FA955024RB0010001 SF30.Solicitation Amendment.pdf

R

11. THIS ITEM ONLY APPLIES TO AMENDMENTS OF SOLICITATIONS

The above numbered solicitation is amended as set forth in Item 14. The hour and date specified for receipt of Offers is extended. is not extended.

Offers must acknowledge receipt of this amendment prior to the hour and date specified in the solicitation or as amended, by one of the following methods:

(a) By completing items 8 and 15, and returning copies of the amendment; (b) By acknowledging receipt of this amendment on each copy of the offer submitted;

or (c) By separate letter or electronic communication which includes a reference to the solicitation and amendment numbers. FAILURE OF YOUR ACKNOWLEDGMENT TO BE RECEIVED AT THE PLACE DESIGNATED FOR THE RECEIPT OF OFFERS PRIOR TO THE HOUR AND DATE SPECIFIED MAY RESULT IN REJECTION OF YOUR OFFER. If by virtue of this amendment you desire to change an offer already submitted, such change may be made by letter or electronic communication, provided each letter or electronic communication makes reference to the solicitation and this amendment, and is received prior to the opening hour and date specified.

12. ACCOUNTING AND APPROPRIATION DATA (If required)

13. THIS ITEM APPLIES ONLY TO MODIFICATIONS OF CONTRACTS/ORDERS.

IT MODIFIES THE CONTRACT/ORDER NUMBER AS DESCRIBED IN ITEM 14.

CHECK ONE A. THIS CHANGE ORDER IS ISSUED PURSUANT TO: (Specify authority) THE CHANGES SET FORTH IN ITEM 14 ARE MADE IN THE CONTRACT ORDER

NUMBER IN ITEM 10A.

B. THE ABOVE NUMBERED CONTRACT/ORDER IS MODIFIED TO REFLECT THE ADMINISTRATIVE CHANGES (such as changes in paying office, appropriation data, etc.) SET FORTH IN ITEM 14, PURSUANT TO THE AUTHORITY OF FAR 43.103(b).

C. THIS SUPPLEMENTAL AGREEMENT IS ENTERED INTO PURSUANT TO AUTHORITY OF:

D. OTHER (Specify type of modification and authority)

E. IMPORTANT: Contractor is not is required to sign this document and return copies to the issuing office.

14. DESCRIPTION OF AMENDMENT/MODIFICATION (Organized by UCF section headings, including solicitation/contract subject matter where feasible.)

Except as provided herein, all terms and conditions of the document referenced in Item 9A or 10A, as heretofore changed, remains unchanged and in full force and effect.

15A. NAME AND TITLE OF SIGNER (Type or print) 16A. NAME AND TITLE OF CONTRACTING OFFICER (Type or print)

15B. CONTRACTOR/OFFEROR

(Signature of person authorized to sign)

15C. DATE SIGNED 16B. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

(Signature of Contracting Officer)

16C. DATE SIGNED

Previous edition unusable STANDARD FORM 30 (REV. 11/2016) Prescribed by GSA FAR (48 CFR) 53.243

AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION/MODIFICATION OF CONTRACT 1. CONTRACT ID CODE PAGE OF PAGES

2. AMENDMENT/MODIFICATION NUMBER 3. EFFECTIVE DATE 4. REQUISITION/PURCHASE REQUISITION NUMBER 5. PROJECT NUMBER (If applicable)

6. ISSUED BY CODE 7. ADMINISTERED BY (If other than Item 6) CODE

8. NAME AND ADDRESS OF CONTRACTOR (Number, street, county, State and ZIP Code) (X) 9A. AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION NUMBER

9B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

10A. MODIFICATION OF CONTRACT/ORDER NUMBE

10B. DATED (SEE ITEM 13)

CODE FACILITY CODE

SECTION SF 30 BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE

SUMMARY OF CHANGES

Section J - List of Attachments

The following attachments were added:

STFP CDRL 0002 OCI Mitigation Plan- Revised-RTC STFP CDRL 0016 ( revised) Quarterly Technical Reports-RTC

The following attachments were deleted:

STFP CDRL 0002, OCI Mitigation Plan STFP CDRL 0016, Quarterly Technical Reports

Section L - Instructions, Conditions, & Notices to Offerors or Quoters

Miscellaneous text in this section has been modified to:

I. Proposal Format

A. General: The following instructions cover the preparation and submittal of the offeror's proposal for this solicitation. The Offeror shall submit documentation illustrating their approach for satisfying the requirements of this solicitation. Proposals must be clear, coherent, and prepared in sufficient detail for effective evaluation of the offeror's proposal against the evaluation criteria. Also, this documentation shall cover all aspects of this solicitation and include the Offeror's approach for integration and program management activities. Proposals must clearly demonstrate how the Offeror intends to accomplish the project and must include convincing rationale and substantiation of all claims. Unnecessarily elaborate brochures or other presentations beyond those sufficient to present a complete effective response to the solicitation are not desired.

The Offeror shall describe its proposal, through the use of graphs, charts, diagrams and narrative, insufficient detail for the Government to understand and evaluate the nature of the approach. In its evaluation and confidence assessment, the Government will consider the degree of substantiation of the proposed approaches in the proposal volumes and in response to any discussions, if the Contracting Officer determines discussions to be necessary. The Government intends to evaluate proposals and award a contract without discussions with offerors. Therefore, the offeror's initial proposal should contain the offeror's best terms from a cost or price and technical standpoint. However, the Government reserves the right to conduct discussions if the Contracting Officer later determines them to be necessary. Offerors are cautioned that any noncompliance with the terms and conditions of the RFP may cause their proposal to be determined not eligible for award.

If a joint venture arrangement exists for this acquisition, the offeror shall provide a copy of the joint venture agreement that is signed and dated by all joint venture members as part of the proposal submission. Offerors shall submit only one proposal for the Science & Technology Fellowship Program as the Government will review only one proposal per offeror. Proposals must be received via email at AFOSR.STFP.SourceSelection@us.af.mil Attention: Eleanor Zachery, no later than the date and time specified in Block 9 on the face page of the RFP, STANDARD FORM 33.

FA955024RB0010001

B. Availability of Funds: Funds are not presently available for this contract. The Government's obligation under this contract is contingent upon the availability of funds from which payment for contract purposes can be made. No legal liability on the part of the Government for any payment may arise until funds are made available to the Contracting Officer for this contract and until the Contractor receives notice of such availability, to be confirmed in writing by the Contracting Officer. The Government reserves the right to phase the project based upon funds available. The phases will be based on the successful offeror's price proposal submitted in accordance with Section L herein.

C. Communications: Offerors shall e-mail written questions requesting clarification of the RFP to the Government via the Contracting Officer, Ms. Eleanor Zachery at: AFOSR.STFP.SourceSelection@us.af.mil no later than 4:00 PM EST, Wednesday, 25 OCT 2023. All questions received will be gathered and then subsequently answered and posted to SAM.

. Questions received after this date may not be answered.gov on Monday, 30 OCT 2023 Only proposals submitted in accordance with section "II. Volume Organization" of this solicitation will be accepted.

Contracting Officer:

Ms. Eleanor Zachery

E-mail: AFOSR.STFP.SourceSelection@us.af.mil

1. All volumes must be received to the Contracting Officer via email at AFOSR.STFP.SourceSelection@us.af.mil no later than 4:00 PM EST, Friday, 17 NOV 2023. Late submissions will not be accepted.

2. Offerors must identify the RFP number in the Subject Line of the email and should include "# of #" if multiple emails are required for submission of the entire proposal. Offerors are advised to submit electronic documents early and confirm successful transmission/receipt. Offerors also may want to consider sending more than one email to ensure size limitations will not hinder transmission. Offerors must ensure that proposal is received by the Government by the submission due date.

II. Volume Organization

A. General: The proposal shall be accompanied by a cover letter (letter of transmittal) prepared on the company's letterhead stationery. The cover letter (letter of transmittal) shall identify all enclosures being transmitted and shall be used only to transmit the proposal and shall include no other information. The first or title page shall be in accordance with FAR 52.215-1, paragraph (c)(2). Proposals shall be submitted to the Government in THREE separate volumes as set forth below:

VOLUME PAGE LIMITS # OF COPIES DESCRIPTION

I N/A 1 Completed RFP (Signed with completed fill-ins), including amendments

II 50 2 Technical Mission Capability (1 redacted and 1 un-redacted)

III Cost/Price Proposal:

N/A 1 Pricing Sheet TAB 1 and TAB 2

12 1 Pricing Proposal Summary/Narrative

*see Volume III, Cost/Price Proposal, below for additional instructions on the Cost/Price Proposal

1. Page Limitations: The cover letter, title page, table of contents, table of figures, list of tables and glossary of abbreviations & acronyms do not count against page count limitations. Proposal contents that exceed the stated page limitations above will be removed from the proposal by the Contracting Officer, prior to turning the proposal over to the Government evaluation teams, and will not be considered in the evaluation.

mailto:AFOSR.STFP.SourceSelection@us.af.mil mailto:AFOSR.STFP.SourceSelection@us.af.mil

2. Format: Text shall be single-spaced, on 8 1/2 x 11 inch paper (except as specifically noted), with a minimum one-inch margin all around. Print shall be of a minimum12-point font size or a maximum 10 characters per inch (10-pitch, pica) spacing. Bolding, underlining, and italics may be used to identify topic demarcations or points of emphasis. Graphic presentations, including tables, while not subject to the same font size and spacing requirements, shall have spacing and text that is easily readable.

3. Each volume in the proposal shall include a copy of the cover letter (letter of transmittal), title page and table of contents.

The table of contents shall list sections, subsections and page numbers. Each volume shall contain a glossary of all abbreviations and acronyms used. Each acronym used shall be spelled out in the text the first time it appears in each proposal volume.

4. Offeror shall submit all proposal information in electronic format via email. Text, spreadsheet, and graphics portions of the electronic copies shall be in a format readable by Microsoft 365. Volumes may contain links, but only to documents /spreadsheets that have been submitted as part of the proposal.

5. Offerors shall submit two (2) copies of Volume II Technical Mission Capability, one redacted version removing offeror identifying information and one un-redacted version.

6. Each page containing proprietary information should be so marked.

7. Each page should contain the following legend at the bottom of each sheet:

SOURCE SELECTION INFORMATION--SEE FAR2.101 and 3.104

FOR OFFICIALUSE ONLY

B. Volume I, Completed RFP

1. General: Volume I, Completed RFP shall consist of the completed and signed RFP (on STANDARD FORM 33), to include any amendments issued, with a cover letter delineating any exceptions taken to the RFP terms and conditions with accompanying rationale. However, offerors are cautioned that any noncompliance with the terms and conditions of the RFP may cause their proposal to be determined not eligible for award. Offerors shall ensure that all clauses and provisions that require "fill-in" information are appropriately completed, including the proposed prices (see Volume III) associated with the contract line items in the Schedule of the RFP.

2. See Volume III for information on submitting Pricing.

C. Volume II, Technical Mission Capability

1. General: The written technical proposal shall be clear, concise, and include all the information required by this provision in sufficient detail for effective evaluation. The proposal should not simply rephrase or restate the Government's requirements, but rather shall provide convincing rationale to address how the offeror intends to meet these requirements. Offerors shall assume the Government has no prior knowledge of their capabilities, work processes, facilities, and experience and will base its evaluation on the information presented in the offeror's technical proposal.

2. Format and Specific Content: The following information shall be provided in the written technical proposal and will be evaluated to assess technical acceptability in accordance with Section M, Evaluation Factors for Award. The Technical Mission Capability Volume shall be organized in the following format:

Sub-Factor1 Outreach Plan

Sub-Factor2 Panel Members

Sub-Factor3 Evaluation/Selection Process

Sub-Factor4 Program Management

Sub-Factor 1: Outreach Plan IAW Performance Work Statement (PWS) Para(s) 1.4.a and 5.1.2.

Outreach Plan: The Offeror shall submit an outreach plan to provide branding and marketing strategy of the STFP program that logically results in locating and attracting diversified significant interest of relevant research capabilities of highly qualified successful Ph.D. scientists and engineers to conduct research of relevance to Department of Air Force (DAF), including the Air Force Research Laboratory (AFRL) and the United States Space Force (USSF), laboratories that demonstrates the placement of forward and innovative thinking S&Es in critical DoD relevant research areas in DoD or other government recognized fellowship programs. The plan shall include the contractor's established STEM community at large relationships including academic institutions (Tier I-III schools, HBCUs/MIs, etc.) and STEM professional scientific societies/organizations in recruiting a skilled diverse applicant pool.

1. An established branded and marketing outreach plan on two current programs demonstrating diversified scientific and technological (S&T) background partnerships (STEM academic and professional organizations) that will enable it to attract a diverse pool of applicants (underrepresented community members, Tier I-III institutions, and professional societies /organizations) in critical DAF research areas. To be deemed "acceptable" on this measure of Subfactor 1, the offeror must:

a. Provide at least five examples of its branded marketing target outreach venues or outlets, the type of outreach, and cadence. The proposer should not include more than ten example of branded marketing outreach activities.

b. Provide targets and metrics demonstrating that the example branded marketing activities has reached adverse pool of applicants.

2. Capability to achieve a 5% increase annually in the following recruitment goals. To be deemed "acceptable" on this measure of Subfactor 1, the offeror must:

a. Identify the number of fellowship applicants increased within STEM community members (Tier I-III schools, HBCUs/MSIs, STEM professional scientific societies/organizations) using its established plan in two current programs within the last five years,

b. Identify the increases in diversity of fellowship awards to applicants from Tier II-III schools, HBCUs/MSIs, and other underrepresented minority groups, using your established plan in two current programs within the last five years, and

c. Provide a "tailored" STFP outreach plan that identifies targets, metrics and outcomes to meet 5% growth in recruitment diversity goals for the STFP.

Evaluation of Panel Members IAW PWS Para 1.4.b.Sub-Factor 2:

Evaluationof Panel Members: The Offeror shall submit a plan that illustrates its capability to control and ensure the quality of an independent review panel as demonstrated by the mixture, of an 85%, recognized experts and distinguished/recognized endowed chairs' qualifications, associations (academia, industry and/or government).

1. At least one established review panel that:

a. Has at least five examples of panelists within different scientific &engineering research disciplines of diversified technical communities. The proposal should not include more than ten examples of panelists in the research areas.

b. Consists of at least 85% of panelists that are nationally or internationally recognized experts in their STEM communities, such as holding ranking or fellow positions in professional societies or organizations and/or distinguished/recognized endowed chairs or professoriate, or some equivalent level of scholarly recognition.

2. A panelist recruitment and management plan for:

a. Maintaining a cadre of experts able to serve on the review panels and manage conflicts of interest with applicants while maintaining panel quality and expertise levels.

b. Identifying targets, metrics, and outcomes in identification and recruitment needed to obtain STEM research expertise.

3. Retention plans for review panelists. To be deemed "acceptable" on this measure of Subfactor 2, the offeror must provide two retention plan examples of current review panelists along with the following:

i. Metrics of retention success - identify the metrics used to evaluate retention success, giving the median counts for the number of panel members retained for at least the minimum, average, and maximum duration of possible retention, and the aspects of the retention plan that support 80% retention of panelists for at least the minimum requested commitment that maintains the target composition of the panel,

ii. Panel tenure - provide details on the tenure duration requested of panelists, the average and maximum panel tenures, and demonstrate ability to maintain 95% to planned tenure, and

iii. Rotational transition plan - demonstrate 100% success in rotation of panel members in the timeline that supports the onboarding, preparation and execution of the panel, for both planned and unplanned panelist rotations.

4. A plan for leveraging current partnerships with STEM community members (Tier I-III institutions, HBCUs/MSIs, and STEM professional businesses, societies, and organizations) partnerships to support the review panel with nationally or internationally recognized experts, fellows, or endowed chairs. To be deemed "acceptable" on this measure of Subfactor 2, the offeror must provide:

a. At least five concrete examples from two established programs having used partnerships to support panel recruitment and management within the last five years. The proposal should not include more than ten examples leveraging partnerships.

i. Identify the number and tenure of panelists resulting from partnerships.

5. Experience in executing and managing review boards within the last five years (01 January 2018 - Present). To be deemed "acceptable" on this measure of Subfactor 2, the offeror must:

a. Provide its established process for S&T post-board written review results, including the following:

i. Its research proposal, qualitative rating scale (positive or negative), and total compensation package.

ii. An example of its S&T review board documented processes for application, rating, and award (compensation package).

b. List ten examples of S&T managed and executed panel review boards within the last five years. The examples must show how the offeror:

i. Identified targets and metrics for review panels - demonstrate record of tracking performance metrics and demonstrate meeting 90% of target metrics,

ii. Maintained and managed its cadre of expert panel members - demonstrate methods of successful communications and interactions with the panel throughout the review process for 100% completion of panelist tasks,

iii. Managed and mitigated conflicts of interest (CoI) - demonstrate ability to gather and maintain currency of CoI information from 100% of panelists and ability to mitigate 100% identified CoIs providing 2-4 examples of mitigation strategies, and

iv. Completed panel tasks within stated requirements - demonstrate ability to meet at least 90% of cost, schedule and performance for panel execution.

Sub-Factor 3: Evaluation/Selection Process of Applicants, Government Research Advisors and Proposed Research Topics IAW PWS 1.4.c, 1.17, 5.1.1, 5.1.2, 5.1.3.a - c, and e.

1.

Evaluation/Selection Process of Applicants, Government Research Advisors and Proposed Research Topic: The Offeror shall submit a plan that illustrates their objectivity of the proposed process to ensure the eligibility of applicants, Government research advisor candidates and respective proposed research topics, details post-award review results in written reports to include research proposal, qualitative rating of proposal (positive and negative), & compensation package, and provides a list of managed and executed review board within last 5 years (01January 2018 - Present).

1. A plan that addresses the capability to control the objectivity of the proposed process to evaluate Government research advisor candidates including,

a. Validation of eligibility requirements - demonstrate ability to objectively vet and accurately determine eligibility of 100% of research advisor candidates,

b. Rating and results- method for tracking eligibility and successfully adding at least 90% of eligible research advisor candidates to the program, and

c. Final selection notification (approval as mentor) - method for ensuring 100% eligible mentors are notified and confirm continued participation or withdrawal if the advisor's circumstances have changed.

2. A plan that addresses the capability to control the objectivity of the proposed process to evaluate proposed research topics, including:

a. Steps to verify alignment with DAF research requirements (USAF and USSF) to ensure that 100% selected research topics are in appropriate alignment, and

b. Steps to verify appropriateness as fundamental research to ensure 100% selected research topics meet the criteria for fundamental research.

3. A plan that addresses the capability to control the objectivity of the proposed process to evaluate fellowship applications for both proposed early career and senior research associates, including:

a. Validation of eligibility requirements - demonstrate ability to objectively vet and accurately determine eligibility of 100% of proposing research associates,

b. Vetting of research proposals - method for panel evaluation and coordination of all research proposals that ensures objective reviews, gathers comments for all proposals, and ensures absence of CoIs for 100% of proposals,

c. Rating and results - method for objectively gathering and tracking review rating and results data, ensuring 100% accuracy in data, and

d. Final award notification (compensation package) - process for ensuring 100% proposing fellows receive their award notification, to include result, ratings and comments, and compensation package information for selected fellows; process for ensuring 100% research advisors and managing organization receives research associate review results.

4. Adequate recommended criteria for scoring of: (1) applicants, (2) research advisors, and (3) research topics.

5. An Organizational Conflicts of Interest (OCI) Mitigation Plan for review panel members to ensure the integrity and fair objectivity of the panels in evaluating/selecting research associates, research advisors, and research topics, such that information about 100% potential sources of OCI is gathered.

Sub-Factor 4: Program Management IAW PWS Para 1.4.d., 1.14, and 5.1.4.

Program Management: The Offeror shall submit a plan that demonstrates and logically results in the successful administration, management, and execution of all logistical processes necessary to obtain the effort of the government's selectee research at all possible beneficiary locations. The plan shall include the offeror's established financial system for payments of stipends, benefits, and travel allowances, financial tracking and reporting system of monthly disbursements for research associates stipends, benefits, travels, and other allowances (if applicable), electronic administrative reporting file system for research associates to include type of research, length of tenure, research locations, research presentations, pending or awarded patents, and other research awards, and compliance practices to align with Privacy Act of 1974 for maintaining, handling, and transmitting of data/reports/analysis.

Adequate fellowship program management processes. The offeror should provide: (1) its proposed STFP program management processes and (2) current contractor managed fellowship program processes addressing all aforementioned items.

2.

3.

4.

5.

An OCI Mitigation Plan for the contractor and subcontractor (if applicable) personnel capable of maintaining the integrity of program.

Sufficient Contract Program Manager (CPM) qualifications via resume/CV to ensure validation of requirements for fellowship experience and science or engineering degree.

Data/reports/analysis examples for assessing sufficiency of its reporting systems, to include (1) Findable, Accessible, Interoperable, and Reusable (FAIR) data principles of research associates' technical and final reports, (2) 24/7 accessible annual, final and quarterly technical reports, on contractor website or portal for DAF, AFIT, and USAFA S&Es (research advisors, TD focal points, and other DoD entities where applicable) to access, and (3) 24/7 accessible monthly financial reports for GPM or CO.

An example of the proposed information and format that will be reported in the contractor Program Management Reviews addressing programmatic details (research associate applications and awards, research advisor applications and approvals, research topics and approvals, outreach events), and financial information (stipends, travel, and other benefits).

D. Volume III, Cost/Price Proposal

1. Pricing Sheet, TAB 1: The FFP CLINs shall be filled in the included excel spreadsheet ("Pricing Sheet", TAB 1) with your proposed prices to include CLINs 0001, 1001, 2001,3001, 4001, 4016 (Option transition-Out CLIN) and 5001 (6 month Option Extension CLIN), in accordance with FAR 52.217-8. Please include prices for all highlighted green CLINs as referenced above. Please refer to the information provided in the CLINs in the solicitation, referencing information in the PWS to come up with your pricing.

a. The Cost Reimbursement "pass-through" CLINs have been provided as Government provided plug-in numbers within the spreadsheet and will be included in the total price/cost of your proposal. charged onNo fee/profit or indirect costs can be these in the. Any administrative costs shall be included "pass-through" funds administrative FFP CLINs that are being proposed.

b. Tab 1 will calculate the Total Evaluated Price for your offer.

2. Summary and Pricing Sheet, TAB 2: Submit a summary by major price element for the entire period of performance to include pricing foreach of the Firm Fixed Price CLINs in the Base Year, each of the 4 Option Years0001, 1001, 2001, 3001, 4001, 4016 (Option Transition-Out CLIN), and 5001 Optional6 month extension, in accordance with FAR 52.217-8. Offerors shall also submit a TAB 2 of the included "Pricing Sheet" identifying labor categories, hourly rates, hours, profit, monthly pricing, and total pricing proposed for each of the Firm Fixed Price CLINs in the Base Year, and each of the 4 Option Years 0001,1001, 2001, 3001, 4001, 4001, 4016 (Option Transition-Out CLIN), and 5001Optional 6 month extension, in accordance with FAR 52.217-8. The Offeror shall provide a summary total proposed price tab rolling up the proposed pricing foreach year. Each proposed labor category shall be captured on a separate row. When job classification or position titles (e.g. "Senior Scientist", Technician" or "Lead Engineer") are used, provide narrative descriptions of related qualifications, duties, and responsibilities as an attachment to the price proposal. The detail required for each major price element should provide supporting rationale to explain the methodology used to project the price. Address all price elements applicable to the proposed effort and provide a narrative to support the proposed pricing. The price proposal narrative should not exceed twelve (12) pages, there is no limit on the size of the Microsoft Excel spreadsheet. Provide these Price Proposal Instructions to anticipated subcontractors. Proprietary subcontractor data must be submitted directly to the Government in accordance with Proposal Preparation instructions in this announcement.

a. Summary/Price proposal narrative will be a separate Microsoft word document not exceeding 12 pages.

b. Pricing Sheet, TAB 2 will be a blank sheet in the Provided Excel file titled "Pricing Sheet". Offerors should create or place the requested pricing information in this tab.

Section M - Evaluation Factors for Award

Miscellaneous text in this section has been modified to:

I. Basis for Contract Award

A. Source Selection Methodology: This acquisition will utilize the Lowest Price Technically Acceptable (LPTA) source selection procedure in accordance with FAR 15.101-2 and 15.3 as supplemented by the DoD Source Selection Procedures referenced in DFARS 215.300 to make an integrated assessment for a best value award decision. The Government intends to award one contract as a result of this solicitation. A decision on the technical acceptability of each offeror's proposal will be made. Among those offerors who are determined to be technically acceptable, award will be made to the offeror having the lowest total evaluated price. Offerors are reminded that the Government will only evaluate one proposal from each offeror. Award will be made to the responsible offeror whose proposal is technically acceptable, conforms to all solicitation requirements, such as terms and conditions, representations and certifications, technical requirements, and also provides the best value to the Government based on the results of the evaluation described in section II. Proposal Evaluation below.

II. Proposal Evaluation: The evaluation process will be accomplished as follows (Organized by Volume):

A. General

1. Discussions: The Government intends to award without discussions but reserves the right to conduct discussions if determined necessary. Any discussions will be conducted in accordance with FAR 15.306. If the Contracting Officer determines that the number of proposals that would otherwise be in the competitive range exceeds the number at which an efficient competition can be conducted, the Contracting Officer, with the concurrence of the Source Selection Authority, may limit the number of proposals in the competitive range to the greatest number that will permit an efficient competition among the most highly rated proposals.

B. Volume I, Completed RFP

1.The offeror must have a completed and signed RFP (STANDARD FORM 33). This should include all clause and provision "fill-ins".

C. Volume II, Technical Mission Capability

1. General: Each offeror's written technical proposal shall be evaluated to determine if the offeror provides a sound, compliant approach that meets the requirements of the PWS, etc. The technical proposal addresses each of the following subfactors in sufficient detail.

2. Technical Rating: The Government's technical evaluation team shall evaluate the technical proposals on a pass/fail basis, assigning one of threating's described below for each subfactor. Any subfactor evaluated as "Unacceptable" will render the entire proposal unacceptable and, therefore, unawardable. Only those proposals determined to be technically acceptable, either initially or as a result of discussions, will be considered for award.

However, the offeror is cautioned that the Government reserves the right to award this effort based on the initial proposal, as received, without discussion.

TABLE 1 - TECHNICAL RATINGS

Rating Description

Acceptable Proposal clearly meets the minimum requirements of the solicitation.

Unacceptable Proposal does not clearly meet the minimum requirements of the solicitation.

The proposals shall be evaluated against the following technical subfactors:

Subfactor 1: Outreach Plan

Description: This subfactor evaluates the outreach plan that describes the branding and marketing strategy of the STFP program that logically results in locating and attracting diversified significant interest of relevant research capabilities of highly qualified successful Ph.D. scientists and engineers to conduct research of relevance to Department of Air Force (DAF), including the Air Force Research Laboratory(AFRL) and the United States Space Force (USSF), laboratories that demonstrates the placement of forward and innovative thinking S&Es in critical DoD relevant research areas in DoD or other government recognized fellowship programs. This subfactor evaluates the contractor's established STEM community at large relationships including academic institutions (Tier I-III schools, HBCUs/MSIs, etc.) and STEM professional scientific societies/organizations in recruiting a skilled diverse applicant pool. The outreach plan must clearly address the branding and marketing strategy of current relationships and partnerships with STEM academic and professional organizations and defined in the following section, to be deemed an acceptable rating in accordance with (IAW) Performance Work Statement (PWS) Para(s) 1.4.a and 5.1.2.

Measure of Merit: This requirement is met when the offeror's proposal clearly demonstrates that the offeror has:

1. An established branded and marketing outreach plan on two current programs demonstrating diversified scientific and technological (S&T) background partnerships (STEM academic and professional organizations) that will enable it to attract a diverse pool of applicants (underrepresented community members, Tier I-III institutions, and professional societies/organizations) in critical DAF research areas. To be deemed "acceptable" on this measure of Subfactor 1, the offeror must:

a. Provide at least five examples of its branded marketing target outreach venues or outlets, the type of outreach, and cadence.

The proposer should not include more than ten example of branded marketing outreach activities.

b. Provide targets and metrics demonstrating that the example branded marketing activities has reached a diverse pool of applicants.

2. Capability to achieve a 5% increase annually in the following recruitment goals. To be deemed "acceptable" on this measure of Subfactor 1, the offeror must:

a. Identify the number of fellowship applicants increased within STEM community members (TierI-III schools, HBCUs/MSIs, STEM professional scientific societies/organizations) using its established plan in two current programs within the last five years,

b. Identify the increases in diversity of fellowship awards to applicants from Tier II-III schools, HBCUs/MSIs, and other underrepresented minority groups, using your established plan in two current programs within the last five years, and

c. Provide a "tailored" STFP outreach plan that identifies targets, metrics and outcomes to meet 5% growth in recruitment diversity goals for the STFP.

Subfactor 2: Independent Review Panel Members

Description: This subfactor evaluates the quality of an independent review panel plan that illustrates its capability to control and ensure the review panel demonstrated by the mixture, of an 85%, recognized experts and distinguished/recognized endowed chairs' qualifications, associations

(academia, industry and/or government). The independent review panel plan must clearly address at least an 85% mixture of recognized experts (academia, industry, and/or government) with qualifications as endowed chairs, recognized in and defined in the following section, to be deemed an acceptable rating IAW PWS Para 1.4.b.

Measure of Merit: This requirement is met when the offeror's proposal clearly demonstrates that the offer has:

1. At least one established review panel that:

a. Has at least five examples of panelists within different scientific &engineering research disciplines of diversified technical communities. The proposal should not include more than ten examples of panelists in the research areas.

b. Consists of at least 85% of panelists that are nationally or internationally recognized experts in their STEM communities, such as holding ranking or fellow positions in professional societies or organizations and/or distinguished/recognized endowed chairs or professoriate, or some equivalent level of scholarly recognition.

2. A panelist recruitment and management plan for:

a. Maintaining a cadre of experts able to serve on the review panels and manage conflicts of interest with applicants while maintaining panel quality and expertise levels.

b. Identifying targets, metrics, and outcomes in identification and recruitment needed to obtain STEM research expertise.

3. Retention plans for review panelists. To be deemed "acceptable" on this measure of Subfactor 2, the offeror must provide two retention plan examples of current review panelists along with the following:

i. Metrics of retention success - identify the metrics used to evaluate retention success, giving the median counts for the number of panel members retained for at least the minimum, average, and maximum duration of possible retention, and the aspects of the retention plan that support 80% retention of panelists for at least the minimum requested commitment that maintains the target composition of the panel,

ii. Panel tenure - provide details on the tenure duration requested of panelists, the average and maximum panel tenures, and demonstrate ability to maintain 95% to planned tenure, and

iii. Rotational transition plan - demonstrate 100% success in rotation of panel members in the timeline that supports the onboarding, preparation and execution of the panel, for both planned and unplanned panelist rotations.

4. A plan for leveraging current partnerships with STEM community members (Tier I-III institutions, HBCUs/MSIs, and STEM professional businesses, societies, and organizations) partnerships to support the review panel with nationally or internationally recognized experts, fellows, or endowed chairs. To be deemed "acceptable" on this measure of Subfactor 2, the offeror must provide:

a. At least five concrete examples from two established programs having used partnerships to support panel recruitment and management within the last five years. The proposal should not include more than ten examples leveraging partnerships.

i. Identify the number and tenure of panelists resulting from partnerships.

5. Experience in executing and managing review boards within the last five years (01 January 2018 - Present). To be deemed "acceptable" on this measure of Subfactor2, the offeror must:

a. Provide its established process for S&T post-board written review results, including the following:

i. Its research proposal, qualitative rating scale (positive or negative), and total compensation package.

ii. An example of its S&T review board documented processes for application, rating, and award (compensation package).

b. List ten examples of S&T managed and executed panel review boards within the last five years. The examples must show how the offeror:

i. Identified targets and metrics for review panels - demonstrate record of tracking performance metrics and demonstrate meeting 90% of target metrics,

ii. Maintained and managed its cadre of expert panel members - demonstrate methods of successful communications and interactions with the panel throughout the review process for 100% completion of panelist tasks,

iii. Managed and mitigated conflicts of interest (CoI) - demonstrate ability to gather and maintain currency of CoI information from 100% of panelists and ability to mitigate 100% identified CoIs providing 2-4 examples of mitigation strategies, and

iv. Completed panel tasks within stated requirements - demonstrate ability to meet at least 90% of cost, schedule and performance for panel execution.

Subfactor 3: Evaluation/Selection Process of Applicants, Government Research Advisors and Proposed Research Topics

Description: This subfactor evaluates objectivity of the proposed evaluation/selection process to ensure the eligibility of applicants, Government research advisor candidates and respective proposed research topics, details post-award review results in written reports to include research proposal, qualitative rating of proposal (positive and negative), & compensation package, and provides a list of managed and executed review board within last 5 years (01 January 2018- Present). The evaluation/selection process must clearly address the processes for application, research advisor, and research topic areas, post-award review results, and compensation packages defined in the following section, to be deemed an acceptable rating IAW PWS 1.4.c, 1.17, 5.1.1, 5.1.2, 5.1.3.a - c, and e.

Measure of Merit: This requirement is met when the offeror's proposal clearly demonstrates that the offeror has:

1. A plan that addresses the capability to control the objectivity of the proposed process to evaluate Government research advisor candidates including,

a. Validation of eligibility requirements - demonstrate ability to objectively vet and accurately determine eligibility of 100% of research advisor candidates,

b. Rating and results - method for tracking eligibility and successfully adding at least 90% of eligible research advisor candidates to the program, and

c. Final selection notification (approval as mentor) - method for ensuring 100% eligible mentors are notified and confirm continued participation or withdrawal if the advisor's circumstances have changed.

2. A plan that addresses the capability to control the objectivity of the proposed process to evaluate proposed research topics, including:

a. Steps to verify alignment with DAF research requirements (USAF and USSF) to ensure that 100% selected research topics are in appropriate alignment, and

b. Steps to verify appropriateness as fundamental research to ensure 100% selected research topics meet the criteria for fundamental research.

3. A plan that addresses the capability to control the objectivity of the proposed process to evaluate fellowship applications for both proposed early career and senior research associates, including:

a. Validation of eligibility requirements - demonstrate ability to objectively vet and accurately determine eligibility of 100% of proposing research associates,

b. Vetting of research proposals - method for panel evaluation and coordination of all research proposals that ensures objective reviews, gathers comments for all proposals, and ensures absence of CoIs for 100% of proposals,

c. Rating and results - method for objectively gathering and tracking review rating and results data, ensuring 100% accuracy in data, and

d. Final award notification (compensation package) - process for ensuring 100% proposing fellows receive their award notification, to include result, ratings and comments, and compensation package information for selected fellows; process for ensuring100% research advisors and managing organization receives research associate review results.

4. Adequate recommended criteria for scoring of: (1) applicants, (2) research advisors, and (3) research topics.

5. An Organizational Conflicts of Interest (OCI) Mitigation Plan for review panel members to ensure the integrity and fair objectivity of the panels in evaluating/selecting research associates, research advisors, and research topics, such that information about 100% potential sources of OCI is gathered.

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

Subfactor 4: Program Management

Description: This subfactor evaluates the program management plan, which should demonstrate and logically result in the successful administration, management, and execution of all logistical processes necessary to obtain the effort of the government's selectee research at all possible beneficiary locations. The plan shall include the offeror's established financial system for payments of stipends, benefits, and travel allowances; financial tracking and reporting system of monthly disbursements for research associates stipends, benefits, travels, and other allowances (if applicable); program management review required information; electronic administrative reporting file system for research associates to include type of research, length of tenure, research locations, research presentations, pending or awarded patents, and other research awards, and compliance practices to align with Privacy Act of 1974 for maintaining, handling, and transmitting of data/reports/analysis IAW PWS Para1.4.d., 1.14, and 5.1.4.

Measure of Merit: This requirement is met when the offeror's proposal clearly demonstrates that the offer has:

Adequate fellowship program management processes. The offeror should provide: (1) its proposed STFP program management processes and (2) current contractor managed fellowship program processes addressing all aforementioned items.

An OCI Mitigation Plan for the contractor and subcontractor (if applicable) personnel capable of maintaining the integrity of program.

Sufficient Contract Program Manager (CPM) qualifications via resume/CV to ensure validation of requirements for fellowship experience and science or engineering degree.

Data/reports/analysis examples for assessing sufficiency of its reporting systems, to include (1) Findable, Accessible, Interoperable, and Reusable (FAIR) data principles of research associates' technical and final reports, (2) 24/7 accessible annual, final and quarterly technical reports, on contractor website or portal for DAF, AFIT, and USAFA S&Es (research advisors, TD focal points, and other DoD entities where applicable) to access, and (3) 24/7 accessible monthly financial reports for GPM or CO.

An example of the proposed information and format that will be reported in the contractor Program Management Reviews addressing programmatic details (research associate applications and awards, research advisor applications and approvals, research topics and approvals, outreach events), and financial information (stipends, travel, and other benefits).

D. Volume III, Cost/Price Proposal

The Government will evaluate prices submitted for all FFP CLINs and the Government plug-in values for listed Cost CLINs. Failure to propose on all FFP CLINs will render the proposal non-responsive. The Government Evaluation Team will present a Total Evaluated Price (TEP) to the Source Selection Authority. An offeror's TEP will be determined by adding the government plug-in values for the Cost CLINS along with the proposed FFP CLINs identified in the Pricing Sheet, TAB 1(0001, 1001, 2001, 3001, 4001, 4016, 5001). This will include the price/cost for the six-month extension authorized by 52.217-8, Option to Extend Services as well as the Transition-Out Option. Evaluation of the 6 Month option to extend as well as the Transition-Out option will not obligate the Government to exercise. Offerors should propose the best available pricing to the Government for each CLIN in arriving at the most competitive price. Prices will be evaluated for balance IAW FAR 15.404-1(g).

ADMINISTRATIVE ONLY NO REQUISITIONS, 875 N RANDOLPH ST STE 325

ARLINGTON, VA 22203-1768

UNITED STATES

Kristi Hanna, Email: kristi.hanna@us.af.mil

1) Removed reference to 5.1.4.d in Subfactor 2 (sections L&M)

2) Revised reference to Subfactor 3 to 5.1.3 a-c and e (section L&M)

3) Added charts with page number limits in Section L Updated CDRLs 0016 & 0002 with minor corrections