AFRL La Luz Academy | Apply Online

AFRL La Luz Academy Grant Opportunity FAQs

1) What is the AFRL La Luz Academy opportunity?

It is a five-year Air Force Research Laboratory (AFRL) education outreach cooperative agreement centered at the Phillips Research Site (PRS) on Kirtland Air Force Base in New Mexico. The effort focuses on STEM outreach through hands-on activities aligned to New Mexico content standards and benchmarks.

2) What is the purpose of the program?

The program is intended to build student interest in STEM fields and help develop future scientists and engineers by connecting classroom experiences to real research and engineering work at AFRL.

3) Who does the program serve?

The program serves students statewide in New Mexico in grades 5 through 12.

4) How many students does the program reach each year?

The announcement reports a reach of more than 5,000 students per year.

5) How is the student programming structured?

Programming is organized by grade-level "Flights," starting with the 5th grade Mars Mission Flight and continuing through the 12th grade SPACE Flight (Students Planning and Conducting Engineering).

6) What makes the La Luz Academy approach distinctive?

A key feature is the integration of AFRL technologies and the direct involvement of AFRL scientists and engineers in developing and delivering activities.

7) What kind of award was the government planning to make?

The government planned to make a single award under a cooperative agreement instrument.

8) What does it mean that this is a cooperative agreement?

It means the recipient would not just receive pass-through funding; the recipient would work collaboratively with the government toward shared education-outreach outcomes.

9) How many awards were anticipated?

The announcement anticipated a single award.

10) What was the anticipated timing for the award?

The anticipated award timing in the announcement was mid-June 2010.

11) How long did proposals have to remain valid?

Proposals were required to remain valid for at least 90 days from submission.

12) What was the estimated funding level and period of performance?

The total estimated funding level was about $6.0 million across five years (roughly $1.2 million per year).

13) Is the funding amount guaranteed?

No. The funding level was explicitly described as an estimate subject to government discretion and availability of funds.

14) Was cost sharing or matching required?

No cost sharing or matching funds were required.

15) Can the cooperative agreement include profit or a fee?

No. The agreement would not pay profit or fee.

16) Who was eligible to apply?

Eligibility was limited to New Mexico-based education agencies, colleges, universities, and other nonprofit institutions dedicated to improving science, mathematics, and engineering education.

17) What was the applicant expected to do under the award?

Applicants were expected to propose how they would manage and execute the La Luz Academy STEM outreach program across New Mexico and meet staffing expectations for educators delivering the classes and activities.

18) What staffing roles were specifically mentioned?

The solicitation described staffing expectations that included providing a Director/Educator to run the program and teach some classes, plus additional Educators to teach most classes.

19) Were minimum qualifications for staff defined?

Yes. Minimum qualifications for the Director/Educator and Educator roles were referenced in an attachment.

20) Could applicants propose expansions beyond the baseline statement of work?

Yes. The government encouraged applicants to propose thoughtful expansions beyond the baseline statement of work.

21) What was the constraint on proposed expansions?

Proposed additions were expected to be pursued to the extent the recipient could bring in additional non-DoD support, such as matching funds or in-kind contributions.

22) What kinds of optional expansions were suggested?

Suggested add-ons included: a summer teacher institute for up to 30 New Mexico teachers; stronger partnerships with the State of New Mexico; alignment with national STEM initiatives (and potentially extending programming below 5th grade); targeted STEM efforts for military-connected children (including surviving dependents); and development of distance-learning STEM curriculum and capabilities.

23) What government-furnished property and resources were part of the award?

The award included government support such as government-furnished classroom and office computers, and an estimated government-furnished property value of about $250,000.

24) What is Pinpoint WeatherNet, and what was required related to it?

The recipient would be required to maintain and administer the existing Pinpoint WeatherNet network of 60 automated weather stations statewide.

25) What facilities support would AFRL provide at Kirtland AFB?

AFRL would provide on-base facilities and support at Kirtland AFB (Buildings 1908 and 1909), including three fully equipped classrooms with student computers, office space and furnishings for staff, storage and project preparation areas, communications and IT support (including internet access), and access to reproduction and computer graphics equipment.

26) Was any partnership agreement with another organization required?

Yes. The recipient had to enter into an Associate Contractor Agreement with the New Mexico Institute of Mining and Technology for portions of the work requiring joint participation.

27) Why was an Associate Contractor Agreement with New Mexico Tech required?

It supported broader PRS outreach integration, including university interactions (such as scholars, NanoSat, and strategic university partnerships) and professional development efforts (such as systems engineering graduate certificates and adjunct professors).

28) What role did New Mexico Tech play in the PRS partnership structure?

New Mexico Tech was identified as the PRS partnership intermediary, and the recipient was expected to ensure strong cooperation and information and resource sharing to meet program objectives.

29) What federal registrations were required to be eligible for award?

Organizations needed appropriate federal registrations (at the time identified as Central Contractor Registration/CCR) to be eligible for a DoD award.

30) What certifications and assurances were required with the proposal?

Proposals had to include required non-FAR certifications related to debarment and suspension, a drug-free workplace, and lobbying restrictions.

31) Was there a requirement related to proprietary information in the proposal?

Yes. The proposal package had to include a consent provision addressing administrative access to proprietary information, and offerors were instructed to clearly mark any limits on disclosure.

32) How could proposals be submitted?

Proposals could be submitted either as a hard copy directly to the contracting negotiator or electronically through Grants.gov.

33) What extra steps were required for electronic submission through Grants.gov?

Electronic submission required advance setup steps, including obtaining a DUNS number, CCR registration, credentialing, Grants.gov registration, and authorization of an Authorized Organization Representative.

34) What form was required for the cover page?

The cover page requirement included the SF 424 (Research and Related) form.

35) Was there a page limit for the technical proposal?

Yes. The technical proposal was capped at 35 pages, excluding the title page, resumes, and the budget.

36) Was the proposal format prescribed?

The format was flexible, but the technical proposal was expected to clearly explain the approach to fulfilling the statement of work and demonstrate the offeror's qualifications and experience.

37) Was the budget proposal page-limited?

No. Budget proposals were not page-limited.

38) How were applicants expected to present costs in the budget?

The budget had to follow the solicitation's budget instructions and clearly separate internal organizational costs from programmatic costs used to deliver outreach outcomes (such as educational products, scholarships, and course preparation).

39) Were any budget line items standardized across all applicants?

Yes. The solicitation directed all applicants to include specific set amounts for travel and supplies across the five years to standardize hard-to-estimate costs.

40) What travel amount were applicants directed to include?

Applicants were directed to include travel totaling $275,000 across the five-year period, starting at $50,000 in year one and increasing each year.

41) What supplies amount were applicants directed to include?

Applicants were directed to include supplies totaling $800,000 across the five-year period, starting at $140,000 in year one and increasing each year.

42) Was a multi-year plan required?

Yes. Applicants were expected to provide a multi-year execution schedule showing objectives and goals and major milestones over the full period of performance.

43) How were proposals evaluated?

Proposals were evaluated using a limited set of criteria, and organization and clarity were emphasized as important.

44) What was the highest-priority evaluation factor?

The highest-priority factor was the overall innovativeness, merit, and soundness of the proposed approach, including capability to accomplish the statement of work, compliance with minimum personnel requirements, understanding of requirements, and creativity in proposing externally funded expansions that broaden the Academy's reach.

45) What was the second major evaluation factor?

The second major factor was overall value, focusing on the cost and realism of the proposed effort.

46) Would the technical and budget proposals be evaluated separately or together?

The government planned to evaluate technical and budget proposals at the same time.

47) Could the government decide not to make an award or to fund only part of a proposal?

Yes. The government reserved the right to make no award or to fund only portions of the proposed work.

48) Who had the authority to obligate government funds?

Only the agreements officer had authority to obligate government funds.

49) Where was the opportunity centered?

It was centered at the Phillips Research Site (PRS) on Kirtland Air Force Base in New Mexico.

50) Were points of contact identified for questions and submissions?

Yes. The opportunity identified points of contact for contracting and technical matters at AFRL/PRS on Kirtland AFB.