EERE eXCHANGE: FAQs

Question 1: Would you be interested in a mechanical system that converts ocean wave kinetic energy into electrical energy?
Answer 1:

DOE cannot advise whether or not an application should be submitted. Please carefully review Section I of the FOA document to determine whether your concept falls under one of the Technical Areas of Interest of the FOA.

Question 2: Is this particular funding opportunity available to all types of hydro developments (impoundment, pumped storage, etc) or primarily for MHK and tidal hydro developments?
Answer 2:

Per Section I.A. of the Funding Opportunity Announcement, the FOA will support the development and advancement of cost-effective technologies used to monitor for potential environmental impacts associated with marine and hydrokinetic (MHK) technologies (in Topic Areas 1 and 2), and for evaluating resource characteristics for wave energy conversion (WEC) devices (in Topic Area 3).

As defined in Section 632 of the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007, the term "marine and hydrokinetic renewable energy" means electricity from -

(1) Waves, tides, and currents in oceans, estuaries, and tidal areas;

(2) Free flowing water flows in rivers, lakes, and streams;

(3) Free flowing water in man-made channels; and

(4) Differentials in ocean temperature (ocean thermal energy conversion).

The term "marine and hydrokinetic renewable energy" does not include energy from any source that uses a dam, diversionary structure, or impoundment for electric power purposes.

Question 3: Would it be possible for you to add one more topic that has to do with electricity generation by converting ocean wave kinetic energy? It seems that the three topics you listed have nothing to do with electricity generation from the ocean waves.
Answer 3:

At this time, EERE is not considering adding additional topic areas to this Funding Opportunity Announcement. Please continue to check EERE Exchange for future Funding Opportunity Announcements.

Question 4: Is there a library of papers (references) etc. available that would help determine state-of-the-art in the signal processing/instrumentation areas?
Answer 4:

For useful background information in this area, applicants can reference information associated with the 2013 MHK Environmental Instrumentation Workshop

http://depts.washington.edu/nnmrec/instrumentation/report.html

and the Annex IV 2013Final Report http://mhk.pnnl.gov/wiki/images/4/42/Final_Annex_IV_Report_2013.pdf

Additional information on MHK environmental monitoring is available on Tethys: http://mhk.pnl.gov/wiki/index.php/Tethys_Home

(Links may have to be copied and pasted.)

Question 5: Will DOE be providing sample data sets for Topic 1 software development responses, or will this be an element of applicant proposals?
Answer 5:

Proposed data sets for Topic 1 software development should be part of the application.

Question 6: Can you please post on the exchange references that support the statement that feed foward controllers have the potential to double energy capture.
Answer 6:

The following references discuss the benefit of using feed forward controllers:

S. H. Salter, J. R. M. Taylor, and N. J. Caldwell, “Power conversion mechanisms for wave energy,” Proc. Inst. Mech. Eng. Part M J. Eng. Marit. Environ., vol. 216, no. 1, pp. 1–27, 2002.

U. A. Korde, “Control system applications in wave energy conversion,” in OCEANS 2000 MTS/IEEE Conference and Exhibition, 2000, vol. 3, pp. 1817–1824.

Li, G., G. Weiss, M. Mueller, S. Townley, and M. R. Belmont. "Wave energy converter control by wave prediction and dynamic programming." Journal of Renewable Energy 48 (2012b): 392–403.

Hals, J., J. Falnes, and M. Trogeir. "A Comparison of Selected Strategies for Adaptive Control of Wave Energy Converters." Journal of Offshore Mechanics and Arctic Engineering 133, no. 3 (Mar 2011): 031101.

Question 7: Question on cost-sharing: can we count existing instrumentation that we acquired through non-Federal sources and that we will use in field tests for Topic 3 as cost-share?
Answer 7:

While existing equipment may be used for cost share, only a usage fee or rental fee may be considered, not the value of the equipment. This fee must be in line with current market conditions. Please see Section III.B and Appendix B of the FOA for additional information about cost share requirements.

Question 8: What determines whether awards will be Grants or Co-Op agreements?
Answer 8:

The level of substantial involvement by DOE determines whether awards will be Grants or Cooperative Agreements. Under Cooperative Agreements, the Government and Prime Recipients share responsibility for the direction of projects. For projects selected under this FOA, there will be a substantial involvement between EERE and the Prime Recipient during the performance of a resultant cooperative agreement. See Section VI.C.8 of the FOA for more information about DOE's anticipated level of substantial involvement.

Question 9: Will any additional feedback be given on the Concept Papers, other than "encourage / discourage"?
Answer 9:

Yes, in addition to receiving an encourage/discourage notification, the rationale for the decision will be provided through comments published in the EERE Exchange system.

Question 10: What is the target start date for awards on Topic 3? Nov. 1st, 2014?
Answer 10:

Per Section VI.A of the FOA, EERE anticipates notifying applicants selected for negotiation of award by mid‐August 2014 and making awards by the end of October 2014.

Question 11: What is the submission deadline for the concept paper?
Answer 11:

The submission Deadline for Concept Papers is 4/7/2014; 5:00pm Eastern Time.

Question 12: Having lower cost-share requirements for FRDC and Universities appears to establish an "unfair competitive advantage" to them over small businesses. Why that preference?
Answer 12:

The Assistant Secretary for the Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy has issued a Cost Share Reduction determination pursuant to Section 988(b)(3) of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 that is applicable to certain entities applying under this FOA. Specifically, recipient cost share requirement for applied research and development activities projects is reduced from 20% to 10% where:

1. The Prime Recipient is a domestic institution of higher education; domestic nonprofit entity; FFRDC; or U.S. State, local, or tribal government entity; and

2. The Prime Recipient performs more than 50% of the project work, as measured by the Total Project Cost.

Question 13: It seems that the national labs including NREL and Sandia will be allowed to compete in this solicitation. There seems to be some conflicts of interest if that is the case. What measures are you putting in place to insure that there are no un-fair competitive advantages being used by the labs that have access to some of the industry data from their review roles?
Answer 13:

Per Section III of the FOA, DOE/NNSA Federally Funded Research and Development Centers (FFRDCs) and DOE Government‐Owned, Government‐Operated laboratories (GOGOs) are eligible to apply for funding as a Prime Recipient or Subrecipient. Non‐DOE/NNSA FFRDCs and non‐DOE GOGOs are eligible to apply for funding as a Subrecipient, but are not eligible to apply as a Prime Recipient.

Section III.E of the FOA lists special requirements for FFRDCs applying under this solicitation.

Question 14: what format should the concept paper use?
Answer 14:

Concept Paper form and content requirements are specified in Section IV.C of the FOA.

Question 15: In Topic 3, why can't information from other WECs in the array be used? This seems like it could be a cost effective way of gathering data. (clarification to the previous question)... This would be cost effective for the eventual arrays although perhaps a more expensive way to conduct the research. However the cost would not necessarily be prohibitive if conducted at scale.
Answer 15:

DOE agrees that information from other WEC's could be leveraged and very cost effective. However, the emphasis of this FOA is determining what information is necessary to enable controls and developing the sensor capabilities that can deliver that. These sensors could someday be incorporated or inherent to an individual WEC in an array, but the first step will be to accomplish this with a single device.

Question 16: Hi, just wondering if there's any particulat reason that tidal resources - such as Sanm Francisco Bay - are not included in Topic Area 3
Answer 16:

There are greater technical challenges posed by wave sensing to enable controls relative to sensing needed for tidal. DOE already supports several national laboratory and industry projects that are working on tidal measurements.

Question 17: I assume that a Canadian firm must partner with a US company (preferrably SBIR) to participate in this FOA?
Answer 17:

See Section III of the FOA for Eligibility Information. Foreign entities are eligible to apply for funding under this FOA. However, all Prime Recipients receiving funding under this FOA must be incorporated (or otherwise formed) under the laws of a State or territory of the United States. If a foreign entity applies for funding as a Prime Recipient, it must designate in the Full Application a subsidiary or affiliate incorporated (or otherwise formed) under the laws of a State or territory of the United States to be the Prime Recipient. The Full Application must state the nature of the corporate relationship between the foreign entity and domestic subsidiary or affiliate.

Foreign entities may request a waiver of the requirement to designate a subsidiary in the United States as the Prime Recipient in the Full Application (i.e., a foreign entity may request that it remains the Prime Recipient on the award). See Section III.A.3 for FOA for information about the waiver process.

A foreign entity may receive funding as a Subrecipient.

Question 18: It is likely the best active acousic technology for detection, tracking, localization, and classificaiton will be derived from DoD related work. This implies that open sourcing the software could have ITAR restrictions and will hence limit firms with such experience from contributing to the FOA, even if they are willing to open source the software. Should we just assume that we are inelligable, or should we build into the open source plan getting the required approvals which will no doubt have some restrictions associated with it (like executibles only can be released)?
Answer 18:

Please build into your open source plan any required approvals, including any restrictions you may have with regard to distributing software produced under the award as open source.

Question 19: Given that this is a US focused program, is it likely that a Canadian for-profit organization would receive funding?
Answer 19:

Please see Q&A 17.

Question 20: I have a question related to the requirement for open source code. I understand that the intent would be to make the capability widely accessible. My concern related to background IP that may be more efficient to use as a starting point, but which cannot be made open source. Is there any fine print here that might help us propose an efficient project using this approach?
Answer 20:

Please discuss potential use of background IP in your open source plan, including whether and to what extent it may be made open source, as well as how its use may further the goals of your proposed project.

Question 21: We have technology for short-term wave forecasts (Topic 3) developed for defense applications. Is there background information available (DoE workshops, etc.) that would further define the measurement requirements, or provide additional context?
Answer 21:

There are several references (see response to Question 6 above) that discuss the potential of controls but few if any that describe the exact measurements that are required for implementation. This level of detail is very particular to the control systems being pursued by individual WEC developers.

The following DOE references are available for greater context:

MHK Cost Reduction Pathway White Papers available at: http://en.openei.org/wiki/Gateway:Water_Power

Sandia Report SAND2014-9040: http://energy.sandia.gov/wp/wp-content/gallery/uploads/SAND2014-9040-RMP-REPORT.pdf

Question 22: Would you accept a proposal that has to do with generating electricity from the Ocean Wave Kinetic Energy by using Moving Window Frame with Multiple Windows?
Answer 22: To determine if your project is eligible, please review the FOA sections titled, "Topic Areas/ Technical Areas of Interest" and "Applications Specifically not of Interest". In addition, please note Section III Eligibility Information, Subsection G "Questions Regarding Eligibility", which states: EERE will not make eligibility determinations for potential applicants prior to the date on which applications to this FOA must be submitted. The decision whether to submit an application in response to this FOA lies solely with the applicant.

Question 23: How do I locate the current or upcomming funding opportunities available? And How does one sort out the the grants available by closing dates without looking at each one then scrolling to the end of the grant?
Answer 23:

1. You can monitor grants.gov - http://www.grants.gov - and EERE Exchange - https://eere-exchange.energy.gov - for current funding opportunities. DOE does not provide information on funding opportunities that have not been released through these systems.

2. Please email EERE-ExchangeSupport@hq.doe.gov for all questions related to the EERE Exchange system.

Question 24: We are preparing a concept paper based on the DE‐FOA‐0000971, while we have some confusion about the optical devices. The topic 1 supports “Optical Devices – This sub‐topic would support the development, enhancement, and testing of optical systems aimed at monitoring marine animal interactions with MHK devices. “ Page 9 of the FOA. On page 14 of the FOA, “Applications for proposed technologies that are not based on sound scientific principles (e.g., violates the law of thermodynamics)” is not considered. Could you clarify if the optical devices are supported or not? Or, must the optical devices be integrated with sound techs?
Answer 24:

Topic Area 1 will support development and advancements of technologies including, but not limited to, active acoustic devices, passive acoustic devices and/or optical devices. The statement in section I.C of the FOA that “Applications for proposed technologies that are not based on sound scientific principles (e.g., violates the law of thermodynamics)” will not be considered refers to proven scientific principles, not scientific principles for acoustic measurements.

Question 25: Will this webinar be available for download?
Answer 25:

Please go to the FOA Summary here - https://eere-exchange.energy.gov/default.aspx#FoaId7b557d4f-c41d-4f1c-8183-79d792123dc5 - and click on the Informational Webinar link under the FOA Documents heading for a copy of the slides with a transcript of the webinar.

Question 26: Under Topic Area 3 of this FOA (pg. 13) there is a statement that “feed forward controllers have the potential to double energy capture, but require future knowledge of incoming waves on a time horizon of a few wave lengths (i.e. 30 seconds)”. I was wondering if you could provide a reference for this, that details the test conditions that this was shown to be true, e.g. type of device, type of controls, etc. Also, am I correct that this FOA will not consider WEC control development that does not require future knowledge of incoming waves, even if these controls can be shown to capture a comparable amount of energy as when incoming waves are known?
Answer 26:

1) Please see Q&A #6.

2) As stated in the FOA, Topic Area 3 (Wave Measurement Instrumentation for Feed Forward Controls) will support the development of wave instrumentation or new processing software for current instrumentation to provide the short term wave statistics or wave-by-wave height, period, and directionality measurements that enable feed forward controls. Proposals for development of WEC control systems (feedback or feed forward) would not be considered responsive under Topic Area 3.

Question 27: We are preparing a concept paper in response to FOA971. The turbine we anticipated using is now unavailable. Independent funds are available to cover 50% of the cost of a new turbine that would be installed at nascent MHK test bed at institute of higher learning. The vendor is a foreign entity with subsidiaries incorporated in the US. Would the remaining cost of new turbine be considered an allowable expenditure? May we assume that the real costs of on-site fabrication and installation as well as the 50% share of turbine purchase would be considered as entire cost share obligation if the value meets the 10% budget requirement?
Answer 27:

Please see Section III. B. of the FOA for information on cost sharing. “Cost share contributions must be specified in the project budget, verifiable from the Prime Recipient’s records, and necessary and reasonable for proper and efficient accomplishment ofthe project.”

Please also see Section IV. I. of the FOA, which states, “To the greatest extent practicable, all equipment and products purchased with funds made available under this award should be made or manufactured in the United States. This requirement does not apply to used or leased equipment.”

Question 28: Can graduate students who are not US citizens work on a project funded by this FOA?
Answer 28:

A recipient of Federal award funding should consult applicable laws and regulations to confirm work eligibility of students/employees/contractors.

Question 29: "The application forms and instructions are available on https://eere‐Exchange.energy.gov." I can not access this website because the server is unavailable. Please tell me how to obtain the application forms and instructions.
Answer 29:

Please use the following link or type the address for the site directly into your browser.

https://eere-exchange.energy.gov/

Question 30: See attached letter and my number is . . .
Answer 30:

Per the FOA document, Concept Papers must be submitted through EERE Exchange to be considered compliant. Concept Papers not submitted through EERE Exchange will not be reviewed or considered.

Question 31: So after reviewing all informational material one point remains uncleared, concerning the funding payment method and schedule by EERE: will it be done before, after or during each budget time for example or at any other periods?
Answer 31: If you are a for-profit organization, the payment method per 10 CFR 600 is reimbursement.

Question 32: Is it possible to get an extension? I have a team set up, but putting my concept paper together was delayed due to unforeseen circumstances.
Answer 32: In order to maintain the integrity and fairness of the FOA process, DOE must adhere to all deadlines as listed in the FOA document and extensions are not possible.

Question 33: A question on proposal section length versus merit criterion. In the technical volume description, "Technical, Description, Innovation, and Impact" are stated to constitute 25% of the technical volume length, but in the merit criteria section, this criteria appears to be 50% of the total weight. Is it intended that a minority of the technical volume be accorded the greatest merit review weight?
Answer 33: Yes, it was intended that the Technical Merit, Innovation and Impact of the proposed project be given the greatest weight in the merit review. The goal of the FOA is to support novel research that will increase cost efficiency and improve the state of the art for various instrumentation technologies. The work must also be technically feasible. The “technical description, innovation and impact” section of the technical volume is recommended to account for approximately 25% of the technical volume length (i.e. 4 pages) because the bulk of the technical volume should be utilized to detail the specific objectives and how the applicant will accomplish the research goals (The Workplan), which is likely to require greater space to describe. However, in the context of this funding opportunity, the most scientifically robust and feasible research plan is not useful if the overall result of the research will not advance the state of the art. Given such, the “technical description, innovation and impact” carries the greatest weight in the merit review.

Question 34: We have a question regarding Verification.FOA Topic 3 description states that “Projects will include in-water testing of fully functional instrumentation (hardware and software) to verify wave measurement capabilities in either a controlled (e.g. wave basin) or field environment, commensurate with the technical readiness of the concept” 1) Does verify mean that we need to compare measurements from the proposed technology against an independent measurement technology such as wave buoys? 2) Or does it mean that we just have to show wave measurement capabilities and don’t have to validate it with another independent measurement system?
Answer 34:

1) No, independent measurements using another measurement technology is not required.

2) Yes, the intent is to demonstrate the measurement capability, predicted by any analytical or numerical simulations used in the development of the technology.

Question 35: I am filling out the SF-424 and have a few questions: 1) Does the control Number that was issued with the concept paper go on this form? If so where? I understand the control number should be in the filenames. 2) I am confused by 5a. can you give me further guidance as to what belongs here, control number? 3) Also please describe what should go in box in 13? 4) For the budget justification we have a sub receipant for $50K. My understanding is that they will be listed in tab f. on our EERE_159-2 form, and do not require a separate form, is that correct? We also have an FFRC for $50K, they will have their own form.
Answer 35:

1) You do not need to reference your Control Number on the SF-424.

2) Blocks 5a. (Federal Identity Identifier) and 5b. (Federal Award Identifier) can both be left blank.

3) Block 13 (Competition Identification Number) can also be left blank.

4) Yes, that is correct.

Question 36: For Topic Area 3, the FOA states “Applications must include a plan for defining a target production cost”. Will including this plan then completely satisfy the required “Market Transformation Plan” stated on page 48 of the FOA?
Answer 36: No, these are separate elements of the application. Applications must include, as part of the scope of work, developing an estimate of the targeted production cost for the wave measurement instrumentation. This will address the affordability of the technology that is developed under this project and should be described in full detail in the Final Report. The application will also include a market transformation/commercialization plan which is a section of the technical volume described on page 35 of the FOA. This will serve as a basis for the targeted production cost defined over the course of the project.

Question 37: I do not see where or if biosketch should be attached for this FOA. We would like to include one. Will it count against page totals? And where should it go? Is there guidance on what it should include or how many pages.
Answer 37:

Biographical information or sketches can be submitted as part of the ‘Technical Qualifications and Resources’ Section of the Technical volume; on page 38 of the FOA it states that section should “describe the Project Team’s unique qualifications and expertise, including those of key subrecipients.” Information submitted as part of that section will count towards page limits. Also on page 38, it states that one‐page resumes for key participating team members may be attached as an appendix. These resumes do not count towards the page limit, but multi‐page resumes are not allowed.

Question 38: I am having trouble uploading a file in the space for "Budget and Federally Funded Research and Development Center Contractor File." The FOA says on page 40 it should be a PDF and the help desk for EERE Exchange says it must be an Excel file.
Answer 38:

The setting within EERE Exchange has been modified and you should now be able to upload the "Budget for Federally Funded Research and Development Center Contractor File" in PDF format.

Question 39: Does the requirement to make the software open source apply to Topic 3 also? It is not mentioned in the topic description (page 13 of FOA) or the specific deliverables (page 14 of FOA), however we want to be certain.
Answer 39: The requirement for open source software does not apply to Topic Area 3.

Question 40: Regarding FOA Number: DE‐FOA‐0000971, does a Subaward Budget Justification need to be submitted? The Subaward Budget Justification is listed as required on page 32 of the FOA, but the Excel file is not included on the website under Required Application Documents for this FOA opportunity; in addition, the subaward version we found under DE-FOA-0000973 appears to be the same form as the Budget Justification file. If it is required as part of our Application, is it only for subcontracts? In addition, can you provide further explanation on how to utilize both forms if both are required?
Answer 40:

Per Section IV of the FOA, “Applicants must provide a separate budget justification, EERE 159 (i.e., budget justification for each budget year and a cumulative budget) for each subawardee that is expected to perform work estimated to be more than $250,000 or 25 percent of the total work effort (whichever is less). The budget justification must include the same justification information described in the “Budget Justification” section, above.”

The same budget justification form, EERE 159, should be used for the Applicant and for any subawardees that are expected to perform $250,000 or 25 percent of the total work effort (whichever is less).

Question 41: I am unable to find a project summary slide template for this foa as requested in pg 39 of the foa, but found attached template. Is a generic slide adequate to submit ?
Answer 41:

There is not a required template for the Summary Slide; however, Section IV. D. 6. of the FOA contains a list of items required to be included on the slide.

Question 42: We would like to change PI from the person originally submitting the concept paper. Can we do this as we submit the full proposal, or should we wait ?
Answer 42:

Any references to the Principal Investigator in the application material should identify the individual who will fill that role, even if that represents a change from the person previously identified through the Concept Paper or through EERE Exchange.

Question 43: I am not being allowed to upload the Summary Slide or the Budget Justification in PDF format. Please advise.
Answer 43:

The settings within EERE Exchange have been updated. The Summary Slide can be submitted in either PowerPoint or PDF format, and the Budget Justification can be submitted in either Excel or PDF format.

Question 44: We are applying for Topic 3 for this FOA. Is a U.S. Manufacturing Plan required? If not do we need to upload anything in its place on the UPLOAD and Submit page? Also none of the Institutions in our proposal participate in lobbying activities - do we need to fill out a form or upload anything in its place for our proposal?
Answer 44:

1) Yes, a U.S. Manufacturing Plan is required for Topic Area 3.

2) Per the FOA, "Prime Recipients and Subrecipients are required to complete and submit SF-LLL, “Disclosure of Lobbying Activities” (http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/grants/sflllin.pdf) if any non-Federal funds have been paid or will be paid to any person for influencing or attempting to influence any of the following in connection with your application:

. An officer or employee of any Federal agency;

· A Member of Congress;

· An officer or employee of Congress; or

· An employee of a Member of Congress."

See the FOA for complete information.

Question 45: Please confirm whether Data Management Plans (as explained in Appendix E of the FOA) are included in the page count of the Technical Volume (20 pages).
Answer 45:

The Data Management Plan was included in the table for the Technical Volume in error. It should have been included in the “Full Application Content Requirements” table. Please see Modification 0002 to the FOA for complete information – https://eere-exchange.energy.gov/#FoaId7b557d4f-c41d-4f1c-8183-79d792123dc5

Question 46: I am finalizing a proposal for upload to EERE and am wondering if the resumes and letters of support should come at the end of the Technical Volume (therefore making it exceed the page limit) or should be included as a separate document somehow.
Answer 46:

Per the table for Technical Volume in the FOA the applicant should, “Attach one-page resumes for key participating team members as an appendix. Resumes do not count towards the page limit. Multi-page resumes are not allowed. . . . . Attach any letters of support from partners/end users as an appendix (1 page maximum per letter). Letters of support do not count towards the page limit."

Question 47: I am unclear on whether the summary slide should be uploaded as a PDF file or a PowerPoint file?
Answer 47:

Please see Q&A #43.

Question 48: Is there a page limit to the Data Management Plan?
Answer 48:

Only the maximum file size per Section IV. D. –

“Note: The maximum file size that can be uploaded to the EERE Exchange website is 10MB. Files in excess of 10MB cannot be uploaded, and hence cannot be submitted for review. If a file exceeds 10MB but is still within the maximum page limit specified in the FOA it must be broken into parts and denoted to that effect. For example:

ControlNumber_LeadOrganization_Project_Part_1

ControlNumber_LeadOrganization_Project_Part_2, etc.

EERE will not accept late submissions that resulted from technical difficulties due to uploading files that exceed 10MB.”

Question 49: I am finalizing a proposal for upload to EERE and am wondering if the resumes and letters of support should come at the end of the Technical Volume (therefore making it exceed the page limit) or should be included as a separate document somehow.
Answer 49:

Per the table for Technical Volume in the FOA the applicant should, “Attach one-page resumes for key participating team members as an appendix. Resumes do not count towards the page limit. Multi-page resumes are not allowed.”

Question 50: The EERE 159 budget justification form requests copies of fringe and indirect rate agreements. Where should those be appended/uploaded?
Answer 50:

Copies of fringe and indirect rates will only need to be submitted by applicants selected for award during the negotiation process.

Question 51: in the FOA, it states the SF-LLL is only required IF any non-federal funds have been paid...in connection with this application. Yet, in the application, it states this is a required form. We have no lobbying. Please clarify
Answer 51:

Please see Q&A #44.

Question 52: The EERE upload site indicates that the budget justification should be submitted as an Excel file BUT the RFP says to upload as pdf. Should it be xls or pdf?
Answer 52:

Please see Q&A #43.

Question 53: I have read the FOA Section IV.F. However, please clarify if the three page limit is for the total of all reviewer comments or per Criterion.
Answer 53:

Per section IV.F of the FOA, “Replies to Reviewer Comments must conform to the following content and form requirements, including maximum page lengths, described below. If a Reply to Reviewer Comments is more than three pages in length, EERE will review only the first three pages and disregard any additional pages.” This is three pages total for all criterion.

Frequently Asked Questions