Science, Math & Engineering, Inc.

B-410509 Jan 07, 2015 Jump To VIEW DECISION DOWNLOADS RELATED PAGES GAO CONTACTS Highlights Science, Math & Engineering, Inc. (SME), of Billerica, Massachusetts, protests the determination of the Department of Education not to fund SME's Phase I proposal under Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR) program solicitation No. 84.133S-1, which invited offers for research projects to address the needs of individuals with disabilities. We deny the protest. We deny the protest. View Decision Decision Matter of: Science, Math & Engineering, Inc. File: B-410509 Date: January 7, 2015 Michael L. Burns, Science, Math & Engineering, Inc., for the protester. Michael S. Taylor, Esq., Department of Education, for the agency. Gary R. Allen, Esq., and Christina Sklarew, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, GAO, participated in the preparation of the decision. DIGEST Protester’s challenge to agency’s decision not to fund protester’s application under Phase I of a Solicitation issued pursuant to the Department of Education Small Business Innovation Research program is denied where protester’s application was reasonably found to have weaknesses that resulted in it being ranked 51st of the 63 applications received. DECISION Science, Math & Engineering, Inc. (SME), of Billerica, Massachusetts, protests the determination of the Department of Education[1] not to fund SME’s Phase I proposal under Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR) program solicitation No. 84.133S-1, which invited offers for research projects to address the needs of individuals with disabilities. We deny the protest. BACKGROUND The SBIR program is designed to increase the participation of small business concerns in federally funded research or research and development (R&D). See Small Business Innovation Research Program Act of 1982, 15 U.S.C. § 638 (2006). Pursuant to this authority, certain federal agencies, including the Department of Education, are required to provide a program under which a portion of the agency’s research or R&D effort is reserved for award to small business concerns through a three-phased process. See 15 U.S.C. §§ 638(e)(4), (f). Under Phase I, small businesses are invited to test the scientific, technical, and commercial merit and feasibility of a certain concept. If Phase I is successful, the firm may apply for a Phase II award to further develop the concept. During Phase III, firms are expected to obtain funding from non-SBIR sources to develop the concept into a product for commercial and/or military markets. See Solicitation at 5. The solicitation here sought Phase I applications for projects that would address the needs of individuals with disabilities. Project activities could include conducting manufacturing-related research and development that encompasses improvements in existing methods or processes, or wholly new processes, machines, or systems, that would benefit individuals with disabilities. The solicitation indicated that the agency was particularly interested in applications that addressed one or more of the following: (1) Increased independence of individuals with disabilities in community settings, including educational settings, through the development of technology to support access to these settings and promote integration of individuals with disabilities;   (2) Enhanced sensory or motor function of individuals with disabilities through the development of technology to support improved functional capacity;   (3) Enhanced workforce participation through the development of technology to increase access to employment, and support employment advancement for individuals with disabilities;   (4) Enhanced community living and participation for individuals with disabilities through the development of accessible information technology including cloud computing, software, systems, and devices that promote access to information in educational, employment, and community settings, and voting technology that improves access for individuals with disabilities; and   (5) Improved health-care interventions and increased use of related resources through development of technology to support independent access to community health-care services for individuals with disabilities. Solicitation at 40-41. The Solicitation provided that applications would be evaluated on a 100-point scale, allocating points as follows: (1) importance of the problem (20 points); (2) design of development activities (50 points);[2] (3) project staff (15 points); (4) adequacy and reasonableness of budget (5 points); and (5) adequacy and accessibility of resources (10 points). Solicitation at 22-23. The Solicitation noted that the agency planned to make 10 awards. Id. at 24. Applicants were to “describe the approaches they expect[ed] to use to collect empirical evidence demonstrating the effectiveness of the technology they [were] proposing.” Id. at 41.