Questions_for_SBIR_Phase_I_Special_Topic.pdf

Request for Proposals 91990019R0016 Small Business Innovation Research Program (SBIR) Special Topic in Postsecondary Education Phase I Amendment 0001

Closing Date: April 15, 2019 11:00 a.m. ET

U.S. Department of Education’s (Department or ED) responses to clarification questions submitted by March 21, 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 Kevin.Wade@ed.gov and receive an error message, they MUST contact Kevin Wade (or Thomas.Smith@ed.gov) 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 15, 2019. Late proposals will not be accepted.

NOTE: It is anticipated that Kevin.Wade@ed.gov will have limited email availability to respond to issues from April 1st – April 12th. Offerors are encouraged to contact Thomas.Smith@ed.gov with any issues that require an immediate response.

1. Is it correct that only for-profits can apply?

Yes

2. Is a software developer going to be critical to the development of the Phase 1 work?

No responses can be provided to this question. Offerors must determine what is critical within a proposal.

3. Is the developer of the tool expected to keep it updated?

No responses can be provided to this question. Offerors must determine how to respond to the solicitation regarding the longer term plan for distributing and maintaining the tool.

4. If a group is awarded Phase 1 funding, do they have to apply for funding for the other phases of work?

All 2019 Phase I awardees are eligible to apply for a Phase II award in 2020.

5. $200,000 seems like a low amount to complete this Phase 1 work. Comments?

Offerors must determine the scope of the R&D given the funding and the time allotted.

6. Would it be sufficient for Phase I to develop a prototype dashboard with identified data sources as well as sample sizes for each data source? That is, is it sufficient to stop before population of the prototype with actual data?

The solicitation provides guidance to offerors on tool to be developed. No guidance can be provided on if a description is sufficient.

7. Is the goal to start with program level information and aggregate up to a broader level so that it connects with CareerOneStop or College Scorecard?

The offeror must determine the goal for the tool that is being proposed based on the information in the solicitation.

8. The RFP instructions state that, “Standard black type must be used for text to permit photocopying.” Does this mean we cannot use color in headings, text, or graphics?

Color is acceptable providing the text can be read if printed out on a black and white printer.

9. Would ED be able to provide clarification on what the “proportional spacing” instructions mean?

The spacing of the proposal should be consistent.

10. Can a font size smaller than 12 can be used in figures/graphs?

Yes.

11. Will ED allow a principal investigator and co-principal investigator? (p.13 of RFP) The proposal can only have one principal investigator. Other team members can be named as co-principal investigator.

12. The Evaluation Criteria on p. 29 of the RFP lists three sections: 1) Significance, 2) Phase I R&D Plan, and 3) Project Team, Company/Resources, and Budget. However, the Project Narrative –Technical Content on pages 19 to 26 lists seven sections: 1)Significance, 2) Phase I R/R&D Objectives, 3)Phase I work plan, 4) Project Team, 5) Resources, 6) Technical Assistance, and 7) Cost Breakdown/Proposal Budget. Which order does ED expect the offeror to follow?

The proposal should be structured to follow the project narrative.

13. RFP Page 7: What is meant by "limited" in the statement: "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 offeror should determine the appropriate score for R&D in Phase I given the funding and the time allotted for the project. Hence, “limited” can be defined by the offeror based on what is appropriate for a proposed project.

14. RFP Page 2: The RFP references three website sources of data from DOED (College

Scorecard), Census (PSEO), and DOL (CareerOneStop). Is there a preference to draw data from these websites rather than using the Departmental API's for direct data extraction from the respective data sources?

There is no preference. Offerors can determine the most appropriate source of data for a proposed project.

15. RFP General: Is there a standardized algorithm that should be used for calculating the costs of the various student loan repayment plans (e.g. standard, vs income based, vs public service repayment options)?

No guidance can be provided in response to this question.

16. RFP GENERAL: ROI calculations are of course different depending upon the time horizon of analysis. Is there a preferred calculation period such as 5 years, 10 years, 20 years, lifetime, etc.?

The offeror can specify a calculation period and provide a justification for the appropriateness of the time period selected.

17. RFP Page 19: Does the statement "Describe the ROI tool that would be fully developed after the Phase I and Phase II projects are completed..." is the government intent on suggesting that the Phase I proposal should include a detailed description of the Phase II functionality as well?

Yes, the Significance section shall provide details on the vision for the fully developed tool after Phase I and II projects are completed.

18. RFP Page 6: Given the statement: "ROI is not the only characteristic important to students in making decisions about a post-secondary institution or program. Students may have other individual preferences..." Is there an expectation of what should be included in those other preferences, or are submitters invited to suggest what those additional preferences might be?

The offeror can propose what characteristics are appropriate for a proposed tool.

19. On Pages 19 and 20 of the RFP, the sub-numbering for section 1. Significance goes from “a. Problem” to “c. Theoretical and empirical support”. Is there supposed to be a sub-number “b” in this section? If so, what is the name of the sub-number and where does that section begin?

The sub-numbering was not formatted properly. Offerors can follow the headings in the solicitation.

20. On Page 17 of the RFP, does the Font size specified in Section 2.c “Type specifications” also apply to Figures, charts, graphs, tables, or screenshots? Recognizing that these types of elements should be legible, or is it permissible to use a Font size of no less than 10 for these types of proposal elements?

Yes.

21. On page 39, Item K, The Department indicates it is anticipating making up to 5 awards for Phase I. Is there an expectation that the 5 awards will be made to select proposed ROI tools that address a mix of targeted populations or education types, (i.e., traditional vs non-traditional students, different types of educational institutions (e.g. HBCUs) or disadvantaged populations, academic and professional credentials, etc.) to ensure Phase 1 efforts have differentiated value, significance, and focused on solving a broad spectrum of challenges that might be different based upon the needs of different stakeholder types?

It is anticipated that up to the top five scoring eligible proposals will receive awards.