BAA-FA8650-17-S-6001-Call3-Q&As.pdf

FA8650-17-S-6001 CALL 003

QUESTION AND ANSWER

Q&A’s posted 27 June 2018

1. QUESTION: On page 3, Estimated Program Funding, it states there are $600,000 allocated to stand-up costs. On page 3, schedule, it indicates that the stand-up period is not to exceed 3 months.

However, on page 8, Self-Sustainment, it states that ACRNet must be self-sustaining within 18-24 mos. In the intervening 15-21 months, is it expected that a portion of the program funds will be used to pay for consortium administration costs?

ANSWER: Yes, throughout the period of performance administrative costs for federally funded projects may be permissible.

2. QUESTION: On page 8, Self-Sustainment, the solicitation states the ACRNet must be “without reliance on federal funding for administration costs.” Are pass-through costs on subawards permissible under the requirement for self-sustainment?

ANSWER: While the consortium should not rely on federal funding to sustain the consortium, federally funded projects are anticipated to continue throughout the period of performance. As such, administrative costs for federally funded projects may be permissible after the 18 – 24 month period. If a Cooperative Agreement is proposed, 2 CFR 200 – Subpart e provides guidance on allowable costs for educational institutions and non-profit organizations and 48 CFR parts 31 provides guidance on allowable costs for for-profit organizations. This is not an exhaustive list of all applicable regulations as they may vary based on the offerors approach and organization structure.

3. QUESTION: On page 8, Self-Sustainment, offerors are encouraged to “Refer to IV.B.3.ii.Section 3: Sub-Section B for additional information”. This section does not have additional information beyond what is contained in Self-Sustainment. Does the government have additional information or guidance with respect the self-sustainment requirements?

ANSWER: The reference to Sub-Section B on page 16 of 32 is provided to direct offerors to the correct section to document their plan for self-sufficiency in their proposal. While the consortium should not rely on federal funding to sustain the consortium, federally funded projects are anticipated to continue throughout the period of performance. As such, administrative costs for federally funded projects may be permissible after the 18 – 24 month period.

4. QUESTION: Subsection B,a.1 (Operational Processes) asks for an example of how the project call process will work and a sample project call. When you refer to a “sample project call”, are you looking for something in the same format as what you cite in Appendix B called project “write-up Information” or should include additional information such as page count, due date, format, references, etc.? As a realistic project call will require a significant number of pages, may the proposed example project call be included as an Appendix?

ANSWER: The Government is asking the offeror to describe the process by which projects are announced, selected, and executed within the consortium. The sample project call(s) should include information necessary to provide insight into this process. It is up to the offeror to determine what information is relevant in order to meet the requirement outlined in Sub-Section B.

The offeror can reference projects provided in the appendices, or can develop their own, as noted in IV.B.3.ii.SECTION 3.SUB-SECTION B.a.1., page 16 of 32 of Call 003. This information is included in the page count. Table 2, page 14 of 32 of Call 003 provides an overview as to what is included in the proposal page count. Refer to Sub-Section B, as mentioned above, for guidance on what to include in sample project calls.

5. QUESTION: Since they can be Consortia Members, can a FFRDC or Federal Government Organization submit a Letter of Interest or Commitment?

ANSWER: Refer to page 11 of 32 of Call 003, which specifies the eligibility requirements pertaining to FFRDCs and Federal Government Organizations.

6. QUESTION: The RFP states “Pages shall be numbered starting with the cover page being Page 1, and the last page being no greater than Page 30". Your response to questions says “the cover page and table of contents are excluded from the page count". These statements seem to be in conflict. If the cover page is numbered page 1 and the last page cannot be greater than page 30, then that only leaves 29 pages for proposal content. If the cover page is excluded from page count then the last page number of the 30 page proposal would be page 31. Please explain.

ANSWER: As stated in the Questions and Answers posted 22 June 2018, the Cover Page and Table of Contents are not included in the page count. Amendment 2 of Call 3 makes the following update on page 15 - Changes From: "Pages shall be numbered starting with the cover page being Page 1, and the last page being no greater than Page 30." To: "Pages shall be numbered starting with Page 1, and the last page being no greater than Page 30."

7. QUESTION: Also, how shall the Table of Contents be numbered that are in between the cover page and the body of the proposal? Can we use I, ii, iii?

ANSWER: The offeror may number the table of contents as they see fit.

Q&A’s posted 22 June 2018

1. QUESTION: Is there an anticipated minimum percentage of cost share expected from each Consortium member (e.g., 50 percent)? Is it possible to vary percent cost share based on the size and type of Consortium members?

ANSWER: Per Section III.B, page 10 of 32 of Call 003, “Cost share is not required for the consortium administrator, but will be considered favorably. On projects, cost share is anticipated and may be required.” There is no minimum anticipated cost share for the Consortium Administrator or for the Consortium members. Cost share may vary amongst consortium members on a project basis.

2. QUESTION: As a part of the proposal is the Consortium Administrator expected to identify or recommend members of the Consortium? Are letters of support from perspective members required?

ANSWER: Yes, the proposal should identify consortium members. See IV.B.3.ii SECTION 3, SUB-SECTION C, starting on page 16 of 32 of Call 003, for direction on the proposal requirements for documenting proposed consortium partners. Partner/Member Letters of Commitment and/or Draft Partnership Agreements are requested per paragraph e of the above Section, page 17 of 32 of Call 003. It states, “Provide evidence that proposed consortium partners will sign a draft partnership agreement and membership covers the diverse areas of autonomy. Please refer to Appendix A and Appendix B for breadth and depth of project topics in selection of consortium partners. Note: Partner/Member Letters of Commitment and/or Draft Partnership Agreements are excluded from the page count, and should be provided in an appendix.” It should also be noted that paragraph f of the above section, page 17 of 32 of Call 003, requires the proposal to “Provide a strategy and process for partnership selection, and continual growth and retention.”

3. QUESTION: Will government funds flow through the Consortium Administrator to the members? If so, will the administrator be able to apply federally approved indirect G&A rates to these funds?

ANSWER Yes, funds will flow through the Consortium Administrator. It is up to the offeror to determine the appropriate rates to include in their proposal. If a Cooperative Agreement is proposed, educational institutions and non-profit organizations should refer to 2 CFR 200, and for-profit organizations should refer to 48 CFR parts 31 and 231, for guidance on rates.

Guidance on the proposal requirements for rate documentation can be found in IV.B.4.ii SECTION 3, page 19 of 32 of Call 003.

4. QUESTION: As a part of the cost proposal, is the consortium administrator expected to propose how to spend the entire $194M or simply how to spend the start-up funds and then describe the process by which the Consortium will decide how to select projects to fund and how the Consortium Administration cost will be covered beyond the start-up funds?

ANSWER: The consortium administrator is expected to propose all of the both; costs for the entire $195M (which is inclusive of the $600,000 start-up funding) and the strategy and vision for project selection. Per IV.B.4.ii SECTION 3, page 19 of 32 of Call 003, “The offeror must propose total ACRNet costs; consortium stand-up costs of $600,000, and anticipated project costs over the 5 year performance period. The Federal Government anticipates funding $195 million for this consortium. Proposed costs should include any government funded amount and any proposed cost share, by the consortium administrator or cost share anticipated for projects.” Refer to Overview Section, Table 1, page 2 of 32 of Call 003, for a funding profile broken out by fiscal year.

5. QUESTION: Are the Consortium Administrator or the Team members allowed to charge fee?

ANSWER: No, per IV.B.4.ii, Section 4, paragraph e, page 21 of 32 of Call 003, “Fee/profit is unallowable under assistance agreements at either the prime or for subawardees and subrecipients performing research.” Per DoDGARS 22.205(2)(b)(1), the Consortium Administrator cannot charge fee. See 2 CFR 200 and DoDGARS for definitions of Subaward and Subrecipients. Subrecipients cannot charge fee. Subcontractors can charge fee. A subrecipient contributes to the research objectives and cannot receive fee. A subcontractor that provides goods and services can receive fee.

6. QUESTION: Is the statement of work covering only the consortium administration or is it expected to cover the entire technical breadth of the potential tasks? Is it supposed to be general in nature or should it include specific example technical tasks?

ANSWER: Call 003 seeks proposals for a consortium administrator, but does not seek proposals for projects. It is up to the offeror to propose a Statement of Work that is indicative of the requirements found in Call 003.

7. QUESTION: It is noted that the contractor is to complete the annual representations and certifications per the requirement of FAR 52.204-08. If representations and certifications are accessible through SAM.GOV, is the contractor required to submit a separate reps and certs with their proposal?

ANSWER: A separate certification is required with the proposal. Per IV.B.4.ii, SECTION 2, paragraph b, starting on page 18 of 32, “Completed Certifications for Assistance Instruments are due with the proposal. Certifications for Assistance Instruments can be found at Attachment 9, BAA FA8650-17-S-6001...” These certifications are not included in those accessible through SAM.gov.

8. QUESTION: The RFP states that anticipated government funding for stand-up costs is $600,000. Can these stand-ups costs be spread over 1-2 years, or are they limited to FY18 expenditures?

ANSWER: It is the government’s expectation the consortium will be operational within 3 months, as noted in the Overview, Schedule, page 2 of 32 of Call 003. Per Overview, Table 1, page 2 of 32 of Call 003, the anticipated start-up administration funding will be FY 18 funds.

9. QUESTION: Will the cover letter or the table of contents be read, accepted, and evaluated or will it be counted as excess pages and dismissed? Which would count against the page count and jeopardize the proposal?

ANSWER: As shown in Table 2 – Full Proposal Format, and as stated in Section IV.3.ii.

SECTION 1, the cover page and table of contents are excluded from the page count.

10. QUESTION: What specifically is meant by the term “Technical References” in Section 8

p. 18 of the solicitation? Should we provide references to papers we have written, letters from academics or government attesting to our expertise? Please clarify.

ANSWER: The “technical references” in SECTION 8, may be a bibliography/works cited of published papers or reports that provide evidence of the consortium administrator's expertise in the diverse areas of autonomy, as appropriate.

11. QUESTION: Are membership fees expected to be assessed on all consortium members?

ANSWER: It is up to the offeror to determine the appropriate structure for consortium members.

12. QUESTION: What elements of cost can and cannot be included in the $600K start-up administration funding?

ANSWER: It is up to the offeror to determine the appropriate costs associated with start-up administration. Please bid the appropriate cost elements necessary to get the consortium up and running. If a Cooperative Agreement is proposed, educational institutions and non-profit organizations should refer to 2 CFR 200, and for-profit organizations should refer to 48 CFR parts 31 and 231, for guidance on allowable costs.

13. QUESTION: Given the likelihood of the award being made in October 2018, should the cost proposal assume indirect rates and program content for FY 2019 through FY 2023? Should we assume awards of FY18 plus FY 19 funds in FY 19 for a total of $43M?

ANSWER: The offeror should base their cost proposal on an anticipated award in October 2018 (FY 19) with a period of performance based on the Overview Information, Schedule, page 2 of

32. The Fiscal Years shown in the Overview Information, Table 1, page 2 of 32 of Call 003, refer to the fiscal year of the appropriations rather than they are anticipated to be obligated.

Subject to Federal appropriations each fiscal year, funding is anticipated to span FY18-FY22.

R&D funds allow 2 years for obligation. Therefore, no adjustment to the funding schedule is necessary.

14. QUESTION: Are government approved indirect G&A, overhead, and direct program management rates allowed to be applied to funds that flow through the consortium administrator to the members?

ANSWER: It is up to the offeror to determine the appropriate rates to include in their proposal.

If a Cooperative Agreement is proposed, educational institutions and non-profit organizations should refer to 2 CFR 200 Subpart E, and for-profit organizations should refer to 48 CFR parts 31 and 231, for guidance on rates. This is not an exhaustive list of all applicable regulations as they may vary based on the offerors approach and organization’s structure. Guidance on the proposal requirements for rate documentation can be found in Section IV.B.4.ii SECTION 3, starting on page 19 of 32 of Call 003.

15. QUESTION: Can waived fee by the consortium administrator be considered as cost share?

ANSWER: No. Per DoDGARS 22.205(2)(b)(1), the Consortium Administrator cannot charge fee. Since fee cannot be charged, it cannot be waived. The offeror should refer to 2 CFR

200.306 and Appendix IC.2, for more information on cost sharing.

16. QUESTION: Section 3 - Cost breakdown, paragraph (h): Can you clarify what is meant/intended by the reference to “computer use”?

ANSWER: “Computer Use” is provided as a potential cost element. The offeror should only propose this cost element if it is applicable. This is not meant to encompass day to day usage of computers related to the effort that may be part of an offeror’s indirect rates.

17. QUESTION: Will the awardee be reimbursed through a letter of credit or through the

WAWF?

ANSWER: Articles 4.01-4.02 listed in the Model Cooperative Agreement, Attachment 8, posted under BAA Amendment 1 on 12 April 2018, provide anticipated terms and conditions related to payment that may be included in cooperative agreements.

18. QUESTION: Will the agreement be invoiced at the top level, or by individual activity?

ANSWER: Articles 4.01-4.02 listed in the Model Cooperative Agreement, Attachment 8, posted under BAA Amendment 1 on 12 April 2018, provide anticipated terms and conditions related to payment that may be included in cooperative agreements.

19. QUESTION: Does Double-Space format requirement also apply to the two-page descriptions in “Section 9 - Qualifications of Key Personnel”?

ANSWER: Per Section IV.B.3.i.e., page 14 of 32 of Call 003, “All text, including text in tables and charts, must adhere to all font size and line spacing requirements listed herein.” Therefore, the Qualifications of Key Personnel, which are limited to 2 pages each, are subject to the double-spacing requirement.

20. QUESTION: The BAA proposal Guide has a somewhat different set of heading and structure than the RFP. Things like “Risk Analysis”, “Related Government Contracts”, “Schedule”, “responsibilities” are in the BAA guidance, but not the RFP. Should we be organizing our response around the BAA or the RFP?

ANSWER: The proposal should be structured in accordance with the subject BAA, Call 003.

The BAA Guide for Industry is referenced to assist the offeror in understanding the BAA proposal process. The BAA Guide for Industry is solely a guide. If there are any discrepancies between this BAA Call and the BAA Guide for Industry, this BAA Call takes precedence.

21. QUESTION: Per Page 9 of Call 003, item 4. Export Control, it states that the offeror must submit a Certified DD Form 2345, Militarily Critical Technical Data Agreement with the applicable PROJECT proposals. Do we not need to submit the form with the proposal, or should we include it with our proposal to indicate that we already have one in place?

ANSWER: As stated Overview Section, page 3 of 32 of Call 003, this call “does not seek proposals for projects.” Therefore, a Certified DD Form 2345, Militarily Critical Technical Data Agreement is not anticipated to be included with the proposal.

22. QUESTION: In Section 9 on page 18 (Key Personnel), should our response contain specific information about individuals or must it be generic regarding personnel positions?

ANSWER: As stated in IV.B.3.ii. Section 9, page 18 of 32 of Call 003, “Provide a summary paragraph for consortium administrator Key Personnel describing technical qualifications. Also, provide minimal qualifications of board management positions.” The Key Personnel should contain specific information for each individual identified to be involved in leading the consortium including name, position, and technical qualifications. The minimum qualifications of consortium board management positions should include general information regarding minimum qualifications for the board management positions as identified by the offeror, rather than naming specific individuals.

23. QUESTION: In the technical evaluation criteria on page 22, it states that “technical merits of proposed R&D” and “potential relationship of proposed R&D to DoD missions” are the two principal technical evaluations. However, the call specifically requests, on page 3, “This call seeks a proposal to stand-up the consortium, but does not seek proposals for projects”, that is, no R&D is called for in this response. How will the government evaluate the potential relationship of the proposed consortium structure to DoD missions and or compare the relative strengths of proposers on this point?

ANSWER: The technical criteria will be reviewed through peer or scientific review. The review will consider the proposed consortium’s potential to advance the state of the art and increase knowledge or understanding of autonomy technologies.

24. QUESTION: In the Cost/Price evaluation criteria on page 22, financial self-sufficiency is not mentioned as an evaluation criteria. The criteria point to an understanding of program requirements, however, self-sufficiency is not listed among the program objectives detailed on page 5. It is described as an element of the “Conceptual Strategy for ACRNet” but not as a requirement. Can the government clarify is self-sufficiency is a requirement of proposal on which cost will be evaluated?

ANSWER: Self-sufficiency, as part of the Key Elements listed on pages 6-8, will be evaluated under the technical criteria “Technical Merits of proposed Research and Development (R&D)”.

As noted in Section I.V.A.a.i, on page 22 of 32 of Call 003, “Specific aspects of technical merit that will be considered include: Soundness of offeror’s approach to meet the Conceptual Strategy for ACRNet (Section I.A.3.) and the Key Elements listed on pages 6-8, as further described in IV.B.3ii.”

25. QUESTION: On Page 1, Announcement Title, it states the vehicle for ACRNet will be a “Cooperative Agreement or other assistance instrument”. The term “assistance instrument” generally refers to cooperative agreements or grants, as opposed to contracts. Will this solicitation support use of the Other Transaction Authority as one of those “other assistance instruments”? If so, does the government have specific guidance for OTA proposals?

ANSWER: The Government intends to award a Cooperative Agreement, or other assistance instrument. However, as stated in the Overview, Type of Contract/Instrument, on page 2 of 32 of Call 003, “The Air Force reserves the right to award the instrument best suited to the nature of research proposed.” It should be noted that there are different types of Other Transaction Authorities and only Other Transaction for Research are considered an assistance instrument.

There is no specific guidance for an OTA proposal. All proposal guidance is contained in the Call.

26. QUESTION: On page 3, Brief Program Summary, it states, “This call seeks a proposal to stand-up the consortium, but does not seek proposals for projects.” Should the cost proposal contain only those costs associated with administration, or should it include up to the entire $194.4M detailed on page 3, Estimated Program Funding, for both administrative and project costs? If the latter, how should project costs be reflected in the cost proposal where no specific project is requested or enumerated (e.g. $190+M of non-specific ODCs)?

ANSWER: The entire funding profile is $195M. As noted in IV.B.4.ii.SECTION 3, page 19 of 32 of Call 003, the proposal should include total ACRNet costs. This includes both administrative and project costs for the entire period of performance. Refer to Overview Section.Table 1, page 2 of 32 of Call 003 for an estimated funding profile broken out by fiscal year. Project costs should be proposed on a notional basis, as no specific information is available on projects at this time.

27. QUESTION: In table 1, page 2, funding is delineated by fiscal year from FY18-FY22.

However, the anticipated award date is October 2018. Time to get under contract is up to 90 days, and stand-up is defined in the solicitation as another 90 days (page 3). This places the first opportunity for consortium calls around in March 2019. How will the funding schedule be adjusted? This is necessary information to assess the dollar value of awards to be administered by, and thus the level of effort of, the consortium in the early stages of the effort.

ANSWER: “Time to get under contract” is not addressed in Call 003. The offeror should base their cost proposal on an anticipated award in October 2018 (FY 19) with a period of performance based on the schedule stated in the Overview Information, Schedule, on page 2 of 32 of Call 003. The Fiscal Years shown in Table 1 apply to the fiscal year of the appropriations and not when they are anticipated to be obligated. Federal appropriations are anticipated to span FY18-FY22 and are subject to fiscal law. Since, R&D funds allow 2 years for obligation, no adjustment to the funding schedule is necessary.

28. QUESTION: The period of performance is 5 years. However, the final year of project funding, as laid out on page 3, is $50M. What does the government estimate as the period of performance of a particular project? It would seem that project performance might extend 1-2 years beyond what is stated in the solicitation.

ANSWER: The funding profile provided is an estimate and the projects being proposed are notional. Potential offerors are advised that due to the inherent uncertainty of research and development efforts the award resulting from this announcement may be modified during performance. Once projects are identified and initiated, the Government intends to allow time for completion.

29. QUESTION: As the government controls a majority of the technical council of the consortium (per page 6, 16), where project selection decisions are made, answers to the following questions are necessary to accurately estimate administration costs: How many calls for proposal does the government anticipate the consortium will make in a given year or in aggregate? How many projects does the government anticipate the consortium will award either by year or in aggregate? What does the government anticipate is the average size of an award?

ANSWER: Project costs should be proposed on a notional basis, as no specific information is available on projects at this time. Offerors should refer to the Estimated Program Funding section in the Overview Information, page 2 of 32 of Call 003, to develop their Cost Proposal.

The Example Project Write-up information from AFRL, Appendix B of Call 003, should be considered representative of the types of projects anticipated for the consortium. However, the offeror should note the funding amounts for the example projects in Appendix B are estimates only and the amount of funding for projects may vary.

30. QUESTION: On page 8, Hub-and-Node Structure, it states “nodes do not need to be actual free-standing facilities, but rather a means to promote the presence and accessibility of the consortium to researchers developing groundbreaking technologies”. How does the government anticipate using the nodes—as meeting places, research facilities, or some other use?

ANSWER: The Government intends to use the "Nodes" to foster collaboration between government, industry, and academia. As noted in Section I.A.3.ix, page 8 of 32, “The nodes do not need to be actual free-standing facilities.” It is up to the offeror to determine the appropriate hub-and-node structure that will be accessible by government users and proposed consortium members. Offerors should note that a finalized hub-and-node structure is not required to be complete at the time of proposal submission. Rather, as stated in the above mentioned section, offerors are requested to “provide a strategy and plan, that could be time-phased, to establish the nodes, locations for the nodes, and how to link them to the hub to foster collaboration and information sharing”.

31. QUESTION: On page 16, Partnership model, it states the government should represent “no less than 25% of the total governing body membership” and “no less than 50% representation on the technical council”. How many individuals is the government willing to make available for participation in the consortium’s administrative bodies (governing and tech council)?

ANSWER: The Government cannot provide specific information for the governing body or the technical council, such as number of personnel. It is up to the offeror to propose an appropriate Consortium structure. As noted on page 16, the Government is looking for offerors to “Provide a vision for the partnership model…”

32. QUESTION: Page 9 of the solicitation refers to Attachment 8, Model Cooperative agreement, FA8650-17-S-6001, with respect to technical rights and computer software. The solicitation itself (as reflected on FBO) only contains attachments 1-4. Will the model cooperative agreement be made available by the government prior to submission?

ANSWER: FA8650-17-S-6001 is the baseline Hybrid BAA for STAT, under which this Call is posted. Attachment 8, Model Cooperative Agreement, was updated under Amendment 1 to FA8650-17-S-6001, posted on 12 April 2018. There have been several amendments to the baseline BAA and Call 003. It is suggested offerors thoroughly read the baseline BAA and all applicable Amendments for submission requirements.

33. QUESTION: Page 2 of the solicitation refers to attachment 7, regarding supplemental instructions for assistance instrument proposals. This attachment is not available on FBO (attachments 1-4 only). Will the government make the supplemental instructions for assistance instrument proposals available prior to the due date?

ANSWER: FA8650-17-S-6001 is the baseline Hybrid BAA for STAT, under which this Call is posted. Attachment 7, Supplemental Instructions for Assistance Instrument Proposals, was updated under Amendment 2 to FA8650-17-S-6001, posted on 25 May 2018. There have been several amendments to the baseline BAA and Call 003. It is suggested offerors thoroughly read the baseline BAA and all applicable Amendments for submission requirements.

34. QUESTION: In section 2 (Program Scope and Objectives) of the announcement, the first paragraph includes the requirement that the consortium be “an AFRL initiated consortium, ARCNet". Is the government open to proposals from existing consortia?

ANSWER: The offeror should propose the approach they deem most appropriate. All offers received under this Call are “AFRL initiated” as they are responding to a Call posted by AFRL.

35. QUESTION: In section 3 (Conceptual Strategy for ACRNet), the first paragraph includes a requirement for DoD representation on both the governing boards and technical councils of the consortium. Is it acceptable to propose alternate methods to achieve an appropriate level of engagement between the consortium and the Government?

ANSWER: The offeror should propose the approach they deem most appropriate to achieve the Conceptual Strategy and Key Elements listed on pages 6-8 of Call 003. The proposal will be evaluated in accordance with the peer or scientific review criteria outlined on page 22 of 32 of Call 003.

36. QUESTION: Does the SOW require a table of contents and a cover letter? Do they count against the 10 page count?

ANSWER: There is no requirement for the SOW to contain a table of contents or cover letter.

Per IV.B.3.ii SECTION 7, page 18 of 32 of Call 003, “Include a SOW detailing the technical tasks proposed to be accomplished under the proposed effort and suitable for incorporation in the agreement.” The offeror may provide these items, but they would count against the 10 page limit for the SOW.

37. QUESTION: The Call has a five-year funding profile for FY18-FY22, but the Call says it will not start until FY19. Shall we assume it is still a 5-year program and use a funding profile from FY19 to FY23 for proposal purposes as long as the funds add up to the same amount and don’t assume funds to be available sooner than the profile in the RFP?

ANSWER: The Fiscal Years shown in Table 1 apply to the fiscal year of the appropriations and not when they are anticipated to be obligated. Federal appropriations are anticipated to span FY18-FY22 and are subject to fiscal law. Since, R&D funds allow 2 years for obligation, no adjustment to the funding schedule is necessary. The government has provided the funding profile as their best estimate of the anticipated yearly funding for the consortium.

38. QUESTION: Will Earned Value Management be required in accordance with the generic CDRL list on grants.gov or will it be waived? The CDRL includes reporting earned value on the contract which is not usually appropriate for a grant or CA; but would regularly be applied to projects of this size if it was a regular procurement.

ANSWER: Reporting and deliverable items particular to this Call have been called out in Section I.B., page 8 of 32. This effort is anticipated to be awarded as a Cooperative Agreement or other assistance instrument. The CDRL list on grants.gov applies to the Baseline BAA FA8650-17-S-6001, under which this Call is posted. Therefore, not all attachments from the Baseline BAA apply to this particular Call.

39. QUESTION: Is a NASA Research Center considered a “Federal Government Organization” or a “government agency”?

ANSWER: It is up to the offeror to propose members that satisfy the eligibility requirements in the Call, as described in Section III, starting on page 10 of 32 of Call 003.

40. QUESTION: The RFP does not specify format for Section 9 Key Personnel. Because it is not in the page count, may Qualifications of Key Personnel be single spaced?

ANSWER: Qualifications of Key Personnel cannot be single spaced. Paragraph i, Section IV.B.3.i., page 14 of 32 of Call 3, states “all text, including text in tables and charts, must adhere to all font size and line spacing requirements listed herein… These exceptions shall not be used to circumvent formatting requirements and page count limitations by including lengthy narratives in such items.” Offerors should note that while Qualifications of Key Personnel are excluded from the 30 page count of the Technical Volume, they are limited to 2 pages each, as noted in Table 2, page 14 of 32 of Call 3.

41. QUESTION: Can university students or foreign nationals perform non-export controlled research in support of the consortium? Does the government distinguish between green card holders and foreign nationals?

ANSWER: It is the offerors responsibility to review the appropriate statutes, such as International Traffic In Arms Regulation 22 CFR 120-131, or Export Administration Regulations 15 CFR 710-774, to ensure applicability and how to comply. Refer to https://www.state.gov/ for additional guidance.

https://www.state.gov/