FY21_NDEP_FOA_Questions_Technical_Application_20210415 Final.pdf

04/15/2021

Q1: The page limit for the technical application is stated as “shall not exceed 28 pages” but there also is reference to “excluded from the technical application 27-page limit,” so we would like to clarify whether the page limit is 27 pages or 28 pages? We thought perhaps the cover page was considered page 28.

Q2: P. 19 Application Page Limits: Is page limit 27 or 28 for the technical application? On Page

19, the limit is 27 pages in one place and 28 in another.

A1-2: The page limit is 28. This has been corrected on page 19 in Amendment 2 and 3 of the

FOA which was posted on March 24.

Q3: We cannot find any clear guidance on the use of appendices/attachments in the FOA. The

FOA says: "EXCLUDED from the Technical Application 28-page limit are: resumes, curricula vitae, references, letters of support, and current and pending projects.” However, are we allowed to include other elements (e.g., agendas, table of contents, etc.) outside the 28-page limit in the form of appendices/attachments?

Q4: Are attachments allowed to be submitted with the application?

A3-4: Clear guidance regarding page limits and exemptions in the Technical Application are on page 19. Anything outside of these parameters will be removed from the Technical Application.

Q5: On page 19, there’s a statement that the technical application will not include resumes’/vitas within the 28-page count page limit, but the outline of the technical application that begins on page 22 has no provision stated for including resumes’/vitas. The closest provision seen is a one-page allowance for a qualifications statement. Are resumes/vitas expected to be a part of the technical application? If so should it just be for the PI, and where should it be placed?

Q6: Is there a preferred format for the CV and references of the PI? Do you also require CVs and references of the proposed sub-awardees?

Q7: Is there a preferred template for the Biosketch attachment within the R&R Senior/Key

Person Profile (Expanded) form or can this just be a standard CV? Is there a page limit and/or specific information that must be included?

Q8: If we're including consultant resumes/CVs, should we upload those in the Key Person

Profile - Biographical Sketch field?

Q9: Is there a required length for the CVs?

Q10: Is there a page limit on resumes/CVs?

Q11: Is there a required or recommended format for resumes/CVs? (e.g., the NIH biosketch format)

Q12: Where can we find the DoD format/template for the Biosketch? Also, please confirm if the solicitation requires both a Biosketch attached to the Senior/Key Person Profile as well as a resume or CV for the individual as a separate attachment.

Q13: Should resumes in the appendix include full curriculum vitaes, or shortened biosketches.

Is there a page limit per curriculum vitae?

Q14: Is there a preferred length or page limit for the bio sketches?

Q15: We aren't clear on the Senior/Key Person Profile form. Is the Biographical Sketch just an upload of the PI's CV? Also, to the best of our knowledge, the PI does not have a eRA Commons user name... is this a problem?

Q16: Do items such as the CVs and Current and Pending docs need to be included in the document uploaded as the “Technical Application” or should they only get attached to the SF424 Research and Related (R&R) 4040-001 Senior/Key Person Profile (Expanded) form? The description of the “Technical Application” leads me to believe that they go in there, rather than attached to the form.

Q17: Where in grants.gov, once we're in the application workspace, should we submit the following exactly: Letters of support, Resumes/CVs, References? It doesn't look like these are to be filed in the Technical Application itself.

A5-17: Resumes/CVs are required for the Technical Application. Page 19 of the FOA states the guidance for format and page limits of the Technical Application, which includes guidance for resumes/CVs. As noted on page 19, resumes/CVs, references, letters of support, and current and pending projects should be included in the Technical Application, but do not count towards the 28 page limit. These are generally placed at the end of the document. DoD does not use eRA Commons.

Q18: Key Personnel Expanded: Please clarify if this is to be submitted within the Technical

Application PDF (attached in Field 8) or if it is to be submitted separately within the Grants.gov site.

Q19: Key Personnel Expanded: Please clarify if all Key Personnel should be included on a single

SF424 Research and Related (R&R) Senior/Key Personnel Profile (Expanded) form or if separate

R&R Key Personnel forms should be for each key person.

A18-19: As stated on page 19, P.I. Qualifications should be included in the Technical

Application. Additionally, the Research and Related Senior/Key Personnel Profile form should be submitted separately within the grants.gov site. One consolidated RESEARCH & RELATED

Senior/Key Person Profile (Expanded) form should be submitted for all key personnel.

Q20: In Technical Application Content, section 4, page 26, “Principal Investigator Qualifications”, what are the determining factors for “key personnel” beyond the PI or co-PIs?

Q21: How does DoD define Senior/Key Personnel to include in R&R Personnel Data section of grants.gov?

Q22: Could you please provide more information about who would qualify as key personnel?

Can key personnel include sub-awardees?

Q23: How many PI’s are allowed? It appears one and then senior personnel? Please confirm.

Could we list personnel from our subaward as senior personnel?

A20-23: Senior/Key Personnel are the P.I.(s), director/program managers/program evaluators that applicants identify on the Technical Application. There is no limit on the number of P.I.s allowed.

Q24: Is there a particular format for the Current and Pending Support requirement, and do only the PI and co-PI have to submit Current and Pending Support information?

Q25: Do you require a list of current and pending support from any of the proposed sub-awardees (in addition to the stated requirement of such for the PI)?

Q26: Is it accurate to say that the “Current and Pending Project and Application Submissions” referenced on page 26 of the FOA Amendment No. 3 are only required for the Project

Director/Principal Investigator and other senior personnel?

Q27: Current and Pending Project and Application Submissions (p.26 of the instructions package)

• Does this section fit into the technical application narrative, or should it be submitted elsewhere? This is not made clear.

• Must we indicate all of our funding sources, or only those that relate in some way to this proposed project?

Q28: In Technical Application Content, section 4, page 26, “Current and Pending Project and

Application Submissions”

• Is this asking about any grants and/or monies our organization is working with overall, or just other grants or applications for the same project we are submitting for HQ0034-21-S-F001?

Q29: P. 26 Current and Pending Project and Application Submissions: Do we just need current and pending support information on the submitting applicant PI – or do we need this information for all Co-PIs and Senior Personnel?

Q30: Where can we find the DoD format/template for the Current & Pending?

Q31: Is current and pending support documentation required for all key persons or just the PI?

Q32: There's also a place to attach "Current and Pending Support" – Can you expand on what is requested here specifically, in terms of format and data?

Q33: In regard to the Current and Pending Project and Application Submissions requirement:

does the DoD have a preferred format for such? Excel? Please inform.

Q34: What basis are we supposed to use to calculate the time on the C & P? academic or calendar or something else?

A24-34: Current and Pending Support is the Government seeking information from institutions regarding applications and existing funded efforts that are related or complimentary to this

FOA. Details regarding Current and Pending support are on page 26 of the FOA. Page 19 of the

FOA states the guidance for format and page limits of the Technical Application, which includes guidance for the Current and Pending Support section. This information is required for all PIs and Co-PIs. Applicants may calculate Current and Pending Support on the academic calendar.

Q35: Would DoD allow bidders to submit exhibits, e.g. a Current and Pending table, at a font size of 10 pt.?

Q36: Is it acceptable to include graphics in the proposal narrative?

A35-36: Page 19 of the FOA states the guidance for format and page limits of the Technical Application which includes tables and graphics which is 12pt font for the proposal. Pictures can be used, however this will include page limits.

Q37: We are not clear on the instructions for Current and Pending Project and Application Submissions, p. 26 and its relationship, if any, to the statement e SF424 R&R 4040-001 Form highlighted later, but not located in the C&P Support section.

a. Re the “Current and Pending Project and Application Submission” section on p.26: We think the “Applicant” referred to is the organization submitting the proposal to DoD-NDEP STEM. Our applying organization has one current project funded through with another agency and then this proposed project to the DoD. These two projects both include subawards and several overlapping key personnel as the projects are related.

Do we complete the information in numbers 1-7 only for those 2 projects of the applying organization and then provide summary information on all projects (current and pending) that our senior personnel in the DoD proposal are involved in #s 8 and9? Then in #10 we’d complete the description how the projects are related. Is this correct? And, if this is correct, where is this description uploaded since it does not appear to be included in the 27 pages?

b. Re the Form SF424 Research and Related 4040-001 Senior/Key Person Profile (Expanded” form (mentioned at bottom of p.26: We understand this form needs to be completed for each of our Senior/Key Personnel. There is a place that you may upload an attachment “Current and Pending Support” that appears to be optional.

Is this where the information described in the Current and Pending Project and Application Submissions, p. 26 should be uploaded on each key person if they have other current projects? Should we NOT complete this information on the applying organization, as described in 1a?

A37: Guidance for Current and Pending Support is on page 26 of the FOA. The Applicant (referred to on Page 26) is the organization submitting a proposal in response to this FOA. Page 19 of the FOA states the guidance for format and page limits of the Technical Application, which includes guidance for the Current and Pending Support section. As stated on page 19, the Current and Pending Support should be uploaded with the Technical Application, but will not count towards the 28 page limit. The R&R Senior/Key Personnel Form should be uploaded on grants.gov separately from the Technical Application.

Q38: On page 26 of the RFP, DoD requests that bidders submit information regarding their Current and Pending Project and Application Submissions. Included in that information is request component 3. Percentage effort devoted to each project. And, we recognize that this number differs from request component 8. The proposed project and all other projects or activities requiring a portion of time of the Project Director / Principal Investigator and other senior personnel must be included, even if they receive no salary support from the project(s).

Q39: For the current and pending project and application submission requirement on p. 26 of the FOA, items 3 and 8 seem to ask similar questions. Is the “percentage effort devoted to each project” from item 3 referring to proposed PI, PD, and senior personnel at the individual level as also referenced in item 8? Please clarify that difference between the two requested items.

A38-39: Applicants only need to answer number 8.

Q40: In the Work Plan, please clarify what’s meant by “Applying the Approach.”

Q41: Is it appropriate for there to be overlapping content in the work plan and main application. We noted that some sections in each are very similar in nature and purpose.

Q42: Given that this is not a research grant, how much research should be included (especially in the Work Plan that calls for those sections)?

Q43: The required work plan in Attachment 1 requests information related to the Proposed

Research, Research Scope, and Research Questions and Objectives.

Should this information also include the proposed technical activities to be conducted outside of the formal research (i.e., the proposed activities for support of teachers)?

Q44: Work Plan (p.27 and 45)

• What is it, exactly, that this application is requiring in the following sections of the Work Plan:

Proposed Research; Research Scope; Research Questions and Objectives; Technical Approach

(Methodology); Applying the Approach ? There is no explanation in the instructions for what is expected in these sections.

Q45: P. 45 Work Plan: Is the “Work Plan” essentially a 6 page executive summary of the entire proposal or can it included additional information?

Q46: Work plan: our project is not requesting funding to perform research. Instead it focuses on training community college faculty. Should we leave blank the Proposed Research, Research Scope, and Research Questions and Objectives portions in the Work plan and do fill the Technical Approach (Methodology) and the Applying the Approach portions?

Q47: We note that several requirements of the “Work Plan” are previously addressed in the proposal. We have carefully studied the FOA and offer the following interpretations:

Project Abstract: We interpret this to mean cutting and pasting text from the R & R Abstract form in its entirety. Is this correct?

Proposed Research: We interpret this to mean both the educational research we will do as a part of our evaluation of educational outcomes (as previously discussed in the proposal) as well as content STEM-related, public policy research that will result in the publication of new curriculum materials. Said another way, do you consider the development, publication, and dissemination of student materials ‘research’ that should be described here?

Research Scope: We interpret this to mean describing research boundaries such as purpose, population, duration/timeframe, limitations, generalizability, and research methods.

Research Questions and Objectives: We interpret this to mean the specific questions and objectives about students, teachers, and schools that we will be seeking answers to through our pilot.

Technical Approach (Methodology): We interpret this to mean a concise summary of the technical approach elaborated previously in the proposal—focusing on what we propose and why it is important.

Applying the Approach: We interpret this to mean detailing how we propose to accomplish the elements outlined in technical approach and research. We take this to be synonymous with ‘Work Plan.’

Are these interpretations accurate? If not, please clarify.

A40-47: The work plan is a summary of the Technical Application that is intended to communicate the approach the grantee will take to accomplish their program. The Work Plan will be incorporated into the resulting grant if the application is chosen for award. This is a standardized form and must be completed in its entirety and included in the Technical Application. There may be overlaps with other areas of the Technical Application. Yes, these reports are still expected with the proposed programs goals, objectives, and a timeline for when these activities are expected to be completed.

Q48: We are wondering about the balance of research versus implementation by percentage of work to be conducted. Is it suggested to propose an extensive research component for the proposed implementation, to measure the success of the program? And, if so, is an independent formal research evaluator required/suggested for this project under this contract?

Q49: We are partnering with an external evaluator for our project. Can their expenses be included in our R&R Budget under section F (Direct Costs) as “Consultant Services” or should our evaluator provide a subaward budget and budget justification?

A48-49: It is at the discretion of the applicant to determine the appropriate balance of program implementation and evaluation of program efficacy. Additionally, the applicant has the discretion to determine who will evaluate program efficacy. The detailed budget for the evaluator subcontract does not need to be included. Evaluators can be labeled under sub-contract/consultants, but should be referenced in budget narrative what the consultant costs are so the value of the proposed budget can be properly evaluated.

Q50: What is the general ideal suggested start time for any beta testing vs actual implementation work to be conducted under this grant? For instance, if we want to trial a beta test in Fall/Winter at one of our partner's sites, should we target implementing classes in Spring of 2022? Or should we target a rapid beta in early Fall of 2021, and then propose end of 2021 for the start of implementation? What is an ideal timeline?

Q51: Could you please clarify if there are limits for the proposed period of performance starting date? Can it be several months after the grant has been awarded? Does the starting date affect the review process?

Q52: Does the proposed period of performance need to start within the July -Sept grant award date timeframe listed on page 34 of the application instructions? Or could we propose a period of performance that starts October 1, 2021 or after?

Q53: The FOA lists award announcements as “estimated June 2021”. Is 07/01/2021 a reasonable project start date to include in our proposal?

Q54: Proposed period of performance: In the Cover page (page 22 of the FOA), item (f) requires including the proposed period of performance. What are are the limits for the starting date?

Can the project's starting date be January 2022 or it must start before the end of 2021?

Q55: We are applying for the STEM activities scale up grant and I'd like to clarify the period of performance. We have mapped out performance objectives over 4 years in accordance with the funding timeline for the scale up grant. However, the announcement references including options for performance periods. Should we include performance period options for the non-scale up (i.e. 3 year) timeline as well in the event that our application is selected but not for the scale up amount and timeline?

A50-55: As stated on page 34, the estimated award date of the grant is between July-

September 2021. Period of performance starts at the date of award.

Q56: Do Enhanced Civics proposals need to include the Annual DoD STEM Program Data Call

Form report or is that just for STEM?

Q57: Given that the work plan specifies sections for the Research Questions and Objectives and for the Technical Approach (Methodology), should research methodology to assess outcomes of the advanced civics education program be included in the Technical Approach and

Justification section rather than in the Evaluation section?

A56-57: Enhanced Civics Awardees will be required to include the Annual Program Data Call

Form report. The specifications for the Technical Application format can be found on Page 19.

Q58: The guidance indicates that a logic model should be included in the metrics and evaluation section, which is limited to 2 pages. Should most of this section (e.g. 1 page or more) therefore be dedicated to the logic model? Should the logic model for enhanced civics education focus on project evaluation such as measurable and achievable activities and deliverables, or outcomes such as beliefs and behaviors, or both?

Q59: Under the Metrics and Evaluation section (as described on pgs. 25-26), “program operating guidelines” is noted as a required component. Would you like us to outline our standard operating procedures as it relates to the proposed program deployment and/or focus more on internal administrative procedures (e.g., invoicing, etc.)?

A58-59: Guidance regarding Metrics and Evaluation including page limits is on page 19 and 25 of the FOA. Anything outside of these parameters will be removed from the Technical

Application. The scope and details of the logic model is at the proposer’s discretion.

Q60: How much of the Technical Application is expected to be different from the white paper?

A60: The Technical Application should be a more through development of the White Paper.

The scope of the project is at the proposer’s discretion. Recommend having a clear vision in the proposal that is ready to implement upon award and complete within the parameters of the

FOA.

Q61: For Civics, given the two-year grant schedule, is there an expected timeline for development of the programming leading up the program launch?

A61: It is at the discretion of the applicant to determine and recommend the appropriate program timeline, from development to implementation.

Q62: Of the white papers submitted, how many were invited to submit full proposals? We like to track our comparative record.

Q63: Is any information available on how many proposals DoD intends to fund, and the success rates among those who have been invited to submit full proposals?

A62-63: We cannot disclose the number of applications that have been invited for a full proposal. We cannot provide past grant submissions and applications. You can find additional resources pertaining to NDEP here –

DoD STEM Education and Workforce Development Workshop: https://dodstem.us/blog-posts/2020/dod-stem-education-and-workforce-development-virtual-workshop Current NDEP Awardees: https://dodstem.us/blog-posts/2020/national-defense-education-program-stem-awardees

Q64: Would it be possible to speak with the Technical Representative for DoD STEM or the

Grantor (or relevant officials) to discuss our application in the context of DoD STEM’s priorities before submission?

A64: All specific questions were due by April 2, 2021. Unfortunately, the Government is unable to provide individual feedback on Technical Applications. This would create an unfair advantage.

Q65: Do we need to include a copy of our institution's F&A/fringe benefits negotiated rate agreement (NICRA) in the application? If yes, should we upload that as a separate PDF to Field

12. Other Attachments?

A65: As stated on page 23, please include the NICRA if one is available. This can be included with the budget narrative.

https://dodstem.us/blog-posts/2020/dod-stem-education-and-workforce-development-virtual-workshop https://dodstem.us/blog-posts/2020/dod-stem-education-and-workforce-development-virtual-workshop https://dodstem.us/blog-posts/2020/national-defense-education-program-stem-awardees https://dodstem.us/blog-posts/2020/national-defense-education-program-stem-awardees

Q66: Are the requirements for documenting consulting arrangements the same for the prime applicant and sub-awardees?

A66: Yes.

Q67: Are there any restrictions on allocating the requested funds over the period of performance (provided we abide by all of the stated requirements)? Heavy development work would take place in years 1 and 2 and require higher costs relative to years 3 and 4.

Q68: Are full proposal budgets allowed to deviate from the rough order of magnitude costs included in the White Paper submissions (provided we stay within the budget cap)?

Q69: Can the budget be adjusted from the amount proposed in the white paper to reflect changes that may have occurred in opportunities or constraints that affect the ideal scope and management of the proposed project?

Q70: Are we obligated to use the budget that we submitted with the white paper or can we make adjustments to that budget. There have been some personnel changes so we need to know how to handle that in the budget.

Q71: On the most recent amendment to the package instructions, on page 23, there is a note that if an applicant submitted a white paper for the maximum amount of $3 million over 3 years, then their budget in the technical application must match that amount. Our budget breakdown submitted as part of our white paper was less than that ($1.8 million over 3 years).

Do we need to stick exactly to our budget breakdown provided in the white paper or can the amount submitted in technical application deviate from that amount? It wouldn't be by much but as we dig into more specifics we're unsure if we have any wiggle room to adjust the amount originally submitted.

Q72: Can you provide clarification on the award amount? For the scaleup, would we receive $3mil over the first 3 years and an additional $3mil the 4th year, or will we be able to budget the total $6mil over 4 years? For Example, could we use some of the $3mil scaleup funds in years 2 and 3 to help lay the groundwork for scaleup in year 4?

A67-72: The grant funding amounts are on pages 1, 4, and 14 of the FOA. Budget allocation is to the discretion of the applicant, so long as the maximum award amount is not exceeded.

Applications for less than the stated amounts on pages 1, 4, and 14 of the FOA will be accepted as well. The scope of the project and how the requested funds are allocated are at the proposer’s discretion. Full proposal budget line items may deviate slightly from what was submitted in the White Paper, but the overall budget should remain the same as originally submitted.

Q73: We are applying for the scaleable STEM activities grant and I'd like to clarify the period of performance. We have mapped out performance objectives over 4 years in accordance with the funding timeline for the scale up grant. However, the announcement references including options for performance periods. Should we include performance period options for the non-scale up (i.e. 3 year) timeline as well in the event that our application is selected but not for the scale up amount and timeline?

A73: See page 23 “For STEM Applicants” for guidance on the congruence for White Paper and Technical Application budget amount. The invitation to apply to the Full Technical Application included whether the applicant was approved to apply for a scale-up (4-year) award or base (3 year) award. The performance option should be based on that approved award timeline.

Q74: Should the budget include funds for the PI to travel to any DoD meetings?

A74: Yes.

Q75: Beyond what is outlined in the package, what level of detail is required when describing facilities and equipment needed? Do these need to be described for the sub-awardees, too?

A75: Describe the facilities and equipment as stated on page 27 of the FOA. If the proposed efforts plan to use the facilities and equipment of the sub-awardee, describe it as well.

Q76: Is the Research and Related Other Project Information Form, field 10 (Facilities & Other Resources) attachment required? If so, what should be attached? Is this different than the “Facilities & Equipment” section of the Technical Application (project narrative)?

Q77: Is the Research and Related Other Project Information Form, field 11 (Equipment) attachment required? If so, what should be attached? Is this different than the “Facilities & Equipment” section of the Technical Application (project narrative)?

Q78: I see that Facilities and Equipment are a required section of the Technical Application. As such, are separate Facilities and Equipment docs attached to the Research and Related Project Information form in Grants.gov not required?

Q79: Should we include facilities and equipment information within the Technical Application

PDF, and leave Field 10. Facilities & Other Resources and Field 11. Equipment blank?

A76-79: OPI form fields 10-11 are optional. If use of Facilities and Equipment is contemplated by the applicant, all relevant details and justifications shall be documented in the Technical Application.

Q80: Reports: 1 page requirement: Please confirm that the requirement is simply to acknowledge the list of Required Reports.

Q81: The funding announcement lists the reports section is listed as required, but appears to list due dates that are after the award has been made. Could you please clarify for us what information we should do / include in that section of our proposal?

Q82: For the reports section, "Reports – The Applicant must acknowledge that the following reports are required under a DoD funded STEM effort:" Are you simply asking for a sentence that says "We acknowledge the reporting requirements of a DoD funded STEM effort"?

Q83: Reports: what specific language is required in this section? (page 23 of the FOA). Beyond acknowledging that the monthly, quarterly, annual and final reports will be provide following the described guidelines, what other information is required in this section?

Q84: What is the preferred format for the "Reports" section of the application where applicants acknowledge the reporting requirements for the award period? Should the reporting requirements be enumerated as they are in the announcement with an indication of acceptance, or should we elaborate on how we will complete each of the reporting requirements?

A80-84: The proposal must contain language which acknowledges report requirements, and state how the proposer will manage and complete reporting details.

Q85: Where shall applicants upload the “Data Management Plan” referenced in the “How to

Submit an Application via Grants.gov” instructions on page 32 of the FOA Amendment No. 3?

Q86: Is there a required length for the Data Management Plan?

Q87: What is the preferred format for a Data Management Plan? The contents of the plan are described in section V.B.2. on page 32 of the announcement; however, I did not see where in the technical application and/or in the R&R forms the plan should be submitted.

A85-87: The format for all components of the technical application is on page 19 of the FOA.

The Data Management Plan should not exceed two pages and included under the generic

“Other Attachments” field 12 of the RR Other Project Information form. Information on the

Data Management Plan can be found in DoDI 3200.12, Section 3.c. of Enclosure 3.

(https://www.esd.whs.mil/Portals/54/Documents/DD/issuances/dodi/320012p.pdf?ver=2019-

04-30-073122-220).

The suggested contents of the Data Management Plan can include the following:

(1) The types of data, software, and other materials to be produced.

(2) How the data will be acquired.

(3) Time and location of data acquisition, if scientifically pertinent.

(4) How the data will be processed.

(5) The file formats and the naming conventions that will be used.

(6) A description of the quality assurance and quality control measures during collection, analysis, and processing.

(7) A description of dataset origin when existing data resources are used.

(8) A description of the standards to be used for data and metadata format and content.

(9) Appropriate timeframe for preservation.

(10) The plan may consider the balance between the relative value of data preservation and other factors such as the associated cost and administrative burden. The plan will provide a justification for such decisions.

(11) A statement that the data cannot be made available to the public when there are national security or controlled unclassified information concerns (e.g., “This data cannot be cleared for public release in accordance with the requirements in DoD Directive 5230.09.”)

Q88: How is the “Financial Breakdown – no more than 2 pages” referenced in the technical instructions on page 19 of the FOA Amendment No. 3, different than the “Budget Justification” referenced in the “R&R Form: Research & Related Budget” instructions on page 28 which gets uploaded and attached to the R&R Budget Form?

https://www.esd.whs.mil/Portals/54/Documents/DD/issuances/dodi/320012p.pdf?ver=2019-04-30-073122-220 https://www.esd.whs.mil/Portals/54/Documents/DD/issuances/dodi/320012p.pdf?ver=2019-04-30-073122-220

Q89: What is the page limit for the “Financial Breakdown”? The requirement in the technical application referenced on pages 19 and 23 of the FOA Amendment No. 3, is limited to no more than two pages; however, further down below on page 19, the instructions read that there is no page limit to the Budget.

Q90: Is there a page limit on the budget justification?

Q91: Please clarify the Financial Breakdown requirement in the technical application versus the budget - are these the same item?

Q92: Will you discuss the intended distinction/differences and overlap between the financial breakdown section in the technical narrative and the budget justification attachment in the

R&R Budget form?

Q93: It looks like we need to provide a budget justification attached to the R&R Budget in addition to the finance section? How do these pieces differ?

Q94: Do you have any examples or additional instructions regarding what information should be included in the financial breakdown versus what should be included in the budget justification?

A88-94: Please refer to page 23 of the FOA for the financial breakdown in which applications will include a narrative explaining the budget details and page 27-29 for itemized budget information with detailed numbers. As stated on page 19, the Financial Breakdown is not to exceed 2 pages. However, the RR Budget Form is also required. The RR Budget form is not included in the 2 page Financial Breakdown page limit.

Q95: To answer Q2 under the Responsibility section, what is expected in the bidder response regarding “to the extent to which any previously awarded amounts will be expended prior to future awards?”

A95: Describe how the Senior/Key Personnel has managed previous Federal awards. If the proposed activity has had prior funding, the accounting of funds and how they were used in program execution should be described. If there is overlap between previous funding and funding from this FOA, describe how they will each be accounted for and used towards project execution.

Q96: Are websites allowed to be cited in the “References” section? Page 26 of the amended

BAA states “References– Literature citations.” Would a website that is not peer reviewed literature be allowed to be cited here?

A96: Websites can be used as references using the same citation format for other literature citations in the references.

Q97: Can the detailed subaward budgets be included in the Budget Justification attached to the Budget form? Must the subaward budgets be signed off on somehow by the subrecipients? If yes, should this be within the subaward budgets be included in the Budget Justification? In the subrecipients’ letters of support? Elsewhere in the application?

A97: It is at the discretion of the applicant to include detailed subaward budgets, justification, and other supporting documentation as part of their full technical application package.

Subaward budget is an agreement between the primary awardee and the subrecipient.

Q98: What is acceptable as “...other documentation supporting the proposed consultant rate/cost, and a copy of the consultant’s proposed statement of work if it is not already separately identified in the prime contractor’s application” (pg. 29 of the most recent 3/31/21 FOA package)?

Q99: The FOA says the Budget Justification must include “a copy of the signed Consulting Agreement or other documentation supporting the proposed consultant rate/cost” for any planned consultants. Would the consultant’s proposed scope of work, including a budget schedule, qualify as “other documentation supporting the proposed consultant rate/cost”?

Must this be signed off on somehow by the consultant?

A98-99: The consultant’s proposed scope of work, including a budget schedule, qualify as “other documentation supporting the proposed consultant rate/cost”. If other supporting documentation, it does not have to be signed off by the consultant. The primary applicant is ultimately responsible for the accuracy of the information provided.

Q100: The requirements for the Technical Approach and Justification point 6 (page 23) references “bullets on p. 6 that pertain to CIVICS”. Does this indicate that applicants should go through the blanket bullet points at the top of page 6 and address the CIVICS related ones, or does it mean that applicants should address the bullet points under the CIVICS section at the bottom of page 9?

Q101: Do all elements described in the FOA (4. “Technical Application Content;” p. 23) apply to enhanced civics proposals? For example, are enhanced civics applicants required to “Discuss increased or enhanced opportunities to disseminate information on DoD STEM programs and careers”? If this element does apply to enhanced civics proposals, should we focus on

STEM careers in DOD or can we range more widely to STEM public service careers in federal, state and local governments?

A100-101: Civics applicants do not need to incorporate STEM activities into their proposed program. Information of program requirements pertaining to Enhanced Civics Education can be found on pages 6, 9-10.

Q102: For the advanced civics education project, must all of the participating students be enrolled in JrROTC?

A102: Page 10 of the FOA has guidance for eligible entities for the Enhanced Civics Pilot Program and doesn’t limit student participation to only JROTC.

Q103: Am I correct that a completed SF-LLL must be attached to field 18 of form SF-424 (R&R) only if any funds other than Federal appropriated funds have been paid or will be paid to any person for influencing or attempting to influence an officer or employee of any agency, a

Member of Congress, an officer or employee of Congress, or an employee of a Member of Congress in connection with the Federal contract, grant, loan, or cooperative agreement?

A103: Yes.

Q104: What should be attached to field 20 of the SF-424 (R&R)? This field is titled “Pre- Application,” but I do not see any reference to a pre-application in the FOA. Is this a required attachment?

A104: Not a required field.

Q105: What should be attached to field 21 of the SF-424 (R&R)? This field is titled “Cover Letter,” but I do not see any reference to a cover letter in the FOA. Is this a required attachment?

Q106: The grants.gov application includes a place in SF-424 to upload a Pre-application and Cover Letter. Neither is mentioned in the FOA. Are these documents required?

Q107: SF-424 (Research & Related) is listed as required. Is this the same as the Cover for the Technical Application?

A105-107: Not a required field.

Q108: Am I correct that Letters of Support should be attached to the Research and Related Other Project Information Form, field 12 (Other Attachments)?

Q109: If we include references in the application, should we upload those as a separate PDF to

Field 9. Bibliography & References Cited?

Q110: If we include letters of support in the application, should we upload those as a separate

PDF to Field 12. Other Attachments?

A108-110: References and Letters of Support should be included with the Technical Application.

These documents are typically placed at the end.

Q111: Collaborators & other affiliations information is not listed in the list of required documents within the FOA. Is this information required? If yes where and in what format?

A111: Subaward/subcontractor information is required in the Financial Breakdown, and key collaborators should be identified in the Qualifications section of the Technical Application and the R&R Key Personnel form.

Q112: Is there an online information seminar that we could attend that gives more insight into applying for this opportunity?

A112: No.

Q113: The FOA on page 28 mentions that Subawards should be included with the Prime’s application. How should this inclusion be portrayed?

A113: See pages 23 and 28 for information on subawards.

Q114: To whom and at what mailing address should we address letters of support?

A114: Support letters can be addressed to the applicant in support of their proposed activity to

NDEP. Support letters should be included in the application package. If a letter must be mailed, it can be sent to the address in the FOA. However, there is no guarantee that DoD will receive it before the evaluation period.

Q115: Does DoD have a model of youth mentorship they prefer to see in educational program proposals (e.., career exposure, in-depth 1:1 mentoring)?

Q116: Are there anticipated regions or target numbers that could help clarify the Department’s expectations for dissemination plans?

A115-116: The scope of the project is at the proposer’s discretion. Recommend having a clear vision in the proposal that is ready to implement upon award and complete within the parameters of the FOA.

Q117: Must we identify partnerships with these schools, and secure their commitments to the program – prior to the program start date? Or would this be done in collaboration with DoD, upon award?

Q118: As part of our proposed work, we will be working with high school teachers. We were wondering if we need to provide support letters from teachers or schools at this point. Will support letters from the organizations within our university who have access to a large network of high school teachers be sufficient.

A117-118: See page 26 on Letters of Support. Typically Letters of Support would come from someone in leadership position from a school, district, university, or organization. Applications must have Letters of Support from the partnerships stated in their proposal.

Q119: When the white paper was submitted, my colleague, was listed as PI. I was going to take on the role of Co-PI. We have since discussed and see some advantages to exchanging roles, as long it wouldn’t hurt our proposal chances. Would it hurt our chances to make a switch?

A119: The selection of the PI and/or Co-PI is at the proposer’s discretion. However, if there is a switch of lead P.I. from the White Paper application to the Full Technical Application, the applicant must provide explanation of the P.I. change in the Qualifications section.

Q120: Can hyperlinks be used in the application?

A120: Yes.

Q121: Re P. 28: Subawards / Subcontracts: Our project will involve subawards to 14 school districts where we plan to replicate our existing program over a period of four years. Although

4 sites have been confirmed, the remaining sites will not be identified until later in the project and certainly not before we submit our application in April. Are we allowed to just include an estimated budget for subawards to those yet-to-be-named sites and just give them generic names, e.g., Replication Site 5, Replication Site 6, etc.?

A121: Each subaward should be a line item and budget amount. However, the location can be identified as ‘To Be Determined’.

Q122: P. 22 (c) R&R Form: Research and Related Other Project Information (Mandatory) Field 8

– Project Narrative: Is the Project Narrative that is uploaded in Field 8 just a single PDF that includes all the content as broken down on p. 19 and described on pp. 22-27?

A122: Follow the guidance for project narrative on page 22 of the FOA.

Q123: How should the budget period(s) be assigned? Should Budget Period 1 cover the full (4-year) grant period? Or do we need to create a separate budget period for each year?

Q124: On the R&R Budget Form, is Budget Period 1 the first 12 months of the grant? Does the form in grants.gov allow us to create additional pages for Budget Periods 2 and 3?

A123-124: Budget Period 1 should begin on the date of the award and run for 12 months.

Grants.gov allows the creation of additional budget pages.

Q125: On page 28, at the top in the first paragraph, it states the following: “This document shall be attached under Section K. “Budget Justification” of the Research and Related Budget form.

Click “Add Attachment” to attach.” However, when I go into the "Research & Related Budget" form, the place where you attach the "Budget Justification" is under Section L.

A125: Budget Justification should be attached in Section L.