HQ003421R0162 AMENDMENT 01.pdf

FR043020210930

AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION/MODIFICATION OF CONTRACT

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)

30-105-04EXCEPTION TO SF 30

APPROVED BY OIRM 11-84

STANDARD FORM 30 (Rev. 10-83)

Prescribed by GSA

FAR (48 CFR) 53.243

1. The purpose of this Amendment is to provide responses to the questions received from the interested vendors electronically via email before the May 20th, 2021 deadline.

2. Attachment 2 - Key Personnel chart has been revised.

1. CONTRACT ID CODE PAGE OF PAGES

J 1 7

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

16C. DATE SIGNED

BY 27-May-2021

16B. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA15C. DATE SIGNED15B. CONTRACTOR/OFFEROR

(Signature of Contracting Officer)(Signature of person authorized to sign)

8. NAME AND ADDRESS OF CONTRACTOR (No., Street, County, State and Zip Code) X HQ003421R0162

X 9B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

10-May-2021

10B. DATED (SEE ITEM 13)

9A. AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION NO.

11. THIS ITEM ONLY APPLIES TO AMENDMENTS OF SOLICITATIONS

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

Offer 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 1 copies of the amendment; (b) By acknowledging receipt of this amendment on each copy of the offer submitted;

or (c) By separate letter or telegram 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 telegram or letter, provided each telegram or letter 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 NO. AS DESCRIBED IN ITEM 14.

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

CONTRACT ORDER NO. IN ITEM 10A.

B. THE ABOVE NUMBERED CONTRACT/ORDER IS MODIFIED TO REFLECT THE ADMINISTRATIVE CHANGES (such as changes in paying office, appropriation date, 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.)

10A. MOD. OF CONTRACT/ORDER NO.

2. AMENDMENT/MODIFICATION NO. 5. PROJECT NO.(If applicable)

6. ISSUED BY

3. EFFECTIVE DATE

27-May-2021

CODE

WHS - ACQUISITION DIRECTORATE

4800 MARK CENTER DRIVE, SUITE 09F09

ALEXANDRIA VA 22350-0002

HQ0034 7. ADMINISTERED BY (If other than item 6)

4. REQUISITION/PURCHASE REQ. NO.

CODE

See Item 6

FACILITY CODECODE

EMAIL:TEL:

HQ003421R0162

SECTION SF 30 BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE

SUMMARY OF CHANGES

SECTION SF 30 - BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE

The following have been added by full text:

QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS

RFQ HQ003421R0162 - TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER

QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS

1. Can the contract be awarded to a private company/organization in conjunction with a University that results in a public-private partnership on Defense Innovation or can a University work with a private company/organization as a subcontractor if the contract can only be awarded to a University?

ANSWER: The prime performer must be a university with a business or law school. Any further arrangements they make with any other entities are solely at their discretion.

a. Does the Prime Contractor need to be a University?

ANSWER: The prime performer must be a university with a business or law school. Any further arrangements they make with any other entities are solely at their discretion.

b. Does the Offeror have to be one SAM or can it be two (i.e., one for a University and one for a private company/organization)?

ANSWER: The University must be registered in Systems for Award Management (SAM.gov).

2. Information Available for Review by Contractor

a. Will the proposals and research results from sponsored research programs from the private sector be available for review (e.g., DoD funded SBIR/STTR research)?

ANSWER: Anything in a public domain is available for use. DoD will not provide copies of other Universities proposals.

b. How (and how well) has the DoD categorized its dual-use technology (e.g., markets, products, technology) and will that information be available for review?

ANSWER: There is no existing or curated data set for this study. There is no standard format or requirement to collect this information.

c. Will access to prior dual-use commercialization efforts (both successes and failures) be available for review to facilitate the effectiveness of existing policies?

ANSWER: Anything in a public domain is available for use.

3. Dual-Use Technology Commercialization Facilitators

a. Has the DoD considered using blockchain structures to manage, track, and trace IP rights and IP licensing agreements?

ANSWER: OSD is open to all recommendations provided they address the parameters defined in the posted RFP.

b. Has the DoD previously leveraged private investment to demonstrate efficacy of dual-use technology to facilitate its licensing (e.g., develop a prototype)? If not, is this something that the DoD would be open to considering?

ANSWER: OSD is open to all recommendations provided they address the parameters defined in the posted RFP.

4. Section 4.1.2.3 – If we are developing a “research-as-a-service” innovation platform for private companies seeking innovation that the DoD could leverage as a research service provider, would that preclude us from working on this portion of the deliverable?

ANSWER: No; this would not preclude a university from working on this portion of the deliverable.

5. Section 5 – How is the Performance Threshold determined for each Performance Objective (e.g., what are the criteria and how is a score for each criteria determined)?

ANSWER: The contractor is responsible to provide a Quality Control Plan (QCP) to emphasize the importance of quality during the proposal evaluation phase of the source selection.

a. Are we going to work on a provided dataset or curate our own dataset?

ANSWER: There is no existing or curated data set for this study. Performers will need to work with POCs for each laboratory identified for inclusion in the study to request desired materials. There is no standard format or requirement to collect this information.

b. If it’s a provided dataset, how much raw data do we have and how much labeled data? Will there be a leaderboard (Kaggle-like) for the performance competition?

ANSWER: There is no existing or curated data set for this study. Performers will need to work with POCs for each laboratory identified for inclusion in the study to request desired materials. There is no standard format or requirement to collect this information.

6. Section 7.2 – Will the QASP be shared to help Contractor design the QCP to help ensure that the QCP will meet the Government’s performance standards and metrics?

ANSWER: Per 7.1 of the Performance Work Statement the Contractor is responsible for implementing and maintaining a Quality Control Plan (QCP) that identifies and results in the correction of potential and actual problems. The contractor is responsible to provide a Quality Control Plan (QCP) to emphasize the importance of

7. Section 13 – How is the Acceptable Quality Level determined for each Deliverable (e.g., what are the criteria and how is a score for each criteria determined)?

ANSWER: The contractor is responsible to provide a Quality Control Plan (QCP) to emphasize the importance of

8. What is meant by "95% accuracy” in the PWS performance threshold? With what metrics? How will the government measure that? Will we know in advance of contract award so that we can properly prepare the proposal?

ANSWER: The Government does not expect 100% accuracy; measurement will be made in accordance with the

QASP.

9. The RFP and the Congressional language call for proposals by a "university business school or law school".

Could the business and law schools of a single university together submit a proposal? Could business and/or law schools from more than one university submit a joint proposal?

ANSWER: Yes. Joint proposals are permissible as long as the prime performer is a university with a business or law school. The prime will need to be registered in System for Award Management (SAM.gov). Any further arrangements they make with any other entities are solely at their discretion.

10. On the first two pages of the RFP, under items #15 and #20 on p. 1 and under item #19 on p. 2, the RFP states, “SEE SCHEDULE.” Please clarify the schedule(s) to which these items refer, and please provide them.

ANSWER: Reference the RFP, 52.212-1 Instruction to Offerors and 52.212-2 Evaluation.

11. “Attachment 2: Key personnel qualification (Chart)” does not correspond well to the standard academic professor’s curriculum vitae. In addition to listing our degrees and employment, we also mainly list articles and books published, working papers, outside committees served on (e.g., Committees of the National Academy of

Sciences, Engineering and Medicine), etc. The publications are the main list of our achievements. So, can we provide a list of our publications, which convey our subject matter expertise, rather than list capabilities, duties and experiences as currently requested? This same attachment ends at the bottom of the second page, but it ends with the statement, “…used to satisfy or exceed the key personnel requirements:” The use of a colon at the end suggests that more text should follow, but the attachment ends there. So, is there missing material?

ANSWER: Yes, information was truncated which will be corrected in an amendment to the RFP. The information after the colon should read: Please provide a copy of the certificate or list the certification, the issuing institution, the year obtained, and the license number, if applicable. Copies of certificates shall be made available. Please provide list of experiences, publications, etc. that ensures the SME has the breadth and depth to carry out the proposed work in a timely fashion and successfully.

12. Regarding Volume II, “Key personnel qualifications” in Table 1 on p. 20, it states the page limit as 3 pages per

Key Personnel. Is that 3 pages per person, or 3 pages in total for all personnel?

ANSWER: Three (3) pages maximum per person.

13. Table 1, Volume III, “Past performance”, which refers to Attachment 3, “Past performance questionnaire,” does this cover only DOD supported projects? Again, academics do little work for contract, which is the focus of the document. Past performance would typically be reflected in our publication record. Can we include that? In this same document, there is a section entitled, “To be completed by evaluating organization representative.” We have no “project managers” in universities. We have department heads and deans. So, do you want one of them to complete this section?

ANSWER: Reference RFP Section 52.212-2 Evaluation section 2.3.

14. If we wish to administer a brief survey to directors of the sixteen labs identified in the RFP, can the OSD require that the directors respond? If not, can the OSD at least encourage the directors to respond?

ANSWER: No.

15. Can we obtain the documents describing each of the labs’ policies regarding the commercialization of dual-use technologies?

16. Can we obtain all the R&D contracts issued by each of the 16 labs over a specified period of time?

17. For all contracts and grants awarded on the basis of a competitive submission process, can we obtain the submissions, also over a specified period of time, that did not result in the award of a contract or grant?

ANSWER: No, the unsuccessful proposals contain proprietary information and are not releasable.

18. Can we obtain all the technology licenses issued by each of the 16 labs over a specified period of time?

19. Of the sixteen labs listed in section 3.1, pp. 3-4, can you please indicate which are government owned and government operated versus government owned and contractor operated?

ANSWER: All laboratories identified for inclusion in this study are government owned and government operated.

20. Can you please define what is meant by “research as-a-service” as stated in the table in section 5.0.

ANSWER: Research as-a-service means research that is acquired as a service.

21. In the RFP description of the personnel requirements, you indicate that there may be more than one subject matter expert on the project. Consistent with the fact that this project is intended to span both law and economics (or business), we have two subject matter academic experts—an economist and a legal scholar. Can you please confirm that that is permitted?

ANSWER: Yes. The RFP provides minimum personnel requirements for the Subject Matter Expert and the Senior

Researcher.

22. In addition to subject matter experts and a senior researcher, may we also engage a part-time adviser to the project who is also a highly qualified academic?

ANSWER: The RFP provides minimum personnel requirements.

23. Will there be any restrictions on our ability to publish our analyses as long as such analyses do not disclose any information that is either proprietary to a company or compromising of national security?

ANSWER: Publications may be permitted provided it does not disclose proprietary or controlled information. All potential publications will be subject to the public affairs review process within OSD(R&E).

24. Will we hold the copyright to whatever we write in the course of executing this project?

ANSWER: Reference the Performance Work Statement (PWS) Section 2.0(2) sentence two (2) and sentence three

(3). This form of T2 is governed by contracting and intellectual property management policies and regulations

(specifically DoD Directive 5535.03 and DoD Instruction 5535.8). The DoD typically maintains government purpose rights (GPR); however, the private sector entities are encouraged and incentivized to protect and commercialize innovation developed with Federal funding.

25. Can you please send us DOD Directive 5535.03 and DoD Instruction 5535.8 as referenced in section 2.0 (1) of the RFP?

ANSWER: The information is available in a public domain.

26. Will the OUSD(R&E) consider a university team that is partnered with or a subcontractor for either (A) an existing technology defense contractor, (B) a veteran-founded LLC, or (C) a veteran-founded nonprofit?

ANSWER: Yes. The prime performer must be a university with a business or law school and registered in System for Award Management (SAM.gov).

27. Why did the OUSD(R&E) select this set of 20 DoD research Labs for this study?

ANSWER: Selected as directed.

28. Would examining the impact of processes like PPBE/JCIDS or the role of other entities such as DoD Program

Offices be within scope for this study?

ANSWER: OSD is open to all recommendations provided they address the parameters defined in the posted RFP.

29. What other institutions have expressed interest in the proposal?

ANSWER: Only the successful contractor is made known publicly after the award is made.

30. To what degree does OUSD(R&E) want to understand the intersection of contracting & IP legal theory with economics from an academic perspective vs. a practitioner perspective? Put differently, is legal advice from a law professor more or less valuable than advice from a lawyer?

ANSWER: The RFP provides minimum personnel requirements for the Subject Matter Expert and the Senior

Researcher.

31. As legal scholarship is the prime motivator for top law scholars as to how they spend their time, is there an opportunity for law professors or students involved in the project to publish academic research related to (however tangentially) or derived from work on this project? Or are these expressly prohibited from doing so?

ANSWER: Publications may be permitted provided it does not disclose proprietary or controlled information. All potential publications will be subject to the public affairs review process within OSD(R&E).

32. Would there be interest in examining the economic impact of various innovation frameworks on encouraging T2 and commercialization?

ANSWER: OSD is open to all recommendations provided they address the parameters defined in the posted RFP.

33. Can research assistant students work pro bono for academic professional experience credits (specific law school graduation requirements)?

ANSWER: This decision is at the University’s discretion.

34. Does OUSD(R&E) have an ideal as to how it wants to create value from innovation or an ideal as to ownership as innovation value can be spurred by IP protections or by making technology free to all?

ANSWER: OSD is open to all recommendations provided they address the parameters defined in the posted RFP.

35. Does OUSD(R&E) have any policy guidance on how it views the inherent tension between commercialization

(IP use limitations to restrict supply to generate profit) vs. follow-on innovations (which may be further spurred by open access to IP without restriction)?

36. Can we submit SME’s from the Stanford Business and Law Schools’ in a proposal generated from our non-profit or a commercial partner and not from a Stanford/university entity? If no we may be able to push through Stanford

Office of Sponsored Research but currently they estimate it will not have time to give this the review our university requires.

ANSWER: Yes. The prime performer must be a university with a business or law school and will need to be registered in System for Award Management (SAM.gov). Any further arrangements they make with any other entities are solely at their discretion.

Stanford has a lengthy review process for sponsored research submissions. I’ve contacted colleagues in the business and law school here describing the expertise we hope to enlist in executing this assessment. It is unlikely that

Stanford will be able to administratively approve our proposal by the deadline. The solicitation asks to partner with a university business or law school. I am part of an interdisciplinary center that can reach out across the university to build the team we have in mind to conduct this assessment.

ANSWER: The timeline has already been established. The RFP will not be extended at this time.

37. Can key personnel include Too Be Named (TBN) faculty hires and/or TBN post-doctoral students?

ANSWER: No; the RFP provides minimum personnel requirements.

38. Can the experience and expertise (and estimated number of hours) for the Subject Matter Expert and the Senior

Researcher (and other Labor Categories) be shared across more than one individual?

ANSWER: Yes as long as the proposed team covers all Subject Matter Experts to execute their research approach successfully and in a timely fashion.

39. Is it possible to extend the deadline by 30 days?

ANSWER: No; the RFP will not be extended at this time.

40. Can loaded hourly rates include fringe benefits as well as indirect costs using the university’s federally negotiated indirect rate?

ANSWER: This will be a Firm Fixed Price contract.

41. PAST PERFORMANCE QUESTIONNAIRE, should we include relevant past projects performed by the

University, or only relevant past projects performed by identified Key Personnel?

ANSWER: Reference RFP 52.212-2. Past performance is for an entity, not a person. The only way the persons past performance is relevant is if they worked for the institution at the time (in which case, it is the institution).

42. Before we apply, is it possible to have a phone or Zoom conversation with you?

43. Could you please tell me if the Combined Synopsis/Solicitation posted as solicitation number HQ003421R0162 will be a follow-on requirement to any work performed currently or in the past, or will this be a new requirement?

ANSWER: This is not a follow-on requirement.

44. If possible, can you please provide the most recent contract or task order number?

ANSWER: No; this is a new requirement.

(End of Summary of Changes)