EERE eXCHANGE: FAQs

Question 1: Can I apply with a device that enables or facilitates the operation of sunlight to electricity conversion systems but is not exclusively used for such systems?
Answer 1: The SunShot Incubator FOA is open to proposals that aim to bring to market a novel, non-incremental technology that facilitates the SunShot goal of significantly reducing the cost of converting sunlight into electricity. Please see the “Application Review Information” section of the FOA for evaluation criteria.

Question 1: Can Letters of Support be submitted with the Full Application?
Answer 1: As stated in Section D.1 of the FOA, one page letters of support can be submitted with the “Technical Qualifications and Resources” part of the application and do not count against the page limit. They should be included after the one page resumes.

Question 1: How should test results be classified when they relate to a deliverable? If the completion of the report cannot serve as a deliverable, would the verifiable test results contained in the report serve as deliverables?
Answer 1: A verifiable test result by a credible, unbiased third party is an excellent deliverable. It is likely acceptable to relay the results of a third party verification test in report format as long as there is a way to prove the third party did the test.

Question 1: Because we are developing a project that is vastly software many of our early milestones are document-related. Are such milestones acceptable in our application?
Answer 1: See page 44 “Applicants must establish the relevant deliverables for their product or innovation, and the functionality must be verifiable by the DOE or a third party. This means that although reports are required as part of the FOA, they cannot not be used as deliverables. Reports summarize observations, deliverables validate functionality.”

Question 1: Would having someone from a National Lab come to our facility to inspect our work be an acceptable method of meeting the third party verification requirement?
Answer 1: Yes, this would be an acceptable means to verify progress and meet deliverables so long as the National Lab employee reports their findings to DOE SunShot.

Question 1: During the second webinar, it was mentioned that iterations of software are acceptable as deliverables. The FOA mentions that Tier 2 applicants should have 5-7 deliverables per phase. What if there are only three iterations of the software being proposed. Would a total of 4 deliverables still be acceptable for a tier 2 applicant?
Answer 1: No. Applicants must propose the number of deliverables stated in the FOA.
Question 21: In previous applications to SunShot we have received comments that we did not describe our technology in enough detail. How do you propose we handle this in this round of funding?

Question 1: What is anticipated timeline for reimbursement post-milestone achievement & validation?
Answer 1: DOE intends to provide reimbursement as fast as possible with 30 days being the targeted maximum wait time.

Question 1: The SF-LLL form (disclosure of lobbying activities) is not applicable to us. EERE exchange indicates this field to be mandatory. What are we expected to submit?
Answer 1: The SF-LLL must still be submitted. Please state in it that you do not engage in lobbying activities.

Question 1: For startup companies, how is overhead calculated if federal auditing has not been conducted?
Answer 1: The applicant must propose an overhead rate that will be negotiated if the applicant is selected. Please use FAR 31.202 and FAR 31.203 to determine your direct and indirect costs. Furthermore, an example indirect rate calculation can be found in form PMC 400.2 at https://www.eere-pmc.energy.gov/Forms.aspx.

Question 2: Can the Incubator funding opportunity be used to defray some of the costs of a solar deployment operation?
Answer 2: The SunShot Incubator is to help startup businesses transition innovative full-scale materials, devices, or systems produced at lab scale and pre-commercial prototypes into pilot and eventually full-scale manufacturing, production, or deployment. Discounting installation costs is not the purpose of the SunShot Incubator funding opportunity, rather the funding opportunity serves to facilitate technology development.

Question 3: Our foreign company has a 100% owned daughter company in the USA and we are currently trying to adapt our product to the American market. Is it possible for us to take part in the Incubator Program to get our services established in America?
Answer 3: At least 60% of the award funds, including cost share, must be spent by the Prime Recipient that must be a domestic entity. The remaining 40% can be spent by the Prime Recipient or a Subrecipient. DOE requires all work to be performed in the United States – i.e., Prime Recipients and Subrecipients must expend 100% of the Total Project Cost, including cost share, in the United States. However, Applicants may request a waiver of this requirement where their project would materially benefit from, or otherwise requires, certain work to be performed overseas. Please refer to the “Performance of Work in the United States” section of the FOA for more information.

Question 4: Is my project or concept something that could be funded by this funding announcement?
Answer 4: The full spectrum of technologies and non-hardware solutions relevant to the conversion of sunlight into electricity will be considered for funding. Please see the “Areas of Programmatic Interest” section of the FOA for further information.

Question 5: If municipalities are not eligible, are there funding possibilities for which local governments could apply?
Answer 5: Local governments cannot be the primary recipients of this award. They can be sub-recipients incurring costs of up to 40% of the total project cost, but a prime recipient focused on growing a profitable business must lead the effort.

Question 6: Is there is a government agency that can assist in my application process and perhaps review my application for pre-qualification or extend the deadline?
Answer 6: In the interest of fairness, all applications must be completed in a timely fashion as indicated the “Requirements for Timely Submission” section of the FOA and submitted through EERE Exchange.

Question 7: Is transitioning a technology for the first time from pilot scale to field deployment eligible for funding under this FOA?
Answer 7: Anyone can submit an application for this funding announcement. Please bear in mind that the funding opportunity serves to facilitate technology development. Carefully consider the compliant and responsive criteria in the “Eligibility Information” section of the FOA. If responsive, your application will be evaluated by the criteria described in the “Application Review Information” section of the FOA.

Question 8: Please advise if eligible technologies must convert solar energy to electricity or if novel solar products will be funded to offset demand for electricity in specific applications such as large scale building daylighting.
Answer 8: The SunShot Incubator program is limited to start-up entities that have a solution that reduces the cost of installed systems that convert sunlight into electricity.

Question 9: Can you please confirm whether a firm that is incorporated in the US but 51% owned by a foreign national is eligible to participate in this program?
Answer 9: Please see the Eligibility section of the FOA for more information. The applicant must be a start-up entity that is incorporated in the US. The start-up entity can be owned by a foreign national.

Question 10: Can you clarify if Tier 1a (hardware projects) or Tier 1b (non-hardware projects) is applicable to my proposed solution?
Answer 10: If your proposed solution involves the development of a physical object (hardware) the please apply to Tier 1a. If your solution is non-hardware in nature such as software or a business model please apply to Tier 1b.

Question 11: How will energy storage projects be evaluated for this Solicitation? Is there a baseline cost that storage projects will be measured against or is there another approach the Solar Program intends on using to evaluate such projects?
Answer 11: The SunShot mission aims to increase the deployment of systems that convert sunlight into electricity by driving down costs. DOE acknowledges that storage solutions are critical to the deployment of intermittent energy sources. Please see the “Application Review Information“ section of the FOA for information on how your application will be evaluated. Systems that use storage should target a 25% maximum price premium over non-storage solutions for which the target installed price for utility-scale systems is $1/W.

Question 12: I am having problems downloading the files or I cannot open .xlsx files.
Answer 12: We have uploaded the required documents using .pdf, .doc, and .xls formats. Please click on the link and save the file to your computer. The files can be opened with Acrobat Reader (.pdf), Microsoft Word (.doc) or Microsoft Excel (.xls).

Question 13: What language describes the control and ownership of Intellectual Property developed through grants under DE-FOA-0000651?
Answer 13: Please see Section VIII. F, G, and H of the FOA for information on Intellectual Property developed under this FOA.

Question 14: We are still in the process of creating our first proof-of-concept device. Are we eligible to apply for a Tier 1a award?
Answer 14: The entrance criterion for Tier 1a of this FOA is a lab-scale material, device, product, or process typically at Technology Readiness Level TRL 4 (see Appendix 1 of the FOA) that is a quantitative, physical demonstration of the technology chosen for prototype development. Please see Section I.E of FOA for more information on the entrance criteria and Section V.A of the FOA for information on how your application will be evaluated.

Question 15: Could a proposed storage solution involve solar generated heat?
Answer 15: Only applications that convert sunlight into electricity are considered for funding under this announcement. Systems that utilize heat such as CSP must generate electricity as a final product. Solar hot water concepts that do not generate electricity are not covered under this funding announcement.

Question 16: Is there a benefit to submitting a Letter of Intent to Apply?
Answer 16: Applicants are kindly asked to submit a Letter of Intent to Apply to facilitate the timely review of applications. Submission of Letters of Intent to Apply ultimately results in a faster and optimally organized review and is therefore encouraged, but not mandatory.

Question 17: If someone applied to the “SunShot Incubator FOA - Soft Cost Reduction” (DE-FOA-0000607), can they also apply for funding under this FOA with the same application?
Answer 17: As stated in Section II.A of the FOA, "DOE will accept only new applications under this FOA.”

Question 18: What are the salary requirements for in-kind contributions?
Answer 18: There is a $200,000 in-kind salary cap per person. The allowed salary is what the competitive rate is for the work being performed not the historical salary of the principle investigator doing the work. The proposed in-kind salary will be closely scrutinized and audited. Please see section III.B.4 of the FOA for more information.

Question 19: Will the slides from the webinar on March 5th, 2012 be provided?
Answer 19:

The slides will not be provided. A summary of the webinar is outlined below. The information provided in the webinar only summarizes the FOA and does not supplement or take precedence over the FOA text posted on EERE Exchange. Please consult the FOA for further information.

The Incubator Program:
     The goal of the SunShot Initiative is to reduce the cost of solar energy (hardware, installation, and associated soft costs) by 75% to $1/W for utility scale installations by the end of the decade. This is equivalent to a levelized cost of energy of approximately $0.05-$0.06/kWh at utility scale making solar energy competitive with traditional energy sources without the aid of subsidies.
     To facilitate the accomplishment of this goal, the Incubator program looks to invest in companies which have an idea or prototype whose introduction to the market could lead to a significant decrease in the costs associated with solar energy. This round of Incubator funding has a broad scope and covers both hardware and non-hardware costs of systems that convert sunlight into electricity. Areas of programmatic interest include, but are not limited to:
    Photovoltaics                  Concentrating Solar Power
    Balance of Systems        Plug-and-Play Wiring and Installation Techniques
    Power Electronics           Energy Storage
    Tools to address Non-Hardware Costs

Key Deadlines for this Funding Announcement:
     Concept Papers Submission: 5 PM ET, April 9, 2012
     Technical support e-mail: EERE-ExchangeSupport@ee.doe.gov
     Expected Date of Concept Paper Notification: 5 PM ET, April 27, 2012
     Submission Deadline for Full Applications: 5 PM ET, May 29th, 2012

Please triple check your entries in EERE Exchange
    Submissions could be deemed non-compliant due to an incorrect entry
    Make sure you hit the submit button
    Any changes made after you hit submit will unsubmit your application and you will need to hit the submit button again
    Follow formatting criteria and page lengths stated in the FOA. Extra material will be REDACTED OR REMOVED and will NOT be provided to reviewers. Sections that exceed page length maximums will be redacted even if overall application is within page limits

Awards:
     Awards for the Incubator funding opportunity are done in two tiers. Tier 1 aims to accelerate the development of innovative solar and balance-of-system (BOS) technologies to the prototype or alpha product stage. Tier 1 is divided into two subsections, hardware and non-hardware. Tier 1a awards for hardware development are up to $1,000,000 for a duration of 12 months. Tier 1b awards for non-hardware projects are up to $500,000 for a duration of 12 months. Tier 1 awardees must provide a cost share of at least 20% of the total project cost.
     Tier 2 awards are for both hardware and non-hardware solutions and support the scaling up a prototype to pilot-scale production or a beta product launch. Tier 2 awards are up to $4,000,000, with a typical award of $1-2 million, and have a duration of 18 months. Tier 2 awardees must provide at least 50% of the total project cost as a cost share. Applicants do not have to be previous Tier 1 awardees to apply for Tier 2 funding, and determination of which tier to apply to should be dictated by the applicant’s technology readiness level.

Cost shares are required for all Incubator awards. The method for calculating cost share is shown below.
Awardee cost share = Awardee contribution/(DOE contribution+Awardee contribution) x 100%

The awardee portion of the cost share can be cash or in-kind contributions. Cost shares shall be incurred in equal installments over the life of the award. All expenditures must be allowable, allocable, and reasonable in accordance with applicable Federal cost principles.

What is “allocable”? (FAR 31.301-4)
A cost is allocable if it is assignable or chargeable to one or more cost objectives on the basis of relative benefits received or other equitable relationship. Subject to the foregoing, a cost is allocable to a Government contract if it:
(a) Is incurred specifically for the contract;
(b) Benefits both the contract and other work, and can be distributed to them in reasonable proportion to the benefits received; or
(c) Is necessary to the overall operation of the business, although a direct relationship to any particular cost objective cannot be shown.

An applicant may NOT use the following sources to meet cost share obligations:
     Revenues or royalties from the prospective operation of an activity beyond the project period
     Proceeds from the prospective sale of an asset of an activity
     Federal funding or property (e.g., Federal grants, equipment owned by the Federal Government)
     Expenditures that were reimbursed under a separate Federal program.
     Project Teams may not use the same cash or in-kind contributions to meet cost share requirements for more than one   project or program.

The Prime Recipient of the award must incur at least 60% of the awarded funds and corresponding cost share. The Prime Recipient must expend 100% of the total project cost in the United States. However, applicants may request a waiver of this requirement where their project would materially benefit from, or otherwise requires, certain work to be performed overseas.

Deliverables:

In the Statement of Work, which is part of the Full Application and further negotiated after selection, the awardee and DOE will agree on a series of deliverables which will be delivered over the course of the award. A specific payment is associated with each deliverable (portion of the awarded money from DOE) that will be made once the deliverable is verified by DOE or a third party. Deliverables must be verifiable through a mechanism that the applicant proposes and represent significant progress towards achieving the project objective. Deliverables are meant to be aggressive but should not be unattainable; therefore deliverables should be constructed very carefully. Reports are NOT an acceptable deliverables.

Criteria Weighting for Concept papers:

Applicants should carefully read and address the scoring criteria stated in the FOA.
For Concept Papers, the scoring criteria are broken into 2 equally weighted sections:
Overall Project Plan - 50%
Impact of the Proposed Project on the Goals of the SunShot Initiative – 50%

Reviewers will only consider the specific criteria stated in the FOA when evaluating application materials.

Question 20: Does this funding opportunity apply to concepts that address electricity system management challenges posed by the large-scale implementation of an intermittent energy source?
Answer 20: SunShot will consider funding any compliant proposal which can significantly aid in reaching the SunShot goals related to levelized cost of energy or $1/W installed system price.

Question 21: Is foreign participation allowed as part of this FOA? If so, what percentage of DOE funds is allowed to be distributed to a foreign entity?
Answer 21: The Prime Recipient of the award must incur at least 60% of the awarded funds and corresponding cost share. The Prime Recipient must expend 100% of the total project cost in the United States. However, applicants may request a waiver of this requirement where their project would materially benefit from, or otherwise requires, certain work to be performed overseas.

Question 22: Hybrid solar technologies that utilize sunlight for power production and day lighting as part of building envelope may be able to reach the 6 cents/kWh goal. Should a concentrator based hybrid approach be submitted as CPV or BIPV?
Answer 22: Please see Section V of FOA for more information on how your application will be evaluated. Describe your business concept and how it will become self-sufficient.

Question 23: Will organic photovoltaic technologies be considered if an argument is made for meeting the overall goals of SunShot?
Answer 23: Any technology that can help meet the SunShot goals will be considered. One major aspect of SunShot goals is that the reduction in cost of energy should happen by 2020, therefore the time it will take for a product to reach a deployable level of technology readiness is considered during evaluation.

Question 24: Can you expound on the definition of "hardware"?
Answer 24: Hardware is considered to be any physical product.

Question 25: We are a wholly owned subsidiary of a large company, but separately incorporated, and have fewer than 500 employees. Are we a "startup" entity from your perspective?
Answer 25: Subsidiaries of larger companies can apply for this opportunity if they include less than 500 employees and are separately incorporated in the United States. Please see Section III.A of the FOA for more information on eligibility. However, the same standards regarding scale up and commercialization will apply. Please see Section V of FOA for more information on how your application will be evaluated.

Question 26: Is it recommended that drawings and/or diagrams be included with the submission to support the concept?
Answer 26: Any information the applicant believes would be beneficial to the reviewer to conduct a thorough review of the application should be included provided the inclusion of additional information does not put the application over the specified page limits. In some cases, tables and figures are more descriptive then words, in others they are not. It is up to the applicant to determine the best use of the available space.

Question 27: Does the purchase of hardware required to build a prototype count as a "deliverable" for payment?
Answer 27: Deliverables are meant to represent the accomplishment of a significant level or work towards the eventual goal of the award. The applicant should carefully consider the deliverables they propose. Refer to Section V to see the emphasis placed on deliverables in the scoring criteria. Refer to Section IV.D.3 for specifics regarding deliverables.

Question 28: What are some of the projects which received awards in the previous solicitations?
Answer 28: A list of previously awarded companies is available at: http://www1.eere.energy.gov/solar/sunshot/incubator.html

Question 29: What safeguards do you plan to keep ideas from being co-opted by reviewers or by someone submitting a FOIA (Freedom of Information Act) request?
Answer 29: All reviewers must sign Non-Disclosure Agreements which bind them to not divulge the information they may learn during the reviews. Proprietary information is not available under a FOIA request and DOE requests input from applicants whose applications have been marked as proprietary to review their document in order to recommend redaction of certain information. The DOE is responsible to protect proprietary information.

Question 30: Would a proposal for a non-grid connected technology qualify?
Answer 30: Please see Section V.A of the FOA for how your application will be evaluated. A non-grid solution is not a specific goal of the SunShot initiative, however, if an installed price of $1/W and/or a LCOE of 6 cents/kWh could be achieved by 2020 then it would be considered.

Question 31: Would commercially available hardware applied towards a new or novel application of solar cost reduction be eligible?
Answer 31: Eligible products do not have to be brand new. A new use for an existing tool that aids in the achievement in the goals of SunShot could be acceptable. Any business concept which would lead to the reduction of the cost of solar energy will be considered.

Question 32: If the product has a patent pending, should this information be included in the submission?
Answer 32: The applicant should describe their concept to the best of their ability in order to provide the information that reviewers need to evaluate the proposal. Please use the marking requirements for proprietary information stated in the FOA (Section VIII.E).

Question 33: When calculating final installed price or LCOE, should the applicant include any anticipated tax credits or subsidies?
Answer 33: The SunShot price targets do not consider subsidies. Describe how your concept will decrease the price of installed solar.

Question 34: Will awardees have any preferential access to the public labs for 3rd party tests and evaluations?
Answer 34: Awardees are given front of the line status for all deliverables sent to NREL. Payment is then provided once the deliverable’s function is verified.

Question 35: How should an applicant mark proprietary information contained in the application abstract that is entered into the EERE Exchange text box? In the Concept Paper, sections can be marked as proprietary, but the abstract is also entered into a text box on EERE Exchange. How do we mark it as proprietary there?
Answer 35: Please only put propriety information in the application materials themselves which can be marked as proprietary information using the methods stated in Section VIII.E of the FOA. The abstract that is pasted into EREE Exchange can be a shorted description of the project. The abstract must not contain proprietary information.

Question 36: In EERE exchange, there is a text field stating “Please ensure that this Abstract matches the Abstract in your application document" under the text box where the abstract text is inputted into EERE Exchange. Additionally, there is a 4000 character maximum for this text field. Should applicants restrict their abstract to 4000 characters or 1 page as stated in the FOA?
Answer 36: Please disregard the “Please ensure that this Abstract matches the Abstract in your application document" statement in EERE exchange. As stated in FAQ# 35, do not put proprietary information in the abstract that is pasted into the text field in EERE Exchange. The Applicant may use a truncated abstract for the text box in EERE Exchange. Please select a couple sentences that do not contain proprietary information from the submitted Concept Paper abstract to enter into the text field in EERE Exchange. Only the abstract that is submitted as part of the Concept Paper will be considered for evaluation and selection.

Question 37: Can non-profit organizations, universities, or federal labs apply to this funding announcement?
Answer 37: Non-profit organizations, universities and federal labs can participate as sub-recipients of an award. Prime recipients must be for-profit businesses incorporated in the US and meet the eligibility requirements stated in Section III of the FOA.

Question 38: If DOE discourages the applicant to submit a Full Application after reviewing the Concept Paper, will there be feedback as to why?
Answer 38: Yes, the reviewer’s comments to the Concept Paper are made available to applicants on the EERE Exchange website. Applicants may submit a Full Application even if they receive a notification discouraging them from doing so. By discouraging the submission of a Full Application, DOE intends to convey its lack of programmatic interest in the proposed project. Such assessments do not necessarily reflect judgments 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.

Question 39: Are we permitted to make changes to the project team or funding levels after Concept Paper submission, but prior to the submission of the Full Application?
Answer 39: If your team or budget changes after Concept Paper submission, you must edit your existing application through the EERE Exchange website. Use your existing application control number and edit the necessary fields before you submit your Full Application.

Question 40: Where can I find information on the Buildings and Technologies program which handles concepts for solar powered hot water systems?
Answer 40: The DOE Buildings Technology program can be found at http://www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/ .

Question 41: Does the proposed product have to be manufactured in the USA?
Answer 41: Please see Section V of the FOA for information on how your application will be evaluated. The degree to which your project will strengthen the competitiveness of domestic manufacturing and employment in the United States will be considered as well as the extent to which those expectations are supported by a realistic, factually supported, financially sound implementation approach.

Question 42: Are we eligible to apply if we are in the process of incorporating at the time of application?
Answer 42: To be considered an eligible entity to receive an award, a project team must be led by a small business incorporated within the U.S. at the time when the Full Application is submitted. For other eligibility criteria, see Section III of the FOA.

Question 43: Will preference be given to proposals that focus on hardware cost reductions?
Answer 43: The full spectrum of technologies and non-hardware solutions relevant to the conversion of sunlight into electricity will be considered for funding. Please see the “Areas of Programmatic Interest” section of the FOA for further information.

Question 44: We are planning on submitting to the Tier 1a category for a hardware concept and to Tier 1b with a software concept that could be used with our proposed hardware or as a standalone commercial product. Can a business submit to the Tier 1b category with software that is complementary to the concept proposed in the Tier 1a application?
Answer 44: An Applicant may submit single and self-sufficient applications for Tier 1a, Tier 1b and Tier 2 awards. Each application must have a different Principal Investigator (PI) and be for a completely different platform and product family. Applications will be reviewed independently. Please see Section III.C.4 of the FOA for further information.

Question 45: If our application relies on the collaboration of several businesses, can the company eventually taking the technology to market be a sub-recipient because the initial development will require more than 60% of the total project cost over the award time frame?
Answer 45: The applicant can propose that a sub-recipient be utilized to commercialize their concept.

Question 46: Is there a limit to the amount of funding that can be spent on equipment purchases?
Answer 46: If an Applicant is selected for award negotiations, it will be required to provide a detailed list of any equipment items planned to be purchased along with a price for the acquisition of each. The individual price proposed for each item shall be verifiable via vendor quote, price sheet, or other means deemed acceptable by DOE. There is not a specific cap on the amount of the total project cost that is related to equipment purchases.

Question 47: Does the “Notice of Restriction on Disclosure and Use of Data” count towards the page limit of the application materials?
Answer 47: No, the notice on the cover sheet that will not count towards the page limit of the application materials. Do not provide any other information on the cover page to support your application.

Question 48: The FOA for the SunShot Incubator Program details "Areas Specifically Not of Interest". Can you explain what is considered a second generation concept?
Answer 48: The Incubator program is designed for innovative concepts that will reduce the cost of installed solar systems. This program is not for achieving incremental advances on products that already exist in the marketplace. An example second generation concept would be adding a 4th junction onto a 3 junction device using a similar technology that was previously used for the 3 junction device. New embodiments of existing technologies could be considered if the technology is being used for a different purpose.

Question 49: Our company has less than 500 employees, but has been a U.S. corporation for a long time. Are we still considered start-up business which can apply to this FOA?
Answer 49: The amount of time that your business has been incorporated is not considered for eligibility for this FOA. Please see the definition of startup business in Section III of the FOA.

Question 50: Can the provided funds be used to source materials from overseas? Must a certain percentage of the major subassemblies be manufactured in the USA?
Answer 50: The provided finance assistance can be used to acquire materials from foreign suppliers. All new equipment purchased under the cooperative agreement must be made or manufactured in the United States, to the maximum extent practicable. This requirement does not apply to used or leased equipment.

Question 51: DOE also has an "open funding opportunity" through ARPA-E (https://arpa-e-foa.energy.gov/#ecddd983-c274-4374-bb1e-91bb3abe9dfa). Can the same or similar project be submitted to both the SunShot Incubator program and ARPA-E for funding consideration?
Answer 51: If awarded, an applicant cannot accept funding for projects of overlapping scope and all current federal funding must be disclosed in the “Other Sources of Funding Disclosure” part of the Full Application as described in Section IV.D.9 of the FOA. Until funding has been provided, you are allowed to submit similar applications to different funding opportunity announcements. However, you may not submit an application that has already been submitted to the SunShot Incubator program. As stated in Section II.A of the FOA, "DOE will accept only new applications under this FOA.”

Question 52: What should a letter of support letter state? Can this letter come from a sub-recipient mentioned in this application such as external corporate partner?
Answer 52: The level of interest from the target market and/or any supporting entity could be demonstrated by the applicant through a letter of support. Such letters are optional and not a requirement for an application.

Question 53: How should an applicant decide if their proposal is a hardware or non-hardware concept if the solution involves technology development for both hardware and non-hardware?
Answer 53: If your solution involves any hardware development, apply to Tier 1a (hardware concepts). Tier 1b (Non-Hardware concepts) is exclusively for projects that do not involve hardware development.

Question 54: How do I get a control number to put on my documents prior to submitting? It appears the control number is issued during submission.
Answer 54: The control number is created once the "Create Submission" link in clicked in EERE exchange. Please edit your documents before uploading so they contain this number.

Question 55: What is the maximum project cost that an applicant can propose?
Answer 55: The maximum Tier 1a $1,000,000, Tier 1b $500,000, and Tier 2 $4,000,000 funding limits apply to the maximum federal contribution to the total project cost. The total project cost is the sum of the federal contribution and the applicant’s cost share, and therefore, the total project cost can exceed the specified funding limits.

Question 56: Is preference given for the lead applicant to be an incorporated entity over an individual?
Answer 56: Please see the eligibility requirements stated in Section III of the FOA. Applicants must be incorporated businesses.

Question 57: How is the award funding taxed? Is it acceptable or prudent to allocate funds in the grant application for tax liability?
Answer 57: Questions concerning taxation are beyond the purview of our expertise. Please consult with your tax professional. However, we point out that tax liability may be used in determining the total project cost. Please refer to the Code of Federal Regulations 48 C.F.R. Part 31.205-41, in consultation with your tax professional.

Question 58: What file format should be used for the summary slide?
Answer 58: DOE would prefer summary slides in Microsoft PowerPoint (.ppt or .pptx) format. For convenience, we will accept summary slides in Adobe PDF (.pdf) or Microsoft PowerPoint (.ppt/.pptx) formats.

Question 59: Can I submit my application even if I do not have registration with CCR, FSRS, and FedConnect?
Answer 59: Yes, you can submit your application without being registered in CCR, FedConnect and FSRS. However, you should register for the remaining databases soon. The most important registration is for CCR, because you can’t receive an award if you’re not registered in CCR. The second most important is FedConnect, because all subsequent post award administration would go through this system if you received an award.

Question 60: Are the reviewers for the full SunShot Incubator application the same as those who reviewed the Concept Paper?
Answer 60: Not usually.

Question 61: Do different reviewers review different sections of the Full Application or does one reviewer look at the entire application?
Answer 61: Each reviewer reviews the entire application. There is not a need to repeat information in different sections.

Question 62: Can you provide a description of the distinction between a sub-recipient and a contractor for the SunShot Incubator application?
Answer 62: A sub-recipient is an entity that performs work on the award for the prime recipient. A minimum of 60% of the award funds must go to the prime recipient. The remaining 40% may be distributed to subrecipients to help perform that work required to complete the award. Contractors are vendors that do not perform substantial project work, but merely provide goods or services as they would to any other customer as part of their normal business.

Question 63: In the Full Application for the Sunshot Incubator Program each section of the Project Narrative has a set page limit. Should references be listed at the end of each section, therefore counting as the page count of each section, or should they in margins as footnotes?
Answer 63: References can be put in footnotes on each page so that they do not count against the page limit, otherwise they should be placed in the end of each section and will be counted towards the page limit.

Question 64: Can Letters of Support be submitted with the Full Application?
Answer 64: As stated in Section D.1 of the FOA, one page letters of support can be submitted with the “Technical Qualifications and Resources” part of the application and do not count against the page limit. They should be included after the one page resumes.

Question 65: Are letters of support required from collaborators that do not receive subawarded funds but may incur matching costs?
Answer 65: Letters of support are not required from Subrecipients during the application phase. Upon selection for award negotiations, the Prime Recipient must confirm in writing that the proposed cost share is allowable in accordance with applicable Federal cost principles. The Prime Recipient is also required to provide cost share commitment letters from Subrecipients or third parties that are providing cost share, whether cash or in-kind. The letter may not include any conditions for receipt of the cost share contributions. The letter must state the amount and form of cost share, the source and precise nature of the contribution, and the duration and timing of the commitment (e.g., two years beginning in Fall 2012).

Question 66: If the final deliverable is only met in part, will the final payment of the funding be partially paid or not at all?
Answer 66: If the criteria for a passing deliverable are not met then the deliverable fails and funds may not be dispersed until and unless the criteria are passed. This is true for all deliverables not just the final deliverable.

Question 67: In proposing a “non-hardware” based application, we are assuming that “Contribution to Domestic Manufacturing” (pg 67 of the FOA) means if our software is a Software as a Service (SaaS) product that we host in the cloud domestically, this is considered furthering IT jobs in the US. Please comment on this assumption.
Answer 67: Please see criteria for Full Application on pg 66 of the FOA. Scoring criteria are not pass/fail, how well you address the various scoring criteria directly correlates to how well you score. The better you address the scoring criteria the higher the score. If you do not address a scoring criterion your score will likely drop some amount.

Question 68: I missed the submission deadline for the Concept Papers, but I believe our company and the Incubator Program would be a great fit. Can I still like to apply for the Incubator program if I have not submitted a concept paper?
Answer 68: Only applicants that submitted a timely and compliant Concept Paper are eligible for submitting a full application.

Question 69: Will our full proposal still be reviewed if we received a discourage remark at the concept phase?
Answer 69: Page 21 of the FOA states:

"Applicants may submit a Full Application even if they previously received a recommendation from DOE discouraging them from doing so as part of the Concept Paper process. By discouraging the submission of a Full Application, DOE intends to convey its lack of programmatic interest in the proposed project and to save Applicants the considerable time and expense of preparing a Full Application for a proposed project that is unlikely to be selected for award negotiations.”

Question 70: When filling out the PMC.123 and SF424a forms, are Tier 1 awards considered one budget period (regardless of calendar years)? How may budget periods are Tier 2 awards?
Answer 70: The 12 months for a Tier 1 starts on the first day of the award (negotiated). It does not matter if it crosses into another calendar year. Tier 1 awards are one budget period over one year. Tier 2 awards can be broken into two 9-month budget periods or a 12 month and a 6 month budget period which should be reflected in the submitted PMC.123 and SF424a forms.

Question 71: Can pre-award expenditures count as a contributed cost share? That is, if an expenditure is part of the approved budget for a selected entity, but the capital for that expenditure was spent by the entity prior to award, does the capital outlay count as part of the entity’s matching funds in the award?
Answer 71:

On p. 59 of the FOA is says:

“DOE will not reimburse any pre-award costs incurred by Applicants before they are selected for award negotiations. Please refer to Section VI.A of the FOA for guidance on award notices.

Upon selection for award negotiations, Applicants may incur pre-award costs at their own risk. DOE generally does not accept budgets as submitted with the Full Application. Budgets are typically reworked during award negotiations. DOE is under no obligation to reimburse pre-award costs if, for any reason, the Applicant does not receive an award or if the award is made for a lesser amount than the Applicant expected.

Given the uncertainty of award negotiations, it is strongly recommended that Prime Recipients and Subrecipients consult with the DOE Contracting Officer before incurring any pre-award costs.” Therefore, it is the CO’s call whether to reimburse pre-award costs incurred after applicants have been selected for negotiation. "

Question 72: We are already working with certain private vendors who provide measurements and data for us. Can we send parts of our system to these well-recognized private testing companies for verification?
Answer 72: This would be acceptable provided the third party can be proven as being non-biased and the information delivered to the DOE can be certified by the third party.

Question 73: Can a video be used of a working device be used as a deliverable?
Answer 73: The use of a video that shows something working could be a deliverable in the right situation, it would have to be negotiated should you be selected for negotiation. For final deliverables it would be better to be able to have those verified in person by a member of the DOE, on site if the product cannot move, or by an agreed upon third party.

Question 74: Would having someone from a National Lab come to our facility to inspect our work be an acceptable method of meeting the third party verification requirement?
Answer 74: Yes, this would be an acceptable means to verify progress and meet deliverables so long as the National Lab employee reports their findings to DOE SunShot.

Question 75: In previous applications to SunShot we have received comments that we did not describe our technology in enough detail. How do you propose we handle this in this round of funding?
Answer 75: The full application provides a long format in which you can describe your technology. Page limits are put on applications in order to make for a fair evaluation process and efficiently use reviewer’s time. You should use the available space to explain the technology to the reviewers and address the scoring criteria on page 66 of the FOA.

Question 76: During the second webinar, it was mentioned that iterations of software are acceptable as deliverables. The FOA mentions that Tier 2 applicants should have 5-7 deliverables per phase. What if there are only three iterations of the software being proposed. Would a total of 4 deliverables still be acceptable for a tier 2 applicant?
Answer 76: No. Applicants must propose the number of deliverables stated in the FOA.

Question 77: How much must the first and last deliverable be worth?
Answer 77: The baseline deliverable is limited to a federal contribution of up to 20% of the Total federal contribution to the award. The final deliverable must be worth at least 30% of the federal funding amount.

Question 78: Should the background section of the full application describe the applicant’s product that is being proposed for funding under the FOA or generally describe all product development by the company?
Answer 78: This is meant to discuss the project that is being proposed for the FOA. Provide a summary of the proposed project and how it meets the SunShot Initiative objectives. This section should discuss the history, successes, and current status of the Applicant’s product development. Note: This section (or any other section) is not for discussing the merits of solar energy in general or the proposed technology in regard to other non-solar technologies. Also, a brief discussion of the company’s previous successful products and other successes could be worthwhile.

Question 79: What is anticipated timeline for reimbursement post-milestone achievement & validation?
Answer 79: DOE intends to provide reimbursement as fast as possible with 30 days being the targeted maximum wait time.

Question 80: We are submitting a Full Application but our team has changed. Would it be appropriate to submit the proposal under a new entity instead of through the company that submitted the Concept Paper?
Answer 80: If your team has changed, you must edit your existing application though the EERE Exchange website. Use your existing application control number and edit the necessary fields before you submit your Full Application.

Question 81: Can we include specifics as to project team skills, experience, assets in their resumes instead of the 2 page qualifications and resources, as there is limited space there and several other points to hit?
Answer 81: Please see section V.A.2 of the FOA for information on how Full Application will be evaluated. An option to free up space could be to briefly discuss team member’s qualifications at a high level and refer reviewers to resumes for more detail. It is up to you on how to best present your teams’ qualifications and resources.

Question 82: To what extent should the milestones be detailed within the project description itself versus what is detailed in the table?
Answer 82: The milestone table is a visual representation and summary of the work proposed in the SOPO (work plan) section. The project description section can be more general about the projects’ desired outcomes and how they will be achieved.

Question 83: Can there be more than one final deliverable? Can the final 30% be split amongst several final deliverables?
Answer 83: There should be one final deliverable worth 30% of the award funds. This deliverable represents the achievement of the goal you propose you can achieve in your full application.

Question 84: Will a hardware deliverable submitted for verification be returned?
Answer 84: Generally deliverables are not returned. However, the applicant can specify if they would like the deliverable returned. DOE is not responsible for any damage to deliverables that are submitted for verification.

Question 85: What if a proposed deliverable is very large? Do we have to ship the whole system to a third party or can we self-verify and say we will allow a third party on site to test if requested?
Answer 85: If the product is too large or cumbersome to ship to a third party, such as NREL, an alternative means of verification must be proposed, such as having a DOE member come to test the system or have verification done by a third party whose results can be independently verified by the DOE. The exact mechanism for verification can be negotiated during the negotiation phase if selected.

Question 86: For the initial baseline deliverable, must the applicant incur the matching cost share before payment can be received.
Answer 86: Yes, the cost shares must match the deliverable payments (in terms of percentage of funds) over the course of the project. The awardee must have incurred an adequate share before deliverable payments are made.

Question 87: The SF-LLL form (disclosure of lobbying activities) is not applicable to us. EERE exchange indicates this field to be mandatory. What are we expected to submit?
Answer 87: The SF-LLL must still be submitted. Please state in it that you do not engage in lobbying activities.

Question 88: For startup companies, how is overhead calculated if federal auditing has not been conducted?
Answer 88: The applicant must propose an overhead rate that will be negotiated if the applicant is selected. Please use FAR 31.202 and FAR 31.203 to determine your direct and indirect costs. Furthermore, an example indirect rate calculation can be found in form PMC 400.2 at https://www.eere-pmc.energy.gov/Forms.aspx.

Question 89: When do we submit replies to reviewer comments on the concept papers?
Answer 89: Applicants will not have an opportunity to respond to concept paper reviewer comments. These comments should be taken into consideration when writing your Full Application.

Question 90: I submitted a concept paper under DE-FOA-0000651, which EERE Exchange system assigned a control number. When I started the process for submitting a Full Application, the system assigned that collection of documents a different control number.
Answer 90: Please contact EERE Exchange support at EERE-ExchangeSupport@ee.doe.gov. The control number for your Full Application and Concept paper should be the same.

Question 91: Does incubator provide no-cost access to NREL labs or do we have to include the cost in budget?
Answer 91: The cost of using NREL facilities should be included in the budget. However, deliverable verification is generally done at no cost to the applicant.

Question 92: Are there limitations on how much of the federal funds can be used for capital equipment purchases?
Answer 92: In the event an Applicant is selected for award negotiations, it will be required to provide a detailed list of any equipment items planned to be purchased along with a price for the acquisition of each. The individual price proposed for each item shall be verifiable via vendor quote, price sheet, or other means deemed acceptable by DOE.

Question 93: Do submitters need to be concerned about revealing intellectual property secrets in their applications? The primary response from our concept application was lack of detail, yet much of that detail information is proprietary.
Answer 93: All parties who will see or hear about your application sign strict non-disclosure agreements. It is in your best interest to include all information which will allow the reviewer to have the clearest picture possible of your project and work that will be done. Use the marking requirements stated in section VIII.E of the FOA to identify proprietary information.

Question 94: May we change some of our deliverables from the Concept Paper to the Full Application. For example, instead of final product at month six it is delivered at month 9, or instead of 3 test units we have 4?
Answer 94: Your deliverables table should reflect what you deem to be the most accurate progression of your product over the award period as you see it today. If you feel that your deliverables for the Full Application are different than those for the concept paper, that is fine provided your full application is the same project as that which is mentioned in your concept paper.

Question 95: Must the SF-424a be fully completed when submitted with the Full Application? Specifically what are the Competition Identification Number, the Areas Affected by Project, the Federal Entity Identifier, and the Federal Award Identifier fields?
Answer 95: Please fill out the SF-424a to the best of your ability. The Competition Identification Number, Areas Affected by Project, Federal Entity Identifier, and Federal Award Identifier fields can be left blank.

Question 96: Can you change from Tier 2 in concept paper to Tier 1 in full proposal, proposing same topic?
Answer 96: Yes, but take care in insuring that you meet the cost share requirements which will change if you change the Tier.

Question 97: Can partnerships be used as a method to demonstrate support of US manufacturing?
Answer 97: Please see section V.A of the FOA for how your application will be evaluated.

Question 98: Upon selection of an award, how much time do we have to deliver the cost share commitment letters?
Answer 98: Payment is based on reimbursement. Once a deliverable is achieved you will submit a request for the reimbursement of what it cost you to achieve that deliverable. You will then be reimbursed for the full amount minus your cost share commitment. If you do not have the funds to operate in this manner then you will not be able to progress through the award.

Question 99: How should test results be classified when they relate to a deliverable? If the completion of the report cannot serve as a deliverable, would the verifiable test results contained in the report serve as deliverables?
Answer 99: A verifiable test result by a credible, unbiased third party is an excellent deliverable. It is likely acceptable to relay the results of a third party verification test in report format as long as there is a way to prove the third party did the test.

Question 100: Because we are developing a project that is vastly software many of our early milestones are document-related. Are such milestones acceptable in our application?
Answer 100: See page 44 “Applicants must establish the relevant deliverables for their product or innovation, and the functionality must be verifiable by the DOE or a third party. This means that although reports are required as part of the FOA, they cannot not be used as deliverables. Reports summarize observations, deliverables validate functionality.”

Frequently Asked Questions