91990024R0011 SBIR Phase IB Questions and Responses 1.6.24.docx
DOCX document 25 KB Posted
- Solicitation number
- 91990024R0011
About this file
This document provides questions and responses regarding the upcoming Department of Education 2024 Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR) Phase IB solicitation. The solicitation will invite eligible for-profit small businesses and partners to submit proposals for $250,000 contracts to develop and evaluate a prototype of a new component to be integrated with an existing education technology prototype or product over eight months. Successful Phase I awardees may apply for a Phase II award of $1,000,000 in 2025 to fully develop and evaluate the component and existing prototype over two years and prepare for commercialization. The result of Phases I and II will be a new version of an existing education technology product in the priority area of a new component added to an existing education technology prototype or product for learners, educators, or administrators.
View the file
Other files
| File | Type | Posted |
|---|---|---|
| 91990024R0011 SBIR Phase IB Questions Template.xlsx | XLSX spreadsheet | |
| 91990024R0011-SBIR Phase IB Solicitation 12.4.23.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
QUESTIONS FROM POTENTIAL OFFERORS ABOUT ED/IES SBIR PHASE IB SOLICITATION 91990024R0011
RESPONSES
| 1. Since our innovation was created in partnership with researchers (me) and a for-profit company (REDACTED) do we qualify? We saw this in the RFP and thought I should check in to see if we are eligible: "The existing innovation is required to have originally been created by researchers at either universities (or other academic institutions) or non-profit education research organizations. Please note: offerors are not permitted to submit duplicate or similar proposals under the FY2024 ED/IES SBIR Phase IA, IB, or the Direct to Phase II solicitations." |
| 1. There is no requirement under the Phase IB solicitation that the existing prototype or product needed to be developed by a researcher. The question appears to be referencing language from the Direct to Phase II solicitation. |
| 2. Additionally, we have an IES grant pending (for the Transformative Research in the Educational Science Grant Program) that is similar to what we would propose under the SBIR competition. Does that also disqualify us from applying? |
| 2. There is no rule prohibiting an offeror from submitting a proposal that is the same or similar as another proposal that is also submitted to another funding program at the same time. There is, however, a requirement that this information is disclosed by the offeror in Section H: Disclosure of Similar or Related Awards or Proposals, and that if an award is made by one program that the offeror does not accept funding from the other program to conduct any of the same or similar work. In such cases under this solicitation, the offeror can contact the Contracting Specialist and Contracting Officer listed in the solicitation to indicate that the proposal should be removed from the ED/IES SBIR review. |
3. We will be submitting an application for the 2024 Phase IB ED/IES SBIR Program Solicitation to develop a new feature for our program (REDACTED), and have a question on how to answer the following section: SBIR/STTR Funding Agreement Certification – Life Cycle Certification
(3a) All Essentially Equivalent Work, or a portion of the work, performed under this project (check the applicable line):
* Has not been submitted for funding to this Agency or another Federal Agency.
* Has been submitted for funding to this Agency or another Federal agency but has not been funded under any other grant, contract, subcontract or other transaction.
* A portion has been funded by another grant, contract, or subcontract as described in detail in the proposal and approved in writing by the Funding Agreement officer.
In our case, our program (REDACTED) will be the project that will be adding a new feature (REDACTED) for Phase 1B funding. Besides receiving (REDACTED) for testing the prototype, this project has been awarded in (REDACTED)
As a Finalist, we will be presenting to (REDACTED)judges in February for possible additional awards (REDACTED). The proposed feature (REDACTED) has begun concept testing during the (REDACTED) program.
Should these awards be noted in the third option ("A portion had been funded..."), and if so how?
Or are these excluded from reporting for any reason?
Might this have any effect on our eligibility for the Phase 1B funding?
3. There is no rule prohibiting an offeror from submitting a proposal that is the same or similar as another proposal that is also submitted to another funding program at the same time. There is, however, a requirement that this information is disclosed by the offeror in Section H: Disclosure of Similar or Related Awards or Proposals, and that if an award is made by one program that the offeror does not accept funding from the other program to conduct any of the same or similar work. In such cases under this solicitation, the offeror can contact the Contracting Specialist and Contracting Officer listed in the solicitation to indicate that the proposal should be removed from the ED/IES SBIR review.
3a. In regard to the question about which category to select, the offeror should disclose the information about the timing of the submission for awards through this program and can select the option that * A portion has been funded by another grant, contract, or subcontract as described in detail in the proposal and approved in writing by the Funding Agreement officer.
4. Can we include an IT developer who is a foreign UK resident, whose responsibilities are limited to coding on our program for the new feature in SBIR Phase 1B? He would NOT be a Principal Investigator and would NOT be handling test data from our study, which will be done by (REDACTED). Regarding this position, there is a recent notice from NIH stipulating that foreign team members ARE allowed to work on NIH funded projects. Will this ruling pertain to IES funding as well?
https://www.nccih.nih.gov/research/blog/updated-nih-guidance-regarding-research-with-foreign-collaborators?nav=govd
4. As noted in the solicitation, all work during the SBIR award must be performed within the United States.
| 5. What is the level of autonomy that small businesses and their partners have in choosing educational technology? Is the emphasis to develop new educational technology or integrate existing tools? |
| 5. The offeror must determine the nature of the new component that is being proposed to be added to the existing prototype or education technology product which will be considered a new education technology product after the Phase I and II projects, and make the case that the technology solves a pressing problem in education. |
6. We are planning to submit a proposal in partnership with (REDACTED) who will conduct the research component of the grant project. We noted in the Program Solicitation For FY 2023 Request for Proposals: Section VI (B) (12): Subcontracting Limits – Research and Analytical Work:
For Phase I, at least two-thirds of the research and/or analytic effort must be performed by the proposing small business concern unless otherwise approved in writing by the contract officer after consultation with the Contracting Officer (CO) and the SBIR program manager.
Question: Would (REDACTED) be considered a "subcontractor"? As part of our agreement with them, they would utilize 1/3 of the total grant for the research. Would we still be able to utilize any other outside contractors (such as our outsourced development team) to fulfill the requirements of the proposal (i.e. to go above the 1/3 subcontracting limits as outlined above)? Perhaps our external development team is not considered part of the "research and/or analytic effort"?
We would love to be able to partner with (REDACTED) who would provide tremendous value to the product. We would also like the flexibility to work with our external development team to build a functional prototype to assess usability and feasibility. Would this meet the RFP requirements and if not would we be able to gain approval to move forward with the application under these conditions?
6. Yes, the organization that is identified would be considered a subcontractor. If the organization is utilizing 1/3 of the budget, there would not be other funds available to be used for other subcontracting because of the requirement that 2/3 of the funds in Phase I must be spent by the Small Business Concern that wins the award. A request for the Small Business Concern to not meet the 2/3 requirement would not be approved by the Contracting Officer in this case.
| 7. Our product is for educator use in home-based programs serving children ages 0-5. This does include Pre-K students. Our current product and planned advancements, in accordance with our proposal, are intended to meet the educational and developmental needs of children 0-5. Will this still be an acceptable proposal if it includes a larger scope than only Pre-K? Do you have recommendations for our proposal that would make sure we satisfy the objectives of the grant, given this information? |
| 7. Potential offerors are advised to review the Priority Area section in the solicitation for information on the foci of proposals that can be submitted to the program and determine the goodness of fit for a proposal. It is noted that the Priority Area indicates “that other areas not specified above will be considered based on the relevance and significance of the need in the field of education.” |
| 8. Are Canadian companies eligible for this grant? We are currently HQ in Canada but used worldwide. Our biggest support base is in the USA due to our approach, our content, and our alignments with State financial literacy objectives and common core math compatibility. |
| 8. As stated in the eligibility requirements in the solicitation, a Small Business Concern that leads a proposal is required to be owned and operated in the United States. (In addition, all work on a contract is required to be performed in the United States.) Hence, such an organization would not be eligible to submit a proposal. |
| 9. We currently have a prototype of our app, but wish to integrate key/new innovations (REDACTED) and also conduct lab-based testing that will compare (REDACTED). I can provide some more details if you would like but in my view, we should apply for Phase IB since its definition states "develop and evaluate a prototype of a new component to be integrated with an existing education technology prototype or product ". However, it does later on say in the definition that:"funding under this solicitation will be a new version of an existing education technology product". We don't have a full product yet but do have a prototype. Can we apply for Phase IB funding? |
| 9. The Phase IB solicitation funds the development of a new component to be added to an existing prototype or education technology product. The Phase I and II project would result in a new education technology product consisting of the new component plus what existed previously. |
10. Is there a fee to apply for Phase 1A or Phase 1B applications? Someone in my network mentioned a $600 fee but I could find this in the documents so I wanted to be sure I did not miss something?
10a. Also we are to submit the final proposal directly to your emails not to sam.gov correct?
10. There is no fee for submitting a proposal under any ED/IES SBIR program solicitations.
10a. The instructions for preparing and submitting a proposal are located within the solicitation: https://sam.gov/opp/0853bc5631c84027b5438a257e32a66f/view
11. For our grant application, we are seeking guidance on whether to apply for Phase 1A or Phase 1B given our state of the product and the state of our ESSA Tier 4 progress?
11a. We also seek clarification on whether we can leverage our ESSA Tier 4 certification partner, (REDACTED) to serve as a representative team member "showcasing expertise in education research for the development and evaluation of education technology, particularly in a school settings"? Or can this resource be a former classroom educator with Masters Degree on our team who has completed research during their Master's program as well as for their school internal projects.
11. Offerors must make the decision about whether to prepare a proposal for Phase IA or IB based on the information and guidelines provided in the solicitations.
11a. Identifying an organization or individual to serve in this role is the responsibility of the offeror.
12. With regards to the need for a "Contractor Security Liaison", could you please share any resources for contracting such a person?
12a. Alternatively, could we potentially utilize one of our existing team members who can also fulfill the role of the targeted domain expertise team member?
12. Identifying an individual to serve in this role is the responsibility of the offeror.
12a. Page 22 of the Phase IB solicitation provides information on the Contractor Security Liaison in response to this question.
| 13. How many links are allowed in our Phase 1B proposal? |
| 13. There is no further guidance on how many external inks can be included. It is noted reviewers are required to watch the 3-minute YouTube video demonstration (if one is included as a URL link) in the Cover Page, section O. Otherwise reviewers are not required to click on any other links to view content. All guidance for what the proposal text should include in the 10-page project narrative or the appendences is included in the solicitation. |
14.Must all citations be included in a single page (11), or can there be more than one page if needed for listing all citations? This information would help us determine how many citations would be allowed in the narrative of our submission. "III. CITATIONS All citations should be included on page 11, or the page immediately following the project narrative. Offerors are encouraged to use the formatting citation style of the American Psychological Association (APA). "
14. The citations may exceed one page.
| 15.If we are in the process of submitting a provisional patent (we anticipate filing before the SBIR contract start date) how should we fill out Section L? Should we leave question 1.a blank or note our intention to file? |
| 15. Note the intention to file for reference in the proposal. |
| 16. Section M question 2 seems to be a copy of question 2 from Section L. Was that a mistake and if so is there a different question that was asked? |
| 16. Section M was updated; please refer to it in the SAM.gov link: https://sam.gov/opp/0853bc5631c84027b5438a257e32a66f/view |
| 17. What qualifies as prior research? |
| 17. The offeror must determine what would be considered prior research in relation to the proposal for the development of a new education technology product. |
18.In the solicitation it says that the Phase I Budget must equal precisely $250,000 total for an 8-month project, including subcontracts, indirect costs, and fees, but excluding any proposed cost sharing. what is meant by proposed cost sharing?
18. Offerors can provide information on whether another entity is providing additional funding beyond the ED/IES SBIR award and for what purpose.
| 19. Is .pdf FILE necessary to be added for SBIR registry to the proposal or adding a picture would be fine? |
| 19. Including an image is sufficient. |
| 20. Can we add graphics in section A-J in the proposal? |
| 20. Images or graphics may be included within the 10-page narrative. (Images outside of the 10-page narrative will not be considered.) |
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .