ASEC - Q&A .docx

ARMY STEM EDUCATION CONSORTIUM (ASEC) – QUESTIONS & ANSWERS (Q & A)

Updated on FOA on 31 January 2025

We are a non-profit organization, associated with an IHE.

The rule is anyone engaged in the public purpose of the award cannot receive profit or fee. Basically, if they are performing the effort under the CA, they cannot receive a profit or fee. In my example of materials, the materials provider is not performing the work for the public purpose of the award, so they are not expected to forego a profit. A rule of thumb – We can pay for commercial supplies or services to support the effort, but anyone doing the effort cannot receive a profit or fee at the prime or sub level.

Or

Would we need to be included in a proposal from an organization that submits as a lead organization as a partner in a specific element effort?

The latter option is true. To be a part of the initial Consortium, your organization should partner with the Applicant / Lead Org and be included on the proposal to the Govt.

Although – Element 1 of the FOA states “The Lead Organization should establish structure and guidance such that at the request of the Consortium and at the approval of the CMC and the government, additional Consortium Members may be added to or removed to advance ASEC efforts and improve alignment to emerging areas of interest or to address gaps within the Consortium (pg. 9)”. So, any org can be added after award as well. The Recipient will likely not issue any sort of RFP for element partners after award.

2. What are the requirements around paying internships and fellowships under employee arrangements? We run a model internship program which provides for clearances for the interns to work directly with defense laboratories and government stakeholders, however, a stipulation of providing clearances is that they must be hired as employees including some overhead costs. Can this model be replicated under the Army STEM program due to the benefits in securing clearances for the interns? If so, is there a limit to the amount of overhead that would be allowable?

3. What level of autonomy will the performer have in managing and updating content on the Army STEM website?

4. Will the performer need to host and maintain sections of the website, or will it be fully managed by the Army?

5. How frequently should content updates and reports on web engagement and outreach success be provided?

6. Will there be data-sharing requirements for tracking engagement metrics on the outreach efforts?

1. There are mentions of a centralized registration tool throughout the FOA. Most relevant to this question is under Element 1, Metrics, page 13. “In addition, the LO is responsible for ensuring that all ASEC programming is advertised through the centralized website and all programs capture application/registration/selection data through the centralized application tool, unless otherwise approved by CAM, and that core cross-consortium data is collected and reported correctly.

2. Army STEM Interns and Fellows are not GOV employees, contractors, nor employees of the IPA/LO. Internships/Fellowships offered under the ASEC will not include “hiring” agreements with host sites. Clearances and other access efforts are the responsibility of the host site.

3. The consortium can define that autonomy. There will still be GOV oversight by the CAM.

4. The website will be managed by Element 3 lead with input from consortium members. The consortium can determine roles/responsibilities of hosting/maintenance.

5. This can be included in the monthly status reports mentioned on page 31.

6. The Government followed up with the organization for clarification on this question, but did not receive a response before the Q&A deadline. The Government was therefore unable to answer this question as is.