ED.IES.SBIR.SpecialTopic.SBIR.RFP.2.15.19_Final.docx

U.S. Department of Education Institute of Education Sciences

SMALL BUSINESS INNOVATION RESEARCH PROGRAM

PHASE I

PROGRAM SOLICITATION FOR FY 2019

REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS

SPECIAL TOPIC IN POSTSECONDARY EDUCATION

RFP Number:

91990019R0016

ISSUE DATE: February 15, 2019

CLOSING DATE: April 15, 2019 11:00 a.m., Eastern Time

PHASE I

TABLE OF CONTENTS Top

III. Contract Proposal Preparation Instructions and Requirements………………………15

X. Appendices to the Proposal

G. Department of Education Required Certifications…………………………….…58

ED/IES SBIR 2019 Phase I RFP

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

INSTITUTE OF EDUCATION SCIENCES

SMALL BUSINESS INNOVATION RESEARCH (SBIR) PROGRAM SOLICITATION

FY 2019

PHASE I SPECIALTOPIC IN POSTSECONDARY EDUCATION

REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS

RFP Number:

91990019R0016

I. PROGRAM OVERVIEW

A. Introduction The Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR) program, as established by law, is intended to meet the following goals: stimulate technological innovation in the private sector; strengthen the role of small business in meeting Federal research or research and development (R/R&D) needs; increase the commercial application of Federally-supported research results; foster and encourage participation by socially and economically disadvantaged small business concerns and women-owned business concerns in the SBIR program; and improve the return on investment from Federally-funded research for economic and social benefits to the Nation.

The U.S. Department of Education (ED or Department) invites qualified small business firms to submit an SBIR Phase I proposal under this Special Topic Solicitation for the R/R&D of an education technology “return on investment (ROI) tool” to improve job- and cost-informed postsecondary education decision-making.

B. Background for the ED/IES SBIR 2019 Phase I Special Topic in Postsecondary Education

Whether high school or community college students, transitioning service members, or working adults, many individuals considering postsecondary education need help planning their education and career paths. These individuals often need assistance determining what to study, what type of program to pursue, and what institution to attend. A key element that drives these decisions is the expected costs and benefits. Costs and benefits can vary significantly across postsecondary programs and the institutions that offer them, and for different individuals.

If costs and benefits could be combined into a single measure, such as an estimated “return on investment” (ROI), students may be more easily able to compare programs and institutions. Having access to this kind of measure could help students make more informed choices, leading to improved program completion rates, higher levels of employment and earnings, lower education-related debt, and more satisfaction with their selected pathways.

The field needs more tools that provide a customizable, user-friendly way to compare ROI of educational programs that prepare students for different careers. There are publicly available data sets and aids that provide pieces of information students would need, such as:

· ED’s College Scorecard[footnoteRef:1] provides data on the average cost and potential benefits (graduation rate and average salary) of attending individual postsecondary institutions in the United States. Currently these data are not available at the program level, though there are plans to make such data available in the near future. Organizations have used College Scorecard data to calculate measures similar to ROI for specific institutions, including the annual Wall Street Journal/Times Higher Education College Rankings and Forbes’ Best Value Colleges [1: These data are available for institutions that participate in ED’s Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS), and for which the Office of Federal Student Aid has student-level data for beneficiaries of federal student aid programs.]

· The U.S. Census Bureau’s Post-Secondary Employment Outcomes (PSEO) project has released recommended methodology and a data tool that shows how to link employment outcomes like earnings to graduates of education programs in two states.

· The Department of Labor’s (DOL) CareerOneStop website and mobile app provides customizable ways for individuals to explore careers and identify occupations of interest. Users can learn about specific jobs, whether demand is expected to grow, the skills and credentials needed to be successful, and average salaries of workers in jobs. Most importantly, once an occupation is selected, CareerOneStop provides a list of education and training options offered by 2- and 4-year public and private colleges as well as other types of training providers, with links to their webpages.[footnoteRef:2] Information in CareerOneStop is updated at least annually and can be tailored to a user’s preferred state, region, or zip code. [2: Most of the information on education and training providers and programs comes from the ED’s Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS). ]

None of these efforts include a single measure of or option to calculate ROI for different programs and institutions to help users sort through their many educational options. Part of the challenge is that there is no universally accepted calculation of ROI, though there are various approaches currently in use.[footnoteRef:3] Such calculations would need to consider: [3: The following websites are among many that discuss how to estimate an ROI for a particular college, degree, or program: https://www.forbes.com/sites/laurashin/2014/09/30/is-grad-school-worth-it-7-steps-to-calculating-the-roi/#4d79e98870a3; https://www.crimsoneducation.org/au/blog/college-roi; and https://www.credible.com/blog/student-loans/college-roi-6-tools-gauge-return-degree/.

· The net price of participating in a program at a given postsecondary institution or training provider. The net price is the institution’s full cost of attendance —for colleges this would include tuition, room and board, books and other fees students are required to pay—less any grants, scholarships, or training vouchers a student could potentially receive. But different programs – even at the same institution or school – can have different fees and estimated material costs (e.g., a Bachelor’s degree program in English versus one in Filmmaking, or a Bachelor’s degree program in Filmmaking versus a short-term certificate in Editing and Recording Arts). ED now requires schools that participate in the federal student aid program to provide an online calculator so prospective students can get individualized estimates of their net costs. But since obtaining access to these school calculators is likely to be difficult and there is no single source of data on program costs and fees, a customizable ROI tool might prompt students to enter data on expected costs directly from received offers of financial aid at the institutions and for the programs that they are choosing from among. Less ideally, net costs and then ROI could be calculated for students with a few different income profiles using average institution costs and fees, without regard for the variation in costs across programs.

· The proportion of students who graduate from the program and the average length of time to completion. Research on students enrolled in 2- and 4-year postsecondary programs indicates that, on average, fewer than 60 percent complete a degree or certificate within 6 years. Completion rates vary greatly across institutions and programs. While most programs have an expected duration (e.g., two years for a two-year Associates degree), there are many factors that could affect how much the actual average time deviates from the expected time to complete. For example, actual course completion time could be longer than expected if there is limited or time restricted course availability or if students enrolled in the program generally do not enroll full time. Similarly, actual time to completion could be lower than the expected duration if the program offers online courses or other flexible scheduling options and students participate in them. The typical or average program duration needs to be factored into ROI because the cost of participating can increase with the number of semesters enrolled, plus the longer student are enrolled in a postsecondary program the less they are earning from working.

· Job prospects and career salaries. Potential students need to know what they might expect to earn over their lifetime, to balance the investment of time and money in a particular postsecondary program or at a specific institution. Some states, including VA, IN, MN, UT, TN, CO, and TX, make the earnings of graduates at particular institutions and programs publicly available for a portion of the students in their state, or will make the data available for legitimate uses. For example, California has a website and comparison tool that provides these data for its community colleges. [footnoteRef:4] [4: See https://salarysurfer.cccco.edu/SalarySurfer.aspx.

ROI is not the only characteristic important to students in making decisions about a postsecondary institution or program. Students may have other individual preferences, reflecting differences in expectations or goals for postsecondary education or the environment in which they think that can best succeed. An ideal tool would allow students to factor in these other characteristics in conjunction with ROI. The DOL CareerOneStop application, for example, allows students to filter on some program and institutional features, as does ED’s College Scorecard.

There are many possible technical approaches to a tool containing ROI for improved job- and cost-informed postsecondary decision making. Each must grapple with limitations on access to data on program-level costs and benefits, methods for computing ROI in a valid and transparent way, and how to ensure the safeguarding and privacy of student data.

Overview: FY19 ED/IES SBIR Special Topic in Postsecondary Education As is detailed in this solicitation in Section IX. Priority Area, this ED/IES SBIR Special Topic requests Phase I proposals from eligible small business firms for the R/R&D of an ROI tool to inform job- and cost-informed postsecondary education decision making.

The Phase I Special Topic project shall focus on (a) the development of and research on a prototype of an ROI tool, (b) initial planning and concept testing for a fully developed ROI tool that provides a user-friendly experience for students. The prototype of the ROI tool developed in Phase I shall integrate with one or more existing technology systems, data sets, data standards, or resources (such as CareerOneStop or College Scorecard), and may add new data elements provided by the end-user.

After a successful Phase I project, it is anticipated that small businesses that win Phase II awards will complete the full-scale development of the ROI tool that was started in Phase I, including the development an interface to improve the experience of using the ROI tool.

The Phase II project will also include a pilot study to test the validity and reliability of the ROI tool’s calculation, and the promise of the end tool for improving job- and cost- related decision making by students from traditional and non-traditional backgrounds.

Because data for ROI at the program level may be publicly available only from some states, regions, or sets of institutions at this time, it is expected that the scope of the ROI tool developed in Phase I & II would be limited compared to an attempt to calculate ROI for every program and institution in the country. The applicant must determine the appropriate scope given the datasets that are to be integrated within the new ROI tool, and the amount of funding and time allotted for development and research of the SBIR awards in Phase I and II.

Small businesses that are interested in this solicitation must have expertise with related efforts in the field to enhance student choices by linking education and workforce information. For example, several philanthropies and other organizations are collaborating to develop open data standards and interoperability strategies for possible tools that could be developed in the future. See this report for information on one such initiative.

c. SBIR Program Description and Award Levels The SBIR program consists of three phases, as described below. The current solicitation is for submitting a Phase I proposal in 2019.

Phase I – Phase I is to determine, insofar as possible, the scientific or technical merit of ideas submitted under the SBIR program. The proposal should concentrate on R/R&D that will establish the feasibility of the technological approach, a prerequisite for further ED support in Phase II. Awards are for periods up to 8-months in amounts up to $200,000.

While the Phase I award may include a reasonable profit/fee, ED encourages sufficient funds to be budgeted to cover the cost for the research and development of the proposed prototype.

Phase II – Phase II is to expand on the results of and to further pursue the development of Phase I projects. Phase II is the principal R/R&D effort. It requires a more comprehensive plan that outlines the effort in detail and describes the commercial potential of the tool or tool. Awards are for periods up to 2-years in amounts up to $900,000.

Phase III – Phase III is for the private-sector commercialization of tools that were developed in Phase I and II. Note: ED/IES SBIR does not provide funding for Phase III efforts.

D. Authorization The “Small Business Reauthorization Act of 2011” (the “Act”) was enacted on December 31, 2011. The Act requires certain agencies, including ED, with an extramural budget for R/R&D in excess of $100,000,000 to establish SBIR programs by reserving a statutory percentage (not less than 3.2% of such budget in fiscal year 2019) of their extramural research and development budgets to be awarded to small business concerns for R/R&D through a uniform, highly competitive, three-phase process.

The Act further requires the Small Business Administration (SBA) to issue policy directives for the general conduct of the SBIR programs within the Federal Government. The most recent Small Business Innovation Research Policy Directive Notice was published in the “Federal Register” Vol. 77, No. 151 on January 8, 2014. It is also available at: https://www.federalregister.gov/articles/2014/01/08/2013-31374/small-business-innovation-research-program-policy-directive

The design of the Department of Education’s SBIR program is in accordance with the Small Business Administration (SBA) SBIR Program Policy Directive dated February 24, 2014. The SBIR policy directive guides the information and requirements set forth in this proposal package. Please go to https://www.sbir.gov/sites/default/files/sbir_pd_with_1-8-14_amendments_2-24-14.pdf to read the most recent SBIR Policy Directive issued by the Small Business Administration.

E. Offeror Eligibility Each organization submitting a proposal must qualify as a small business concern as defined by the SBA. The definition of a small business concern is included in “Definitions” (see Section II). In addition, the primary employment of the principal investigator must be with the small business firm at the time of award and during the conduct of the proposed research. That is, more than one-half of the principal investigator’s working time must be spent with the small business firm during the period of performance. Also, for both Phase I and Phase II the R/R&D work must be performed in the United States. “United States” means the 50 states, the territories and possessions of the Federal Government, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the District of Columbia, the Republic of the Marshall Islands, the Federated States of Micronesia, and the Republic of Palau.

Joint ventures are permitted, provided that the business entity created qualifies as a small business in accordance with the Small Business Act, 15 U.S.C. 631.

For Phase I, the proposing firm must perform at least two-thirds of the research and/or analytic effort. Furthermore, the total of all consultant fees, facility leases or usage fees, and other subcontracts or purchase agreements may not exceed onethird of the total contract price.

Phase I to Phase II Transition Benchmark. Section 4(a) of the SBIR Policy Directive calls for each Federal agency participating in SBIR to set a Phase I to Phase II transition rate benchmark in response to Section 5165 of the SBIR Reauthorization Act of 2011. The rate is the minimum required ratio of past Phase II/Phase I awards that an awardee firm must maintain to be eligible for a new Phase I award from a particular agency. The benchmark will apply to those Phase I applicants that have received 20 or more Phase I awards Program-wide. Small businesses can view their transition rate on www.sbir.gov upon completion of registration. When logging in, the Phase I to Phase II transition rate will be displayed in the welcome screen. The ED SBIR benchmark uses a five-year period and counts an applicant’s total number of Phase I awards over the last five fiscal years, excluding the most recently completed fiscal year; and the total number of Phase II awards over the last five fiscal years, including the most recently completed year. The ED SBIR Phase I to II Transition Benchmark as published in the Federal Register is: For all SBIR Program Phase I contract applicants that have received 20 or more Phase I awards over the 5-year period, the ratio of Phase II awards received to Phase I awards received must be at least 0.25. Small Businesses that do not meet this benchmark are ineligible to submit a proposal to the ED SBIR program.

Commercialization Benchmark. The Commercialization Benchmark requirement applies only to Phase I offerors that have received more than 15 (16 or more) Phase II awards over the past 10 fiscal years, excluding the last two years. These companies must have achieved at least the minimum required levels of commercialization activity, resulting from their past Phase II work, in order to be eligible to receive a new Phase I award. The current Commercialization Benchmark requirement, agreed upon and established by all 11 SBIR agencies, is that the awardee applicant must have received, to date, an average of at least $100,000 of sales and/or investments per Phase II award received, or have received a number of patents resulting from the SBIR work equal to or greater than 15% of the number of Phase II awards received during the period. Small Businesses that do not meet this benchmark are ineligible to submit a proposal to the ED SBIR program. For more information on the Benchmark Requirements for Phase I offerors, see here.

ED staff will examine all SBIR proposals with the above considerations in mind. If it appears that an offeror organization does not meet the eligibility requirements, ED will request an evaluation by the SBA. Under circumstances in which eligibility is unclear, ED will not make an SBIR award until the SBA provides a determination.

F. Key Dates and Award Information It is expected that ED will announce the Phase I awards on the Federal Business Opportunities website by approximately June 20, 2019. All offerors shall receive notification and reviewer evaluations from ED approximately two weeks after the announcement on the Federal Business Opportunities website. The project start date shall be June 24, 2019. Successful offerors have up to eight months to carry out the proposed Phase I effort.

ED is required under Public Law (P.L.) 106-554 to participate in the SBIR program. The Government’s obligation is contingent upon the availability of appropriated funds from which payments are made. ED is not bound by the estimates given in this solicitation. The number of Phase I awards shall be determined based on the number of high quality proposals that are submitted and the availability of funds.

G. Important Notices Award Limits: This Department has an award limit of $200,000 for Phase I in 2019. The Department is under no obligation to fund any specific proposal or make any specific number of awards in a given research priority area. The Department is not responsible for any monies expended by an offeror before an award.

Majority Owned Small Business Concerns: Beginning with its FY2018 program, the Department accepts proposals and is authorized to make awards to small business concerns owned in majority by multiple venture capital operating companies, hedge funds, or private equity firms. Proposals submitted by these entities in response to this solicitation are subject to the same peer review process that applies to all other applicants to ensure that they meet IES’ standards for scientific and technical merit and have the potential for commercialization. Note: the Department cannot award more than 15 percent of its SBIR budget for any single fiscal year to this group of offerors.

H. Executive Order 13329: Manufacturing-Related Innovation Executive Order 13329 states that continued technological innovation is critical to a strong manufacturing sector of the United States economy. The U.S. Department of Education’s SBIR Program encourages innovative manufacturing-related projects, as defined by the Executive Order.

I. Report Fraud, Waste and Abuse The Office of Inspector General Hotline at the U.S. Department of Education accepts tips from all sources about potential fraud, waste, abuse, and mismanagement in Department of Education programs. The reporting individual should indicate that the fraud, waste, and/or abuse concerns an SBIR grant or contract, if relevant.

http://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/oig/hotline.html

J. AGENCY CONTACT

All questions must be directed in writing to Contract Specialist, Kevin Wade. Any responses would be posted as an amendment to the solicitation on FedBizOpps. The Government cannot guarantee that questions submitted after March 21, 2019, 11 a.m. ET will receive a response.

Kevin Wade, Contract Specialist Email: Kevin.Wade@ed.gov

NOTE: Prior to the posting of the awards on the Federal Business Opportunities website, offerors are advised to not contact ED personnel with questions regarding the timing of the announcement.

II. DEFINITIONS

The Small Business Administration (SBA) developed the following definitions relevant to the Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR) Program.

(a) Act. The Small Business Act (15 U.S.C. 631, et seq.), as amended.

(b) Additionally Eligible State. A State in which the total value of funding agreements awarded to SBCs (as defined in this section) under all agency SBIR Programs is less than the total value of funding agreements awarded to SBCs in a majority of other States, as determined by SBA's Administrator in biennial fiscal years and based on the most recent statistics compiled by the Administrator.

(c) Applicant. The organizational entity that qualifies as an SBC at all pertinent times and that submits a contract proposal or a grant application for a funding agreement under the SBIR Program.

(d) Affiliate. This term has the same meaning as set forth in 13 CFR part 121—Small Business Size Regulations, §121.103, What is affiliation? Further information about SBA’s affiliation rules and a guide on affiliation is available at www.SBIR.gov and www.SBA.gov/size.

(e) Awardee. The organizational entity receiving an SBIR Phase I, Phase II, or Phase III award.

(f) Commercialization. The process of developing tools, processes, technologies, or services and the production and delivery (whether by the originating party or others) of the tools, processes, technologies, or services for sale to or use by the Federal government or commercial markets.

(g) Cooperative Agreement. A financial assistance mechanism used when substantial Federal programmatic involvement with the awardee during performance is anticipated by the issuing agency. The Cooperative Agreement contains the responsibilities and respective obligations of the parties.

(h) Covered Small Business Concern. A small business concern that:

(1) was not majority-owned by multiple venture capital operating companies (VCOCs), hedge funds, or private equity firms on the date on which it submitted an application in response to a solicitation under the SBIR program; and

(2) is majority-owned by multiple venture capital operating companies, hedge funds, or private equity firms on the date of the SBIR award.

(i) Eligible State. A State: (1) where the total value of SBIR and Small Business Technology Transfer (STTR) Program awards made to recipient businesses in the State during fiscal year 1995 was less than $5,000,000 (as reflected in SBA's database of fiscal year 1995 awards); and (2) that certifies to SBA's Administrator that it will, upon receipt of assistance, provide matching funds from non-Federal sources in an amount that is not less than 50% of the amount of assistance provided.

(j) Essentially Equivalent Work. Work that is substantially the same research, which is proposed for funding in more than one contract proposal or grant application submitted to the same Federal agency or submitted to two or more different Federal agencies for review and funding consideration; or work where a specific research objective and the research design for accomplishing the objective are the same or closely related to another proposal or award, regardless of the funding source.

(k) Extramural Budget. The sum of the total obligations for R/R&D minus amounts obligated for R/R&D activities by employees of a Federal agency in or through Government-owned, Government-operated facilities. For the Agency for International Development, the “extramural budget” must not include amounts obligated solely for general institutional support of international research centers or for grants to foreign countries. For the Department of Energy, the “extramural budget” must not include amounts obligated for atomic energy defense programs solely for weapons activities or for naval reactor programs. (Also see §7(i) of this Policy Directive for additional exemptions related to national security.)

(l) Feasibility. The practical extent to which a project can be performed successfully.

(m) Federal Agency. An executive agency as defined in 5 U.S.C. §105, and a military department as defined in 5 U.S.C. 102 (Department of the Army, Department of the Navy, Department of the Air Force), except that it does not include any agency within the Intelligence Community as defined in Executive Order 12333, §3.4(f), or its successor orders.

(n) Federal Laboratory. As defined in 15 U.S.C. §3703, means any laboratory, any federally funded research and development center, or any center established under 15 U.S.C. §§ 3705 & 3707 that is owned, leased, or otherwise used by a Federal agency and funded by the Federal Government, whether operated by the Government or by a contractor.

(o) Funding Agreement. Any contract, grant, or cooperative agreement entered into between any Federal agency and any SBC for the performance of experimental, developmental, or research work, including tools or services, funded in whole or in part by the Federal Government.

(p) Funding Agreement Officer. A contracting officer, a grants officer, or a cooperative agreement officer.

(q) Grant or Contract. A financial assistance mechanism providing money, property, or both to an eligible entity to carry out an approved project or activity. A grant or contract is used whenever the Federal agency anticipates no substantial programmatic involvement with the awardee during performance.

(r) Innovation. Something new or improved, having marketable potential, including: (1) development of new technologies: (2) refinement of existing technologies: or (3) development of new applications for existing technologies.

(s) Intellectual Property. The separate and distinct types of intangible property that are referred to collectively as “intellectual property,” including but not limited to: (1) patents; (2) trademarks; (3) copyrights; (4) trade secrets; (5) SBIR technical data (as defined in this section); (6) ideas; (7) designs; (8) know-how; (9) business; (10) technical and research methods; (11) other types of intangible business assets; and (12) all types of intangible assets either proposed or generated by an SBC as a result of its participation in the SBIR Program.

(t) Joint Venture. See 13 C.F.R. §121.103(h).

(u) Key Individual. The principal investigator/project manager and any other person named as a “key” employee in a proposal submitted in response to a program solicitation.

(v) Principal Investigator/Project Manager. The one individual designated by the applicant to provide the scientific and technical direction to a project supported by the funding agreement.

(w) Program Solicitation. A formal solicitation for proposals issued by a Federal agency that notifies the small business community of its R/R&D needs and interests in broad and selected areas, as appropriate to the agency, and requests proposals from SBCs in response to these needs and interests. Announcements in the Federal Register or the GPE are not considered an SBIR Program solicitation.

(x) Prototype. A model of something to be further developed, which includes designs, protocols, questionnaires, software, and devices.

(y) Research or Research and Development (R/R&D). Any activity that is:

(1) A systematic, intensive study directed toward greater knowledge or understanding of the subject studied;

(2) A systematic study directed specifically toward applying new knowledge to meet a recognized need; or

(3) A systematic application of knowledge toward the production of useful materials, devices, and systems or methods, including design, development, and improvement of prototypes and new processes to meet specific requirements.

(z) Small Business Concern (SBC). A concern that meets the requirements set forth in 13 C.F.R. §121.702.

(aa) Socially and Economically Disadvantaged SBC (SDB). See 13 CFR part 124, Subpart B.

(bb) Socially and Economically Disadvantaged Individual. See 13 C.F.R. §§ 124.103 & 124.104.

(cc) SBIR Participants. Business concerns that have received SBIR awards or that have submitted SBIR proposals/applications.

(dd) SBIR Technical Data. All data generated during the performance of an SBIR award.

(ee) SBIR Technical Data rights. The rights an SBIR awardee obtains in data generated during the performance of any SBIR Phase I, Phase II, or Phase III award that an awardee delivers to the Government during or upon completion of a Federally-funded project, and to which the Government receives a license.

(ff) Subcontract. Any agreement, other than one involving an employer-employee relationship, entered into by an awardee of a funding agreement calling for supplies or services for the performance of the original funding agreement.

(gg) Technology Development Program.

(1) the Experimental Program to Stimulate Competitive Research of the National Science Foundation as established under 42 U.S.C. 1862g;

(2) the Defense Experimental Program to Stimulate Competitive Research of the Department of Defense;

(3) the Experimental Program to Stimulate Competitive Research of the Department of Energy;

(4) the Experimental Program to Stimulate Competitive Research of the Environmental Protection Agency;

(5) the Experimental Program to Stimulate Competitive Research of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration;

(6) the Institutional Development Award Program of the National Institutes of Health; and

(7) the Agriculture and Food Research Initiative (AFRI) of the Department of Agriculture.

(hh) United States. Means the 50 states, the territories and possessions of the Federal Government, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, District of Columbia, Republic of the Marshall Islands, the Federated States of Micronesia, and the Republic of Palau.

(ii) Women-Owned SBC (WOSB). An SBC that is at least 51% owned by one or more women, or in the case of any publicly owned business, at least 51% of the stock is owned by women, and women control the management and daily business operations.

III. CONTRACT PROPOSAL PREPARATION INSTRUCTIONS AND REQUIREMENTS

A. Proposal Requirements The Department is concerned with the scientific and technical merit of all of the research it supports and the relevance of the research for improving the education system and student outcomes. Proposals submitted to the Department under the SBIR program should present a sound scientific and technical approach to the R/R&D of an education technology tool for the purpose of improving early childhood or student outcomes, or teacher or caregiver practices. The proposal must be self-contained and written with the care and thoroughness accorded to papers for publication.

Proposals submitted to the Department's SBIR program must be responsive to the Department's SBIR program priorities. The proposal should serve as the base for new commercial education technology tools that may benefit the public. A firm must not propose market research, patent proposals, or litigation. Proposals for the development of proven concepts toward commercialization or for market research should not be submitted because such efforts are considered the responsibility of the private sector.

B. Protection of Information in Proposals It is the Department’s policy to use information included in proposals for evaluation purposes only and to protect such information from unauthorized use or disclosure. Although this policy does not require that the proposal bear a notice, protection can be assured only to the extent that the legend specified in the “Rights in Data – SBIR Program” is applied to those data that constitute trade secrets or to other commercial or financial information that is confidential or privileged. Other information may be afforded protection to the extent permitted by law, but ED assumes no liability for use and disclosure of information to which the legend has not been appropriately applied.

Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) While FOIA allows the public to request certain documents from the Government, there are nine specific exemptions as to what may be released. Exemption number four (#4) includes trade secrets and commercial or financial information obtained from a person [that is] privileged or confidential.

The exemption covers two distinct categories of information in Federal agency records, (1) trade secrets, and (2) information that is (a) commercial or financial, (b) obtained from a person, and (c) privileged or confidential.

Historically, the most universally accepted definition of a “trade secret” was virtually any information that provides a competitive advantage. The Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, however, has adopted a more narrow definition. They have found that a “trade secret” is “a secret, commercially valuable plan, formula, process, or device that is used for the making, preparing, compounding, or processing of trade commodities and that can be said to the be the end tool of either innovation or substantial effort.”[footnoteRef:5] [5: 704 F.2d at 1288; see also Freeman v. Bureau of Land Mgmt., 526 F. Supp. 2d 1178, 118889 (D. Or. 2007) (concluding that trade secrets are not limited to processes "actually proven to be" commercially valuable; rather, it was sufficient for plaintiff to show that his manufacturing process "may" have commercial value); Appleton v. FDA, 451 F. Supp. 2d 129, 142 & n.8 (D.D.C. 2006) (rejecting plaintiff's argument that trade secret, as defined in Public Citizen, requires "sole showing of 'innovation or substantial effort,'" and emphasizing that trade secret applies to information that constitutes the "'end tool of either innovation or substantial effort'" (quoting Pub. Citizen, 704 F.2d at 1288)).]

As included in the previous section of definitions, innovation is something new or improved, having marketable potential, including: (1) development of new technologies: (2) refinement of existing technologies: or (3) development of new applications for existing technologies.

Based on this information, it has been determined that proposals submitted under the SBIR Program meet the definition of both innovation and trade secrets. They are original ideas, processes that support the ideas, and research to support the processes, all for the purposes of developing a commercial tool, and are therefore exempt from FOIA in their entirety. The Department has consistently applied FOIA exemption #4 in this manner.

C. Content and Formatting Requirements This Phase I program solicitation is designed to reduce the investment of time and money required by small firms in preparing a proposal. The proposal will be rejected if it does not conform to the requirements listed below.

1. What to Include, Page Limitations, and Page Numbering

a. Section III.E. Project Narrative – Key Information, Abstract This section must be complete and included prior to the Project Narrative – Technical Content.

b. Section III.F. Project Narrative – Technical Content

Page Limitation. This section must be no more than 15 pages in length. Pages should be numbered consecutively beginning with the first page of this section numbered as "1."

References. All references or citations must be included within this 15-page section. References and citations outside of the 15-page section will not be reviewed. Offerors are encouraged to list the references as the final part of the 15-page narrative, and are encouraged to utilize the formatting citation style of the American Psychological Association (APA).

Figures, Charts, Tables, and Screen Shots. All figures, charts, graphs, tables, or screen shots (outside of what is requested in the Appendices) must be included in this 15-page section. Figures, charts, graphs, tables, or screen shots outside of the 15-page section that are not requested in the Appendices will not be reviewed.

c. Section X. Appendices Offerors must include the required information in Section X. Appendices B, C, E, F, and G are required for all offerors. Appendices A “Prior Phase II Awards” and D “Similar Awards or Proposals” are required for offerors with previous awards that fit the criteria listed within.

2. General Format To ensure that the text is easy for reviewers to read and that all offerors have the same amount of available space in which to describe their projects, offerors must adhere to the page, type size, and format specifications for the entire proposal narrative, including footnotes.

a. Page and margin specifications For the purpose of proposals submitted under this solicitation, a “page” is 8.5 inches x 11 inches, with 1 inch margins at the top, bottom, and both sides.

b. Spacing Single space all text in the proposal narrative, including titles, headings, footnotes, quotations, references, and captions, as well as all text in charts, tables, figures, and graphs.

c. Type specifications (font specifications) Type must conform to the following requirements:

· The height of the letters must not be smaller than 12 point using Microsoft Word.

· Type density, including characters and spaces, should be no more than 15 characters per inch (cpi). For proportional spacing, the average for any representative section of text should not exceed 15 cpi.

· Type size must yield no more than 6 lines of type within a vertical inch.

· Standard black type must be used for text to permit photocopying.

· Offerors must check the type size using a standard device for measuring type size, rather than relying on the font selected for a particular word processing/printer combination.

D. Phase I Proposal Guidance To avoid any misunderstanding, offerors should be aware that proposals not satisfying all the required instructions will not be reviewed. Proposals may not be resubmitted with or without revision under this program solicitation.

E. Project Narrative –Key Information, Priorities, Abstract, Company Registry, Certifications, Statements and Legend

All of the “E. Project Narrative” components (1 through 3) must be included within pages i, ii, and iii of the Phase I proposal. No other cover pages are permitted to precede page i.

1. Key Information for the Phase I Proposal in response to Solicitation 91990019R0016

A) Project Title:

B) Name of the small business:

C) DUNS:

D) Small Business Address and Phone:

E) Company Website URL:

F) Typed name, title, contact information (address, phone, and email), signature, and date of signature for the Principal Investigator:

G) Typed name, title, contact information, signature, and date of signature for a representative authorized to represent the small business concern in negotiations:

H) List the names, professional affiliations, and project role (e.g., Principal Investigator, Researcher, Developer, Administrative Assistant) for all key members of the project team

I) Indicate whether the proposal is for the R&D of an entirely new ROI tool, for R&D to add new and unique components to a prototype of an ROI tool that already exists and is functioning, or for R&D to add new and unique components to a ROI tool that is already fully developed. (Select only one.)

for R&D of an entirely new ROI tool where no (or limited) previous technological development work has occurred, for R&D to add new and unique components to a prototype of an ROI tool that already exists and is functioning, or for R&D to add new and unique components to an ROI tool that is already fully developed.

2. Priority There is only one (1) priority area under this solicitation, development of an ROI tool to inform postsecondary education decision making by students from traditional and non-traditional backgrounds. See Section IX for additional information on the Priority Areas.

3. Abstract Provide an abstract with the following two components. Nothing in this section should be proprietary or confidential.

· Technical abstract limited to 200 words.

· A summary of the commercial potential of the tool or tool if development were completed as described above limited to 100 words.

F. Project Narrative – Technical Content Note: The project narrative constitutes the main body of the Phase I proposal. The project narrative must be titled "Project Narrative – Technical Content" and shall begin on page "1" and proceed to page “15”. (After page 15, offerors may continue numbering pages to the end of their proposal.)

1. Significance

a. Problem In one paragraph describe the problem in postsecondary education (including its scope) that the proposed ROI tool is intended to address and justify the importance of Federal investment in R/R&D to solve this problem.

Describe the ROI tool that would be fully developed after the Phase I and Phase II projects are completed to improve job- and cost-informed postsecondary education decision making, including the interface to improve the user experience.

(Note: the ROI tool shall be optimized for use on a smart phone/tablet and a personal computer.)

In the description:

· Describe the components of the ROI tool.

· Describe how the ROI tool would function, including the existing technology systems, data sets, data standards, or resources that will be integrated in the ROI tool.

· If the tool is built based on open data sets, open source projects, or by leveraging other openly licensed resources, describe whether the tool would contribute to or enhance these projects.

· Describe the ROI calculation, including the definition, source, and collection methodology for the data included in the calculation. If personally identifiable or private information will be used, describe data protections or other protocols that will ensure security of the underlying data.

· Describe how this ROI tool would be used by a student in a traditional or non-traditional setting.

· List the intended proximal and distal outcomes that are expected to result from the ROI tool’s use.

· Indicate whether the ROI tool will be fee-based or freely available.

· If fee-based indicate the expected cost to purchase the tool and why this cost will be feasible for students to purchase.

· If free or fee-based, describe the level of resources that will be needed to sustain the ROI tool overtime and source of the resources, including performing maintenance and updates.

c. Theoretical and empirical support Briefly describe why the intended ROI tool would lead to the intended outcomes. In doing so, make sure to describe the underlying theory of change and any data from past studies to show that the ROI tool, and its components, can be expected to produce the desired results. Provide relevant citations from the scientific literature.

d. Related R/R&D by the project team Describe previous R/R&D conducted by the project team that is directly related to the proposed ROI tool to improve job- and cost-informed postsecondary education decision-making, including any studies or evidence related to accuracy, comparability, or validity of ROI calculations. Describe how this previous R/R&D guides and provides a foundation for the proposed effort.

i. For proposals to develop an entirely new ROI tool where no (or limited) previous technological development work has occurred, the offeror may include results from concept testing where users (e.g., students, teachers, counselors, service providers) provide feedback after viewing mock-ups detailing the proposed ROI tool and its intended implementation.

ii. For proposals to develop and add new and unique components to a prototype of an ROI tool that already exists and is functioning, the offeror (1) must describe the ROI tool prototype that currently exists and how the current prototype is functioning, (2) must detail prior research on the current prototype’s usability and initial feasibility, and (3) may include results from concept testing where users (e.g., traditional and non-traditional students, teachers, service providers,) provide feedback after viewing mock-ups detailing the proposed tool and its intended implementation.

For proposals to develop and add new and unique components to a prototype of an ROI tool that already exists and is functioning, the offeror may include a URL (Uniform Resource Locator) link to a video demonstration or walk-through of that prototype. The videos should be posted to the YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/) platform during the review period between the submission deadline and 90-days after. If the video is posted on a website other than YouTube, it is possible reviewers will not be able to watch the video. Videos can be no longer than 4 minutes in duration. Reviewers will be instructed to stop viewing at 4 minutes.

iii. For proposals to develop and add new and unique components to a tool that measures ROI that is already fully developed, the offeror (1) must describe the tool that currently exists and how the current tool is functioning, (2) must justify the need for the additional components, (3) must describe the evidence base for the tool in its current form, including by citing peer-reviewed publications with empirical findings with evidence that the tool in its current form shows promise or for improving outcomes, and (4) may include results from concept testing where users (e.g., students, teachers, counselors, service providers) provide feedback after viewing mock-ups detailing the proposed tool with the new component and its intended implementation or verify the validity of the ROI calculation.

For proposals to develop and add new and unique components to a tool that is already fully developed, the offeror may include a URL (Uniform Resource Locator) link to a video demonstration or walk-through of that prototype. The videos should be posted to the YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/) platform during the review period between the submission deadline and 90-days after. If the video is posted on a website other than YouTube, it is possible reviewers will not be able to watch the video. Videos can be no longer than 4 minutes in duration. Reviewers will be instructed to stop viewing at 4 minutes.

e. Uniqueness of proposed tool & description of similar tools or typical practices and associated costs Describe why the proposed ROI tool to improve job- and cost-informed postsecondary education decision-making would add value to the field of postsecondary education. In doing so, describe similar tools or current typical practices in the proposed area, including efforts to calculate measures of value for postsecondary education. Summarize the relevant research that is available on these tools or practices. Describe why the proposed tool will be sufficiently different from and better than current tools or practices. In doing so, describe shortcomings of the current tools or practices and why the proposed tool will not suffer from the same shortcomings.