerce Department's USPTO contract for examiner training awarded to AS AND D, LLC for over $12.5 million

Contract Overview

Contract Amount: $12,523,295 ($12.5M)

Contractor: AS and D, LLC

Awarding Agency: Department of Commerce

Start Date: 2008-04-16

End Date: 2009-04-15

Contract Duration: 364 days

Daily Burn Rate: $34.4K/day

Competition Type: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION AFTER EXCLUSION OF SOURCES

Number of Offers Received: 3

Pricing Type: TIME AND MATERIALS

Sector: Other

Official Description: FUNDS FOR CONTRACT STAFF TO PROVIDE TRAINING TO EXAMINERS ON USE OF USPTO ELECTRONIC SEARCH AND TELEWORK TOOLS. POP: APRIL 16 - SEP 30, 2008. TERESA KELLEY IS THE CO.

Place of Performance

Location: ALEXANDRIA, ALEXANDRIA (CITY) County, VIRGINIA, 22313

State: Virginia Government Spending

Plain-Language Summary

Department of Commerce obligated $12.5 million to AS AND D, LLC for work described as: FUNDS FOR CONTRACT STAFF TO PROVIDE TRAINING TO EXAMINERS ON USE OF USPTO ELECTRONIC SEARCH AND TELEWORK TOOLS. POP: APRIL 16 - SEP 30, 2008. TERESA KELLEY IS THE CO. Key points: 1. Contract provides essential training for USPTO examiners on electronic search and telework tools, enhancing operational efficiency. 2. The contract was awarded under full and open competition, suggesting a competitive bidding process. 3. The duration of the contract is approximately one year, aligning with the need for timely training. 4. The contract type is Time and Materials, which can pose cost control challenges if not managed closely. 5. The specific NAICS code (561210) indicates a focus on facilities support services, which encompasses training delivery. 6. The contract was awarded to AS AND D, LLC, a company with a presence in Virginia. 7. The contract's performance period spans from April 2008 to April 2009, indicating a near-term operational need.

Value Assessment

Rating: fair

The contract value of over $12.5 million for a one-year training program appears substantial. Benchmarking against similar training contracts for federal agencies would be necessary to definitively assess value for money. The Time and Materials (T&M) contract type, while flexible, can lead to higher costs if not carefully monitored for scope creep and labor hours. Without specific performance metrics or comparison data, it's difficult to ascertain if this represents excellent value.

Cost Per Unit: N/A

Competition Analysis

Competition Level: full-and-open

The contract was awarded under 'Full and Open Competition After Exclusion of Sources,' which implies that while the competition was open, certain sources were initially excluded before the final award. This suggests a potentially complex procurement process. The number of bidders is not explicitly stated, but the 'full and open' designation generally aims to maximize competition. The level of competition is crucial for price discovery and ensuring the government receives competitive pricing.

Taxpayer Impact: A competitive award process, even with initial source exclusions, is generally beneficial for taxpayers as it encourages multiple vendors to offer their best pricing and services.

Public Impact

USPTO examiners benefit directly through enhanced skills in using electronic search and telework tools. Improved examiner efficiency can lead to faster patent processing times, benefiting inventors and businesses. The training supports the USPTO's operational goals and modernization efforts. The contract impacts the workforce by equipping examiners with updated technological capabilities.

Waste & Efficiency Indicators

Waste Risk Score: 50 / 10

Warning Flags

Time and Materials contract type can lead to cost overruns if not managed diligently.
The specific reasons for 'Exclusion of Sources' in an otherwise 'Full and Open' competition warrant further investigation for potential impact on competition.
Lack of detailed performance metrics makes it difficult to assess the effectiveness of the training provided.

Positive Signals

Awarded through a full and open competition process, indicating an effort to achieve competitive pricing.
The contract addresses a clear need for examiner training in critical operational tools.
The contract duration is aligned with the need for effective implementation of new tools.

Sector Analysis

This contract falls within the broader professional, scientific, and technical services sector, specifically focusing on training and support services for a government agency. The USPTO, as a key component of the Department of Commerce, invests in its workforce to maintain efficiency in patent and trademark examination. Comparable spending benchmarks would involve analyzing other federal contracts for specialized IT training and operational support services.

Small Business Impact

Information regarding small business set-asides or subcontracting plans is not provided in the data. Therefore, the direct impact on the small business ecosystem cannot be assessed from this contract alone. Further investigation would be needed to determine if small businesses were involved as prime contractors or subcontractors.

Oversight & Accountability

Oversight mechanisms for this contract would typically involve contract officers, contracting specialists, and potentially program managers within the USPTO. Accountability measures would be tied to the performance standards outlined in the contract. Transparency is generally facilitated through contract databases like FPDS, though detailed operational oversight is internal to the agency. Inspector General jurisdiction would apply if any fraud, waste, or abuse were suspected.

Related Government Programs

USPTO Examiner Training Programs
Federal IT Training Contracts
Department of Commerce Workforce Development
Facilities Support Services Contracts

Risk Flags

Potential for cost overruns due to Time and Materials contract type.
Ambiguity in 'Exclusion of Sources' rationale within a competitive award.
Lack of explicit performance metrics for assessing training effectiveness.
Limited insight into contractor's past performance for similar services.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is this federal contract paying for?

Department of Commerce awarded $12.5 million to AS AND D, LLC. FUNDS FOR CONTRACT STAFF TO PROVIDE TRAINING TO EXAMINERS ON USE OF USPTO ELECTRONIC SEARCH AND TELEWORK TOOLS. POP: APRIL 16 - SEP 30, 2008. TERESA KELLEY IS THE CO.

Who is the contractor on this award?

The obligated recipient is AS AND D, LLC.

Which agency awarded this contract?

Awarding agency: Department of Commerce (U.S. Patent and Trademark Office).

What is the total obligated amount?

The obligated amount is $12.5 million.

What is the period of performance?

Start: 2008-04-16. End: 2009-04-15.

What was the specific rationale for excluding certain sources in a 'Full and Open Competition After Exclusion of Sources' award?

The designation 'Full and Open Competition After Exclusion of Sources' suggests a procurement process where initial solicitations may have been limited to a specific set of pre-qualified vendors, or certain vendors were deemed ineligible for reasons such as security, past performance, or specific technical requirements. After this initial phase, the competition was opened more broadly, but the initial exclusions still shaped the competitive landscape. The specific rationale for these exclusions is not detailed in the provided data but could relate to ensuring specialized expertise, meeting unique technical requirements, or addressing prior performance issues with certain companies. Understanding this rationale is key to assessing whether the competition was truly as broad as 'full and open' might imply and if it potentially limited the best possible pricing or innovation for the government.

How does the Time and Materials (T&M) contract type compare to other potential contract types for this type of training service in terms of cost-effectiveness?

Time and Materials (T&M) contracts are often used when the scope of work is not clearly defined or is expected to change, as is sometimes the case with training programs adapting to new technologies. While T&M offers flexibility, it carries a higher risk of cost overruns for the government compared to fixed-price contracts. The contractor is reimbursed for direct labor hours at specified rates and for the actual cost of materials. To ensure cost-effectiveness, T&M contracts require robust government oversight to monitor labor hours, prevent scope creep, and ensure that rates are fair and reasonable. For a training program with a relatively defined curriculum, a firm-fixed-price contract or a fixed-price-incentive contract might have offered better cost certainty, assuming the scope could be well-defined upfront. The choice of T&M suggests either a high degree of uncertainty in the training requirements or a deliberate decision to prioritize flexibility over upfront cost certainty.

What is the track record of AS AND D, LLC in providing similar training services to federal agencies?

The provided data indicates that AS AND D, LLC was awarded this contract for training services. However, it does not offer specific details about the company's prior track record, past performance evaluations, or the volume and nature of previous federal contracts they have held. To assess their reliability and expertise, a deeper dive into federal procurement databases (like FPDS) and past performance reviews would be necessary. This would help determine if they have a history of successfully delivering similar training programs on time, within budget, and to the satisfaction of government clients. Without this information, it's difficult to gauge their established credibility in this specific service area.

Can the effectiveness of the training provided under this contract be measured against specific performance metrics?

The provided data does not include specific performance metrics or key performance indicators (KPIs) that were established for this training contract. Typically, effective contracts would outline measurable objectives, such as trainee proficiency levels post-training, feedback scores, or improvements in the application of learned skills (e.g., faster search times, reduced errors). The absence of such metrics in the summary data makes it challenging to quantitatively assess the training's effectiveness and the overall value delivered by AS AND D, LLC. A thorough review of the contract's statement of work and any associated performance-based clauses would be required to determine if such metrics were defined and how they were monitored.

How does the $12.5 million contract value compare to historical spending on USPTO examiner training?

The provided data gives a single contract value of $12,523,294.62 for a specific training period (April 2008 - April 2009). To compare this to historical spending, one would need access to historical USPTO budget data and contract awards specifically for examiner training over multiple fiscal years. This would allow for an analysis of trends, identifying whether this $12.5 million represents a significant increase, decrease, or stable level of investment in training. Factors such as the number of examiners trained, the complexity of the tools being taught, and inflation would need to be considered for a meaningful historical comparison. Without this broader context, the $12.5 million figure stands in isolation.

Industry Classification

NAICS: Administrative and Support and Waste Management and Remediation Services › Facilities Support Services › Facilities Support Services

Product/Service Code: SUPPORT SVCS (PROF, ADMIN, MGMT) › ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPORT SERVICES

Competition & Pricing

Extent Competed: FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION AFTER EXCLUSION OF SOURCES

Solicitation Procedures: NEGOTIATED PROPOSAL/QUOTE

Offers Received: 3

Pricing Type: TIME AND MATERIALS (Y)

Evaluated Preference: NONE

Contractor Details

Parent Company: Arctic Slope Regional Corporation (UEI: 076637073)

Address: 3900 C STREET, STE-802, ANCHORAGE, AK, 00

Business Categories: 8(a) Program Participant, Category Business, Minority Owned Business, Native American Owned Business, Self-Certified Small Disadvantaged Business, Small Business, Small Disadvantaged Business, Special Designations

Financial Breakdown

Contract Ceiling: $12,523,295

Exercised Options: $12,523,295

Current Obligation: $12,523,295

Parent Contract

Parent Award PIID: DOC50PAPT0701001

IDV Type: IDC

Timeline