Global Patent Solutions, LLC (1333BJ23R00151001)

B-421602.2,B-421602.3 Feb 23, 2024 Jump To FULL REPORT VIEW DECISION RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Global Patent Solutions, LLC (GPS), a small business of Chandler, Arizona, challenges the award of indefinite-delivery, indefinite-quantity (IDIQ) contracts to Cardinal Intellectual Property, Inc. (CPI) and CPA Global, Inc. (CPAG), under request for proposals (RFP) No. 1333BJ23R00151001, issued by the Department of Commerce, United States Patent and Trademark Office (PTO or USPTO) for professional services to assist the PTO in reviewing international patent applications. The protester challenges the agency's evaluation of proposals and resulting source selection decision. We sustain the protest. View Decision DOCUMENT FOR PUBLIC RELEASE The decision issued on the date below was subject to a GAO Protective Order. This redacted version has been approved for public release. Decision Matter of: Global Patent Solutions, LLC File: B-421602.2; B-421602.3 Date: February 23, 2024 John E. Jensen, Esq., Toghrul M. Shukurlu, Esq., and Aleksey R. Dabbs, Esq., Pillsbury Wintrhop Shaw Pittman LLP, for the protester. Joe D. Baker II, Esq., and Robert G. Palmer, Esq., Department of Commerce, for the agency. Heather Self, Esq., and Peter H. Tran, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Protest challenging agency’s evaluation of awardee’s proposal is sustained where proposal failed to demonstrate compliance with solicitation’s mandatory small business participation percentage. DECISION Global Patent Solutions, LLC (GPS), a small business of Chandler, Arizona, challenges the award of indefinite-delivery, indefinite-quantity (IDIQ) contracts to Cardinal Intellectual Property, Inc. (CPI) and CPA Global, Inc. (CPAG), under request for proposals (RFP) No. 1333BJ23R00151001, issued by the Department of Commerce, United States Patent and Trademark Office (PTO or USPTO) for professional services to assist the PTO in reviewing international patent applications. The protester challenges the agency’s evaluation of proposals and resulting source selection decision. We sustain the protest. BACKGROUND On October 31, 2022, the agency issued the solicitation directly to four firms identified during market research as being “most likely to successfully meet the Agency’s needs.” Contracting Officer’s Statement (COS) at 3; Agency Report (AR), Tab 8, RFP at 1.[1] The PTO issued the solicitation under its unique alternative competition method procurement authority, which is authorized by The Patent and Trademark Office Efficiency Act (PTOEA), 35 U.S.C. § 2(b)(4)(A), and implemented through section 6.1.1 of the PTO Acquisition Guidelines (PTAG), 78 Fed. Reg. 61185, 61186-87 (Oct. 3, 2013). AR, Tab 25, RFP attach. 6, Sections L & M (RFP §§ L-M) at 2. The solicitation sought proposals for “professional comprehensive services” to assist the PTO in fulfilling its duties as the international search authority (ISA) for the United States under the Patent Cooperation Treaty (PCT). AR, Tab 11, RFP attach. 4, Performance Work Statement (PWS) at 1-2. The solicitation explains that “[t]he PCT is a multilateral treaty administered by the International Bureau (IB) of the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO),” and that it “provides applicants with a simplified means for effectively filing patent applications in” participating countries “by filing a single International Application (IA).” Id. at 1. In its capacity as the United States’ ISA, the PTO annually “prepares approximately 23,000” international search reports (ISRs) and written opinions (WOs). Id. The solicitation sought contractor assistance in the preparation of ISRs and WOs “under the provisions of the PCT for international applications in which the USPTO is the ISA.” Id. at 2. “This requirement is currently fulfilled by three incumbent ‘PCT Search’ contractors”: the protester (GPS), and the two awardees, CPI and CPAG. COS at 2-3. The solicitation contemplated the award of “at least one, and possibly multiple, IDIQ contract(s)” using a highest technically rated, fair and reasonable price award methodology. RFP §§ L-M at 2. The awarded contract(s) would be fixed-price, have a 1‑year base period, and four 1-year option periods. AR, Tab 20, RFP attach. 5, Provisions and Clauses at 1, 30. The solicitation provided for evaluation of proposals using the following four non-price factors, in descending order of importance: (1) technical approach; (2) past performance; (3) oral presentations; and (4) small business participation. RFP §§ L-M at 2-3. The solicitation established a three-phased evaluation process. RFP §§ L-M at 3.