FA9550-11-R-0001 RFP Q A.docx

Responses to Questions Posted: 15 July 11 Question: Will a proposal submitted with Cost type CLIN structure instead of the requested FFP and FFP LOE be found non-responsive?

Answer: Proposals will not be found non-responsive due solely to any particular format. Regardless of format, evaluation will be conducted IAW the solicitation requirements. The requirement is FFP. Government legal assistance will assist in contract award to ensure whichever proposal judged to be the best value receives contract award.

Question: (Ref: RFP Pg 2-14) Please suggest, if possible, scenario(s) for the distribution of regular (less than 5 years past the PhD) versus senior (more than 5 years past the PhD) awardees among the projected 70 postdocs annually as this will affect pricing.

Answer: Distribution of awards will depend of quality of research proposals submitted to the review panel for evaluation. Contractors should propose in accordance with SCLINS 0003AA and 0003AB as stated in solicitation. The amount for CLIN 0003 will be determined on future orders by the number of persons ordered against SCLINS 0003AA and 0003AB. Therefore no price need be proposed for CLIN 0003.

Question: (Ref - RFP Pg 2-14) Please specify if any substantial changes in stipend or travel allowances.

Answer: Proposed compensation for individual researchers should be submitted as a burdened rate commensurate with compensation packages that they would received from a major university.

Question: (Ref - RFP Pg 2-14) What should be estimated in terms of the “compensation adjustment” item (e.g., item 0004AA)?

Answer: If the proposed annual rate for any given researcher is lower than what any given researcher is willing to accept the government wants the flexibility to adjust the compensation to gain the benefit of the research proposal. The compensation adjustment equates to a supplementation as needed.The compensation adjustment exists to provide flexibility needed to ensure we can take advantage of all desired research proposals. Confidence in your marketing plan to attract proposals and employ researchers will impact the degree of compensation adjustment. If you propose a high (low) amount for SCLINs 0003AA and 0003AB, any compensation adjustment would be potentially lower (higher). Please keep in mind the estimated compensation adjustment amount should be in the aggregate; the total not to exceed amount for all accepted research proposals. Question: (Ref - RFP Pg 2-14)

Question: (Ref – Exhibit A Pg 4 of 9) Data requirements, item A004, Block 16, #2 – Does AFRL wish to have budgets prepared for all eligible applicants within 30 days following review?

Answer: As a result of the board review panel, the government would like to see all submitted research proposals and the contractor’s grading of each. From those results the government will select which proposals it desires to fund. The contractor will then provide the cost estimate for only those proposals selected.

Question: (Ref – Attachment 1 Pg 18 of 29) Part 5 – Specific Tasks. 5.1.1.c – states “…and for potential selectees to obtain an opportunity to evaluate the suitability of research facilities and /or advisors”. Please clarify. Site visits would typically involve visits by contractor and staff, not prospective awardees. Also in this paragraph, “GPM must approve all travel requests.” and “The contractor shall provide all travel estimates and details of travel to the GPM.” Does this refer to site visits, travel by postdoctoral fellows, or both?

Answer: The primary purpose of the site visit is for the prime contractor (not potential applicants) to visit the sites as necessary. Applicants will have opportunity to correspond with staff at research sites at the time they submit their research proposals. However, in the case that any particular applicant is not willing to propose without a site visit and the government desires the benefit of their research, the prime contractor can request the GPM allow the applicant to travel to the site prior to accepting the respective proposal. The amount of funds necessary for applicant site visits is directly correlated to the capability of the marketing plan to attract applicants with or without site visits.

Question: (Ref – Attachment 1 Pg 20 of 29) Part 5 – Specific Tasks. 5.1.2.c – Please clarify last sentence regarding annotation of the expectation for providing unlimited rights to the government. Could an example be given as to what the mitigating circumstances would be?

Answer: The intent of unlimited rights text is to address the unique characteristic of the requirement. Post doctoral research presumes prior research. The government wants to ensure that the extent that any prior research should preclude the government’s unlimited rights is known prior to selecting any particular proposal. For example, an applicant has done prior research paid for by another entity. They propose to build upon the prior research. After conducting research for the government, prior research may potentially impact the rights of the government to take full advantage of any particular research conducted under this program.

Question: (Ref – Attachment 3 Pg 4 of 14, 1.0 General Instructions to Offerors) The second sentence in paragraph a. reads “The offeror’s proposal must include all data and information requested in Section L and must be submitted in accordance with these instructions.” It appears that Section L is missing.

Answer: This is an oversight on the part of the government. Please overlook the reference to section L. The definition of Section L is “Instructions to Offerors.” See page 1 of attachment 3 of the solicitation for this information.

Question: (Ref – Attachment 3 Pg 11 of 14, Past/Present Performance Questionnaire) Section 4. Evaluation (Same as Section 5. Evaluation) There is no corresponding Table for Evaluation – is there a table with “Experience Elements” missing from Section 4?

Answer: Please see most recent solicitation amendment dated 05 July 2011. The reference table is located in Section 5, page 12 of attachment 3 entitled “Relevant Experience.”

Question: (Ref – Attachment 3 Pg 11 of 14, Past/Present Performance Questionnaire) Section 5. Evaluation The first Experience Element reads: Continual execution of a process to successfully conduct capital rationing that has resulted in maximizing ROI and minimizing opportunity cost on internal projects”. Since there is no requirement in either the Performance Work Statement or the Evaluation section for “capitol rationing to maximize ROI” we would like a clarification as to what is meant by this phrase.

Answer: Capital rationing refers to the process necessary to minimize opportunity cost when selecting research to fund within an environment of limited monetary resources. This is not unlike capital rationing process executed by any university or business when deciding which research projects (investment opportunities) to fund when limited monetary resources preclude award to all proposed projects (opportunities). In this way, capital rationing equates to the process of grading and recommending research proposals as a result of the requirement to execute a board/review panel.

Question: Is the proposer submitting just a 3 page capability statement or is it necessary to submit the three volumes described in Section: Addendum to 52.212-01, Instructions to Offerors - 1.0 General Instructions to Offerors?

Answer: It is necessary to submit proposals IAW solicitation requirements. A capability statement alone will not meet the requirement of the solicitation.