SBIR 2024 Direct To Phase II Solicitation 91990024R0012 (Word Version).docx

U.S. Department of Education Institute of Education Sciences

SMALL BUSINESS INNOVATION RESEARCH PROGRAM

DIRECT TO PHASE II

PROGRAM SOLICITATION FOR FY 2024

REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS

RFP Number: #91990024R0012

DIRECT TO PHASE II PRIORITY AREAS (2)

A. Projects to Develop New Education Technology Products to Ready Existing Evidence-Based Innovations for Use at Scale in Education Settings, and to Plan for Commercialization B. Projects to Develop New Education Technology Products to Ready Existing Evidence-Based Innovations for Use at Scale by Learners with or At Risk for Disabilities, or Teachers (or other Instructional Personnel, Related Services Providers, or Family Members) in Early Intervention or Special Education Settings, and to Plan for Commercialization

IMPORTANT INFORMATION ABOUT THIS SOLICITATION FOR OFFERORS CONSIDERING A DIRECT TO PHASE II PROPOSAL

To be eligible for the Direct to Phase II solicitation, projects are required to adhere to the below specifications:

· Projects must focus on readying existing evidence-based innovations for use at scale. Projects that focus on advancing innovations that are not evidence-based are not eligible for this program.

· The existing evidence-based innovation is required to have originally been conceptualized and developed by an academic researcher while at a university (or academic institution) or by a researcher at a non-profit education research organization. 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. Such projects may be appropriate for submission under ED/IES SBIR’s 2024 Phase IB solicitation #91990024R0011.

· One (or more) of the researchers who originally conceptualized and developed the innovation must be part of the team in the proposed ED/IES SBIR project, whether as an employee/owner of the small business or as a consultant to the small business that receives the SBIR award.

· Offerors are not permitted to submit similar proposals under a 2024 Phase I solicitation and also under the Direct to Phase II solicitation. In such cases, both or all proposals will be rejected without review.

Offerors should fully review the whole of this solicitation for additional specifications.

ISSUE DATE: January 5, 2024

CLOSING DATE: March 5, 2024 11:00 a.m., Eastern Standard Time

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Section Page I. Direct to Phase II Solicitation Overview…………………………………………………...4

II. Direct to Phase II Solicitation Details …………………………………………………….…5 A. Priority Area 1…………………………………………………………………………………….7 B. Priority Area 2…………………………………………………………………………………….8

III. Direct to Phase II Proposal Contents (Sections A through M below make up the body of the proposal to be submitted) A. Cover Pages……………………………………………………………………………………….13 B. Project Narrative (15-pages maximum)…………………………………….…… C. Project Team & Company, Résumés and Certifications………………………31 D. Direct to Phase II Budget……………………………………………………………… E. Letter of Agreement for School Participation (Maximum 1 letter)..…...35 F. Letters of Commercial Support (Maximum 5 letters)…………..……………..36 G. Documentation and Status of Phase I and II Awards……………….……….…38 H. Disclosure of Similar or Related Awards or Proposals…………...…………...42 I. Technical and Business Assistance Plan (TABA) ……………………….………...43 J. Required Certifications to Include in the Proposal…………………….………..44 K. Foreign Influence Disclosure and Certification……………….……………….……..51 L. Patent Information……….……………………………………………………….……….……..58 M. Foreign Funding Information……….……………………………………..………….……..59

IV. Proposal Submittal Information……………………………………………………………

V. Method of Selection and Evaluation Criteria……………………………………….………62

VI. Additional Information A. SBIR Program Information and Eligibility……………………………………………..67 B. Considerations for Offerors Who Win Direct to Phase II Awards………….72 C. Definitions……………………………………………………………………………………………83 D. Scientific and Technical Information Sources……………………………………….87 E. Proposal Checklist…………………………………………………………………….….…

VII. Contracts and Acquisition Management Clauses……………….…………….…..…

I. DIRECT TO PHASE II SOLICITATION OVERVIEW

The U.S. Department of Education’s (ED) Small Business Innovation Research Program (SBIR), administered by the Institute of Education Sciences (IES), provides awards for the research and development of new, commercially viable education technology products. Known as “ED/IES SBIR,” the program’s goal is to grow a portfolio of products that are based in research and widely deployed to address pressing needs across topic areas in education and special education.

The 2023 SBIR Policy Directive provides authorization to three agencies to make Direct to Phase II awards, including ED. As the name implies, Direct to Phase II awards bypass the requirement that offerors receive a Phase I award for projects to develop and test a prototype of a new education technology product. This ED/IES SBIR Direct to Phase II program solicitation #91990024R0012 invites eligible small businesses to submit a Direct to Phase II proposal for projects to ready existing evidence-based innovations (products, programs, or practices) for use at scale in education and early intervention/special education settings, and to plan for commercialization. The projects funded through this solicitation are intended to result in the successful transition of existing evidence-based innovations to education, or early intervention/special education through the distribution of scalable new education technology products that are sustainable over time.

Section II “Direct to Phase II Solicitation Details” below provides more information on the background and specifications for this Direct to Phase II solicitation. ED/IES SBIR also released two general Phase I solicitations in 2024, Phase IA solicitation #91990024R0010 and Phase IB solicitation #91990024R0011. The submission date for these proposals under these solicitations is January 18, 2024.

Proposals to conduct projects to develop the same or a similar version of a new education technology product under both a Phase I solicitation and the Direct to Phase II solicitation are not permitted. In such cases, the Direct to Phase II proposal will be rejected without review.

Key Dates

II. DIRECT TO PHASE II SOLICITATION DETAILS

Background:

In recent decades, funders in and outside of government have made a significant investment in the development of new innovations, including products, programs, or practices that have been created by researchers at universities (or other academic institutions) or non-profit education research organizations, and in evaluations of their efficacy. Examples of innovations include technology- or non-technology-based interventions, apps, assessments, tools, professional development materials or manuals, or educator-delivered approaches. Awards to researchers at universities and non-profit organizations have yielded an array of evidence demonstrating that use of the innovation improves outcomes when implemented in education or early intervention/special education settings. These findings may come from one or more well-designed and well-implemented randomized control experimental, single-case experimental, or quasi-experimental studies to evaluate the innovation, including controlled laboratory studies, researcher-implemented school pilots, or efficacy trials. Despite compelling research evidence for many innovations, few researcher-developed innovations have successfully transferred into practice and are used at scale. This means that learners, educators, and administrators ultimately have not been able to benefit from many evidence-based innovations.

Barriers to wide-scale replication, adoption, and sustainability of researcher-developed and evidence-based innovations in education are well documented, and include lack of: access to the needed technology infrastructure for scalable deployment, feasibility to implement at scale, appropriate market-fit, and researchers’ capacity to commercialize the innovation. Examples may include:

· Technology-based innovations that were built on outdated or obsolete back-end software systems

· Innovations that rely on one-on-one researcher-delivered trainings, professional development, or coaching, making implementation at scale challenging, or

· Older innovations that lack sufficient current product-market fit with respect to interface or delivery system

Planning for commercialization is an additional challenge for researcher-developed innovations to be used at scale in practice. Many researchers, whether at universities or non-profit education research organizations, lack the experience to support commercialization including capacity to license, market, distribute, sell, or maintain and update interventions. Researchers may not have the capacity to provide support to schools that would be willing to use the innovations, or to connect to local school systems or school administrators and teachers to provide information that the innovation is available.

A successful model to address these challenges effectively and efficiently is for university and non-profit education researchers to leverage partnerships with or launch small business technology firms, and/or to partner with industry organizations staffed with individuals who possess the technological and commercialization expertise to develop, distribute, and sustain updated and more robust versions of the existing evidence-based innovations established by the researcher(s).

This approach is the focus of the current Direct to Phase II solicitation. Some examples of this model are described in this Inside IES Research blog and below:

· University researchers initially created a non-technology delivered innovation to apply growth mindset to instruction and learning. However, the innovation’s scalability was limited because it relied on face-to-face teacher training and static paper-and-pencil learner activities. To develop a scalable model, a small business partnered with the researchers to create an education technology platform with automated training modules and animated lessons to deploy this instructional approach, permitting the existing innovation to be implemented at scale and to be more engaging and interactive for participants.

· Researchers initially developed an online literacy program for early readers that personalized instruction through formative feedback to educators. However, the backend of the technology system could not process large amounts of learner data and implementation required significant researcher involvement and tailored adaptation across schools. To ready the innovation for use in schools at scale, a small business upgraded the underlying data architecture and created automated support and adaptation functionalities in consultation with the researchers.

· A university researcher created an evidence-based intervention that employed hand-held puppet characters to teach learners about different emotions, to promote social and emotional development. The intervention was delivered by individual educators and was therefore not a scalable model. The researcher launched a small business and in 2022 won a Direct to Phase II award from ED/IES SBIR to develop a new digital version of the intervention and to plan for commercialization.

This Direct to Phase II solicitation requests proposals for projects to include: (1) full-scale development of a new education technology product to ready an existing evidence-based innovation (originally developed by researchers at universities or non-profit education research organizations) for use at scale in education settings; (2) pilot research to demonstrate the promise of the new education technology product to be readied for use at scale; and (3) preparation for the commercialization of the new education technology product to be distributed at scale and sustained over time through revenue or some other funding source.

Because the focus of the Direct to Phase II project is to ready existing innovations already demonstrated to be evidence-based, projects supported through this solicitation will be funded without a prior Phase I award.

Priority Areas:

A. Priority Area 1:

Projects to Develop New Education Technology Products to Ready Existing Evidence-Based Innovations for Use at Scale in Education, and to Plan for Commercialization

New education technology products to ready existing evidence-based innovations for use at scale in education are intended to improve learning or promote relevant outcomes in one of more of the following areas: early childhood learning and school readiness; English language arts; civics education and social studies; foreign language or English language learning; STEM (science, technology, engineering [including cyber security], math, data science); social and behavioral skills to support academic and other relevant school and career-related outcomes; the arts; and technical or vocational career readiness skills. Other areas not specified above will be considered based on the relevance and significance of need in the field of education.

New education technology products for educator or administrator use (or other school personnel use) must be intended to either: (a) facilitate instruction; (b) improve the efficiency or accuracy of day-to-day administrative tasks or responsibilities; or (c) support decision making on the selection, implementation, or evaluation of interventions including practices, programs, or policies.

Additional Specifications

· Products can be for use at any level from prekindergarten to Grade 16, or for adult education. Products for adult education programs must address basic or secondary reading, writing, or mathematics skills, or other skills needed for an occupational certificate or degree.

· Products for learners may be for use in schools or remote settings to replace, supplement, or enable the delivery of curricula or instruction OR to facilitate out-of-school learning opportunities (e.g., after-school or summer programs, distance learning programs, on-line programs, enrichment programs, self-directed learning).

· Products focusing on engaging parents or caregivers are permitted for learners in pre-K to grade 12, provided the intended outcomes for the product are to support learning or promote relevant outcomes listed above.

B. Priority Area 2:

Projects to Develop New Education Technology Products to Ready Existing Evidence-Based Innovations for Use at Scale by Learners with or At Risk for Disabilities, or Teachers (or other Instructional Personnel, Related Services Providers, or Family Members) in Early Intervention or Special Education Settings, and to Plan for Commercialization

New education technology products to ready existing evidence-based innovations for use at scale in education for learners with or at risk for disabilities are intended to improve learning or promote relevant outcomes in one of more of the following areas: early intervention and learning; reading, writing, and language; STEM (science, technology, engineering, and mathematics); social, emotional, and behavioral competence; and transition to postsecondary education, career, and/or independent living. Other areas not specified above will be considered based on the relevance and significance of the need in the field of special education.

New education technology products for educator (or instructional personnel, or related services providers) in Early Intervention or Special Education Settings must be intended to either: (a) facilitate instruction; (b) improve the efficiency or accuracy of day-to-day administrative tasks or responsibilities; or (c) support effective identification and assessment of students who have or are at risk for disabilities; or (d) support decision making on the selection, implementation, or evaluation of interventions including practices, programs, or policies.

Additional Specifications

· Products can be for use at any level from prekindergarten to postsecondary education, or in transition to career and/or independent living.

· Products for learners may be for use in schools or remote settings to replace, supplement, or enable the delivery of curricula or instruction OR to facilitate out-of-school learning opportunities (e.g., after-school or summer programs, distance learning programs, on-line programs, enrichment programs, self-directed learning).

· Products focusing on engaging parents or caregivers are permitted for learners in pre-K to grade 12, provided the intended outcomes for the product are to support learning or promote relevant outcomes listed in the paragraph regarding “new education technology products for learners” above.

Requirements for Direct to Phase II Proposals:

Evidence-Base for the Existing Innovation

· There must be a strong evidence-base for the existing innovation that was originally conceptualized and developed by a researcher at a university (or other academic institution) or a non-profit education research organization. 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.

Project Scope:

· Projects funded through this Direct to Phase II solicitation must preserve the nature and essential functionality of an existing evidence-based innovation, while adding a new technology component, or adapting or upgrading the technology to enable the new product to be used at scale.

· Proposed activities in response to this solicitation must involve technological development and commercialization planning of sufficient scope to justify the award and the amount of funding provided.

· The existing evidence-based innovation that was conceptualized and developed by a researcher may or may not currently be technology-based. For example, some proposed innovations may be adaptations of paper-based workbooks or interventions, instructional approaches delivered by educators, or a training delivered by coaches.

· The technological development proposed by offerors in response to this solicitation may take a variety of forms including projects to upgrade an innovation or to integrate the innovation with an already established product. Examples may include projects to:

· upgrade the backend structure of an existing technological innovation with modern software standards so that the new product can function or be usable at scale

· develop a website to enable or streamline professional development, and support feasible delivery and implementation of an existing evidence-based innovation

· improve a component of the evidence-based innovation to achieve a product-to-market fit, such as converting a paper-based workbook to a technology-delivered intervention, redesigning a student user-interface, or developing an educator data dashboard to inform decision making

· combine or integrate an existing evidence-based innovation (which may be too narrow in scope by itself to allow for a commercially viable product that would be broadly adopted) with another product, such as merging an evidence-based assessment battery with an existing product

· The Direct to Phase II program is not intended to support projects with the main purpose of developing additional content to be added to or more fully populate an existing partially completed intervention. For example, a proposal to develop four new chapters to add an existing evidence-based online textbook in order to complete the full year of content is not an appropriate fit for this program.

Eligibility:

· The existing education or early intervention/special education innovation must have originally been conceptualized and developed by a researcher or team of researchers at either a university (or other academic institution) or non-profit education research organization.

· Cases where an academic researcher directed a project that included a sub-award to a for-profit firm to assist in the technological development of the innovation are also eligible under this solicitation.

· The proposing small businesses must fit the following eligibility requirements described in this solicitation.

· In all cases, a small business must lead the proposal (a requirement of the SBIR program).

· The Project Director must be an employee of the small business.

· One or more of the researchers that created the innovation is required to be a member of the team for the proposed SBIR project, either as an employee at the small business or as a consultant.

· Projects to ready existing evidence-based technology-based innovations for use at scale that were originally conceptualized and developed at a small business are not permitted through this competition. Under limited circumstances, such projects may be appropriate for submission under ED/IES SBIR’s 2024 Phase IB solicitation 91990024R0011.

· The small business may follow different models for submission to the Direct to Phase II program:

· One possible model is that an existing small business partners with one or more of the university/non-profit researchers who developed the existing evidence-based product or practice. In such cases, the small business (the prime for the contract) would subcontract to the researchers to collaborate on the work of the project.

· 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.

· In all cases, the proposal must present a plan stipulating who among researchers, universities, or the small business will hold the intellectual property, and specify plans for what entity will commercialize the product. Such plans should be provided in the technical narrative of proposals.

Prior Research:

· Proposals must present results from prior research on the existing evidence-based innovation, including: (1) data demonstrating the usability, feasibility, and fidelity of implementation; and (2) the evidence-base for improving outcomes. The evidence base should include data from peer-reviewed publications.

Rationale and Need for Additional Development to Support Scaling:

· Proposals must explain why the existing innovation is not yet ready for use at scale, and must provide results from concept testing through focus groups with a small number of intended users and decision makers (e.g., superintendents, district administrators, principals, educators, learners, parents) who have viewed plans and mock-ups, provided feedback, and believe the new education technology product would be usable, feasible, and meet current need(s).

Commercially Deployed Innovations:

· Existing evidence-based innovations that are or have been commercially deployed and available at a smaller scale (e.g., a few schools) are eligible to be the focus of a proposal under this solicitation. However, such proposals must justify why additional funding would be required to further ready the innovation to be used at a greater scale, and indicate how the scope of the proposed new technological development and planning for commercialization is commensurate with the amount of funding requested.

· Evidenced-based innovations that are already commercially deployed at a larger scale (e.g., 50 schools or more) outside of research studies, and that are generating revenue through the sale of the innovation are not eligible to submit a proposal through this program, as this program intends to support innovations that have not been implemented in schools at a large scale. Such innovations may be more appropriately considered as candidates for the development of a new component to be added to their product through the 2024 Phase IB solicitation 91990024R0011.

III. PROPOSAL CONTENTS (SECTIONS A - J)

Content and Formatting Requirements To ensure that the text of the proposal is well-organized for reviewers and that all offerors have the same amount of available space in which to describe their projects, offerors must adhere to the below page, font size, and format specifications for Section III. PROPOSAL CONTENTS (A – J)

· 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.

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

· 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.

· 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.

· Figures, charts, graphs, tables, or screen shots (outside of what is requested in other sections) must be included within the 15-page limit for “SECTION B. Project Narrative.”

· Proposals may not be resubmitted with or without revision after the submission deadline under this program solicitation.

SECTION A. COVER PAGES

Guidance for “SECTION A. COVER PAGES”

· All of the items in the “SECTION A. Cover Pages” are required to be inserted as the opening pages of a Direct to Phase II proposal. To structure Part I of a proposal, offerors must follow the exact format as the items below. Offerors should cut and paste the below table directly into the body of the proposal.

· Proposals shall not include any other cover pages beyond what is specified below.

· Do not include page numbers on the Cover Pages. Numbering should begin with “1” on the first page of the “SECTION B. Project Narrative.”

a) COVER PAGE CERTIFICATION #1 Proposals in response to this Direct to Phase II solicitation are only permitted for projects that focus on readying existing evidence-based innovations for scale that were originally conceptualized and developed by researchers at universities (or academic institution) or researchers at non-profit education research organizations, NOT by a for-profit small business.

Was the evidence-based innovation originally conceptualized and developed by researchers at a university (or academic institutions) or researchers at non-profit education research organizations?

YES or NO

b) COVER PAGE CERTIFICATION #2 Offerors are not permitted to submit similar proposals under a 2024 ED/IES SBIR Phase I solicitation and also under the Direct to Phase II solicitation. In such cases, the Direct to Phase II proposal will be rejected without review.

Did this offeror submit a similar proposal under a 2024 ED/IES SBIR Phase I solicitation?

YES or NO

c) Project Title:

d) Name of the Small Business:

e) If applicable, other company names operated under, including DBAs

f) Unique Entity Identifier (UEI) as registered on SAM.gov: If you do not already have a UEI registered on SAM.gov please be advised, registration can take several weeks (https://sam.gov/content/entity-registration).

g) Contact Person: The representative authorized to represent the small business concern in negotiations:

i) Contact Name:

ii) Contact Title:

iii) Contact Phone: in format 999-999-9999

iv) Contact Email:

v) Project Director:

vi) Project Director Title:

vii) Project Director Phone: in format 999-999-9999

viii) Project Director Email:

h) HUBZone-owned SBC Certification:

Does the offeror qualify as a HUBZone-owned SBC and meet the definition as stated in this solicitation, as defined by SBA? Enter YES or NO The website listed below contains information about the SBA’s HUBZone program: http://www.sba.gov/hubzone/

i) Woman-owned SBC Certification:

Does the offeror qualify as a woman-owned SBC and meet the definition as stated in this program solicitation, as defined by SBA? Enter YES or NO

j) Socially and Economically Disadvantaged SBC Certification:

Does the offeror qualify as a socially and economically disadvantaged SBC and meet the definition as stated in this program solicitation, as defined by SBA? Enter YES or NO

k) Service-Disabled Veteran Owned Small Business Certification:

Does the offeror qualify as a Service-Disabled Veteran Owned Small Business, as defined by SBA? Enter YES or NO

l) Small Business Address: For the address of the small business, fill in the information below: (Please do not enter address information in ALL CAPS)

i) Street Address:

ii) Address Line 2: Enter apartment, suite, or floor (optional).

iii) City:

iv) State: Enter the state’s current postal abbreviation designated by the U.S. Postal Service.

The website listed below contains information about postal abbreviations for U.S. states and territories:

https://about.usps.com/who-we-are/postal-history/state-abbreviations.htm

v) ZIP Code:

m) Small Business Phone: in format 999-999-9999

n) Company Website URL:

o) For every member of the project team, fill in the below table, adhering to the following:

· At a minimum, each project requires a Project Director from the Small Business, a Researcher who originally created or was part of the team that created the existing innovation, and a Contractor Security Liaison, who should not be the Project Director.

· See “SECTION C. Project Team and Company, Résumés and Certifications” and the “Contractor Vetting Security Requirements” section of the Security Requirements for Contractors Doing Business with the Department of Education for more information on Contractor Security Vetting Processes and the role of the Contractor Security Liaison.

· Only one individual can serve as the Project Director. Co-Project Directors are not permitted.

· The Contractor Security Liaison is permitted to serve in more than one role, and other roles can be added in the same box. The ED/IES SBIR program strongly recommends that the Project Director do not serve in the role of the Contractor Security Liaison in addition to the assigned activities during the contract. Please see “SECTION C. Project Team and Company, Résumés and Certifications” for more information on the role of the Contractor Security Liaison.

· As many lines as needed can be added to reflect additional Project Roles.

Project Director who is employed by the small business (required)

Researcher at a university (or academic institution) or a non-profit education research organization who originally created or was part of the project team that created the existing innovation.

Contractor Security Liaison (required)

(Add additional lines for more team members)

p) Priority Area (Select only one)

· PRIORITY AREA 1: Projects to Develop New Education Technology Products to Ready Existing Evidence-Based Innovations for Use at Scale in Education, and to Plan for Commercialization

· PRIORITY AREA 2: Projects to Develop New Education Technology Products to Ready Existing Evidence-Based Innovations for Use at Scale by Learners with or At Risk for Disabilities, or Teachers (or other Instructional Personnel, Related Services Providers, or Family Members) in Early Intervention or Special Education Settings, and to Plan for Commercialization

q) Video Demonstration in Support of the Proposal (Optional)

Insert a URL to a video demonstration here:

Offerors are encouraged to provide a URL (Uniform Resource Locator) link to a four-minute or shorter video demonstration of the proposed evidence-based innovation.

Specifications

· The video should highlight (a) the existing evidence-based innovation originally conceptualized and developed by a researcher and (b) the proposed project to develop a new education technology product to ready the innovation for use at scale and to plan for commercialization.

· All video demonstrations must be posted to YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/) during the 90-day review period from the submission date on or before March 5 through June 3, 2024.

· If the video is posted on a website other than YouTube, it is possible reviewers will not be able to watch the video.

· Video demonstrations may not be updated after submission. If the posting date on YouTube for the video is later than the submission date on March 5, 2024, at 11 a.m. Eastern Standard Time, the video will be deemed ineligible for inclusion in the review process.

· Videos may be no longer than 4 minutes in duration. Reviewers will be instructed to stop viewing at 4 minutes.

· Offerors must ensure that a reviewer will be able to click on a “live” URL to watch the video. URLs that are scanned and not clickable may not be able to be viewed by the reviewers.

r) Project Abstract:

Describe the evidence-based innovation that was initially conceptualized and developed by a researcher at a university (or academic institution) or non-profit education organization. Describe the new education technology product that would be developed to ready the existing evidence-based innovation for use at scale in education or early intervention/special education settings if an award is provided in the Direct to Phase II project from the ED/IES SBIR program (200 word maximum).

s) Signatures for the Authorized Representative and the Project Director

Provide the authorized signature for the representative authorized to represent the small business concern in negotiations in the below box:

Provide the authorized signature for the Project Director in the below box:

t) SBA Company Registry:

All offerors to the SBIR program are required to register at the SBA Company Registry (http://sbir.gov/registration) prior to proposal submission. Offerors are required to attach a .pdf FILE of the SBIR.gov SBC Registration Control ID Form as proof of registration in this section of the proposal. Proposals that do not include the .pdf file will be returned without review. See below an image of a blank SBIR.gov Registration Control ID Form that offerors will complete, save as a .pdf FILE, and include within the proposal.

SECTION B. PROJECT NARRATIVE

Guidance for Section B. PROJECT NARRATIVE

· All contents that make up “SECTION B. Project Narrative” must total fifteen (15) pages or less. Any content in this section beyond fifteen (15) pages will not be reviewed.

· Numbering should begin on the first page of the "SECTION B. Project Narrative” with “1” in the top right-hand corner.

· Offerors are required to follow the exact format specified in the items below to structure the proposal.

I. SIGNIFICANCE

a. Problem Statement and Best Current Practices Describe the problem that the new education technology product will address, and how the proposed product uniquely addresses the problem relative to existing approaches in education or early intervention/special education settings. Cite the most recent data establishing the scope and nature of the problem, to support the significance of the proposal.

i. Describe the existing evidence-based innovation that was initially created by a researcher at a university or at a non-profit education research organization.

· Specify the intended user(s) of the existing innovation, including the age group, grade levels and/or special populations. Indicate whether the existing innovation was designed to be replicated across settings or cultural context, or if components can be adapted or changed depending on the needs of users in a particular setting or cultural context.

· List and briefly describe the key components of the existing innovation. If a component of the existing innovation is technology-based, indicate the hardware on which it operates (e.g., a desktop computer, a tablet, smart phone).

· Indicate any universal design features and whether the existing innovation was designed to be replicated across settings, cultural contexts, or users, or if components can be adapted or changed depending on a particular setting, user needs, or cultural context.

· Indicate whether the existing innovation was designed to replace, supplement, or be integrated within existing education practice(s).

· Briefly list the outcomes that result from using the existing innovation. (More detailed description of the research evidence demonstrating these outcomes should appear in Section II Information on the Existing Innovation rather than in this section).

ii. Describe the new education technology product that would be developed with the Direct to Phase II award to ready the existing evidence-based innovation for use at scale in education or early intervention/special education settings.

· List each of the components of the existing innovation that will remain the same during the development of the new education technology product. Describe the new component(s) of the new education technology product to be developed and/or the components that will be adapted/updated from the existing innovation.

· Discuss how the product will engage universal design principles and address the needs of all potential users for which the product is intended.

· Describe how the new education technology product will ready the existing innovation to be used at scale.

· For existing evidence-based innovations originally created without the use of technology, explain how the core components of the innovation will be preserved in the new education technology product, and explain why further developing the existing innovation as a new education technology product will lead to successful scaling.

· Indicate how the new technology product will be designed or adapted to be delivered successfully across settings, users, and cultural contexts.

· Indicate the expected cost to schools overall and per learner to purchase the new education technology product, and the level of resources (e.g., time, schedules, equipment) needed to implement and use the product.

· Beyond what is provided in the description of the existing innovation in the section above, list additional outcomes, if any, that are intended to result from the use of the new education technology product by learners, educators, or administrators.

II. INFORMATION ON THE EXISTING EVIDENCE-BASED INNOVATION & JUSTIFICATION OF THE NEED FOR THE NEW EDUCATION TECHNOLOGY PRODUCT This section describes the creation of and the prior research-base for the existing evidence-based innovation that is the focus of this proposal, and provides information to justify the need for a new education technology product and plan to ready the innovation for use at scale in education and early intervention/special education settings.

a. Development of the Existing Innovation

· Provide a concise summary of the development process for establishing and evaluating the existing innovation by researchers at a university or at a non-profit education research organization. Provide a timeline for when key milestones in the development and refinement of the innovation occurred.

b. Theoretical support

· Explain the theory of change underlying the research supporting the initial development of the existing evidence-based innovation and to justifying why the new education technology product is expected to produce the intended results. Include relevant references to the scientific literature.

c. Prior Research on the Existing Evidence-Based Innovation

· Present the evidence for the efficacy of the existing innovation and demonstrate how the existing innovation leads to the intended outcomes to establish convincingly that the existing innovation is evidence-based. Include citations to peer-reviewed published works supporting the evidence base for the outcomes.

· Provide a summary of research on the usability, feasibility, and fidelity of implementation for the existing innovation. If applicable, present research on the validity of assessment components.

· Discuss research findings that demonstrate challenges with usability, feasibility, and/or fidelity of implementation at scale that justify the need to propose further development of the new education technology product.

· Include information on the sample size and characteristics, design, measures, procedures, and analyses for the above studies.

d. Research to Support the Proposed New Education Technology Product

· Describe procedures and findings from user-concept or focus-group testing, in which a small group of intended end-users and school decision makers were presented plans or mock-ups for the proposed new education technology product. Describe sample characteristics, what feedback was gathered, and whether the groups of individuals were supportive of the proposed new education technology product.

e. Previous Initiatives to Distribute the Existing Innovation This section requests information on any prior initiatives by the researcher (or partners) to distribute the existing innovation to education settings (i.e, schools, districts, or early intervention or other special education settings) outside of research studies, whether for free or for a fee. Offerors should select “a.” or “b.” to respond to below, based on whether the innovation has already been distributed.

· If distribution has occurred outside of research studies, indicate the number of users (learners, educators, special educators or other instructional personnel, related service providers, family members) and schools that used or are using the existing innovation, and whether the existing innovation was available for free or for a fee. Describe the strategy that was used to distribute the existing innovation, and why the existing innovation has not been distributed to a larger number of settings. Describe successes and problems that occurred during these distribution and implementation efforts.

· If there have been no users that have used the existing innovation outside of research, indicate if any initiatives were attempted to distribute the existing innovation. If not, offerors should describe why no initiatives were attempted.

III. DIRECT TO PHASE II WORKPLAN

a. Full-scale Development of the New Education Technology Product

· Describe the R/R&D procedures that will be employed to iteratively develop the new education technology product so that it can function at scale (usability) and can be implemented and used flexibly across different settings and with diverse populations (feasibility and fidelity of implementation). Describe how the development work will support the delivery of or be integrated with the components of the existing innovation that are preserved through the development process.

· Provide a timeline presenting the ordering of the steps in the iterative development process. This plan may entail separate small-scale studies of multiple independent components. Such activity should be conducted with the targeted user audience (e.g., educators, learners in prekindergarten to grade 12 with or at risk for disabilities). If the new education technology product includes an assessment as a component, offerors must also provide a plan to establish the validity of the assessment and its connection to education outcomes.

b. Pilot Study

· Present a plan for a pilot study after the new education technology product is fully developed.

The goals of the Direct to Phase II pilot study are to:

(i) demonstrate the promise of the new education technology product to be ready for scale (e.g., to be usable and feasible, and able to be implemented with fidelity) in education or early intervention/special education settings and

(ii) to demonstrate that the outcomes that result from using the new product are consistent with (or similar to) the outcomes from prior studies that establishing the evidence-based for the outcomes of the innovation.

The design and scope of the pilot study in a Direct to Phase II proposal are expected to vary from project to project, depending upon the costs and timing required to accommodate the unique focus and characteristics of the new education technology product and its implementation context (e.g., learner, classroom, school). As a result, it is expected that pilot studies may vary in the number of districts, schools, classrooms, educators, families, or learners. Depending on budget and timing considerations, offerors may propose to include a larger (and more representative and diverse) sample of end-users for some parts of the Pilot Study to measure the promise of the new education technology product to be ready for use at scale in education or early intervention/special education settings. However, offerors are not expected or advised to propose a full research study at a large scale (e.g., 10 districts, 100 schools).

i. Measuring the Promise of the Product to Be Used at Scale

· To measure the promise of the new education technology product to be ready for use at scale, researchers may compare the implementation of the new product to the implementation of the existing innovation that occurred during prior research studies. This solicitation does not require offerors to propose pilot studies that include a business-as-usual control group or comparison group.

· The primary questions of interest in measuring whether the new product is ready for use at scale is “Are end-users able to more successfully implement the new product compared to implementation that occurred during prior research studies?" and “Are the outcomes for the end-users comparable to those in the initial research and development for the innovation?” Proposals must compare measures of usability, feasibility, and fidelity of implementation to those from the prior research. The pilot study may also include new measures to understand the promise of the new education technology product to be used at scale.

ii. Measuring Outcomes Resulting from the Use of the New Education Technology

· To measure outcomes resulting from the use of the new education technology, researchers may compare performance on the same (or similar) intended outcomes between individuals using the new education technology product and retrospectively, to performance using the existing innovation in prior research studies.

For new education technology products to be used by learners, a primary question of interest in measuring whether the new product achieves the intended outcomes is "Does this new product improve outcomes for to the same or greater extent as the existing innovation during prior research studies conducted with similar learners?" Such proposals must include the same or equivalent learner/child outcome data (e.g., test scores or other assessment data; completion of academic courses; measures of behavior) as the previous research studies that used the existing innovation.

For new education technology products to be used by educators/administrators (or other instructional personnel, related service providers, or family members for learners with or at risk for disabilities) that are designed to show promise for improving educator/administrator/family member and learner outcomes, a primary question of interest in testing the promise of the product should be "Does this new product improve outcomes for educator/administrator and learner/child outcomes to the same or greater extent as the existing innovation during prior research studies conducted with similar learners and educators/administrators?" Such proposals should demonstrate that, when educators/administrators/family members use the proposed technology, their own performance as well as learner performance would be consistent (or improved) relative to that in previous research using the existing innovation. Such proposals must include outcome data from educators/administrators/family members and learners.

For new education technology products used by educators/administrators (or other instructional personnel, related service providers, or family members for learners with or at risk for disabilities) that are designed to show promise for improving educator/administrator/family member (and not learner) outcomes, a primary question of interest in testing the promise of the product should be "Does this new product improve educator/administrator outcomes to the same or greater extent as the existing innovation during prior research studies conducted with similar educators/administrators/family members?” Such proposals should evaluate whether the product shows equal or greater promise for improving educators' ability to carry out their job in the area proposed relative to research on the existing innovation, and need not include learner level outcome data.

Pilot Study Specifications

Design. The offeror should describe the design of the pilot study and provide a rationale for why this is the most appropriate design to demonstrate the promise of the new education technology be ready for use at scale, and to demonstrate that the intended outcomes from using the new education technology product are equivalent (or improved) when retrospectively compared to…