EERE eXCHANGE: FAQs

Question 1: The FOA states there will be potentially 2 to 3 additional awards in FY2013. Will there be a separate FOA for those awards?
Answer 1:

No. Any additional awards made from FY 2013 funding would be made to applicants selected from this FOA.

Question 2: I would like to visit with someone regarding the FOA. We have a process that should fit right into this. Can you supply me with a contact?
Answer 2:

Unfortunately, DE-FOA-0000739, “Innovative Pilot and Demonstration Scale Production of Advanced Biofuels”, is a competitive solicitation and private/in-person discussions while the announcement is open are prohibited. All questions regarding this FOA must be submitted via e-mail to InnovativePilot@go.doe.gov not later than 3 business days prior to the application due date. All questions and answers related to this FOA will be posted on EERE eXCHANGE at: https://eere-exchange.energy.gov/ Please note that you must first select this specific FOA Number in order to view the questions and answers specific to this FOA.

Question 3: Is the cost share truly 50% across the board . . . for both Topic Areas and for lower cost smaller scale pilot scale work versus larger scale demonstration work?
Answer 3:

Yes, as stated in Section III.B. of the FOA, the Cost Share must be at least 50% of the total allowable costs of the project.

Question 4: In reference to Section II - Award Information - Letter H, Contingency: is it acceptable that during Budget period 1 - a project is working to secure the contingency funds and demonstrate that after completing all the required activities in budget period 1 they can also demonstrate that they have all the funds secured prior to approval to proceed with Budget period 2 - or is it the intent that the contingency funds are available immediately upon submission of the application prior to any award?
Answer 4: At the time of the award, the recipient will be agreeing to the award terms and conditions, including contingency requirements. The recipient must provide documentation of the required contingency prior to DOE approval of Budget Period 2.

Question 5: Can a university/industry be the lead on one proposal and be a partner/collaborator on another proposal in the same topic area?
Answer 5: Yes.

Question 6: I am seeking clarification – is beef tallow, yellow and white grease acceptable feedstocks for the Innovative Pilot and Demonstration Scale Production of Advanced Biofuels?
Answer 6:

REVISED ANSWER 6/25/12:

Beef tallow, yellow and white grease are acceptable feedstocks as long as they meet the requirement of being a high-impact feedstock (Appendix A) and with the following qualification:

- As noted in I.C.4: “Biodiesel” or other diesel-equivalent fuel derived from trans-esterification of renewable biomass, including vegetable oil and animal fat, is specifically excluded. However, the hydro-processing of biodiesel to produce a renewable diesel or a renewable jet fuel, for example, would be an acceptable process/technology under the FOA so long as the resulting fuel was otherwise an “acceptable biofuel”.

Question 7: I see in your FOA that you are excluding DDGS. We plan on utilizing a portion of the oil from DDGS which is antagonistic to rumen diets. The DDGS is still intact and is being utilized in feeding rations. We plan on utilizing only the oil. Is this an acceptable feedstock for the FOA.
Answer 7:

Presuming that the oil described in the question is indistinguishable from any other corn oil, it would be excluded under I.C.2: “Use of excess oil production of food-grade oil also does not constitute an acceptable feedstock.” However, if it is legitimately a non-food oil, it would be allowable per: “Non-food seeds or seed oils are also acceptable feedstocks if available in sufficient quantities.”

However, note that in V.A.2 under Criterion 2, applications will be scored, in part, based on the extent to which “the applicant presents credible documentation that the feedstock used in its process is technically viable and available at an economically feasible cost in amounts that constitute a high-impact feedstock as defined in the FOA…”

High impact feedstocks are defined in Appendix A of the FOA as: “a feedstock that is domestically available and has the agronomically and ecologically sustainable ultimate availability potential of at least 100 million dry metric tonnes of biomass per year.”

Question 8: Would the conversion of non-food biobased feedstocks such as triacylglycerides derived from crop oils not used in food products to JP-8, JP-5 etc. be allowed in either Topic Area 1 or 2? Non-food crop oils for Topic Area 1 and algae oils for Topic Area 2 separated and converted to hydrocarbon biofuel?
Answer 8:

Non-food biobased feedstocks such as triacylglycerides derived from crop oils not used in food products would be acceptable under Topic Area 1 noting however that: ““Biodiesel” or other diesel-equivalent fuel derived from trans-esterification of renewable biomass, including vegetable oil and animal fat, is specifically excluded. However, the hydro-processing of biodiesel to produce a renewable diesel or a renewable jet fuel, for example, would be an acceptable process/technology under the FOA so long as the resulting fuel was otherwise an “acceptable biofuel”.”

If the triacylglycerides derived from crop oils not used in food products were to be used in the algal production of an acceptable biofuel, they would be acceptable under Topic Area 2.

Be aware that, as noted in V.A.2 under Criterion 2, applications will be scored, in part, based on the extent to which “the applicant presents credible documentation that the feedstock used in its process is technically viable and available at an economically feasible cost in amounts that constitute a high-impact feedstock as defined in the FOA…”

High impact feedstocks are defined in Appendix A of the FOA as: “a feedstock that is domestically available and has the agronomically and ecologically sustainable ultimate availability potential of at least 100 million dry metric tonnes of biomass per year.”

Also note that any single application must be submitted to only one Topic Area and must clearly identify the Topic Area to which it is addressed on the Project Narrative Cover Sheet.

Question 9: Can a university/industry submit multiple proposals under the same topic area with different principal investigators?
Answer 9: No, as stated in Section I.B. of the FOA, "applicants are allowed to submit ONLY one application per topic area, but may apply to both topic areas if they choose".

Question 10: Grain sorghum is specifically addressed, but could you please clarify whether sweet sorghum and/or high biomass sorghum would be considered eligible feedstocks?
Answer 10:

Sweet sorghum and high biomass sorghum would be acceptable if available in sufficient quantities.

Note that in V.A.2 under Criterion 2, applications will be scored, in part, based on the extent to which “the applicant presents credible documentation that the feedstock used in its process is technically viable and available at an economically feasible cost in amounts that constitute a high-impact feedstock as defined in the FOA…”

High impact feedstocks are defined in Appendix A of the FOA as: “a feedstock that is domestically available and has the agronomically and ecologically sustainable ultimate availability potential of at least 100 million dry metric tonnes of biomass per year.”

Question 11: Question 6 posed regarding Tallow indicated that “the applicant presents credible documentation that the feedstock used in its process is technically viable and available at an economically feasible cost in amounts that constitute a high-impact feedstock as defined in the FOA…” High impact feedstocks are defined as: “a feedstock that is domestically available and has the agronomically and ecologically sustainable ultimate availability potential of at least 100 million dry metric tonnes of biomass per year.” However, I am seeking further clarification on “high impact feedstock.” As it is defined in the notations above from Question 6 – the definition of “high impact feedstocks isn’t a very applicable definition for beef tallow/grease as it is not dried in the same sense that woody biomass is – do you have a better classification or measure or perhaps can you provide an equation or calculation to assist in identifying the comparison of X lbs of tallow/grease = 100 million dry metric tons of biomass – perhaps this will enable us to better quantify the amount of tallow/greases needed to equal a high impact feedstock?
Answer 11:

REVISED ANSWER 6/25/11:

The term “dry” in the context of the definition of a high-impact feedstock means on a basis of 0% water content. Presuming that beef tallow inherently contains very little, if any, water, the amount of beef tallow potentially available domestically on an agronomically and ecologically sustainable basis would need to be at least 50 million metric tonnes per year or be available in quantities sufficient to produce 1 billion gallons per year of acceptable biofuel (per modification 1 to the FOA document).

Question 12: This is regarding eligibility of cost share provider for the funding opportunity DE-FOA-0000739: Innovative Pilot and Demonstration Scale Production of Advanced Biofuels. Can foreign company provide the cost share?
Answer 12:

Yes, a foreign company as a partner organization may provide cost share. (A foreign company may not be the prime recipient.)

Please refer to Section IV.C.4. of the FOA for information regarding required letters of commitment from third parties contributing cost share.

Question 13: See questions 6 & 11.
Answer 13: Please note that the answers to questions 6 & 11 were revised on 6/25/12. Also refer to the FOA Modification 000001 posted on 6/25/11.

Question 14: In your response to question 1 you state that FY2013 money if available will be used for recipients of the FY2012 FOA award. If that is the case, should the current proposal include scope that includes FY2013 dollars? Should the proposal include scope and dollars if only FY12 dollars are available with optional scope for FY13 dollars? For example, propose $7 million for FY2012 with $13million for FY2013 as an option. We are interested in applying for the full $20 million that the FOA allows but don't see how to break the dollars into the various fiscal years given the uncertainties in FY13 funding.
Answer 14: Applicants should submit applications for their proposed scope of work and request appropriate total funding to accomplish the proposed scope of work. This includes a breakdown of the required funding by year as required on form SF-424A. The appropriation year of the funds used to make awards are not germane in the application, review and selection process.

Question 15: Although not explicitly included, biogas (gas resulting from decomposing waste, such as in a landfill) also does not appear to be excluded as a feedstock. Please provide guidance as to its eligibility. Thank you.
Answer 15: Biogas is an eligible feedstock subject to the other provisions of the FOA e.g. high-impact requirements etc.

Question 16: There is a question regarding the 50% cost share. Can you provide further clarity is the 50% cost share to be an equal 1:1 ratio of dollar for dollar or can in-kind be included in this at an equivalent dollar to dollar rate up to a certain amount to serve as a match so long as it is documentable and captured for an accounting and auditing perspective? If in-kind is allowable, are their limitations on this?
Answer 16:

Please refer to Appendix C of the FOA (Cost Share Information). A 50% cost share will be equal to a 1:1 ratio. The cost share requirement may be satisfied with both cash and third party in-kind contributions, provided that such contributions meet the criteria as stated in 10 CFR 600. The rules associated with what is allowable as cost share are specific to the type of organization that is receiving funds under the grant or cooperative agreement, and can be found at : 10 CFR 600.123, 10 CFR 600.224, or 10 CFR 600.313. It is up to the recipient to propose the ratio of cash to third party in-kind contributions. Additionally, all costs must be reasonable and allowable pursuant to the applicable cost principles.

Question 17: In FOA DE-FOA-0000739 you specify a minimum throughput of 1 ton CO2 per day for pilot-scale algae-based integrated biorefineries. Does this refer to the daily amount of CO2 fed to the biorefinery OR the daily amount of CO2 that is actually converted into algal biomass?
Answer 17: The requirement is for feed to the biorefinery. It is assumed that, for a proposed technology to be economically feasible, some reasonable conversion of carbon to fuel is attainable.

Question 18: We are interested in applying for Biofuels funding option but use the funding to run a global competition to solve a particular biofuels problem, would this be allowed under the funding rules
Answer 18:

Please refer to Section I.B and I.C of the Funding Opportunity Announcement (FOA) for a description of the intent of the FOA. The FOA posted at EERE eXCHANGE is comprehensive and designed to allow prospective applicants to assess their proposed projects versus the requirements and criteria of the FOA. We cannot predetermine the suitability or viability of a proposal in advance of the merit review process. It is up to prospective applicants to review the requirements of the FOA and assess the merits of their proposed project to determine whether to submit an application.

Question 19: a) Will DOE accept 20% cost share for funds spent in BP1 if the scope of work involves only design work, permitting, and preparatory R&D at the bench-scale? b) What does DOE consider the biomass throughput and fuel output for a pilot-scale facility? c) What does DOE consider the biomass throughput and fuel output for a demonstration-scale facility? d) Can we submit an application with a well-defined project plan and costs for Budget period 1 and general plan and rough costs for Budget Period 2 (BP2) with the intent that the BP2 plan and costs will be refined at the time of submission of the continuation application?
Answer 19:

a) In most cases, and especially when there are go/no-go decision points in a project, DOE prefers that the required cost share level be maintained throughout a project.

b) Section I.C and I.C.3 of the FOA describe the throughput requirements for pilot and demonstration scale facilities.

c) Section I.C and I.C.3 of the FOA describe the throughput requirements for pilot and demonstration scale facilities.

d) Applicants should submit their best estimates for budgets, plans and goals for the entire project period. Sufficient prior bench or pilot scale work (depending on whether the application is for pilot or demonstration scale activities) should have been completed to allow for reasonable projections and specificity.

Question 20: a)Can you please provide greater clarity on the contingency based upon the following example: 1. The total project cost is anticipated to require $100 million in capital of which $50 million of that is equity already raised and secured leaving $10 million of it to be sought through this grant and the remaining balance of $40 million to be borrowed and financed by the recipient. The question regarding the contingency then is – by having the $50 million equity already available and on hand for this project – does that satisfy the 25% total contingency for the project? And if it does – how long does 25% of it have to remain secured if it in reality is part of what is needed to construct this project? Also, If it has to remain in reserve during Budget Period 2 (which Is the construction phase) – is there any point in the project that it can be authorized for use? OR is the 25% contingency to read that in addition to the $100 million capital that has to be secured/raised – the expectation is that an additional $25 million in capital is set aside and restricted from use for the life of the project or the life of the grant? 2. The second question to this would then be – if the answer is yes, there must be an additional $25 million raised in addition to the $100 million, at what point can this money be released and returned to the source that it came from? 3. And just for argument sake – is the Total Project Cost defined as the entire cost it will take to design and construct and undergo the demonstration scale on the way to commercialization OR is the Total Project Cost the total costs of the Grant + the recipients cost share equal to the Total project costs?? Meaning – if we requested $10 million in the grant with a $10 million cost share match – is the contingency then 25% of the $20 million or if the projects total project cost is $100 million is it 25% of the $100 million?
Answer 20:

1. No, the $50 million would not satisfy the contingency requirement. As stated in Section II.H.(3) of the FOA, “Contingency is in addition to the Total Project Cost and cannot count toward cost share or result in reimbursement by DOE above the share approved in the award.” The initial contingency funds shall be not less than 25% of the Total Project Cost that begins with Budget Period 2 (which is construction & operation). For example: If Total Project Cost equals $100 million, and $20 million is spent in Budget Period 1, the amount of contingency required would be equal to 25% of $80 million, or $20 million. Note that since contingency funds are not part of the cooperative agreement Total Project Costs, DOE does not approve use of contingency funds. Recipients should notify DOE when it is being used.

2. Contingency funds are to be available to mitigate risks to the cost and/or schedule associated with the project performance. Where a recipient demonstrates that it has adequately controlled for project performance risk, opportunities, and uncertainties, DOE, at recipient’s reasonable request, will assess the reduced risk profile and, if appropriate, reduce the effective Contingency Funds requirement.

3. Total Project Cost means all the funds to complete the effort proposed by the Applicant, including DOE funds (including direct funding of any FFRDC) plus all other funds that will be committed by the Applicant as Cost Sharing. Please see Appendix A (Definitions) of the FOA for the complete definition. The initial contingency funds shall be not less than 25% of the Total Project Cost that begins with Budget Period 2.

Question 21: Is the definition of "Integrated Biorefinery Pilot Plant" as one single facility with all unit operations contained at one site, or will a more expansive definition be allowed; one where unit operations are located at different sites and where feedstock and intermediate are produced for the different units in an integrated product system?
Answer 21:

The preference is for fully integrated systems. The exceptions would be if the envisioned commercial system involves distributed processing, or (less preferred) if the applicant includes efforts in the proposed project to ensure that the intermediates do not degrade during transfer and that the transfer process doesn’t inadvertently remove contaminants or inhibitors that would create issues when the processes are fully integrated. Steps must also be taken to address recycle and heat integration issues, as appropriate, if distributed piloting is proposed.

Question 22: We have developed a process to convert CO2 and H2O into syngas and from syngas to fuel using commercial Fischer-Tropsch processes that are available to produce aviation fuels, diesel or gasoline. Our process is different from other electrochemical processes that have been tried or are being developed. We propose to recycle CO2 from gas-fired boilers at Air Force Installations thereby reducing the Installation carbon foot print while offsetting base fuel requirements. We also propose to utilize off-peak solar to further reduce costs. On May 29, 2012, we executed a CRADA with the Air Force to further develop the project utilizing CO2, H2O and solar from an existing solar array. We are just now beginning the joint fund raising process. Does our process fit Topic Area 1 utilizing waste CO2 and H2O as a non-food feedstock?
Answer 22:

Please refer to Section I.B and I.C of the Funding Opportunity Announcement (FOA) for a description of the intent of the FOA. The FOA posted at EERE eXCHANGE is comprehensive and designed to allow prospective applicants to assess their proposed projects versus the requirements and criteria of the FOA. We cannot predetermine the suitability or viability of a proposal in advance of the merit review process. It is up to prospective applicants to review the requirements of the FOA and assess the merits of their proposed project to determine whether to submit an application.

Question 23: I have been having some difficulty collaborating with my colleagues to due the Eastern weather conditions. Do you have any plans of extending the July 13th deadline?
Answer 23: As stated in Section IV.B.3. of the FOA, the deadline for submission of concept papers is 5:00 PM ET on July 16, 2012. There are no plans for an extension to the deadline.

Question 24: Since the Innovative BioFuels Pilot and Demonstration Funds will be used for eventually producing JP-5, JP-8 or DFM, which are all military fuels, in particularly US NAVY shipboard and aircraft fuels, will there be a set aside of the funding for Service Disabled Veteran Owned Small Businesses(SDVOSB)?
Answer 24: Set-asides for SDVOSB’s apply to contracts, which are an acquisition activity. Awards anticipated to be issued from this FOA will be cooperative agreements, which are a financial assistance activity, so set-asides will not be applicable.

Question 25: My company would like to submit a proposal to the Innovative Pilot FOA, for a pilot plant using a patented process which can convert any lipid feedstock to drop-in replacement hydrocarbon fuels, including jet fuel. Our question concerns the eligibility of feedstocks. We would like to propose to use animal fat initially, with the intent to transition to algal oil as this becomes available. Is there a topic area under which animal fats would be an acceptable feedstock, such as topic 1 under definition (B) (ii) (III)?
Answer 25:

You could potentially apply to either topic area depending on your plans for the project. If you plan to use animals fats only for limited testing then transition rapidly to algal oils for the majority of the work, you should apply to Topic Area 2. If you only have notional or very limited plans to run on algal oils, you should apply to Topic Area 1. Note that the feedstock must be non-food and is subject to the definition of "high-impact" as contained in Modification 1 to the FOA. Also note that technologies using transesterification of fats to produce biodiesel are considered mature, commercial technologies and are explicitly not eligible.

Question 26: Section II.D. states, "DOE anticipates making approximately 2-4 awards, with up to 2-3 additional awards in FY2013, subject to Congressional appropriations for this program, under this announcement, depending on the Topic Area and size of awards." Question: Is this meant to describe a down-select process where additional awards using FY13 appropriations will be given to a subset of the same projects that were initially selected? Alternatively, does "additional awards" indicate that 2-3 new projects will get funded once FY13 appropriations are made?
Answer 26:

DOE anticipates funding 2-4 projects under this funding opportunity announcement using FY12 funding. In addition, DOE may fund up to 2-3 additional projects in FY13, subject to FY13 Congressional appropriations for this program and a sufficient number of meritorious applications. Selections for FY13 projects will be made, if at all, from the same applications submitted under this funding opportunity announcement.

Question 27: Company X is an industrial biotechnology company that is commercializing algae based technologies for the production of biofuels. Our research and development campus in (City/State) includes a pilot scale integrated biorefinery and other advanced capabilities. We are excited about submitting a concept paper next week for the above referenced funding opportunity announcement. One question we have is at which point, if any, in the application process must an applicant identify which of the acceptable biofuels (JP5, JP8 and/or F76) will be produced? Most immediately, is it acceptable for the concept paper to be submitted next week to contemplate the production of each of the acceptable biofuels?
Answer 27:

Yes this is acceptable.

Question 28: Can projects selected for funding with FY12 appropriations have the ability to add additional scope to their project and access the FY13 funding when it becomes available and if the additional scope is compelling, is included/described in the applicant's full application and otherwise meets the objectives of the FOA?
Answer 28: Applicants should submit applications for their proposed scope of work and request appropriate total funding to accomplish the proposed scope of work. This includes a breakdown of the required funding by year as required on form SF-424a. The appropriation year of the funds used to make awards are not germane in the application, review and selection process. The maximum DOE amount available to any single project is $20 million as noted in Section II of the FOA.

Question 29: The RFP says dry tonne of feedstock per day. It is easier to calculate dry tonne for solid biomass or gaseous CO2. We are wondering what is the acceptable basis for calculating dry tonne of Wastewater which is liquid. So far we could think in terms of total solids per liter. Is there another way of dry tonne basis for wastewater as feedstock?
Answer 29:

We agree, as you have suggested, that the tonnes per day should be calculated based on the dry-matter content of the wastewater.

Question 30: The specified two Budget Period structure appears to severely limit the integration of innovative biorefinery subcomponents into an existing biorefinery. Multiple innovative subcomponents may be at different stages of engineering readiness for implementation. It appears that the FOA constrains design for all components to Budget Period 1 and construction and operation to Budget Period 2. However, such an approach would artificially delay ready components, the commencement of pilot operations and data collection. For example, consider two new pieces of equipment that will optimize the production of renewable military spec jet and diesel fuels in an existing integrated biorefinery. The first piece of equipment requires very little additional engineering and can be operated as early as 2013. Conversely, the second piece of equipment will take an additional 6 months of engineering. There is real value in allowing an existing biorefinery to integrate, operate and collect data on the performance of the first piece of equipment prior to implementing the second piece of equipment. Yet, the specified Budget Period 1/ Budget Period 2 structure seems to preclude the option to sequentially construct and operate the two new pieces of equipment in single integrated conversion pathway even if this would be the fastest option to complete the project. Further, since the FOA seems not to provide funding for operation in the time period between installation of the first piece and the second piece of equipment, it forces the delay of all operations until both pieces of equipment are installed. This delay would add unnecessary cost for carrying operations personnel (in an existing biorefinery) through a long period of down-time or, alternatively, force a more limited scope for the proposal. Question: Because it would prove to shorten the total project time, would the following project structure be considered eligible? a) Budget Period 1 - includes construction and operation of the first new piece of equipment concurrently with the engineering of the second new piece of equipment b) Budget Period 2 - includes the construction and operation of the second new piece of equipment
Answer 30: The two budget period approach outlined in the FOA document represents a best practice in project management based on DOE’s experience with projects of this type. However, it is not completely rigid, and details of the management strategy for an individual project are subject to negotiation after selection for award. If the approach described in the question is determined to be technically advantageous, it may be possible to implement it, having different portions of the project proceed into Budget Period 2 at different times. Prior to any portion of the project proceeding into Budget Period 2, however, that portion must pass a readiness and go/no-go review. Your application should reflect the staging of the portions of the project as you believe will be the most reasonable and efficient and achieve the overall objectives of the FOA.

Question 31: Upon reviewing the U.S. DOE Funding Opportunity Announcement (DE-FOA-0000739), our team has a question regarding the term "Work Breakdown Structure" as stated in the Project Management Description (FOA Section IV, Part C). It is capitalized "WBS", but never identified nor referenced in subsequent sections. Would you please clarify the term "Work Breakdown Structure" and provide its definition?
Answer 31:

The use and meaning of the term Work Breakdown Structure (WBS) in the FOA is the standard one used in the discipline of project management. Many references to the use and implementation of a work breakdown structure are available on the internet and in project management texts and literature.

Question 32: We are about to submit our concept paper for FOA DE-FOA-0000739. In the application it request fund and matching fund amounts. Will this be able to be modified when the full application is submitted.
Answer 32: Yes, budget amounts presented in a concept paper may be modified in the full application submission.

Question 33: Can the concept paper have sections that are marked confidential or is the intent that no proprietary information should be included in the concept paper response?
Answer 33:

DOE will use data and other information contained in concept papers strictly for evaluation purposes. Applicants should not include confidential, proprietary, or privileged information in their concept papers unless such information is necessary to convey an understanding of the proposed project.

Concept papers containing confidential, proprietary, or privileged information must be marked as described below. Failure to comply with these marking requirements may result in the disclosure of the unmarked information under the Freedom of Information Act or otherwise. The U.S. Government is not liable for the disclosure or use of unmarked information, and may use or disclose such information for any purpose.

Page 1 of the concept paper must be marked as follows and identify the specific pages containing confidential, proprietary, or privileged information:

Notice of Restriction on Disclosure and Use of Data:

Pages [list applicable pages] of this document may contain confidential, proprietary, or privileged information that is exempt from public disclosure. Such information shall be used or disclosed only for evaluation purposes or in accordance with a financial assistance or loan agreement between the submitter and the Government. The Government may use or disclose any information that is not appropriately marked or otherwise restricted, regardless of source.

The header and footer of every page that contains confidential, proprietary, or privileged information must be marked as follows: “Contains Confidential, Proprietary, or Privileged Information Exempt from Public Disclosure.”

In addition, every line and paragraph containing proprietary, privileged, or trade secret information must be clearly marked with double brackets or highlighting.

Question 34: If our proposed project utilized an integrated biorefinery that took raw feedstock in and produced Fischer-Tropsch products out, suitable for final upgrading/hydrotreating to military spec fuels, would this final hydrotreating step need to be done at the biorefinery itself, or could that final step be executed by a third-party vendor on a toll processing basis?
Answer 34:

To be acceptable, the final upgrading/hydrotreating step to a military spec fuel needs to be demonstrated, at least as a test, and the expense for this step included in the pro forma and commercialization plan for the process. Agreement(s) with one or more upgrader(s) would also bolster such an application.

Question 35: Regarding the 1 ton-per-day threshold size for a biorefinery, is this determined by the amount of incoming feedstock; the resultant amount of syngas that is cleaned and converted to fuels, or something else? For example, if a pilot plant could process 5 dry tons of incoming material, but the gas clean-up and GTL systems were sized to take a 10% slipstream of the syngas generated by that 5 tons of material, i.e. syngas from 1,000 pounds or ½ ton, would this qualify due to the 5 tons coming in, or would the gas clean-up and GTL systems need to be doubled in size to be able to take a slipstream of 20% of the syngas to meet the 1 ton threshold?
Answer 35:

The intent of the FOA is to pilot or demonstrate integrated technologies with the goal of making them ready for the next stage of scale-up. While the situation described below may not be optimal, if the application can demonstrate that the riskiest process steps are being demonstrated and integrated at the appropriate scale (in this case 1 tonne per day), it is acceptable to operate other portions of the process at smaller scale provided that they are appropriately integrated with the rest of the system (heat, recycle streams, etc.) Note however that such an application may not score as highly as a similarly meritorious application that proposes to integrate all process steps at the relevant scale.

Question 36: a) Acceptable Lignocellulosic Feedstocks describes the acceptable fraction of an MSW stream as having all recyclables and non-biomass components removed. This definition is highly restrictive and will render use of any MSW-derived feedstock virtually impossible. Would the DOE consider an alternative qualification of an acceptable MSW-derived feedstock along the lines of the definition used by the U.S. Navy in their DPA Title III FOA that still encourages the use of recycling but doesn’t go so far as saying all non-biomass components must be removed? The two more appealing alternative descriptions used by the Navy are: “Biomass that is segregated from municipal solid waste (MSW) or municipal sewage sludge (MSS or “biosolids”) are acceptable feedstocks, so long as appropriate considerations are made for the costs of segregation, collection, processing, and transportation.” ”Biomass that is comprised predominately of the organic fraction of municipal solid waste (MSW), and municipal sewage sludge (MSS or “biosolids”), are acceptable feedstocks, so long as appropriate considerations are made for the costs of segregation, collection, processing, and transportation.” b) Item 15 on page 24 of the FOA suggests that a pro forma is required for the proposed project and the future commercial facility. Is a pro forma required for the proposed project assuming the demonstration of a 1 tonne/day pilot-scale integrated biorefinery? If so, please describe the benefit of compiling a pro forma for this scale of system? c) What rights does the DOE or U.S. government have to equipment purchased with federal project funds after the project is complete? Will the recipient be allowed to retain ownership and unrestricted control of use of this equipment after the project is complete? d) The contingency requirement described in H.(1) on page 15 suggests that contingency funds must be (a) liquid, (b) immediately available, and (c) unrestricted funds. Does this imply that funds must be set aside, in escrow for example, at the start of the project? Is there latitude in this requirement that does not imply an escrow scenario? Does the Contracting Officer have latitude to approve various approaches to satisfying this requirement?
Answer 36:

a) The FOA language regarding acceptable lignocellulosic feedstocks and the acceptable fraction of an MSW stream remains unchanged.

b) Yes. DOE wishes to assess the projected evolution of components of process costs etc. from the current state to the state of commercial readiness.

c) The rules associated with equipment title are specific to the type of organization that is receiving funds under the award, and can be found at : 10 CFR 600.134, 10 CFR 600.232, or 10 CFR 600.321.

d) Prior to the recipient receiving approval from DOE to enter into Budget Period 2, they will need to provide evidence of meeting the contingency requirement. Examples of such evidence include the following: bank statement, letter of credit, escrow account, performance guarantee, or performance bond, all subject to approval by the DOE Contracting Officer.

Question 37: I have a clarifying question regarding the Algae Feedstock Supply Chain section of the concept paper submission for the DOE DE-FOA 0000739. Are you asking for an exlplanation of the process that we are proposing to produce the algal feedstock? Are you asking you asking for the process (or chain) for what we are proposing to do after the feedstock is produced? Or some combination of both? Or something else entirely? We're thinking that the conversion section of the question speaks to what happens after the biomass is produced, but do not want to assume. The "supply chain" language is a little confusing.
Answer 37: All phases of the project to be proposed should be described in the concept paper.

Question 38: Is the Innovative Pilot and Demonstration Scale Production of Advanced Biofuels FOA an opportunity for interested parties to provide details of their demonstration scale biorefineries? Is there any funding available to do the feasibility study necessary to develop these plans?
Answer 38: The intent of this FOA is to identify, evaluate, and select innovative pilot or demonstration scale integrated biorefineriesthat can produce hydrocarbon fuels that meet or are likely to meet military specifications for JP-5 (jet fuel primarily for the Navy), JP-8 (jet fuel primarily for the Air Force), or F-76 (diesel), as fully described in Section I of the FOA. This FOA will allow the funding of new (green-field) pilot or demonstration scale facilities, or the retrofit of existing pilot or demonstration scale facilities, or the continued operation of an existing innovative pilot- or demonstration-scale facility. It is expected that the projects proposed under this FOA will be operational as soon as possible after award. The funding requested should be appropriate for accomplishing the scope of the work proposed. The rules associated with what costs are allowable are specific to the type of organization that is receiving funds under the award, and can be found at : 10 CFR 600.123, 10 CFR 600.224, or 10 CFR 600.313. All costs must be reasonable and allowable pursuant to the applicable cost principles.

Question 39: Does the throughput scale of 1 dry tonne per day for the pilot plant refer to the scale of the equipment or the actual amount of biomass processed per day during pilot-plant operation? That is to say, is it appropriate to design the process and equipment for processing 1/24 dry tonne per hour but to operate the pilot plant 8 hours per day? Or, if we operate the pilot plant for 8 hours per day would we have to process at a feed rate of 3 dry tonnes per day?
Answer 39:

The throughput refers to the scale of the equipment, and should be the feedstock processing capacity if the pilot plant is run for a full 24 hours each day. Note that DOE believes it may be difficult to get representative data appropriate for scale-up (e.g. steady state operation values, catalyst lifetime, etc.) if the pilot plant is only run 8 hours per day.

Question 40: Just as EPA has done for the RFS2 rules and the DOD has done in the context of the USN RFP FOA-12-15-PKM, the DOE has drafted certain criteria that will apply to MSW-derived feedstocks in order for them to be deemed as qualified under the FOA-0000739 program. In the case of the other two agencies, the initial criteria were found to be overly restrictive and the agencies modified them accordingly. We note similar degrees of over restriction in FOA-0000739 and suggest that DOE implement amended criteria. Specific examples of overly restrictive criteria: 1) Remove all recyclable materials - this is highly problematic. First, removing "all" implies the 100.0% removal of certain components from a highly heterogeneous feedstock. this is simply not practical if indeed it were even possible. And there is an open question as to what components constitute "recyclable materials". 2) Remove....all non-biomass materials - again, there is the absolute word "all" and there is no definition of what constitutes a "biomass material". It appears that the intent if this criteria is to limit the inclusion of plastics, glass and metals ( generally considered as recyclable or at least potentially recyclable depending upon local market and regulatory factors). Both RFS2 and the DOD struggled with this issue and modified their criteria to make them less restrictive (referenced below). 3) Both the RFS2 and the DOD programs stipulate feedstock criteria for commercial biofuels operations and so we understand the importance of getting the precedence correct. In the case of the Innovative Pilot program, the actual biofuels volumes produced will be small fractions of the volumes produced under the other two programs. For this reason, we question why the feedstock criteria would need to be any more restrictive than fir the other two programs. Our suggestions for modifications are to do one of the following: 1- Eliminate the need to remove recyclables and non- biomass materials as a criteria for MSW- derived feedstocks because the criteria that will control significant volumes of commercial production will be those contained in the RFS2 rules of the DOD programs. 2- If that is not possible, modify the criteria similar to the way that the DOD has done for the DPA Title III (USN RFP) by requiring the feedstock to be "comprised predominately of the organic fraction of MSW". This seems like a fairly clear and simple approach to allowing some level of non-biomass inclusion in the feedstock. 3- If that is not possible, modify the criteria similar to the way the EPA has done it by simply requiring that reasonably practical steps are taken to remove recyclable materials first. This means that on a site- specific basis, the awardee will need to only remove those recyclable materials that can be shown to be economically feasible to remove. In our opinion, moving forward with the current criteria for MSW-derived feedstocks will render them impossible to include in this program. The potential for using these ubiquitous and problematic materials In US biofuels commercial production is too great to allow exclude them from this important pilot program.Thank you for considering these comments.
Answer 40:

The requirement for MSW-based feedstocks is based on the language in legislation that authorizes the expenditure of funds for this funding opportunity. In practice, it is recognized that absolute, 100% removal of non-organic and/or recyclable material is a practical impossibility and cannot be unconditionally guaranteed. However, both to protect the conversion process and to comply with the intent of the authorizing legislation, the design of the proposed process should make every practical effort to ensure that non-organic and recyclable material is removed.

Question 41: Is a CCR# (and the resulting MPIN) required for submittal of the Concept Paper for DE-FOA-0000739? Or can we obtain a CCR# after we’re notified to proceed with the formal application? As we understand it, the deadline to obtain a CCR# if required for the concept paper may be today
Answer 41:

As stated under “Registration Requirements” in the FOA, the CCR registration is necessary in order for a potential applicant to receive an award under this announcement. Therefore, although not required in order to submit an Application through the EERE Exchange site, all potential applicants lacking a DUNS number, or not yet registered with CCR or FedConnect should complete those registrations as soon as possible.

· As of late July 2012 the Central Contractor Registration (CCR) along with several other Federal procurement systems is being incorporated into a single website called the System for Award Management (SAM). The SAM site is located at https://www.sam.gov/sam/. As the migration of CCR into the SAM website is currently in process, should you be unable to find the CCR website (https://www.ccr.gov/) at its previous location, please use the SAM website in this paragraph.

Question 42: Regarding, fuel certification - can we assume that a materials specification similar to 3.1.1 in MIL-DTL-83133H for JP-8 fuel will be applied to the other fuels, JP-5 and F-76, such that materials like biomass or other materials that are not derived from petroleum-based sources will be permitted for qualification? Otherwise, it would seem that the biomass-based fuels could never qualify as certified regardless of chemical and physical attributes.
Answer 42:

Yes, this is correct. Similar spec will be assumed for JP-5 and F-76.

Question 43: Can the proposer define budget period 1 and budget period 2 as different durations (e.g., 12 months for budget period 1 and 24 months for budget period 2)? Or are the budget period durations pre-defined by the DOE?
Answer 43:

The budget period durations are not pre-defined by DOE. The applicant should propose appropriate durations for each budget period. Please refer to Appendix E of the FOA for a description of the purpose, outcomes, and typical completion requirements for each budget period.

Question 44: In the past, match requirements have been lower for pilot plant projects, as low a 25%. For this FOA the match requirement is at 50% AND there is the 25% contingency funds requirement that seems to be a new requirement. The high match and contingency requirements will be very difficult for small start-up companies trying to develop promising technology. Is there any way to lower the match requirement for a small pilot plant project?
Answer 44: As stated in Section III.B. of the FOA, the cost share requirement for all applicants is 50%.

Question 45: When might we expect notification that we should submit a full proposal.
Answer 45: DOE will review concept papers and provide feedback as quickly as possible. The total time required will depend on the number of concept papers received. It is our intent to provide feedback within 7-10 days.

Question 46: I have submitted the Concept Paper required for this FOA. When and how will I be notified that our Concept Paper is deemed “responsive” and thus prepare for full application submission?
Answer 46: DOE will review concept papers and provide feedback as quickly as possible. The total time required will depend on the number of concept papers received. It is our intent to provide feedback within 7-10 days. Applicants will receive an e-mail notification.

Question 47: For the purposes of GREET calculations, may we use FOB at our IBR or do we need to show shipping it to the closest military base? If the latter, what base should we use if our IBR is located in Los Angeles?
Answer 47:

FOB at the biorefinery plant gate should be assumed for LCA GHG emission calculations.

Question 48: Regarding the requirement to present life-cycle GHG emissions reduction estimates as part of this application, we have two questions. First, can you confirm that you only want us to consider direct GHG emissions and to exclude consideration of indirect emissions? Second, would it in any way enhance our application to have this estimate prepared by a third party entity rather than internally?
Answer 48:

Indirect emissions do not need to be included in the LCA for the proposed process. An outside estimate of GHG emissions is not required and would not be scored more favorably.

Question 49: I request a 2-3 week extension of the deadline for submission of the full application to DE-FOA-0000739 for the following reasons: 1) There is not appear to be adequate time for US DOE to review concept papers and provide feedback on whether the applicant is encouraged to submit a full proposal. Concept papers are due on July 16, 2012 and full applications are due on August 13, 2012. The FOA does not say how long it will take US DOE to evaluate the concept papers. Assuming concept papers can be turned around quickly, say 2 weeks, then applicants only have 2 weeks to prepare a full proposal after being encouraged to submit a full proposal. I suggest both the quantity and quality of proposals received by US DOE will be significantly improved if an extension is granted since applicants will have more time to prepare their proposals using the feedback from the US DOE on their concept papers. 2) The full application deadline of August 13, 2012 coincides with the August 13, 2012 deadline for the DPA Title III solicitation (FOA-12-15-PKM). The Innovative Pilot and DPA Title III solicitations both target the same pool of potential applicants. The co-incidence of deadlines for the two solicitations is unfortunate since it forces applicants to make a choice on which opportunity to pursue. I suggest both the quality and quality of proposals received by US DOE will be significantly improved if an extension is granted since applicants will not be distracted by concurrent preparation of a DPA Title III application.
Answer 49: DOE has issued Modification 000002 to DE-FOA-0000739, which extends the full application due date to September 10, 2012.

Question 50: Where can I go to find information that stipulates the terms and conditions for DOE ownership and/or control right to assets purchased and constructed under this program?
Answer 50:

Please refer to 10 CFR 600. Note that the rules associated with equipment title are specific to the type of organization that is receiving funds under the award, and can be found at : 10 CFR 600.134, 10 CFR 600.232, or 10 CFR 600.321.

Question 51: I had a question regarding the Concept Paper that we have submitted for the DOE Innovative Pilot and Demonstration Scale Production Plant. Upon further review, it was brought to attention that there needs to be an edit made to the opening sentence of the Abstract and the Concept Paper itself. • Is it possible to make the necessary edit now that the document has been submitted? It is a grammatical error but the edit would help the reviewer better understand the purposed project. • Also, is there an approx. date of when comments will be made (i.e. project encouraged, discouraged, request for additional info, etc.)
Answer 51: DOE will not accept changes to concept papers after the deadline to submit has passed. Please see Question/Answer 45 & 46 posted on the eXCHANGE website at: https://eere-exchange.energy.gov/. Please note that you must first select this specific FOA Number in order to view the questions and answers specific to this FOA.

Question 52: I see that the last modification posted online is Modification 2, which lists the deadline as August 13. However, on the EERE website it lists the deadline date as September 10. Can you please clarify the correct date and time for the submission deadline?
Answer 52:

As stated on pages 2-3 of Modification 000002, dated July 18, 2012, the Application Due Date is changed from August 13, 2013 to September 10, 2012, 5:00 PM Eastern Time.

Question 53: What sell price for our fuel do we use in the pro forma? Today's market price or do you have a specific price that we should use for the three fuel types listed in the FOA? If you have a specific price that we should use for these three fuel types, please list them.
Answer 53:

Please use the market price since DoD may not be able to pay above market price for renewable fuels, and in any case, the fuel produced would have to compete in the marketplace. However, the price can factor in the value of RIN credits if it is qualified based on the criteria for RINs.

Question 54: Is the concept paper an absolute requirement? If so, can the deadline be extended? I just found the funding opportunity on Friday July 20, 2012 and searched for a way to get the full announcement.
Answer 54: As stated in Section IV.B.3 of the FOA, a concept paper is required. DOE is not extending the deadline for submission of concept papers.

Question 55: The current FOA DE-FOA-0000739 Modification #2 states that the application due date is September 10, 2012. https://eere-exchange.energy.gov/FileContent.aspx?FileID=8d01fb00-3ad8-4bfb-80b3-c318e07f2863 The current FOA Announcement states that the application due date is August 13, 2012. https://eere-exchange.energy.gov/Default.aspx#FoaId4fc2a5ec-3cc0-4c58-8e51-8768ef965113 Also, what is the solicitation number that will work on the FedBizOpps.gov site. All I can find is: Advanced Drop-in Bio Fuels Production Project Solicitation Number: FOA-12-15-PKM Agency: Department of the Air Force Office: Air Force Materiel Command Location: AFRL Wright Research Site Contracting This is a different program that the Innovative Pilot. Please clarify.
Answer 55:

Please refer to Question/Answer 52 posted on the eXCHANGE website at: https://eere-exchange.energy.gov/.

This Funding Opportunity Announcement (FOA) is not posted on FedBizOpps as the FOA is for financial assistance. FedBizOpps posts opportunities for procurement/acquisition activities, not financial assistance.

Question 56: We are in the process of obtaining our letters of commitment from several public and private entities. However, we may not receive them before the August 13th deadline? How will the absence of these letters affect the outcome of our proposal?
Answer 56:

The deadline has been extended; please refer to Mod 000002 and Question/Answer 52 posted on the eXCHANGE website at: https://eere-exchange.energy.gov/.

Letters of commitment are required as stated in Section IV.C.4 of the FOA. As stated in Section V.A.1 of the FOA, In order for a submittal to be deemed responsive, all applicable documents in Section IV.C, “Summary of Required Forms/Files,” must be complete. Incomplete forms will not be counted as a submittal and the application may be deemed non-responsive and eliminated from full Merit Review.

Question 57: What degree of financial leverage should we assume for constructing the proforma for our commercial BTL facility?
Answer 57: When completing the pro forma for the projected commercial plant, please use the financing structure that you anticipate for the facility based on your experience and common commercial practice.

Question 58: Does the Project Summary/Abstract File required as a part of the application have to be identical to the Abstract that was submitted with the Concept Paper (which may not be changed, per Response to FAQ 51) or are they recognized as separate, independent documents?
Answer 58: They are recognized as separate, independent documents. However, the technology, feedstock, etc. proposed in the full application should not be radically different from the concept paper.

Question 59: For technologies proposing to use algae as a biocatalyst with a CO2 feedstock (carbon source), which Tab in the Technical and Financial Data Spreadsheet should be used? It seems that neither “KPPs for natural oils-algae” nor “KPPs for heterotrophic algae” are fully applicable to such a technology.
Answer 59: We recognize that some processes might not fit precisely into these categories. For this particular case, we suggest that the KPP for heterotrophic algae be modified as needed and used for the response.

Question 60: When will DOE provide comments on the submitted concept papers?
Answer 60: DOE released comments regarding the submitted concept papers on 7/31/12. Applicants should have received an e-mail notice from the Exchange system stating: “This is notification that you are now able to view the status of your Concept Paper online. Concept Paper control number: 0739-XXXX”.

Question 61: I have encountered a small business that has a uniquely cost-effective process to turn biogas (from wastewater treatment plants, landfills and agriculture operations) directly into gasoline, which could be blended to create the required jet fuel. There is no plant/algae-based feedstock. Would this technology be eligible for this funding opportunity?
Answer 61: The Funding Opportunity Announcement (FOA) posted at EERE eXCHANGE is comprehensive and designed to allow prospective applicants to assess their proposed projects versus the requirements and criteria of the FOA. We cannot predetermine the suitability or viability of a proposal in advance of the merit review process. It is up to prospective applicants to review the requirements of the FOA and assess the merits of their proposed project to determine whether to submit an application.

Question 62: Will DOE reduce the CO2 feedstock requirement in Topic Area 2 from 1 MT per day to 0.1 MT per day?
Answer 62: No, DOE will not change the requirement at this time. It is up to the Applicant to decide whether or not their system/technology can meet the FOA requirements for pilot scale as defined in the FOA.

Question 63: Section I.C.3 of the FOA says that “For applications proposing use of CO2 as source of carbon for fuels and proposing to initially use a fossil based CO2 stream, the applicant must … propose a credible path to the use of renewable CO2. This must include sourcing of renewable derived CO2 for credible testing as part of the proposed project and an economically-viable source of Hydrogen or other inputs.” While Appendix G addresses some questions that pertain to sources of CO2 that are acceptable in algae based projects, it does not seem to clarify what type of projects the above requirement applies to. Do the requirements to “propose a credible path to the use of renewable CO2” and “sourcing of renewable derived CO2” apply to technologies that are specifically targeted at using CO2 from industrial waste flue gas streams? If yes, what is the definition of “renewable CO2” or “renewable derived CO2”?
Answer 63: The requirements to “propose a credible path to the use of renewable CO2” and “sourcing of renewable derived CO2” does not apply to technologies that are specifically targeted at using CO2 from industrial waste flue gas streams.

Question 64: The pro forma instructions assumption for product pricing is "2.5 cents per 1000 BTU, low heating value, 2009 dollars (Lines 44-47)", but the answer to Question 53 says to use market price. But there is no clear definition or reference for consistency (national or local average, last DOD price paid, date, etc.). What specific product pricing would you like?
Answer 64:

The product pricing to be used should be as stated in Question/Answer #53. Applicants are asked to identify their source of market price data. While there are many sources of data, a national average wholesale fuel price derived from the Energy Information Administration or a comparable source would be an appropriate benchmark.

Question 65: Given that the due date of DE-FOA-0000739 has been extended to September 10, 2012, 5:00 PM Eastern Time, we respectfully request that the concept paper deadline for DE-FOA-0000739 is also extended to August 10, 2012 5:00 PM Eastern Time. Thank you for your consideration.
Answer 65: The deadline for concept papers will not be extended.

Question 66: We are pulling together the Innovative Pilot grant application package for a client. Per our review of the RFP, there is confusion regarding the budget periods. The instruction to budget file SF 424 A Excel states that You must provide a separate budget for each year of support requested and a cumulative budget for the total project period. Use the SF 424 A Excel, “Budget Information – Non Construction Programs” form on the EERE Exchange website. The SF424A provides columns for each individual budget-year as well as the cumulative project-budget. However, Period of Performance states that As indicated above in Section II.A, each project is expected to have two budget periods. The second budget period will be contingent upon satisfactory (including timely) performance of the preceding budget period as determined by DOE’s assessment of go/no go criteria negotiated for each award. The project our client is proposing is a three-year project. To complete the budget file SF 424 A Excel , what are our client's budget periods for the purpose of grant application? Should we prepare a separate budget for each of the three years or just for the first two years? We understand that a cumulative budget is needed for the 3-year project period. Please provide more clarafication regarding the budget periods.
Answer 66:

As stated in Section IV.C.6 of the FOA, please prepare a separate budget for each of the three years, as well as a cumulative budget for the total project period. Budget periods will be negotiated with those entities selected for award.

Question 67: Section 3.C. states: "The Applicant’s cost share requirement will be based on the total project cost including the Applicant’s and the FFRDC contractor’s portions of the effort, if any. FFRDC private contractor, academic, industry, or other non-federal sources may be utilized for cost share as appropriate." Our proposal involves a pilot location at the U.S. Air Force Academy (USAFA). Please confirm that USAFA contributions such as a building, land, laboratory facilities, staff contributions (engineering, facilities, environmental, and researchers) are eligible for inclusion in the cost share?
Answer 67:

Please refer to Section III.B. and Appendix C of the FOA (Cost Share Information). Cost share contributions must meet the criteria as stated in 10 CFR 600.30. The rules associated with what is allowable as cost share are specific to the type of organization that is receiving funds under the grant or cooperative agreement, and can be found at: 10 CFR 600.123, 10 CFR 600.224, or 10 CFR 600.313. Additionally, all costs must be reasonable and allowable pursuant to the applicable cost principles.

Question 68: We’re in the process of filling out form SF-424 and had a question pertaining to questions 13 & 19 13. is there and applicable Competition Identification Number/Title? Enter the Competition Identification Number and title of the competition under which assistance is requested, if applicable. As we understand it, Oklahoma does not have a Single Point of Contact (SPOC) for guidance on this question * 19. Is Application Subject to Review By State Under Executive Order 12372 Process? a. This application was made available to the State under the Executive Order 12372 Process for review on . b. Program is subject to E.O. 12372 but has not been selected by the State for review. c. Program is not covered by E.O. 12372.
Answer 68:

Answer regarding Box 13 of the SF-424: Item #13 may be left blank.

Answer regarding Box 19 of the SF-424: As stated in Section IV.F. of the FOA, “This program is not subject to Executive Order 12372 - Intergovernmental Review of Federal Programs.”

Question 69: Is there any restriction on indirect rate within the budget section? Is there any restriction on hourly rate for consultants?
Answer 69:

The FOA does not include restrictions on indirect rate or hourly rates for consultants. As stated in Section IV.C. 6. of the FOA, all costs must be necessary to perform the proposed work, meet all the criteria for allowability under the applicable Federal cost principles, and are not prohibited by the funding restrictions in this announcement (See Section IV.G). In order to be allowable, costs must be allocable to the effort, reasonable, and meet the applicable Federal cost principles referenced in: 2 CFR 220 for Educational Institutions; 2 CFR 225 for State, Local, and Indian Tribal Governments; 2 CFR 230 for Non Profit Organizations and FAR Part 31 for commercial organizations.

Question 70: In the proposal is the DOE requiring the life cycle be complete and shown or is DOE requiring that the method for doing the life cycle be presented?
Answer 70:

As noted in Section IV.C.17 of the FOA document: “Applicants to this FOA must present life-cycle Greenhouse Gas (GHG) emission reduction estimates for the proposed biofuel production technologies relative to petroleum based jet and diesel fuels.” Additional information and potential resources for preforming the estimate are also contained in this section.

Question 71: a. Do you have a web link or reference document on the amount of CO2 emitted by the DoD as a whole, by Branch or better yet, by Installation? We have been unable to find a complete reference. b. The FOA states: " For the purpose of this FOA, a pilot-scale integrated biorefinery is defined as a facility with a throughput of no less than one (1) dry tonne of feedstock per day. A demonstration-scale integrated biorefinery is defined as a facility with a throughput of no less than fifty (50) dry tonnes of feedstock per day." Our proposal uses CO2 from existing point sources. How many tonnes of CO2 must be converted to fuel for the "pilot" and "demonstration" plants to meet the above requirements of (1) dry tonne of feed stock per day and fifty (50) dry tonnes of feedstock per day? c. The FOA states: For applications proposing use of CO2 as source of carbon for fuels and proposing to initially use a fossil based CO2 stream, the applicant must indicate a significant reduction in GHG as compared to petroleum derived fuels ." Please provide a reliable reference for the amount of CO2 that comes from petroleum derived fuels?
Answer 71:

a. We do not have a reference for DoD CO2 emissions.

b. As noted in Section I.C.3. of the FOA and in Appendix G, if applicable, the pilot scale facility should be able to process 1 tonne per day of CO2 and a demonstration scale facility should process 50 tonnes per day of CO2.

c. Petroleum CO2 emission factors can be found in this report published by the National Energy Technology Laboratory http://www.netl.doe.gov/energy-analyses/refshelf/PubDetails.aspx?Action=View&PubId=204.

Question 72: Can the lead organization on the full application be changed to one of the other partners in lieu of the organization that submitted in the Concept Letter?
Answer 72:

No, the applicant of the full proposal must be the same entity that submitted the concept paper. Section IV.B.3. of the FOA states “Applicants who fail to submit the required concept paper by 5:00 PM ET July 16, 2012 will not be eligible to submit a full application to this FOA.”

Question 73: Can you provide the spec for JP-8 including the additives? The spec should include not only constituents but their representative % by weight or volume.
Answer 73:

The MIL-SPECs are: JP-5 is MIL-DTL-5624, JP-8 is MIL-DTL-83133, and F-76 is MIL-DTL-16884. There are several open source references for the biofuel approval/certification process, including MIL-HDBK-510-1A and ASTM D4054-09.

Question 74: Page 26 of the funding opportunity announcement states "a pro forma must be completed for the proposed project and the future commercial facility." The pro forma templates provided for both the pilot plant and the commercial-scale plant include data for 10-years of operation. If the pilot plant will be operating for less than 10-years, should the pilot plant pro forma show numbers for a) only for its years of operation, or b) for its years of operation and an estimates for additional years (up to 10) as if the pilot plant would operate for 10 years?
Answer 74:

The “Proposed Project” tab of the pro forma for the pilot (or demonstration) plant should be completed only for the years of operation. The “Future Commercial” tab of the pro forma for the pilot (or demonstration) plant should be completed for the entire anticipated period of commercial operation.

Question 75: There are several existing tax credits available for investments in "green" programs. Specific to this FOA, is there a reference you can supply that provides the tax laws applicable to investing in an biofuel plant for this program.
Answer 75: No, the DOE cannot provide guidance on tax laws.

Question 76: Our question relates to the techfindata sheet for the full proposal. Essentially our proposal is to use our residual biomass to produce distillate range fuels (diesel and jet). We believe the value in this is the integration with our Direct To Ethanol technology. The combined process would produce, diesel and jet, but also ethanol and bio-methane. We plan to address all of this in the value proposition and the LCA. Question: can we modify the techfindata sheet to reflect the entire integrated process, i.e. diesel, jet, ethanol and methane? If we only address diesel and jet but have to carry all the CAPEX and OPEX the sheet will not make any sense. Please advise.
Answer 76: Yes.

Question 77: In the FOA, it says “Expected run time for the purposes of data gathering is on the order of 1000 hours or other period documented by the recipient as being necessary in order to proceed to demonstration or commercialization.” If we are planning to run the complete integrated process from raw biomass to finished product in multiple trains or staged runs (for reasons of saving cost for the project and for the government), will the required total runtime hours be the time of each integrated process times the number of total runs or will it be elapsed time from start to finish? That is, will 12 complete process runs of 85 hours be sufficient, even if some of them occur simultaneously?
Answer 77: The desired run time is as stated. That is, the time required to attract or substantiate investment in commercialization of the selected process. Ideally documented by letters from potential investors.

Question 78: In order to preserve the confidential nature of its rates, etc., may a subcontractor submit its SF424A and PMC123.1 forms directly to the DOE Exchange via email and just provide the prime (who may be a potential future competitor) with totals for its submittal? Thank you.
Answer 78: Subrecipients are allowed to send budget documents directly to DOE at InnovativePilot@go.doe.gov. In the e-mail, clearly identify the EERE eXCHANGE Control Number, application title, the prime applicant, and the topic. Subrecipients should provide enough information to the prime applicant so that they can fully complete their budget documents (i.e., DOE share, non-DOE share, cost share provided by the subrecipient).

Question 79: There is a specific requirement for the feedstock volume of 1 MT per day. Is there a specific requirement for the minimum amount of fuel that must be processed to final stage? In particular, do we have to process all the algal oil produced into final fuels or just a representative amount which can be tested by DOE (e.g., 100 gallons)
Answer 79: Please refer to the first paragraph in Section I.B regarding the primary product.

Question 80: Can another partner organization (not included in the concept paper) be added to the final proposal? Can the budget be modified?
Answer 80:

Yes, another partner organization may be added to the final proposal. Yes, the budget submitted in the concept paper may be modified for submission in the full application. The full application budget must meet all requirements as stated in the FOA.

Question 81: 1) Whether the "discouraged" status of the concept paper will be counted as a "negative" point by the reviewers while reviewing the full proposal? If the applicant reviewed the concept paper and acted on the available comments provided by DoE, and significantly improved the approach accordingly - will that applicant be considered as equal to an applicant whose concept paper received "encouraged" status while reviewing the full proposal. 2) In the past, were there any cases where applicants with a "discouraged" concept paper status submitted full application and were successful in obtaining the funding? If yes, how many such cases?
Answer 81:

1) Full applications will be reviewed and evaluated based on the criteria listed in Section V.A. of the FOA. “Encourage/Discourage” status of the concept paper is not a review criteria for full applications.

2) The Biomass Program has not used concept papers in solicitations in the recent past. This information is not readily available for other programs.

Question 82: Can letters in support of a project be submitted even though the authoring organization is not included in the budget (federal or cost share) request? To whom should those letters as well as the letters of commitment be addressed? Should they be attached in the narrative file?
Answer 82:

Please reference Section IV.C.4. of the FOA for information regarding Letters of Commitment. These letters must be attached as an Appendix to the Project Narrative File and do not count towards the Project Narrative page limit. Letters of Commitment from parties participating in the project, exclusive of vendors, who will not be contributing cost share, but will be integral to the success of the project must be included as part of this Appendix to the Narrative.

Other Letters of Support may be included, but should be part of the Project Narrative File, and will count towards the Project Narrative page limit identified in Section IV.C.3. of the FOA.

All letters should be addressed to: DOE Contracting Officer/DE-FOA-0000739.

Question 83: There is reference to a Project Narrative Cover Sheet Template in the solicitation, but no template can be found. Can information be provided, as to what should be on the Narrative Cover Sheet?
Answer 83: The Project Narrative Cover Sheet can be found on the EERE eXCHANGE website, under DE-FOA-0000739, and then “Required Application documents”.

Question 84: Is it acceptable to include an additional collaborator in the full application if the entity was not identified in the concept paper? In this instance, the collaborator is a large multi-national corporation that will not be receiving any funds from DOE but will provide an important contribution to the project.
Answer 84: Yes, this is acceptable.

Question 85: Will DOE allow any additional preparation time for applicants who are affected by Hurricane Issac? One of our partner companies in Louisiana will be shutting down as they prepare their homes and businesses for this natural disaster. We will not know how long they will not be operational until the storm passes and damage is assessed.
Answer 85: At this time DOE is not extending the due date for applications. Once the hurricane has passed, and damage has been assessed, potential applicants may request that DOE reconsider this decision.

Question 86: Regarding preparation of SF-424A, what values or information should be entered in Section A, column (a), “Grant Program Function or Activity” and Section A, column (b), “Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Number”?
Answer 86:

(a) is “Renewable Energy Research & Development” and (b) is “81.087”.

Question 87: A third party project partner is providing in-kind cost share in the form of labor, the value of which exceeds $100,000. Section IV.C.8 provides one definition of a subawardee as “expected to perform work estimated to be more than $100,000.” Does our partner meet the criteria of a subawardee? . . . or is the definition dependent on receiving more than $100,000 of federal funds? Please clarify.
Answer 87: It is the nature of the agreement and the work, not the dollar value, that determines whether an entity is a subawardee or a vendor. Generally, a subawardee has responsibility for programmatic decision making, contributes to the accomplishments of the project objectives, and carries out a program of the organization as compared to providing goods or services for a program of the pass-through entity. A vendor typically provides goods and services within normal business operations, provides similar goods or services to many different purchasers, and operates in a competitive environment. The goods and services are ancillary to the operation of the Federal program.

Question 88: Do applicants need to submit to DOE a formal indirect rate proposal justifying the proposed indirect rate at the time of proposal submission? Or can this be submitted after selection for negotiation?
Answer 88:

As stated in Section IV.D. of the FOA, “If selected for negotiation of an award, DOE reserves the right to request additional or clarifying information for any reason deemed necessary, including, but not limited to: indirect cost information…”.

Applicants do not need to submit an indirect rate proposal with the full application.

Question 89: In the Upload and Submit tab for the Full Application it is not clear how to upload multiple subawardee SF-424A or Detailed Budget Justification Documents. Are each of these two documents supposed to include the information from multiple subawardees?
Answer 89: You may upload additional SF424A and Detailed Budget Documents for subrecipients by using the Upload Additional Files option at the bottom of the “Upload and Submit” tab. Do not combine multiple subrecipient documents into one file.

Question 90: Exchange will not take our cost share numbers in the Non-Federal Share block on the Funds and Costs Tab. I can, however, put proposed numbers in the Federal Share block. It appears the application will upload now, but it will show all funds coming from DOE, which is not our intent. Does it matter that Exchange will not show our proposed cost share amounts and percentages? (Note: our application budget forms 424A will, of course, show the proposed cost share.) Thanks.
Answer 90:

You are correct that Exchange will not accept any entry into the Non-Federal Share block. This is due to current system functionality for this FOA. Please enter your proposed Federal Share for each Budget Period for the project. Your submitted application documents must detail both Federal and Non-Federal share for the entire project period, and meet all stated requirements of the FOA.

Question 91: In the Innovative Pilot FOA, it stated DOE's intention to notify applicants selected for negotiation by September 21 (when the FOA was due 8/13). Because the application due date was extended to 9/10, when should applicants be notified and awards announced?
Answer 91:

DOE anticipates notifying applicants selected for negotiation of an award no later than January 2013.

Question 92: Can you please confirm that the “Innovative Pilot and demonstration-scale production” DOE funding program is still in effect with the passing of “The American Taxpayer Relief Act of 2012.” I read that the Act excludes funding for energy title programs.
Answer 92: Yes, the “Innovative Pilot and Demonstration-scale Production of Advanced Biofuels” DOE funding program is still in effect.

Question 93: I thought I would touch base regarding the status of our Grant application for DE-FOA-0000739. Appreciate any update on expected timing for notification.
Answer 93: DOE is finalizing the selection process and will make announcements in the near future.

Question 94: Is there any possibility to know whether we have been selected please? Under the program we have cost share on DoE program funds and so the sooner we know the better please.
Answer 94:

DOE anticipates notifying applicants selected for negotiation of an award by April 5, 2013.

Question 95: I had heard that another 20 million was to be made available for this FOA for 2013. However, there is no 2013 deadline posted. I was wondering whether or not there will be a new round of applications.
Answer 95: At this time there is not another round of applications planned.

Question 96: Is it accurate to conclude that if we were not contacted by the DOE by April 5th regarding our proposal under this FOA that our project was not selected? If so, is there a path to receive feedback regarding the ranking and comments associated with our proposal? Thanks.
Answer 96:

No. Selections from this FOA have not been announced yet. DOE anticipates making announcements within the next few weeks.

Question 97: I saw the announcement about the projects selected for award under the Innovative Pilot Program. {Entity name} did not receive a letter of rejection. Should we expect this letter in the near future?
Answer 97:

Yes, all applicants will be notified of their status in the near future.

Question 98: On 4/22/13 EERE issued a press release announcing four winners of a solicitation for pilot plants for military biofuels. Is this the same solicitation as last year’s DOE FOA (DE-FOA-0000739), “Innovative Pilot and Demonstration Scale Production of Advanced Biofuels”?
Answer 98: Yes.

Frequently Asked Questions