LIGHT Frequently Asked Questions

LIGHT's solutions summary due date is now June 27th, 2024

Please see ISO Section 2, Eligibility Information. All eligible entities may submit Solution Summaries (formerly known as abstracts). As the LIGHT ISO requires submission of Solution Summaries, the Government will only accept full proposals from eligible entities who submitted a timely Solution Summary.

An entity can only submit one full proposal as the prime proposer. Entities may propose within multiple teams as subproposers.  
 

Outside of guidance within the ISO, including Appendices, ARPA-H cannot advise proposers in terms of Solution Summary and/or full proposal strategy and content. Solution Summaries will be reviewed and full proposals will be evaluated as described in the ISO. Proposers should prepare submissions accordingly.

Yes, proposers must have submitted a Solution Summary to be eligible to submit a full proposal. 

Solution Summaries will be reviewed within the context of the full proposal evaluation criteria, but not to the same extent as full proposals, which are evaluated against the criteria as outlined in the ISO. Reviews are conducted in a thorough manner proportionate with the brevity of Solution Summaries. Feedback may be limited to 'encourage/discourage' as noted in the ISO.

Full proposals are evaluated against the three criteria in the ISO (see Section 5.3).

Proposals will be evaluated by Government Reviewers who may be ARPA-H PMs or qualified personnel from other Government Organizations and Agencies who are deemed proficient in the pertinent research areas of the solicitation.

Yes, non-U.S. entities are allowed to submit proposals for consideration. Non-U.S. entities are encouraged to collaborate with domestic U.S. entities. See LIGHT solicitation 2.1.2

Per the LIGHT ISO Section 2.1.2, non-U.S. entities may participate to the extent that such participants comply with any necessary nondisclosure agreements, security regulations, export control laws, and other governing statutes applicable under the circumstances. Non-U.S. entities are encouraged to collaborate with domestic U.S. entities. In no case will awards be made to entities organized under the laws of a covered foreign country [as defined in section 119C of the National Security Act of 1947 (50 U.S.C. § 3059)] or entities suspended or debarred from business with the U.S. Government.   

The start date will be determined during contract negotiations. For planning purposes, proposers can assume an FY25 Q1 start date although this is subject to change. 

ARPA-H does not follow the Multiple PI (MPI) procedures that NIH has in place; therefore, any person named as a PI/Lead Investigator on a subcontract is not considered to be a PI and should be able to retain their eligibility for NIH ESI status. If there is still a concern about ESI status, please reach out to NIH for clarification.  

There are additional requirements captured in Administrative and National Policy Requirements document (Appendix C) that require disclosure of foreign organizations and foreign involvement on the project. This information may be requested before award. 

The subcontractor does not need to submit their cost proposal spreadsheets twice. Most proposers include the spreadsheets with the full proposal. If there are privacy or IP concerns, the subcontractor is welcome to submit the spreadsheets directly to ARPA-H at LIGHT@arpa-h.gov.  

The following instructions were provided in the ISO. For Other Support, please use this format: https://www.nsf.gov/bfa/dias/policy/researchprotection/commonform_cps.pdf    

For the Biographical Sketch, please use this format: https://www.nsf.gov/bfa/dias/policy/researchprotection/commonform_biographicalsketch.pdf  

Full proposals can be submitted under a different track from that submitted for the Solution Summary after consideration of the feedback received from the review of the Solution Summary submission. Feedback provided from the Program Manager in response to the Solution Summary does not guarantee successful award of the full proposal. Full proposals should retain the original prime sponsor and reference the original Solution Summary ID.  

Similarly to a change in track submission, the title can also be modified to reflect the changes in the submission and scope of work after consideration of the feedback received for the Solution Summary. Feedback provided from the Program Manager in response to the Solution Summary does not guarantee successful award of the full proposal. Full proposals should retain the original prime sponsor and reference the initial Solution Summary Title and ID submission. 

Videos are not supported in full proposal submissions. 

Yes, the salary cap is applicable. Performers shall not use program funds (under this Agreement) to pay the direct salary of an individual at a rate in excess of the Federal Executive Schedule Level II in effect on the date the funding was obligated. 

The Reference Documents are backup/supporting documentation. Below are the related instructions from the spreadsheet. 

Clearly label Materials/Supplies backup with a Reference Document Number in the format of MAT000 starting with MAT001. Place the Reference Document Number in the upper right hand side of the backup page. If there are several quoted items on a page, items not desired must be lined out and each desired item must have a separate reference number placed to the left of the item on the backup page. The Reference Document Number must be listed next to the appropriate item on the Materials/Supplies worksheet under the Reference Document Number column. 

Number Reference Document Numbers sequentially so they match the Item number in the Base. For example, Item number 1 should match MAT001. If the same items are used again in the options, there is no need to renumber or add additional copies of the backup, but list the items sequentially for each option by Reference Document Number. As an example, MAT010 could be used for Phase 1 Base, Phase 2 Option Item number 4. 

Please email the LIGHT team to request a copy of the required cost template at LIGHT@arpa-h.gov 

The ISO does not specify the requirement to break the budget down by task. Proposers should use the tabs provided in the spreadsheet. 

The ARPA-H Heilmeier questions are a resource that can be leverage to help develop your proposal, and can be found here: https://arpa-h.gov/sites/default/files/2023-10/Qs_behind_the_HQs.pdf 

Below are links for the required documents in the SF-424 package:  

SF424 (R&R) [V5.0] - https://apply07.grants.gov/apply/forms/sample/RR_SF424_5_0-V5.0.pdf   

Grants.gov Lobbying Form [V1.1] – https://apply07.grants.gov/apply/forms/sample/GG_LobbyingForm-V1.1.pdf 

Project Abstract [V1.2] – https://apply07.grants.gov/apply/forms/sample/Project_Abstract_1_2-V1.2.pdf 

Project Abstract Summary [V2.0] - https://apply07.grants.gov/apply/forms/sample/Project_AbstractSummary_2_0-V2.0.pdf 

Research & Related Senior/Key Person Profile [V3.0] - https://apply07.grants.gov/apply/forms/sample/RR_KeyPerson_3_0-V3.0.pdf 

Research and Related Other Project Information [V1.4] - https://apply07.grants.gov/apply/forms/sample/RR_OtherProjectInfo_1_4-V1.4.pdf 

Excel spreadsheets may be submitted with the optional Other Project Information form.

ARPA-H does not prescribe the agreement format between the proposer and its subproposers.

ARPA-H does not prescribe who can submit provided they are authorized by the proposing organization.

Indirect costs on Federal awards to foreign organizations and foreign public entities, without a federally negotiated indirect cost rate agreement, performed fully outside the territorial limits of the U.S. may be paid to support the costs of compliance with federal requirements at a fixed rate of 8%.

Full proposal packages, regardless of the instrument type requested, shall be submitted via the ARPA-H Solution Submission Portal. 

Work transfer agreements or similar arrangements are only necessary for divisions within the same organization as the awardee and would be included in the subawardee’s proposal. No format is prescribed. 

The Administrative and National Policy Requirements document can be found in Appendix C of the LIGHT ISO.

Only the forms listed in Grants.gov need to be included. No other forms referenced in the Other Project Information form need to be attached. 

The LIGHT ISO states that “all performers will present progress and updates on their technology” but not that all members of the performer team must attend. The workshop is expected to be held in the final 3-4 months of Phase I. It is anticipated that the workshop will be one day, but specific attendance requirements, dates, and location will be determined post award.

It is currently anticipated that the workshop will be one day, but the specific dates and location will be determined post award.

A Research Description Document (for cooperative agreements) or Task Description Document (for other transactions) will be included in any resulting awards. If a document must be included in this field, please upload the statement of work. 

One Volume I will be submitted by the prime proposer.

Biosketches and letters of support should be uploaded under Volume III as part of the National Security Disclosure.

One Volume II is to be submitted by the prime proposer with separate cost proposals for the prime and for any subproposers. One Volume III is to be submitted by the prime proposer with information for the prime and any subproposers.

The “Program Manager” for LIGHT is Dr. Kimberley Steele.  If instead you are referring to the role of “project manager,” the expectations are outlined in section 3.4.1 of LIGHT’s ISO. We cannot provide additional details outside of what is provided in the ISO.

Biographical Sketch form can be found in Appendix C: Administrative and Policy Requirements and will be submitted under Volume III of the proposal. A link to the form is found in the footnotes on page 45. 

Full proposals must include documentation to support the proposed price/budget which may include supporting documentation and a budget narrative. 

A link to the Biographical Sketch form is found in the footnotes on page 45 of the LIGHT ISO.

All institutions engaged in human subjects research (HSR) must have a current IRB approved protocol and valid assurance of the institution engaged in HSR in place prior to any funds being used for HSR. Institutions receiving awards without both items in place will include a restriction prohibiting the institution from engaging in HSR prior to obtaining approval.

There is an error in column C “Rate/Qty” located in Sheet “F. ODCs”. To resolve error, the sheet needs to be unprotected by right clicking on the tab for “F. ODCs” and selecting unprotect sheet. Then select all columns, this includes columns C, I, O, U, AA, and AG, with “rate/qty” inputs and changing the number type from ‘Percentage’ to ‘Number’. Then protect the sheet by right clicking the tab again. 

Information provided in the ISO takes precedence over information provided at Proposer’s Day. LIGHT ISO Amendment 2 allows for Other Transaction Agreements and Cooperative Agreements.

Performers should clearly identify one Discovery Duo team that will be formally responsible for completing the objectives outlined in LIGHT’s ISO. We are supportive of performers including additional patient ambassadors and early-stage investigators if the proposal clearly demonstrates that doing so will advance the transformative goals and impact of the proposed work.  

The rough order of magnitude (ROM) is intended to provide a broad estimate of cost and effort. This will allow ARPA-H to determine if the proposed costs are within a reasonable range for the proposed scope of work. The cost proposal submitted in the full proposal does not have to match the ROM in the solution summary.

The recording LIGHT's Proposers' Day can be found here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R8TjJNmiMkQ NOTE: the content in the LIGHT ISO solicitation supersedes any information presented in the recording.   

There is no maximum number. Proposers are responsible for proposing a team capable of meeting the proposed Statement of Work, recognizing the Government is evaluating team capability as well as price reasonableness.

No. See section 3.4.1 for requirements related to each Performer Team.

Project budgets must account for at least the minimum of Discovery Duo support outlined in Section 3.4.1 of the ISO.

Post award teaming changes may require bilateral negotiation (depending on the SOW).

See Section 3.4.1 of the ISO. Each proposal must designate a single lead PI from the prime organization. The team must be capable of accomplishing all technical areas the proposal addresses and may include other Investigators collaborating with the lead PI.

Please see ISO Section 3.4.2. The LIGHT Program is based on collaboration within and between Performers/Performer teams. 

Please see ISO Section 2.1.2.

Key members of the Proposer's team should be identified as early as possible (e.g., Solution Summary). Solution Summaries will be reviewed within the context of the ISO evaluation criteria and full proposals will be formally evaluated against the Criteria in the ISO. Failure to identify key personnel (e.g., Project Manager) and/or team members (e.g., subawardees) may impact the Government's evaluation. Proposers are encouraged to provide as many specific details as are available at the time of submission, while considering page limitations at each submission stage.

In terms of performers selected for award negotiations, the Government's expectation is the Performer team will be capable of achieving the SOW and associated milestones as proposed (i.e., at the time of award the team is able to begin research efforts in accordance with the SOW).

ARPA-H cannot advise as to strategy and/or content of Solution Summaries and full proposals. Proposers must use the guidance in the ISO as well as their professional expertise when preparing submissions.

Proposals with SOWs addressing a single TA are allowed under Track 2. Please see the ISO for more guidance related to the two Tracks and the associated requirements and periods of performance.

Track 1 proposals must address at least 2 TAs, with TA2 being a requirement. Please see the ISO for additional guidance related to Track 1 and Track 2.

Unless indicated otherwise in the ISO (e.g., written as suggested), Program metrics in the ISO are requirements for Proposers. Proposals that do not propose to meet the metrics may be considered non-selectable.

Proposals should not assume provision of any Government Furnished Information (GFI). The Government may provide GFI, but the specific GFI would be negotiated after a proposal is selected for award negotiations (i.e., a proposal must stand on its own without assumptions and conditions related to GFI).

Per the LIGHT ISO Section 6.1.2, all entities submitting a proposal for funding that will involve engagement in human subjects research (as defined in 45 CFR § 46) must provide documentation of one or more current Assurance of Compliance with federal regulations for human subjects protection, including at least a Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), Office of Human Research Protection Federal Wide Assurance. 

Both domestic and international organizations are required to obtain a Federal Wide Assurance from the Office of Human Research Protection (OHRP) and can do so at this site: https://www.hhs.gov/ohrp/register-irbs-and-obtain-fwas/fwas/file-a-new-fwa/index.html  

Performers applying to Track Two must complete Expenditures by Month and Milestones and Deliverables for Phase I of the LIGHT program.

Track Two proposers should focus their technical proposal and cost proposal on the 24-month Phase I efforts, addressing the specific metrics and milestones outlined for Phase I in the chosen technical area.

Track Two proposers should focus their proposal on addressing the specific metrics and milestones outlined for Phase I of the chosen technical area. As such, it is sufficient to focus on one primary demonstration of feasibility.

If a proposer is unable to identify a DD team prior to submission of a full proposal, the roles should be outlined in the proposal and a budget allocated for their activities, however, proposers should understand that the team’s capabilities and experience are part of the review criteria (Section 5.3.2) and will be evaluated accordingly.