91990025R0003.ResponsestoQuestions.docx

Request for Proposals 91990025R0003 Small Business Innovation Research Program Phase IB Amendment 0001 Closing Date: January 8, 2025, 11:00 a.m. ET

U.S. Department of Education’s (Department or ED) responses to clarification questions submitted by December 2, 11:00 A.M. ET:

NOTE!

· 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.

Question 1:

I am currently preparing my proposal for SOLICITATION Phase IB: #91990025R0003 and would appreciate any references or resources for a sample application template that reflects a submission-ready format. This would help us ensure our submission aligns with the program's expectations. Specifically, I am looking for a visual reference for the cover page, how it should be displayed within the Section A Table, and guidance on how to insert the Section A table within the document. Clarity on the final document format would be extremely helpful.

Response:

ED/IES SBIR does not offer sample applications. ED/IES SBIR advises offerors to use the Section A. table in the solicitation as a template that can be completed in the same order as the questions are presented. Offerors are advised to use the remaining sections of III. Proposal Contents as templates to complete the whole proposal.

Question 2.

Would you be able to provide insight to help determine if we would qualify for: Notice ID: 91990025R0003 and if so which phase we would be considered? We have an initial working model are currently beta testing but we are in need of funding for additional computer software engineering help to continue development. I attached a short description of our company if that would be at of help— Response:

ED/IES SBIR cannot provide guidance in response to this question. Per U.S. Government Federal Acquisition Regulations (FAR), ED/IES SBIR program personnel and other government personnel are not permitted to engage with potential offerors to provide technical assistance or answer questions while the solicitations are open or during proposal review. Program personnel are available to provide technical assistance outside of the dates when the annual program is open.

Question 3.

If we can establish that all of the work done on this project is completed within the geographic boundaries of the US, does it matter if the platform owner is located offshore?

Response:

A platform could potentially be housed overseas, however, the place where the platform disseminates its education program, and the intended users of the platform are required to be in the United States. Reviewers may also question what happens to user data and for what purposes it will be used overseas after the product is deployed in the United States. The potential offeror is also advised to review the foreign influence due diligence process within the solicitation in Section K and note that any connections to countries of concern will be scrutinized.

Question 4:

(1) From my review, it seems that the proposal should be submitted as a PDF via email, rather than through an online portal.

(2) I also noticed the templates provided within the solicitation, along with directions for sections A, B, etc. Should I create a new document with the specified margins and incorporate the checkbox questions from the solicitation as they arise?

(3) If possible, would you be available for a brief Zoom meeting or phone call to clarify this process further?

Responses:

(1) That is correct, proposals are in the form of PDFs and are emailed to the individuals listed in the solicitation.

(2) Yes, offerors can create a new document using the templates provided in the solicitations.

(3) Per U.S. Government Federal Acquisition Regulations (FAR), ED/IES SBIR program personnel and other government personnel are not permitted to engage with potential offerors to provide technical assistance or answer questions while the solicitations are open or during proposal review. Program personnel are available to provide technical assistance outside of the dates when the annual program is open.

Question 5.

Page 7 states that "an existing product includes technology created by the offeror that is functioning when used an end-user without the assistance of a developer". Does "created by the offeror" disqualify proposals for a new component to integrate with an existing technology developed by a third party? For example, developing a separately sold plugin or add-on for Google Classroom or another LMS with public integration points with the intent of enhancing the capabilities of the LMS. 5 Page 7 states that "an existing product includes technology created by the offeror that is functioning when used an end-user without the assistance of a developer". Does "created by the offeror" disqualify proposals for a new component to integrate with an existing technology developed by a third party? For example, developing a separately sold plugin or add-on for Google Classroom or another LMS with public integration points with the intent of enhancing the capabilities of the LMS. Page 7 states that "an existing product includes technology created by the offeror that is functioning when used an end-user without the assistance of a developer". Does "created by the offeror" disqualify proposals for a new component to integrate with an existing technology developed by a third party? For example, developing a separately sold plugin or add-on for Google Classroom or another LMS with public integration points with the intent of enhancing the capabilities of the LMS.

Response:

Developing a new education technology product to serve as an add-on to a third party product is allowable for both a Phase IA and Phase IB project.

A proposal that intends to develop a new component to be integrated with an existing technology developed by a third party may or may not be a good fit for the Phase IB track.

If the offeror has already been developing add-ons or extensions to a third party software or LMS, the new proposal could be to further extend the development trajectory by adding another component. Such a proposal could be an appropriate fit for the Phase IB track if the proposals meets this and other requirements of the Phase IB solicitation.

On the other hand, if the proposed project is to develop a novel add-on to an existing third party software with which the developer had not previously done any development work, the proposal would likely not be an appropriate fit for the Phase IB track. In this case, the proposal may be more appropriate for the Phase IA, for the purpose of creating novel component that would be delivered through a third-party software.

Question 6:

Do you think there is a chance this SBIR program 91990025R003 might get its funding cancelled because of the incoming administration and the threats to dismantle the Department of Ed? We have colleagues working on our proposal and they are concerned Response:

ED/IES has a legislative mandate to operate the Department of Education’s SBIR program and currently has active funding opportunities that we anticipate fully funding in FY2025.

Question 7.

(1) For the budget, have there been successful proposals in the past that mostly focused on supporting labor costs?

(2) If awarded funding, is there a requirement to travel in-person for any training (particularly for the Contract Security Liaison)? And if so, should this be accounted for in the budget? Who from a company generally serves as the Contract Security Liaison? Is it appropriate to have our HR Manager act in this role?

Response:

(1) While ED/IES SBIR has not examined labor costs for project personnel, all projects assign personnel to key roles where labor costs are used complete research, development, and evaluation of education technology products.

(2) Offerors are advised to read the sections of the solicitation which describe the characteristics of the security liaison. There is variability across awardees in who within (or outside) the organization serves in that capacity. There is no in-person travel requirement for a Phase I awardee. The Contractor Security Liaison training is held virtually.

Question 8.

(1) Will IES reviewers consider that skills and experience contributed through Technical and Business Assistance compensate for any perceived deficits in the program team/Key Personnel?

(2) Are submissions with an acronyms definition page, in addition to the 10 pages allocated to the Project Narrative, acceptable?

(3) Alternatively, should submissions leave out an acronyms definition page?

(3) Are figures, charts, graphs, tables, or screen shots (outside of what is requested in other sections) permitted to use 10-point font size?

(4) Page 3 of the solicitation states that the project time period is nine months–can IES confirm that the project duration is nine months, not eight months?

(5) Section F of the solicitation states that the maximum number of letters of support for commercial pathways is three, but the Proposal Checklist indicates a maximum of five letters of support for commercial pathways. Can IES confirm that the intended maximum number of letters of support?

(6) Under Section 1, C: Prior Research, the solicitation states: “Based on the results from prior research presented above, provide a rationale for why an award from the ED/IES SBIR program is warranted for additional development to create a new component to be integrated with the existing prototype or product.” Is the rationale intended to explain the importance of the new component, or the necessity of the government support, or both?

Responses:

(1) Reviewers for ED/IES SBIR will consider the skills and experience of all members of the project team, including TABA consultants, in fulfilling key roles on the project successfully. No further information can be provided in response to this question.

(2) Offerors are advised to not use an acronyms definition page. Reviewers for ED/IES SBIR would benefit from a 10-page technical narrative that is clear and used acronyms in a limited fashion. An acronym definition page would be counted as part of the 10 page technical narrative.

(3) Figures, charts, graphs, tables, or screen shots (outside of what is requested in other sections) are permitted to use 10-point font size. Please note however – reviewers need to be able to be able to easily read what is presented by offerors.

(4) Beginning in FY25 Phase I awards are 9-months.

(5) The correct number of letters in Section F. to support commercial pathways toward commercialization that can be included in a Phase I proposal is 3. (Offerors who submit a proposal under the Direct to Phase II solicitation can include up to 5 letters.)

(6) That is correct, the rationale is intended to explain both the importance of the new component and the necessity of the government support.