2026 SBIR Phase IB QA(91990026R0004).xlsx
XLSX spreadsheet 28 KB Posted
- Attached to
- Department of Education Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR) Phase IB 2026: Solicitation
- Solicitation number
- 91990026R0004
View the file
Other files
| File | Type | Posted |
|---|---|---|
| Phase IB- 91990026R0004 Final.docx | DOCX document | |
| Phase IB- 91990026R0004 Final.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
| 2026 SBIR Phase IB Q&A (91990026R0004) | |||||
| Number | Business or Technical Question | Reference RFP Section (i.e., Evaluation Criteria, SOW, Instructions to Offerors, etc.) | Reference RFP Page # | Question | Government Response |
| 1 | We completed an NSF Phase II award in June 2025. The research was conducted by REDACTED. but the results were not available until September. We were unable to apply for the NSF Phase IIB award due to the deadline. We are in the process of designing multiple new AI components that hopefully will be integrated into our NSF SBIR funded education technology product. These will greatly extend its effectiveness, outcomes and use. I received an email today announcing the IES IB solicitation. Before putting together an application, I want to be sure that NSF funded SBIR projects are eligible. Please advise. | If a potential offeror has received ANY prior award(s) from ED (grants, contracts, etc.), or any other U.S. Federal agency for similar or closely related activities, the offeror must provide the name of the awarding agency, the date of award, the funding agreement number, the amount, and the project title. The offeror must also describe the technical differences and reasons why the proposed new Phase I research should be regarded as distinct from the research conducted under prior related awards. | |||
| 2 | I’m the founder of REDACTED, an existing platform that helps government agencies discover, apply for, and track grant funding. We are exploring an education-focused extension of our product, REDACTED, designed specifically for school districts. Our proposed Phase IB project would develop an “Outcome-Aligned Funding Engine” an AI-driven module that connects funding opportunities to evidence-based interventions and predicts their impact on student outcomes (e.g., literacy, attendance, achievement gaps). The goal is to support district leaders in making funding decisions that directly improve student performance. We believe this aligns with IES priorities around evidence based decision making and measurable outcomes, but wanted to confirm whether this type of funding-to-outcome decision support system would be considered responsive under the current SBIR solicitation, particularly within education administration or systems focused applications. | The offeror must make the determination if a proposal is a good fit for the Phase IB competition. See the solicitations for guidance and specifications about the priority areas. ED/IES SBIR makes awards for new education technology products to improve education, and these products take many forms. | |||
| 3 | For Phase IB, how should offerors determine whether a proposed component is considered “sufficiently distinct” from an existing education technology platform? For example, would a new immersive/adaptive accessibility and personalization layer generally be viewed as a distinct technological approach if the existing platform primarily consists of workflow and intervention management functionality? | ED/IES SBIR cannot provide guidance in response to this question. Per U.S. Government Federal Acquisition Regulations (FAR), ED/IES SBIR program personnel and other government personnel are not permitted to engage with potential offerors to provide technical assistance or answer questions while the solicitations are open or during proposal review. Program personnel are available to provide technical assistance outside of the dates when the annual program is open. The proposal must convince a reviewer that (a) the new component is distinct, (b) that the technology approach to develop the new component is new and different from previous approaches, and (c) that after the Phase IB and Phase II projects are completed the new version of the fully developed education technology prototype or product (including the new component) will significantly improve education outcomes relative to what already exists. | |||
| 4 | Does the Department consider projects focused on competency development, workforce readiness, life skills, executive functioning, transition-related outcomes, accessibility, or neurodivergent learner support to be within the intended scope of the solicitation, provided the educational rationale and research basis are well supported? | The offeror must make the determination if a proposal is a good fit for the Phase IB competition. See the solicitation for guidance and specifications about the priority areas. ED/IES SBIR makes awards for new education technology products to improve education, and these products take many forms. | |||
| 5 | To what extent are reviewers evaluating the operational implementation context of the proposed product within educational settings (e.g., who uses the product, instructional/workflow integration, staffing structure, intervention delivery model, etc.)? | The reviewers will be using the evaluation criteria that is included in Section V. of the solicitation. | |||
| 6 | For Phase IB proposals involving immersive learning, adaptive environments, AI-driven personalization, accessibility-focused systems, or contextual simulation, what level of prior evidence or research grounding is generally expected at the Phase IB stage? | For proposals to add a new component to an existing prototype that is functioning when used by end users for testing or research, offerors must detail prior research on the existing prototype’s usability and feasibility (and |
reliability and validity if applicable to the focus of the project). If available, offerors are also encouraged to present research findings on the promise of the prototype to lead to the intended outcomes when used by end-users. For proposals to add a new component to an existing product that is commercially available or that will be available soon (as opposed to a functioning prototype), offerors must detail prior research on the product’s usability and feasibility (and reliability and validity if applicable to the focus of the product), and empirical findings showing the promise or efficacy of the existing product for improving outcomes.
7 For products building upon prior SBIR/STTR-funded pilot work and existing algorithms, what level of prior technical development is generally considered acceptable within the intent of Phase IB? For proposals to add a new component to an existing prototype that is functioning when used by end users for testing or research, offerors must detail prior research on the existing prototype’s usability and feasibility (and reliability and validity if applicable to the focus of the project). If available, offerors are also encouraged to present research findings on the promise of the prototype to lead to the intended outcomes when used by end-users. For proposals to add a new component to an existing product that is commercially available or that will be available soon (as opposed to a functioning prototype), offerors must detail prior research on the product’s usability and feasibility (and reliability and validity if applicable to the focus of the product), and empirical findings showing the promise or efficacy of the existing product for improving outcomes.
| 8 | REDACTED is currently an NSF SBIR Phase II awardee. We are exploring whether we may be eligible to apply for the Department of Education SBIR Phase IB program, particularly if the proposed work is education-focused and distinct from, but complementary to, our NSF-funded work. Could you please confirm whether a company with an active or prior NSF SBIR award is eligible to apply for Dept. of Ed SBIR Phase IB? Also, are there any restrictions we should be aware of around overlap in scope, funding, or commercialization activities? | If the small business concern has received ANY prior award(s) from ED (grants, contracts, etc.), or any other U.S. Federal agency for similar or closely related activities, the offeror must provide the name of the awarding agency, the date of award, the funding agreement number, the amount, and the project title. The offeror must also describe the technical differences and reasons why the proposed new Phase I research should be regarded as distinct from the research conducted under prior related awards. |
| 9 | I previously applied for IA in 2024 however was lacking a Teaching Professional. This year im going for the same innovation, Im curious can use the 2024 recommendations and letters of support for this years SBIR? | Please include updated letters of support. |
| 10 | If a small business has developed and piloted a technology in non-education contexts, but has not developed, evaluated, or commercialized it as an education technology product nor sold it outside paid pilots, would a proposal to create and evaluate a novel education-focused version of that technology potentially be appropriate for Phase IA? | The offeror must make the determination if a proposal is a good fit for the Phase IA or Phase IB competition. See the solicitation for guidance and specifications about the priority areas. ED/IES SBIR makes awards for new education technology products to improve education, and these products take many forms. |
| 11 | First, regarding project leadership structure: in our case, three university faculty members would be collaborating closely with the small business on the scientific and technical aspects of the project. Would multiple individuals across the university (i.e., the three of us) and the small business be able to serve as Multiple Principal Investigators (MPIs), or does the small business representative need to serve as the primary PI, with us faculty designated as Co-Investigators or other personnel? |
| We ask because our understanding is that MPIs generally share equal authority, responsibility, and accountability for the project’s scientific and financial conduct, whereas Co-Investigators contribute significant expertise but do not hold the same overarching responsibility as the PI(s). We are unclear how that structure operates within the SBIR framework when a university team is partnering with a small business. | Only one individual may serve as the Project Director. Co-Project Directors are not permitted. | |
| 12 | Second, regarding Section F (“Letters of Support for Potential Pathways to Commercialize the New Proposed Education Technology Product”), we wanted to make sure we are appropriately interpreting the kinds of letters that would be viewed as most responsive and compelling for this mechanism. |
For example, for a project like ours, would strong letters be those from:
| • | another School of Social Work or MSW program interested in future adoption/piloting; |
| • | a national organization such as the Council on Social Work Education that could support broader dissemination/visibility; |
| • | practicum or behavioral health partners who could speak to workforce/training relevance; |
| • | or organizations connected to scaling educational technologies across universities or training programs? |
| Additionally, from the small business perspective, are reviewers also looking for letters from entities tied more directly to commercialization pathways (e.g., higher-ed technology distributors, implementation/integration partners, simulation-training organizations, or potential scaling/distribution partners)? | We cannot answer this question at this time, as it would give an unfair advantage during the solicitation and evaluation phase. Per U.S. Government Federal Acquisition Regulations (FAR), ED/IES SBIR program personnel and other government personnel are not permitted to engage with potential offerors to provide technical assistance while the solicitations are open or during proposal review. | ||
| 13 | Our company, REDACTED, is currently registered on SAM.gov with the purpose of registration set to "Federal Assistance Awards" only. Is this sufficient for ED/IES SBIR Phase IB proposal submission, or do we need to update our registration to include contract authority (which might trigger a new review of our entity)? | In order to receive an award, offerors must be registered in SAM.gov with the purpose of registration set to "All Awards." | |
| 14 | Our CAGE code has not yet been assigned (our registration was recently activated). Will a blank CAGE code at the time of proposal submission on June 29, 2026 be an issue? | Offerors may submit proposals while awaiting the assignment of CAGE codes. | |
| 15 | Existing Prototype Qualification. The existing prototype we would identify in a Phase IB proposal is REDACTED, a Roblox-based game that functions independently without developer assistance and has been used by over 22,000 unique players organically. Separately, REDACTED Company has conducted facilitated research sessions—led by the company's founder—in which REDACTED is delivered alongside an animated film and a structured artifact activity as a complete platform sequence. We want to be transparent that this full facilitated sequence has not yet been tested with independent facilitators; it has been delivered exclusively by the developer in a researcher-led protocol. We are asking the program office to confirm whether Rage Fighters, as an independently functioning prototype with documented organic use, satisfies the Phase IB prototype definition—and whether the facilitated research sessions constitute a valid research base for a proposal to add a new component to that prototype. | We cannot answer this question at this time, as it would give an unfair advantage during the solicitation and evaluation phase. Per U.S. Government Federal Acquisition Regulations (FAR), ED/IES SBIR program personnel and other government personnel are not permitted to engage with potential offerors to provide technical assistance while the solicitations are open or during proposal review. The offeror must make the determination if a proposal is a good fit for the Phase IB competition. See the solicitation for guidance about selecting the right competition. | |
| 16 | New Component Distinctness. We intend to propose an AI-mediated narrative companion (a character-based chat interface accessible via existing youth platforms such as Discord) as the new component to be integrated with the existing prototype. This component uses a natural language AI approach that is technologically distinct from the game engine and animation pipeline used to develop the existing prototype. Please confirm whether a conversational AI companion of this type would be considered a distinct new component under the Phase IB requirements, or whether the program office has concerns about this framing. | We cannot answer this question at this time, as it would give an unfair advantage during the solicitation and evaluation phase. Per U.S. Government Federal Acquisition Regulations (FAR), ED/IES SBIR program personnel and other government personnel are not permitted to engage with potential offerors to provide technical assistance while the solicitations are open or during proposal review. The offeror must make the determination if a proposal is a good fit for the Phase IB competition. See the solicitation for guidance about selecting the right competition. | |
| 17 | Education Setting for Pilot Study. Our pilot research has taken place primarily in afterschool programs and community-based organizations, some of which operate within or adjacent to school buildings. The solicitation requires a letter of agreement from an education setting. Please clarify whether a Boys & Girls Club affiliate, a school-based afterschool program operating within a public school, or a community-based program with a formal school partnership would qualify as an "education setting" for the purposes of the required letter of agreement in Section E | Yes. For research that will occur in out-of-school learning context (e.g., after-school or summer programs, distance learning programs, on-line programs, enrichment programs, self-directed learning), a letter of agreement in Section E must come from a representative of an organization to indicate that research will be conducted under the auspice of their organization. | |
| 18 | Would a platform focused on operational infrastructure and interoperability for public schools fall within the intended scope of the current ED/IES SBIR topics? | The offeror must make the determination if a proposal is a good fit for the Phase IB competition. See the solicitation for guidance and specifications about the priority areas. ED/IES SBIR makes awards for new education technology products to improve education, and these products take many forms. | |
| 19 | Is there interest within the program for parent-facing operational systems that improve school-to-family coordination and administrative efficiency? | The offeror must make the determination if a proposal is a good fit for the Phase IB competition. See the solicitation for guidance and specifications about the priority areas. ED/IES SBIR makes awards for new education technology products to improve education, and these products take many forms. | |
| 20 | Would proposals involving cross-system integration and workflow modernization for K–12 operations be considered responsive to the solicitation? | The offeror must make the determination if a proposal is a good fit for the Phase IB competition. See the solicitation for guidance and specifications about the priority areas. ED/IES SBIR makes awards for new education technology products to improve education, and these products take many forms. | |
| 21 | REDACTED is developing REDACTED, an AI-powered, game-based learning platform designed to support K–12 learners, with an initial focus on math learning, engagement, executive-functioning support, and accessibility for ADHD and other neurodivergent learners, ages 6 to 110. We currently have:• An MVP in development with two playable learning games to be launched in June 2026. • Initial pilots and testing preparation underway. • AI companion functionality integrated into the experience. • A planned focus on measurable academic and engagement outcomes. We are considering proposing a new, distinct component focused on adaptive learning systems, AI-guided support, and learner progression analytics. We would greatly appreciate clarification on the following:1. Given our current stage, would ED/IES generally view this as a stronger fit for Phase IB rather than Phase IA if the proposed work focuses on a distinct new component added to an existing MVP? 2. Are there any SBIR requirements or guidelines we should review regarding the use of international collaborators or contractors supporting portions of development work? 3. Is a formal nonprofit, university, or research institution partner required for Phase IA or Phase IB SBIR proposals, or can evaluators, advisors, and school partners participate without being formal research institution partners? 4. For a platform designed to support neurodivergent learners, would ED/IES generally expect proposed outcomes to focus primarily on measurable educational and learner engagement outcomes? | 1) 'The offeror must make the determination if a proposal is a good fit for the Phase IB competition. See the solicitations for guidance and specifications about the priority areas. ED/IES SBIR makes awards for new education technology products to improve education, and these products take many forms. 2) All work must be conducted by individuals who are located within the United States who are either citizens or hold a green card. Individuals who are in the United States without citizenship, visa, or green card, and U.S. citizens working |
outside the U.S. are not eligible to conduct work on the contract. 3) The offeror is advised to review the Project Team section of the solicitation to information about personnel requirements. 4) We cannot answer this question at this time, as it would give an unfair advantage during the solicitation and evaluation phase. Per U.S. Government Federal Acquisition Regulations (FAR), ED/IES SBIR program personnel and other government personnel are not permitted to engage with potential offerors to provide technical assistance while the solicitations are open or during proposal review.
22 I am working on a ED/IES proposal to be submitted for the June 29 deadline, and am writing to request permission to deviate from the >50% employment threshold for SBIRs. I am also the PI on several NSF Educational Research grants which total 50% FTE which is in conflict with the requirements for the SBIR. These educational research grants have given me significant insights into the needs and gaps in the AI in Education field, and I believe our SBIR submission will provide a value-add for educational technology tools and will positively impact the field.
| Please let me know if it is possible to be granted this deviation so that we can plan on how best to approach this SBIR submission. | We are unable to grant permission to deviate from the >50% employment threshold requirement at this time. | |
| 23 | Our existing education technology prototype focuses on AI-supported institutional workflow infrastructure for higher education administrative and student-support operations. The existing prototype has been used in pilot and research contexts related to university operational coordination and process modernization. |
For a proposed Phase IB project, we are considering development of a distinct new AI-enabled component focused on predictive coordination and decision-support capabilities intended to improve institutional responsiveness and student-serving administrative workflows.
| Would a project of this nature align with the intent of the Phase IB solicitation category for products intended to improve the efficiency or accuracy of day-to-day administrative tasks or support institutional decision-making? | The offeror must make the determination if a proposal is a good fit for the Phase IB competition. See the solicitation for guidance and specifications about the priority areas and requirements. ED/IES SBIR makes awards for new education technology products to improve education, and these products take many forms. | |
| 24 | School Participation Letter | |
| Section E allows a maximum of one letter of agreement for school participation in the Phase IB R/R&D. For an early-stage pilot, may this letter come from a campus administrator or school leader confirming willingness to support teacher/student participation, or must it come from a district-level office? | The letter of agreement must come from the representative of the organization that has authority to make decisions about participation in research. | |
| 25 | Prior Research for Earlier-Stage Existing Prototype | |
| The solicitation states that earlier-stage existing prototypes should demonstrate usability and feasibility. For an existing prototype that has been tested informally with educators and students, may offerors present teacher survey data, usage telemetry, pilot feedback, and documented usability findings as evidence of usability and feasibility? | We cannot answer this question at this time, as it would give an unfair advantage during the solicitation and evaluation phase. Per U.S. Government Federal Acquisition Regulations (FAR), ED/IES SBIR program personnel and other government personnel are not permitted to engage with potential offerors to provide technical assistance while the solicitations are open or during proposal review. The offeror must make the determination about whether certain evidence is sufficient. | |
| 26 | Concept Testing Research for the Proposed New Component | |
| The solicitation states that all Phase IB offerors must include results from concept testing research where users provided feedback after viewing mock-ups detailing the proposed new component and its intended implementation. Is feedback from educators reviewing wireframes, screenshots, or short prototype walkthroughs acceptable for this concept testing requirement? | We cannot answer this question at this time, as it would give an unfair advantage during the solicitation and evaluation phase. Per U.S. Government Federal Acquisition Regulations (FAR), ED/IES SBIR program personnel and other government personnel are not permitted to engage with potential offerors to provide technical assistance while the solicitations are open or during proposal review. See the solicitation for more information about requirements for prior research. The offeror must make the determination about whether certain evidence is sufficient. | |
| 27 | YouTube Video Demonstration | |
| The solicitation requires a YouTube video demonstration of three minutes or less and notes that videos may be public or private. Would an unlisted YouTube video accessible by direct URL satisfy this requirement, provided it remains available during the review period? | Yes, as long as reviewers can access the video via the link. | |
| 28 | Contractor Security Liaison | |
| The solicitation requires at least two team members, including a Project Director and a Contractor Security Liaison, and states that the Project Director may not also serve as the CSL. May the CSL be a U.S.-based company officer or administrative team member who is not performing technical development work but is responsible for coordinating security-related requirements? | The CSL may be an employee at the company or a consultant from outside of the company. The CSL may serve in other project roles and often does, but it is not required for them to serve in other roles. |
| 29 | Is it acceptable to list the company founder as the Proposal Director (Item G, Section A: Cover Pages), the Contact Person (Item F, Section A), and the Authorized Representative (Item S, Section A)? Note that a different individual is listed for Contractor Security Liaison, as required by the RFP. | Yes. |
| 30 | May individuals engaged by REDACTED as 1099 independent contractors be listed as project team members (note they are U.S.-based and meet the citizenship/permanent resident requirements)? If so, should their effort be budgeted under “Consultant” and does their effort count toward or outside of the small business’s required 66 2/3% performance of the research effort? | For the SBIR/STTR programs, an employee includes all individuals employed on a full‐time, part‐time, or other basis. This includes employees obtained from a temporary employee agency, professional employee organization or leasing concern. Generally, an independent contractor is not considered an employee, but the Small Business Administration will treat an independent contractor as an employee where there is evidence of an employee/employer relationship. How these individuals are listed should be determined by their actual role and responsibilities on the project. If they are consultants or advisors, they should be listed as such and this would be considered effort external to the small business. |
| 31 | REDACTED currently serves adult users. For Phase IB, I'm exploring whether a new module designed specifically for school counselors — with distinct architecture, a new moderation and consent layer, and separate user flows — would qualify as a "distinct technological approach" on an existing platform, or whether Phase IB requires a fully standalone product independent of any prior work. | We cannot answer this question at this time, as it would give an unfair advantage during the solicitation and evaluation phase. Per U.S. Government Federal Acquisition Regulations (FAR), ED/IES SBIR program personnel and other government personnel are not permitted to engage with potential offerors to provide technical assistance while the solicitations are open or during proposal review. See the solicitation for more information about requirements for Phase IB vs Phase IA. The offeror must make the determination if a proposal is a good fit for the Phase IB competition. |
| 32 | I believe we need to submit a letter from the Education Setting where the pilot will take place. Can we submit it after June 2026? | All letters must be submitted at the time of proposal submission. |
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .