Q&A_Response.docx

1. To what extent is the NEA open to us proposing alternative processes or timelines, assuming that the objectives set out in the RFP are still achieved and the overarching research questions are still answered?

Response: There could be alternative processes and timelines, as long as it doesn’t interfere with existing agreements with other funding entities involved in this collaborative research partnership.

2. How should we define the scope of our inquiry in “Arts and Technology”—i.e., should we only look at “Media Arts” (i.e., the art forms enumerated in the NEA’s internal definition of the discipline), or is the purview of this project broader?

Response: NEA’s internal definition of Media Arts is included as a guide to give context to the project. While the scope of our inquiry in “Arts and Technology” may be broader than what is included in NEA’s internal definition, the research has an intentionally specific focus on artists creating and exhibiting works at the intersection of art and technology (across disciplines)--in contrast the general use of technology for the purpose of administration of a program, such as marketing or interpretive materials, unless the use of technology is intended to be a standalone work of art itself.

3. Can you elaborate on what the deliverable approval process will look like? For instance, while one review may be done by the Technical Working Group, are the remaining two reviews done by just the NEA Project Director, or by a larger group of NEA staff? How quickly can we expect feedback on deliverables?

Response: The Technical Working Group will have the opportunity to review and provide feedback on the first draft of deliverables. The remaining reviews will be led by the Project Director and will involve other Arts Endowment staff, including selected staff from the Media Arts and Research offices. Reviews may take up to two weeks each dependent on the availability of members of the Technical Working Group and the Arts Endowment staff.

4. Can you elaborate how, in the Phase 1 Literature Scan & Grant Analysis, the Contractor “is expected to use both qualitative and quantitative methods”—i.e., in what way would quantitative analysis come into play?

Response: While we anticipate that the analysis will primarily be qualitative, quantitative data on grants does exist and may be of use for this analysis. For example, the Arts Endowment collects quantitative data on project activity types and geographic project activity data related to its grants. As indicated in the response to Question #5, there also is interest in understanding trend data related to projects and programs that have supported this type of arts and technology activity during the phase of creation or exhibition.

5. What are the desired objectives for the analysis of past NEA “project descriptions of selected grants awards” outlined in the Phase 1 Literature Scan & Grant Analysis?

Response: Overall, the literature scan is intended to summarize current discourse related to the intersections of art and technology from a historic and contemporary arts perspective. The “NEA Grant Analysis” component may provide further context about the field and the type of projects and programs that have been supported in the past and are growing in number. This may also serve as a resource for arts organizations to understand the needs of technology-focused artists and develop new initiatives that support the creation and exhibition of this type of work. The decision to include these components in the final research report is part of our vision for the report to be used as a teaching tool to spark dialogue and broaden public understanding of the existing support ecosystem for artists creating and exhibiting works at the intersection of art and technology.

6. Does the NEA have an existing teleconference platform (e.g., Skype or GoToMeeting) to facilitate the “virtual roundtable” outlined in Phase 1, or will the contractor be responsible for providing this? If the contractor is responsible for providing, does the NEA have a recommended platform that has been used successfully in the past?

Response: The contractor is responsible for providing their own webinar or videoconferencing platform to support the virtual roundtable.

7. Do you expect the Phase 1 roundtables and the Phase 2 roundtables to be the same format, and to be attended by the same people?

Response: The purposes of Phase 1 and Phase 2 roundtables are different. Phase 1 roundtables are part of the research phase and are intended to collect information to address the research questions. Phase 2 roundtables are part of the dissemination phase and are intended to share and discuss implications of the research findings for the field. The identification of roundtable attendees will be addressed during the term of the contract.

8. Should the “roundtables” in Phase 1 and/or 2 be considered to be similar to focus groups, or more like workshops where attendees will actively participate in ideation?

Response: We envision the roundtables to be loosely structured conversations intended to help us clarify and respond to the core research questions (Phase 1) or to disseminate findings and discuss implications for the field (Phase 2). This likely involves using a hybrid approach that borrows liberally from town hall and workshop methodologies. The Arts Endowment welcomes innovative approaches to this task.

9. Does the NEA expect the contractor to record (audio or visual) and provide transcriptions of the roundtable discussions in Phases 1 and/or 2?

Response: No. As per the statement of work, the contractor is expected to prepare notes summarizing the discussion.

10. In the Complete Final Report, can you elaborate at all on what types of “areas for further investigation” and “specific policy recommendations for the NEA and other stakeholders” you expect to be included?

Response: As noted in the response to Question #5, the final research report should act as a teaching tool to better understand the range of projects supporting emerging and established artists at the intersection of art and technology. Minimally, we anticipate recommendations related to how the Arts Endowment and other stakeholders could best support these projects and the infrastructure supporting artistic practices using technology. We also recognize that additional research questions may emerge during the study, which may suggest areas for further investigation in the future.

11. Who is the intended audience for the 10 “briefs or articles” in Phase 2, and where will they be published by the NEA Public Affairs team?

Response: The purpose of the commissioned articles is to further disseminate the research findings and spark further conversation in the field and beyond. Therefore, we anticipate the commissioned articles to be published in a highly visible forum, which will be determined with input by the contracted researcher, NEA Project Director, the NEA Public Affairs team, and the Technical Working Group. The published articles will then be distributed to pertinent organizations, such as Americans for the Arts, Grantmakers in the Arts, the National Association of State Art Agencies (NASAA), The Alliance of Media Art & Culture, IMMERSE blog, and other entities and networks that represent a range of art-related service organizations and constituents supporting the arts (and beyond).

12. Can you clarify how the NEA expects the contractor to conform to the Paperwork Reduction Act? Page 4 of the RFP states, “The research plan also shall describe how the Contractor intends to comply with relevant Federal laws and regulations, including the Paperwork Reduction Act,” while page 7 states, “**This schedule assumes that Paperwork Reduction Act clearance will not be required.”

Response: Information collections conducted on behalf of the Federal Government must comply with the Paperwork Reduction Act. The Arts Endowment anticipates that the solicitation of facts or opinions obtained or solicited at the roundtables will not trigger the requirement for a formal information collection request (ICR) to the Office of Management and Budget. For further explanation of the applicability of the Paperwork Reduction Act, please see Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Memorandum for the Heads of Executive Departments and Agencies, and Independent Regulatory Agencies, Information Collection under the Paperwork Reduction Act (April 7, 2010), available at https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/whitehouse.gov/files/omb/assets/inforeg/PRAPrimer_04072010.pdf.

13. Will NEA identify members of the TWG or is this something the contractor will be responsible for?

Response: The Arts Endowment is responsible for recruiting and convening members of the Technical Working Group. We will consider recommendations put forth by the Contractor. However, the NEA Contracting Officer’s Representative (COR) has final approval of the final members of the Technical Working Group.

14. And if the latter, should any travel, lodging, etc. be budgeted for?

Response: See the response to question #13. The contractor is not responsible for supporting the Technical Working Group.

15. The first paragraph of page 4 of the solicitation mentions a "national convening". Please clarify what this will entail and if/how it is different than the 7 regional roundtables. p. 4, section 3, statement of work.

Response: A national convening is not part of the scope of work associated with this contract. Amendment 0001 of the RFP will update the Statement of Work to remove mention of a national convening.

16. The statement of work requires 4 regional roundtables and 1 virtual roundtable with up to 15 participants (task 5) and interviews with up to 20 field experts (task 6). Combined these tasks involve data collection from up to 95 individuals. The statement of work (bottom of p. 7) also states that Paperwork Reduction Act clearance will not be required. Please clarify if NEA anticipates Paperwork Reduction Act clearance for this project.

Response: Please see response to questions # 8 and #12.

17. If Paperwork Reduction Act clearance is not anticipated, please clarify the purpose of the regional roundtables. As written, the statement of work indicates this task (task 5) is data collection. Thus, even if each roundtable focused on a separate topic, it is conceivable that the contractor could ask the same question of more than 9 individuals at any given roundtable.

Response: Please see response to questions # 8 and #12.

18. Can we propose for just one phase or component of the project?

Response: No. The Government intends to award only one contract and expects the successful Offeror to address all aspects of the Statement of Work.

19. Should we expect to incur any costs (such as for travel) related to the NEA’s contractor selection process, how long do you expect the process to take, and will candidates be expected to pitch in person?

Response: There is no travel required for the selection process. No in person pitches will be held. The costs incurred by the proposal process are the responsibility of the Offeror. The Arts Endowment expects to make an award by June 1, 2019; however, that date is subject to change.

20. What is the NEA’s budget for this project?

Response: The Government has added this information to Section E 1.2 of the RFP via Amendment 0001.

21. Is an Annual Profit and Loss Statement or other such document to indicate that the Offeror possess adequate financial responsibility required for subcontractors?

Response: No. The responsibility determination is for the prime only.

22. Please clarify whether the award will be firm fixed price or time & materials.

Response: Offerors may propose FFP, T&M, or both, in order to provide a unique solution to the requirements of the Statement of Work. As noted in the RFP Section E.2., contract type will be considered in the risk analysis portion of the evaluation.

23. Does NEA have an estimated level of effort in mind?

Response: Please see the response to question #20.