NSF Builder Platform Full Solicitation FAQ.pdf

NSF Engines Builder Platform Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ)

(Publication Date: May 19, 2023)

A. GENERAL INFORMATION

1. Where can I find materials, presentations, and the office hours sign-up link for the Builder

Platform?

2. When will the Builder Platform team start working with Type-1 and Type-2 awardees?

3. Is registration in sam.gov required?

4. Can you walk me through the steps in the Builder Platform selection process?

5. Should my organization submit a proposal even if we are not equipped or interested in serving as a lead organization?

6. To what extent will the Builder Platform be responsible for the evaluation work for individual

NSF Engines performance and the evaluation of the overall NSF Engines program?

7. It would be useful to see community feedback responses before building and submitting our plan as a Lead Organization. Would this be possible?

8. Can NSF provide additional details regarding what is envisioned for the Type-2 curriculum, specifically the number of courses (or an estimated range) envisioned to be made available to

Type-2 awardees in Year 1?

9. Does the availability of peer-to-peer knowledge sharing sessions (live or virtual) count toward the two, 2.5 hours per month allotted to training?

10. For additional questions not answered or addressed in this FAQ, who should I reach out to?

11. Is this a grant or contract?

12. Will there be an applicant/industry/proposer day or call?

13. You mentioned that both NSF and the Builder Platform organizations might need to hire for roles in the coming months. I have a great candidate. Where can I find the posting?

B. ELIGIBILITY & AWARDEE RESPONSIBILITIES

14. Who is eligible? For-profits, non-profits, and other entities? Any preferences?

15. What do you mean by Platform in the Builder Platform? Is it a technology or something else?

16. NSF has stated in its Solutions Offering that the Builder Platform is not an opportunity to preview new technology, what qualifies as ‘new’ technology and what is the purpose of stating that directly?

17. For any technology being used by the Builder Platform in a supportive way (e.g. for convening, etc.), does a particular procurement approach apply? Can we deploy technology via standard approach or do we need to agree to subgrantee contracts with each vendor?

18. What type of organization would make the most sense as the lead? A university? A private business? Non-profit? Technology company? Large venture firm?

19. Does having a SBA (small business association) certification and/or another similar certification give an applicant a competitive edge on getting selected as a Builder Platform lead organization?

20. Can an Institution of Higher Education (IHE) partner with a private business on an application?

21. How many awardees will the Builder Platform organization(s) manage and support?

22. Can the Builder Platform organization support individual startups and/or research projects emerging from NSF Engines locations?

23. Engines are being planned for 10 years, why is the Builder Platform contract only for 3 years?

24. Are you only interested in existing organizations, or would a partnership, joint venture, or purpose-built new organization be of interest to NSF?

25. Will you be selecting Builder organizations regionally, nationally, locally or using other geographic distribution approaches? My organization only works in X community or Y topic area, and do not have plans to expand, should we still apply?

26. Can you share some thoughts on the roles of the Builder Platform awardee as a "thought partner" -- which sounds like more of a consulting function, versus having the Builder Platform awardee develop and deploy tools, networks, etc. -- which is more of a delivery-focused role?

27. How many proposals can a lead organization submit?

28. Can a proposal be submitted by multiple lead organizations?

29. How many applications can a subcontractor be on?

30. Are Letters of Collaboration sufficient for proposed subcontractors, or must the subcontractors be initiated at proposal submittal? Will we need to know our subcontractor by the application deadline or can we name them after awarded funding?

31. Are Letters of Collaboration from financial partners (e.g. a letter from a funder to provide financial support if an organization is awarded a contract as a lead organization) sufficient to satisfy a financial capacity review before final award?

32. I have a proprietary technology that can be custom built for everything that you are asking for. When can I schedule a technology demo?

C. FUNDING

33. What is the award amount for this Builder Platform initiative?

34. Are Defense Contract Audit Agency (DCAA) financial reviews required before an award is finalized?

35. Can a lead organization present a fixed-price contract without having a pre-negotiated

“indirect costs” agreement?

36. Does the budget for year one have to be an even split of $9.5 million across 3 years or can we request more funding in year 1 with years 2 and 3 being lower amounts?

D. FOCUS AREAS

37. How many prime Builder Platform awards does NSF expect to fund? Is there likely to be a single Builder Platform award with the expectation to tackle the entire scope of work or multiple awards with specific subsets or portfolios?

38. Does the focus of the Builder Platform’s work need to be industry-specific (e.g.

semiconductors, bioeconomy, advanced manufacturing, etc.), or can the focus be widespread to serve more NSF Engines?

39. Does NSF envision the "sustainability" element of the Builder Platform to have an actual financial “module” where money may flow through the Builder Platform to awardees?

40. Are the Builder Platform teams regionally focused and assembled, e.g. a similar regional footprint to the I-Corps program?

41. How does NSF expect DEIA to be embedded into this work?

E. OPERATIONS AND DELIVERY MODELS

42. Is the Builder Platform already connected to Type 1 & 2 awardees or are these relationships

NSF will cultivate for the platform?

43. What mechanisms does NSF have in place to match prime applicants to subcontractors for the bid?

44. Could you explain how you see the interactions and communications occurring between the

NSF program team, the Builder Platform organization and the NSF Engine awardees?

45. How will the Builder Platform organization function in coordination with the NSF Engines program team?

46. What does success look like for the Builder Platform in its end state?

47. Are there any models out there that have many of the attributes of what NSF envisions in the Builder Platform effort that might serve as a potential model?

48. Is your inspiration or model for the NSF Builder Platform based on or influenced by any existing federal or commercial models or efforts?

49. Do you have a baseline in mind for how much operational capacity an entity will need to effectively support the Engine Builder Platform?

F. CONFLICT OF INTEREST

50. Can an organization be a lead for an NSF Engine Type-1 or Type-2 and the Builder

Platform?

51. Can the Builder Platform organization negotiate one-off contracts with Type-1 and Type-2 awardees who would like to receive additional support from the Builder Platform organization on activities that fall outside the scope of the NSF-Builder Platform agreement?

G. PARTNERSHIPS

52. Can the Builder Platform team work with other parts of NSF and/or other federal agencies?

53. Do you see state and local level agencies be part of the platform builder effort?

54. What is the difference between a partner and a subcontractor?

55. Is the Builder Platform lead organization expected to cultivate partnerships exclusively? Will the in-house team make the introductions for key partnerships?

56. My organization would really like to participate in the Builder Platform effort but we are not interested in leading the effort or becoming a subcontractor. We are more interested in developing an offering/program/network/fellowship for a subset of awardees that work in our area of focus. How would we do that?

H. PROPOSAL PREPARATION

57. What are the required elements of a proposal?

58. Are you expecting a proposal to address all of the priority focus areas? Where can I find the evaluation criteria?

59. Should bios be included for those leadership team members who are not current employees but are planned to be brought on board shortly after award?

60. Are there any specific date security standards that will be required for the data management and privacy plan?

61. Are all required documents reviewed?

62. What are the time horizons for all the appendixes requested in the proposal?

63. How do I handle drafting a budget and project milestones? What do I do if some of these budget numbers and milestones need to change once I start working with awardees?

64. Proposals require a proposal budget as outlined in the Solutions Offering, what time period should that proposal budget cover?

65. Should the submission package be submitted as a single PDF or should each section by its own PDF submitted within a single email?

ANSWERS TO FAQ

A. GENERAL INFORMATION

1. Where can I find materials, presentations, and the office hours sign-up link for the

Builder Platform?

We are not releasing the PowerPoint slides, but you can find the full presentation and Q&A for the May 8, 2023 webinar at this link.

Additionally, you can register for the office hours with corresponding dates and times at the links below:

Monday, May 22, 2023, 12–1 p.m. ET

Register for the May 22 office hour.

Tuesday, May 23, 2023, 2–3 p.m. ET

Register for the May 23 office hour.

Tuesday, June 6, 2023, 3–4 p.m. ET

Register for the June 6 office hour.

Please only sign up for one office hour session, as spots are limited.

2. When will the Builder Platform team start working with Type-1 and Type-2 awardees?

NSF hopes to have the Builder Platform organization onboarded and ready to start working with

Type-1 and Type-2 awardees in Fall 2023. Exact timing will be somewhat dependent upon when NSF publicly announces its Type-1 and Type-2 awardees and begins working with its portfolio of awardees.

3. Is registration in sam.gov required?

Yes, it is required to submit. If you are not already registered, NSF recommends that you begin the process ASAP pre-submission as it can take several weeks for registration to be issued.

4. Can you walk me through the steps in the Builder Platform selection process?

Once we receive all eligible submissions, NSF will internally review proposals. Organizations with favorable ratings may be invited to participate in oral presentations virtually via a Zoom meeting during July 20 – August 3, 2023. Oral presentations will also be evaluated using the selection criteria stated in section 12.0 Oral Presentation Instructions. The oral presentations will build upon and clarify information from the original proposals. Post oral presentations, NSF will create a listing, in order of preference, of the prospective organizations most qualified to perform the work based on the evaluation. NSF will enter negotiations with the organization that is most highly rated on the basis of both their written proposal and oral presentation. If this organization and NSF are unable to reach mutually agreeable terms for award, NSF will enter into negotiations with the next highest rated organization. This process will continue until the Other Arrangement is formed or NSF decides to cancel the solicitation.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hwCKxVxayPU https://lnks.gd/l/eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiJ9.eyJidWxsZXRpbl9saW5rX2lkIjoxMDUsInVyaSI6ImJwMjpjbGljayIsInVybCI6Imh0dHBzOi8vbnNmLnpvb21nb3YuY29tL21lZXRpbmcvcmVnaXN0ZXIvdkpJc2RlbXRyRHNyR0xqX3VHeDl6MjBGT2dGSkppZ3YzZlU_dXRtX21lZGl1bT1lbWFpbCZ1dG1fc291cmNlPWdvdmRlbGl2ZXJ5IiwiYnVsbGV0aW5faWQiOiIyMDIzMDUxNS43Njc0MzUzMSJ9.uFjqIjE0pC-8ub7kFq9XxdDXM1nYm9bB8L5Murhkn2k/s/1255454464/br/192086563379-l https://lnks.gd/l/eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiJ9.eyJidWxsZXRpbl9saW5rX2lkIjoxMDYsInVyaSI6ImJwMjpjbGljayIsInVybCI6Imh0dHBzOi8vbnNmLnpvb21nb3YuY29tL21lZXRpbmcvcmVnaXN0ZXIvdkpJc2NlcXVxejBqRzdEVU1JWUcwaHY0YnQ2dXZyeVJ6VzA_dXRtX21lZGl1bT1lbWFpbCZ1dG1fc291cmNlPWdvdmRlbGl2ZXJ5IiwiYnVsbGV0aW5faWQiOiIyMDIzMDUxNS43Njc0MzUzMSJ9.gxbH0dBqnx4C2kMgt-DbTpzjocClMDCWrC5lOzCfqug/s/1255454464/br/192086563379-l https://lnks.gd/l/eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiJ9.eyJidWxsZXRpbl9saW5rX2lkIjoxMDcsInVyaSI6ImJwMjpjbGljayIsInVybCI6Imh0dHBzOi8vbnNmLnpvb21nb3YuY29tL21lZXRpbmcvcmVnaXN0ZXIvdkpJc2QtMnZxVGtwR1R1cFhSOHRyMEM2bGs2bjI4WmpLTFU_dXRtX21lZGl1bT1lbWFpbCZ1dG1fc291cmNlPWdvdmRlbGl2ZXJ5IiwiYnVsbGV0aW5faWQiOiIyMDIzMDUxNS43Njc0MzUzMSJ9.9gp2qWHedpF2ANqUjORtZr0k4ikXsemc95PVIjLhtkQ/s/1255454464/br/192086563379-l

5. Should my organization submit a proposal even if we are not equipped or interested in serving as a lead organization?

If you are not equipped or interested in serving as a lead organization, you should not submit a proposal. Instead, you should explore teaming up with other potential applicants and joining their application team. The NSF plans to facilitate some limited engagement between organizations to provide an initial connection between organizations interested in serving as a lead organization and those who are primarily interested in serving as sub-awardees or subcontractors. These connections were facilitated by the sharing of opt-in contact information post-webinars and during a technical webinar on May 16, 2023, where NSF set up breakout rooms for interested organizations. These activities build upon community building events that took place during the market intelligence phase in late 2022 and early 2023. If NSF plans events to facilitate additional community building and networking activities during the application process, NSF will share those details via its newsletter in a future update to the FAQ.

6. To what extent will the Builder Platform be responsible for the evaluation work for individual NSF Engines and the evaluation of the overall NSF Engines program?

We intend to have a different evaluation workstream and team that will work with NSF Engines awardees to evaluate their progress throughout the two-year (Type-1) or ten-year (Type-2) award period. The concentration of the Builder Platform team’s work is much more focused on community building within the Engine awardee portfolio and connecting the awardees to the different resources they need to scale. However, NSF anticipates opportunities for collaboration between the Builder Platform organization and NSF evaluation team, especially around determining what new Builder Platform offerings should be created, evaluating the areas of relative strength and weakness of the NSF Engine awardees, and tracking the engagement rates and overall progress of the portfolio of awardees.

7. It would be useful to see community feedback responses before building and submitting our plan as a Lead Organization. Would this be possible?

No; however, SAM.gov has functionality where you are free to post your information on

SAM.gov and other potential responders can view the people who have indicated that they are interested so individuals can meet with one another. Additionally, NSF provided a brief synopsis of their learnings from the market intelligence during the webinar hosted on May 8, 2023. The recording of the webinar can be found here.

8. Can NSF provide additional details regarding what is envisioned for the Type-2 curriculum, specifically the number of courses (or an estimated range) envisioned to be made available to Type-2 awardees in Year 1?

No. We do not yet have an estimation of how much created curriculum for Type-1 awardees could be reused for Type-2 awardees, but anticipate that there could be some overlap and opportunities for adaptive re-use. NSF anticipates being able to share further details during the contract negotiation phase.

https://public.govdelivery.com/accounts/USNSF/subscriber/new?topic_id=USNSF_369 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hwCKxVxayPU

9. Does the availability of peer-to-peer knowledge sharing sessions (live or virtual) count toward the two, 2.5 hours per month allotted to training?

Potentially, but we envision there to be quite a bit of more structured programming and activities for Engines awardees.

10. For additional questions not answered or addressed in this FAQ, who should I reach out to?

Any programmatic questions can be sent to engines@nsf.gov. If you have contract related questions, please email Ben Patterson, bpatters@nsf.gov and Ozge Tek, otek@nsf.gov. All submission packages should be sent to bpatters@nsf.gov and otek@nsf.gov.

11. Is this a grant or contract?

Through this solicitation, NSF contemplates the issuance of an Other Transaction Agreement

(OTA) contract pursuant to NSF’s statutory authority at 42 U.S.C. § 19116. An Other

Transaction Agreement is not a FAR-based procurement contract nor a financial assistance transaction but another system of contracting available to NSF by statute. NSF intends to make one or more awards resulting from this solicitation. It is anticipated that any award resulting from this solicitation will be an award vehicle under which individual orders may be issued. The first order under the planned award vehicle is anticipated to have a 12-month period of performance.

NSF anticipates issuing subsequent orders during the three years. The Builder Platforms organization(s) will be provided with detailed task-specific information prior to the issuance of any future orders. The award resulting from this solicitation is anticipated to be awarded on a milestone-based schedule that will be determined during contract negotiations.

12. Will there be an applicant/industry/proposer day or call?

The NSF has hosted two webinars, one providing general information and another technical webinar reviewing proposal requirements, both of which were recorded. The first webinar can be viewed at this link and the second webinar will be posted on the same YouTube channel shortly. Additionally, NSF is hosting a series of office hours with NSF program staff to answer additional questions ahead of the proposal submission deadline and individuals can register for those sessions at this link (bottom of page). Any additional sessions will be announced via the

NSF Engines newsletter.

13. You mentioned that both NSF and the Builder Platform organizations might need to hire for roles in the coming months. I have a great candidate. Where can I find the posting?

At the moment, there is no formal job posting for the internal role on the NSF Engines team but you can send resumes to our resume drop at engines@nsf.gov. Please include Builder Platform resume in the subject line of the email. If you know of people who would potentially be a fit for roles or internships at individual NSF Engines, please direct them to this interest form.

B. ELIGIBILITY & AWARDEE RESPONSIBILITIES

14. Who is eligible? For-profits, non-profits, and other entities? Any preferences?

mailto:engines@nsf.gov mailto:engines@nsf.gov mailto:bpatters@nsf.gov mailto:bpatters@nsf.gov https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hwCKxVxayPU https://new.nsf.gov/funding/initiatives/regional-innovation-engines/funding-opportunities https://public.govdelivery.com/accounts/USNSF/subscriber/new?topic_id=USNSF_369 mailto:engines@nsf.gov https://airtable.com/shrZ8Se6W3BkgRhet

Any responsible source (excluding foreign entities) may submit proposals for consideration. This includes for-profits, non-profits, public benefit corporations, or other kinds of entities. All

Offerors must be registered in the Federal Government’s System for Award Management (SAM) prior to submitting a proposal (www.sam.gov).

15. What do you mean by Platform in the Builder Platform? Is it a technology or something else?

The “platform” is a human-centered, high-touch support network for NSF Engines awardees.

The Platform team comprises individuals who connect NSF Engines awardees, in a heavily curated manner, with the talent, knowledge, resources, and communities they need to excel.

“Platform,” as used throughout this Solutions Offering, should not be mistaken for a technology platform, website, and/or data analysis technology; instead, it should be viewed as a holistic, high-touch effort to connect and train emerging innovation ecosystem builders, namely NSF’s cohorts of Type-1 and Type-2 awardees. A stand-alone technology solution will not be competitive in this process. We are looking for humans connecting humans to each other.

16. NSF has stated in its Solutions Offering that the Builder Platform is not an opportunity to preview new technology, what qualifies as ‘new’ technology and what is the purpose of stating that directly?

As referenced above, NSF seeks to be explicit that it is seeking a human-centered platform that is doing high-touch work with NSF Engines awardees, rather than a technology platform or solution. While we anticipate technology will be used to help facilitate this, NSF is not seeking a lead organization whose primary focus or expertise is building a technology platform. New technology, as referenced in the Solutions Offering, is technology that would require a significant investment of time to custom build or code. Whenever possible, NSF encourages

Offerors to deploy no-code or off-the-shelf solutions to help support the Builder Platform before exploring any custom technology solutions.

17. For any technology being used by the Builder Platform in a supportive way (e.g. for convening, etc.), does a particular procurement approach apply? Can we deploy technology via a standard approach or do we need to agree to subgrantee contracts with each vendor?

Proposing organizations should use procedures that promote competition, foster good stewardship of NSF funds, establish standards of conduct covering conflicts of interest, eliminate unnecessary or duplicative procurements, promote cost-effectiveness, and allow for oversight to ensure that subcontractors perform in accordance with the terms, conditions, and specifications of their subcontracts. Subcontract documents are not required for commercial off the shelf support.

18. What type of organization would make the most sense as the lead? A university? A private business? Non-profit? Technology company? Large venture firm?

We are purposely casting a broad net since this is a new field that we are hoping to develop.

There are very few organizations working to support innovation ecosystem builders in a high-touch way, not just startup companies or research projects. Instead, NSF asks you to look at the goals of the program and tell us if your organization is equipped to run the operational http://www.sam.gov/ infrastructure, manage the day-to-day activities of the Builder Platform, serve as the main point of contact for NSF Engines awardees for this type of support, coalesce the key constituents and networks to support awardees, and be a thought partner to the NSF Engines leadership in developing the strategy and roadmap for the Builder Platform offering.

We understand that this is a comprehensive effort and that there are a lot of moving parts to it.

We are hoping lead organizations are capable of taking on multiple aspects of this work. We are trying to avoid a siloed approach where each person/organization does one thing. It is our opinion that a confederated or siloed approach where awardees need to navigate a loosely organized network of service and technical assistance providers is time consuming and confusing for NSF Engine awardees. NSF intends for the Builder Platform to be a single front door and a frictionless platform that supports our awardees wherever they are.

19. Does having a SBA (small business association) certification and/or another similar certification give an applicant a competitive edge on getting selected as a Builder

Platform lead organization?

No.

20. Can an Institution of Higher Education (IHE) partner with a private business on an application?

Yes, any combination of organizations can partner together to develop the strongest possible application. However, applicants should make clear what role each partner/subcontractor will play in the 15-page narrative and in the Letters of Collaboration.

21. How many awardees will the Builder Platform organization(s) manage and support?

According to the Broad Agency Announcement (BAA), the NSF Regional Innovation Engines

Program is planning to award up to 44 Type-1 awards of up to 1 million dollars for two years and about 5 Type-2 awards of 160 million dollars over ten years. To learn more about the NSF

Engines program and the recently announced Type-1 awardees, please click on this link. NSF expects that the Builder Platform organization will develop offerings that are open to the full portfolio of awardees and custom offerings that will be more geared towards Type-1 or Type-2 awardees.

22. Can the Builder Platform organization support individual startups and/or research projects emerging from NSF Engines locations?

The focus of the Builder Platform work (and the use of NSF funds) should go towards developing offerings and activities that directly support the ecosystem builders leading Type-1 and Type-2 awards. NSF funds should be used to support the ecosystem builders leading NSF

Engines, not individual startups or research projects emerging from Engine locations. With that being said, NSF wants to create space for this community to grow and evolve over time and encourages the layering of new offerings that add value to awardees, which may require the

Builder Platform organization to solicit new funds from outside entities (beyond NSF funds). For example, after working closely with awardees, the Builder Platform organization might see a https://tableau.external.nsf.gov/views/EnginesType-1AwardAnnouncement/Main future opportunity to create a standalone effort to support technologies emerging from NSF

Engine locations and raise funds for that aligned opportunity.

23. Engines are being planned for 10 years, why is the Builder Platform contract only for

3 years?

NSF thinks it’s important to be able to iterate based on our early learnings and adjust the Builder Platform accordingly. NSF anticipates that we will learn a lot in this early process when NSF and the Builder Platform organization are working with both the Type-1 and the Type-2 awardees and we want to have the ability to pivot during these first 3 years and beyond, as needed. NSF intends to include a provision in the contract that will permit NSF to extend the contract term or choose to recompete parts or all the Builder Platform work.

24. Are you only interested in existing organizations, or would a partnership, joint venture, or purpose-built new organization be of interest to NSF?

As it stands, NSF is open to all partnership and organization models because NSF doesn’t know if the organization, with the requisite skills and experience, exists in the marketplace yet. So, if this style of organization doesn’t exist, and people feel like the need to develop a new entity that is created solely for this effort, NSF is open to that. What is important to NSF is that the newly created organization, and the people involved in it, have the necessary experience and operational capacity onboard to lead an effort of this scale ($9.5 M + potentially additional external funds flowing through the Builder Platform). While at the same time, we hope that this new organization is nimble enough to grow with NSF Engines awardees and evolve over time.

25. Will you be selecting Builder organizations regionally, nationally, locally, or using other geographic distributing approaches? My organization only works in X community or Y topic area, and we do not have plans to expand, should we apply?

NSF intends to select an organization or organizations that have the potential to scale across multiple geographies and work with awardees in diverse topics areas. While the Builder

Platform organization might consider funding/partnering with regional community efforts or regional funding collaboratives, the goal of the Builder Platform is to create a frictionless single-entry point for our awardees to work with communities and innovation stakeholders across the county. It is likely that the Builder Platform organization may weave together networks, talent pools, and funding sources that are regional or topical in nature (as layers added on top of the

Builder Platform) but the work of the Builder Platform organization should span the full scope of

NSF Engines geographies and topic areas. If an organization is only working in a specific geography or topic area, they should only apply as a lead organization if they can put forward a credible for their rapid expansion and diversification.

26. Can you share some thoughts on the roles of the Builder Platform awardee as a

"thought partner" — which sounds like more of a consulting function, versus having the Builder Platform awardee develop and deploy tools, networks, etc. — which is more of a delivery-focused role?

NSF wants to select an organization that is capable of operationally delivering on our vision of the Builder Platform, while also helping NSF co-create different aspects of it. Our team at NSF has put forward an initial set of topic area priorities (talent, partnerships, sustainability, and embedding DEIA). However, NSF wants the selected organization to help us ideate on and co-create those activities and offerings. It is very possible that these set of priorities will evolve as we learn more about the needs of Type-1 and Type-2 awardees. The selected lead organization needs to be more than a thought partner to NSF, and it is expected that the selected organization will execute and operationalize what NSF and the Builder Platform collectively decide are important to build. The Builder Platform is not intended to function as a think tank, policy arm, innovation thought leader but rather as an organization that can get into the weeds to help NSF Engine awardees build communities and solve problems.

27. How many proposals can a lead organization submit?

An eligible organization can submit a maximum of one proposal as a lead organization per solicitation. A proposal can involve multiple organizations, but the proposal must be submitted by a lead organization with subcontracts to other participating organizations. Separately submitted collaborative proposals are not permitted. If you are submitting as a lead organization, we recommend that you focus your attention on being the best possible lead organization submitter. Conversely, if an organization is interested in being a part of another application as a subcontractor, they should work with a lead organization to be included in that lead organization’s application as a subcontractor and include a Letter of Collaboration in that application.

28. Can a proposal be submitted by multiple lead organizations?

No. There can be multiple organizations on a project but only one lead organization can submit a proposal.

29. How many applications can a subcontractor be on?

There is no limit to how many applications a subcontractor can be a part of; however, a subcontractor should justify the relationship with the lead organization and the unique value the subcontractor will provide. The goal should not be to join as many applications as possible but rather to focus your attention on efforts where you can provide the most value while meshing well with the lead organization’s skillset.

30. Are Letters of Collaboration sufficient for proposed subcontractors, or must the subcontracts be initiated at proposal submittal? Will we need to know our subcontractor by the application deadline or can we name them after awarded funding?

Letters of Collaboration or memorandums of understanding (MOUs) are sufficient for the purposes of the application. As outlined in Section 9.5, individual Letters of Collaboration should be included for each proposed subcontractor and those letters should outline what work they will perform as a part of the Builder Platform effort and why they are uniquely qualified to lead that work. The expected level of detail in these Letters of Collaboration is higher than providing a generic statement of support. Key subcontractors should be identified in the proposal or there should be a detailed plan for how lead organizations plan on identifying and selecting key subcontractors if they are not already identified.

31. Are Letters of Collaboration from financial partners (e.g. a letter from a funder to provide financial support if an organization is awarded a contract as a lead organization) sufficient to satisfy a financial capacity review before final award?

While Letters of Collaboration are required for each individual proposed subcontractor, they are not required for non-subcontractors. However, if additional Letters of Collaboration demonstrate a tangible benefit to the organization, applicants are welcome to include them. Additionally, outside funding that has been identified may be referenced in the Long-Term Financial Model requirement of the proposal, referenced in Section 9.6.

32. I have a proprietary technology that can be custom built for everything that you are asking for. When can I schedule a technology demo?

NSF is not interested in scheduling technology demos during the proposal stage of this competition. Additionally, NSF wants to make it very clear that this is a human-centered Builder

Platform, and the expectation is that humans will be connecting NSF Engines awardees with the resources, training, and talent that they need.

If there are publicly accessible technologies and tools that can achieve the stated goals of the Builder Platform, then the Builder Platform organization should use them and avoid developing custom-built tools, software, and technologies. All technology and software developed should be portable and have suitable APIs for plug and play.

C. FUNDING

33. What is the award amount for this Builder Platform initiative?

The Engines Team intends to provide an award(s) not to exceed $9.5 M. This will be a three-year contract and funding will be unlocked based on reaching mutually agreed upon milestones.

Applicants are required to put forward their proposed milestone payment schedule for year 1 as a part of their submission package.

34. Are Defense Contract Audit Agency (DCAA) financial reviews required before an award is finalized?

No, review by DCAA is not a pre-requisite for this award and will not be required. However, proposers who request a cost-reimbursable type of pricing arrangement will be required to demonstrate that they have a government approved accounting system before an award is made.

35. Can a lead organization present a fixed-price contract without having a pre-negotiated

"indirect costs" agreement?

Yes. Lead organizations who do not have a current Federally negotiated indirect cost rate agreement will need to describe in the budget justification how they arrived at the rate(s) claimed and should be prepared to respond to questions NSF may have on the basis or reasonability of that rate (or rates).

36. Does the budget for year one have to be an even split of $9.5 million across 3 years or can we request more funding in year 1 with years 2 and 3 being lower amounts?

The budget does not have to be evenly split across all funding years of the award agreement.

However, budgets should be reasonable. While NSF anticipates and understands there may be startup costs that result in a higher funding request in year one, adequate funding should be preserved for activities subsequent years, or the long-term financial model should demonstrate viability for key activities if there are major funding differences across years.

D. FOCUS & AREAS

37. How many prime Builder Platform awards does NSF expect to fund? Is there likely to be a single Builder Platform award with the expectation to tackle the entire scope of work or multiple awards with specific subsets or portfolios?

NSF intends to make one or more awards. NSF anticipates that the lead organization(s) will have the skillset and networks to lead several Builder Platform work streams (if not all of them), be the NSF Engines awardees awardee-facing organization, and coordinate the delivery of high-quality services, offerings, communities, and curricula. With that being said, NSF recognizes that almost any lead organization will need subcontractors to support and build out aspects of the work, even potentially leading workstreams for specific topic area. However, NSF is very focused on finding a strong lead organization with programmatic and entrepreneurial expertise rather than a holding company that outsources the core day-to-day work to an array of subcontractors.

38. Does the focus of the Builder Platform’s work need to be industry-specific (e.g.

semiconductors, bioeconomy advanced manufacturing, etc.), or can the focus be widespread to serve more NSF Engines?

As the goal of the Builder Platform is to work across the portfolio of awardees, the focus should not be specific to a single industry. NSF wants the Builder Platform to flexibility to work with several different entity types and be able to speak multiple different languages. Therefore, the ability to work with multiple sectors and with teams that have different lived experiences will be critical.

39. Does NSF envision the "sustainability" element of the Builder Platform to have an actual financial “module” where money may flow through the Builder Platform to awardees?

Yes, NSF is open to creative ideas on this front, including those involving leveraging philanthropic and investment capital, but we want to reiterate NSF funds for the Builder Platform should be used to fund ecosystem development and support systems for NSF Engines and the work of Type-1 and Type-2 awardee leadership teams. If the Builder Platform organization wants to layer on additional capital to launch and fund additive or aligned offerings, such as funding to specific projects, fellowships, or emerging startups, they will need to raise additional capital and staff their team appropriately to take on those additional responsibilities. In its end state, NSF wants the Builder Platform to be built in such a way where it can receive and deploy outside capital to support complementary efforts and expanded offerings.

40. Are the Builder Platform teams regionally focused and assembled, e.g. similar regional footprint to the I-Corps program?

We are looking for an organization that can reach and organize regional stakeholders but has national reach since we want to create a single-entry point for our NSF Engines awardees. It is very likely that there will be subcommunities within the cohort and we defer to the Builder

Platform team on how they will organize their subcommunities and/or communities of practice.

However, the Builder Platform effort is very different from I-Corps in that I-Corps meets researchers and early-stage startup at a specific stage of their development and helps individual teams and researchers determine if there is a viable business model. The Builder Platform and

NSF Engines program works with a much wider set of stakeholders and works with organizations and technologies at a much wider set of maturity stages. The Builder Platform aims to train awardees but also actively connects them with the talent and networks that they need to excel, which differentiates them from I-Corps.

41. How does NSF expect DEIA to be embedded into this work?

NSF intends for DEIA to be a central pillar of the Builder Platform effort. NSF is looking for organizations that embody the culture of DEIA throughout their leadership and activities.

Applicants should provide details on how their organizational practices and leadership structures are inclusive and embody DEIA principles. Organizations can provide data, historical evidence, and details on Builder Platform-specific plans to develop inclusive and equitable approaches.

Additionally, one of the four key pillars of the work is embedding DEIA into the activities of individual NSF Engines. NSF will want to understand how the Builder Platform organization’s plan to help NSF Engines develop and implement DEIA strategies within their Engine locations.

These are two distinct activities and should be treated as such in applications. This is all an evaluation criteria (see: Organizational Experience under 11.0 Selection Criteria).

E. OPERATIONS & DELIVERY MODELS

42. Is the Builder Platform already connected to Type 1 & 2 awardees or are these relationships NSF will cultivate for the platform?

The organization selected to lead the Builder Platform will be connected directly to Type-1 and

Type-2 awardees post-contract negotiations by NSF. How the Builder Platform team works with

Type-1 vs. Type-2 awardees will likely look slightly different, but NSF will facilitate all necessary introductions. NSF will work with the Builder Platform organization to determine which trainings and offerings are optional vs. mandatory but it is anticipated that Type-1 and Type-2 awardees will have a great deal of autonomy in how they chose to take advantage of Builder Platform offerings. It will be incumbent on the Builder Platform team to create offerings, services, and curriculum that the awardees find valuable enough to take advantage of on a regular basis.

Prospective lead organizations may reach out to individual Type-1 awardees to do customer discovery but are prohibited from representing that they represent NSF in any way in that outreach process. A brief review of the NSF Type-1 awardees can be found at this link.

43. What mechanisms does NSF have in place to match prime applicants to subcontractors?

NSF hosted two webinars where potential subcontractors and lead organizations could share their contact information with other organizations. Additionally, during the May 16, 2023 technical webinar, NSF hosted breakout rooms where organizations could identify themselves as a possible lead organization or an interested subcontractor and set up offline conversations with organizations for further discussions to coordinate collaborating on a possible proposal.

44. Could you explain how you see the interactions and communications occurring between the NSF program team, the Builder Platform organization, and the NSF

Engine awardees? Will the Builder Platform organization function completely autonomously from the NSF program team?

NSF will finalize its approach to engagement and communication across the Builder Platform team during contract negotiations with the lead organization. Currently, NSF anticipates that the

Builder Platform team—both in-house at NSF and the external organization—will regularly engage with Type-1 and Type-2 awardees. NSF Program Directors will have a regular cadence of communication with awardees to monitor progress and address programmatic questions or concerns. However, when it comes to supporting the direct needs of awardees (talent, infrastructure, curriculum, partnerships, external resources, etc.), the Builder Platform team

(both in-house and external) will be expected to lead this effort.

45. How will the Builder Platform organization function in coordination with the NSF

Engines program team?

The NSF Builder Platform is configured as a partnership between an in-house NSF team and an external lead organization. This allows certain activities to be conducted much more efficiently or with a depth of expertise that wouldn’t be easily possible exclusively in-house at NSF.

However, the external lead organization will work closely with the in-house team and will work together to engage NSF Engines awardees with a consistent, cohesive voice and approach that is aligned with the broader NSF Engines programmatic vision. The external Builder Platform team will follow the lead of the NSF Engines programmatic team but will have a great deal of autonomy to co-create with NSF.

46. What does success look like for the Builder Platform in its end state?

In its end state, NSF expects the Builder Platform will create a set of resources and an accompanying engaged and expanding community. The Builder Platform team will connect awardees to the curated talent, capital, networks, and resources they need to thrive during and beyond their award periods. What is needed to achieve those goals will evolve over time as

Type-1 and Type-2 NSF Engines awardees enter the cohort, mature over time, and new awardees join future cohort(s). Together, the NSF Engines and the Builder Platform will produce a new model that both empowers awardees to thrive and drive long-term economic impact in https://tableau.external.nsf.gov/views/EnginesType-1AwardAnnouncement/Main emerging innovation ecosystems. This will also constitute a new model for federal government agencies support awardees, moving from providing training and funding to a more holistic model focused on developing communities and connections (plus funding and training). Hopefully, NSF Engine awardees will be stronger, more nimble, better connected, and more successful as a result of their regular interactions with the Builder Platform.

47. Are there any models out there that have many of the attributes of what the NSF envisions in the Builder Platform effort that might serve as a potential model?

We have spoken with our colleagues at different federal agencies and within the NSF about what technical assistance programs and communities of practice initiatives they have launched in the past and how they learned from these past successes and failures. Many of the proposed

Builder Platform activities and networks aim to build upon the foundational work of others and we hope that there are opportunities to that work in tandem, eventually creating onramps for other agencies and their awardees to tap into the Builder Platform’s work. In addition, we have spent a lot of time talking with the private sector, incubators, accelerators, and venture platform teams in the venture capital world to learn more about how they approach these challenges. In its end state, we hope to build a model that borrows from both the private and public sector with a laser focus on helping our awardees execute their visions and build new partner relationships with historically hard to reach networks.

48. Is your inspiration or model for the Builder Platform based on or influenced by any existing federal or commercial models or efforts?

During our pre-launch planning and market intelligence, we have talked to our colleagues at different federal agencies about their existing technical assistance programs and communities of practice to better understand how they have built entrepreneurial communities and regional ecosystems. This is a non-exhaustive list, but we have spoken with colleagues SBA, DOE, NIH, BARDA, Department of Commerce’s Tech Hubs and Build Back Better Regional Challenge teams.

49. Do you have a baseline in mind for how much operational capacity an entity will need to effectively support the Engine Builder Platform?

It is anticipated that the lead organization will have the skillset and networks to lead several

Builder Platform work streams, be the NSF Engines awardee-facing organization, and coordinate the delivery of high-quality services, offering, communities, and curricula. We have not identified a baseline in terms of annual budget or organization size though. However, please refer to the evaluation criteria in Section 11 of the Solutions Offering to better understand the organizational experience that we are looking for.

F. CONFLICT OF INTEREST

50. Can an organization be a lead organization for the Builder Platform and also a recipient of a Type-1 or Type-2 NSF Engines award?

The Offeror must include a statement describing any potential financial interests that the organization(s) may have that could create conflicts of interest with the work to be performed in their proposal. The Offeror must also include their plan to resolve the conflicts. These conflicts include the potential conflicts that would arise from being included in a Type-1 or Type-2 NSF Engines award. This statement applies to the awardee, its employees, consultants, and subcontractor used to perform work under their proposal.

Given the nature of this requirement, it is possible for a conflict to arise after an award that is not otherwise anticipated. Due to this, the award will include language requiring that the selected organization notify NSF if a conflict arises post award and how the organization intends to address the conflict including a proposed mitigation plan. NSF will evaluate these plans and make a determination. If an Offeror is on a Type-1 or Type-2 proposal, they should make a clear case for why they are equipped to lead the Builder Platform effort while also being at the stage of development where they would need the assistance of the Builder Platform team as a Type-1 or Type-2 awardee.

51. Can the Builder Platform organization negotiate one-off contracts with Type-1 and

Type-2 awardees who would like to receive additional support from the Builder

Platform organization on activities that fall outside the scope of the NSF-Builder

Platform agreement?

That would be determined during the contract negotiation stage, in terms of how the lead organization can work with NSF Engines awardees outside of the formally structured agreement. At a fundamental level, NSF does not want the Builder Platform organization to be

“upselling” NSF Engines awardees. Awardees must always view the Builder Platform organization as a trusted ally and connector rather than as a vendor in search of future business. However, we are open to considering individual arrangements where the Type-1 or

Type-2 awardees have specific needs that fall outside the purview of the Builder Platform’s scope or are so time-intensive that they could not be scaled across the entire portfolio of awardees. NSF would need to carefully review these arrangements for any potential COIs, especially for awardees that are preparing to apply for Type-2 awards.

G. PARTNERSHIPS

52. Can the Builder Platform team work with other parts of NSF and/or other federal agencies?

Yes, there could be opportunities to plug into the work of other agencies and create offerings…