49100425Q0002 Q and A Part 2.xlsx
XLSX spreadsheet 18 KB Posted
- Solicitation number
- 49100425Q0002
About this file
This is a Questions & Answers document containing 26 questions and responses related to RFQ #49100425Q0002 for the NSF Regional Innovation Engines Program Evaluation. Key details revealed include an anticipated start date of April 16, 2025, evaluation of nine Engines spanning 16 states in the initial phase, and significant ODCs of $123,000 in Option Year 3 (compared to $23,000 in other years) for modeling software licenses related to general equilibrium modeling of engine-specific projects.
The Q&A clarifies that this is not a direct follow-on to contract #49100423P0029, will use an internal review process rather than NSF's grant review process, and requires a subcontracting plan even if no subcontracting is planned. Data collection will be administered via Qualtrics, with the first round anticipated for spring 2025 pending OMB clearance. While a second cohort of Engines may be added later, they will be excluded from the Phase I summative evaluation but could be included in an update pending funding availability. The Builder Platform (builderplatform.engine.xyz) provides voluntary support to the Engines program.
View the file
Other files
| File | Type | Posted |
|---|---|---|
| 49100425Q0002-0003 RFQ Amendment.pdf | ||
| 49100425Q0002-0002 RFQ Amendment.pdf | ||
| 49100425Q0002 Q and A.xlsx | XLSX spreadsheet | |
| 49100425Q0002-0001 RFQ Amendment.pdf | ||
| 49100425Q0002 RFQ.pdf | ||
| Attachment 1 - Section 508 Accessibility Requirements.pdf |
On GovTribe
Work with this file
- Download the original file
- Contacts named in this file
- Similar government files
- Ask GovTribe AI about this file
Text version
Sheet1
| # | RFQ Section | RFQ Page Number | Question | Answer |
| 1 | N/A | N/A | Is there a funding amount (maximum) for the annual budget recommended at all? Can you share the funding amount for the current contract? | NSF will not be providing a recommended budget range or level of effort for this solicitation. |
The award ID for the prior requirement is 49100423P0029; information for this acquisition can be obtained through the SAM.gov Data Bank or FPDS.gov. However, the scope of these requirements is not equivalent and this is not a direct follow-on.
| 2 | N/A | N/A | Will this be evaluated via the typical NSF grant review process, or is it an internal review? | This acquisition will not follow the NSF grant review process. The evaluation will be an internal review process. The evaluation factors and their level of importance are established in provision 52.212-2. |
| 3 | N/A | N/A | What is the anticipated start date? | The anticipated start date is April 16, 2025. However, the acquisition may start sooner or later than this date dependent upon the time required to award the contract. |
| 4 | N/A | N/A | What is NSF’s estimated level of effort and anticipated budget range for this evaluation? | See Question #1. |
| 5 | III. Scope | 6 | On p. 6, the SOW indicates that “Presently, there are nine engines spanning 16 states.” However, publicly-available information indicates that there are 10 engines in the inaugural portfolio (see https://new.nsf.gov/funding/initiatives/regional-innovation-engines/portfolio). Can NSF confirm the number of current engines that will be included in the evaluation? | For pricing and planning purposes, nine Engines may be used as the basis for the estimates. |
| 6 | III. Scope | 6 | Can NSF confirm that Engine awardees from future cohorts are expected to be included in the evaluation (for example, awardees from the solicitation due February 2025)? If so, for budgeting purposes, can NSF provide an estimated number of awardees that offerors should assume in a second cohort? Given the timing of the phase I report (p. 12), would this second cohort be excluded from phase I, or should offerors assume an update to the phase I report would be an additional deliverable later in the contract? | The overall number of future NSF Engines awards has not been determined at this time. Please refer to the solicitation for the second cohort for any details or updates on that acquisition. |
The second cohort will be excluded from the Phase I summative evaluation but may be included in an update to the Phase I report as an additional deliverable pending availability of funds.
| 7 | Task 4 | 8 | The RFQ references “survey instruments used in the NSF Engines programmatic data collection.” How is this data collection administered and how will the data be shared with the contractor? Can NSF share the survey instruments? | Data collection is administered by NSF via Qualtrics. Pending background clearance of the contractor, NSF will either have Qualtrics accounts created for the contractor to access the survey instruments or raw data will be shared with the contractor. |
| 8 | Task 5 | 9 | On p. 9, the SOW indicates that “the Contractor shall deliver [the SEM] report up to fifteen times—anytime there is a change in the survey instruments and/or anytime additional NSF Engine award recipients are added to the program.” For budgeting purposes, can NSF clarify whether these deliverables are expected to be independent reports, or primarily updated/revised tables? Can NSF also indicate how the offerors should assume the potential 15 updates are distributed between changes in the survey instrument versus changes in the sample? | We anticipate these to be updated/revised reports. At this moment, we do not have an estimate of the breakdown between changes in the survey instrument vs changes in the sample. We anticipate that changes in the survey instrument would be subject to significant changes in our understanding of how latent variables relate to one another as specified from new findings in the academic literature. We anticipate changes in the sample will primarily be limited to the addition of new cohorts, pending availability of funds appropriated by Congress. |
| 9 | Pricing | 14 | Can NSF confirm the values for the Travel and Other Direct Costs (ODCs)? Specifically, is the plug number for ODCs in Optional Year 3 ($123,000) supposed to differ from the other years ($23,000 per year)? | That is correct. The variance in anticipated ODCs for Option Year 3 is for software necessary for the performance of the requirement. |
| 10 | N/A | N/A | Can you share a theory of action for NSF Regional Innovation Engines that can guide the evaluation? | NSF will provide access to all relevant information and program resources for the Engines program to the contractor once they have been awarded the contract, cleared through background checks, completed the badging process, and met any other requirements necessary for accessing sensitive information. |
| 11 | Can you share the surveys and/or information about the respondent populations and topics covered by the NSF surveys? What is the estimated time when the first surveys were or will be fielded? | A description of the programmatic data collection and the type of data collected can be found on the Federal Register: https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2024/06/25/2024-13918/proposed-data-collection-submitted-for-public-comment-and-recommendations |
NSF is still in the process of securing OMB clearance on the programmatic data collection surveys. Pending clearance, we anticipate the first round of data collection taking place sometime spring 2025.
| 12 | N/A | N/A | Is there a rubric to guide what is contained in the Engine evaluation plans? | NSF has provided each Engine and their respective evaluation teams with guidance on their evaluation plans and annual evaluation report. These will be shared with the contractor, along with other resources, once they have been awarded the contract, cleared through background checks, completed the badging process, and met any other requirements necessary for accessing sensitive information. | |
| 13 | Should the contractor plan to deliver third-party data that it obtains for the summative evaluations, such as labor market indicators, to the individual engines? | If it is within the scope of the contractor's third-party data license or agreement with the data provider, that would be a welcomed addition. However, it is not a necessary component. | |||
| 14 | N/A | N/A | Would you like resumes included for key personnel? | Key personnel resumes are not requested. Please refer to the Addendum of 52.212-1 for instructions on preparing your quote. | |
| 15 | A.3 | 14 | Section 5 on page 3 of the funding opportunity states that pricing in support of the Statement of Work should be “in a format similar to that in Section B.1, Price/Cost Schedule.” There is no B.1 included in the opportunity. Should this state A.2? | That is correct. Pricing should be in a format similar to that in Section A.2. | |
| 16 | III. Scope | 6 | The NSF website reports 10 engines but the RFQ asks to evaluate 9 engines. Can you confirm the number we should use? | See Question #5. | |
| 17 | N/A | N/A | Is there a coordination or support hub to support Engines? | NSF has contracted the Builder Platform (https://builderplatform.engine.xyz) to provide support to the Engines. Engine engagement with the Builder Platform is on a voluntary basis. | |
| 18 | N/A | N/A | Are there annual PI or other meetings for the Engines? | NSF has not yet set up recurring annual PI meetings for the Engines. However, it is possible that annual or bi-annual meetings, or other events requiring participation from the Engine leadership teams, may be scheduled. This will depend on a variety of factors. | |
| 19 | A.3 | 14 | On pg. 14, requirement 3 requests a summary of recent and relevant projects completed. Must the projects be completed or can we include active projects for which work has been conducted within the last 3 years? | If an active project is included, you must clearly distinguish what work has been conducted (i.e., completed) vs what work is planned to take place. | |
| 20 | N/A | N/A | As this appears to be a recompete, could you please provide information about the incumbent contractor? | See Question #1. | |
| 21 | N/A | N/A | Could you clarify the number of Full-Time Equivalents (FTEs) and key personnel that will be utilized for this project? | Offerors should quote the number of Full-Time Equivalents (FTEs) and key personnel appropriate for their technical approach. | |
| 22 | A.1 | 3 | |||
| (Amendment 0001) | The RFQ mentions requiring a subcontracting plan but not requiring subcontracting. Does NSF prefer the use of subcontracting? If subcontracting is not planned, is a plan still required? | The use of subcontracting is not an evaluation factor. |
Submission of a subcontracting plan is still required in accordance with the terms of the solicitation, even if subcontracting is not planned.
| 23 | N/A | N/A | Can you provide insight on the current program survey and the type of data that will be collected from the Engines | A description of the programmatic data collection and the type of data collected can be found on the Federal Register: https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2024/06/25/2024-13918/proposed-data-collection-submitted-for-public-comment-and-recommendations |
| 24 | A.7 | 20 | Can you clarify where you want survey development expertise? While this skillset is part of the evaluation process, we do not see the term "survey development" in the 9 tasks. | Our programmatic data collection surveys may evolve over time to gather different types of information as the program progresses. In this case, expertise in survey development would be beneficial. However, if the data collection methods remain unchanged, survey development may not be required from the contractor. |
| 25 | Pricing | 14 | In the response to questions, NSF indicated that the “variance in anticipated ODCs for Option Year 3 is due to a planned renewal for software necessary for the performance of the requirement.” Can NSF specify what software these costs are associated with and under which task ODCs should be budgeted? | The ODCs in Option Year 3 include a cost estimate for a modeling software license for general equilibrium modeling to help quantify impact of engine-specific projects. It is directly associated with Task 3. Specifically, sub-task 3.3 in the summative phase II evaluation. |
The answer to Question #9 has been rephrased accordingly.
26 Pricing 14 For the pricing information requested on the bottom of page 14, #5 there appears to only be one CLIN item. Does NSF want the budget to be reflected across all tasks or per task? Each SOW task should be a separate CLIN.
&"Microsoft Sans Serif,Bold"CUI//SP-CONTRACT//FED ONLY 49100425Q0002
&"Microsoft Sans Serif,Bold"CUI//SP-CONTRACT//FED ONLY 49100425Q0002
CUI Contact: cui@nsf.gov
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .