2026 SBIR DT2 QA (91990026R0005).xlsx
XLSX spreadsheet 21 KB Posted
- Attached to
- Department of Education Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR) Direct to Phase II 2026: Solicitation
- Solicitation number
- 91990026R0005
View the file
Other files
| File | Type | Posted |
|---|---|---|
| DT2- 91990026R0005 Final.docx | DOCX document | |
| DT2- 91990026R0005 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 Direct to Phase II Q&A (91990026R0005) | ||
| Number | Question | Government Response |
| 1 | We have done a small scale pilot, gathered feedback on our approach from 15 experts (who have validated the process behind it). Our European partner has already scaled it to 200k students in 14 countries, and we seek to scale now in the US. Is that sufficient to prove that this is equivalent to a “quasi-experimental study that support the efficacy of the innovation. The offeror is required to detail the design of the study and present the findings demonstrating that the existing innovation leads to the intended outcomes. Data should also be demonstrating the usability, feasibility, and fidelity of implementation.” | 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. |
| 2 | We were not ready to scale in the US because of various idiosyncrasies, which we intend to address as part of the expansion here (40+ US States have mandates for suck skills). Yet we see this requirement: Proposals must explain why the existing innovation is not yet ready for use at scale, and must provide results from concept testing through focus groups with a small number of intended users and decision makers (e.g., superintendents, district administrators, principals, educators, learners, parents) who have viewed plans and mock-ups, provided feedback, and believe the new education technology product would be usable, feasible, and meet current need(s). Could we consider that the tangible success overseas is a better proof than opinions based on mockups? To clarify the contradiction in #2: we are not ready to scale in the US yet, because in Europe we are measuring only one parameter with one source of data. In the US, we intend to go multi-parameter, triple-source. Does this still mean we would need a focus group to review plans and mock-ups? Time is very short for that 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. |
| 3 | Prior Federal Award and Missing Final Report |
My question: Would the existence of an incomplete final report on a prior federal award — resulting from a documented medical emergency and organizational closure — affect eligibility to apply for or receive a DTP2 award? Is there a process through which this prior compliance gap can be resolved or formally addressed before submission?
| No, an incomplete final report on a prior federal award alone will not affect eligibility. | |
| 4 | Eligibility Confirmation |
| The existing REDACTED innovation was developed by me while serving as Founder and Executive Director of the REDACTED nonprofit organization. REDACTED is a C-Corporation I founded in 2026. I am the original researcher, the developer of the innovation, and the Principal Investigator on the proposed DTP2 award. I want to confirm that this structure — a for-profit company founded by the original nonprofit researcher — satisfies the DTP2 eligibility requirement that the existing innovation was "initially created by a researcher at a nonprofit education research organization" and that the "original researcher" remains on the team. | The existing evidence-based innovation is required to have originally been conceptualized and developed by an academic researcher while at a university (or academic institution) or by a researcher at a non-profit education research organization. One (or more) of the researchers who originally conceptualized and developed the innovation is required to be part of the team in the proposed ED/IES SBIR project, whether as an employee/owner of the small business or as a consultant to the small business that receives the SBIR award. | |
| 5 | Spring 2026 Pilot Study as Section 2D Research |
| In Spring 2026, REDACTED conducted an eight-week pilot study of the proposed new digital platform across 11 Kindergarten classrooms in five West Michigan school communities. The pilot was designed to assess feasibility, usability, and initial user response. We would like to confirm that this Spring 2026 pilot study satisfies the Section 2D requirement for "user-concept or focus-group testing conducted in preparation for this proposal." | 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. | ||
| 6 | Will the Department allow the new product to be delivered exclusively as a FedRAMP Moderate SaaS cloud service, or must an on-premise deployment option be included for school districts with local hosting policies? | No, products cannot be delivered exclusively as a FedRAMP Moderate SaaS cloud service. | |
| 7 | What specific data-privacy, cybersecurity, and student-data protections (e.g., FERPA, CUI, FedRAMP baselines) will apply during the pilot and after commercialization, and should corresponding costs be included in the Phase II budget? | All protections applicable to your product should apply and be considered in budgeting. | |
| 8 | Does ED require evidence of IRB approval at time of proposal submission, or is proof of submission/intent sufficient with final approval prior to pilot initiation? | No, it is not required at the time of submission. All projects must undergo initial Institutional Review Board (IRB) review for the protection of human subjects prior to conducting any pilot research with users. | |
| 9 | Is there a minimum or maximum number of schools, classrooms, or learners expected for the pilot study, or will the panel evaluate appropriateness solely on the justification provided? | The design and scope of the pilot study in a Direct to Phase II proposal are expected to vary from project to project, depending upon the costs and timing required to accommodate the unique focus and characteristics of the new education technology product and its implementation context (e.g., learner, classroom, school). As a result, it is expected that pilot studies may vary in the number of districts, schools, classrooms, educators, families, or learners. | |
| 10 | After the two-year contract, will the awardee retain full SBIR data rights for five years as standard, and may the product be licensed commercially to non-federal customers without additional ED approval? | Please see for more information about SBIR data rights: https://www.sbir.gov/tutorials/data-rights/tutorial-2. In addition, you are not restricted to Federal customers. |
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .