Amendment A00001 80NSSC23Q0003 ATTACHMENT 2 Questions and Answers.docx

Attachment 2 - Questions Template ESIP Entrepreneurial Engagement RFQ Number: 80NSSC23Q0003

All questions regarding this RFQ must be submitted using this Question Template, Attachment 2.

Complete the table below by entering your question in the column “Question” and the reference for that question in the column “Reference”. One question per row, unless the questions are related. Add rows as required. Reference should indicate where in the RFQ or attachment the question is referring to referencing attachment numbers, page numbers, and section numbers as appropriate. The term “General” may be used if the question is very general in nature and cannot be related to a section in the RFQ or SOO. Following the instruction in the RFQ, this template once completed should be emailed as an attachment.

Number

The decision of what type of venue to provide and how to procure it is left to the proposer. In iTech, the incumbent contractor was frequently able to find partners that were willing to host and little to no cost. If a similar strategy is to be used by vendors they should be able to demonstrate that they have potential partners that would be willing to provide similar service. However, if the vendor plans on hosting themselves, those costs should be included. Finally, there is no requirement for in-person events, many of the iTech events were effectively run virtually and that remains an option for vendors as well.

This requirement is a 100% small business set-aside.

Ratings Will having good past performance CSPAR ratings from prior NASA contracts be a motivating factor in selection under this solicitation?

Past performance is not an evaluated factor.

The contract type is a FFP contract type. Vendors have the discretion to propose payment terms beyond that.

No. Advance payments are not authorized for this purchase order.

See answer to question # 2

Either font is acceptable.

No

Does NASA have minimum experience and educational requirements for each Labor Category?

There is no strict key personnel requirement. However, the personnel dedicated to the tasks should be qualified to meet all of the technical objectives described in the solicitation (Tech scouting, investor engagement, event planning, and communications).

Yes, potential offerors in SBIR-Ignite are precluded from bidding on this solicitation.

Also, will all potential offerors be required to submit an OCI Statement and/or Risk Mitigation Plan?

An OCI Statement and/or Risk Mitigation Plan are not required for this solicitation.

There is no strict requirement on attendance. The primary outcomes of these events are maturation of the companies and collaboration between the participants. Having said that, there should be sufficient participation to allow for interdisciplinary collaboration and diversity of thought, and value-add networking opportunities.

The format for the events (in-person or virtual) are left to the vendor.

The specific choice of digital tools are left to the vendor. NASA does use MS Teams frequently, but if a vendor believes that an alternative tool adds value to the process they are welcome to propose it.

The answer to this depends on what is meant by audience. If the question is asking who we want to view the events, the answer would be that while it is always nice for the events to be well attended and highly viewed online, that is a secondary outcome. The primary outcome is providing an opportunity for companies to become better suited to taking their next step through a networking/mentorship opportunity that includes both private sector and NASA personnel.

If audience means, who is NASA targeting for the actual event participants. Then the audience is deep tech and space tech entrepreneurs, investors, and other innovation eco-system participants (accelerators, university tech transfer departments, regional innovation programs, etc)

Two demographics of high importance to NASA’s SBIR program are Woman-Owned Small Business (WOSB) and Disadvantaged-Owned Small Business (DOSB). These groups typically do not receive the same levels of funding opportunities as the general population in early stage private sector funding opportunities such as Angel and VC funding. NASA must ensure that the best ideas are being scouted, without the biases that exist against these groups in other mechanisms.

There is no specific region that NASA needs to focus on. However, early stage funding opportunities in the private sector tend to be regionally focused (i.e. Silicon Valley). While there is nothing wrong with funding great companies that happen to be in these regions, NASA must also make sure that great ideas and great founders across the country are given the same opportunities.

Yes, 508 complaince for deliverables (reports) generated is required.

This is left to the vendor, there are no strict requirements.

There will be specific NASA topics that vendors will want to focus on. Some examples can be seen in prior Ignite and iTech topics. However, the solicitation development process for FY23 has yet to begin, so those topics have not yet been chosen.

This is a follow-on to a cooperative agreement (80NSSC17C0004) that was awarded to National Institute of Aerospace Associates.

There is some flexibility on this for the vendor. In the final 12 months of iTech NASA scheduled one in-person and one virtual event and the iTech team continued tech scouting efforts until the end of the Ignite solicitation. That could be one approach.

However, if vendors think there is more value in a more comprehensive single event, or a single ongoing mentorship offering similar to what accelerators offer, or multiple virtual events, etc. they are free to propose the program they believe adds the most value.

Task 3 Will travel be required in order to satisfy Task 3 for Event Planning and execution? If so, how many required contractor staff are anticipated and how many days of travel are expected?

This depends on the format proposed. Vendors offering virtual interactions would not have to account for travel. Those proposing in-person events should account for travel and venue costs as applicable.

May NASA an event calendar be provided or an estimated number of events (in-person, virtul, and hybrid) in order to respond to this requirement more accurately?

This is up to vendor. In the last 12 months of iTech NASA had one virtual and one in-person event. However, vendors are not required to follow the iTech format. One element of certainty is that there will be an Ignite solicitation offered in the summer and NASA would like the community building program to contribute meaningfully to the response to that solicitation.

For the event planning and execution, is the contractor’s role to primarily serve as the coordinator and facilitator? Are there dedicated NASA staff to supporting the events such as mentors, subject matter experts, and event coordinators?

NASA would supply subject matter experts. However, recruitment of private sector participants such as investors, mentors, etc. are the responsibility of the vendor. Event planning, logistics, facilitation, and non-NASA participation are all the responsibility of the vendor as well.

Instructions How many key personnel are required and which labor categories are considered key personnel? Does NASA request key personnel resumes for Volume 1?

There is no strict key personnel requirement. However, the personnel dedicated to the tasks should be qualified to meet all of the technical objectives described in the solicitation (Tech scouting, investor engagement, event planning, and communications).

Task 4 For the Marketing and Communications Task 4, does NASA desire a software solution for hosting and engaging with the iTech community? If so, are there any software specifications and requirements for this solution? Additionally, would NASA require a data migration of existing iTech community data to the new platform?

Any required software solution should be communicated as part of the proposal and is not dictated by NASA. There may be an ability to market to prior iTech participants, but programming should be proposed that does not require reliance on the iTech database. The proposed programming should add value independent of iTech.

Task 2 Have the technology scouting categories/domains been defined? If so, can they be provided to provide parameters for the types of technologies NASA wishes the contractor to scout? How many tech scouting report deliverables would be desired throughout the period of performance?

The topics from prior efforts can be seen in prior iTech and Ignite offerings. The specific topics being planned for Proposal Year 2023 have yet to be chosen.

Tech scouting reporting can be done relatively simply through spreadsheets and tagup meetings.

Yes

Is the “opportunity” referenced the upcoming FY23 SBIR Ignite Solicitation?

One of the primary objectives of the community building event is to identify and prepare high quality companies for the Ignite solicitation.

For year one this depends on when exactly the contract is awarded. Ideally, the tech scouting team would be informed of potential topics and be able to offer input on potential challenges in tech scouting specific topics which could aid in the selection of topics or the wording / focus of topics. However, if the contract is awarded too late in year one, then this would have to be offered as retroactive feedback rather than consultation advice.

The community building effort should conclude prior to the release of the Ignite solicitation. However, ongoing tech scouting and investor engagement in support of Ignite (both recruiting companies to propose, and recruiting investors to engage Ignite companies) may continue beyond July.

Section 5 Instructions for Volume II: Price Section (Page 7) has been revised.

RFQ 80NSSC23Q0003 has been revised to remove this requirement.

The SOO numbering scheme has been corrected.

NASA does not want the vendor to propose modifications to SBIR Ignite. The SBIR Ignite solicitation and review/selection process will be administered internally to NASA. The vendor’s responsibility for Ignite is limited to tech scouting and investor engagement, which can leverage prior work done for the community building event.

The vendor should propose a structure for the community (whether mentoring or event based) that either replicates or replaces iTech.