EERE eXCHANGE: FAQs

Question 1: In the FOA, under Topic 3, it reads “Applicants are encouraged to take advantage of synergistic collaborative research opportunities through R&D initiatives supported by federal agencies outside of DOE EERE, including (but not limited to) NSF, the DOE Office of Science, and ARPA-E.” Would the recently posted NSF solicitation titled “NSF/DOE PARTNERSHIP ON ADVANCED FRONTIERS IN RENEWABLE HYDROGEN FUEL PRODUCTION VIA SOLAR WATER SPLITTING TECHNOLOGIES 2014-2016” be considered a “synergistic collaborative research opportunity”?
Answer 1:

Yes, the NSF Solicitation referenced, which can be found at http://www.nsf.gov/funding/pgm_summ.jsp?pims_id=504959 presents synergistic collaborative research opportunities with Topic 3.

Question 2: The FOA states the Average Award Amount $1M to $3M. Is this per year or over a 36 month period?
Answer 2: The awards are expected to last for 36 months for a total of $1-3M per project. Please see Section II. Award Information, A. Award Overview of the of the Funding Opportunity Announcement.

Question 3: Is ____________ Lab (name removed for PII protection) exempt from cost share for Topic 3?
Answer 3: In accordance with the Cost Share Waiver granted by the Assistant Secretary for EERE for this FOA, the following Recipients and Sub-Recipients that receive funding under this FOA are eligible for a waiver of the cost share requirements for projects under Topic 3 “Hydrogen production through direct solar water-splitting technologies: Advanced materials-based systems for direct solar water splitting for central or semi-central production of low-cost renewable hydrogen”: Institutions of Higher Education, U.S. National Laboratories, Federally Funded Research and Development Centers (FFRDCs) and non-profit organizations (as defined in 10 CFR 600.3). Note that the waiver applies only to the work and budget of these four types of organizations, and not to the work and budgets of other team member organizations who are not included in the waiver. Each for-profit entity is responsible only for its own required cost share. Please refer to Section III. Eligibility Information, B. Cost Sharing of the Funding Opportunity Announcement.

Question 4: Would this announcement cover research development involved in storage of H2, e.g., incorporating H2 in metals/alloys to form and characterize their hydrides using high P-T techniques?
Answer 4: No, please refer to Section I. Funding Opportunity Description, C. Topic Areas/Technical Areas of Interest of the Funding Opportunity Announcement.

Question 5: Does the R&D program have an interest for applications that address methods to eliminate hydrogen embrittlement?
Answer 5: There is interest in the FCTO’s Hydrogen Production and Delivery Program to address hydrogen embrittlement. However, this Funding Opportunity is not soliciting proposals in this area. Please refer to Section I. Funding Opportunity Description, C. Topic Areas/Technical Areas of Interest.

Question 6: Will applications on H2 storage and separation materials to be used in Fuel cell electric vehicles be accepted for this FOA?
Answer 6: No, please refer to please refer to Section I. Funding Opportunity Description, C. Topic Areas/Technical Areas of Interest.

Question 7: Topic Area 3 asks for applications for R&D at TRL 2-3 per Appendix C. Appendix C describes TRL 3 in part as follows: "Components of the technology are validated, but there is no strong attempts to integrate the components into a complete system." However, Topic 3 also requires "demonstration of 8 hours of continuous operation in sunlight (or simulated AM1.5-standard sunlight) with a cumulative production of at least 3 standard liters of H2." Is the demonstration of a completely integrated system, from sunlight to hydrogen, required, or can subsystems be demonstrated individually and at different locations?
Answer 7: The hydrogen production subsystem would need to demonstrate 8 hours of continuous operation in sunlight (or simulated AM1.5-standard sunlight) with a cumulative production of at least 3 standard liters of H2. This demonstration must be consistent with, and/or include simulations of expected operating conditions of the remaining subsystems of the proposed cycle and should be described in the concept paper as well as in the full proposal.

Question 8: With regard to Topic Area 1, it states a goal of reducing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions by 50% compared to methane steam reforming. If the proposed process produces a pure CO2 stream ready for sequestration, would this CO2 count as a GHG?
Answer 8: Yes, a pure CO2 stream would be considered a GHG.

Question 9: In relation to Section I-D. "Applications specifically not of interest," for Topic Area 3, one of the items not of interest is "applications that propose integrated conventional PV." Does this statement preclude the use of conventional p-n or p-i-n junction PV components that are integrated into a hybrid photoelectrode configuration in which the conventional PV component is combined in series with a photoelectrode component? Or was the intent to discourage the use of pure PV electrolysis devices in which only PV components are used without any photoelectrode(s)?
Answer 9: Yes, the intent is to discourage systems which consist of some combination of conventional stand-alone solar-to-electric photovoltaic sub-process unit(s) with stand-alone electric-to-hydrogen electrolyzer sub-process unit(s). Processes to be considered include those based on “wide-bandgap semiconductor materials systems” which provide appropriate energetic separation of photo-generated holes and electrons to effectively split water. Such materials systems could include tandem configurations of semiconductors (conventional or otherwise) provided that the net energetic separation is sufficient for water splitting.

Question 10: In the description of Topic Area 3, it is stated that processes to be considered include “photoelectrochemical processes based on wide-bandgap semiconductor materials systems." It would be greatly appreciated if the meaning of "wide bandgap" were clarified. Furthermore, does the use of a "wide" bandgap PV component in a hybrid tandem photoelectrode device permit the use of a "narrow" bandgap semiconductor as the photoelectrode component assuming that they can achieve the voltage necessary to split water?
Answer 10: Processes to be considered include those based on “wide-bandgap semiconductor materials systems” which provide appropriate energetic separation of photo-generated holes and electrons to effectively split water. Such materials systems could include tandem configurations of semiconductors provided that the net energetic separation is sufficient for water splitting.

Question 11: Would you accept a hybrid approach for Topic Area 2 that involved biological and electrothermal chemical and/or thermochemical?
Answer 11: As long as the requirements stated in the Topic description are met, this would be considered responsive.

Question 12: If a solar thermochemical cycle (Topic Area 3) has multiple steps, and the direct solar-driven step is not the hydrogen-generating step, does the FOA require direct integrated operation in order to meet the requirement for a demonstration of 8 hours of continuous hydrogen production in sunlight. Alternatively, could the hydrogen step be conducted separately as long as the interface conditions between steps is maintained? Since the FOA asked for R&D at TRL 2-3, it would seem that integrated system operation would not be required.
Answer 12: No, integrated operation is not required. However, consistent with the topic requirements, the hydrogen production subsystem would need to demonstrate 8 hours of continuous operation in sunlight (or simulated AM1.5-standard sunlight) with a cumulative production of at least 3 standard liters of H2. This demonstration must be consistent with, and/or include simulations of expected operating conditions of the remaining subsystems of the proposed cycle and should be described in the concept paper as well as in the full proposal.

Question 13: Regarding Topic Area 3: Hydrogen production through direct solar water-splitting technologies. Should the scope of a proposed project be focused on purely scientific and material developments? Or can we focus on new hydrogen production system development based on new material (i.e., engineering sound project)?
Answer 13: Materials and systems capable of meeting the topic requirements will be considered responsive.

Question 14: Would an integrated/hybrid process involving biomass gasification and natural gas be considered responsive to Topic Area 1?
Answer 14: Yes, provided the proposed system has the potential to meet the Topic Area requirements.

Question 15: Our partner is investigating H2 production via gasification. We intend, in partnership with this company, to propose work that looks at syn-gas clean-up where the syn-gas is derived from renewables. Is this activity within the scope of this FOA?
Answer 15: No, Topic Area 1 requires a hybrid system using natural gas.

Question 16: Under Topic Area 3 the FOA states that, “Production pathways to be considered under the direction of the FCTO are photoelectrochemical processes based on wide-bandgap semiconductor materials systems…” Iso-efficiency contour plots of stacked tandem PEC electrodes indicate the optimum bandgap combination to achieve nearly 30% STH is 1.6eV(top)/0.95eV(bottom). In this case, does the “wide-bandgap” restriction only apply to the top junction, and is 1.6eV sufficiently wide?
Answer 16: Processes to be considered include those based on “wide-bandgap semiconductor materials systems” which provide appropriate energetic separation of photo-generated holes and electrons to effectively split water. Such materials systems could include tandem configurations of semiconductors provided that the net energetic separation is sufficient for water splitting.

Question 17: Should we plan to submit resumes in a one-page format, as specified on pg. 29, or two-page resumes as specified on pg. 24?
Answer 17: Resumes are to be a maximum of two pages. Please submit one-page resumes, with a max of two pages, for all key participants.

Question 18: When submitting the Concept Paper in response to this FOA are we required to have an Authorized Organizational Representative (AOR) signature at time of submission?
Answer 18:

An Authorized Organizational Representative (AOR) not required for the Concept Paper submission; however, all potential applicants are required to be registered in the System for Award Management (SAM) in order to submit an application. The AOR is the business contact listed in the SAM system.

Question 19: Is the DE-FOA-0000826 grant to develop a concept/prototype for producing hydrogen at $2-$4/gallon or a fully functional plant?
Answer 19: The produced hydrogen cost goal is <$2/gallon of gas equivalent H2. The requirements of the proposals are defined in each Topic Description. The demonstration production volume requirements are 20 kg/day H2, 2 kg/day H2 and 3 standard liters/H2 in 8 hours for Topics 1, 2, and 3 respectively. Therefore, these would be prototypes, not fully functional plants, but in all cases a pathway scalable to the volume required in each Topic description (at least 1,000 kg H2/day for Topics 1 and 2 and at least 50,000 kg H2/day for Topic 3) should be defined.

Question 20: Could you please confirm the possible eligibility of the following technology? The proposed project would be to operate our 10 kw electrolyzer (or a larger size if desired) in an appropriate industrial environment and verify its potential to meet the DOE stated goals if our was scaled to an appropriate size, e.g., 0.5 to 1 MW, or 200 to 400 kg of hydrogen per day depending on the duty cycle and operating parameters.
Answer 20: No, this does not fall within the Scope of this FOA and would be considered non-responsive. From Section I.A. of the FOA “Electrolysis and biomass gasification have been prior focus areas in the Program and are not being solicited in the current FOA. Future R&D FOAs are anticipated in additional topic areas pending results of upcoming workshops and information requests from relevant stakeholders.”

Question 21: While submitting the concept paper, do we need to have a control number? In page 22 of FOA, it says “control number must be displayed on the upper right corner of the header of every page”. However, in page 24 (section D), it says “applicants will receive a control number upon submission of their concept paper”. Can you clarify whether we need control number or not for the concept paper?
Answer 21: Yes, you need a control number for the Concept Paper. To gain access to the EERE eXCHANGE, the applicant must first register and create an account on the main EERE eXCHANGE site. This account will then allow the user to register for any open EERE FOAs that are currently in eXCHANGE. Access the desired FOA eXCHANGE and click “Apply.” Fill in the information required to submit a concept paper and click submit. You will then receive a control number. Please use this number on your Concept Paper document.

Question 22: We have an advanced, very compact, and low-cost natural gas reformer technology that scales well and will be high efficiency even at low H2 production rates. However, to achieve the requested 50% reduction in GHG’s compared to conventional SMR, we have to rely in part on a switch to renewable bio-methane (from anaerobic digester gas, landfills, etc.) Is a system considered responsive to the FOA even if the GHG reduction is coming primarily from the switch to a renewable fuel (such as renewable bio-methane)? “Would renewable bio-methane be considered as contributing zero (or near zero) GHG emissions for the purposes of the call’s GHG reduction requirements?”
Answer 22: Yes, this would be considered responsive to the FOA.

Question 23: Can confidential information be included in concept paper? If so, do we need to mark the concept paper confidential per the instructions provided in Section VIII.D. on pages 52/53 of FOA-826?
Answer 23:

You may submit confidential information in your Concept Paper. However, EERE may publish or release additional information, as required by law or as appropriate. To safeguard your trade secret, privileged, and confidential information, we strongly encourage you to comply with the marking requirements stated in the Funding Opportunity Announcement.

Question 24: If a concept paper submitted to this FOA is encouraged to submit a full application can the prime or subcontractors be changed, as long as the concept and primary staff remain the same?
Answer 24: If selected for award, the subcontractor participation and involvement can be negotiated during the award negotiation phase. However, please be advised that potential subcontractors may have significant influence on the merit review of the application. Please see Section V. Application Review Information, A. Technical Review Criteria, Criterion 3: Team and Resources (20%). Changes in your team may jeopardize the merit of the project. Also, please be advised that any changes in subcontractor participation must be approved by the awarding agency.

Question 25: Can a subcontractor or sub recipient receive profit under a contract issued to a prime on this FOA?
Answer 25: No. For financial assistance agreements, profit is an unallowable project cost for the Prime applicant and subrecipients. Profit must be excluded from total project costs.

Question 26: Does the 15-page limit for the technical volume include the cover page?
Answer 26: Yes.

Question 27: Where does the bibliography/references cited section go? Does it count within the 15-page limit?
Answer 27: The Technical Volume to the Full Application may not be more than 15 pages, including the cover page, table of contents, and all citations, charts, graphs, maps, photos, or other graphics.

Question 28: The weightings of the evaluation criteria on pp. 26-28 of the solicitation are different from the weightings on pp. 37-39. Which is correct?
Answer 28: The percentages listed in the table on 26-28 are the suggested amounts of the total 15 pages of technical volume that should be used for each section. For example, 10% for the project overview correlates to 1.5 pages of the total technical volume. These are suggested percentages and are not required. The weightings on pages 37-39 are related to the evaluation criteria and how the proposals will be evaluated during the review. The proposals will be evaluated based on all 3 criteria with each criteria holding the specified weight for this FOA.

Question 29: In the FOA, under Topic 3, it reads “Applicants are encouraged to take advantage of synergistic collaborative research opportunities through R&D initiatives supported by federal agencies outside of DOE EERE." The recent NSF/DOE solicitation for renewable hydrogen production (NSF 14-511) is one such opportunity. If a university partner plans to respond to the NSF solicitation and perform collaborative research that supports a proposal under Topic 3 to the DOE Hydrogen Production FOA, how should this be indicated in the FOA proposal? Should the university be included as a sub-recipient in the proposal, or should they assume that the funding will come thru an NSF grant?
Answer 29: The university should be included as a potential collaborator assuming they are selected by NSF. Funding should be assumed to come from the NSF grant and not included in the budget for this FOA.

Question 30: We have not heard a response regarding our pre-application concept paper. When will DOE give us a determination if we are encouraged to submit a full application?
Answer 30: The encourage and discourage notifications will be sent out by December 20, 2013.

Question 31: Will the due date for the full application be extended?
Answer 31: An application submission extension is not contemplated at this time. If an extension is determined to be necessary, the FOA will be ammended to reflect a due date extension.

Question 32: On Page 24 of the FOA document it states “Applicants will have approximately 30 days from receipt of the Concept Paper Encourage/Discourage notification to prepare and submit a Full Application. Regardless of the date the Applicant receives the Encourage/Discourage notification, the submission deadline for the Full Application remains the date stated on the FOA cover page.” We received our Encourage notification today (Dec. 20). Will our application be due on January 20? Or may we go by the FOA due date of January 31 as stated on the cover of the FOA?
Answer 32: The Full Application date is the date on the FOA cover page.

Question 33: We received the concept paper response with some very general reasons discouraging the submission of a full application. While the message is clear about discouraging a full proposal, it is not clear what aspects of our concept paper triggered these reasons to be selected. Is there any way to get more specifics from the review about these reasons? More detail would help our team immensely with future proposals relating to our technology.
Answer 33: No further detail will be provided by DOE.

Question 34: I cannot locate the reviewer’s feedback on our Concept paper. I can only see the single word saying “encouraged”. Here is the quote from FOA. “In order to provide Applicants with feedback on their Concept Papers, EERE will include general comments provided from independent reviewers on an Applicant’s Concept Paper in the encourage/discourage notification sent to Applicants at the close of that phase.”
Answer 34: If you received an “encouraged” notification, your concept paper received a favorable evaluation based on the Concept Paper evaluation criteria in Section IV. C. 1. and the criteria in Section V.A.1 of the FOA. Comments outside of the general criteria will not be provided, in order to preserve the integrity of the competitive process.

Question 35: Your response to Question 17 on resumes is somewhat confusing. You state that we should submit one-page resumes, with a max of two pages. Can the resumes for each individual be two pages long?
Answer 35: Yes.

Question 36: For Full Applications, should the proposed budget from my Concept Paper be updated? Or is this discouraged?
Answer 36:

Yes. The Full Application should include the most accurate budget. The budget proposed at the Concept Paper level should be updated as necessary.

Question 37: On page 7 of the FOA under Topic Area 2, it states “Integrated system technologies for thermochemical conversion (e.g., reforming) of bio-derived liquids for the production of hydrogen including hybrid approaches combining process steps are of interest.” Does “hybrid approaches” include natural gas reforming?
Answer 37:

No. Hybrid approaches involving natural gas are not applicable to Topic Area 2.

Question 38: On page 27 of the FOA, under Work Plan, it states “A description of how changes will be handled.” Could you please give us some clarification of what you mean by “changes”?
Answer 38:

The workplan should include a mitigation strategy for any changes that will occur during the life of the project. Changes would include alterations to the schedule, the project team or the project specifications.

Question 39: Post concept paper submission, can the prime can be changed on the full proposal if the team is the same?
Answer 39: Yes.

Question 40: The solicitation requires the results of a techno-economic cost analysis performed with the H2A v3 tool (www.hydrogen.energy.gov/h2a_production.html). During execution on either Mac or Windows systems, the program does terminate with error message 'runtime error 1004: Unable to get the Object property of the OLEObject class'. Please advise.
Answer 40:

Please submit questions regarding functionality of the H2A spreadsheet to the site administrator at hydrogen_doeh2a@nrel.gov as this is likely a user specific problem. The site administrator has been notified of the issue in question. Further guidance will be provided when it becomes available.

Question 41: I am following up on a concept paper that we submitted for the DE-FOA-0000826: HYDROGEN PRODUCTION RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT. We have not yet received notification via email to go forward or not. Will an email notification with reviewers’ comments be coming soon?
Answer 41:

An email was sent on 12/20/13 to all applicants saying the Concept Paper status had been updated. Notifications of encourage/discourage to submit a full application are provided through the EERE exchange system. You should have received an email notification from EERE exchange regarding your application status. You must log in to your account to review the encourage/discourage notification. If you received an “encouraged” notification, your concept paper received a favorable evaluation based on the Concept Paper evaluation criteria in Section IV. C. 1. and the criteria in Section V.A.1 of the FOA. Comments outside of the general criteria will not be provided, in order to preserve the integrity of the competitive process. If you received a "discouraged" notification, your Concept Paper did not receive a favorable evaluation and comments are provided in the exchange system.

Question 42: On page 24 of the FOA, in the table for contents of the full application, the left hand column states “Full Application (PDF format and no page limit unless stated otherwise.” In the next column under “Components,” it states “(2) Milestone and Deliverable Table (Microsoft Excel format).” Is the entire application to be combined into a PDF document (including all attachments) or are the attachments to be submitted separately in the requested format?
Answer 42: Documents are to be submitted separately according to the specifications and format indicated in IV.D. of the FOA.

Question 43: As I was reading through the subject FOA, I was unclear as to how a DOE FFRDC should proceed with regards to sub-awardee funding. The FOA states the following: “When a Federally Funded Research and Development Center (FFRDC) or a Government‐owned, Government‐operated laboratory (GOGO) is the lead organization for a project team, EERE executes a funding agreement directly with the FFRDC or GOGO and may execute a single, separate funding agreement with the rest of the Project Team. Notwithstanding the use of multiple agreements, the FFRDC or GOGO is the lead organization for the entire project, including all work performed by the FFRDC or GOGO and the rest of the Project Team…If a Department of Energy (DOE) or National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) FFRDC is selected as a Prime Recipient, EERE anticipates making the award through the Field Work Proposal process. The work is performed under the laboratory’s Management and Operating (M&O) contract and governed by the Federal Acquisition Regulations. Awards to GOGOs and non‐DOE FFRDCs will be made through Interagency Agreements.” Does the latter paragraph mean to say that all funding for a NNSA FFRDC will be sent to the Prime Recipient, and that no separate agreements will be made to the sub-awardees or “the rest of the project team” by DOE directly as a result of this award, unlike a non-DOE/non-NNSA FFRDC? If separate awards are to be made to the rest of the project team, how should we represent this in the financial forms?
Answer 43:

If a DOE or NNSA FFRDC is selected to receive funding as a prime applicant under the H2 Production FOA, the DOE funding will be administered through the existing M&O contract. Usually, the DOE or NNSA FFRDC prime will issue subcontracts under its M&O contract if it distributes project funding to lower-tier partners. The prime applicant should reflect funding for its project partners in the proposed budget. M&O contractors are not considered financial assistance recipients because of their pre-existing contractual relationship with DOE.

If a DOE or NNSA FFRDC is a partner on another organization’s application that is selected to receive funding, DOE will issue a financial assistance agreement to the prime applicant. Usually, DOE funds the M&O contractor’s portion of the work through its existing M&O contract. Under this scenario, it is common for the prime recipient and the M&O contractor to enter into a Cooperative Research and Development Agreement (CRADA) which addresses the allocation of responsibilities between the team members.

Question 44: Can proposals for co-processing of natural gas and bio-oil into hydrogen be considered responsive for Topic Area 2?
Answer 44: Hybrid approaches involving hydrogen production from natural gas reforming are not applicable to Topic Area 2.

Question 45: On pages 7 & 8 of the FOA, respondents are to show “a pathway to scalability to at least 50,000 kg H2/day for central production.” The H2A model does not appear to appropriately scale plant costs at production scales up to 50,000 kg/day of production. Should we limit the plant scaling to the “Upper Limit for Scaling Capacity” shown in cell C8 of H2A’s Plant Scaling tab?
Answer 45: Although the H2A model incorporates a plant scaling function, plant design capacity (cell C22 in H2A's Input_Template_Sheet) should not exceed the Upper Limit for Scaling Capacity (cell C8 in H2A's Plant Scaling tab) shown in the H2A case studies. The respondent’s technoeconomic evaluation is not intended as a comprehensive technoeconomic analysis of the proposed hydrogen production reactor concept. Reasonable extrapolations to the targeted production scale from available H2A case studies are acceptable.

Question 46: If costs are to be entered in 2005 dollars but our investigation is currently based on 2013 dollars and 2013 costs, can you provide the data to be used for years 2011, 2012, and 2013 in the GDP Implicit Deflator Price Index (Table B) and the CEPCI Plant Cost Index (Table B2) found in the H2A HyARC Physical Property Data tab? These data are needed to scale our year 2013 costs to year 2005 costs.
Answer 46:

The technoeconomic evaluation need not be a comprehensive technoeconomic analysis of the proposed hydrogen production reactor concept; but should focus on how proposed process or sub-process innovations within the reactor concept can reduce hydrogen production costs (toward DOE targets) in terms of capital, operating and feedstock cost contributions. It is recommended that the H2A v3 default assumptions be used when appropriate. All inputs and assumptions should be clearly documented in the proposal. 2013 costs can be scaled to 2005 costs for the purposes of the H2A inputs, as long as this process is clearly documented in the proposal. This can be accomplished by using the values in Table B in the H2A “HyARC Physical Property Data” tab for the Implicit Price Index (referenced to 100 in 2005) : 113 (for 2011), 115 (for 2012), and 117 (for 2013). A corresponding value of 585 can be used for the CEPCI Plant Index in Table B2 for 2011, 2012, and 2013.

Question 47: Should we use the H2A default of using a 2005 basis year and a 2007 reference year (cells C28 and C26 in the H2A Input_Template_Sheet, respectively), where all costs are to be entered in 2005 dollars, with results reported in 2007 dollars?
Answer 47: Techno-economic analyses using H2A v3 should use the H2A defaults of a 2005 basis year and a 2007 reference year.

Question 48: Can you clarify the definition of “default values” in footnote 7 on page 5? The H2A case studies label a subset of input parameters as H2A defaults, though there are many more input parameters in the case studies that are not specifically labeled as H2A defaults. Can we use both the H2A defaults and the H2A case study inputs in our technoeconomic analysis, while adjusting costs and performance parameters reflecting the production process we are investigating (including a justification for these changes as noted in footnote 7 on page 5)?
Answer 48: Respondents should use the default H2A Financial Input values. Respondents may also use the capital and operating cost values found in the published H2A case studies if they feel these costs accurately reflect the costs they expect for their modeled production process/sub-process. Costs and input values modified to better reflect modeled processes/sub-processes should be clearly documented in the proposal.

Question 49: For the technoeconomic evaluation, can we use the appropriate H2A production case study rather than the blank H2A Central Production model Version 3?
Answer 49: Yes, respondents are encouraged to use published H2A case studies as starting points for their techno-economic evaluation of their proposed hydrogen production reactor concept. The technoeconomic evaluation need not be a comprehensive technoeconomic analysis of the proposed hydrogen production reactor concept; but should focus on how the proposed process/ sub-process innovations within the reactor concept can reduce hydrogen production costs (toward DOE targets) in terms of capital, operating and feedstock cost contributions. The evaluations can utilize results from the most appropriate published H2A v3 reference case(s), and be modified based on proposed process/sub-process innovations and their projected influence on capital, operating and feedstock costs. Hydrogen production cost reductions through benefits of the proposed innovations should be clearly identified. All inputs and assumptions used in the technoeconomic evaluations related to capital, operating and feedstock expenses should be clearly documented in the proposal. It is recommended that the H2A v3 default economic assumptions be used when appropriate. The H2A v3 Distributed and Central Production Models and User Guide can be found at www.hydrogen.energy.gov/h2a_production.html. Reference H2A case studies for various hydrogen production pathways can be found at http://www.hydrogen.energy.gov/h2a_prod_studies.html. These include: central and distributed natural gas; distributed ethanol (as a reference for bio-derived liquids); central PEC Type 2 (as a reference for photo-particle systems); central PEC Type 4 (as a reference for photo-electrode systems); and central solar thermochemical ferrite (as a reference for STCH). All the reference case studies use H2A v3 default values for economic inputs.

Question 50: Is it acceptable to replace the Energy Feed & Utility Prices Worksheet with the most current one from 2014, instead of the AEO 2007 or 2005 that are part of the current models. Since the price of the feed stock in particular natural gas is significantly different today compared to the reference cases from 2005/ 2007, and their inflation adjusted forecasts, this will have a significant impact on the price of hydrogen produced.
Answer 50: Yes, you may replace the Energy Feed & Utility Prices Worksheet with the most current one from 2014. All inputs and assumptions used in the technoeconomic evaluations related to capital, operating and feedstock expenses should be clearly documented in the proposal.

Question 51: In the Work Plan, can a task (and/or subtask) span multiple budget periods (years)? For example, for a 36-month project, could a task begin in month 7 and end in month 30?
Answer 51: Yes. The budget periods and tasks can be further negotiated after award selection to accommodate the project specific schedule.

Question 52: At the website : http://www.hydrogen.energy.gov/h2a_prod_studies.html for H2 Production Studies reference in the FOA. There are a few spreadsheets attached that can be downloaded. When I try to get the one on distributed ethanol under the title "Forecourt (Distributed) Ethanol" I get a spreadsheet on electrolysis. Is there a way to get the correct spreadsheet?
Answer 52: We are able to access the appropriate case studies based on the titles of the links from the link in your question. We are not aware of any problems with the links. Should you continue to have problems, please contact NREL H2A support hydrogen_doeh2a@nrel.gov.

Question 53: In their technoeconomic evaluations, should respondents utilize the “plant scaling function” in H2A to reflect targeted plant production scales?
Answer 53: No, respondents are discouraged from using the plant scaling function of H2A (i.e., the default parameters in the “plant scaling” tab should not be modified). The encouraged approach is to: (1) input the “plant design capacity” into cell C22 of the “Input_Sheet_Template” tab; (2) ensure that the same “plant design capacity” is reflected in cell C7 of the “Capital Cost” tab; (3) estimate total capital costs based on technology innovations reasonably extrapolated to the specified “plant design capacity”, and ensure that this total is reflected in cell C58 of the “Capital Cost” tab. All projections and extrapolations for capital costs used in the technoeconomic evaluation must be clearly documented and justified in the proposal.

Question 54: When submitting the Full Application, can I change the title of my proposal from that in the Concept Paper?
Answer 54: Yes.

Question 55: As there is no time specified for the deadline of 1/31/14, could we assume it is 11:59 PM EST?
Answer 55:

No. The full application submission time is 5:00pm Eastern on 1/31/14, as stated in the Submission Dates and Times section of the FOA document. Please refer to Section IV.G. of the FOA.

Question 56: Where will the annual program review meetings be held for awards on this FOA?
Answer 56: Washington D.C.

Question 57: We are planning on including a potential partner, which is identified as an FFRDC. If our budget is say 1 million and the FFRDC is say 1.5 million, are we as the lead institution, responsible for cost-sharing 20% of the 2.5 million total in project costs or only 20% calculated as part of the 1 million we receive from the government for our share of the work? Our understanding is that FFRDC are not allowed to cost-share and also unable to provide cost-share by virtue of them being federally funded.
Answer 57: The prime applicant is responsible for covering the cost share of total project costs, including the budgets for any subrecipient(s). The Cost Share waiver is only applicable to Topic Area 3. If you are applying to Topic Area 1 and/or 2, and the FFRDC partner is not providing cost share, then the prime applicant would need to cost share 20% on the total project (including FFRDC). For Topic Area 3, the waiver applies to Prime applicants as well as sub-recipients. The Prime applicant, as a for-profit entity, would be required to contribute the appropriate cost share on their portion of the budget. For Topic Area 3, the Prime is not required to cost share on the portion of the sub-recipient costs to which the waiver applies, e.g., Institutions of Higher Education, U.S. National Laboratories, Federally Funded Research and Development Centers (FFRDCs) and non-profit organizations (as defined in 10 CFR 600.3). The cost share waiver applies only to the costs for these four types of organizations, and not to the costs of other team member organizations who are not included in the waiver. For Topic Area 3, each for-profit entity is responsible only for its own required cost share as a Prime applicant or as a sub-recipient.

Question 58: For topic 3, does an international federal institute qualify for a cost-share waiver, if they are a sub-recipient?
Answer 58: The cost share waiver for Topic Area 3 applies to Institutions of Higher Education, National Laboratories, FFRDCs, and Non-Profit Organizations. If the international federal institute is not one of these entities, then cost share is required for their budget. If a subrecipient, other than Institutions of Higher Education, National Laboratories, FFRDCs, and Non-Profit Organizations, is not contributing cost share, then the prime applicant is responsible for cost sharing that subrecipient’s portion of the budget. The prime is responsible for the cost share percentage of the entire project costs, and therefore any subrecipient that is not an entity covered by the cost share waiver. Additionally, U.S. federal funds are not allowable as cost share. Please refer to the FOA document Section III.B.3 for allowable cost share. Furthermore, any work conducted outside the US requires a waiver request submitted with the application. Please refer to the FOA document Section IV.I.3 for the specific waiver requirements and Section IV.D.16.ii for application content requirements.

Question 59: We are subcontractor in the process of submitting our proposal to our prime for the above FOA for submission. Per the solicitation, subawardees with a budget of more than $250,000 must also submit a PMC123.1 budget justification to the prime for submission with the prime's application. We are concerned, however, because the prime could potentially be a competitor for other projects, and we would rather they not see the details shown in the PMC123.1 form. For that reason, is it allowable to give the prime the total numbers only for their PMC123.1 and SF424A forms and to submit the subawardee PMC123.1 directly to DOE? If so, how do we go about doing this?
Answer 59: DOE financial assistance awards are negotiated with the Prime applicant. The contractual agreement is between the Prime applicant and DOE. Therefore, DOE cannot accept a budget for the subrecipient without permission from the Prime applicant. If you have business sensitive information in your budget, you may limit the amount of information given to the Prime applicant. Please indicate that your PMC123.1 Budget Justification will be submitted to DOE during award negotiations, with the Prime applicant’s permission.

Question 60: A DOE National Laboratory is one of our subawardees and will receive more than $250K from the budget. The investigator has already received the DOE Field Work Proposal and DOE authorization to participate in the proposal. Do we need to submit PMC 123.1 for the National Lab also?
Answer 60: A PMC 123.1 Budget Justification is not required for an FFRDC. A Field Work Proposal and Authorization Letter for the lab particiaption must be included in your application. The Prime applicant budget should include the lab budget under the contractual section of the PMC 123.1 Budget Justification form.

Question 61: Is a table of contents (TOC) required for the 15-page technical volume?
Answer 61: No.

Question 62: How can we submit documents that show federally negotiated rate and fringe benefits?
Answer 62: If you will be charging fringe and indirect costs to the project, these costs must be included in the PMC 123.1 Budget Justification under the Fringe and Indirect Costs tabs. If you have a federally approved rate agreement with a federal agency, please include a copy with your application. If you do not have a federally approved rate agreement with a federal agency, that will be addressed during award negotiations.

Question 63: How do we show the cost share amount on summary sheet of PCM 123.1?
Answer 63: Cost share must be reflected on the cost share tab of the PMC 123.1 Budget Justification.

Question 64: On page 25 of the solicitation, no file format is given for the Budget Information SF-424A form, so it would seem that PDF (the default format as per page 24) is correct. However, the application file upload page specifies Excel format. Which format is preferred for the SF-424A? The SF-424 document in the "Required Application Documents" is a Microsoft Word document. However, on the page to upload application files, it specifies that the SF-424 is "Part of Adobe Application Package." Is it okay to upload a PDF of the Microsoft Word document?
Answer 64: The table states PDF format unless otherwise stated. Please submit the forms in PDF format unless indicated otherwise in the table.

Question 65: Who should the Contracting Authorization letter be made out to (Name and address)?
Answer 65:

Christina Kouch, U.S. Department of Energy, Golden Field Office, 15013 Denver West Parkway, Golden, CO 80401

Question 66: On the SF 424 form, Question 17, project starting date: what date should we input?
Answer 66: Enter the date you will begin work on the project.

Question 67: On the SF 424 form, Questions 19, related to EO 12372, there are 3 selection here, which box should we select?
Answer 67: If your project is subject to the Executive Order select a or b. If it is not, select c.

Question 68: Regarding the PMC 123 form, the subrecipients filled out the form as required per the solicitation. What name(s) are ented at the top of the form for "Award Recipient" and "Form Submitted By?"
Answer 68: For "Award Recipient" enter the subrecipient name. For "Form Submitted By" enter the Prime applicant.

Question 69: We have four subawardees. Where do I upload their PMC 123 form? The FOA states to upload the PMC 123 on number 12, but it only lets me upload one document, not four.
Answer 69:

The EERE eXCHANGE system allows for you to upload additional documents on the “Upload and Submit” tab. The additional document upload field is located at the bottom of the list. You may add as many additional documents as necessary. However, this option does not automatically name the file for you. Please be sure to name the file to include the appropriate filename format (i.e. {{ControlNumber}}_{{LeadOrganization}}_Subawardee_Budget_Justification), as listed in the chart in Section IV.D of the FOA.

Question 70: We have four subawardees. Do I only attach one SF-424 form (ours since we are the lead) or do I have to attach the subawardee(s) SF-424 forms?If I do, where do I upload them?
Answer 70:

An SF-424 is only required for the lead organization.

Question 71: Where do I upload the Fringe and Facilities & Administrative (F&A) letters that accompany the PMC 123.1 forms?
Answer 71:

Fringe and Facilities and Facilities & Administrative letters are not listed as a requirement of the application in this FOA. Therefore, these documents should not be uploaded in EERE eXCHANGE. However, these items may be requested if selected for Award negotiation.

Question 72: Should we enter the details of year 1 in the first tab of the Excel workbook; the details of year 2 in the second tab; the details of year 3 in the third tab; the cumulative of the project in the fourth tab?
Answer 72:

Assuming you are referring to the SF-424a (Budget Information), only the first tab of the spreadsheet should be filled out. As requested in the FOA, each Budget Period should be 12 months. In Section B of the first sheet, Column D would be Budget Period 1 costs, Column E would be Budget Period 2 costs, Column E would be Budget Period 3, etc. The last column, or column H, would represent the cumulative project costs.

Question 73: Should we upload the SF-424A for each of the subaward?
Answer 73:

No. An SF-424A is only required for the lead organization.

Question 74: Is it required to include a Table of Contents in the Technical Volume?
Answer 74:

No, a Table of Contents is not required. However, if you choose to include a Table of Contents, this would count against the 15 page maximum limit.

Question 75: Would you please confirm ASAP that the submission deadline for DE-FOA-0000826 has been extended to 5pm, EST, Feb. 3, 2014?
Answer 75: Yes, that is correct. An Amendment was processed on 1/30/2014 which extended the submission deadline for full applications to 5pm EST on 2/3/2014.

Frequently Asked Questions