Frequently Asked Questions

Registration is not required for the informational webinar for the subject FOA.  Following is information needed to join the webinar:

The National Energy Technology Laboratory will hold an informational webinar on this FOA on Friday, December 13, 2013 at 1:00 pm ET.

Conference Call Info:
Dial-in #: 888-677-0837
Passcode: 50041

1. Join the meeting now: http://www.mymeetings.com/nc/join.php?i=749635863&p=11022008&t=c
2. Enter the required fields.
3. Indicate that you have read the Privacy Policy.
4. Click on Proceed.

Meeting Number: 749635863
Meeting Passcode: 11022008

The Technical Volume to the Full Application may not be more than 25 pages, including the cover page, table of contents, and all citations, charts, graphs, maps, photos, or other graphics.  See Section IV.D.2 of the FOA for detailed discussion of the Technical Volume.

Topic Area 4 requires a “Qualified Made in USA” claim using FTC guidelines.  Basic guidelines about the Made in USA standard can be found at http://business.ftc.gov/documents/bus03-complying-made-usa-standard.  FTC uses the term “qualified” when the manufacturer/marketer must qualify (or limit) their claim to make it accurate and to avoid misrepresentation to the consumer.   The following example is given:

An exercise treadmill is assembled in the U.S. The assembly represents significant work and constitutes a "substantial transformation" (a term used by the U.S. Customs Service). All of the treadmill’s major parts, including the motor, frame, and electronic display, are imported. A few of its incidental parts, such as the handle bar covers, the plastic on/off power key, and the treadmill mat, are manufactured in the U.S. Together, these parts account for approximately three percent of the total cost of all the parts. Because the value of the U.S.-made parts is negligible compared to the value of all the parts, a claim on the treadmill that it is "Made in USA of U.S. and Imported Parts" is deceptive. A claim like "Made in U.S. from Imported Parts" or "Assembled in U.S.A." would not be deceptive.

The FOA does not require 100% labor and material in the U.S.  This information is not found to conflict with any other requirements of the funding opportunity.

Yes, the slide presentation from Webinar 1 has been uploaded in Exchange at https://eere-Exchange.energy.gov  under the “FOA Documents” section for this FOA.

All work on these projects must be done in the United States.    All Foreign Nationals involved in the project must be reviewed by DOE prior to award.  The cooperative agreement will contain the following language relating to Foreign National Involvement:  “The Recipient may be required to provide information to the Department of Energy (DOE) in order to facilitate our responsibilities associated with foreign national access to DOE sites, information, technologies, and equipment. Foreign national is defined as any person who was born outside the jurisdiction of the United States, is a citizen of a foreign government, and has not been naturalized under U.S. law.  If the Recipient, including subrecipients/contractors, anticipates utilizing a foreign national person in the performance of an award, the Recipient may be responsible for providing to the DOE representative specific information of the foreign national(s) to satisfy compliance with all of the requirements for access approval.”

It is noted that any Foreign National from a country designated as a State Sponsor of Terrorism will not be approved.  A list of countries designated as State Sponsors of Terrorism can be found on the Department of State web site @ http://www.state.gov/j/ct/rls/crt/2010/170260.htm.

Cost share is required for these projects regardless of the type of entity.  Cost share can not come from other federal sources.  Therefore, if an FFRDC proposes as the prime, it will likely have to team with third party entities which can provide the required cost share from non-federal sources.

As the question is understood, some level of theoretical research would be acceptable under the funding opportunity.  However, it is expected that all theoretical work should transition into practical applications that are relevant to the appropriate maturation level of each topic area.  As an example, computer modeling of an LED structure may be appropriate and necessary.  However, the proposed approach should include practical LED growth to validate the theoretical work.  In general, greater levels of theoretical work may be acceptable in Core Technology topic areas (1-2) than Product Development (3-5) or Manufacturing R&D (6-7).

Teaming is neither encouraged nor discouraged.  Rather, applications will be evaluated on the completeness and efficiency of the team to achieve all objectives of the proposed approach.  Some organizations may be able to cover all aspects of the proposed approach internally.  Other organizations may have deficiencies of a particular need relative to the approach.  In this case, teaming would be encouraged.  Teaming should not be done for the sake of teaming.  Rather, each member should have a particular proficiency that they bring to the approach.

Concept papers should align with full applications as much as possible.  However, it is understood that some polishing and potential change in direction may occur as the full application is developed.  This is acceptable.  Keep in mind, one purpose of the concept paper is to save potential applicants the time and associated expense of writing a full application in the case that the program lacks interest in a proposed approach.

Cost share requirements are specific to the AOI, but are the same for all types of entities. As stated previously, if an FFRDC is the prime, it will likely have to team with third parties who can provide required cost share since cost share cannot come from other federal sources.

Cost share waivers are NOT provided under this announcement.  AOI 1-2 applications require 20% cost share; AOI 3-5 require 25% cost share; AOI 6-7 require 50% cost share.

The standard DOE financial assistance intellectual property provisions are applicable to this funding opportunity.   The standard provisions for the various types of recipients are located at http://energy.gov/gc/standard-intellectual-property-ip-provisions-financial-assistance-awards.   Specifically, under the Bayh-Dole Act (35 U.S.C. § 200 et seq.), domestic small businesses, educational institutions, and nonprofits may elect to retain title to their subject inventions.  The Department of Energy executed a Determination of Exceptional Circumstances (DEC) to authorize the modification of the standard patent rights clause for small businesses and non-profit awardees under Bayh-Dole.  This DEC requires recipients and any subawardees under Core Technology Research (Topic Areas 1-2) to offer the member of the Solid-State Lighting Partnership (i.e., the Next Generation Lighting Industry Alliance (NGLIA) the first option to enter into a non-exclusive license upon terms that are reasonable under the circumstances, including royalties, for subject inventions made (i.e., conceived or first actually reduced to practice) under the Core Technology Program.

There is no advantage under this FOA for Historically Black Colleges and Universities.

There are no restrictions to a university being a lead (prime) applicant under this funding opportunity.  It is the intent of this funding opportunity that the lead organization carries a majority of the work effort and/or the most significant effort from a technology advancement perspective.  The lead organization is that organization responsible for conducting all activities of the award and managing the overall resources and effort. 

No, there can only be one Prime Recipient of an award.

As stated in the funding opportunity, U.S. Manufacturing Plans directed at technologies at lower technology readiness levels (Topic Areas 1 – 2) may have fewer specific manufacturing details and may focus more on licensing and other strategies to promote U.S. manufacturing.  For example, a university may detail their historical approach/strategies to licensing the technology.  Examples of successful licensing may be given.  A higher level of specificity is expected in U.S. Manufacturing Plans for technologies at higher technology readiness levels (Topic Areas 3 – 7) due to the greater certainty surrounding the commercialization of these awards.  For example, a business may detail their product development strategies and cycles to market, including details of successful product introduction.  The intent of the U.S. Manufacturing Plan is to support the funding opportunity objective to encourage the growth, leadership, and sustainability of domestic U.S. manufacturing within the SSL industry by developing a feasible path towards domestic manufacturing of the technology and doing so earlier in the technology development cycle.

Recognizing that each organization has its own unique capabilities, it is expected that technologies move towards practical applications under the duration of the project.  Advancement beyond basic materials research allows for applied demonstration/validation of the approach in real settings.  This may be an example of where teaming would be necessary to improve the proposed approach.  The specific requirement for each acceptable approach is detailed in the task description identified for each approach.  For example, a description of LED Emitter Materials Research (MYPP Task A.1.2) can be found in the Multi-Year Program Plan (MYPP) (http://apps1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/publications/pdfs/ssl/ssl_mypp2013_web.pdf) under Task A.1.2.  Task descriptions for Topic Areas 1-5 are covered under the MYPP.  Task descriptions for Topic Areas 6-7 are addressed in the Manufacturing Roadmap (http://apps1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/publications/pdfs/ssl/ssl_mypp2013_web.pdf ).

Not necessarily; however keep in mind that all project costs, including cost share, must meet the same requirements for allowability, allocability and reasonableness and will be reviewed as such prior to award.  Cash cost share is often easier to review, but in-kind cost share is acceptable if it can be shown to meet the requirements stated above.

Typically, only those individuals being billed as a direct cost to the project would be reviewed by the DOE.  Other categories of employees, such as accountants, administrative or executives are not typically billed direct to the project; rather their salaries are included in the entity’s overhead.

It is likely that the US Manufacturing Plan requirement would be similar to the Commercialization Plan requirement of Arpa-E.  Similar information would be beneficial.  However, applicants should follow the specific requirements of the US Manufacturing Plan of this funding opportunity.

No.  The statement made was in reference to the Determination of Exceptional Circumstances.  Regarding U.S. manufacturing requirements:

1)       Under the U.S. Competitiveness Clause of a patent waiver, the Contractor agrees that any products embodying any waived invention or produced through the use of any waived invention will be manufactured substantially in the U.S., unless it is shown to be not commercially feasible to do so.  The patent waiver is meant to cover domestic large businesses and is relative to topic areas 1-7.

2)      The Determination of Exceptional Circumstances (DEC) requires that any entity having the right to use or sell any subject invention under Core Technology Research (1-2) or Product Development (3-5) must agree that any products embodying the subject invention or produced through the use of the subject invention will be substantially manufactured in the U.S.  The DEC applies to topic areas 1-5.

3)      Additionally, one of the stated objectives of the funding opportunity is to:  Encourage the growth, leadership, and sustainability of domestic U.S. manufacturing within the SSL industry.  This is supported by the requirements of the U.S. Manufacturing Plan as described under IV.D.12 of the funding opportunity.

Yes.  An LED tool manufacturer would be expected to discuss their plan for the commercial sale to LED manufacturers.  This would be expected to include historical information and examples of how commercialization is normally conducted within the organization.  The U.S. Manufacturing Plan represents the applicant’s measurable commitment to support U.S. manufacturing of the results from its award.

This applies to all task areas.  The requirement for compliance audit is based on the amount of DOE funding received by a Recipient in a given year.  Any for-profit financial assistance recipient who receives over $500,000 in DOE federal financial assistance awards in a fiscal year is required by DOE to submit a compliance audit in accordance with the guidance contained in 10 CFR 600.316. Audits are required for all recipients meeting this funding threshold.  Additional guidance regarding this requirement can be found at http://energy.gov/management/downloads/policy-flash-2012-39.

Please see Section III of the FOA for Eligibility Information.   “Federal agencies and instrumentalities (other than DOE) are eligible to apply for funding as a subrecipient, but are not eligible to apply as a prime recipient.”   Please also note that federal funds can NOT be used as cost share under a cooperative agreement awarded under this FOA.

      Not necessarily, unless your proposal reflects deficiencies that can be improved upon by collaboration with other entities.

There is no, restriction regarding percentage of effort for sub-recipients with the exception of FFRDC sub-recipients.  The FFRDC effort can not be more than the prime’s.

:     It is not desirable to have work performed “outside” the project as it is difficult for the DOE Project Officer and Contracting Officer to manage such effort.  We can try to negotiate as applicable to address this type of situation, but need to keep in mind the requirement for transparency and accountability of funds.  All project effort must be included in the Statement of Project Objectives.  There also exists the potential for Intellectual Property issues.  

Please see Section IV of the FOA for Application and Submission Information.

A Letter of Intent is not required.  A concept paper is required prior to submission of a full application.  Please see Section IV of the FOA for Application and Submission information.

Proposed cost share commitments are due with the full application, not the concept paper.  It is possible that cost share commitments may change prior to award; however, those situations can be addressed during negotiations if selected for award. 

You are partially correct.  The intellectual property provisions of the Determination of Exceptional Circumstances applies to Core Technology topics (topics 1-2).  The U.S. Manufacturing provision of the Determination applies to Core Technology and Product Development topic areas (topics 1-5).  Manufacturing R&D topic areas (topics 6-7) do not fall under the Determination.

This is the first year this program is requiring Concept Papers. Therefore, we are not able to provide an example. Keep in mind, one purpose of the concept paper is to save potential applicants the time and associated expense of writing a full application in the case that the program lacks interest in a proposed approach.

As part of the Technical Volume to be submitted with the full application, the applicant is to describe the Project Team's  existing equipment and facilities and must include a justification of any new equipment or facilities requested as part of the project.   As part of the Budget Justification Workbook(s) required to be submitted with the full application package, the applicant should include costs for direct materials, supplies, additional equipment or facilities needed under the Equipment and/or Supplies Tab of the EERE 159 Budget Justification for both the Prime and each major subcontractor.  Please see the worksheets for additional information requested (e.g. estimated cost, basis of cost and justification of need). 

A Recipient is required to monitor and track supplies, materials, and equipment per the applicable property regulations at 10 CFR 600.130 -137 for Institutions of Higher Education, Hospitals and Other Non-profit Organizations; 10 CFR 600.231 - 234 for State and Local Governments; and 10 CFR 600.320-325 for For-Profit Organizations.  Backup documentation to support costs for the materials, supplies and equipment must be maintained for potential audit and some level of detail will be required along with invoices.  Final Property Certification is required at the end of each project and disposition instructions can be provided once equipment and/or supplies are no longer needed for the project. 

Pre-Award costs are those costs that are incurred after selection date and within the (90) day period immediately preceding the effective date of the award.    The Recipient may charge for pre-award costs if such costs would be considered reimbursable under the agreement if incurred after award.  All project costs must be allowable, allocable and reasonable per the applicable cost principles.  Pre-award expenditures are made at the recipient's risk and do not impose an obligation on DOE:  (1) in the absence of appropriations; (2) if an award is not made; or (3) if an award is made for a lesser amount than the recipient anticipated.

Please see Section IV.A-C of the FOA for Application and Submission information.  The Concept Paper should consist of one integrated file to include the "Technology Description" (3 pages maximum) plus an Addendum (1 page maximum) to supplement the technology description. 

Yes.  If they are unrelated, stand-alone concepts, they should be submitted as separate concept papers.  See Section IV.C of the FOA, "each concept Paper must be limited to a single concept or technology.  Unrelated concepts and technologies should not be consolidated into a single Concept Paper. "            

There is no limit on the number of concept papers that can be submitted under this FOA. 

Yes.  If they are unrelated, stand-alone concepts, they should be submitted as separate applications.  Each full application must match a concept paper.  See Section IV.D.1 of the FOA, "each Full Application should be limited to a single concept or technology.  Unrelated concepts and technologies should not e consolidated in a single Full Application."

It is the intent of this funding opportunity that the lead organization carries a majority of the work effort and/or the most significant effort from a technology advancement perspective.  However, there is no restriction regarding percentage of effort for the prime other than for those situations involving an FFRDC sub-recipient.  In those situations, the Prime's effort must be more significant than the FFRDC sub-recipient's.   

The following documents are referenced and discussed in detail in the subject Funding Opportunity Announcement:DE-FOA-0000973:

- Solid-State Lighting R&D Multi-Year Program Pan (MYPP);

- Solid-State Lighting Manufacturing Roadmap; 

- CAD File for Classroom - referenced in Appendix D for AOI 4 applicants only;

- CAD File for Hospital - referenced in Appendix D for AOI 4 applicants only;

- webinar pptx

You are partially correct.  The intellectual property provisions of the Determination of Exceptional Circumstances applies to Core Technology topics (topics 1-2).  The U.S. Manufacturing provision of the Determination applies to Core Technology and Product Development topic areas (topics 1-5).  Manufacturing R&D topic areas (topics 6-7) do not fall under the Determination.

Please see Section IV.A through C for required content and form of the Concept Paper. 

Please see the complete funding opportunity announcement, Section VIII.L - "Title to Subject Inventions" and Section VIII.M - "Government Rights in Subject Inventions" for additional information regarding title and licensing of subject inventions.  In response to the first part of your question, Section VIII.M states that the "U.S. Government retains a nonexclusive, nontranferable, irrevocable, paid-up license to practice or have practiced for or on behalf of contractors doing work on behalf of the Government".

In response to the second part of your question, the Determination of Exceptional Circumstances requires recipients and any subawardees under Core Technology Research (Topic Areas 1-2) to offer the members of the Solid-State Lighting Partnership (i.e., the Next Generation Lighting Industry Alliance (NGIA)) the first option to enter into a non-exclusive license for subject inventions made under the Core Technology Program. 

As a U.S. citizen, your professor would likely be eligible to apply as an individual; however, it is noted that cost sharing of between 20% - 50% of total project costs, depending on the Area of Interest, is required to be provided by the Recipient.

Further, as part of negotiations for award under this FOA, the Recipient would be requied to provide informaton to the DOE regarding any foreign nationals who are anticipated to be utilized in the performance of the project.  DOE representatives follow a review process prior to providing access approval for foreign nationals involved in the project. 

WEBINAR

Negative comments with an "encourage" are meant to convey potential concerns by the review committee.  Comments to the applicant were limited to pre-defined static comments that did not always properly convey the issue.  In general, the applicant needs to develop a certain aspect of their application in greater detail in the full application to address concerns.  For example, a comment about the technical or economic potential is not meant to express that the approach has no value or merit.  Rather, the review committee has concerns about the approach, timing, maturity, etc. that could limit the potential impact of the approach towards technology advancement.   The applicant, in their full application, will have greater opportunity to present and detail their case.

The review committee was restricted to a limited number of pre-defined comments.  In the case where an applicant was encouraged to submit a full application but no comments were provided, the committee did not find any strong initial concerns based on the concept paper.  Applicants should still fully expand on all evaluation criteria in the full application.

Projects under Topic Areas 3-7 do not require decision points.

Projects under Topic Areas 1 and 2 require a decision point for any project with a duration of over 12 months.

Yes, a response of "discouraged" does not prevent you from submitting a full application which will be reviewed on its own merit the same as any other full application.  Per Section VI.B.2 of the FOA:  By discouraging the submission of a Full application, EERE intends to convey its lack of programmatic interest in the proposed project.  Such assessments do not necessarily reflect judgement on the merits of the proposed project.  The purpose of the Concept Paper Phase is to save Applicants the considerable time and expense of preparing a Full Application that is unlikely to be selected for award negotiations. 

Please see previous Q&A # 54 and 55 above.  Negative comments with an “encourage” are meant to convey potential concerns by the review committee.  Comments to the applicant were limited to pre-defined static comments that did not always properly convey the issue.  In general, the applicant needs to develop a certain aspect of their application in greater detail in the full application to address concerns.  It is noted that not all Concept Paper Responses received additional comments. 

Yes, the slide presentation from Webinar 2 has been uploaded in Exchange at https://eere-Exchange.energy.gov  under the “FOA Documents” section for this FOA. 

Any applicant who submitted a Concept Paper and who had a status published of either Encouraged or Discouraged is now able to go in and create a Full Application and begin uploading application data and documents. Applicants of Concept Papers with a status of Non-Responsive or Non-Compliant will not be able to create a Full Application.  

No, this file is only required if applicable.  See Section IV.D.10 of the FOA.

We are unable to provide that information.

You will be notified through eXCHANGE or other email when comments are available for your application in eXCHANGE.  It is anticipated that the 3 day window for comments will occur at the end of March with Replies to Reviewer Comments being due on April 02, 2014.

No other documents are provided as reference material to assist in the development of the technical volume and manufacturing plan.  The only instruction is that contained in the FOA document.  Keep in mind that the roadmapping documents (MultiYear Program Plan and Manufacturing Roadmap) are critical documents that must be taken into account when writing an application.

The primary concern is with the energy savings from general illumination – lighting the space.  Other cross-cutting, value-added benefits can be addressed as a means of strengthening an application.

Per Section IV.I.3 of the FOA, EERE requires all work under EERE financial assistance agreements to be performed in the United States.  This requirement does not apply to the purchase of supplies and equipment; however, the prime recipient should make every effort to purchase domestically produced supplies and equipment.  It is understood that it may be difficult, if not impossible to obtain certain components that are not from foreign sources. 

Please see Section IV.I.3 of the FOA for a discussion regarding the limited circumstances where it is in the interest of the project to perform a portion of the work outside the United States.  Information is provided in this section for applicants wishing to seek a waiver of the Performance of Work in the United States requirement.  As part of the waiver request, the Applicant must demonstrate to the satisfaction of EERE that a waiver would further the purposes of the FOA and is in the interests of EERE and the United States. 

This question was presented and answered previously.  See above Q&A #6 .  All Foreign Nationals involved in the project must be reviewed by DOE prior to award.  The cooperative agreement will contain a provision relating to Foreign National Involvement.   

It is noted that any Foreign National from a country designated as a State Sponsor of Terrorism will not be approved.  A list of countries designated as State Sponsors of Terrorism can be found on the Department of State web site @ http://www.state.gov/j/ct/rls/crt/2010/170260.htm.

Yes.  All Foreign Nationals are subject to further review prior to being provided “access” to the project.

The standard DOE financial assistance intellectual property provisions are applicable to this funding opportunity.   The standard provisions for the various types of recipients are located at http://energy.gov/gc/standard-intellectual-property-ip-provisions-financial-assistance-awards.   

Please see previous Q&As regarding Intellectual Property above, #13, 22 and 33..

Per Section VIII.N of the FOA, the U.S. Government will not normally require delivery of confidential or trade secret-type technical data which has been developed prior to award and solely at private expense, except as necessary to monitor technical progress and evaluate the potential of proposed technologies to reach specific technical and cost metrics.  

The 320 lm/W refers to the spectral efficiency as luminous efficacy of radiation (LER).  This refers to the theoretical maximum for a given spectrum.  In the given example, you would multiply the theoretical maximum by the efficiencies to obtain the actual panel performance (80 lm/W in this example).  This is shown in Table 4.3 Summary of OLED Panel Performance Targets of the 2013 MYPP.

The level of detail required for the Commercialization Plan is linked to maturation and market application.  For example, a University would discuss how they propose to get the technology out to others; whereas, a commercial entity would need to provide a full commercial implementation plan.  See Section IV.D.12 of the FOA.

     We can try to negotiate as applicable to address this type of situation; however, the difficulty will be assigning a value to these costs, since no salary is recorded.

No; however, this level of detail may be required during the budget review process during negotiations for subsequent award.

It is not the intent of the Government to furnish new facilities; however, limited equipment may be allowed if needed to supplement existing facilities. 

Yes. 

No.  The $1,500,000 cap applicable for all topic areas except for topic area 4 represents the federal share only.  The Recipient must provide the minimum cost share required for each specific topic area in addition to the total DOE share. 

 No.  The Prime Recipient is responsible for assuring that total cost share is met for the project; however, that cost share can be provided in a number of ways.  Cost share can be provided solely by the Prime Recipient, or by a combination of cost share providers. 

Review criteria for all Topic Areas of Interest are located in Section V of the FOA.   Additional information specific to a topic area would be found in Section 1.B for each topic area and in the SSL Roadmap and or SSL R&D Multi-Year Program Plan (MMYP).

All costs incurred prior to award are incurred at the applicant’ risk.  However, if selected for award, Recipients may charge to the project (as federal share or cost share) pre-award costs that were incurred within a 90 calendar day period immediately preceding the effective date of award and no earlier than the selection date, if those costs are found to be allowable in accordance with the applicable Federal cost principles referenced in 10 CFR Part 600.  

The roadmap documents cannot cover all metrics for a given R&D topic. The MYPP/roadmap metrics are developed based on reasonable, representative, and/or averaged approaches but cannot cover all of the performance aspects for an R&D topic area. When metrics are left blank or metrics are not included, it is important that the potential applicant provide specific metrics, status, and goals based on their specific approach and their knowledge of the topic. The applicant should clearly explain the relevancy of their proposed metrics and the path to meeting the goals. Applications are judged based on their relevancy to the MYPP/Manufacturing Roadmap as a steering document. However, greater judging emphasis is placed on the case made by the applicant, when supported by detailed analysis and experimental evidence, where appropriate.

Specifically to your issue, you should include the metric as important to your approach (and any other metrics you feel important beyond those of the MYPP). You can use the 2011 numbers if you feel they are still relevant. Or you can provide numbers that may be more directly relevant to your approach. Either way, you should document and detail why those metrics make sense for your approach.