Question_Log__05SEP2017.xlsx

Sheet1

1. Can you please provide us with a submission due date, if it has been established? If not, does the government anticipate when they will determine the submission due date? Submissions were due prior to 4:00pm EST, 18 September 2017. Section L was amended with Amendment 0001. However, responses to questions have resulted in the issuance of Amendment 0002 which revised the proposal due date to 4:00 PM EST, 21 Sep 2017.

2. The Responses Date is listed as “Sep 18, 2017 4:00 pm Eastern.” Is this the Proposal Due date? See response to Question 1

3. Is this the final RFP released on 8-16-17. It appears it is due Sept. 18, 2017. If not, when is expected final RFP release? See response to Question 1

4. What is the due date for this RFP FA9550-17-R-0002? See response to Question 1

5. The solicitation regularly references research associates as employees (of the contractor, Attachment 1, Section 1.3.d), who accept job offers (Attachment 1, Section 5.1.4), are hired under limited term appointments (Attachment 1, Section 1.2) and with employment agreements (Attachment 1, Section 1.7), rather than fellows or fellowship holders who are awarded a fellowship in a national competition. As described by the IRS, a fellowship “is generally an amount paid for the benefit of an individual to aid in the pursuit of study or research.” As an employee, the status of the research associate, who holds a fellowship, would change from being a “guest investigator” to a contractor with specific requirements for employment including provision of FICA and Medicare benefits, as well as workman’s compensation. Will AFRL consider offerors whose fellowship models do not “hire” research Associates, but rather provide fellowship awards for research associates to function as guest investigators in the AFRL laboratories? Yes, AFRL will consider offerors whose fellowship models do not “hire” research Associates as employees, but rather provide fellowship awards for research associates to function as guest investigators in the AFRL laboratories. The intent is that the awardee shall remain in charge of all research associates accomplishing all of the relevant activities that are necessary for their proposed research throughout the researcher associates' tenure within the program. 1.3.d has been edited to reflect this intent. If the contractor uses fellowship, full employment or a contract to provide applicants is within the purview of the contractor. For sections 5.1.4.a: "eligible" is not intended to mean "mandated". This is also clarified in the updated PWS.

6. Worker’s compensation is referenced in both of these sections. If AFRL allows interested offerors to propose fellowship awards in place of “hiring” research Associates, please confirm that provision of worker’s compensation can then be removed as a requirement. RFP Reference Attachment 1, Section 5.1.4 a. and f. For sections 5.1.4.a: "eligible" is not intended to mean "mandated".

7. Attachment 1, Section 1.3.b, states that application review panels “shall be comprised of at least 85% fellows from a professional society and/or distinguished/recognized endowed chairs from academic, industry and government.” In this instance, the requirement applies to panels that are assembled to review applications. Later (Section 5.5.1.d), the same requirement is applied to review panels that will recommend government research advisers and research topics. Is it AFRL’s intent to have this same requirement for panels that are established for both activities? The review panel for research adviser applications may be relatively small as it requires a determination of scientific stature and not technical depth; research associate application review panels must reflect a breadth of disciplinary expertise requiring a much larger group of reviewers. For panels that review research associate applications, the restriction of 85% professional society fellows and/or distinguished chairs dramatically reduces the population of scientists and engineers from which to assemble appropriate technical expertise. Often cutting-edge expertise is found in faculty who are early- to mid-career and have not yet achieved the recognition of honorific professional society fellowships or endowed chairs. Will AFRL consider more flexible metrics of application review panel stature in order to obtain the best quality technical review of applications? RFP Reference Attachment 1, Section 1.3.b and Section 5.5.1.d The requirement will remain as stated - the criteria was chosen this way to ensure high-quality review panels

8. Attachment 1, Section 1.3.c, states that, “contractor will provide external review panels that consist of highly-qualified experts to evaluate the qualifications, in accordance with the agreed-upon criteria, of the proposed Government research advisors and their research topics provided by the USAF organizations.” While it is completely appropriate for the contractor to review and recommend federal scientists and engineers as research advisers, does AFRL expect the contractor to identify high priority research topics as well? Based on the mission driven priorities of the AFRL, is it realistic for external reviewers to assess and recommend priority research areas? Can this task be clarified? RFP Reference Attachment 1, Section 1.3.c PWS paragraph 5.1.1.c provides further details when it states: "In consultation with and after approval from the GPM, the contractor shall establish general criteria that Government S&Es and their proposed research areas should satisfy to be accepted as Government research advisors and topics for this program, communicate that criteria to the USAF focal points, and solicit applications for Government S&Es who wish to become research advisors." Therefore, the establishment of "general criteria that Government S&Es and their proposed research areas should satisfy to be accepted as Government research advisors and topics for this program" will be done "in consultation with" the GPM.

9. Attachment 1, Section 5.1.1.e addresses contractor review of applications of research advisers and references CDRL0004 and CDRL0008. It appears that CDRL0008 refers to those panels that review and recommend applicants for research associate awards, not research advisers. It would be helpful to distinguish these two types of review activities, as both are referred to variously as panels. The intent of CDRL A0004 is for the government to receive a list of the panel members every time a panel is conducted. Regardless of what type of panel is being conducted (research advisors/topics panel and/or research associate applicants panel), the government expects to receive a list of panel members IAW CDRL A0004. Please note that CDRL A0008 was found to be a duplicate of CDRL A0004; therefore, amendment 0002 has replaced CDRL A0008 with CDRL A0004 throughout the PWS and has updated CDRL A0004 with all of the correct PWS paragraph references. CDRL A0008 has been deleted.

10. Attachment 1, Section 1.10 states, “The STFP contractor is responsible for ensuring the research accomplished by the research associate is in accordance with what the research associate proposed to the expert review panel when they applied for the program.” Often federal research changes direction based on priority mission requirements. Would mutually agreed upon (research associate, research adviser, program managers) changes in research direction be acceptable? RFP Reference Attachment 1, Section 1.10 Any change to what is proposed by the applicant after they are selected by the review panel should be coordinated and approved with the GPM and research advisor.

11. Attachment 1, Section 5.1.1.a, states, referring to the review of research adviser applications, “The plan shall provide a list of managed and executed review boards within the last 5 years (01 January 2012 – Present)”, and Attachment 1, Section 5.1.3.a, states, referring to the review of research associate applications, “The plan shall provide a list of managed and executed review boards within the last 5 years (01 January 2012 – Present).” Is the request for a list of panels or a list of panels and individual panel members? RFP Reference Attachment 1, Section 5.1.1.a, and Section 5.1.3.a The request is for a list of panels.

12. Attachment 1, Section 5.1.1.e indicates that adviser applications may be reviewed quarterly. Is it acceptable to AFRL to have these applications reviewed more frequently, or as they are submitted, considering that expanding the population of research advisers advertising research opportunities is advantageous for attracting applicants? RFP Reference Attachment 1, Section 5.1.1.e Panels for "Research Advisors and Topics" shall convene at least quarterly. Panels for "Research Associate Applicants" shall not exceed four times annually. Please note that these are two different requirements. PWS 5.1.1 discusses the "Attraction and selection of Government research advisors and topics." Paragraph 5.1.1.e. supports this discussion by stating: "The contractor shall convene the panel at least quarterly to evaluate all new applications and report the results in a timely manner to the GPM." Therefore, the "Government Research Advisor and Topics" panel shall convene at least quarterly; which is the minimum requirement (meaning more frequently is acceptable).

13. Attachment, Section 5.1.2.2.a references visits to AFRL facilities by applicants. Should this requirement reference contractor visits, as it indicates the purpose is “to promote the program and for applicants to obtain an opportunity to evaluate the suitability of research facilities and/or advisors”, and notes that the “contractor shall document the visit in a Site Visit Report” as described in CDRL0007? RFP Reference Attachment 1, Section 5.1.2.2.a The PWS states that "the contractor shall provide all travel estimates and details of travel to the GPM prior to travel for approval." This entails the totality of whomever is travelling.

14. Please confirm that if the associates function as guest investigators, they should not be included in the manpower reporting requirements. RFP Reference Attachment 1, Section 7.0 Section 7.0 is for contractors and subcontractor(s) performing work for this PWS requirement. It is not intended for the research associates who are sought for, evaluated and placed by the contractor and/or subcontractor(s).

15. The second-to-last Performance Objective, “Ensure research associates are devoted full-time on conducting research at the sponsoring laboratory during the entire period detailed in their respective award" has a Performance Threshold of "Contractor must identify non-compliant research associate within two business days to GPM 100% of the time." However, there is no requirement in the statement of work for a contractor staff member to be on site to monitor associate performance. Would the Government consider revising the Performance Objective and associated Performance Threshold to a requirement to respond promptly once the contractor is made aware of a non-compliant research associate by the GPM? RFP Reference Section 8.0 The performance objective as associate performance threshold requirements will remain the same. There is no requirement for contractor staff members to be on site to ensure research associates are devoted full-time on conducting research at the sponsoring laboratory.

16. There appear to be two Section Ls in the RFP package. One that is contained at the end of the attachment titled “CLAUSES_AND_PROVISIONS__15_AUG_2017.rtf” and one contained in the attachment titled “Section_L_15_AUG_2017.docx”. Would the Government please confirm that both are valid? RFP Reference Section L The Section L listed in Clauses and Provisions contains clauses/provisions applicable to Section L. Section L -15 AUG 2017 contains the Instructions to Offerors.

17. Would the Government consider awarding a cost reimbursable no fee type contract? Section L, Type of Contract No, contract type remains unchanged.

18. Is it correct that there is no page limit to the Executive Summary (listed as N/A)? Correct

19. Please clarify the difference between sections entitled “Panel Members” (5 page limit) and “Evaluation/Selection Process” (2 page limit). Does this apply to both the panels that will review/recommend AFRL research advisers and panels that will evaluate fellowship applicants? RFP Reference Section L, L-3.2.1,Table 1 Yes, it applies to both.

20. The section entitled “Evaluation/Selection Process” has a 2 page limit. This section is a critical element of the requirement, and a full 1.5 pages is devoted to the specific of the requirement on pages 17-19 of Attachment 1. Would AFRL consider allowing 5 pages for an adequate description of the capabilities of offerors? RFP Reference Section L, L-3.2.1,Table 1 Yes. Please note that amendment 0002 has updated the page limit to 5 pages for "Evaluation/Selection Process"

21. Section L, page 7 of 11, Redacted copy of Volume II – Please confirm that this redaction requirement only applies to the name of the contractor. RFP Reference Section L, L-3.2.3 Confirmed

22. Are pages that contain signatures (e.g., Letter of Transmittal) able to be submitted in PDF format? RFP Reference Section L-3.2.3 and L-3.2.6 Yes

23. Submission Due Dates lists Date TBD. Please confirm proposal due date. Section L-3.2.4 See Response to Question 1. Corrected in Amendment 0001

24. Please confirm that electronic submission for large businesses shall be a minimum of 7 documents: (1) Letter of Transmittal; (2) Volume I, (3) Volume II unredacted, (4) Volume II redacted, (5) Volume III, (6) Volume IV, (7) Small Business Subcontracting Plan. RFP Reference Section L Confirmed

25. Is it the Government’s intent to have one associate potentially be paid his or her stipend out of two separate CLINs (e.g., 0003AA and 0004AA)? If not, would the Government consider revising the CLIN structure to one CLIN for payment of associates (current CLINs 0003AA, 0003AB, and 0004AA)? Or, ideally, revising the CLIN structure to two CLINs – one for program management (current CLINs 0001, 0002, and 0005) and one for associates (current CLINs 0003AA, 0003AB, 0004AA, 0004AB, and 0004AC)? RFP Reference CLIN Structure CLIN 0003AA and 0003AB are fixed stipend amounts based on the experience of the selected research associate. CLIN 0004AA is for compensation adjustments above these amounts when approved by the government. Not all research associates will receive adjusted compensation packages; therefore, this CLIN should be managed separately.

26. FedBizOpps identifies 1 base year plus 4 option years. The CLIN Structure document identifies a 5-year period for each completion and start date for CLINS 0001 through 0006. Please verify that the resulting contract will be structured with a 12-month base period of performance and 4 one-year options, as stated in the FBO notice and is not a single, five-year period of performance. Information in the issued RFP supersedes any planning information provided in the planning/preliminary notice phase. CLIN structure is correct as a 5-year period of performance. Actual performance periods will be provided in the orders placed against the base contract.

27. We understand that we cannot apply profit to the compensation packages for research candidates; however, we assume that we can apply our Cost Accounting Standards-Disclosure statement burdens as approved by the government. Please confirm. PWS 1.13.2 Confirmed

28. There are conflicting statements in the PWS that indicate the Research Associates are considered employees, non-employee research participants, and subcontractors.

Examples:

• The PWS refers to Workers’ Compensation. This would indicate the RFP is indicating the research associate status will be employees rather than participants.

• The PWS identifies ‘stipend payments’ made to Research Associates. This indicates the Research Associates will be non-employee research participants.

• The PWS identifies Research Associates as subcontractors. This would indicate the Research Associates are not employees of the contractor.

We assume that the research associates are non-employee research participants. Please verify.

PWS Paragraphs 1.3.d and 5.1.4(a) See Response to Question 5

29. Historically, what is the ratio of Junior to Senior Research Associates? PWS Paragraph 1.2 Notionally, the historic ratio has been 10-20% senior research associates

30. The RFP states, “Applicants must be US Citizens. This requirement does not apply to foreign nationals approved by the US Department of Defense or US State Dept. under international personnel exchange agreement with foreign governments.”

We assume the government will not permit foreign citizens to participant in the program, and therefore that the program contractor will not be required to sponsor foreign citizens who are eligible to be exchange visitors under the provisions of the J1Visa Exchange Visitor Program. Please verify.

PWS Paragraphs 1.8.1 and 5.1.3 (c) There is no requirement to sponsor foreign citizens who are eligible to be exchange visitors under the provisions of the J1Visa Exchange Visitor Program.

31. Please define USAF “focal points” PWS Paragraphs 5.1.1 and 5.1.2 Section 2.2 defines USAF Focal Points as: "USAF Chief & Assistant Chief Scientists, USAF Scientists & Engineers (AFRL, AFIT, & USAFA) (used synonymously with Government S&Es)"

32. Immediately below Table 1, is the statement, “*See L-5.2.2 for additional details”. However, Section 3.8.1. is the last numbered paragraph in section of L. Please identify the correct reference section. Correct reference is L-3.2.3. Section L is amended

33. Please verify that the cover letter, table of contents, glossary of abbreviations and acronyms used, and a compliance matrix do not count against the stated page limitations for each proposal volume. Confirmed

34. Section 1.4 indicates AFRL plans for 120-200 active research associate fellowships. Could the government provide historical data on number of active associates per year? Historically, this requirement was for up to 84 active research associates. Going forward, AFRL plans to have between 120 - 200 active research associate fellowships in total, at any given time throughout the period of performance of the contract (reference PWS section 1.4).

35. For Section 1.15, how many active associates are anticipated to have contracts that will need to be transitioned to the new contractor? We anticipate the number to be approximately 40; however, this is subject to change.

36. Section 1.15, b. What format is the STFP database (e.g. MS SQL, Access)? Does it include data on the compensation package, waivers/rationale for higher compensation, relocation costs, candidate proposals including those submitted but not receiving a fellowship, review board members, sponsoring organization POC? Section 1.15b details the transfer of the STFP database for the transition out period. Format is not specified.

37. Section 5.1.3. What is the minimum number of experts required for a review panel? What is the historical average number of members participating in review panel meetings? Per PWS 1.3.b, there is no minimum number of experts required for a review panel. Historically, the panel size varies based on the amount of applicants to be selected.

38. Please provide a list of scientific & engineering research disciplines referenced in Section 5.1.3? There are a vast amount of scientific and engineering research disciplines. Per PWS section 1.2: "The second goal of the STFP is to ensure that the research conducted by these research associates is well connected to the existing research teams of the laboratories to which the research associates are assigned." Offerors are encouraged to review the scientific and engineering disciplines contained within the AFRL Technical Directorates at http://www.wpafb.af.mil/afrl/.)

39. Section 5.1.4 states “up to maximum number of research associates”. What is the maximum? Per section 1.4 of the PWS: "AFRL plans to have between 120 - 200 active research associate fellowships in total, at any given time throughout the period of performance of the contract, (subject to the availability of funds)."

40. How is the stipend paid to associates (e.g. in a lump sum at the start of their fellowship, monthly installments)? Government does not specify.

41. What is required to be in the researcher compensation package? Stipend and Healthcare only? Or other benefits too (e.g. paid time off, 401(k), insurance)? CLIN 0003AA and 0003AB are fixed stipend amounts. CLIN 0004AA is for compensation adjustment above these amounts. CLIN 0004AC is for miscellaneous expenses.

42. FINAL_2_CLIN, 0002 Are the Review Panel members paid and/or compensated for costs? CLIN 0002 captures costs associated with conducting board/review panels.

43. FINAL_2_CLIN, 0003 and 0004. Is the government expecting bidders to provide values for these items? 0003AA and 0003AB have NTE values but without knowing the total number of research fellowships from March 2018 to March 2023, a firm fixed price can not be determined. Item 0004 also depends on the number of candidates that require adjustments. Could the government provide historical figures? Offerors are required to submit prices for CLINS 0001, 0002, 0005, 0006, 1001, 1002, and 1005 on the solicitation FINAL_CLIN document. CLINS 0003, 0004, 1003, and 1004 will be funded based on Government need.

44. Section 5.1.4 states that “Program management will be awarded at the beginning of the period of performance for the duration of the awarded year”. Is that CLINs 0001, 0002, and 0005? Correct

45. Will the Air Force continue to use the NRC WebRAP online application system or is the contractor expected to support candidate application submission? If WebRAP will be used, will the contractor have access to the system to administer candidate proposal evaluations? Contractors may not have access to the WebRAP system as this is not an government owned system. .

46. In Section 5.1.2 is maintenance of the AFRL STFP website a required part of the outreach plan? If offerors propose a website, maintenance may possibly be needed.

47. Section L-3.2.4. The Submission Due Date is missing. Please provide. See response for Question 1

48. Section L-3.2.6. What is the government’s email size limitation? 10-20 MB

49. Section M-3.1.2 and M-4.2. Is Volume II-Technical Mission Capability the only volume evaluated for the Mission Capability (risk) factor? No. The Mission Capability (risk) will be evaluated as a measure of merit using criteria outlined in Table 4c of section M. The Mission Capability (risk) Factor considers potential for the proposal approach to result in disruption of schedule, increased cost, or degradation of performance, the need for increased government oversight, and the likelihood of unsuccessful contract performance.