Question 3:
1. Should we include costs for the required Go/No Go review meetings in the budget? (See p. 40 in the FOA)
2. Pages 12-13 in the FOA describe several items that successful applicants will do. Items 5 & 6 are clearly technology demonstration tasks. However the technical economic analyses described in items 7 & 8 seem to be R&D type activities rather than purely demonstration. Because the required cost share is different for the two types of tasks, can we consider tasks related to items 7 & 8 as R&D? Assuming yes, can we exceed the suggested 10% limit of R&D activities in the project?
Answer 3:
1. Yes, the costs for the required Go/No-Go review meeting can be included in the budget.
2. Per the FOA, I.3. “A limited amount of preparatory work to support the design of the proposed project system will be permitted within the scope of the project. Typically, up to 10% of the total project budget may be proposed for the preparatory R&D, but the amount is subject to negotiation after notification of selection for negotiation of an Award. Preparatory work may include limited R&D, including expenses for equipment, salaries, and supplies.” The applicant must decide how to present the work in their proposal, including related cost share percentages, which may be subject to negotiations. The 10% guideline for R&D is not meant as an absolute upper limit.
Question 8:
The Densification Workshop Report referenced in the FOA presents liquefaction as viable feedstock densification strategy. However, the FOA generally is built around solid format feedstock supply systems concepts. That leaves of with three questions:
1) Is distributed liquefaction (i.e. depot based) considered a compliant densification technology for this FOA?
2) Is a supply system delivering a liquid intermediate to the "conversion reactor throat" as stated in the FOA consider compliant to the technical objectives? The "conversion reactor throat" specifically being an industry heat or power application, or a residential heating market application in the case of this conceptual liquid format supply system.
3) If the supply system delivers a liquid intermediate which requires significantly less "conversion" to reach the desired end state energy product, is it possible to shift the cost target split between the logistics system and the conversion system? Restating this question, if the overall target of $3/GGE is achieved and the logistics system is producing an intermediate product (i.e. stable bio-oil) which requires less conversion costs, is it compliant with the FOA objectives to have a logistics system cost greater than $80/DT?
Answer 8:
1) Yes
2) Yes, but only if the biorefinery produces a cellulosic biofuel, as defined in Appendix A. This definition comes directly from the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007, which defines a Renewable Fuel Standard for liquid transportation fuels.
3) As stated in Section I.5, Technical Barrier Area 2, if you can convincingly demonstrate in the proposal that the overall value chain, including the feedstock supply system, can produce liquid transportation fuel at less than $3/GGE, then the $80/DT target does not apply. However, the proposal must still demonstrate an integrated feedstock supply system and document the economics around that system.
Question 12:
Would you please clarify two questions regarding content of the Letters of Commitment for DE-FOA-0000836?
1) Can the statement from a biorefinery confirming that “the information contained in the Proposal regarding the biomass conversion process type; the primary biofuel product of the conversion process . . .” (p. 27) be included in the Letter of Commitment if the biorefinery is also providing cost share? Or, is it required that this statement be provided in a separate letter?
2) Should/can Letters of Commitment contain text from third parties discussing their support for, and role in, the project, in addition to cost share information?
Answer 12:
1) Both items can be completed in the same letter, but if two letters is preferred for some reason, two letters would be fine
2) Letters of commitment from third parties should contain language that relates to their roles and responsibilities, as well as financial commitment to the project.
Question 14:
Attached please find an Application for Federal Assistance SF-424 submitted to the GO Logistics mailbox.
Answer 14:
Applications must be received by FRIDAY, MARCH 22, 2013, not later than 5:00 PM Eastern Time. You are encouraged to transmit your Application well before the deadline. APPLICATIONS MUST BE SUBMITTED VIA EERE EXCHANGE AT https://eere-exchange.energy.gov/. APPLICATIONS RECEIVED AFTER THE DEADLINE WILL NOT BE REVIEWED OR CONSIDERED FOR AWARD.
Question 15:
We missed the closing for concept paper submission, but hope to make the Full Application of 3/22/13.
Answer 15:
As stated in the FOA, a concept paper is REQUIRED and must be submitted to the EERE Exchange system at https://eere-exchange.energy.gov/ by 5:00 PM ET on FRIDAY, FEBRUARY 15, 2013. Applicants who fail to submit the required concept paper by 5:00 PM ET on FRIDAY FEBRUARY 15, 2013 will not be eligible to submit a full Application to this FOA.
Question 16:
How do we get our company recognized as a priority applicant due to Disabled Veteran status?
Answer 16:
As stated in Section V – Application Review Information, Applications will be evaluated against the merit review criteria and program policy factors. Disabled Veteran status is not included in these criteria and will not be factored into the application.
Question 17:
Whether each participant of the project will come up with the 20% match individually (or) it is okay if the match is shown on a overall basis?
Answer 17:
Applicant cost share can be realized on an overall basis. Section III.B and Appendix C provides additional information on cost share percentages and allowability.
Question 18:
For Section 13 (EnvQues) and Section 14 (EnvChecklist), the FOA states that we must complete the environmental questionnaire (or environmental checklist). However, the FOA also states “Do not submit the form online
through the EERE Project Management Center website; as it will not be reviewed as part of the Application.” What does an applicant do with the completed Section 13- Environmental Questionnaire and Section 14 – Environmental Checklist?
Answer 18:
The EERE Project Management Center (PMC) is a different website than EERE Exchange. Please upload both forms in the “Upload and Submit” tab at EERE Exchange https://eere-exchange.energy.gov/
Question 19:
The FOA discusses that a separate budget for each subawardee must be included and a PMC 123.1 Budget Justification file. It discusses how the PMC 123.1 should be saved and also there is a place in the EERE Exchange to upload this. Is there a specific budget template for subawards and how and where should these be saved.
Answer 19:
The PMC 123.1 Budget Justification is the only form required for each subawardee. Please upload to the Subaward Budget Justification file(s) or as Additional files. Please name each file with the Lead Organization as well as the SubAwardee as specified in the FOA.
Question 22:
Who is the DOE Project Agent on this project? It is a required field to compete the EF1 on the NEPA Environmental Checklist submission page.
Answer 22:
The DOE Project Agent is not a required field on the EF1. Please be sure to use the most up-to-date forms provided with the FOA listing in EERE Exchange.
Question 25:
1. What is the maximum allowable percentage of scope for R&D at 20% cost share?
2. Please define what the “throat of biorefinery reactor” would be for a gasification-based biorefinery, is it the throat of the gasifier or further upstream in preprocessing like drying that happens before the gasifier?
Answer 25:
1. There is no maximum amount of R&D effort at 20% cost share specified in the FOA. However, the guidance in Section I.3 of the FOA states: “Typically, up to 10% of the total project budget may be proposed for the preparatory R&D, but the amount is subject to negotiation after notification of selection for negotiation of an Award.” While proposals could include larger fraction of the federal funding be used for R&D, the FOA emphasizes the design, construction and demonstration of field-scale logistics and feedstock quality management technologies, all of which would be considered demonstration activities requiring a minimum 50% cost share.
2. The phrase “throat of the biorefinery bioreactor” in the context of this FOA means the inlet to the actual conversion process. In the example you present, this would be the inlet to the gasifier.
Question 27:
Question Regarding - Project Narrative, Section B Merit Review Criteria Discussion
In Section V, Application Review Information (1) Potential Impact of the Proposed Technology Relative to State-of-the-Art (30%), bullet point one: Present a meaningful analysis of the current state of technology for logistics-related costs and feedstock quality parameters for the selected “high impact feedstock(s)”.
Can you please clarify what type of information and/or details you are looking for in the response to the question?
Answer 27:
In this criterion, DOE is trying to prompt responses from applicants that will give the reviewers a sense that the applicant understands what logistics options are currently available, the advantages and limitations of those systems relative to your proposed new system, and the costs associated with currently available logistics technologies.
Question 28:
I just wanted to check and see if the DOE Order 412.1, Work Authorization System forms were the only budgetary information needed for the FFRDC. Is there a separate budget or PMC123 budget justification form needed in addition to this? Thanks.
Answer 28:
As stated in Section IV.C.11 of the FOA, the Field Work Proposal is the budget form for FFRDC’s. A PMC 123.1 or separate budget is not required.