W81XWH-15-R-0081-0005.docx

W81XWH-15-R-0081

SECTION SF 30 BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE

SUMMARY OF CHANGES

SECTION C - DESCRIPTIONS AND SPECIFICATIONS

The following have been added by full text:

GOVERNMENT'S RESPONSE 12/08/15

Questions Regarding RFP No.: W81XWH-15-R-0081 December 8, 2015

1. Reference L.4.5.2.2., Price Proposal – There is a requirement to utilize “the annual estimates provided at the CLIN level for all CLIN’s ending in X003, X004, X005 and X006.” We noted that in Section B there are no quantities provided for these CLIN’s in OY 1. Would the Government please provide the quantities?

GOVERNMENT RESPONSE: Use the same quantities as the base contract quantities.

1. Reference L.4.5.5, Hourly Labor Rates – Includes the statement “Discounted rates shall be offered at this time if available…” Is the Government looking for us to provide the maximum rates that will be allowed on Task Orders with this proposal and at the time of Task Order proposals the Contractor may offer discounted rates?

GOVERNMENT RESPONSE: Contractors shall propose discounted rates at this time if available. Labor rates proposed for the Contract will be the maximum rate allowed on any task order issued from this contract.

1. Reference L.4.5.5, Hourly Labor Rates and Attachment 4, Pricing. Is it acceptable for contractors to revise the Pricing format to allow for indirect burdens not reflected on the Attachment?

GOVERNMENT RESPONSE: Yes. Contractors shall show cost data in support of all labor rates proposed.

1. Reference L.4.5.4, Offeror’s Accounting System – The clause states that “Offeror shall provide evidence of its accounting system being adequate in accordance with FAR 16.301-3, 16.304, 16.306 and 16.601…” Are the use of FAR 16.304, Cost-Plus-Incentive-Fee Contracts and FAR 16.601 -- Time-and-Materials Contracts in this section correct since the contract to be awarded will have CPFF and FFP Task Orders?

GOVERNMENT RESPONSE: Please see revised Section L.4.5.4.

1. Reference DFAR Clause 252-222-7000, Restrictions on Employment of Personnel – applies only to construction and service contract to be performed in whole or in part within a noncontiguous State (Alaska, Hawaii, Puerto Rico, the Northern Mariana Islands, American Samoa, Guam, the U.S. Virgin Islands, Baker Island, Howland Island, Jarvis Island, Johnston Atoll, Kingman Reef, Midway Islands, Navassa Island, Palmyra Atoll, and Wake Island.) Does the Government anticipate work to be performed in any of the Noncontiguous States?

GOVERNMENT RESPONSE: No, the Government does not anticipate work to be performed in any of the Noncontiguous states. DFAR Clause 252.222-7000 has been removed.

1. Reference Section L.4.3.1. – It is stated that “the Offeror shall also submit NO MORE THAN two (2) references for each subcontractor”. Please clarify if it is required that Offeror’s submit AT LEAST one reference for each proposed subcontractor.

GOVERNMENT RESPONSE: Contractors shall submit atleast one, but no more than two (2) references for each subcontractor.

1. Reference Sections 4.2.5 (Attend Conferences / Meetings) and 4.3 (Logistical Requirements) – Will the government provide a “Plug Number” for travel, per diem, conference registration, and hotel meeting space value? If not, will the government be provide pricing assumptions (e.g. Number, location) for these costs so all offerors are proposing equally?

GOVERNMENT RESPONSE: The pricing assumption for ODCs on the base contract are built into the CPFF CLINs. In accordance with Amendment 0004, Questions 26, ODC’s will be requested, proposed, and reimbursed on a task order basis, if required for the work under the task order. The Government expects the sample task order proposals to include ODCs as the offeror determines to be applicable. The ODCs include but are not limited to reviewer fees, per diem, conference registration, and hotel meeting space value. Travel costs will not be evaluated because there is not a baseline for travel on these sample task orders.

1. Attachment 3 includes the transfer of all system/tool documentation such as "user manuals, system administration manuals, training materials, disaster recovery manual, requirements traceability matrix, configuration control documents and all other documents required to operate, maintain and administer systems and tools" to the awardee during the transition period. From this we infer that the creation and maintenance of such documentation will be the responsibility of our team going forward throughout the period of performance. Can the Government please confirm whether our assumption is correct?

GOVERNMENT RESPONSE: Correct, the creation and maintenance of such documentation will be the responsibility of the successful offeror going forward throughout the period of performance.

1. Does the Government have a preferred software development methodology? (e.g., Agile, waterfall, etc.)?

GOVERNMENT RESPONSE: Agile

1. PWS 4.4.6 states that "For applications retrieved from Grants.gov that cannot automatically be processed by eBRAP," the contractor will "trouble-shoot and resolve the issues (packages not retrieving, packages not able to be processed, duplicative applications, etc.) and process the applications." Will the contractor have access to back-end systems including Grants.gov and EGS, or access to staff supporting those systems, to address issues on a regular basis?

GOVERNMENT RESPONSE: The successful offeror will NOT have back-end access to Grants.gov or EGS. However, the successful offeror will have access to staff supporting those systems and will coordinate with them in trouble-shooting and resolving the issues.

1. Historically, USAMRMC has not required a consumer member of the review panel for the 2, 3, 4, and 5 person mail / teleconference reviews. Does the government want a consumer to be a part of these reviews and would that be an additional reviewer or a replacement for one of the scientific reviewers?

GOVERNMENT RESPONSE: Whether a consumer member will be required on a review panel will depend on what the customers’ needs are. The consumer member will replace a different reviewer (so there will not be 3, 4, 5, or 6 person mail reviews).

1. What capability does eBRAP have – via system to system pull or push -- to allow the contractor peer review system to retrieve LOI, pre-proposal, and proposal data?

GOVERNMENT RESPONSE: eBRAP currently pulls from Grants.gov the piece of the proposals that has to be submitted using that application, EGS then pulls data from eBRAP. Scoring system uploads are a manual process performed by the scoring system support contractors.

a. What data are available through this capability (i.e.: LOIs, Preproposals, Proposals data)?

GOVERNMENT RESPONSE: eBRAP currently pulls from Grants.gov the piece of the proposals that has to be submitted using that application, EGS then pulls data from eBRAP. Scoring system uploads are a manual process performed by the scoring system support contractors.

b. How is any existing eBRAP data access capability provided? (i.e.: REST API, SOAP)

GOVERNMENT RESPONSE: REST

c. For any existing data access from eBRAP, what data interchange formats are offered or available? (i.e.: XML, JSON, etc.)

GOVERNMENT RESPONSE: XML

d. Is full proposal data from Grants.gov available through this capability, without parsing Grants.gov xml files on the contractor side, or would a separate contractor connection to Grants.gov be required?

GOVERNMENT RESPONSE: No, the eBRAP application itself parses data received from Grants.gov. A separate contractor connection to Grants.gov should not be required.

1. The size and complexity of the peer reviews to be performed by the contractor will vary tremendously according to program type and award mechanism. In the case of the FFP CLINS (0003, 0004, 0005 and 0006, etc.) would the government be prepared to provide an average size of proposals intended for each of the review types to be reviewed under each of these CLINS?

GOVERNMENT RESPONSE: In the case of the FFP CLINs, the proposals come in under the Broad Agency Announcement (BAA). All proposals are submitted with the same page limits as established by the BAA. Some proposals may include clinical protocols and could, therefore, be longer and take longer to review. However, it is usually other considerations like subject matter experts of inclusion of a clinical trial that drive choice of number of reviewers.

1. Reference Amendment 2, Q&A No. 1 and Section L.4.3.1.4– We note the governments intent is for this to be an overarching requirement and not specific to the past performance citations. Depending on the size of the company and number of contracts held this list (terminated for convenience, default or de-scoped due to performance or cost) could be quite long and burdensome to create.

13. In order to ensure equitable treatment of all Offerors regardless of corporate size, will the list of contracts be excluded from the page limit for the Past Performance Volume?

GOVERNMENT RESPONSE: The list of contracts will be excluded from page limits.

13. Is it acceptable for the list to be limited to the contracts performed by the business unit within the company that is responding to this RFP?

GOVERNMENT RESPONSE: Yes

13. Would the government consider limiting the response to contracts terminated for convenience or default and removing the requirement for “including contracts de-scoped due to performance or cost”? This requirement as stated would be extremely difficult to meet in a large company that has thousands of contracts.

GOVERNMENT RESPONSE: No. Please see response to b. above.

1. Reference Amendment 2, Q&A No. 1 and Section L.4.3.1.4. Is this required of the subcontractors as well the prime?

GOVERNMENT RESPONSE: Yes

1. Reference Amendment 2, Q&A No. 3. We note that it is the Governments intent that task order pricing will be CPFF, however there were no changes to L.4.5, Volume V, Cost/Price Proposal or Attachment 4, Labor Category Rate Template. Will the Government be revising these to reflect its intention of work being proposed in a CPFF format instead of loaded labor rates?

GOVERNMENT RESPONSE: The answer in Amendment 2, questions 3 stands. The task order pricing will be proposed with a CPFF model based on total cost and a separate fixed fee.

1. Reference L.4.2.4.1. Requires that the offeror provide resumes or letter of commitment for key personnel. Would the Government consider excluding the resumes and letters of commitment from the 60 page limit for Volume II?

GOVERNMENT RESPONSE: Please see section L.4.2 “Note that resumes of Key Personnel shall follow the Experience section, but are not included in the page limits”.

1. Reference Amendment 2, Additional Revisions adding clauses/provisions. Should contractors include the certifications required by 52.230-1, Cost Accounting Standards Notices and Certification and 52.230-7, Proposal Disclosure-Cost Accounting Practice Changes with their Section K response provided in Vol. 1?

GOVERNMENT RESPONSE: Yes

1. Given the volume of questions and uncertainties would the Government consider extending the proposal due date to December 21st?

GOVERNMENT RESPONSE: The Government will not be extending the proposal due date at this time.

1. Reference Section 4.1.1; is there an established knowledge base for Helpdesk? By knowledge base, the offeror refers to an electronic or hard copy database containing a list of frequently asked questions and their associated answers. These questions might include questions related potential problems associated with submission or modification of entries in the submission eBRAP system or other submission vehicles. It might include questions and answers related to specific requirements for program announcements. IF there is such a document, will the government provide it to the winning offeror.

GOVERNMENT RESPONSE: The current contractor developed such references/database for FAQ's or frequent issues associated with submission, with input from the Government. The current contractor owns it so the government is unable to provide it but would request that the incumbent share it with the successful offeror.

1. What is the current standard/agreement for acceptable wait times, call closure rates, and other matrices of acceptable and unacceptable response?

GOVERNMENT RESPONSE: The only agreement, to my knowledge, is the general goal to respond to phone messages and emails within 2 business days or sooner of receipt. However, I do not believe we have a formal SLA with the current contractor.

1. Amendment 4 included Q&A No. 13, “Is the contractor expected to provide the phone system if the Helpdesk is located at contractor’s site” Government Response: “yes”. This leads us to believe that it is the Government’s intent that the Contractor will provide the Helpdesk from the Contractor site and the cost of such should be included in our sample task order cost proposal. If this is not a correct assumption please advise.

GOVERNMENT RESPONSE: It is the Government’s intent that the Contractor shall provide Helpdesk services from the Contractor site and the cost of such should be included in the sample task order cost proposal.

23. Section 4.4.1: "The contractor shall have the appropriate development environment but they must utilize existing UA testing and production environments"

a. What is the mechanism by which the Contractor can see improvements?

GOVERNMENT RESPONSE: The successful offeror shall be responsible for providing test, UA, and production VM environments.

1. It appears that the Government wants a cross index matrix included in the proposal. If so, is this considered to be outside of page count for each volume? Also, does the Government want this to be included in the front matter following the TOC?

GOVERNMENT RESPONSE: Contractors shall cross-map each labor category back to the specifixc tasks from the PWS. This cross-mapping may be submited as part of Attachment 4 or as a separate, clearly labeled document. There is no page limitation on the cost/price proposal. See Section L.4.5.2.

1. Typically, an acronym list is included. Please confirm that an acronym list should be included in each volume, and that it is outside of page count for Volumes II and III?

GOVERNMENT RESPONSE: Please see section L.4.2. “Volume II shall not exceed sixty (60) pages, including appendices, matrices, and tables.”

1. Reference Section 4.1.1; is there an established knowledge base for Helpdesk?

Amendment 0004 GOVERNMENT RESPONSE: This question is unclear. Please expand on the question.

CONTRACTOR CLARIFICATION: By knowledge base, the offeror refers to an electronic or hard copy database containing a list of frequently asked questions and their associated answers. These questions might include questions related potential problems associated with submission or modification of entries in the submission eBRAP system or other submission vehicles. It might include questions and answers related to specific requirements for program announcements. IF there is such a document, will the government provide it to the winning offeror.

GOVERNMENT RESPONSE: The current contractor developed such references/database for FAQ's or frequent issues associated with submission, with input from the government. The current contractor owns it so the government is unable to provide it but would request that the incumbent share it with the successful offeror.

1. "Reference Section 4.1.1; Will the government furnish SLA's pertinent to calls and emails (e.g., wait time, call closure rate)? SLA refers to Service Level Agreements.

Amendment 0004 GOVERNMENT RESPONSE: Please provide further clarification regarding what an SLA is.

CONTRACTOR CLARIFICATION: What is the current standard/agreement for acceptable wait times, call closure rates, and other matrices of acceptable and unacceptable response?

GOVERNMENT RESPONSE: The only agreement, to my knowledge, is the general goal to respond to phone messages and emails within 2 business days or sooner of receipt. However, I do not believe we have a formal SLA with the current contractor.

1. While this question was not answered we noted that Amendment 4 included Q&A No. 13, “Is the contractor expected to provide the phone system if the Helpdesk is located at contractor’s site” Government Response: “yes”. This leads us to believe that it is the Government’s intent that the Contractor will provide the Helpdesk from the Contractor site and the cost of such should be included in our sample task order cost proposal. If this is not a correct assumption please advise.

GOVERNMENT RESPONSE: It is the Government’s intent that the Contractor shall provide Helpdesk services from the Contractor site and the cost of such should be included in the sample task order cost proposal.

29. Section 4.4.1: "The contractor shall have the appropriate development environment but they must utilize existing UA testing and production environments"

a. What is the mechanism by which the Contractor can see improvements?

GOVERNMENT RESPONSE: The successful offeror shall be responsible for providing test, UA, and production VM environments.

1. Appendix 3 Sample Task 3: Under heading “typical Tasks the government directs to the contractor” Using existing code and functionality, continue to expand eBRAP to receive intramural research pre-applications and full applications. Please provide the following information.

0. What are the specifics of the API? For example but not limited to,

0. Architecture is MVC? PAC? MVP? Other?

GOVERNMENT RESPONSE: Architecture employs MVC, Spring, and Hibernate

0. What language is used to produce the server pages GOVERNMENT RESPONSE: HTML and JAVA

0. What is the database engine (e.g., Oracle, MSSQl, MySQL, etc) GOVERNMENT RESPONSE: Oracle

0. Is relational mapping used (e.g., Hibernate) GOVERNMENT RESPONSE: Yes Hibernate

0. What server is used (IIS, Tomcat, Apache, etc) GOVERNMENT RESPONSE: Tomcat

0. How many lines of code make up the eBRAP platform, and how does the total break down into various concerns (i.e., tests, user interface, models, controllers, etc.)?

GOVERNMENT RESPONSE: This information will be provided as Government Furnished Information at the issuance of the appropriate task order.

The following have been modified:

SECTION C- PWS

PERFORMANCE WORK STATEMENT

Biomedical Research Application Evaluation and Support

SECTION 1.0: GENERAL INFORMATION

1.1 Purpose

The purpose of this contract is to award a support contract for biomedical research application evaluation and support to support the Congressionally Directed Medical Research Program (CDMRP) office. The CDMRP is the Execution Management Agency (EMA) for the United States Army Medical Research and Materiel Command (USAMRMC) and its subordinate organizations. This support encompasses electronic receipt of intramural and extramural pre- and full research applications, application compliance, scientific peer review, and maintaining/enhancing the government-owned, contractor-operated electronic biomedical research application portal (eBRAP).

To support the tasks identified below requires an experienced and cohesive team of scientific, technical, and administrative personnel who can demonstrate a comprehensive understanding of the requirements to provide biomedical research application evaluation and support, produce acceptable deliverables within the required timelines while meeting cost, schedule, and performance requirements.

1.2 Background

The United States Congress directed the Department of Defense (DOD) to manage appropriations totaling over $9 Billion, since fiscal year 1992 (FY92), for intramural and extramural programs directed toward targeted medical research initiatives. The USAMRMC is responsible for administering these targeted research program appropriations.

In January 2014, CDMRP was assigned as the lead office to consolidate all execution management for the USAMRMC as part of a USAMRMC Headquarters multi-year reengineering effort. The CDMRP worked with the Telemedicine and Advanced Technology Research Center and the Joint Programmatic Committees to consolidate all execution management into one EMA for USAMRMC.

The DOD Breast Cancer Research Program was established in FY92 by Appropriations Conference Committee Report No 102-328, which provided $25 Million (M) for research on breast cancer screening and diagnosis for military women and their family members. In 1993 grassroots efforts by the breast cancer survivors and advocacy communities led to a FY93 congressional appropriation of $210M for peer reviewed breast cancer research.

The CDMRP sought the advice of the National Academy of Sciences Institute of Medicine (IOM) on how to best invest the $210M congressional appropriation. While the IOM made several important recommendations, a pivotal one outlining a two-tier review process for evaluating and selecting research applications has become a cornerstone within CDMRP. This novel two-tiered process involves reviewing every research application for scientific merit as well as programmatic relevance.

The first tier of the two-tier review process is peer review. Peer review is a criteria-based process where applications are evaluated based on their scientific and technical merit. Applications are evaluated by scientific discipline, specialty area, or award mechanism by scientific, technical and consumer peer reviewers.

The second tier of review is programmatic review. Applications are programmatically reviewed by members of the programs’ Programmatic Panel. Programmatic review is a comparison-based process in which applications from multiple research areas compete in a common pool. Programmatic review balances the potential outcomes and risks of scientifically meritorious applications.

Application submission is a two-step process consisting of (1) a pre-application submission through the CDMRP-provided electronic receipt system, and (2) an application submission through Grants.gov (http://www.grants.gov/).

This support is currently performed by an external support contractor because the CDMRP office does not have the capability or the expertise to perform these duties in-house.

For more information on the office of the CDMRP, go to http://cdmrp.army.mil and review materials provided on the website.

The Government reserves the right to include scientific peer review of applications for other federal agencies. These efforts may be in conjunction with this Command’s program announcement or a separate task. The Contractor shall provide all necessary qualified personnel to provide for the management of scientific peer review for each of the selected scientific programs.

1.3 Period of Performance

The anticipated period of performance of this contract is 01 February 2016 through 31 January 2017. There will also be four (4) one-year renewable options to be exercised at the discretion of the government (total potential of a five [5] year contract). The Contract Specialist will notify the Contractor of the intent to exercise an option year 90 calendar days before the option is to be exercised.

1.4 Contract Kick-Off Meeting

The Contractor shall contact the COR to set up a post-award conference with the COR, USAMRMC designated staff, Contracting Officer and Contract Specialist within 30 calendar days after the start date of the contract.

SECTION 2.0: GOVERNMENT-FURNISHED PROPERTY AND SERVICES

2.1 General Information

The contractor must provide all facilities, equipment and materials required to support this effort.

2.2 Government-Furnished Property

The government will provide the appropriate government furnished equipment (GFE) for those contractors who require network access. Determination of what GFE will be provided will be made at the time of contract award.

2.3 Government-Furnished Services

Determination of what government-furnished services will be provided to the contractor will be negotiated before the contract award is finalized.

2.4 Government-Mandated Training

All government mandated training (i.e., ethics, HIPAA, security, etc.) is required for all individuals based on the required access to either Fort Detrick or the network, including contractors as noted in Section 3.0 below. All government mandated training shall be government furnished and shall be completed at the contractor’s facility, during duty hours, and in accordance with established timelines.

SECTION 3.0: CONTRACTOR REQUIREMENTS

3.1 Contractor Personnel Minimum Requirements

3.1.1 The contractor must have a signed letter of commitment from the proposed key personnel in response to this solicitation and must be available to begin work at the start of the contract. Key personnel positions are the Project Director, Deputy Project Director, Science Review Managers, Consumer Reviewer Administrative Manager, eBRAP Lead, and the Meetings Manager.

3.1.2 For contractor personnel, including sub-contract employees, requiring access to Army installations, facilities or controlled area access areas must complete the following (note that if access is not required, then personnel are not required to complete):

3.1.2.1 All contractor employees, including sub-contract employees, shall complete AT Level I training within 30 calendar days after contract start date. The contractor shall submit certificates of completion for each affected contractor employee and sub-contractor employee to the COR and CDMRP Training Officer within 30 calendar days after completion of training by all employees and sub-contracting personnel. Training shall be updated on an annual basis and certificates shall be provided to the same POCs. AT Level I awareness training is available at https://atlevel1.dtic.mil/at.

3.1.2.2 All contractor employees, including sub-contract employees, shall comply with applicable installation, facility, and area commander installation and facility access and local security policies and procedures. The contractor shall also provide all information required for background checks to meet installation access requirements to be accomplished by the installation Security Office. The contractor workforce must comply with all personnel identity verification requirements as directed by DoD, HQDA, and local policy. In addition to the changes otherwise authorized by the changes clause of this contract, should the Force Protection Condition (FPCON) at any individual facility or installation change, the Government may require changes in contractor security matters or processes.

3.1.2.3 All contractor employees, including sub-contractor employees, shall complete the DoD IA Awareness training before issuance of network access and annually thereafter. All contractor employees working IA/IT functions must comply with DoD and Army training requirements in DoD 8570.02, DoD 8570.01-M and AR 25-2 within six months of employment.

3.1.3 All contractor employees, including sub-contract employees, requiring access to a government information system must complete the following (note that if access is not required, then personnel are not required to complete):

3.1.3.1 Contractor personnel shall be designated as ADP III at a minimum as defined by Department of Defense Regulation 5200.2R (for reference, review http://www.dtic.mil/whs/directives/corres/pdf/52002r_0187/p52002r.pdf). Each employee must also be a United States citizen. This is necessary so the contract employee may be granted access to the Fort Detrick domain. The CDMRP will initiate the process with the appropriate personnel at Fort Detrick for the successful offeror’s employees to obtain a National Agency Clearance and Inquiries (NACI). If contractor personnel are unable to receive a favorable NACI and/or be a United States citizen, that individual may not be employed under this contract.

3.1.3.2 Contractor employees shall be registered in the Army Training Certification Tracking System (ATCTS) at commencement of services and must successfully complete the DoD Information Awareness training prior to access to the information system and then annually thereafter. The CDMRP Training Officer will register contractor employees and will be responsible for tracking and uploading all training certificates into ATCTS.

3.1.3.3 All contractor and sub-contractor employees with access to a government information system must complete Level I OPSEC training within 30 calendar days of employment under the contract and then annually thereafter (by the anniversary of their initial completion date). The contractor shall submit certificates of completion for each affected contractor and sub-contractor employee to the COR and CDMRP Training Coordinator within 30 calendar days of training completion.

3.1.4 All contractor employees, including sub-contract employees, requiring system administrator level access to government information systems shall complete the following (note that if access is not required, then personnel are not required to complete):

3.1.4.1 Per DoD 8570.01-M, DFARS 252.239.7001, and AR 25-2, the contractor employees supporting these functions shall be appropriately certified upon contract award. The baseline certification as stipulated in DoD 8570.01-M must be completed upon contract award. All full-time individuals supporting this contract are required to perform these functions at the government provided facility. These individuals are required to have system administrator level access to perform the duties detailed below. Therefore, the contractor shall propose individuals who meet IAT Level 1 requirements. In order to meet IAT Level 1 requirements, the proposed individuals must have a valid IA Baseline Certification which consists of COMPTIA A+, COMPTIA Network+ certification, or (ISC)2 SSCP certification (any one will suffice). Individuals proposed must also enroll in the continuing education program for those commercial certifications required in the IA Baseline Certification. Proposed individuals are also required to have a Computing Environment (CE) commercial certification (list of certifications that fulfill this requirement is extensive but most commercial certifications suffice). Note that the same IA Baseline Certification cannot fulfill the CE certification requirement. Costs for these certifications shall be the responsibility of the contractor. However, if government regulations change during the period of performance of this contract, the government will be financially responsible for the costs for the contractors to comply with the new regulations.

SECTION 4.0: PERFORMANCE OBJECTIVES

The CDMRP requests contractor personnel to provide biomedical research application evaluation and support by performing the following tasks:

NOTE: PA=applications; BAA=proposals/applications

4.1 Administrative Requirements

4.1.1 Provide Helpdesk Assistance

Any questions on Program Announcements (PA) or the Broad Agency Announcement (BAA) shall go through the CDMRP helpdesk at help@ebrap.org.

4.1.1.1 Provide helpdesk support services by receiving and responding to questions/queries regarding the PA’s, program-specific BAA’s, and the USAMRMC BAA (telephone calls or email inquiries). It is anticipated that the helpdesk shall have normal working hours (typically 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. EST). Communicate with the appropriate program office points of contact if inquiries are technical in nature and require the appropriate program office response.

4.1.1.2 Helpdesk support shall be maintained via telephonic services (phone number established by the contractor) and via email at help@ebrap.org.

4.1.1.3 Provide routine status reports of pre- or full proposals/applications and review status. Frequency to be determined at the task order level.

4.1.2 Conduct Application Compliance

Compliance shall be conducted on pre- and full applications submitted to a PA and pre-proposals and applications/proposals submitted to a program-specific BAA. There will be no compliance review needed on pre or full proposals/applications submitted under the general USAMRMC BAA.

4.1.2.1 In accordance with the Compliance Standard Operating Procedure, the General Application Instructions (GAI) and PA or General Submission Instructions and BAA (as applicable) shall be used as the authoritative document for conducting Administrative Action/Compliance Review of pre-applications/proposals and full applications/proposals submitted in response to the funding opportunities.

4.1.2.2 Original .pdf files submitted via government electronic processes (Grants.gov and eBRAP) shall be administratively reviewed for inclusion of appropriate components as identified in each respective funding opportunity announcement (FOA).

4.1.2.3 Provide a compliance specification sheet/checklist in accordance with each respective funding opportunity or program-specific BAA within 10 business days after FOA release.

4.1.2.4 Using eBRAP, provide reports by research program of pre-applications with administrative compliance issues and pre-applications with administrative modifications based on compliance guidance with each respective announcement within the following deadlines: within 24 hours following receipt in eBRAP (for automated compliance) and no later than two (2) business days (for manual compliance) if submission is 250 pre-applications or less and no later than four (4) business days for manual compliance if submission is greater than 250 pre-applications.

4.1.2.5 Using eBRAP, provide a report by research program of full applications with administrative compliance issues determined via eBRAP automated compliance no later than two (2) business days following the verification deadline in eBRAP. For </= 100 applications, deliver applications with administrative modifications no later than three (3) business days following the verification deadline in eBRAP. For 101 to 250 applications, deliver applications with administrative modifications no later than five (5) business days following the verification deadline in eBRAP. For >250 applications, deliver applications with administrative modifications no later than seven (7) business days following the verification deadline in eBRAP.

4.1.2.6 Provide a report by research program and FOA of pre-applications/proposals and applications/proposals that contain names of Programmatic Panel members (in sections other than “References Cited”) to be delivered via the following:

4.1.2.6.1 Pre-applications/proposals: No later than two (2) business days, for delivery of pre-applications/proposals in which Programmatic Panel members are identified if submission is 250 pre-applications/proposals or less, and no later than four (4) business days if the submission is greater than 250 pre-applications/proposals.

4.1.2.6.2 Full applications/proposals: For </= 100 applications/proposals, deliver applications/proposals in which Programmatic Panel members are identified no later than three (3) business days following the verification deadline in eBRAP. For 101 to 250 applications/proposals, deliver applications/proposals in which Programmatic Panel members are identified no later than five (5) business days following the verification deadline in eBRAP. For >250 applications/proposals, deliver application in which Programmatic Panel members are identified no later than seven (7) business days following the verification deadline in eBRAP.

4.1.2.7 Provide a report of all PIs by their respective eBRAP-generated application/proposal log numbers, including application/proposal title, for PIs that have submitted multiple applications/proposals to the same program and have submitted applications/proposals to multiple programs including the USAMRMC and program-specific BAA (include two (2) years) within the same fiscal year for which receipt of applications/proposals has occurred. This report shall be provided concurrently with delivery of the peer reviewed application/proposals files (as established in the deliverables/receivables tracking sheet [D/RTS]).

4.1.2.8 Using eBRAP, generate notifications to PIs and CR/AORs informing them of their pre-application/proposal (if applicable) and applications/proposals non-compliance status and the reasons for its non-compliance.

4.1.2.8.1 Prepare a draft of the annual template notification letter, in accordance with Army Regulations, for non-compliant notification and deliver to the COR within 20 business days following release of the first fiscal year FOA. Within five (5) business days after receipt of COR input, edit and forward letter to the COR.

4.1.2.8.2 Using eBRAP, inform the appropriate PM or BAA (program-specific or USAMRMC general) POC that non-compliant letters are available for review.

4.1.2.8.3 Ensure non-compliant letters have been automatically posted in eBRAP following concurrence from the approval authority.

4.1.3 Reporting Requirements

4.1.3.1 Provide the CDMRP Administrative Manager with a monthly report which includes employee name, position title, start date, termination date, e-mail address, and whether or not the employees listed will require a Fort Detrick identification badge and a Common Access Card. This report shall be due to the CDMRP Administrative Manager five (5) business days after each month end. If other customers besides CDMRP require this data, they shall indicate it in their specific task order.

4.1.3.2 Provide ad hoc reports documenting peer review data as requested.

4.1.3.3 Perform data analyses and ad hoc reporting to support the CDMRP’s management activities such as the Inquiry Review Process and the Electronic Grants System.

4.1.3.4 Prepare briefing materials and reports on peer review processes, procedures, and outcomes as required by the COR.

4.1.3.5 Provide information for the CDMRP Internal Control process specific to peer review as requested.

4.1.3.6 Other reporting requirements shall be added and negotiated at the task order.

4.2 Technical Requirements

4.2.1 General Program Assistance

4.2.1.1 Attend and participate as requested in program Integrated Program Team (IPT) meetings and activities and assist with setting program milestones, preparation of fiscal year PAs (one PA per award mechanism), program-specific BAA’s, and the USAMRMC BAA (one per fiscal year), and other pertinent business (note this is typically for CDMRP; other customers shall specifically request attendance at their standard meetings at the task order level).

4.2.1.2 Participate in milestone planning meetings and the development of a milestone schedule for all research programs managed by CDMRP at the beginning of each fiscal year (note this is typically for CDMRP; other customers shall specifically request attendance at their standard meetings).

4.2.1.3 Provide scientific and technical peer review advice, plans, recommendations, and innovative approaches when defining business process improvements.

4.2.2 Conduct Peer Review of Applications

It is anticipated that there shall be five (5) possible modalities for conducting scientific peer review: 1) onsite, in person peer review panels (PRP’s); 2) online/virtual PRP’s; 3) teleconference PRP’s; 4) video teleconference PRP’s; and 5) online/electronic individual peer reviews (formerly called “mail” reviews). The peer review modality shall be decided upon at the issuance of the task order for each requirement.

Typically a PRP consists of a Scientific Review Officer (SRO), a chairperson with appropriate experience with peer review and scientific discipline related to the PRP topic and scientific and consumer specialist reviewers. Other PRP configurations may be considered at the request of the task order POC or at the recommendation of the contractor.

4.2.2.1 Recruit PRP members. Assign scientific review officers (SRO) to serve as coordinators for the PRP’s, if applicable based on discussions with the task order POC. SROs shall have appropriate experience in health science or biological science research administration to lead scientific peer review, preferably with experience in coordinating a scientific review in the subject area to be reviewed. Provide the list of assigned SROs (by program and PRP) for information and comment five (5) business days before application receipt.

4.2.2.1.1 Recruit a chairperson for each PRP. Chairpersons shall have appropriate experience with peer review and specific discipline related to the PRP topic. Chairpersons are expected to work closely with the SROs to assist with the recruitment of other PRP members. Provide the list of recruited chairpersons (by program and PRP) for information and comment five (5) business days prior to receipt of applications. Provide bio sketches or CVs of the Chairpersons as requested. For special panels provide the chair candidates to the task order POC for review.

4.2.2.1.2 Conduct recruitment initiatives of scientist/technical reviewers for each research program. Scientist/technical reviewers shall possess appropriate education, training and experience relevant to applications assigned for review and to the intent of the award mechanism. The majority of scientist and technical reviewers shall have recent experience as a Principal Investigator (PI), Co-PI or manager of an extramurally funded research program. Provide the list of recruited scientist or technical reviewers by PRP 10 business days after receipt of applications.

4.2.2.2 Recruit consumer reviewers. Develop and/or update a Consumer Outreach plan for each program as appropriate. Provide the plan no later than 20 business days following Vision Setting or Strategic Planning Meeting for each respective program as applicable. Maintain a list of active consumer advocacy/support organizations. Prepare and distribute information to recruit consumer reviewers.

4.2.2.2.1 Provide updates during the consumer recruitment period on consumer recruitment accomplishments, barriers to recruitment, etc. on a monthly basis or as needed.

4.2.2.2.2 Devise and implement strategies for ongoing integration with the minority consumer community to promote the CDMRP and to identify and recruit minority consumers to serve on PRP’s.

4.2.2.2.3 Solicit nominations from consumer/advocacy support groups for upcoming peer reviews, evaluate nominations and select consumer reviewers according to CDMRP guidance. Provide list of recruited consumer reviewers by PRP 10 business days before the peer review meeting.

4.2.2.3 Compose in person PRP’s. It is anticipated that PRP meetings shall be held after receipt of applications from the CDMRP and in accordance with COR-approved timelines as agreed upon in the deliverables/receivables tracking sheet (D/RTS). Variance from this timeframe shall be agreed to by the COR and contractor.

4.2.2.3.1 Compose each PRP. In general, no more than 60 applications shall be reviewed by any PRP without prior approval of the COR; however, any deviations from the standard will be specified in each program task order SOW. The minimum number of applications per PRP shall be coordinated with the appropriate PM. In general, each scientist/technical PRP member shall be responsible for reviewing six (6) to eight (8) applications (with a per-PRP member average of seven (7) or greater); any exceptions must have prior approval of the COR. Each consumer reviewer shall be responsible for no more than 20 applications; any exceptions must have prior approval of the COR. However, any deviations from this requirement shall be detailed out in each program specific task order.

4.2.2.3.2 Ensure each PRP maintains a quorum. A quorum shall consist of at least 80% of all PRP members (including conflicts of interest (COI) but exclusive of SROs and other administrative staff) for each PRP in order for discussions to proceed without prior approval. For example, if the PRP consists of 10 members, no more than two (2) members may be out for any reason, including COIs, travel reasons, or other brief absences from the PRP without approval of the COR or respective PM. Teleconference and ad hoc reviewers are considered PRP members only for the applications for which they are participating.

4.2.2.3.3 Furnish one (1) copy of information summarizing PRP member degrees, expertise, Department/Institution, and PRP assignment at the peer review meeting. Once the number of PRPs has been determined, final approval must be given by the COR.

4.2.2.3.4 Provide PRP member demographics reports by program, delineating gender, ethnic diversity, academic rank, military rank, active duty status, education/degrees, and institutional association in aggregate and by PRP in Excel format within the program D/RTS.

4.2.2.3.5 Provide a peer review debriefing report peer review cycle as specified in the D/RTS. The report shall consist of a summary of all comments made by reviewers during peer review debriefings.

4.2.2.4 Coordinate online/virtual panel peer review. It is anticipated that there shall be two (2) to three (3) scientist/technical reviewers and one (1) consumer reviewer per application as applicable (any deviation must be discussed with the appropriate task order POC prior to final assignments). Following review, an online panel discussion between peer reviewers and the Chairperson may be conducted to clarify score disparities and to provide a second iteration. Deliverable timelines shall be included in the D/RTS and shall be negotiated before the review commences.

4.2.2.5 Coordinate telephonic peer review. It is anticipated that there shall be two (2) to three (3) scientist/technical reviewers and one (1) consumer reviewer per application. Deliverable timeline shall be included in the D/RTS and shall be negotiated before the review commences. Following review, a telephonic panel discussion between peer reviewers and the Chairperson may be conducted to clarify score disparities and to provide a second iteration. Deliverable timelines shall be included in the D/RTS and shall be negotiated before the review commences.

4.2.2.6 Coordinate video teleconference peer review. It is anticipated that there shall be two (2) to three (3) scientist/technical reviewers and one (1) consumer reviewer per application as applicable (any deviation must be discussed with the appropriate task order POC prior to final assignments). Following review, a video teleconference panel discussion between peer reviewers and the Chairperson may be conducted to clarify score disparities and to provide a second iteration. Deliverable timelines shall be included in the D/RTS and shall be negotiated before the review commences.

4.2.2.7 Coordinate online/electronic individual application/proposal peer reviews. It is anticipated that there shall be two (2) to five (5) scientist/technical reviewers and/or one (1) consumer reviewer per application as applicable. Final reviewer assignment shall be discussed with the task order POC prior to assignment.

4.2.2.8 Evaluate Scientific Research Applications

4.2.2.8.1 Provide critique and summary statement specification sheets according to each FOA for review prior to application receipt. A critique is the scientific or consumer review and a summary statement is a combination of the scientific and consumer reviews plus panel and chair comments.

4.2.2.8.2 Evaluate all applications utilizing the scoring process (e.g., overall and individual criteria scores) established for each award mechanism according to the appropriate FOA. Standard deviations shall be required on each applications overall score. Percentiles shall be provided as requested.

4.2.2.8.3 Provide preliminary scoring reports (in a consistent format for all programs) at the completion of all on-site panel peer review meetings.

4.2.2.8.4 Provide finalized scoring reports within one (1) business day of the peer review meeting completion.

4.2.2.9 Complete/ Deliver Summary Statements

4.2.2.9.1 Provide a summary statement for each peer reviewed research application to document the peer review findings. Provide identifying information for the application, all scoring data and statistics, budget data, any peer review recommendations, and a written critique (summarizing strengths and weaknesses as established by the PRP) and additional files as requested (e.g., abstracts, statements) for each application summary.

4.2.2.9.2 Furnish the draft summary statements as they become available in the appropriate part in the summary statement preparation process. The COR reserves the right to request rewrites based on this review. Percentage of draft summary statements requested will depend on the program, funding mechanism, scoring distribution, and number of applications.

4.2.2.9.3 Deliver summary statements in batches per each fiscal year’s D/RTS. Deliver the first batch of summary statements (as identified by the respective PM) no later than 15 business days and deliver the second batch of summary statements (as identified by the respective PM) no later than five (5) business days prior to the appropriate programmatic review meeting.

4.2.2.9.4 Conduct rewrites of summary statements within one (1) year of receipt of reviews as requested. Complete rewrites within five (5) business days of the request, unless an expanded timeline is specified.

4.2.2.10 Application Re-Review

4.2.2.10.1 Re-review applications as requested. Each application shall be reviewed by a PRP of scientist/technical and consumer reviewers, with appropriate administrative support, in face-to-face or teleconference meetings within 30 business days for face-to-face meetings and 20 business days for a teleconference (unless a different timeline is approved) of the application re-review decision. The decision regarding whether the re-review is face-to-face or held via teleconference shall be determined by the PM.

4.2.2.10.2 When re-reviewing, a D/RTS specific to the re-review shall be developed before the re-review commences. Re-review deliverables shall include a draft summary statement, final summary statement, final scoring report, and entry of new scores into the CDMRP EGS. Format of the re-review deliverables shall be consistent with established D/RTS formats.

4.2.2.11 Peer Review Data Deliverables

Enter all data associated with the peer review applications electronically and transfer to CDMRP electronic business management systems as defined by CDMRP…