Amendment_0001_Responses_to_Timely_Questions_Received_SBIR_Phase_II_3.7.19.pdf

Request for Proposals 91990019R0012 Small Business Innovation Research Program (SBIR) Phase II Amendment 0001

Closing Date: April 1, 2019 11:00 a.m. ET

U.S. Department of Education’s (Department or ED) responses to clarification questions submitted by March 6, 2019, 11:00 A.M. ET:

WARNING! Offerors must note that there are email attachment size restrictions. The Department of Education cannot accept attachments larger than 25 MB. The Government is not responsible for attachment size restrictions that may exist on offerors' email servers!

Offerors are advised to check with their provider for information on email size restrictions and plan accordingly.

If offerors attempt to submit a proposal to Tracey.Perry@ed.gov and receive an error message, they MUST contact Tracey Perry PRIOR TO THE CLOSING OF THE SOLICITATION during standard business hours (8:00 A.M. ET to 5:00 P.M. ET, Monday through Friday). The solicitation closes promptly at 11:00 a.m. ET, on April 1, 2019. Late proposals will not be accepted.

1. We noticed in Section III.E on page 15 that "All of the “E. Project Narrative” components (1 through 6) must be included within pages i, ii, and iii of the proposal."

However, under this section there are only 3 components. Should it be only 3 components or are there 3 others not listed in the document we must add? (2.15.19)

Response: That is correct; provide the 3 components as requested. There are no additional components.

2. I noticed on page 44 that "The document must be saved using the following file nomenclature: “CompanyName.PhaseII.ProposalTitle.pdf” or “CompanyName.PhaseII.ProposalTitle.doc(x)” Note: The total character count for the nomenclature is limited to 50 characters." Must the proposal title in the filename match exactly the title of the proposal in the document or can it be an abridged title?

The reason I ask is that the character limit for the filename would impose a short proposal title, but want to make 100% sure I am following the protocol correctly.

(2.15.19)

Response: Offerors may stop at 50 characters when saving the title.

3. Regarding the 'Key Personnel' section: One of the members of our team that we thought would be available to participate in this SBIR project may not be available to work with us due to professional and personal commitments. As a result, we may need to advertise and hire for this position. How do you recommend that we handle this within the application? Is it sufficient for us to say the person will be hired based on a set of criterion and professional responsibilities (and we note what those items are within that section)?

Response: No guidance can be provided in response to this question - the offeror must determine how to present the project team.

4. Endorsement Letters: Is there a preference to get continued letters of support from some or all of the endorsers/letter-writers in Phase I or is there a preference to get letters from 5 new endorsers? We are happy to do either. Also, is there a preference to get a commercial / financial letter of support? Since our company has already established a viable commercialization path, we were thinking a letter endorsing commercialization might be less impactful. Thoughts?

Response: The Phase II reviewers will not have access to and will not consider the Phase I proposal, hence there is no consideration of Phase I letters in the Phase II proposal.

5. IP Protection is important to us. We currently have 3 non-provisional patent applications pending with the USPTO on our underlying authoring and delivery technologies. While some of the Phase II work falls under the existing applications, the work also is protected as a trade secret, and it is likely we would file a new application during the Phase II 2-year period stemming from the work. We know reviewers commonly want to see good IP protection; do you believe the above is more than sufficient, or is it expected to have a new pending application specifically related to the proposed Phase II work?

Response: No guidance can be provided in response to this question.

6. Regarding the first sentence of the paragraph that refers to learner outcomes that a product intends to achieve: Sentence 2 appears to require offerors to specify standardized tests and other measures that are aligned to the learning outcomes referred to in sentence 1 of the grant application and could, therefore, be used as a measure of efficacy. Is this a correct interpretation of the requirement in sentence 2?

Response: Sentence 2 indicates that standardized outcome measures or protocols must be provided for student learning outcomes. No further guidance can be provided.

7. We plan to hire six expert consultants to advise us in the following areas:

• <Area 1>

• <Area 2>

• <Area 3>

• <Area 4>

• <Area 5>

• <Area 6>

Does this list of expert consultants and expertise qualify as "technical assistance" as described in this section of the grant application? Or does this list of expert consultants not qualify as “technical assistance,” therefore not requiring a special label in the budget and a detailed description in Appendix H?

Response: The Offeror must determine which of the individuals fall within the role of providing business consulting based on the information provided in Appendix I.