ResponsestoQuestions.DircectToPhaseII.2.7.24.docx
DOCX document 18 KB Posted
- Attached to
- Department of Education Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR) Direct to Phase II 2024: Solicitation
- Solicitation number
- 91990024R0012
About this file
This document contains responses from the Department of Education to questions about the Small Business Innovation Research Direct to Phase II 2024 solicitation. Key details include that the solicitation is seeking proposals for innovative education technologies previously developed by university researchers or non-profits to be further developed and tested through randomized controlled trials in education settings. All research and development work must be conducted in the United States, and foreign funding or involvement is subject to disclosure requirements. Proposals must demonstrate the existing innovation is evidence-based through prior randomized trials and include a letter of agreement from an education provider to participate in pilot testing. Subcontracting is limited to 50% of the budget for research and analytical work.
View the file
Other files
| File | Type | Posted |
|---|---|---|
| SBIR 2024 Direct To Phase II Solicitation 91990024R0012 (Word Version).docx | DOCX document | |
| SBIR 2024 Direct To Phase II Solicitation 91990024R0012v.2.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 SOLICITATION 919900240012
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION RESPONSE
| 1 |
| I have a quick question as I (the university researcher with and evidence-based intervention) seek out a small business to work with on the Direct to Phase II proposal. I see on p.69 that the small business must be based in the US. and at least 50% US owned. My question is if there are similar limitations on proposed contractors. I have a software development firm in Costa Rica that I’ve been working with who I’d like to involve as a sub-contractor on the project. Is this allowable? |
| No, this would not be allowable. All work is required to be conducted in the United States. |
| 2 |
| We received a Phase I SBIR from “REDACTED” to develop a platform that is now more appropriate for this IES solicitation so we’d like to apply for this Direct to Phase II grant. Although the innovation emerged from work at “REDACTED” the SBIR was awarded to a small business collaborator and developed in collaboration this company. Does that render ineligible for this award? |
| It is not possible to make a determination on eligibility without more information. However, the solicitation does note that technology-based innovations that were originally conceptualized and developed by a small business or by an entrepreneurial developer outside of an academic institution or non-profit education research organization are not eligible for the Direct to Phase II program. Therefore, if new technological development occurred during the prior SBIR award, the proposal is probably not eligible under this solicitation. |
| 3 |
| A. If the small business were to raise funds through a friends and family member capital round using a simple agreement for future equity (SAFE) instrument, where a family member lives outside the US, should that be reported under the following questions in Section M? |
B. Has the company received any foreign funding (e.g. grants, contracts, cash awards)?
C. Has any Covered Individuals involved in this project received any foreign funding (e.g. grants, contracts, cash awards)?
D. Is Hong Kong considered a Foreign Country of Concern?
A. All foreign investments in the small business, including through friends and family, are required to be disclosed in Section M.
B. All foreign funding received by the small business is required to be disclosed.
C. All foreign funding to covered individuals is required to be disclosed.
D. Hong Kong, an administrative region of the People’s Republic of China, is considered a Foreign Country of Concern.
| 4 |
| My question is if there are similar limitations on proposed contractors. I have a software development firm in Costa Rica that I’ve been working with who I’d like to involve as a sub-contractor on the project. Is this allowable? I ask because it says all R&D work must be done in the U.S., but this Costa Rica-based contractor would be simply executing specifications drawn up by the small business team for this proposed work, and not involved in its R&D. And, even it programming software plans is considered R/R&D, on p.81 item (6) it says that a waiver can be granted by the Funding Agreement officer to make permissible that all R/R&D not be performed in the U.S. So either through interpretation or permission, will I be able to continue to collaborate with my Costa Rica-based company, or must I find a new subcontractor? |
| No work during an ED/IES SBIR project can be performed outside of the U.S. No waiver will be granted to allow for work to be performed outside of the U.S. |
| 5 |
| On pages 8 and 9 of the RFP, under “Evidence-Base for the Existing Innovation”, the bullet point ends with “The proposal must include compelling research findings from one or more well- designed and well-implemented randomized control experimental or quasi-experimental studies to support the efficacy of the innovation.” |
Does IES expect the compelling research findings to come from research studies conducted on the proposers intervention? Would providing compelling research findings from other research studies that support the evidence base for the proposer's intervention satisfy this requirement?
Research is required to be presented that demonstrates that the evidence-base for the innovation that was previously developed by university researchers or at a non-profit education research organization that is the focus of the SBIR proposal. Research on other (different) interventions or innovations would not be appropriate for demonstrating that the innovation to be further developed in the proposal is evidence-based.
| 6 |
| On page 10 of the RFP, under “Eligibility”, it says: Another possible model is that the academic or non-profit researcher who was the original creator of the innovation could launch their own |
small business. In such cases, the small business would add team members or sub-contract with experts in key project areas to support development, research, and commercialization.
A. Would the small business's sub-contract with experts, from the non profit research entity or from other sources, to support development, research and commercialization be considered part of the small entity budget?
b) Would the small business's contracts with other service providers, e.g. IT service providers, be considered part of the small business entity budget? What other types of services for the small business would be considered part of the small business budget?
c) Can the small business have a direct contractor relationship with the non profit research entity or does it need to contract directly with the individuals at the non profit entity to provide the services?
d) Would the budget for consulting services from the non profit research entity that created the innovation be considered part of the small entity budget?
A. A small business submitting a proposal to ED/IES SBIR can propose to include individuals from a non-profit organization as part of the project and would do so in the budget as part of a subcontract.
B. Yes, sub-contracts with other service providers, e.g. IT service providers would be included in the budget. An offeror could include other types of services in the budget depending on the needs of that particular project.
C. The small business can propose a sub-contact to either or both a non-profit research entity or an individual.
D. Yes, the budget from a non-profit research entity that create the original innovation would be part of the subcontractor budget.
| 7 |
| On page 35 of the RFP, under Letter of Agreement to Participate in the Direct to Phase II R/R&D, it states that In SECTION E, offerors should provide one and only one letter of agreement from a representative of an education setting that will participate in the Direct to Phase II research. If education settings that are part of a state-wide initiative will be using participating in the research, can the letter of agreement be provided from a representative of the statewide initiative? |
| The requirement for offerors to include a letter in Section E from an “Education Setting” is to demonstrate to reviewers that the research proposed will be likely to occur if an award is made. A letter can be from a source other than a school or district if it can adequately demonstrate that the research can be conducted there as proposed. |
| 8 |
| Section G, Documentation and Status of SBIR Phase I and any Phase II Awards, Part III, Information on Phase I Awards Only, asks the proposer to describe the Phase I project and the “current status of the product developed in Phase I.” Please describe in more detail the information desired. Does the IES wish to know how the Phase I project relates to the new project, the impact the Phase I development had on growth, and/or some other information? |
| Yes, in response to this question in Section G, offerors can state how the prior Phase I project relates to the new project, the impact the Phase I development had on growth, and any other information that would be helpful for a reviewer to understand the nature of this project and the return on investment of federal funds in this activity. |
| 9 |
| Section M requests a listing of foreign funding including grants, cash awards, etc. Are SaaS subscription fees generated by providing web app services to schools outside the U.S. intended to be included as a source of funding? |
| The listing of foreign funding is intended for cases where funding was received from foreign entities in the form of grants, contracts, or cash awards. The listing would not include fees provided by schools for use outside of the country. |
| 10 |
| Can the Pilot Study focus on either 9-12 or post-secondary education even though the commercialization is intended to serve both? |
| Is it the responsibility of the offeror to determine the focus of the overall project and the pilot study within a proposal. The proposal should make a convincing case for reviewers that the design of proposed pilot study is appropriate and sufficient. |
| 11 |
| The RFP states that there are subcontracting limits for the research and analytical work: Subcontracting Limits – Research and Analytical Work For Direct to Phase II, at least one-half of the research and/or analytic effort must be performed by the proposing small business concern unless otherwise approved in writing by the Contracting Officer (CO) and after consultation with the SBIR program manager. |
Does this mean subcontractors cannot take 1/3 of the budget and be solely responsible for all research and analytical work? What is the process and timeline for consulting the SBIR program manager and getting approval from the contracting officer?
As stated in the question, the small business concern must spend at least one-half of the Direct to Phase II budget. Sub-contracts can be used for up to 50% of the budget. An SBIR awardee can request a change in the budget to the Contracting Officer during the award period, however it is unlikely a request to change the terms of the budget in this regard would be approved. It is acceptable for a subcontractor to lead work independently (with direction by the small business).
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .