Question 2:
We would be grateful for a point of contact that we could discuss the merits of the appropriate Tier stage (1 or 2) of application submission based on our assessed Technology Readiness Level (TRL).
Answer 2:
Upon the issuance of a FOA, EERE personnel are prohibited from communicating (in writing or otherwise) with Applicants regarding the FOA except through the established question and answer process as described below. Specifically, questions regarding the content of this FOA must be submitted to: WWIncubator@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. EERE will attempt to respond to a question within 3 business days, unless a similar question and answer has already been posted on the website.
Questions related to the registration process and use of the EERE Exchange website should be submitted to: EERE-ExchangeSupport@hq.doe.gov.
Question 5:
While the language of the Funding Opportunity Announcement indicates that “this FOA is open to any and all ideas”, the identified topic areas of special interest include 1) novel turbine-wake measurement techniques, 2) energy capture above 500ft, 3) remote sensing concepts for wind resource assessment & characterization, and 4) prognostic Structural health monitoring. Does the scope of this FOA also include technology innovations that can reduce market barriers to wind deployment related to mitigating wind-wildlife impacts, such as avian or bat deterrent, impact detection, or monitoring technologies?
Answer 5:
If the proposed research effort addresses the mission of the
Wind Program (accelerating the deployment of wind power technologies through
improved performance, lower costs, and reduced market barriers), and is not
excluded by section I.D of the announcement, applications proposing such
innovations are acceptable under the scope of this FOA. In addition,
pursuant to section I.B, proposed research
projects “must demonstrate clear potential to result in low-cost electricity
production in line with the programmatic cost goals, and must also demonstrate
how the proposed solution will beat current industry solutions [if such exist]
and projected prices by a significant margin.”
Question 6:
1. On page 2 in the FOA Summary box, appears the statement "EERE's (WWPTO) seeks to fund R&D in technology approaches and solutions that are not currently represented in the Office's Multi-Year Program Plan and/or existing project portfolio in a meaningful or significant way." Are there links to sites other than those identified immediately below where the technologies and solutions presently in the Multi-Year Program Plan and the existing project portfolio are identified?
2. At the bottom of page 3 under section 1.A., appears the statement "To this end, the (WWPTO) has developed a comprehensive research strategy ..." Is this strategy available, and if so would you provide a link?
3. On page 5, the second paragraph contains the statement "Applications...must also demonstrate how the proposed solution will beat current industry solutions and projected prices by a significant margin." Putting aside the complications pertaining to how one can obtain definitive information about what others might be projecting, the question is simply - can the WWPTO quantify a significant margin?
4. Further, is it accurate to assume that since the FOA identifies and quantifies LCOE target values (on page 4) for the year 2030 presumably as the goals for the work to be undertaken, that COE is the appropriate economic performance measure for demonstrating how the proposed solution will beat current industry solutions? On page 39 under the headings Concept Papers Criterion 2 and Full Applications Criterion 1, the phrases "...technical (emphasis added) and economic performance..." appear. Can the WWPTO provide specific examples of technical performance measures that are relevant?
Answer 6:
1.
For a list of projects that have
been funded in the recent years by EERE WWPTO please refer to the following
publications available at the Wind Program’s website:
http://www1.eere.energy.gov/wind/pdfs/2012_wind_power_peer_review_report.pdf
http://www1.eere.energy.gov/wind/pdfs/testing_manufacturing_component_projects.pdf
http://www1.eere.energy.gov/wind/pdfs/wind_integration_transmission_rac_projects.pdf
http://www1.eere.energy.gov/wind/pdfs/offshore_energy_projects.pdf
2.
The Wind Program R&D page (http://energy.gov/eere/wind/wind-research-and-development)
is the best publicly available resource.
3. The objective of the Incubator FOA is to identify technology pathways that are superior to solutions that DOE is currently funding. In that sense, a minimum of 15-20% would be considered a significant margin.
4. Technical performance measures could be quantities like torque density for drivetrains, blade mass for the same design loads, etc.
Question 8:
It appears that this solicitation is primarily targeted at Federally Funded Research and Development Centers (FFRDCs), which have the following constraints on participation: DOE-funded FFRDCs can be Prime Recipient on only one Concept Paper and associated Full Application. At the same time, they also can be a Sub-recipient on one other Concept Paper and associated Full Application. Non-DOE-funded FFRDCs cannot be a Prime Recipient but can be a Sub-recipient on an unlimited number of Concept Papers and associated Full Applications. By comparison, university and industry entities can be Prime Recipient or Sub-recipient on only one Concept Paper and associated Full Application. “Any other submissions received listing the same applicant will be considered non-compliant.” Universities have a wide variety of faculty experts in different academic departments, and so could potentially contribute to more than one technology innovation area. The above limit would require a given university to select its deepest technology strength, thereby preventing innovative faculty in other technology areas from participating as sub-recipients on proposals primed by other entities. Industry in general, and turbine manufacturers in particular, can be an important source of cost-sharing, but the above limit would require a given business or manufacturer to co-fund only one technology innovation area. Is the above interpretation correct, and if so, is it the intent of FOA-978 to limit university and industry participation in this way?
Answer 8:
1. There is no primary target audience for this
FOA. The intent of this FOA is to capture “off roadmap” ideas from a wide range
of experts. All entities (especially universities and industry) are encouraged
to apply to this FOA.
2. Universities
and industry entities are restricted to one application only when they are
listed as a Prime Recipient, there is no restriction on these entities being
listed as a Subrecipient. Therefore, DOE expects the entity (university or
industry) to put forward their best innovation/idea when applying as a Prime
Recipient. University faculty in other technology areas can participate as a
Subrecipient on multiple proposals where another entity is listed as the Prime
Recipient.
Question 9:
If we enter $0.00 for personnel cost in the Budget Justification Workbook while actually it would be $40,000.00 for 18 months, could it be considered as 20% cost share for a $200,000.00 total cost?
Answer 9:
Per
the FOA, every cost share contribution must be allowable under the applicable
Federal cost principles, as described in Section III.B and Section IV.I.1.
Allowable contributions include, but are not limited to: personnel costs,
indirect costs, facilities and administrative costs, rental value of buildings
or equipment, and the value of a service, other resource, or third party
in-kind contribution.
On the EERE 159 Budget
Justification, each section that has costs must be filled in. The Cost Share
tab only captures cost share and is not pulled into the budget summary. Please
see Appendix B and C on cost share calculations.
Question 11:
The FOA says that on April 17 there will be an informational webinar. What time will it be given and how do we connect for this webinar?
Answer 11:
Informational Webinar DE-FOA-0000978: TECHNOLOGY INCUBATOR
FOR WIND ENERGY INNOVATIONS
Title: Informational Webinar
DE-FOA-0000978: TECHNOLOGY INCUBATOR FOR WIND ENERGY INNOVATIONS
Date: Thursday, April 17, 2014
Time: 1:00 PM - 3:00 PM MDT (3:00 PM - 5:00 PM ET)
Reserve your Webinar seat now at:
https://www1.gotomeeting.com/register/929870320
After registering you will receive a confirmation email containing
information about joining the Webinar.
Question 12:
Can DOE provide any guidance to FOA proposers as to how to distinguish FOA applications about remote sensing from these existing activities so as to present a viable proposal?
Answer 12:
DOE cannot provide further guidance to
applicants on how to complete their applications. All of the necessary
information to determine the topics of interest are contained within the
FOA. Please see the following sections of the FOA for more information:
Section I.B. FOA Objectives, Section I.C. Topic Areas, and Section I.D. Application
Specifically Not of Interest.
Question 13:
Is it possible to get a link to stream the webinar over the web?
Answer 13:
Yes. The webinar slides and the link to view the
webinar with recorded audio are now posted to EERE Exchange.
https://eere-exchange.energy.gov/default.aspx#FoaId9c2fa7e4-f387-457b-82ff-9e57466e8733
Question 15:
On the top of page 7 under the description of a Tier 2 activity it states: "Modeling and simulation activities without a working device are not acceptable, but may be used to complement physical experiments and to illustrate the potential of the technology. " Is this in reference to the eligibility of a project to be tier 2 or in reference to the outcome of the tier 2 activity?
Answer 15:
The quoted text is in reference to the outcome of a Tier 2
activity.
Question 21:
1. Is there a minimum requirement for the work percentage to be a primary recipient (lead organization)?
2. How accurate should the work percentages be in the concept paper? Could they change in the full application?
Answer 21:
1. No, there are no limits on the involvement of
each of the participating companies, unless the Prime Applicant is looking to
apply for the cost share reduction. See the FOA, Section III.B. Cost
Sharing for more information on the cost share reduction requirements.
2. The work percentages should be as accurate as
possible in the concept paper, however changes can be made prior to submitting
the full application.
Question 22:
How much travel to Golden or Washington DC will be required if granted an award?
Answer 22:
If the project period is longer than one year,
one trip to D.C. could be required for the presentation of project progress
involving a go/no-go stage gate review. In addition, a trip to D.C.
should be planned for a Program Peer review that occurs every two years.
One year projects should budget for one trip for participation in a
Program Peer review.
Question 83:
1. FOA 978 states that applications not of interest include “technology approaches that are currently being funded by the Wind Program”. Would a concept that has been funded in the past by ARPA-E be considered of interest under this FOA?
2. Are ARPA-E project considered as part of the Wind Program.
Answer 83:
1.
DOE cannot make
eligibility determination in advance, or advise whether an application should
be submitted.
2.
ARPA-E is not
considered part of the EERE Wind and Water Power Technologies Office.
Question 84:
1. Please advise if pictures may be embedded in the concept paper pdf format.
2. Is there a milestone deliverables template or sample that is preferred for this award?
3. Is the budget form EERE 159 Budget Justification due with the concept paper?
Answer 84:
1. Yes,
pictures may be embedded in the concept paper.
2. Please
refer to Section V.D.2. for a description of the Milestone Summary Table and a
sample template.
3. No,
the EERE 159 Budget Justification is not a requirement of the Concept
Paper. It is a requirement of the Full Application.
Question 85:
1. I am wondering about the wording around the team members/organizations (for the title page and for the form on the website). I am wondering if you are looking for actual team member names, or are considering the organization a team. Long story short, the question is: are you looking for just our organization name, our organization with sub-organizations (managerial, electrical engineering, mechanical engineering, etc.), or those plus the names of the actual team members?
2. Is the information the same on the cover page as the “Team Members” tab on the submission page?
Answer 85:
1.
We are looking for
the names of the organizations, not individuals. However, it is required
that you provide a Business point of contact and a Technical point of contact
for the Prime Applicant. These should be individuals.
2.
Yes, the information
should match. Please see Section IV.C.1 for all of the Concept Paper
requirements.
Question 86:
We are not able to find any field to upload our 5 page pdf Concept Paper as per the instruction. Would you please let me know the clear instruction for submission? Also, I would appreciate if you could send me your phone contact info.
Answer 86:
The 5 page Concept Paper should
be submitted through the EERE Exchange system. In the Concept Paper stage
of Exchange, please upload your document under the Tab, “Upload and
Submit”. If you are having further problems with uploading to Exchange,
please contact the Exchange Helpdesk at EERE-ExchangeSupport@hq.doe.gov.
Upon the issuance of a FOA, EERE
personnel are prohibited from communicating (in writing or otherwise) with
Applicants regarding the FOA except through the established question and answer
process as described below. Specifically, questions regarding the content of
this FOA must be submitted to: WWIncubator@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. EERE will attempt to
respond to a question within 3 business days, unless a similar question and
answer has already been posted on the website. Questions related to the
registration process and use of the EERE Exchange website should be submitted
to: EERE-ExchangeSupport@hq.doe.gov.
Question 89:
1. I'm not sure which level my proposal will fit into. It is proven on a 3 meter diameter turbine, but not a large one. It is not commercialized, but, as mentioned, there was a prototype, although small. The funding would be for a larger scale prototype in order to facilitate market entry, along with it being verified by a credible third party.
2. Can the costs of third party certification of results be included in the program?
Answer 89:
1. DOE cannot comment on what Tier an Applicant should
apply to. Please refer to Section I.B. of the FOA for a description of
each Tier.
2. Only costs included in the project period are
allowable. So, if the costs for third party certification occur during
the project period, then yes, they can be included, if those costs are deemed
reasonable, allocable and allowable to the project.
Question 112:
We have a couple of questions regarding the Budget Justification.
1. Are there acceptable guidelines for per-hour rates for various job titles, e.g. entry level engineer vs. senior engineer or project manager?
2. Are there any requirements for travel, for example to the DOE’s office, that need to be included in the budget?
3. Could you please provide more specific information about the “required annual audits” under IV.D. 4.(Page 31)?
Answer 112:
1. The proposed rates should be
determined by the Applicant based on their entity’s policies and
procedures. The proposed rate should be reasonable for the position and
needs to have a rate basis. Typical rate basis examples are the employee’s
actual salary, or an acceptable industry rate, i.e. salary.com.
2. If the project period is longer than one
year, one trip to D.C. could be required for the presentation of project
progress involving a go/no-go stage gate review. In addition, a trip to
D.C. should be planned for a Program Peer review that occurs every two years.
One year projects should budget for one trip for participation in a Program
Peer review.
3. For annual audit requirements, please see
Section VIII.Q of the FOA.
Question 114:
If part of our commercial development plan involves applying for patents, can some of the patent application costs be included as cost-share?
Answer 114:
Costs proposed as cost share must be allowable costs per the
Cost Principles. Please refer to the Cost Principles specific to your
entity type. For-Profit Entities and Non-Profit Organizations : OMB Circular A-122 (codified at 2 C.F.R. Part 230)
Institutions of Higher
Education: OMB Circular A-21, “Cost Principles of Educational
Institutions” (codified at 2 C.F.R. Part 220)
States and Local Governments: OMB Circular A-87, “Cost Principles for State, Local,
and Indian Tribal Governments” (codified at 2 C.F.R. Part 225)
Per 2 C.F.R. Part 220:
“a. The following costs relating to patent and copyright matters
are allowable:
(1) Cost of preparing disclosures, reports, and other documents
required by the sponsored agreement and of searching the art to the extent
necessary to make such disclosures;
(2) Cost of preparing documents and any other patent costs in
connection with the filing and prosecution of a United States patent
application where title or royalty-free license is required by the Federal
Government to be conveyed to the Federal Government; and
(3) General counseling services relating to patent and copyright
matters, such as advice on patent and copyright laws, regulations, clauses, and
employee agreements (but see sections J.37, Professional service costs, and
J.44, Royalties and other costs for use of patents, of this Appendix).
b. The following costs related to patent and copyright matter
are unallowable:
(1) Cost of preparing disclosures, reports, and other documents
and of searching the art to the extent necessary to make disclosures not required
by the award
(2) Costs in connection with filing and prosecuting any foreign
patent application, or any United States patent application, where the
sponsored agreement award does not require conveying title or a royalty-free
license to the Federal Government, (but see section J.44, Royalties and other
costs for use of patents, of this Appendix).”
Question 117:
1) If the Prime Applicant and a Subrecipient are both FFRDCs, do they have to submit both the Form 159 and a FWP?
2) A non-FFRDC Subrecipient has to complete the Form 159 only, correct?
3) Where do we provide a consolidated cost and schedule for the entire scope of work? It seems each entity does their own, but there is no document to tie it all together.
4) We are assuming a 10% non-federal cost sharing requirement since the Prime Applicant is a FFRDC. Please confirm.
5) I have a bunch of questions about the SF-424…..
a. 4… is this the control number I received when I submitted the concept paper
b. 5a and 5b are either of these our DOE Award number?
c. 8f. Should this be the technical contact or the administrative contact person?
d. 16..Is this just the congressional district for the work done by the lead?
e. 17…when will these funds be awarded? It is hard to provide a start date when we don’t know the award date.
Answer 117:
1)
The Prime Applicant
is required to submit the Budget Justification Form 159. If the Prime
Applicant is a DOE FFRDC, they are also required to submit the FWP. The
FFRDC Subrecipient must submit a FWP if it is a DOE FFRDC. If it is a
non-DOE FFRDC and is expected to perform work estimated to be more than
$250,000 or 25 percent of the total work effort (whichever is less), than the
Subrecipient would be required to submit a Budget Justification Form 159 for
its portion of the work.
2)
Any Subrecipient
that is a non-FFRDC will only have to fill out the Budget Justification Form
159 if it is expected to perform work estimated to be more than $250,000 or 25
percent of the total work effort (whichever is less).
3)
The Prime Applicant
will provide the Form 159 that is for the entire scope of work. The 159
submitted for the Prime will include all project costs. All Subrecipients
will be reflected under Contractual.
4)
The Prime Applicant
(FFRDC) would qualify for the 10% cost share reduction as long as the Prime
Applicant is incurring more than 50% of the total project costs.
5)
A. Yes.
B. 5a and 5b can be left
blank.
C. That is up to the
Applicant. It is whoever you want the primary contact to be involving
questions on the Application form.
D. 16a is the
congressional district of the Applicant. 16b is the congressional district of
the principal place of performance (where the work is being done).
E. It is anticipated that
the awards will be made by September 30, 2014. If this date changes, the
project start date can be changed during award negotiations.
Question 119:
On page 28 of the above referenced solicitation it is noted that Business Agreements between the Applicant and each PI and Key Participant are to be described for those proposals that are multi-investigator/multi-institutional projects. Can you provide any additional information regarding what the expectation is for these Business agreements and what they should include?
Answer 119:
EERE does not have an expectation or any requirements on
the Business Agreements. Applicants
should follow their internal procedures to formulate these agreements. If these
agreements are or will be used for work being done on the proposed project,
please describe the type of agreement in the Technical Volume.
Per the FOA, please also include the following in the
Technical Volume:
"For multi‐organizational or multi‐investigator
projects, describe succinctly:
o The roles and the work to be performed by each PI and
Key Participant;
o Business agreements between the Applicant and each PI and
Key Participant;
o How the various efforts will be integrated and managed;
o
Process for making decisions on scientific/technical direction;
o Publication
arrangements;
o Intellectual Property issues; and
o Communication plans"
Question 121:
Is the SF-LLL form required to be completed and attached to the submission if there are no lobbying activities to disclose? The list of files for full application listed on page 24-25 states “if applicable” on some items but not the SF-LLL while on page 34 it says the form needs to be submitted if there are activities.
Answer 121:
The SF-LLL is only required, if
applicable. Per the FOA, the SF-LLL must be submitted “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 the
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.”
Question 122:
On page 6 of the FOA in the Executive Summary it states:
Cost Share Reduction Exception: The cost share requirement for applied R&D projects will be reduced to 10% if 1) the prime recipient is a national laboratory, domestic non-profit organization, domestic university, or state, local or tribal government, and 2) the prime recipient incurs more than 50% of the total project costs.
If we meet these requirements, should we include a cost share of 10% of Total Project Costs or 20% of Total Project Costs in the application?
Answer 122:
If the Prime Applicant is
eligible for the cost share reduction, the required cost share will be
reduced from 20% of Total Project Costs, to 10% of Total Project Costs.
Therefore, the Prime Applicant’s minimum requirement for the cost share is 10%
of Total Project Costs. The Prime Applicant can always propose more than the
minimum requirement, but the cost share must be at least 10% of Total Project
Costs.
Question 123:
1. Our responses to the second to last bullet point in the Work Plan section "Project Management" and the last bullet point of the Technical Qualifications and Resources section "for multi-organizational..." have redundant contents such as team members' roles, project management approach, decision making and communication policies. We would appreciate any clarification to differentiate these two sections.
2. Do the attachments such as resumes need to follow the formatting requirements specified in IV.A. (bottom of page [20])?
Answer 123:
1.
The Project Management Section under Work Plan is in reference to the project
team, in general. The Multi-Organizational section is only in reference
to those projects that have multiple organizations or multiple principal
investigators working on the project. If your project is not
multi-organizational, it is not necessary to complete this section.
2.
The attachments should follow the formatting requirements specified in IV.A.,
unless otherwise noted in Section IV.D.1. Be sure that the resumes follow
the requirements listed in Section IV.D.1. Per the FOA, “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 125:
Can the summary for public release incorporate a graphic as long as it stays within the 1-page limit?
Answer 125:
Yes, the summary for public
release can incorporate a graphic.
Question 128:
1) Under the General Tab it states the abstract is allowed 4000 maximum characters. Does this include spaces?
2) Also it states “Please ensure that the Abstract matches the Abstract in your application document”. Does this mean the Summary for Public Release must mirror the abstract on line under the General Tab?
Answer 128:
1) Yes, the 4,000 character
count includes spaces.
2) Yes, the official title of
the Abstract is “Summary for Public Release”. See Section IV.D.5 for the
requirements of the document. This document should match the Abstract
section in Exchange.
Question 130:
I have a couple of questions regarding the contact info.
1. Our "Submission Details" screen right after the submission does not show the prime applicant's PI's email as the "Applicant Email" (right below the Abstract). Do we need to correct it, and if yes, could you tell me how?
2. Is it acceptable to list the sub-applicant's PI as the Technical Point of Contact?
Answer 130:
1. As
long as you entered the Business Point of Contact and the Technical Point of
Contact correctly under the “Contact Information” Tab, EERE will have the
information that we need, regardless of what is showing up on the Submission
Details page.
2. The
Technical Point of Contact should be the Principal Investigator for the
project. This is the person to whom questions regarding the application
will be addressed. If selected for award negotiations, the Technical
Point of Contact can be changed, however please be aware that the reviewers
will take into account the project team during the review, so it is important
to have the Principal Investigator listed appropriately.
Question 132:
When I upload the budget justification as an .xslx file (one of the allowed formats according to the third column of allowed file formats)… I get an error: “This file extension isn't allowed”. Can I upload the file as *.xslx?
Answer 132:
The allowable file formats for
the Budget Justification are the following: .PDF, .XLS or .XLSX.
.XSLX (as you describe above) is
not an allowable format, however that may have just been a typo of .XLSX.
Please check your extension and try uploading again. If they extension is
correct (.XLSX) and you are still having an issue uploading the document,
please contact the EERE Exchange Helpdesk at EERE-ExchangeSupport@hq.doe.gov.