EERE eXCHANGE: FAQs

Question 1: I wanted to ascertain whether a particular R&D component can be included as a secondary (but still important) part of any proposal. Namely, in our 7-year R&D program on resilient control systems as applied to building and other energy systems, we include frameworks for cyber-physical degradation assessment as a fundamental predecessor and necessary building block to greater autonomy and greater energy and operational efficiencies. While cyber security would not be the focus of any proposal we'd submit, I wanted to confirm including this component is considered positively?
Answer 1: Except for proposals to the “open” topic, all proposals to the Emerging Technologies (ET) Program must address ALL solicited topics for a given sub-program (Solid-State Lighting; HVAC, Water Heating, & Appliances; etc.). Therefore, this proposed work on resilient control systems can be either addressed to the “Sensors & Controls” sub-program as part of a larger proposal that includes all the topics for that sub-program, or it can be addressed to the “open” topic as an independent effort. The external reviewers will assess if cyber security is considered positively or not.

Question 2: 1. What are you looking for in Advanced Refrig. section? 2. Are new projects on pg. 21 already funded or open for proposals? 3. What are the new ideas being requested in HVAC area? 4. If facility is listed as required do we have to propose work that uses that facility?
Answer 2: 1. All relevant information is provided in the Lab Call, and on the BTO website.
2. These are desired new projects. Recall, however, that we are NOT interested in proposals for single projects, but rather are interested only in proposals that address an entire sub-program’s portfolio. For example, here we’re only interested in proposals that address the entire HVAC/WH/Appliances sub-program.
3. All relevant information is provided in the Lab Call, and on the BTO website.
4. No, but Applicants should keep in mind Evaluation Criterion 3(a) Degree to which the project leverages a core or enabling capability.

Question 3: Was this webinar recorded? If so, can you please send me the information to access it? We got on the call late and did not realize that amendment 2 had been posted and there was new webinar information.
Answer 3: Yes, this webinar was recorded. Both the slides and the recording will be made available on the BTO website (http://energy.gov/eere/buildings/building-technologies-office).

Question 4: - For RBI portion of the lab call, are you expecting separate proposals For each topic, or a single proposal covering all three topics? - When labs partner on proposals, will the labs receive funding directly from BTO For their portion of project budget, or will the lead lab receive/transfer funding to the partner labs?
Answer 4: -Separate proposals for each topic are preferred.
-It is anticipated that, for cases where multiple labs partner on a successful proposal, each lab will receive funding directly from BTO for their part of the project, rather than subcontracting from the lead lab.

Question 5: I did have one follow up questions about the scope of the proposed projects. Our original understanding was that multiple projects would be funded from each sub-category but the language used in the webinar gave several of us the impression that the proposal should be written to the full program amount. Will multiple awards be targeted or just one award per cub-category?
Answer 5: For the ET topics, we will NOT consider proposals that address only a portion of a sub-program. Rather, we are interested only in proposals that address an entire sub-program's portfolio. Proposals for individual projects can be addressed to the ET open topic, subject to the limitation of 1 proposal per lab for the open topic.

Question 6: PNNL may partner with other labs for some program areas. Will separate letters of intent be required from each lab? Will letters of commitment be required from each partnering lab for the full proposal?
Answer 6: There should be only one letter of intent submitted for each proposal, by the Lab that is the Lead Institution. Letters of commitment are not required for full proposals, but they may be taken into account during the review process.

Question 7: Regarding the guidance that all ET proposals address each of the solicited topics of interest for a given subprogram, subject to anticipated planned budgets: Earlier this year, BTO budget guidance to labs was to have a smaller number of larger tasks/project-areas, where ~$500K was suggested as a "target" number. Should we follow this prior guidance in prioritizing our proposed efforts under the current Lab Call?
Answer 7: For the ET sub programs, labs should submit comprehensive proposals that address an entire sub program portfolio. In general, it is expected that these proposals will be larger than $500K/year, and closer to the planned budget amounts shown in the Lab Call.

Question 8: I understand that labs can only submit one proposal for the CBI Open Topic. But can a lab can be a prime on one proposal and a sub on a second CBI Lab call proposal? How will you handle situations where a lab is on multiple CBI Open Topic proposals as described above?
Answer 8:

A lab may be a sub on any number of proposals. They are limited to making one proposal as prime.

Question 9: In response to an earlier question you clarified that partner labs would be direct funded by BTO. How should this be handled/indicated in EERE 159 Detailed Budget Justification form? Should each partner lab submit a form? How should the lead lab, who is receiving only a portion of the funding for scope described in the proposal, fill out the form?
Answer 9:

The lead lab should indicate the amount(s) going to any sub-recipient(s), including other labs, in section f of EERE 159. A separate EERE 159 should be submitted by any sub-recipient lab.

The EERE 159 form for the sub-recipient(s) is necessary to show the details for the sub-recipient(s) funding. All submitted EERE 159 forms should be titled appropriately in order to make it clear which one applies to the lead lab, and which one(s) apply to the sub-recipient(s).

Question 10: We have a quick question regarding the ET Manufacturing Analysis sub-program area. The Call mentions that the proposal should be technology agnostic, which suggests that the outlined methodology should be broadly applicable to a range of technologies. Would it be appropriate to identify candidate technologies in the proposal that we feel would be particularly well-suited for analysis, or should the proposal refrain from mentioning any specific technologies at all?
Answer 10:

Applicants are welcome to suggest technologies that they feel are appropriate for such an analysis, but the analysis approach must be applicable to a broad array of building energy efficiency technologies.

Question 11: The Form instructions state that a separate Form 159 is required for sub-recipients with total project costs of $250,000 or more. Could you please confirm that this is the threshold for life of the project (3-years) as opposed to one year? The EERE Exchange only allows us to upload one Form 159. For project where we will have a 159 for a partner, how do you propose that we include this information? We can provide this details by adding tabs to our Form 159 for the partners’ portions of the project. Will this suffice?
Answer 11:

-Yes, the $250,000 threshold is for the life of the project.

-Yes, please add tabs to your Form 159 for the partners’ portion of the project.

Question 12: When you say that the sub-recipient laboratory should submit a separate EERE 159, do you mean that the sub-recipient laboratory should submit that EERE 159 to the lead laboratory for submittal by the lead laboratory as a unit with the rest of the proposal package OR do you mean that the sub-recipient laboratory should submit their EERE 159 directly to the Exchange (separate from the lead lab’s main proposal package).
Answer 12:

Our understanding is that Exchange allows only a single EERE 159 form to be submitted with each proposal. Therefore, rather than submitting a second EERE form for a subrecipient, instead create a new tab in the lead lab’s EERE form that would be used for the budget summary for the subrecipient. Subrecipients only need to provide the budget summary for their portion of the funding, as given on the “Instructions and Summary” tab of the EERE 159 form. Each subrecipient must have a tab on the lead lab’s EERE form, and the total subrecipient funding should be reported on the “f. Contractual” tab. Sub-recipient labs should NOT submit their EERE 159 form directly to Exchange.

Update(3/10/2015): It is now possible to post multiple EERE 159 forms to Exchange. You may submit your subrecipient budgets either as a tab in the lead lab’s EERE 159 (as previously advised) or as a separate document.

Question 13: Is it possible to change the title of the proposal from the one submitted in the letter of intent? We would like to change to help reviewers better understand our project.
Answer 13:

Yes, it is possible to change the title of the proposal from the one submitted in the letter of intent, but the topic submitted to cannot be changed from the letter of intent.

Question 14: I've logged on the Exchange Website and under BTOLMR1600017 I cannot find reviewer comments. I see only the applications instructions, FAQ etc. Please advise how to find the Reviewer comments.
Answer 14: Once logged in to your Exchange account, click on the “My Submissions” tab in the left hand bar. This tab takes the applicant to a summary screen of their submissions. Click on the control number of your proposal. The applicant will arrive at the Full Application detailed screen, where each uploaded file appears. Below that section, appears the Reviewers Comments section.

Question 15: According to the lab call webinar, the ET proposals have 60 min for their presentations. Does that time limit also apply to the Manufacturing analysis which topic which was much more limited in scope and $?
Answer 15: Yes, the 60-minute time limit applies to the presentations in response to the manufacturing analysis, and for the sub-programs. Presentations in response to the ET open topic, however, are limited to 30 minutes. Note that these limits include time for questions and answers.

Question 16: The Lab Call states that Emerging Technology proposals’ oral presentation duration is 60 minutes. On the schedule there is only 30 minutes allocated to this oral presentation. Should the time allocation for this oral presentation be increased to 60 minutes?
Answer 16: No, the 60-minute time limit applies to the presentations in response to the manufacturing analysis, and for the sub-programs. Presentations in response to the ET open topic, however, are limited to 30 minutes. Note that these limits include time for questions and answers.

Question 17: I submitted an applicant to BTOLMR1600017: Amendment 000002 - Building Technologies Office National Laboratory Call & Merit Review FY2016. Do I to need to travel to present my proposal?
Answer 17: Yes, please reference the FOA section 2.1.3 where it states that all applicants are required to give a presentation in person.

Frequently Asked Questions