BAA 20-01 Amend 2 second repub 2022.docx

AMENDMENT 2 TO BAA FA8750-20-S-7001

The purpose of this modification is to republish the original announcement, incorporating any previous amendments, pursuant to FAR 35.016(c).

This republishing also includes the following changes:

1. Part I, Overview Information:

0. Updated references of Beta SAM to SAM throughout;

1. Part II, Full Text Announcement:

1. Section III, adds paragraph 4;

1. Section IV.4.f.5, removes the last sentence regarding options;

1. Section V.2.a, updates Review and Selection Process language;

1. Section VI.1, updates the Proposal Formatting language;

1. Section VI.4.d, adds language;

1. Section VI.7, updates the applicable provisions;

1. Section VII, updates the OMBUDSMAN No other changes are made.

NAICS CODE: 541715

FEDERAL AGENCY NAME: Department of the Air Force, Air Force Materiel Command, AFRL - Rome Research Site, AFRL/Information Directorate, 26 Electronic Parkway, Rome, NY, 13441-4514

BAA ANNOUNCEMENT TYPE: Modification

BROAD AGENCY ANNOUNCEMENT (BAA) TITLE: Interactive Learning for Mission Planning

BAA NUMBER: FA8750-20-S-7001

PART I – OVERVIEW INFORMATION

This announcement is for an Open, 2-Step BAA open and effective until 30 Sep 2023. Only white papers will be accepted as initial submissions; formal proposals will be accepted by invitation only. While white papers will be considered if received prior to 4 PM Eastern Standard Time (EST) on 30 Sep 2023, the following submission dates are suggested to best align with projected funding:

FY21 by 19 Jun 2020

Offerors are requested to hold white papers until FY23.

FY22 by 31 Mar 2021 FY23 by 31 Mar 2022

Offerors should monitor the Contract Opportunities on the SAM website at https://SAM.gov in the event this announcement is amended.

The Interactive Learning for Mission Planning (ILMP) Program Team anticipates hosting an Industry Day to provide interested offerors an opportunity to learn more about ILMP and AFRL/RI’s Artificial Intelligence/Machknie Learning (AI/ML) activities. Due to the ongoing COVID-19 travel restrictions, the ILMP team plans to host a virtual Industry Day on 28 MAY 2020. This date is subject to change. Details regarding registration, format, and attendee access will be published in beta.SAM shortly following the announcement publication proper.

CONCISE SUMMARY OF TECHNOLOGY REQUIREMENT: Seeking innovative applications of Interactive Learning techniques and technologies to Air Force (AF) planning problems, particularly in the realm of tactical route planning. Do note that this program is domain agnostic and white papers detailing work in other domains including strategic and tactical air, space, cyber, etc. will be entertained.

The Interactive Learning for Mission Planning (ILMP) program will test the merit of Interactive Learning (IL) when applied to AF planning problems, and will develop the software system required to prove the applicability of IL to this problem space. This program will explore the union of IL, current AF automated planning tools, such as tactical route planning tools, and human planning Subject Matter Experts (SME). The ILMP team is soliciting white papers that propose methods for leveraging IL in planning domains. Proposed interactive algorithms will gather and learn from SME feedback to produce plans more amenable to SME preferences. Such approaches will gather feedback from SMEs efficiently and effectively; for example, limit the work to be done by SMEs, and gather sufficient feedback from SMEs to adequately reflect preferences in produced plans. Selected planners are to be mature and well supported, and will be minimally changed. Approaches will rely on SME feedback and machine learning to improve plan quality. Additionally, proposals will outline experiments to test the efficacy of learner-planner-SME combinations in sufficiently complex domains.

BAA ESTIMATED FUNDING: Total funding for this BAA is approximately $9.9M. Individual awards will not normally exceed 24 months with dollar amounts normally ranging from $500,000 to $1,500,000. There is also the potential to make awards up to any dollar value as long as the value does not exceed the available BAA ceiling amount.

ANTICIPATED INDIVIDUAL AWARDS: Multiple Awards are anticipated.

TYPE OF INSTRUMENTS THAT MAY BE AWARDED: Procurement contracts, grants, cooperative agreements or other transactions (OT) depending upon the nature of the work proposed. In the event that an Other Transaction for Prototype agreement is awarded as a result of this competitive BAA, and the prototype project is successfully completed, there is the potential for a prototype project to transition to award of a follow-on production contract or transaction. The Other Transaction for Prototype agreement itself will also contain a similar notice of a potential follow-on production contract or agreement.

AGENCY CONTACT INFORMATION: All white paper submissions and any questions of a technical nature shall be directed to the cognizant Technical Point of Contact (TPOC) as specified below (unless otherwise specified in the technical area) (email requests are preferred):

Interactive Learning for Mission Planning (ILMP) TPOC:

Mr. Dan Carpenter

AFRL/RISC

525 Brooks Rd Rome, NY 13441-4505 Email: daniel.carpenter.5@us.af.mil

Questions of a contractual/business nature shall be directed to the cognizant Contracting Officer, as specified below (email requests are preferred):

Ms. Amber Buckley Email: amber.buckley@us.af.mil

Emails must reference the solicitation (BAA) number and title of the acquisition.

Pre-Proposal Communication between Prospective Offerors and Government Representatives: Dialogue between prospective offerors and Government representatives is encouraged. Technical and contracting questions can be resolved in writing or through open discussions. Discussions with any of the points of contact shall not constitute a commitment by the Government to subsequently fund or award any proposed effort. Only Contracting Officers are legally authorized to commit the Government.

Offerors are cautioned that evaluation ratings may be lowered and/or proposal rejected if proposal preparation (proposal format, content, etc.) and/or submittal instructions are not followed.

PART II – FULL TEXT ANNOUNCEMENT

BROAD AGENCY ANNOUNCEMENT (BAA) TITLE: Interactive Learning for Mission Planning

BAA NUMBER: BAA FA8750-20-S-7001

CATALOG OF FEDERAL DOMESTIC ASSISTANCE (CFDA) Number: 12.800

I. TECHNOLOGY REQUIREMENTS:

Executive Summary

The Air Force Research Laboratory Information Directorate (AFRL/RI) is soliciting white papers under this Broad Agency Announcement (BAA) for research, development, integration, test and evaluation of technologies/techniques to use Interactive Learning (IL) to enhance automated planning tools with the goal of capturing higher order abstractions such as Commander’s Intent, user preference, etc.

Planning is a common function that spans all command and control (C2) battle echelons, from strategic, to operational, to tactical. The planning processes are defined in doctrine and unique to specific domain (air, space, cyber, etc.), operational level (strategic, operational, tactical, etc.) and even local policy. As such, planning, in any domain, is a manually intense process, often requiring many days and significant human labor to accomplish. The predicted tempo of future conflict is likely to outpace both current and predicted planning capabilities across all domains and at all echelons.

This diverging trend between future planning capabilities and future requirements led to the development of dozens of machine-assisted or computer-automated planners with the goal of making the traditional planning process faster and less human-resource intensive. DoD has invested heavily in computer aided planners to generate mission plans, such as tactical routes, missile defense, sensor tasking, Air Tasking Orders (ATO), and a host of other types of plans. Generally, it has been found that these automated planners perform poorly when compared to their human counterparts. One reason for this performance disparity is that human planners are able to incorporate higher-level reasoning and constraint consideration into the planning process that computer planners simply cannot account.

The automated planners generate plans that are physically possible, but these plans rarely satisfy the human experts’ requirements for a quality plan, which often means the planning tools are disregarded or discarded altogether. Generating quality plans remains a challenge for existing techniques since the requisite information to do so is implicit to the context of the mission: the commander’s intent, operational knowledge, etc. that can only be provided by a human user. This implicit information cannot be explicitly encoded into an algorithm making the autoplanning problem intractable for traditional planning methods. AFRL/RI hypothesizes that optimizing for this implicit context may be accomplished via an augmentation of existing auto-planning techniques with IL. Since the judgement of a Subject Matter Expert (SME) is a more appropriate evaluation for a plan than traditional optimization procedures, AFRL/RI suspects that a system incorporating such evaluation during plan generation will outperform traditional planners. IL techniques constitute the chosen vehicle for incorporating human feedback due to their well-documented abilities to incorporate human judgement into learning problems.

This BAA is soliciting white papers for R&D proposals to apply IL to machine-enhanced Air Force planning.

Interactive Learning and Air Force Planning

Interactive Learning Summary In a machine learning context, learning from data with associated ground truth labels falls into the supervised learning subfield. In settings where labels are required, but sparse or non-existent, and exhaustive labeling of data is prohibitively costly in terms of time and money, active learning methods are frequently sought. Active learning algorithms assume the existence of some oracle that annotates data samples, and these samples are subsequently used to update the machine learning model. Critically, data is not selected naively for labeling, but is rather selected according to some criteria that maximizes utility to the learning process. Such approaches require fewer labels to achieve good performance than naïve sampling strategies. This fast convergence is most efficient and desirable when obtaining labels on data is difficult, slow, or expensive [1].

While active learning is a term more clearly defined in machine learning literature, IL is a term that AFRL/RI uses to refer to an active learning algorithm where the oracle is assumed to be a human operator, rather than an automated entity, such as a simulation engine. AFRL/RI is exclusively interested in such learning settings to incorporate human expertise into a planning problem. Gathering feedback from a human requires careful consideration of the kinds of queries that a human can answer. As such, IL methods are frequently faced with learning from label, such as relative comparisons (e.g [2]), rankings [3], etc.Figure 1: Generic active learning process [1]

Interactive Learning Applied To AF Planning The ability to learn effectively from queries that are easy for humans to answer is a critical advantage of IL methods in learning settings. AFRL/RI foresees IL techniques being applied to AF planning settings as follows:

Given an AF planning task selected by the Offeror, data instances will be planning artifacts, such as route plans, missile defense plans, ATOs, or some other artifact relevant to the chosen domain. IL implies that the oracle will be humans; these humans must be experts in the selected AF planning task. Further, the chosen task must be accompanied by a mature automated planner. This planner must be coupled with an active learning algorithm such that the active learner has some influence over the plans being generated. Further, AFRL/RI desires that the experts are provided with a means of judging the plans generated by the combination of learner and planner, and that their feedback forms the data from which the learner learns. In addition to the proposed machine learning approach, a detailed description of the planner and proposed human-machine interface should be included in any white paper or proposal submitted to this announcement.

Figure 2 shows a notional flow of how an AF automated planning tool might be integrated into the active learning cycle. Starting at the bottom, the “oracle” in the academic sense is manifested as human planning experts; the labeled training set is AF planning documents that have been evaluated in some manner by the planning experts, and the model will be planner and ML technique dependent. The planner is shown as a “black box”, some unmodifiable device that receives inputs and generates outputs. The planner is shown as a black box to encourage approaches that will work with a wide class of planners, though the resulting learned model and associated artifacts do not necessarily have to generalize to different scenarios, though such approaches are welcome. Finally, the unlabeled pool now contains any previously unlabeled plans as well as new outputs from the planner.Figure 2: ILMP Active Learning Process Around Academic Active Learning Process

Interactive Learning Algorithm Requirements Since AFRL/RI assumes an existing planner and SMEs already familiar with a given domain, the first-class citizen of the combination of systems depicted in Figure 2 is the interactive learning algorithm. AFRL/RI is specifically interested in proposed learning systems that have the following characteristics (in addition to predictive power):

1) The queries presented to SMEs must be easy to answer. There has been significant work in developing queries that offer “natural” feedback collection mechanisms for humans to articulate otherwise difficult-to-state information. As an example, triplet queries ask for relative feedback from a SME, asking whether an anchor object A is more similar to object B or object C. These techniques are grounded in human psychology and thus are well suited to gathering implicit knowledge from a range of human SMEs. Further, implicit in the answer to such queries is any knowledge that the human used to make their judgement. For example, in the tactical air planning domain, the objects may be routes proposed by an auto-planner. Querying a SME for relative comparisons of routes can capture SME knowledge of what constitutes a quality route without ever asking for those quality metrics to be made explicit. Given the information contained within the responses to triplet queries, routes may be generated, ranked, searched, etc. in a manner more consistent with human intuition than using quantifiable optimization criteria alone. Regardless of the particular interactive learning algorithm employed, Interactive Learning will allow the human expert to share his expert opinion without having to explicitly state his opinion.

2) The querying strategy should seek to minimize the number of queries required to learn. Interactive learners are often constructed to ask queries based on some criteria determining how useful the answer will be in updating the underlying model. As an example, a model may query for feedback on a data point associated with high uncertainty, i.e a data point for which the model is not confident in making a prediction. In a route planning scenario, for example, queries could be focused on routes whose “goodness” (ranking, etc.) is relatively unknown. The advantage of such an approach is that each query directly improves the interactive learner’s certainty regarding routes, and therefore limits the number of queries presented to the SME.

3) The proposed learning system must be demonstrably influenced by the feedback of the SMEs. The objective of applying IL to AF planning is to improve the speed at which quality plans can be generated by operational teams. Plan quality as measured by traditional optimization techniques often falls short of operator definitions of quality. Thus AFRL/RI requires that the proposed learning approach be primarily influenced by labels from a SME. Further, work performed should include qualitative (and quantitative if possible) evaluation of plans as given by Offeror-provided SMEs, and will potentially be evaluated by Government-provided SMEs as well.

Critical Components of Proposals Proposals and white papers must detail a plan for handling each of the following four components (and subcomponents) of an overall system:

Automated Planner

· Setup

· Maintenance

· Communication with Learner

· Communication with Visual Interface Learning Model

· Algorithms (provide justification)

· Efficient implementation

· Evaluation measures and experiments to show abilities

· Integration with human-machine interface.

Scenario Development

· Sufficient complexity to necessitate planner

· Non-trivial scenario objective

· Non-trivial scenario characteristics Human Planning SME

· Obtaining experts in relevant planning domain (should have knowledge of current AF planning processes)

· Allowing experts access to developed systems

AFRL evaluators will consider plans for these four components when assessing Overall Scientific and Technical Merit and Related Experience criteria of any white paper or proposal. White papers should address each item; proposals must provide detailed analysis on each criteria above.

Technical Details

· Appropriate use of software frameworks is highly encouraged, particularly when developing a standalone learning system.

· White papers should enumerate the list of candidate software languages to be used. Preferred languages are Python, C++, and Java. Other languages are permitted but it should be justified why they might be chosen over these languages that the larger machine learning community prefers.

· The system must reliably capture, store, and recall determinations made by SMEs performing plan assessments. These results must not be lost. Common database protection and assurance practices are expected.

· The system must be capable of presenting meaningful visualizations to planning Subject Matter Experts (SME) to aid in their evaluations. For example, in the case of route planning, a topographical map user interface might be desirable to view and compare routes.

· AFRL/RI is not attempting to evaluate the human SMEs that are providing labels. Projects under this program will consider SME opinion to be ground truth.

Sources

[1] Burr Settles. Active Learning Literature Survey. Computer Sciences Technical Report 1648, University of Wisconsin–Madison. 2009.

[2] Heim, Eric, et al. "Efficient online relative comparison kernel learning." Proceedings of the 2015 SIAM International Conference on Data Mining. Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics, 2015.

[3] Jamieson, Kevin G., and Robert Nowak. "Active ranking using pairwise comparisons." Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems. 2011.

This BAA seeks white papers addressing all of the components above. Offerors may respond at any time. Multiple white papers from a single proposer are allowed.

IMPORTANT NOTES REGARDING:

FUNDAMENTAL RESEARCH. It is DoD policy that the publication of products of fundamental research will remain unrestricted to the maximum extent possible. National Security Decision Directive (NSDD) 189 defines fundamental research as follows:

‘Fundamental research’ means basic and applied research in science and engineering, the results of which ordinarily are published and shared broadly within the scientific community, as distinguished from proprietary research and from industrial development, design, production, and product utilization, the results of which ordinarily are restricted for proprietary or national security reasons.

As of the date of publication of this BAA, the Government cannot identify whether work proposed under this BAA may be considered fundamental research and may award both fundamental and non-fundamental research. Proposers should indicate in their proposal whether they believe the scope of the research included in their proposal is fundamental or not. While proposers should clearly explain the intended results of their research, the Government shall have sole discretion to select award instrument type and to negotiate all instrument terms and conditions with selectees. Appropriate clauses will be included in resultant awards for non-fundamental research to prescribe publication requirements and other restrictions, as appropriate.

For certain research projects, it may be possible that although the research being performed by the awardee is restricted research, a sub-awardee may be conducting fundamental research. In those cases, it is the awardee’s responsibility to explain in their proposal why its sub-awardee’s effort is fundamental research.

CLOUD COMPUTING. In accordance with DFARS Clause 252.239-7010, if the development proposed requires storage of Government, or Government-related data on the cloud, offerors need to ensure that the cloud service provider proposed has been granted Provisional Authorization by the Defense Information Systems Agency (DISA) at the level appropriate to the requirement.

II. AWARD INFORMATION:

1. FUNDING: Total funding for this BAA is approximately $9,900,000. The anticipated funding to be obligated under this BAA is broken out by fiscal year as follows:

FY21 - $4,900,000

FY22 - $4,000,000

FY23 - $1,000,000

1. Individual awards will not normally exceed 24 months with dollar values normally ranging from $500,000 to $1,500,000. There is also the potential to make awards up to any dollar value as long as the value does not exceed the available BAA ceiling amount of $9,900,000.

1. The Government reserves the right to select all, part, or none of the proposals received, subject to the availability of funds. All potential Offerors should be aware that due to unanticipated budget fluctuations, funding in any or all areas may change with little or no notice.

2. FORM. Awards of efforts as a result of this announcement will be in the form of contracts, grants, cooperative agreements or other transactions depending upon the nature of the work proposed.

3. BAA TYPE: This is a 2-step open broad agency announcement. This announcement constitutes the only solicitation.

As STEP ONE – The Government is only soliciting white papers at this time. DO NOT SUBMIT A FORMAL PROPOSAL. Those white papers found to be consistent with the intent of this BAA may be invited to submit a technical and cost proposal. See Section VI of this announcement for further details regarding the proposal.

III. ELIGIBILITY INFORMATION:

1. ELIGIBILITY: All qualified offerors who meet the requirements of this BAA may apply.

2. FOREIGN PARTICIPATION/ACCESS:

1. This BAA is closed to foreign participation. This includes both foreign ownership and foreign nationals as employees or subcontractors.

1. Exceptions.

1. Fundamental Research. If the work to be performed is unclassified, fundamental research, this must be clearly identified in the white paper and/or proposal. See Part II, Section I for more details regarding Fundamental Research. Offerors should still identify any performance by foreign nationals at any level (prime contractor or subcontractor) in their proposals. Please specify the nationals’ country of origin, the type of visa or work permit under which they are performing and an explanation of their anticipated level of involvement. You may be asked to provide additional information during negotiations in order to verify the foreign citizen’s eligibility to participate on any contract or assistance agreement issued as a result of this announcement

1. Foreign Ownership, Control or Influence (FOCI) companies who have mitigation plans/paperwork in place. Proof of approved mitigation documentation must be provided to the contracting office focal point, Amber Buckley, Contracting Officer, telephone (315) 330-3605, or e-mail Amber.Buckley@us.af.mil prior to submitting a white paper and/or a proposal. For information on FOCI mitigation, contact the contact the Defense Counterintelligence and Security Agency (DCSA). Additional details can be found at: https://www.dcsa.mil/mc/ctp/foci/

1. Foreign Nationals as Employees or Subcontractors. Applicable to any effort not considered Fundamental Research. Offerors are responsible for ensuring that all employees and/or subcontractors who will work on a resulting contract are eligible to do so. Any employee who is not a U.S. citizen or a permanent resident will be restricted from working on any resultant contract unless prior approval of the Department of State or the Department of Commerce is obtained via a technical assistance agreement or an export license. Violations of these regulations can result in criminal or civil penalties.

1. Information Regarding Non-US Citizens Assigned to this Project

0. Contractor employees requiring access to USAF bases, AFRL facilities, and/or access to U.S. Government Information Technology (IT) networks in connection with the work on contracts, assistance instruments or other transactions awarded under this BAA must be U.S. citizens. For the purpose of base and network access, possession of a permanent resident card ("Green Card") does not equate to U.S. citizenship. This requirement does not apply to foreign nationals approved by the U.S. Department of Defense or U.S. State Department under international personnel exchange agreements with foreign governments. It also does not apply to dual citizens who possess US citizenship, to include Naturalized citizens. Any waivers to this requirement must be granted in writing by the Contracting Officer prior to providing access. Specific format for waiver request will be provided upon request to the Contracting Officer. The above requirements are in addition to any other contract requirements related to obtaining a Common Access Card (CAC).

0. For the purposes of Paragraph 1, it an IT network/system does not require AFRL to endorse a contractor's application to said network/system in order to gain access, the organization operating the IT network/system is responsible for controlling access to its system. If an IT network/system requires a U.S. Government sponsor to endorse the application in order for access to the IT network/system, AFRL will only endorse the following types of applications, consistent with the requirements above:

1. Contractor employees who are U.S. citizens performing work under contracts, assistance instruments or other transactions awarded under this BAA.

1. Contractor employees who are non-U.S. citizens and who have been granted a waiver.

Any additional access restrictions established by the IT network/system owner apply.

3. FEDERALLY FUNDED RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT CENTERS AND GOVERNMENT ENTITIES: Federally Funded Research and Development Centers (FFRDCs) and Government entities (e.g., Government/National laboratories, military educational institutions, etc.) are subject to applicable direct competition limitations and cannot propose to this BAA in any capacity unless they meet the following conditions:

1. FFRDCs: FFRDCs must clearly demonstrate that the proposed work is not otherwise available from the private sector; and FFRDCs must provide a letter on official letterhead from their sponsoring organization citing the specific authority establishing their eligibility to propose to Government solicitations and compete with industry, and their compliance with the associated FFRDC sponsor agreement’s terms and conditions. This information is required for FFRDCs proposing to be prime contractors or sub-awardees.

1. Government Entities: Government entities must clearly demonstrate that the work is not otherwise available from the private sector and provide written documentation citing the specific statutory authority and contractual authority, if relevant, establishing their ability to propose to Government solicitations. While 10 U.S.C.§ 2539b may be the appropriate statutory starting point for some entities, specific supporting regulatory guidance, together with evidence of agency approval, will still be required to fully establish eligibility.

FFRDC and Government entity eligibility will be determined on a case-by-case basis; however, the burden to prove eligibility for all team members rests solely with the proposer.

Government agencies interested in performing work related to this announcement should contact the Technical Point of Contact (TPOC). If resulting discussions reveal a mutual interest, cooperation may be pursued via other vehicles.

4.ORGANIZATIONAL CONFLICTS OF INTEREST: In accordance with FAR 9.5, offerors are required to identify and disclose all facts relevant to potential OCIs involving the offerors organization and any proposed team member (subawardee, consultant). Under this Section, the offeror is responsible for providing this disclosure with each proposal submitted to the solicitation. The disclosure must include the offerors, and as applicable, proposed team member’s OCI mitigation plan. The OCI mitigation plan must include a description of the actions the offeror has taken, or intends to take, to prevent the existence of conflicting roles that might bias the offerors judgment and to prevent the offeror from having unfair competitive advantage. The OCI mitigation plan will specifically discuss the disclosed OCI in the context of each of the OCI limitations outlined in FAR 9.505-1 through FAR 9.505-4.

a. Agency Supplemental OCI Policy: In addition, AFRL has a supplemental OCI policy that prohibits contractors/performers from concurrently providing Scientific Engineering Technical Assistance (SETA), Advisory and Assistance Services (A&AS) or similar support services and being a technical performer. Therefore, as part of the FAR 9.5 disclosure requirement above, an offeror must affirm whether the offeror or any proposed team member (subawardee, consultant) is providing SETA, A&AS, or similar support to any AFRL office(s) under: (a) a current award or subaward; or (b) a past award or subaward that ended within one calendar year prior to the proposal’s submission date. If SETA, A&AS, or similar support is being or was provided to any AFRL office(s), the proposal must include:

. The name of the AFRL office receiving the support;

. The prime contract number;

. Identification of proposed team member (subawardee, consultant) providing the support; and . An OCI mitigation plan in accordance with FAR 9.5.

b. Government Procedures: In accordance with FAR 9.503, 9.504 and 9.506, the Government will evaluate OCI mitigation plans to avoid, neutralize or mitigate potential OCI issues before award and to determine whether it is in the Government’s interest to grant a waiver. The Government will only evaluate OCI mitigation plans for proposals that are determined selectable under the solicitation evaluation criteria and funding availability. The Government may require proposers to provide additional information to assist the Government in evaluating the offerors OCI mitigation plan. If the Government determines that an offeror failed to fully disclose an OCI; or failed to provide the affirmation of AFRL support as described above; or failed to reasonably provide additional information requested by the Government to assist in evaluating the proposer’s OCI mitigation plan, the Government may reject the proposal and withdraw it from consideration for award.

IV. APPLICATION AND SUBMISSION INFORMATION:

All responses to this announcement must be addressed to the Technical Point of Contact (TPOC) listed in SECTION VII. DO NOT send white papers to the Contracting Officer.

1. SUBMISSION DATES AND TIMES:

It is recommended that white papers be received by 4 PM Eastern Standard Time (EST) on the following dates to maximize the possibility of award:

FY21 by 19 Jun 2020

Offerors are requested to hold white papers until FY23.

FY22 by 31 Mar 2021 FY23 by 31 Mar 2022

White papers will be accepted until 4 PM EST on 30 Sep 2023, but it is less likely that funding will be available in each respective fiscal year after the dates cited. This BAA will close on 30 Sep 2023.

All offerors submitting white papers will receive notification of their evaluation results within 45 days of submission. Offerors should email the TPOC and the Contracting Officer listed in Section VII, for status of their white paper(s) after 45 days, if no such correspondence has been received.

2. CONTENT AND FORMAT: Offerors are required to submit a 3 to 5 page white paper, in the form of a PDF file, summarizing their proposed approach/solution. The purpose of the white paper is to preclude unwarranted effort on the part of an offeror whose proposed work is not of interest to the Government.

The white paper will be formatted as follows:

1. Section A: Title, Period of Performance, Estimated Cost, Name/Address of Company, Technical and Contracting Points of Contact (phone and email)(this section is NOT included in the page count);

1. Section B: Task Objective; and

1. Section C: Technical Summary and Proposed Deliverables.

All white papers shall be double spaced with a font no smaller than 12 point. Please note that less than 12 point font is acceptable for graphics and illustrations (as in labels and short descriptions) as long as it is readable when printed out on standard 8x11 paper. In addition, respondents are requested to provide their Commercial and Government Entity (CAGE) Code, their unique entity identifier and electronic funds transfer (EFT) indicator (if applicable), an e-mail address and reference BAA FA8750-20-S-7001 with their submission.

Multiple white papers within the purview of this announcement may be submitted by each offeror. If the offeror wishes to restrict its white papers, they must be marked with the restrictive language stated in FAR 15.609(a) and (b).

3. HANDLING AND MAILING INSTRUCTIONS:

a. CLASSIFICATION GUIDANCE. All Proposers should review the NATIONAL INDUSTRIAL SECURITY PROGRAM OPERATING MANUAL (NISPOM), 32 CFR Part 117, as it provides baseline standards for the protection of classified information and prescribes the requirements concerning Contractor Developed Information under paragraph §117.13. Defense Counterintelligence and Security Agency (DCSA) Site for the NISPOM is: http://www.dcsa.mil/.

In the event of a possible or actual compromise of classified information in the submission of your white paper or proposal, immediately but no later than 24 hours, bring this to the attention of your cognizant security authority and AFRL Rome Research Site Information Protection Office (IPO):

Information Protection Office (contact only if a security compromise has occurred)

b. CLASSIFIED SUBMISSIONS. AFRL/RISC will accept classified responses to this BAA when the classification is mandated by classification guidance provided by an Original Classification Authority of the U.S. Government, or when the offeror believes the work, if successful, would merit classification.

Security classification guidance in the form of a DD Form 254 (DoD Contract Security Classification Specification) will not be provided at this time since AFRL is soliciting ideas only.

Offerors that intend to include classified information or data in their white paper submission or who are unsure about the appropriate classification of their white papers should contact the technical point of contact listed in Section VII for guidance and direction in advance of preparation.

c. MAILING INSTRUCTIONS.

Unclassified electronic submission to the TPOC identified in Section VII will only be accepted. Encrypt or password-protect all proprietary information prior to sending. Offerors are responsible to confirm receipt with the TPOC. AFRL is not responsible for undelivered documents. If electronic submission is used, only one copy of the documentation is required.

Questions can be directed to the TPOC listed in Section VII.

4. OTHER SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS/CONSIDERATIONS:

a. COST SHARING OR MATCHING: Cost sharing is not a requirement. Cost sharing may be proposed and will be considered on a case-by-case basis. Cost share will not be a factor in selection for award.

b. SYSTEM FOR AWARD MANAGEMENT (SAM). Offerors must be registered in the SAM database to receive a contract award, and remain registered during performance and through final payment of any contract or agreement. Processing time for registration in SAM, which normally takes forty-eight hours, should be taken into consideration when registering. Offerors who are not already registered should consider applying for registration before submitting a proposal. The provision at FAR 52.204-7, System for Award Management (Oct 2018) applies.

c. EXECUTIVE COMPENSATION AND FIRST-TIER SUBCONTRACT/ SUBRECIPIENT AWARDS: Any contract award resulting from this announcement may contain the clause at FAR 52.204-10 - Reporting Executive Compensation and First-Tier Subcontract Awards (Jun 2020). Any grant or agreement award resulting from this announcement may contain the award term set forth in 2 CFR, Appendix A to Part 25 which can be viewed at: https://www.govinfo.gov/app/details/CFR-2012-title2-vol1/CFR-2012-title2-vol1-part25-appA.

d. ALLOWABLE CHARGES: The cost of preparing white papers/proposals in response to this announcement is not considered an allowable direct charge to any resulting contract or any other contract, but may be an allowable expense to the normal bid and proposal indirect cost specified in FAR 31.205-18. Incurring pre-award costs for ASSISTANCE INSTRUMENTS ONLY are regulated by 2 CFR part 200.458, Pre-Award Costs.

e. GOVERNMENT APPROVED ACCOUNTING SYSTEM: An offeror must have a government approved accounting system prior to award of a cost-reimbursement contract per limitations set forth in FAR 16.301-3(a) to ensure the system is adequate for determining costs applicable to the contract. The acceptability of an accounting system is determined based upon an audit performed by the Defense Contract Audit Agency (DCAA). IMPORTANT: If you do not have a DCAA approved accounting system access the following link for instructions: https://sam.gov/opp/e628c811fafe041accdddf55fb8539bf/view?keywords=AFRL-BAA-Guide&sort=-relevance&index=&is_active=true&page=1

f. HUMAN USE: All research involving human subjects, to include the use of human biological specimens and human data, selected for funding must comply with Federal regulations for human subject protection. Further, research involving human subjects that is conducted or supported by the DoD must comply with 32 CFR 219, “Protection of Human Subjects” found at: http://www.access.gpo.gov/nara/cfr/waisidx_07/32cfr219_07.html, and DoD Instruction 3216.02, “Protection of Human Subjects and Adherence to Ethical Standards in DoD-Supported Research” found at: http://www.dtic.mil/whs/directives/corres/pdf/321602p.pdf.

1. Institutions awarded funding for research involving human subjects must provide documentation of a current Assurance of Compliance with Federal regulations for human subject protection, for example a Department of Health and Human Services, Office of Human Research Protection Federal Wide Assurance found at: http://www.hhs.gov/ohrp.

1. All institutions engaged in human subject research, to include subcontractors, must have a valid assurance. In addition, personnel involved in human subject research must document the completion of appropriate training for the protection of human subjects.

1. For all research that will involve human subjects in the first year or phase of the project, the institution must submit evidence of a plan for review by an institutional review board (IRB) as part of the proposal. The IRB conducting the review must be the IRB identified on the institution’s Assurance of Compliance. The protocol, separate from the proposal, must include a detailed description of the research plan, study population, risks and benefits of study participation, recruitment and consent process, data collection, and data analysis. The designated IRB should be consulted for guidance on writing the protocol. The informed consent document must comply with 32 CFR 219.116. A valid Assurance of Compliance and evidence of appropriate training by all investigators should accompany the protocol for review by the IRB.

1. In addition to a local IRB approval, an AFRL-level human subject regulatory review and approval is required for all research conducted or supported by the DoD. The Air Force office responsible for managing the award can provide guidance and information about the AFRL-level review process. Confirmation of a current Assurance of Compliance and appropriate human subjects protection training is required before AFRL-level approval can be issued.

1. The time required to complete the IRB review/approval process will vary depending on the complexity of the research and/or the level of risk to study participants; ample time should be allotted to complete the approval process. The IRB approval process can last between 1 to 3 months, followed by a DoD review that could last 3 to 6 months. No funding may be used toward human subject research until all approvals are granted.

g) SUPPLIER PERFORMANCE RISK SYSTEM (SPRS). Offerors should have a BASIC NIST SP 800 171 DoD Assessment in the SPRS (https://www.sprs.csd.disa.mil/). Basic assessment is to be conducted by the offeror.

V. APPLICATION REVIEW INFORMATION:

1. CRITERIA: The following criteria, which are listed in descending order of importance, will be used to determine whether white papers and proposals submitted are consistent with the intent of this BAA and of interest to the Government:

a. Overall Scientific and Technical Merit -- The soundness of approach for the development and/or enhancement of the proposed technology,

b. Related Experience - The extent to which the offeror demonstrates relevant technology and domain knowledge,

c. Openness, Maturity and Assurance of Solution - The extent to which existing capabilities and standards are leveraged and the relative maturity of the proposed technology, and

d. Reasonableness and realism of proposed costs and fees (if any).

No further evaluation criteria will be used to select white papers for proposal invitation. Proposals will be evaluated IAW this evaluation criteria only and categorized/selected for award as detailed in Section V.2.b.2. White papers and proposals submitted will be evaluated as they are received.

2. REVIEW AND SELECTION PROCESS:

1. Only Government employees on the BAA team will evaluate the white papers/proposals for selection. The Air Force Research Laboratory's Information Directorate has contracted for various business and staff support services, some of which require contractors to obtain administrative access to proprietary information submitted by other contractors. Administrative access is defined as "handling or having physical control over information for the sole purpose of accomplishing the administrative functions specified in the administrative support contract, which do not require the review, reading, and comprehension of the content of the information on the part of non-technical professionals assigned to accomplish the specified administrative tasks." These contractors have signed general non-disclosure agreements and organizational conflict of interest statements. The required administrative access will be granted to non-technical professionals. Examples of the administrative tasks performed include: a. Assembling and organizing information for R&D case files; b. Accessing library files for use by government personnel; and c. Handling and administration of proposals, contracts, contract funding and queries. Any objection to administrative access must be in writing to the Contracting Officer and shall include a detailed statement of the basis for the objection.

1. WHITE PAPER/PROPOSAL REVIEW PROCESS:

1. FIRST STEP – White Paper Reviews: The Government will review White Papers to identify those with the greatest potential to meet the Air Force’s needs based on the criteria above. If funding is available for an identified white paper, AFRL/RI will request a formal technical and cost proposal from the Offeror. For white papers not of interest to the Government, or for which funding is not available, those Offerors will receive letters from the Government indicating the basis for non-selection.

1. SECOND STEP – Proposal Review and Selection Process

a) Categories: Based on the evaluation, proposals will be categorized as Selectable or Not Selectable (see definitions below). The selection of one or more offerors for award will be based on the evaluation, as well as importance to agency programs and funding availability.

1. Selectable: Proposals are recommended for acceptance, if sufficient funding* is available.

2. Not Selectable: Even if sufficient funding existed, the proposal should not be funded.

* Selectable proposals will be designated as funded or unfunded. Letters will be sent to the unfunded offerors. These proposals may be funded at a later date without reevaluation, if funding becomes available.

b) The Government reserves the right to award some, all, or none of the proposals. When the Government elects to award only a part of a proposal, the selected part may be categorized as Selectable, though the proposal as a whole may not merit such a categorization.

c) Proposal Risk Assessment: Proposals’ technical, cost, and schedule risk will be assessed as part of the above evaluation criteria’s application. Proposal risk relates to the identification and assessment of the risks associated with an offeror's proposed approach as it relates to accomplishing the proposed effort. Tradeoffs of the assessed risk will be weighed against the potential scientific benefit. Proposal risk for schedule relates to an assessment of the risks associated with the offeror's proposed number of hours, labor categories, materials, or other cost elements as it relates to meeting the proposed period of performance.

d) Prior to award of a potentially successful offer, the Contracting Officer will make a determination regarding price reasonableness and realism.

3. FEDERAL AWARDEE PERFORMANCE AND INTEGRITY INFORMATION SYSTEM (FAPIIS) PUBLIC ACCESS: The Government is required to review and consider any information about the applicant that is in the FAPIIS before making any award in excess of the simplified acquisition threshold (currently $250,000) over the period of performance. An applicant may review and comment on any information about itself that a federal awarding agency previously entered. The Government will consider any comments by the applicant, in addition to other information in FAPIIS in making a judgment about the applicant's integrity, business ethics, and record of performance under federal awards when completing the review of risk posed by applicants as described in 2 CFR § 200.205 Federal Awarding Agency Review of Risk Posed by Applicants and per FAR 9.104-6.

4.ADEQUATE PRICE COMPETITION: As this BAA is an Open BAA, adequate price competition is not anticipated since there is no set response time, and proposals are evaluated at the time of receipt. Offerors whose proposals are selected for award will be expected to submit certified cost and pricing data on contracts exceeding $2M.

VI. STEP TWO INFORMATION – REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL & AWARD:

1. PROPOSAL FORMATING: When developing proposals, reference the AFRL "Broad Agency Announcement (BAA): Guide for Industry," Mar 2020, and RI-Specific Proposal Preparation Instructions, AUG 2021, which may be accessed at: https://sam.gov/opp/e628c811fafe041accdddf55fb8539bf/view?keywords=AFRL-BAA-GUIDE&sort=-relevance&index=&is_active=true&page=1. Always reference the newest versions of these documents.

Please note that less than 12 point font is acceptable for graphics and illustrations (as in labels and short descriptions) as long as it is readable when printed out on standard 8x11 paper.

2. AWARD NOTICES: Those white papers found to be consistent with the research areas of interest and expected results within the broad topic areas as described in the Technology Requirements section of this BAA and of interest to the Government may be invited to submit a technical and cost proposal. Notification by email or letter will be sent by the TPOC. Such invitation does not assure that the submitting organization will be awarded a contract. Those white papers not selected to submit a proposal will be notified in the same manner. Prospective offerors are advised that only Contracting Officers are legally authorized to commit the Government. All offerors submitting proposals will receive notification of their evaluation results within 45 days of submission. Offerors should email the TPOC and the Contracting Officer listed in Section VII, for status of their proposal after 45 days, if no such correspondence has been received.

3. DEBRIEFINGS: If a debriefing is requested in accordance with the time guidelines set out in FAR 15.505 and 15.506, a debriefing will be provided, but the debriefing content may vary to be consistent with the procedures that govern BAAs (FAR 35.016). Debriefings will not be provided for white papers.

4. ADMINISTRATIVE AND NATIONAL POLICY REQUIREMENTS:

1. FACILITY CLEARANCE. Depending on the work to be performed, the offeror may require a SECRET facility clearance and safeguarding capability; therefore, personnel identified for assignment to a classified effort must be cleared for access to SECRET information at the time of award. In addition, the offeror may be required to have, or have access to, a certified and Government-approved facility to support work under this BAA.

1. EXPORT CONTROL LAWS. Awards under this solicitation may require access to, or generation of, data subject to export control laws and regulations.