VEDDER Questions and Answers for RPP - 18 June 2026.pdf

VEDDER QUESTIONS & ANSWERS

Questions Answers 1.

The RPP contemplates award of up to three distinct PAP agreements, each potentially supporting different biotechnology domains and commercialization frameworks. Could the Government provide additional insight regarding the types of accelerator ecosystems it is seeking to establish (e.g., AI-enabled biotechnology, medical countermeasures, biomanufacturing, digital biology, validation and testing infrastructure, etc.) and whether PAPs are expected to operate independently or as complementary components of a broader VEDDER portfolio?

The Government is intentionally not limiting the scope or defining a specific area of focus for preproposals. Because the U.S. bioindustrial base is not standardized and operates under diverse business models, the approaches to accelerating and scaling these capabilities vary significantly.

Recognizing that no single accelerator model is universally effective across the entire biotechnology spectrum, the Government invites industry partners to propose innovative approaches. Preproposals should define and justify the specific type of accelerator ecosystem required to effectively scale their proposed segment of the biotechnology spectrum.

The RPP has pivoted away from the RFI to request innovative approaches rather than a specific type of ecosystem based on the feedback received that so many Non-for-Profits (NFP) have the capability to cross multiple biotechnology domains.

2. Does the Government intend to define domain boundaries for each of the up to three PAP awards prior to selection, or will awards be made based on overall merit regardless of domain overlap between competing proposals?

See Answer above

3.

The Technical Approach requests both a Cost-Share & Capital Matching Strategy and Commercialization Performance metrics. For purposes of evaluation, does the Government anticipate direct private capital co-investment into portfolio companies as the primary model, or would broader commercialization pathways that may include venture engagement, strategic industry partnerships, licensing, startup formation, The Government defines successful completion as a self-sustaining PAP that meets the finalized KPIs. The EXAMPLE KPIs listed in Technical Exhibit I can be negotiated. Any offerors that propose higher KPIs would be graded higher.

translational funding programs, and non-dilutive capital, be considered responsive to this requirement?

Self-sustaining includes both: (1) successfully achieving pre-determined KPIs; and (2) a system [consistent, healthy pipeline of B2B innovation, accelerated CBRN defense aligned capability TRL and MRL, and diverse exit pathways for B2Bs] with continuous operational liquidity and reduced dependency on USG capital. The Government will consider all unique approaches that will provide prototypes for improving platforms, systems, components, or materials to enhance the mission effectiveness for DoW Personnel.

The Government is intentionally not limiting the scope or defining a specific approach for achieving a successful PAP.

4. As part of the Technical Approach a Cost-Share and Capital Matching strategy is identified as item 5 in the preface but not addressed elsewhere in the RPP. Are there specific Cost-Share goals, targets, or requirements that the Government is seeking?

Please see above.

5.

The Government's vision emphasizes rapid commercial-style B2B execution, startup engagement, technology transition, and commercialization. Would the Government consider a university-led accelerator model responsive if it demonstrates established capabilities in technology scouting, startup formation, venture engagement, IP management, translational development, and execution of milestone-based agreements with non-traditional performers?

Yes. The Government’s vision is to select Preproposals with an innovative approach encompassing a uniquely qualified team and resourcing, possessing proven specialized expertise in accelerating biotechnology.

In line with this objective, the Government welcomes innovative, structured approaches from all accelerator models that provide a clear actionable strategy for achieving defined Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) and establishing long-term self-sustainability (as detailed above).

6. Can the Government provide additional guidance on what structural mechanisms; such as independent investment committees or mandatory recusal protocols, it considers essential for a Draft VEDDER OCI Mitigation Plan to receive a passing determination?

While the RPP does not explicitly mandate specific structural mechanisms, it requires that the plan address three core types of conflicts of interest, which are consistent with the principles outlined in the FAR Subpart 9.5 Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS) Subpart 209.5. The VEDDER OCI Plan should not just promise to be fair, but should detail the specific, verifiable, and enforceable structural mechanisms that will be put in place to guarantee impartiality.

7.

For the Private Capital Multiplier Key Performance Indicator (KPI), does the Government consider non-cash contributions such as committed High-Performance Computing (HPC) time, mentorship, or in-kind technical services from academic or national laboratory partners as eligible toward the private-to-public capital ratio, or is the multiplier limited to direct financial investment?

No. For the purpose of calculating any proposed mathematical Private Capital Multiplier KPI, eligibility is strictly limited to direct private capital investments, which must be considered liquid cash contributions (e.g., venture capital, private equity, or corporate co-investment).

However, the Government highly values non-cash/in-kind contributions—such as committed High-Performance Computing (HPC) time, industry mentorship, or specialized technical services from academic and national laboratory partners. While these cannot be counted toward the private-to-public financial multiplier ratio, the Government invites offerors to propose a separate, custom KPI(s) that objectively demonstrates and measures the value of these non-cash contributions.

If an offeror proposes a distinct, auditable metric to track these valuable in-kind resources, the Government will fully consider and evaluate it as part of the overall strength of the proposed accelerator ecosystem.

Reminder: The KPIs provided in Technical Exhibit 1 are intended as representative examples of potential performance metrics to research successful performance. Offerors are strongly encouraged to propose their own tailored, highly measurable

KPIs that they feel will most accurately and successfully demonstrate the performance, velocity, and health of their unique proposed accelerator ecosystem The Government defines successful completion as a self-sustaining PAP.

Self-sustaining includes both: (1) successfully achieving pre-determined KPIs; and (2) a system [consistent, healthy pipeline of B2B innovation, accelerated CBRN defense aligned capability TRL and MRL, and diverse exit pathways for B2Bs] with continuous operational liquidity and reduced dependency on USG capital.

The Government is intentionally not limiting the scope or defining a specific approach for achieving a successful PAP.

8.

For the greater than 70% non-traditional defense contractor KPI, would a startup that has received a prior Phase I or Phase II Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR) or Small Business Technology Transfer (STTR) award -- but has never performed work subject to full Cost Accounting Standards (CAS) coverage -- qualify as a non-traditional defense contractor under 10 USC 2302(9)?

Yes. A startup that has received prior Phase I or Phase II SBIR/STTR awards but has never performed work subject to full CAS coverage qualifies as a Nontraditional Defense Contractor (NDC). Note: the citing for this NDC determination follows 10 USC 4022 that references 10 USC 3014 and not 10 USC 2302(9).

9.

Section III(B)(1) of the BOTAA requires offerors to indicate the TRL/MRL. Will the Government consider offers from a Consortium Management Firm serving as a neutral third-party managing the accelerator model and not an innovator proposing against one of the listed technology areas?

The Government seeks the most innovative, cohesive accelerator framework capable of continuously driving and scaling dual-use biotechnology capabilities. To demonstrate the immediate viability of their proposed ecosystem, offerors are encouraged to highlight existing, high-potential pipeline projects at various TRL/MRL.

Proposals shall clearly demonstrate how the PAP and its network of PPCs will meet the statutory requirement for significant participation in the prototype project process.

10. Is the base award up to $8 million intended to fund PAP operations only, or both PAP operations and PPC/B2B prototype funding?

Offeror shall propose a high-level ROM for the $8m base and for $95m. Offeror must figure out how to balance BOTH PAP operations and PPC/B2B funding for and $8M and $95M solution to provide the Government the best overall value.

The Government is intentionally not limiting the scope or defining a specific approach for use of funds, but instead, the strongest strategic approach for achieving a successful PAP.

11.

With the base award at $8M with a potential ceiling of $95M, will years two through five be structured as options to be exercised or will additional funding become available as additional requirements are identified?

The Government will not utilize “traditional FAR-based option periods” for this effort. Instead, the resulting agreement will feature a flexible, milestone-based funding structure as proposed and negotiated.

The Government may structure the agreement with scaled funding gates for the PAP’s operational costs, releasing funds incrementally as B2B agreements are approved and initiated. The Government is open to innovative industry solutions regarding how these funding gates are structured.

Furthermore, the Government recognizes that future funding increases may require the PAP to rapidly scale its operations.

Therefore, the agreement will include flexible terms allowing for mutually agreed-upon adjustments to PAP operating costs to accommodate significant changes in overall portfolio funding.

12.

What role does the Government expect to play in the identification of requirements, evaluation of PPC proposals, and selection of PPC’s to receive a B2B agreement?

The Government is intentionally not limiting the scope or defining a specific approach for governance frameworks, management structures, oversight, investment authorities.

The Government looks forward to innovative well detailed Preproposals with technical approaches that detail the ideal management structure required to ensure a PAPs success.

13.

Will the Government consider alternative approaches to the milestone-based FFP structure desired?

Yes, but with strict limitations. The OTA flexible will allow the Government to negotiate alternative payment structures. However, to protect taxpayer funds, any proposed alternative must remain non-cost-reimbursable and must tie payments to verifiable, objective KPIs for technical or business progress. Pricing structure shall only be firm-fixed priced payments. Any alternative structure must provide the Agreements Officer with a clear and easily auditable method for verifying that value has been/will be delivered before funds are disbursed.

14.

Will the Government consider extending the preproposal deadline to allow adequate response time after Q&A answers are published?

We are extending by one day new RPP Due is June 25th by 1300

EST.

15.

Which USG infrastructure resources (HPC, Government wet/dry labs, RDT&E facilities, SMEs) will the Government make available to the PAP and PPCs, and through what access mechanism? The “Access to USG Enabling Resourcing” KPI implies Government-furnished access

— please describe what is in place.

The selected PAP will be fully responsible for securing and maintaining access to any proposed use of U.S. Government (USG) infrastructure, including national laboratories and High- Performance Computing (HPC) centers.

Offerors must propose a clear, actionable strategy in their technical proposal detailing how they plan to facilitate this access. This includes identifying the specific USG resources required and outlining the proposed partnering mechanisms (e.g. CRADAs, MOUs). The operational and administrative responsibility for securing these accesses rests solely with the PAP.

16.

If a smaller organization is awarded as the PAP does the Government anticipate traditional excessive pass-through type requirements would be applicable? Does the Government expect the PAP will be able to perform a substantial portion of the work?

The Government’s primary objective for the PAP is to effectively establish and manage a high-performing biotechnology accelerator ecosystem. As defined in the RPP, the substantial work of the PAP involves scouting, vetting, and issuing B2B-agreements to Portfolio Prototyping Companies (PPCs); active management of the portfolio; coordinating resources; and ensuring key performance metrics are met. The focus is therefore on the PAPs capability to demonstrate how they will be participating to a significant extent in the prototype project process.

17.

In the RFI SOW the Government indicated that CUI shall be handled in a DOD IL5 program management platform. However, we anticipate that significantly more CUI will be generated and exchanged under this program outside of the program management platform. Even though this is an OTA, does the government anticipate requiring CMMC Level 2 certification requirements, and if so will the Government require a full certification or will a CMMC Level 2 self-assessment be acceptable?

While the prior RFI may have included different language, this RPP is the superseding document for the current solicitation.

Preproposals should include a data management plan that includes appropriate security measures for data handling as part of their overall governance framework. The draft SOW provided during the Request for Information (RFI) phase served as a baseline concept to outline the Government's high-level objectives.

The Government anticipates highly unique and innovative industry solutions; therefore, a single, standardized SOW is not practical for this RPP.

Consequently, those offerors selected to advance to the Request for Full Proposal (RFFP) phase will be required to submit a customized SOW tailored to their specific proposed accelerator framework and ecosystem design.

18.

Does the Government expect the proposer to have experience in all of the biotech domains that appear as the basis of their pre-proposal approach?

Or is a scalable model, with a team and domain-specific capabilities to be developed or expanded at a later date, acceptable to the Government?

Additionally, would the Government consider a highly specialized

The Government does not expect a single proposer team to possess expertise across the entire biotechnology spectrum. A scalable model—where a core team expands its domain-specific capabilities over time—is acceptable, provided the proposal includes a clear, actionable strategy for executing that growth approach limited to a single domain—such as testing, characterization, and regulatory approval of medical countermeasures for biothreats—as responsive and eligible to be considered as one of the PAPs?

while meeting required KPIs along with a plan for achieving success.

19.

In the BOTAA there is a section that mentions an attachment that we did not locate. Is this something you could send me a link to or let me know where to find it?

5. ATTACHMENTS AND APPENDICES:

ATTACHMENT 0001 Manufacturing Readiness Level Deskbook V2, May 2011

The most recent update is available at https://safe.menlosecurity.com/doc/docview/viewer/docN8FBC 12D3D3A7bdd9f8969a92c68f974520059479476e98f69c0de994e0 fa7354ce4b67a0c5e4 or by Google search.

https://safe.menlosecurity.com/doc/docview/viewer/docN8FBC12D3D3A7bdd9f8969a92c68f974520059479476e98f69c0de994e0fa7354ce4b67a0c5e4 https://safe.menlosecurity.com/doc/docview/viewer/docN8FBC12D3D3A7bdd9f8969a92c68f974520059479476e98f69c0de994e0fa7354ce4b67a0c5e4 https://safe.menlosecurity.com/doc/docview/viewer/docN8FBC12D3D3A7bdd9f8969a92c68f974520059479476e98f69c0de994e0fa7354ce4b67a0c5e4