24-03 amend 9 EO 14332 implement.docx

Amendment No. 9 to BAA FA8750-24-S-7003 The purpose of this amendment is to:

1. PART I-OVERVIEW INFORMATION, adds new language regarding assistance instruments regarding Gold Standard Science in accordance with Executive Order 14303;

2. PART II, Section V, paragraph 1, adds new language regarding evaluation criteria for assistance instruments.

PART I-OVERVIEW INFORMATION:

REGARDING ASSISTANCE INSTRUMENTS: Gold Standard Science (GSS): IAW EO 14303; GSS is science conducted in a manner that is:

a. reproducible;

b. transparent;

c. communicative of error and uncertainty;

d. collaborative and interdisciplinary;

e. skeptical of its findings and assumptions;

f. structured for falsifiability of hypotheses;

g. subject to unbiased peer review;

h. accepting negative results as positive outcomes; and

i. without conflicts of interest.”

With regards to GSS, white papers/proposals shall:

1) include clear benchmarks for measuring success and progress towards relevant goals and a commitment to achieving GSS;

2) identify areas of demonstrating success in implementing GSS; and

3) include a commitment to complying with administration policies, procedures, and guidance respecting GSS. By responding to this BAA you explicitly agree to the following statement:

· Our institution understood the definition of Gold Standard Science as outlined above.

· Our institution and all personnel involved in the proposed project will adhere to all administration policies, procedures, and guidance respecting Gold Standard Science in the execution of this project if funded.

PART II:

Section V.1:

CRITERIA FOR ASSISTANCE INSTRUMENTS:

a. Step 1: Initial Screening (Go/No Go Criteria)

i) White paper demonstrates success in implementing Gold Standard Science in addition to making a commitment to complying with administration policies, procedures, and guidance respecting Gold Standard Science.

ii) White paper produces immediately demonstrable results.

(1) Selection should consider speed and accountability through demonstration of meaningful performance or deliverable milestones to accelerate the development of emerging technology for timely delivery to the warfighter.

(2) Consider the possibility for potentially longer-term, breakthrough results, in a manner consistent with the funding opportunity announcement.

(3) White papers should include clear benchmarks for measuring success and progress towards relevant research and development goals.

(4) White paper demonstrably advances the President’s policy priorities.

(5) White paper does not promote, encourage subsidize, or facilitate: (a) racial preferences or other forms of racial discrimination by the grant recipient, including activities where race or intentional proxies for race will be used as a selection criterion for employment or program participation; (b) denial by the grant recipient of the sex binary in humans or the notion that sex is a chosen or mutable characteristic; (c) illegal immigration; or (d) any other initiatives that compromise public safety or promote anti-American values.

b. Step 2: Full Evaluation/Review (Selection Criteria):

i) Primary Selection Criteria: Applications/proposals will be reviewed using the criteria listed below are in descending order of importance- refer to scoring rubric below. These evaluations will entail a “weight of scientific evidence” approach (EO 14303):

(1) Technical merits of the proposed research and development. See below for a scoring rubric example.

(2) Potential relationship of the proposed research and development to DOW missions. See below for a scoring rubric example.

ii) Other Selection Criteria: Cost/Price: While of less importance to the primary criteria above, the realism of the proposed cost (to include cost sharing, consideration of proposed budgets, and funding profiles), will be evaluated.

iii) Risk Assessments are performed prior to award with regards to Science & Technology (S&T) Protection and assessments IAW 2 CFR 200.206.

Criterion 1: Technical Merits of the Proposed R&D

This criterion assesses the scientific and technical quality, innovation, and feasibility of the proposed work.

Criterion 2: Potential Relationship to DoW Missions

This criterion assesses the relevance and potential contribution of the research to the DoW needs and mission objectives.

No other changes are made.