Q-A No 1 NOAA 2011 - 11-2-2011.pdf

NOAA 2011-1 Small Business Innovative Research Questions and Answers #1

November 2, 2011

Q: Is this solicitation just for Phase 1? As such, does the less than $95,000.00 apply just to phase I?

A: As stated in paragraph 5.1, NOAA is anticipating making approximately 15 Phase I firm-fixed price contract awards of no more than $95,000.00 each.

Q: Are companies able to submit more than one proposal for the upcoming NOAA SBIR Solicitation 2011-1? If so, does it have to be different topics?

A: Offerors may submit multiple proposals to this solicitation. Offerors should submit separate proposal packages for each topic area they wish to be considered. If Offerors have multiple proposals with different method or deliverables that they wish to propose on the same topic area, a separate proposal package should be provided for each method or deliverable. See Amendment 0001 paragraph 3.7.

Q: In paragraph 6.2, it indicates that six hardcopy proposals are required. Can they be sent either US mail or is FedEx Acceptable?

A: Proposals may be sent US Mail, Other Commercial Carriers, or Hand Delivered. All deliveries must be made no later than the due date and time stipulated in the solicitation. If proposals are going to be hand carried, please note that we are located in a Federal Building which has increased security requirements for entering the facility. Offerors that hand carry their proposals should take into consideration these additional security requirements and provide themselves adequate time to enter through security so that proposals are not submitted after the required date and time. See Amendment 0001 paragraph 6.2.

Q: Will the address under paragraph 6.2 work for FedEx and US Mail?

A: Yes, the address will work for US Mail and other Commercial Carriers. See Amendment 0001 paragraph 6.2.

Q: Do NOAA SBIR programs typically include a Kick-off Meeting? If so, will it be at the NOAA sponsor’s organization office?

A: The solicitation does not require kick-off meetings unless specifically mentioned in the Research Subtopic. If the offeror would like to propose a kick-off meeting, it must be included in the proposal and reference the costs in the budget page in order to be considered by the government. See Amendment 0001 paragraph 3.6.

Q: When developing our proposal, should we include a demonstration/final phase I presentation? If so, should it be at our facility or the NOAA sponsor’s organization office?

A: The solicitation does not require that a demonstration/final phase I presentation is required unless specifically mentioned in the research subtopic. If the offeror would like to propose a demonstration/final phase I presentation, it must be included in the proposal and reference the costs in the budget page in order to be considered by the government. See Amendment 0001 paragraph 3.6. NOTE: Paragraph 1.2.2. discusses presentations required by Phase I awardees under consideration for a Phase II awards.

Q: Can you make section 9.1, 9.2, and 9.3 available in a word format/form fillable?

A: An Adobe file shall be uploaded to the FBO Website for offerors to utilize in developing their package.

Q: If our firm was considering teaming up with an individual that is currently working under contract at NOAA as a visiting scientist, can we use that individual as a subcontractor?

A: If the individual identified is under a contract with NOAA and they are not an employee (either now or at his regular job), the offeror may consider utilizing that individual as a guest researcher provided it is disclosed in the offeror’s proposal. The government must ensure that funding for SBIR projects is not returned to NOAA through a subcontract (see paragraph 3.6 of the solicitation for more information). Additionally the visiting scientist will be excluded from being involved in the SBIR selection process, if that falls within their NOAA contract responsibilities, due to it being a conflict of interest.

Q: If we are permitted to team with the individual mentioned above, should we specify him as a current Cooperative Research and Development Agreement (CRADA) partner or as a guest researcher at NOAA, or both?

A: Based on the scenario in the previously question, this individual should be specified as a guest researcher.

Q: We are considering working with another company that will be submitting the proposal. The other firm will be leading the project, but they will need significant help from us. We believe that we would be functioning in the capacity of a consultant contributing to the research. We have a consulting rate and the prime contractor would not be charged for facility leases or usage fees. Would our consulting work be considered subcontracting under paragraph 3.6 of the solicitation? Would the inclusion of our consulting work and the prime vendor’s work fall under the 2/3rds requirement?

A: The consulting work would be considered a subcontract to the prime vendor’s contract. The consulting work would not fall under the requirement for the prime vendor to perform a minimum of 2/3rds of the research and/or analytical effort (See Paragraph 1.5 and 3.6). The prime vendor and your organization will need to review the amount of consulting work you anticipate completing (along with any other subcontractor that they are considering) to ensure that the total subcontracting effort does not exceed 1/3rd of the contract.

Q: Research Topic 8.1.2SG: Contains technology areas of focus. Geothermal is included but Ocean Thermal is not. Is this Correct?

A: Yes, Ocean Thermal is not one of the topics under Research Topic 8.1.2SG.

Q: Research Topic 8.1.2SG: Other subtopics seem much more focused, while this sub-topic broadly covers a lot of renewable energy technologies. Is there any weighting of increased interest between (a) biofuels developed from microalgae or macroalgae, (b) wave, (c), tidal, (d) geothermal, and (e) wind?

A. No, there is no weighting increase interest between a, b, c, d, or e.

Q: Research Topic 8.1.2SG: With respect to biofuels from microalgae a critical limiting factor would appear to be crop management technologies. Can we submit a proposal that demonstrates a technology which provides algae farmers the ability to monitor their crops remotely?

A: The topic as currently listed provides the government some flexibility to review proposed projects that fit within the general nature of that topic area. Offerors should review their proposals to ensure that they demonstrate that they fall within the scope of the research topic area before submission. As stated in paragraph 1.5, “…Only proposals that are directly responsive to the subtopics as described in Section 8 will be considered.”

Q: Research Topic 8.1.4F: If a firm was considering putting in an algal monitoring platform, would it be better under the renewable energy topic of 8.1.2.SG or 8.1.4F?

A: The offeror should review the research topics listed and make a business decision regarding what research topics their proposal would best be represented.

Q: Research Topic 8.1.6F: It mentions that Southwest Fisheries Science Center is preparing a major field assessment of the gray whale population and the collection of video from thermal imagers. Is it possible to get a copy of this video?

A: The government does not have the video currently available for use by offeror. Offerors should not anticipate that video will be available when developing their proposal.

Q: Research Topic 8.1.7F: Due to the technology required to address the critical needs of this subtopic, is there any specific ambient chemical conditions that are of specific interest?

A: The government does not currently have any specific ambient chemical conditions that can be provided to offerors in developing their technology. Offerors should review relevant references provided and any other relevant research information to make a determination of how to develop a technology that best meets the intent of this subtopic.

Q: Research Topic 8.2.6W: The end of the description for this office makes a statement that “Because of limited space and power availability on climate buoys, a system for detection/recording of evidence of vandalism would be a self-powered, stand-alone system that would require changes to climate buoy design, have sufficient power and recording or reporting capacity to last for a minimum of 1 year and up to 2 years, limited size and weight to the capability of the buoy to host the device, be easy to maintain and replace in the field while operating from small service vessels, survive a marine environment, and be relatively low cost.”

How do you define relatively low cost? Can you provide information on what the current value of all the climate buoys that have been deployed? How much is spent annually on repair and/or replace climate buoys that have been vandalized? Are cost numbers desire in Phase II production quantities of 50? 1000? Some other quantity?

A: The government does not have specific information related to buoy costs available to provide to offerors in making this determination. We have issued Amendment 0001 which corrects a link in one of the site references which should provide some additional for offerors to consider.

Q: Research Topic 8.2.6W: I have tried to locate the stated references on the internet, but I have been unable to view them. Can you assist me in locating these references?

A: Amendment 0001 has been issued which corrects the web link to the World Meteorological Organization, Data Buoy Cooperation Panel Reference. The other reference to the article, from Dr. C.C. Teng, et. al, appears to be working correctly.