21-03 Amend 4 third repub.docx

AMENDMENT 4 to BAA FA8750-21-S-7003

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

a. Adds an FY25 white paper date;

b. Updated the “type of instruments that may be awarded” language;

2. Part II, Full Text Announcement:

a. Updated CFDA number to Assistance Listing number;

b. Section III.2.b.2; updated the DCSA website;

c. Section IV, added language regarding responsible sources;

d. Section IV.1, added FY25 white paper date;

e. Section V.2.b.2; adds paragraph c regarding the S&T Program Protection requirements;

f. Section V.4, added language regarding the certified cost and pricing data threshold for small businesses and nontraditional contractors;

g. Section VI.1, updates the proposal formatting language;

h. Section IV.3, updated the debriefing language;

i. Section VII, updates the provisions;

j. 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: Composable Collaborative Planning

BAA NUMBER: FA8750-21-S-7003

PART I – OVERVIEW INFORMATION

This announcement is for an Open, 2 Step BAA which is open and effective until 28 Feb 2026. 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 28 Feb 2026, the following submission dates are suggested to best align with projected funding:

FY21 by 22 MAR 2021 (8 AM EST) FY24 by 01 MAR 2023 (8 AM EST) FY25 by 30 SEP 2024 (8AM EST)

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

A virtual Industry Day on this topic was held on 18 Feb 2021. Details regarding format and attendee access can be found in SAM under a special announcement with the same BAA title.

CONCISE SUMMARY OF TECHNOLOGY REQUIREMENT: Seeking innovative research to develop a Composable Collaborative Planning to overcome the serial and time-intensive nature of existing planning techniques and to enable parallel planning to be performed at the operational level. This research will focus on addressing the Force Flow planning problem for Operation Plan (OPLAN) development to address critical planning needs. This research will rethink how dependencies and conflicts are discovered, tracked, and managed in order to reduce the overall planning time. Specifically, this research seeks to: 1) Overcome global complexity problem through the investigation of dependency & assumption tracking techniques and 2) Develop a composable and collaborative planning framework to enable parallel planning across the diverse set of highly specialized teams. A key idea is to share the resources and context of the other planning stages to all other stages to allow the respective planning teams to have context of the dependencies and plan requirements both upstream and downstream.

BAA ESTIMATED FUNDING: Total funding for this BAA is approximately $24.5M. Individual awards will not normally exceed 24 months with dollar amounts normally ranging from $500,000 to $2,000,000 per Technical Area. 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. While the initial funding for this BAA will come from the Shared Context Planning (SCP) program, it is anticipated that there will be follow on programs that will complement the work started by SCP that align with the original scope of this BAA.

Individual awards for Contested Logistics within Shared Context Planning will not normally exceed 13 months with dollar amounts normally not to exceed $700,000.

ANTICIPATED INDIVIDUAL AWARDS: Multiple Awards are anticipated.

TYPE OF INSTRUMENTS THAT MAY BE AWARDED:

FAR based Procurement contracts, CFR based grants and cooperative agreements or other transactions (OT) under 10 USC 4021, 10 USC 4022 ( previously 10 USC 4002, 2371, 10 USC 4003, 2371b) depending upon the nature of the work proposed. 10 USC 4023 also allows for FAR based contracts, OTs for research, OTs for Prototype, and assistance instruments.

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):

BAA MANAGER:

Aaron McVay

AFRL/RISB

525 Brook Rd Rome, NY 13441-4505 Telephone: (315) 330-4780 Email: aaron.mcvay.3@us.af.mil

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

Amber Buckley Telephone (315) 330-3605 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: Composable Collaborative Planning

BAA NUMBER: BAA FA8750-21-S-7003

Assistance Listing Number: 12.800

I. TECHNOLOGY REQUIREMENTS:

The goal of this focus area is to provide a modeling environment that allows operational planners to conduct analysis of Contested Logistics (CL) for its potential impacts on the time phase force deployment list plus dependencies (TPFDL+) that is constructed during the early phases of operation plan (OPLAN) development. The phrase “plus dependencies” simply means those primary dependencies that would allow military assets on the TPFDL to perform their function, e.g., munitions and fuel.

“In war, logistics can be decisive”[1]. In recent years, there has been a push in the DoD to address the issues associated with Contested Logistics (CL). In fact, it is one of the four supporting concepts/strategies prioritized in the latest Joint Warfighting Concept. In a presentation given to the National Defense Industrial Association’s Emerging Technologies Institute in 2021, then Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, AF General John E. Hyten identified Contested Logistics as one for the four functional battle areas that comprise the concept of “Expanded Maneuver” which is intended to deter aggression from peer adversaries [2].

While Shared Context Planning (SCP) is moving logistics “to the left”, allowing operational planners the ability to understand the logistical considerations that are imposed on their evolving allocation and sustainment of forces for the OPLAN, such available resource quantities, readiness states, and time to theater, what these planners currently lack is the ability to determine impacts to said allocations and sustainment in cases where an adversary may have the ability to contest the logistics of the plans they are developing. Planners need the ability to conduct what-if analyses on the impacts to materiel needs should adversary CL actions result in degraded or denied efforts towards force projection or sustainment. This BAA amendment is seeking an extensible, analytical framework that will enable planners to play out what if questions such as if logistic nodes are removed or capacity is impacted.

Background

Logistics in a contested environment is the concept that the adversary will leverage anti-access/area deny capabilities to deter or deny sustainment activities causing the degradation of combat potential and loss of ability to fight and gain advantage in the conflict over time. This is but a subset of Contested Logistics (CL). In the modern era, CL spans the entire logistics enterprise, from the industrial base to deployed forces. Global supply chains, increased use of automated information systems, as well as unprecedented demand on logistics makes it a lucrative target with many attack vectors (not all necessarily kinetic) meaning that no logistics element is a sanctuary. This is the nature of Contested Logistics. Some non-kinetic examples would be geo-political pressure on countries that are part of certain supply chains and asymmetric and disruptive capabilities such as cyber-attacks on logistics information systems, the latter of which is cheap, globally executable, often non-attributable, and more likely for a third party to engage in compared to taking kinetic action. For this BAA amendment, given the funding and time constraints, the scope of CL considered will be degraded or denied supply quantity from planned sources (regardless of cause), threats to movement of supply from source to in-theater, and threats to stockpiles that have been delivered in-theater.

Focus Area - Contested Logistics within Shared Context Planning

The government seeks an analytical environment that will allow for the composition of a realistic set of Logistics Supply Chain (LSC) models, as they pertain to an OPLAN under execution. These models will be developed by the offeror and may be of various fidelities depending on the data available for the different aspects of supply chains. All models comprising the logistics chains should integrate with each other to provide an overall picture of force projection and sustainment for the OPLAN. The complement of LSC models does not have to be exhaustive, but rather a representative sample of the major supply chains in a military operation as defined in an OPLAN. While no language or environment is specifically required for the analytical environment and models, the preference is to use open-source solutions that will not result in excessive additional licensing fees required for the government to be able to utilize the proposed work.

Once these models have been constructed, there needs to be a way to conduct an analysis of the level of impact to the OPLAN’s time-phased force deployment list (TPFDL), elucidating where the problems occur, to what degree, and indicate whether the TPDFL+ is viable with respect to the planned for logistics tail. Essentially, this is an analysis to ensure that the planned-for logistics will be achievable in an uncontested context.

At this point, the analyst will have the ability to apply CL effects models to the defined LSC. These models also do not have to be exhaustive, but a representative sample of the most likely tactics the adversary would take to impact the U.S.’s ability to project and sustain force. After the analyst has selected how they intend to disrupt/deny logistics, the system will use those inputs to analyze the impacts to the LSCs, reporting the results to the analyst.

The system should then allow a planner or analyst to explore a set of CL mitigation strategies (manually) for the OPLAN and then conduct an automated Contested Logistics Feasibility Analysis (CLFA). For this effort, this would likely be 5-10 of the most prominently explored mitigation options, though more are encouraged. The CLFA is like the TPFDL+ viability test but also must conduct an analysis of the likelihood of success of the CL mitigation strategies and factor those into the overall viability determination. From these analyses, the planner should be able to answer questions such as: “Did the mitigation result in better logistics supporting the OPLAN?”, “Are mitigation tactics even necessary for a viable TPFDL+?”, and “Is the OPLAN TPFDL+ achievable under those modified conditions?”

Schedule

Individual awards for Contested Logistics within Shared Context Planning will not normally exceed 13 months with dollar amounts normally not to exceed $700,000 for this focus area.

It will initiate with a kickoff meeting where participants will provide a detailed outline of their technical approach that concentrates on a prototype development of an initial capability.

For the 13-month effort, Quarterly Program Reviews (QPRs) will be held every three months. QPRs will be held individually between the Government and the performer. Program Principal Investigator (PI) meetings will be held every six months in the place of a QPR either remotely or in an agreed upon location. All performers will be present during the PI meetings along with other Government/Military guests invited by the SCP program. SCP performers will also be encouraged to attend the annual Autonomy, Command & Control Core Technical Competency (AC2 CTC) Principal Investigator (PI) meeting, normally held in the Washington DC area. This AC2 CTC PI meeting will take the place of a scheduled SCP PI meeting. It is anticipated that performers will participate in biweekly updates on progress, issues, etc. via remote means individually with the government.

Evaluation

For this focus area, the Government will lead the evaluation of CL4OP artifacts. The Government evaluation team (GET) will be comprised of AFRL researchers. To the maximum extent possible, the evaluation team will be responsible for providing representative users in the form of operational and logistics planners through existing and emerging relationships with the planning community.

The offerors will be required to provide periodic software deliverables in source form with all the required installation tools and documentation for the evaluation team to perform the installation at the 6th and 12th month of performance. At both milestones, AFRL will test the capabilities of the technology with a second scenario in the same format as the development scenario originally provided by the government. This data will be the same in Comma-separated values (CSV) format as the original.

The source version will be evaluated as to whether it compiles and executes. It will also be tested to determine if it is moving towards meeting the capabilities herein. The installation will be on a standalone Air Force network with no ability to depend on external services or resources. These evaluation events will serve to assess progress of the technical and operational capability within the artifacts. These evaluation events will increase in complexity and relevance as the program executes culminating in a program capstone event at the 12-month mark. The evaluation events will assess the system’s ability to accurately represent supply chain issues, how well TPFDL+ impacts are calculated based contested logistics effects, and how well CL mitigation strategies are supported and applied. The quality of logistics supply chain models and contested logistics concepts will be assessed in a static evaluation fashion by members of the Government evaluation team.

Metrics

Complexity: Does the approach model logistics supply chain complexity sufficiently to represent the myriad of attack vectors associated with contested logistics? Does the model consider effects of compounded CL attacks to represent compounding logistics impacts?

Accuracy: Does the approach accurately calculate the impacts to the OPLAN TPFDL+ when contested logistics effects are applied to the analysis? Are the CL mitigation strategies applied by the planner or analyst accurate in terms of how and to what extent they reduce the impacts of CL effects?

Extensibility: Does the approach allow for the refinement or addition of new models for both contested logistics attack vectors and effects as well as new tactics, techniques, & procedures (TTPs) to contested logistics challenges? How easy or difficult is it to incorporate these additional capabilities into the models?

Technical Points of Contact (TPOCs) for the Aforementioned Technical Requirements:

In addition to the cognizant TPOC listed in section VII. AGENCY CONTACTS, all white paper and proposal submissions and any questions of a technical nature shall be directed to the following TPOCs (email requests are preferred):

Shared Context Planning (SCP), Shared Context Management & Analysis (SCMA), Tailored Plan Presentation (TPP) TPOC :

Chad Salisbury

AFRL/RISB

525 Brook Rd Rome, NY 13441-4505 Telephone: (315) 330-7804 Email: chad.salisbury@us.af.mil

Shared Context Planning (SCP), Shared Context Management & Analysis (SCMA), Tailored Plan Presentation (TPP) TPOC :

Aaron McVay

AFRL/RISB

525 Brook Rd Rome, NY 13441-4505 Telephone: (315) 330-4780 Email: aaron.mcvay.3@us.af.mil Bibliography

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 $24,500,000. The anticipated funding to be obligated under this BAA is broken out by fiscal year as follows:

FY21 - $1,300,000

FY22 - $3,600,000

FY23 - $3,900,000

FY24 - $9,200,000

FY25 - $6,500,000

a. Total funding for this BAA is approximately $24.5M. Individual awards will not normally exceed 24 months with dollar amounts normally ranging from $500,000 to $2,000,000 per Technical Area. 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 $24,500,000.

Individual awards for the Contested Logistics within Shared Context Planning focus area will not normally exceed 13 months with dollar amounts normally not to exceed $700,000.

b. 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 depending upon the nature of the work proposed.

3. BAA TYPE: This is a two-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:

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

b. 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

2. 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/Industrial-Security/Entity-Vetting-Facility-Clearances-FOCI/Foreign-Ownership-Control-or-Influence/

3. 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.

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

1. 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).

2. 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:

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

b) 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.

5. S&T PROTECTION. In accordance with AFRLI 61-113, S&T Protection, Contractors/Recipients are required to submit with their proposal a Standard Form 424, "Research and Related and Senior and Key Person Profile (Expanded), as well as a Security Program Questionnaire, which are included in the RI-Specific Proposal Preparation Instructions and can 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. Complete and submit the required forms with your proposal to the technical point of contact (TPOC) listed in Section VII-Agency Contacts AND AFRL.RIOF@us.af.mil.

Contractors will be required to provide documentation of their Security Program Plan for initial Institution S&T Protection Program Review. The purpose of requesting the plan is to evaluate the offeror’s capacity for protecting the Government’s S&T and failure to demonstrate a plan adequate to meet the needs of the requirement may be grounds for considering the proposal unawardable. In the event a security risk is identified and the Government has determined the security risk exceeds the acceptable threshold, the Contractor/Recipient will be notified and informed of the termination/decline of award. The Government will be only required to provide a general statement of the reasoning due to Government OPSEC measures.

After award, the Contractor/Recipient will be required to re-submit the Standard Form 424 as an annual requirement to the points of contact listed above.

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.

All responsible sources may submit a bid, proposal, or quotation which shall be considered by the agency.

1. SUBMISSION DATES AND TIMES:

It is recommended that white papers be received by 8 AM Eastern Standard Time (EST) on the following dates to maximize the possibility of award:

FY21 by 22 MAR 2021 FY24 by 01 MAR 2023 (8 AM EST) FY25 by 30 SEP 2024 (8AM EST)

White papers will be accepted until 4 PM EST on 28 FEB 2026, but it is less likely that funding will be available in each respective fiscal year after the dates cited. This BAA will close on 28-Feb-2026.

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 1 copy of a 3 to 5 page white paper summarizing their proposed approach/solution. Any pages in excess of 5 will be removed and not considered in the white paper evaluation. 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:

a. 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);

b. Section B: Task Objective; and

c. 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 FA8750-21-S-7003 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/RISB 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.

Email Unclassified electronic submission to the TPOC identified in Section VII. 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.

2. 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.

3. 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.

4. 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.

5. 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.

V. APPLICATION REVIEW INFORMATION:

1. CRITERIA: The following criteria, which are listed in descending order of importance and 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:

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) In parallel with the technical evaluation, the Government will review the SF424 and Security Program Questionnaire submitted by the Contractor in order to satisfy the S&T Protection requirements IAW AFRLI 61-113. In the event a security risk is identified and the Government has determined the security risk exceeds the acceptable threshold, the Offeror will be notified and informed of the declination of award.

d) 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.

e) 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 (the threshold is $7.5M for small businesses or nontraditional defense contractors).

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, MAY 2023, 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) and OTs (10 USC 4021 (previously 10 USC 4002, 2371) , and Other Transactions for Prototype which are governed by 10 USC 4022 (previously 10 USC…