QandA Document Colleges and Universities RFI v4.pdf

Questions and Answers as of 060701DEC22

ADMINISTRATIVE NOTE: questions are listed “as-is”, with no copy editing. If there are errors in spelling, grammar and punctuation in the questions we get, we reprint them as they are sent. The Government accepts no responsibility for the formatting or structure of questions as they are listed below. Answers come from either the Contracting Officer or the requiring activity subject matter expert. As questions are asked and answered, they will be appended to the preceding questions.

REMINDER: This Sources Sought Notice is NOT a Request for Proposals or Quotes. The Government is not asking for prices or any offer from any party.

Costs incurred in responding to this Notice are not reimbursable.

Q1: Regarding the RFI W90BWX-23-T-SCM1: I just wanted to confirm that the documents provided onSAM.gov are what was intended. In the RFI “Description” on SAM.gov, the following statement is made: “The purpose of this RFI is to gather information from potential Academia vendors showing their ability to support the following Army Modernization Strategies in the technology areas identified above: (1) Hypersonic Flight: Aerodynamics, materials, and processes; (2) Artificial Intelligence: Increasing speed and agility in which we respond to emerging threats; (3)Autonomy: Autonomous mission planning, collaboration, and reactive behaviors for aviation and missile systems; (4) Material by Design: Protection overmatch against future threats; and (5)Science of Additive Manufacturing: For next generation weapon systems for increased range and lethality.” However, none of the bolded terms above are included in the PWS, and the PWS requirements seem more appropriate for an industry SETA contract than a university research contract. Is it possible that the PWS is not what was intended, or are we only looking to the current PWS as an example of the “technology areas” and not the specifics of potential task orders?

A1: While some of these functions have in the past been performed by either USG employees or supporting contractors, the Government seeks to develop relationships with colleges and universities for these fields of study, much as we have in other areas of defense research. The provided PWS was intended to be generic in scope and not directly related to any specific potential contract actions. If you have any suggestions regarding it, we’d love to hear them.

Q2: Can the following can be put in an Appendix that does not count against the page limit?

List of personnel (including relevant backgrounds)

Previous/current relevant contracts

List of acronyms used in the RFI response

Secondly, the RFI asks for feedback on a couple of matters, including 1) suggestions on contract type and length and 2) lessons learned from previous contracts. Would you like this to be on a cover page or perhaps also in an appendix (that doesn't count against page limits)?

A2: The page count limit has been increased by five to 20 pages. Appendices are acceptable.

Feedback on contract type or previous related acquisitions can be included as an appendix/attachment.

Q3: Are capabilities directly related to effective missile launching and targeting, such as full integration and control of systems such as truck-based launchers, consider in scope for this RFI?

Or is the intent to focus only on the “flying” parts of the systems (planes, drones, missiles)?

A3: Ground launcher and targeting systems may be considered in-scope for this

RFI.

Q4: The PWS Appendix A discusses Task Order Requirements. Part of the RFI response is to provide input on the contract vehicle to best satisfy the requirement. Does DEVCOM AvMC anticipate the award of an IDIQ contract (i.e.

should our RFI response focus on the best type of IDIQ award or any type of contract award)?

A4: We welcome recommendations regarding type of contract vehicle. There is no requirement to pursue an IDIQ.

Q5: What is the anticipated Period of Performance?

A5: Five years.

Q6: Does DEVCOM AvMC have a specific expectation for the amount of small business participation?

A6: Any award made will be to academia only.

Q7: Will DEVCOM AvMC require the awardee to have a presence near Redstone Arsenal, AL? If so, what kind of presence?

A7: No.

Q8: Does DEVCOM AvMC anticipate having small business utilization including utilization of small disadvantaged business as evaluation criteria?

A8: No.

Q9: Is the training requirment the same for working at an offsite Army facility? Will trainings from other branches of the DoD be accepted in place of the Army training?

A9: Training will be considered as long as that training meets or exceeds Army requirements.

Q10: The PWs perfomance requirements outline a significant number of technical areas. How many technical areas are expected to be demonstrated in order to be considered for award?

A10: All capabilities submitted in your response will be evaluated. Your institution does not have to have capability in each and every area to be evaluated.

Q11: Is DEVCOM AvMC publishing this sources sought notice/RFI to comply with the requirement at DFARS PGI 206.302-1?

A11: No. This is a market research effort.

Q12: Does DEVCOM AvMC have an existing or legacy contract which supports/supported these requirements? If so, who is/was the incumbent and what is the contract number?

A12: No. This work has been performed in the past, but there is no current contract in place. This work has been accomplished through a mix of commercial, Government and academic sources, not associated with any one previous contract.

Q13: Is there a suggested format or template for the White Paper?

A13: No. The intent is to allow institutions the ability to use materials they have at hand rather than force them to invest time and effort conforming to a Government template.

Q14: In the RFI in Paragraph 5 item 4 asks for "Input on the contract vehicle to best satisfy this requirement." We are not sure what this means or what you are looking for - are you wanting to know what type of contract vehicle would work best for us?

A14: That’s correct. We want to know what the field considers the most-accessible and efficient type of award.