EERE eXCHANGE: FAQs

Question 1: Priority Area 1: Is an indoor closed photobioreactor not allowed?
Answer 1:

Indoor closed photobioreactor processes are allowed in Performance Period 1 as long as the processes are moved to an outdoor, non-simulated environment that allows for the iterative process leading to the outdoor 1-acre equivalent scale required within the FOA. As noted in the FOA in Section I.C, a clear barrier exists in translating laboratory success to demonstrated, scalable, outdoor cultivation environments that capture all of the variables not present in laboratory systems. Thus it is expected that the research conducted in the selected projects will include an iterative process whereby the results obtained from experiments in outdoor environments will be used to inform the laboratory experiments and vice versa. Section I.C.8 states, 'Applicants must include cultivation and processing in an outdoor environment in their Performance Period 1 activities.'

Question 2: Priority Area 1: Are all indoor algae biomass growth processes not allowed?
Answer 2: See answer to previous question.

Question 3: Priority Area 1: Is this FOA only for outdoor algae biomass production?
Answer 3: As stated in Section I.C.8, 'Applicants must include cultivation and processing in an outdoor environment in their Performance 1 activities.'

Question 4: Reference your newletter on the subject, and I would like to know, wheter your funding will be available to project study here in Pakistan.
Answer 4: In Section II.H, it is noted that EERE strongly encourages interdisciplinary and cross-sectoral collaboration spanning organizational and national boundaries. EERE requires all work under EERE funding agreements to be performed in the United States - i.e., prime recipients must expend 100% of the total project cost in the United States. Furthermore, please see Section III - Eligibility Information regarding Foreign Entities.

Question 5: I am reading about the opportunity DE-FOA-0000811 in the portal: http://www07.grants.gov…however, the link to full announcement is not working. I will greatly appreciate your assistance.
Answer 5: The full announcement for DE-FOA-0000811 is located in EERE's Exchange system at https://eere-exchange.energy.gov.

Question 6: Where are answers posted, for FOA-0000811?
Answer 6: As noted in Section VII - Questions/Agency Contracts, all questions and answers related to this FOA will be posted on EERE Exchange at: https://eere-exchange.energy.gov.

Question 7: Can confidential information be submitted in the Concept Paper and/or Application itself and be guaranteed as being kept confidential?
Answer 7: Please see Section VIII.D - Other Information for a discussion of confidential, proprietary, or privileged information in applications. This section applies to concept papers and applications.

Question 8: I sent this email on Friday, hopefully you can assist us today: I am reading about the opportunity DE-FOA-0000811in the portal: http://www07.grants.gov/search/synopsis.do;jsessionid=71v7Q5FTFSCGVy2gTLvrWZcmrwmB1jt6wxPpBHrR76167MhJrrRl!-802028924 However, the link to full announcement is not working. I will greatly appreciate your assistance.
Answer 8: The full announcement for DE-FOA-0000811 is located in EERE's Exchange system at https://eere-exchange.energy.gov.

Question 9: Will your office provide instructions on how 85% of the total project cost should be allocated if not for human and physical capital?
Answer 9: It is encumbent on the Applicant propose a budget that aligns with the scope and objectives of the proposed project. The technical merit of a proposed project will be evaluated against the published criteria described in section V of the FOA.

Question 10: May an exception be made for the lease of necessary equipment?
Answer 10:

Applicants may propose leasing equipment as a procurement strategy within their budgets; however, as noted in Section I.C, construction and capital costs to build cultivation acreage or capacity are not allowed. Section I.F applies to leased equipment as well. Partnering is highly encouraged to help accommodate researchers that don't have all the necessary facilities and equipment to meet the terms of all three Priority Areas and the goals of the FOA.

Question 11: Are 'no-kill' algal biofuel production technologies considered under the FOA?
Answer 11:

Yes, no-kill algal biofuel production technologies are allowed. Technologies that meet the intent of the three priority areas as described in section I.B are allowed if proposed in application that is responsive to the requirements listed in section I.C.

Question 12: Would be able to use funds to include expanding our current infrastructure in order to construct larger, prototype pond/PBR systems that currently do not exist?
Answer 12: Modifications to increase capacity are allowed up to 15% of the total project costs, as noted in Section I.F.

Question 13: 20% in matching funds are requisite for this funding opportunity, and is it specified where these must go, or is it acceptable that the 20% in matching funds can go to direct construction costs of new cultivation facilities?
Answer 13:

It is not specified where cost share funding should be proposed within the budget; however, as stated in Section I.F, modifications may not exceed 15% of the total project cost. Total project costs include cost share; therefore, cost share funding the 15% total costs allowed for modifications cannot be used toward construction.

Question 14: I was curious to know if this grant would apply for conference funding for algae research. If so, would the standard application method be appropriate?
Answer 14:

Section I.B and I.C outline the three priority areas and the technical application requirements for this FOA. Conference funding for algae research is not an area of focus within this FOA.

Question 15: If not, would you happen to know if the DOE or your office gives conference funding and who would be the appropriate contact for that?
Answer 15:

For questions about the Biomass Office that are not related to this FOA, please contact eere_biomass@ee.doe.gov .

Question 16: Is there a limit on how many proposals to this FOA an institution may lead?
Answer 16: No. An institution may apply as the lead for one or more applications.

Question 17: Are 'no-kill' algal biofuel production technologies considered under this FOA?
Answer 17: Yes, no-kill algal biofuel production technologies are allowed. See response to question # 11.

Question 18: Are these arcreage metrics in the FOA intended to measure land use?
Answer 18: No, the acreage metrics are not intented to measure land use.

Question 19: If not, how do you convert acreage of ocean for aquaculture to an equivalent acreage of land?
Answer 19:

As noted in Appendix A - Definitions, the 1 acre cultivation equivalent means a suite of operations including inoculation, cultivation, harvest, and processing sized with the capability to process and produce gallons of algal biofuel intermediate per day. The modeled BTO baseline system described in the MYPP is conceived around an open raceway pond. The modeled baseline unit operations are shown, including capacity, units, and concentration in the table in the definition. Also, as noted in the definition, applicants are to present their proposed system, which is clearly unlikely to exactly match the model baseline, in comparable terms. It is the responsibility of the applicant to propose how their proposed system compares to the 1 acre cultivation equivalent leading to the goal of producing 2,500 gallons of biofuel intermediates per acre/per year (or equivalent) by 2018. The modeled baseline unit operations are shown, including capacity, units, and concentration in the table in the definition. Also, as noted in the definition, applicants are to present their proposed system, which is clearly unlikely to exactly match the model baseline, in comparable terms. It is the responsibility of the applicant to propose how their proposed system compares to the 1 acre cultivation equivalent leading to the goal of producing 2,500 gallons of biofuel intermediates per acre/per year (or equivalent) by 2018.

Question 20: Could you please email me the complete details about the funding opportunity DE-FOA-000811?
Answer 20: The full announcement for DE-FOA-0000811 is located in EERE's Exchange system at https://eere-exchange.energy.gov.

Question 21: In order to be eligible for funding, do we need to have an existing algae production facility? If yes, does the existing facility need to be in the United States, meaning can we have a facility currently operating outside the United States, but use the funding from this project to develop the same facilities in the United States?
Answer 21:

As stated in Section III.D, DOE will not make eligibility determinations for potential applicants prior to the date on which applications to this FOA must be submitted. However, in specific context with the follow-on question, 'If yes,…', it is possible that a proposed process(es) is being researched outside of the U.S. and that process is the baseline for the proposed effort in the United States. With that in mind, please refer to the following sections: Section I.B, fifth bullet under 'Important aspects of Priority Area 1 include' - It is expected that applicants will have already identified: promising strain(s) or partnered appropriately to gain access to identified strains; strain characteristic(s); and cultivation technique(s) backed by supporting data that demonstrate(s) a significant potential to increase biomass productvitiy.; Section I.C.1 - Construction and capital costs to build cultivation acreage or capacity are not allowed within this FOA. Partnering to utilize appropriately sized outdoor and process relevant facilities, such as the testbeds and processing facilities associated with the RAFT partnerships (in conjunction with DOE BTO), is highly encouraged but not required.; Section I.F Construction Requirements; Section II.H Performance of Work in the United States; and, Section III.A.3 Foreign Entities.

Question 22: In the FOA, it states that only 15% of the money can be used for modifications to capital infrastructure. If more than this amount is needed, would we be able to fund the rest of the captial expenditure with our own funds?
Answer 22:

Total project costs, which include an applicant's/partner's cost share, can be used for modifications to existing experimental infrastructure up to 15% of the total project costs. Additional applicant/partner funding for capital expenditures beyond the 15% would not be considered applicable within the proposed project.

Question 23: Would either of these two routs for production of alga biofuel be responsive to the call: 1. Utilization of algal biomass for production of renewable natural gas via anaerobic digestion. 2. Utilization of algal biomass for production of biocrude oil via hydrothermal liquefaction.
Answer 23:

Per Section III.D, Questions Regarding Eligibility, DOE 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 24: Does the final outcome of a proposed activity under this call need to be a biofuel (e.g. biodiesel), or would either the extracted lipid fraction from algal biomass, or a concentrated biomass paste suffice?
Answer 24:

As noted in Section I.B of the FOA, the three priority areas in the FOA are intended to support meeting the Biomass Technologies Office’s 2018 goal of demonstrating algal ‘biofuel intermediate’ productivity of 2,500 gallons per acre per year. In general, ‘biofuel intermediates’ are biomass-based feedstocks that can replace petroleum-based feedstocks in downstream refining. Biofuel intermediates can be refined into a variety of liquid transportation fuels such as ethanol, renewable diesel, and renewable jet fuel.

Specific to algae, algal biofuel intermediates are the end result of cultivation, concentration, and pre-processing (harvesting and extraction, or process-specific analog) of algal biomass into a feedstock suitable for refining processes. Also noted in Section I.B under ‘Important aspects of Priority Area 1’, there are a wide variety of processes that may use various components of algal feedstocks on the path towards commercialization of biofuels, and possibly bioproducts. As such, all of the major bulk biochemical components are targets for improvements if they can be clearly demonstrated to lead to increased yield of biofuel intermediates. Thus, the productivity of all of these components will be considered under this FOA.

Question 25: Are gaseous (volatile) compounds eligible biofuels under this call?
Answer 25:

The focus of the FOA is on increasing the production of biofuel intermediates for refining to liquid transportation fuels. Per Section I.B, ‘Algae FSL systems are expected to primarily produce algal biofuel intermediates suitable for transportation to facilities that convert the intermediate to liquid transportation fuels.’

Question 26: can one scientist who is the PI in one proposal be able to be able to submit another proposal as a Co-PI? If, yes then how the conflict of interest will be explained?
Answer 26:

A PI on one application can be proposed as a co-PI on another application. If an applicant feels this presents a conflict of interest, they should address the conflict and its mitigation in the applications. Please refer to Section V.B.1 and V.B.2 regarding Applications Subject to Merit Review and Pre-Selection Clarification for more information on the merit review process and pre-selection clarifications where an issue like this (if it was an issue) would likely be addressed.

Question 27: Do the algae need to be directly used for biofuel production, or can they serve as substrate/food for other organisms/processes from which the biofuel is extracted?
Answer 27:

As noted in Section I.B, the intent of this FOA is to support meeting BTO’s 2018 goal of demonstrating algal ‘biofuel intermediate’ productivity of 2,500 gallons per acre per year, where in general, ‘biofuel intermediates’ are biomass-based feedstocks that can replace petroleum-based feedstocks in downstream refining. Specific to algae, algal biofuel intermediates are the end result of cultivation, concentration, and pre-processing (harvesting and extraction, or process-specific analog) of algal biomass into a feedstock suitable for refining processes.

Also, please note Section III.D, Questions Regarding Eligibility, and Section IV.B.1 regarding the submittal of the Concept Paper. Section III.D states that DOE will not make eligibility determinations for potential applications prior to the date on which applications to this FOA must be submitted. Section IV.B.1 states that following receipt of the concept paper, DOE will advise each applicant regarding the degree to which the submitted concept paper is responsive to the FOA and goals of the DOE Biomass Program.

Question 28: Is it acceptable in our proposal to meet the MYPP productivity goals by showing that: at a certain productivity that is lower than 2,500 or 5,000 gal/yr/acre, macroalgae biofuel intermediates can be manufactured at a cost that is equivalent to the cost of biofuel intermediates from microalgae at 2,500 or 5,000 gal/yr/acre?
Answer 28:

As noted in the previous answer on this topic, it is the responsibility of the applicant to propose how their proposed system compares to the 1 acre cultivation equivalent leading to the goal of producing 2,500 gallons of biofuel intermediates per acre/per year (or equivalent) by 2018. Please note ‘or equivalent’.

Also, as stated in Section III.D, DOE will not make eligibility determinations for potential applicants prior to the date on which applications to this FOA must be submitted. Similarly, Section IV.B.1 states, ‘Following receipt of the concept paper, DOE will advise each applicant regarding the degree to which the submitted concept paper is responsive to the FOA and the goals of the DOE Biomass Program.’

Question 29: For mixotrophic approaches, how is yield per acre counted? Is the full/final algal biomass yield divided by the acreage used to produce the algae (ie. acreage used to supply lignocellulosic source for sugars would not be counted)?
Answer 29:

As footnoted in Section I.A and defined in Appendix A, a one (1) acre cultivation equivalent means a suite of operations, including inoculation, cultivation, harvest, and processing sized with the capability to process and produce gallons of algal biofuel intermediates per day. To meet the intent of the FOA, applicants are expected to present their proposed system, which is clearly unlikely to exactly match the model baseline, in comparable terms. It is the responsibility of the applicant to propose how their proposed system compares to the one (1) acre cultivation equivalent leading to the goal of producing 2,500 gallons of biofuel intermediates per acre/per year (or equivalent) by 2018.

The acreage used to produce the lignocellulosic source for sugars is not applicable to the ‘one (1) acre cultivation equivalent’ discussed in this FOA.

Question 30: I AM VERY INTERESTED TO WORK ON A PROJECT ON ALGAE I WORKED ABOUT ALGAE FOR 7 YEARS -BOTH FROM LABORATORY TO PONDS I UNDERSTAND THERE IS A FUNDING OPPORTUNITY ON ADVANCEMENT IN ALGAL BIOMASS. PLEASE HELP ME I CAN BE CONTACTED HERE OR MY MOBILE PHONE XXXX-XXXXXXXXX
Answer 30:

To learn about job opportunities at DOE, please visit: http://jobs.energy.gov/.

Question 31: We are preparing the concept paper for the algae biofuel call. The access to the ref[7] is closed. http://www1.eere.energy.gov/biomass.pdfs/mypp_november_2012.pdf
Answer 31:

There was a typo in the link. The correct link is: http://www1.eere.energy.gov/biomass/pdfs/mypp_november_2012.pdf

Question 32: I am interested in leading a call in respone to DE-FOA-0000811, Algal Biofuel Yield. I have a couple of clarification questions that I would like to address prior to submitting our Concept Paper. Would it be possible to establish a phone call with a DOE representative for this solicitation at some point this week?
Answer 32:

DOE cannot and will not address questions related to the FOA via any other mechanism than the ABY FOA Mailbox. Per Section VII, all questions regarding the content of this announcement must be submitted to: ABYFOA@go.doe.gov no later than three (3) business days prior to the application due date.

Question 33: How long after the concept paper submittal will the DOE advise the applicant on their responsiveness to the FOA goal?
Answer 33:

We intend to provide responses to the Concept Papers by no later than 2/19/13. If timing and resources permit, we will try to have responses out sooner; however, they will be released by COB 2/19/13.

Question 34: As stated in Answer 4, all EERE funded work must be performed in US. So, if a subrecipient is a foreign entity, how can they spend the subaward? Is sending students or Postdocs to US to work on their task the only way to spend their portion? If certain proposed work has to be conducted outside of the US, can a waiver be approved to make it happen? If the waiver is approved, does that mean that US money can be spent elsewhere?
Answer 34:

"If a subrecipient foreign entity will be performing work outside the U.S., the applicant or prime recipient must request a waiver for the subrecipient to do so. See Section II.H. of the FOA regarding Performance of Work in the United States and Section IV.C.16 of the FOA for waiver request information. If the requested waiver is approved, DOE funding would be allowed for that activity."

Question 35: Our approach to lowering the cost (monetarily and energy) of production of a biofuel is to produce a high value product to which the majority of the costs can be attributed to. This is done using cost accounting rules. With regard to the 10% rule below can we cost shift the energy expenditure to the high value product such that the resulting biofuel energy content is above 90%? "Priority Area 2 - Improvements in Pre-processing Technologies: This priority area is aimed at applied research and engineering to build and operate innovative harvesting, dewatering, and intermediate processing (e.g., extraction) unit operations that can be integrated at scale with biomass production (i.e., support appropriate volumetric flow-through); can be operated efficiently so that the energy expended does not exceed 10% of the energy content contained in the biofuel intermediate; and are low cost (both capital and operational expenditures) to scale."
Answer 35:

"Allocation of energy amongst a slate of products is a recognized challenge in accounting for energy and GHG reductions contained in biofuel. It is the responsibility of the applicant to decide how to propose their effort within the terms of the FOA. Proposed efforts will be evaluated using the criteria published in the FOA. Please refer to the Section V.A.3, specifically item #2."

Question 36: In one of our proposals, we might be the lead or it might be an industrial partner. If we submit the Concept Paper and get assigned the Control Number, can we later change the lead and use the same Control number with the industrial partner as the lead?
Answer 36:

The lead organization cannot be changed after the Concept Paper is submitted. If you think there might be a change later, you may want to submit two Concept Papers for the two different lead organizations.

Question 37: have read DE-FOA-0000811 and have an interest in being a merit reviewer for applications to be received by GO on April 1, 2013. My CV is attached. I have expertise in algae feedstocks. I also have expertise in separations which overlaps the three priority areas described in DE-FOA-0000864. My book XXX is used by scientists and engineers as a reference. I have just received an award from the AIChE Separations Division for my contributions in this area. Earlier I worked with GO Project Manager XX XXs a merit reviewer for applications for conversions of biomass to fuels and chemicals. Will you need my help as an outside reviewer for DE-FOA-0000811 "Advancements in Algal Biomass Yield" ?
Answer 37:

Thank you for your interest in serving as a reviewer for this FOA. Your email has been forwarded to our Merit Review Committee team. A request for additional information such as your experience, qualifications, and area(s) of expertise will be sent to you shortly. Please be aware that the number of reviewers that will be needed is dependent on the number of pre-applications received, so the reviewer list will not be finalized until after the pre-application submission date.

Question 38: We need clarification on Cost Share for this FOA. It states that the cost share must be at least 20% of the total allowable costs for research and development projects (i.e., the sum of the Government share, including FFRDC contractor costs if applicable, and the recipient share of allowable costs equals the total allowable cost of the project) and must come from non-Federal sources unless otherwise allowed by law. The text then references 10 CRF Part 600 for the applicable cost sharing requirements which references the following: “Whenever DOE negotiates the amount of cost sharing, DOE may take into account such factors as the use of program income (see § 600.124), patent rights, and rights in data. Foregone fee or profit shall not be considered in establishing the extent of cost sharing.” § 600.124 Program income. (a) The standards set forth in this section shall be used to account for program income related to projects financed in whole or in part with DOE funds. We have the following scenario. EERE has funded one of the research partners we are considering partnering with on this call. That partner received DOE EERE ARRA funds which are paying for the Lease of the facility. Could those costs be considered “Cost Share”?
Answer 38:

As you have highlighted from the FOA, cost share must come from Non-Federal sources. If DOE funds were used for the lease of a facility, that would be considered federally funded, and not eligible for cost share.

Question 39: With respect to page 9, lines 7 and 8: • This scale requirement can be met with an array of linked cultivation systems. " do the components of the array need physically near one another? Can they be located in different states?
Answer 39:

"The intent of allowing linked cultivation systems is to allow for scale requirements to be met with more than one cultivation vessel. As described in detail throughout the FOA and particularly in Section I.B, it is a priority of the FOA to integrate production and processing. It is the responsibility of the applicant to describe how their proposal meets the intent, priorities, and requirements of the FOA. "

Question 40: In DOE EREE's definition, renewable biomass was defined as 'organic matter that is available on a renewable or recurring basis.' Moreover it refers to 'organic material grown for the purposes of being converted to energy'. With this definition, in a case (such as Algenol’s) where ethanol is emitted, can the biomass be defined as both the biomass in liquid medium and the evaporated biomass? In other words, when we are counting total biomass yield, can we include both the ash free dry weight (AFDW) and the ethanol evaporated for fuel? Scientifically and practically, it is important to include the evaporated ethanol as this creates a carbon sink to allow a much higher total biomass.
Answer 40:

Per Section 1.C, number 5, applicants are required to demonstrate a clear understanding of target algae biomass streams and must provide within the application a characterization of the target biofuel intermediates to justify how they could be used as suitable petroleum replacements for specific fuels and/or products.

Consequently, all biofuel intermediates should be accounted for.

Question 41: Would costs involved in moving components of an already installed facility from one location to another be considered construction costs? Would moving equipment be allowed under this FOA?
Answer 41: Costs associated with “moving equipment” are generally not considered construction costs. All costs, including moving costs, must be allowable in accordance with the applicable Federal cost principles referenced in: 2 CFR 220 for Educational Institutions; 2 CFR 225 for State, Local, and Indian Tribal Governments; 2 CFR 230 for Non Profit Organizations; and FAR Part 31 for commercial organizations

Question 42: My question is regarding the Abstract required on the General Tab in the Submission Portal. An Abstract is not required for the Concept Paper submission. Per the FOA for the Concept Paper instructions a 1-2 sentence description of the project is required on the cover page. Is the 1-2 sentence description considered to be the Abstract that should be entered on the General Tab in the Submission Portal?
Answer 42:

The 1-2 sentence description would be appropriated for the Abstract in the General tab for the Concept Paper.

Question 43: Can the same person be PI on more than one proposal?
Answer 43:

Yes, the same person may be the PI on more than one proposal.

Question 44: I am intending to submit a concept paper for DE-FOA-0000811 Algae Biomass Yield. What required information do I need besides registration with the DOE? I have a DUNs #. Do I need a SAM as well for the concept paper or just for the Final Submission? Please advise ASAP.
Answer 44:

Please review, “ Registration Requirements” and Section IV. B for a complete listing of requirements.

Question 45: I am submitting a concept paper and have a problem. The link for submitting the concept paper will not accept my file which is named “XXX_concept_paper.pdf”. The error message states “This file extension is not allowed”. The instructions say to use a pdf file, so I am very confused. How shall I submit this before the deadline on Feb 11? I uploaded it under “Additional Files’, but the software will not allow me to submit since there is no document in the first field.
Answer 45:

eXCHANGE has now been updated to allow submission of PDF files. It will accept Word files.

Question 46: Hi, we uploaded our Concept Paper to the website on time, and we received this announcement: However, upon review, I found that I uploaded the unedited copy of the Concept Paper, which follows a DOE Concept Paper format that exceeds your four-page maximum. The correct Concept Paper is attached, if possible, please see that this is substituted for the uploaded version.
Answer 46:

Thank you for your submission, however, once the deadline for applications has passed, we are not able to modify the applications.

Question 47: We submitted the above referenced concept paper yesterday and realized after we submitted that one of the figures (Figure 2) was corrupted in the conversion to PDF. If at all possible, we would like to have the attached document replace the attachment that was part of our submission yesterday. Please let me know if this is going to acceptable and if you need anything further from us.
Answer 47:

Please see question 46.

Question 48: Did we get a notification that we are either encouraged or discouraged to submit the full proposal?
Answer 48:

The status of all the submitted concept papers has been updated in the eXCHANGE System. Please be sure to log-in and review the status and comments for all control numbers you submitted.

Question 49: I was looking to see if I could still put a Concept paper for this grant. thank you. (we are building a Algae pond in (removed) this year for a company called (removed), LLC and would like to see if we could be part of this as we are looking to do a project like this anyway
Answer 49:

The deadline to submit concept papers was 2/11/2013, and this was required in order to submit a full application. However, the Department of Energy will post furture funding opportunity announcements on EERE eXCHANGE, at https://eere-exchange.energy.gov/, and at Grants.gov, at http://www.grants.gov/.

Question 50: Where a DOE National Laboratory is the prime recipient and collaborates with a foreign institution that is not receiving DOE funding, may the foreign institution send a postdoctoral student or scientist to work at one of the Laboratory's US partner institutions (hence foreign money but work done in the US) and that count toward the Total Product Cost as cost share without the need for a waiver? May we (a U.S. DOE National Laboratory) send a U.S. student/scientist (with DOE funds) in a reciprocal arrangement to that noted above to work at the foreign collaborator’s institution without the need for a waiver?
Answer 50:

Yes, where a U.S. DOE National Laboratory is the prime recipient, it may collaborate with a foreign institution that sends a postdoctoral student or scientist to work on the project at one of its U.S. partner institutions, and the funds associated with that person and their project related work may count towards Total Project Costs as cost share without the need for a waiver. The amount counted as cost share would need to be based on current exchange rates.

No, this reciprocal arrangement for a U.S. student/scientist, as the Prime Recipient (with DOE funds) working at the foreign collaborator's institution (on the proposed project), would not be allowed without an approved waiver. As noted in Section II.H, Performance of Work in the United States, EERE requires all work under EERE funding agreements to be performed in the United States. Therefore, spending project funds outside of the U.S. is not allowed.

Question 51: 1. Regarding the SOPO. The solicitation indicates that “All of the information to be included in the SOPO should be consistent with the Application upon which the award is based.” I want to confirm that I have the correct understanding -- that a single SOPO should be used to describe the project, encompassing the tasks to be accomplished by all of the partnering entities. 2. The Environmental questionnaire. Given that work may take place at more than one location, does the lead institution compile a single environmental questionnaire, answering each of the questions, and in response to each describing the work to be completed by the relevant subcontractor(s)?
Answer 51:

A1: Your understanding is correct. A single SOPO should be included that describes the project, including all tasks (even those to be accomplished by all of the partnering entities). A suggested template is included in Appendix F of the FOA.

A2: The Environmental Questionnaire can be completed in the manner you’ve proposed; however, it may be easier to complete an environmental questionnaire for each relevant subcontractor(s). Either way is acceptable; however, the questionnaire(s) should be uploaded by the Lead applicant rather than individually by each subcontractor.

Question 52: I see on the online submission site that our Concept Paper has received the response Encouraged. Will there be a formal notification via email, or can we take the information from the website as an indication to start preparing for the full proposal?
Answer 52:

The eXCHANGE website is the only source for the notification for concept papers. Please use the information from the eXCHANGE website to begin preparing your full application.

Question 53: Will the project management plan be available in a form which we can edit such as Word or Excel?
Answer 53:

Yes, the project management plan template has been changed to an editable Excel document.

Question 55: HI, I cant find where the responses were posted? Can you send me a link?
Answer 55:

If you log-in to your application/control number you will see the comments. However, there are only comments for the “discouraged” applications.

Question 56: Do you know how long, on average, the reviews typically are?
Answer 56:

If you are referring to the length of time needed for a review, there are many factors that affect how long a review may take. We anticipated receiving the Concept Papers on 2/11, downloading and distributing to reviewers quickly thereafter, and posting the ‘encourage’/’discourage’ and comments by COB 2/19/13. However, as mentioned in the email, due to technical difficulties in entering the responses into eXCHANGE, we were delayed until 2/21 and 2/22 from entering the responses.

Question 58: Dr. {Removed} (cc'ed to this email) is working with me and I'd like him to call you to discuss our proposal to DOE, Please provide us with your phone number so that he can communicate with you directly.
Answer 58:

This is a competitive solicitation and private discussions, while the announcement is open, are prohibited. All questions regarding this FOA must be submitted via e-mail to ABYFOA@go.doe.gov no 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/

Question 59: For the PMP section of the application, I have several questions: • Are we expected to use the PMP example that was provided as a PDF under “FOA Documents” as a template? • We are assuming that the PMP section includes a text-based discussion of all of the required topics (Schedule, Tasks, Spend plan, Outcomes, Stage Gate approach, etc.) with supporting tables as needed. Would the PMP example given in the ‘FOA documents’ just be one way to organize the supporting tables (e.g. to demonstrate alignment with WBS)? • What is the page limit for the PMP document?
Answer 59:

A1. Please refer to Section IV.C.13, for details on what to include in the Project Management Plan. Also, please note that applicants may use their own project management system to provide the information. However, the PMP template has been provided for your use.

A2. The PMP template is one way to organize the required information. The template includes an imbedded Statement of Work which is a format for detailing the required information in a narrative format. However, as noted previously, applicants may provide this same information in any format they choose, so long as all the required information is provided.

A3. While there is no page limit to specified within the FOA for the PMP, note as stated in the FOA, ‘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…it must be broken into parts and denoted to that effect.’

Question 60: Is there a way to notify DOE not to disclose proprietary information that was included in a concept paper? If a concept paper included proprietary information and proprietary information was not marked in the concept paper what can be done to prevent disclosure of proprietary information since the concept paper submission has already taken place and the deadline for that has passed so that any changes can be made?
Answer 60:

As noted in the FOA, in Section VIII.D, ‘Applications containing confidential, proprietary, or privileged information must be marked…’. While one could read this to apply to applications only, relative to proprietary application information, DOE views the Concept Paper in the same manner as an application. As noted in Section VIII.D, DOE will use data and information contained in applications – in this case, the Concept Paper – strictly for evaluation purposes. DOE does not intend to release information in the concept papers to the public. Please see the follow on question and answer below for more information.

As noted in Section VIII.D, ‘Failure to comply with these marking requirements may result in the disclosure of the unmarked information under the Freedom of Information Act or otherwise.’ However, as previously noted, DOE does not intend to release information in the Concept Papers. It’s also important to know that Concept Papers and applications are subject the Freedom of Information Act. If these documents are requested through FOIA, the applicants would be notified and would be given the opportunity to mark any sections they felt were confidential, proprietary, and/or privileged, as is part of the standard process when responding to a FOIA request. There are timelines and other requirements and regulations associated with a FOIA request. For more detailed information on the FOIA process, please see http://www.eere.energy.gov/golden/FOIAInfo.aspx.

Question 61: Our FOA says we need 16 (some are word files that we generate) but others are missing. For example the budget excel template for a Federal lab is not there, just the non construction budget template.
Answer 61:

All of the required templates are listing under the FOA in EERE eXCHANGE. The remaining required documents do not have templates, such as the budget for the DOE Federally Funded Research and Development Centers.

Question 62: We tried to submit a concept paper for review, but were kicked out of the system during the submission process. We received a "discouraged" on our "submission." Would you please confirm that a) we are eligible to submit a full proposal and b) the full proposal will be reviewed and evaluated?
Answer 62:

Per Section IV.B in the FOA, ‘Applicants whose concept papers are deemed by DOE to be unresponsive are discouraged from submitting a full application; however, you may still submit a full application provided you have a Control Number.’

Please see Section V.B regarding the Review and Selection Process as it relates to full application submittals. As noted, ‘Applications that pass the initial review will be subjected to a merit review in accordance with the guidance provided in the “Department of Energy Merit Review Guide for Financial Assistance”.’

Question 63: Is there a version of the project management plan that can be edited?
Answer 63: Yes, an Excel version of the PMP was uploaded to the eXCHANGE site on 3/6/13 for use. Please note Section IV.C.13 of the FOA, ‘Applicants may use their own project management system to provide this information.’ The template is provided as a suggested format.

Question 66: Q1: In order to receive a Phase I award, does the 1 acre of cultivation equivalent capacity need to already have been constructed with guaranteed availability for Phase II? Q2: If an existing research program has equipment in place to conduct Phase I, and it can be reasonably expected that the they will secure access to one acre of capacity prior to the Phase II award, is that sufficient to be considered for Phase I funding?
Answer 66:

A1: No, in order to receive a Phase 1 award, the 1 acre of cultivation equivalent capacity does not need to have been constructed with guaranteed availability for Phase II. However, please note the following sections when proposing processing scales in Performance Period 1, leading to Performance Period 2:

1) As stated in Section I.B under ‘Important aspects of Priority Area 1’of the FOA, ‘By the end of the first performance period (Performance Period 1), cultivation operations must be ready to be scaled to a minimum of a one (1) acre cultivation equivalent.’

2) As stated in Section I.C.9, (b) Progress must justify scaling up to meet the FOA objective minimum scale. Rationale and supporting preliminary data used in setting the target scales and metrics must be included in the application.

3) As stated in Section I.C.9, (c) The second period of performance, if available, must be used to scale-up and operate the proposed technologies in an outdoor, real world environment, at the required FOA scale of a minimum of one (1) acre cultivation equivalent.

A2: See Section I.C for Technical Application Requirements. Applications to this FOA must be submitted for Performance Period 1 only. Particularly, Section I.C.6 states, ‘Applicants must provide a detailed proposal for Performance Period 1…Applicants should NOT provide a detailed proposal for the second performance period’; and as stated in the previous question, Section I.C.9 discusses how each Performance Period should be addressed within an application.

Question 67: In the FOA there is mention of a mandatory cost share requirement of 20%. According to Federal Regulations, the following cost sharing requirements apply (§ 600.30, see below link). The requirements state that cost sharing of indirect costs or facilities and administrative costs is allowed. http://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?c=ecfr&SID=c9ab69d34535c1f8735032b4f24209fe&rgn=div8&view=text&node=10:4.0.1.3.9.1.13.27&idno=10 The current negotiated rate agreement with the Department of Health and Humans Services for our Institution is from May 6, 2011 (see attached) which lists an approved F&A rate of 74% for use on grants, contracts and other agreements with the Federal Government. It is therefore acceptable for {Removed} to submit a proposal for the above mentioned FOA using a reduced F&A as cost share as long as it is at least 20% of the total allowable costs? Thanks for clarifying!
Answer 67: Yes. Indirect costs may be used towards cost share. Your proposed scenario would, therefore, be acceptable.

Question 68: Concept paper for submission was due February 11, 2013. Will you accept a later Concept Paper for consideration in this program?
Answer 68:

As you stated, the deadline to submit Concept Papers was 2/11/2013. Concept Papers are no longer being accepted.

Question 69: I wanted to confirm whether the total of publication + patents/copyrights/software should be 10, or if a resume can list 10 pubs + patents/copyrights/software.
Answer 69: A listing of ’10 publications most closely related to the proposed project’ may include patents/copyrights/software in addition to publications or in place of publications; however, the limit is 10 regardless of any combination of publications/patents/copyrights/software. Please note that the biographical information for each resume must not exceed 2 pages.

Question 71: Is there a maximum overhead charge allowed on this grant program?
Answer 71:

There is not a maximum overhead charge for this program. Applicants are expected to follow their federally approved indirect rate agreement, or if they do not have one, a rate proposal may be requested.

Question 72: When will we have access to the full reviewer comments? It have now been over 3 business day. Thank you and best regards.
Answer 72: You have access now to reviewer comments if you log-in to your application/control number. However, there are only comments for the “discouraged” applications.

Question 73: 1. Are licensing rights for a technology an allowable expense? If so, can it be used towards the cost share? 2. Are technology technicians (engineers) an allowable expense? 3. If one member does not use all of their funds granted during a budget period, but another member goes over their allocated amount, can the member invoice the other in order to be compensated for their cost overruns? In other words, can grant monies be transferred to other members? 4. If a member has surplus funds in one section of their budget, but cost overruns in a different section, can grant monies be transferred to cover the deficit in that section? For example, if $25,000 is budgeted for nutrient supplies, but only $20,000 is actually used, and $50,000 is budgeted for employee wages, but $55,000 is the actual cost, can the $5,000 surplus from the nutrient budget go towards covering the wage expense overrun?
Answer 73:

For complete information on allowable costs, please see 10 CFR Part 600. Please review the applicable Subpart, based on your organization. Regarding the transferring of funds, certain funds are allowed to be moved between cost categories, but additional information must be provided and reviewed.

Question 74: Per the following screenshot, the due date time listed on the Grants.gov web site for FOA #DE-FOA-0000811 is listed as 11:59PM EST instead of 5PM EST.
Answer 74:

This has been corrected in Grants.gov. Thank you.

Question 76: In the proposal, we will have several subcontractors that will work with us to complete the project. Some of them will contribute via wet lab work, while others will contribute only through computer analysis (dry lab). I understand that the wet lab subcontractors will be required to fill out the environmental questionnaire, but will the subcontractors that are contributing only computer analysis need to fill out the questionnaire?
Answer 76: Yes, all subcontractors are required to complete the environmental questionnaire

Question 77: Does the budget and cost share have to be allocated in equal proportions across each fiscal year of performance Period 1?
Answer 77: No, the budget and cost share do not need to be allocated in equal proportions across each fiscal year of Performance Period 1.

Question 78: On p. 18 of the FOA: FFRDC Contractor Effort: "The scope of work to be performed by the FFRDC contractor effort may not be more significant than the scope of work to be performed by the applicant." Put in terms of the budget, does "scope" refer to the total cost of the project plus the cost share?
Answer 78:

Relative to the referenced statement, scope and budget do not directly translate/substitute in this situation. One could imagine scenarios where the same statement would not be true relative to budget. However, generally, budget refers to total cost including cost share.

Question 79: The FOA states that "Construction and capital costs to build cultivation acreage or capacity are not allowed within this FOA." Is fund for pre-processing equipment allowed?
Answer 79:

Also as stated in the FOA under Section I.C, 'Partnering to utilize appropriately sized outdoor and process relevant facilities, such as the testbeds and processing facilities associated with the RAFT partnerships (in conjunction with DOE BTO), is highly encouraged but not required.'; and in Section I.F, 'Applicants are expected to bring together both the human and physical capital necessary to achieve the objectives of this FOA.'

Modifications to existing infrastructure are allowed; however, such modifications may not exceed 15% of the total project cost. If this question is in reference to modifications to existing pre-processing equipment, and the proposed costs do not exceed the 15% maximum allowed, then yes, funds may be used to modify existing pre-processing equipment. If the intent is to purchase and install pre-processing equipment, then no. Partnering and/or using the testbed facilities to utilize existing pre-processing equipment is encouraged.

Question 81: 1. The Project Management Plan (PMP) template that is provided under Required Application Documents for DE-FOA-0000811 has the following sections: A. Project Management Information C. Project Plan with task, subtasks, milestones. . . A. Quarterly Project Description & Analysis (FY 10) (1) Are we required to fill out only the second item (Project Plan) as the first and third items appear to be required after award? (2) Do you have examples and/or instructions that you can provide to assist in the completion of the PMP? 2. Section 1V.C.3.D (Roles of Participants) on page 22 requires description of “the business agreements between the applicant and participants”. Can we initiate agreements but finalize them after award? 3. Regarding the Application Data spreadsheet there is a tab for PFDS that is not described in the instructions. What information is expected there? 4. The SF424A asks for the same information that is detailed in the PMC 123.1 spreadsheet. Does DOE have a preference regarding which one we select, or are both required?
Answer 81:

(A1): As noted in Section IV.C.13, the project management plan should identify the activities/tasks to be performed, a time schedule for the accomplishment of the activities/task, the spending plan associated with the activities/tasks, and the expected dates for the release of outcomes. The plan should describe the applicant’s proposed Stage Gate milestones. Applicants may use their own project management system to provide this information. The PMP template provided is the Biomass Technologies Office template. If this template is used, however, in order to address the requirements in Section IV.C.13, an applicant would need to complete cells in all three areas. For example, in Section A of the template, while there are cells that can only be completed after award, there are cells for uploading a narrative Statement of Work (narrative describing the tasks in detail) and a Gantt chart, as well as a summary of the project objectives, project partners, etc. In Section B, an applicant would address the spend plan, and in Section C, an applicant would address milestones and dates associated with both tasks and milestones.

(A2) The 37-page instruction document that accompanies the PMP template is sent with the template to awardees after award is made (as the PMP is required of awardees after award). It was not included with the template as the template is only being provided as a suggested format. It is not a requirement. The requirements are noted in Section IV.C.13 of the FOA. Applicants may use their own project management system to provide the required information.

(2) It is up to the applicant to decide whether to finalize agreements at this stage in the process. Section IV.3.D requires a discussion of ‘…business agreements between the applicant and participants…’ which should include a discussion of whether the agreements are finalized at the time of application and/or when they will be finalized if they are not.

(3) As noted in the question, there is a tab for a PFDS. This stands for ‘Process Flow Diagram(s), Simplified’. The instructions relative to this tab are in the ‘Instructions – Start Here’ tab, item #1. It is not clearly marked as such, but the PFDS tab is where an applicant would provide a simplified process flow diagram and/or a block flow diagram and a brief description of the processes and technologies used.

(4) Both are required. The PMC 123.1 form is the detailed budget justification that supports the SF424A. The PMC 123.1 contains individual tabs for each budget category where the applicant provides details that support and justify the budget proposed on the SF424A.

Question 82: The project management plan description from the solicitation (p. 26, and pasted below) does not seem to list a page limit, but refers to one, in the bolded material below. I could not find a maximum page limit for the Project Management Plan specified by the FOA. Could you provide guidance on the length of the Project Management Plan? Thank you. Project Management Plan This plan should identify the activities/tasks to be performed, a time schedule for the accomplishment of the activities/tasks, the spending plan associated with the activities/tasks, and the expected dates for the release of outcomes. The plan should clearly align with the FOA Option for Continuation Strategy (see Section I.D. of the FOA). The plan should describe the applicant’s proposed Stage Gate milestones. The content of this plan should be coordinated with the Narrative and the Budget. Applicants may use their own project management system to provide this information. This plan should identify any decision points and Stage Gate decision criteria. Successful applicants must use this plan to report schedule and budget variances. Save this plan in a single file titled “ControlNumber_LeadOrganization_PMP”. 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.
Answer 82:

There is no page limit restriction on the Project Management Plan. However, the EERE eXCHANGE system will only allow for files up to 10 MB. Please note Section IV.C.13 of the FOA for the information that is required in a Project Management Plan. The template provided is just that, a suggested template. Applicants may use their own project management system to provide this information.

Question 83: Does the requirement to expend all the money inside USA from this FOA prevent a purchase of a piece of equipment from a foreign supplier / manufacturer if it is procured to enhance the capability to support the program efforts?
Answer 83: No, you are not restricted from purchasing equipment from outside of the United States. However, please keep Section I.F regarding Construction Requirements in mind when considering the purchase of equipment.

Question 85: 1. Page 13 in the FOA states that " Applicants are expected to bring together both the human and physical capital necessary to achieve the objectives of this FOA." Should that be interpreted to mean that we can not apply for funding to cover efforts (salaries) for PIs, Co-PIs and other personnel? 2. If our industrial partner has, or is in the process of setting up, a PBR facility, can the PBRs and the lease of the land they occupy be counted as cost share? If so, is this contribution subject to the 15% limit for construction costs? 3. If our industrial partner is moving PBRs from one site to the one to be used in the proposed project, can we count that as cost share? If so, would that be considered "construction" and be subject to the 15% limit?
Answer 85:

A1: No, this should not be interpreted that way. The statement is related to constructing new facilities. For example, if an applicant has an algal cultivation and harvesting system, but does not have a downstream processing system, funds cannot be utilized to purchase the downstream processing systems and facilities. The applicant, in that scenario, should explore partnering opportunities, not limited to, but including utilizing the testbed facilities, to accommodate the unit operations/technologies/processes they need for a complete system. Funding may be proposed to cover any of the eligible budget categories such as personnel, travel, supplies, etc.

A2: The purchase of the facility and the set up cannot be counted directly as cost share. Similarly, if the PBRs have already been purchased, they cannot be counted directly as cost share. Please note, though, the partner could establish a use/user fee (as a direct cost or captured as part of the indirect cost) regarding the project’s use of this facility and PBRs, and that use/user fee could be counted as cost share, subject to review, audit, and approval by DOE. A user fee would not be subject to the 15% limit relative to construction costs.

A3: Costs associated with ‘moving equipment’ are generally not considered construction costs and would not be subject to the 15% limit (keep in mind the answer to the question about whether or not the cost of the PBRs themselves can be included as cost share). All costs, including moving costs, must be allowable in accordance with the applicable Federal cost principles referenced in: 2 CFR 220 for Educational Institutions; 2 CFR 225 for State, Local, and Indian Tribal Governments; 2 CFR 230 for Non-Profit Organizations; and FAR Part 31 for Commercial Organizations.

Question 85: 1. Is a SF-424 form required from a subaward or just the lead institution? 2. Only information needed from a subaward is budget, budget justification and biosketches? 3. On the Detailed Budget Justification forms there are Example Only at the the top of most pages, should those be deleted or left in and our information typed below?
Answer 85:

A1: A SF-424 is only required from the lead institution/prime recipient.

A2: Yes, the information required for a subaward is a budget and budget justification if the subawardee's budget (associated with the work they will be performing) is estimated to be more than $100,000 or 50 percent of the total work effort (whichever is less). Additionally, a resume/biosketch is required for "each key person proposed, including subawardees and consultants if they meet the definition of a key person. A key person is any individual who contributes in a substantive, measurable way to the execution of the project.

A3: Yes, you may delete the "Example Only" information.

Question 86: In our original preproposal, we had a budget of $X million. One of my collaborators increased their budget, bringing the total to $XX million. Is this a problem as we were encouraged to full proposal status.
Answer 86: No, please submit your application with your current budget.

Question 87: 1: A couple of the subawardees in our proposal are “U.S. Department of Energy Bioenergy Research Centers.” Will those that are “U.S. Department of Energy Bioenergy Research Centers” be required to cost share 20%? 2: . If the DOE Research Centers are not required to cost share, will others institutions on the proposal be required to cost share more than 20% to make up for the lack of cost share from the DOE Research Centers?
Answer 87:

1: The cost share requirement is the responsibility of the prime recipient. However the cost share is met, is up to the recipient as long as it is from an allowable source. As the DOE Bioenergy Research Centers are Federally funded, they are not an allowable source for cost share (cannot cost share DOE funds against DOE funds).

2: As noted above, the cost share requirement is the responsibility of the prime recipient, and however that cost share is met is up to the recipient as long as it is from an allowable source. In the scenario presented, the prime recipient could approach the requirement as described.

Question 88: 1. What is the CFDA Title? 2. Is this application subject to review by State under Executive Order 12372 Process?
Answer 88:

1. This program is not subject to Executive Order 12372 – Intergovernmental Review of Federal Programs.

2. The CFDA is 81.087

Question 90: 1. In the provided PMP template, what is mean by: a. "For milestone provide type" b. "Please provide updated links" to Appendix C c. What is the difference between a Stage Gate milestone and a Go/No-Go decision point? How many Stage Gate milestones should we include? 2. Page 13 in the FOA states that "Applicants are expected to bring together both the human and physical capital necessary to achieve the objectives of this FOA." Should that be interpreted to mean that we can not apply for funding to cover efforts (salaries) for PIs, Co-PIs and other personnel? 3. If our industrial partner has, or is in the process of setting up, a PBR facility, can the PBRs and the lease of the land they occupy be counted as cost share? If so, is this contribution subject to the 15% limit for construction costs? 4. If our industrial partner is moving PBRs from one site to the one to be used in the proposed project, can we count that as cost share? If so, would that be considered "construction" and be subject to the 15% limit?
Answer 90:

A1a: Please note that the template provided is only a suggested format for the required PMP information under Section IV.C.13 of the FOA. It is the PMP template used by the Biomass Technologies office for awardees. Therefore, many of the columns are completed after an award is made. Therefore, it is not necessary for applicants to complete this column at this time.

A1b: Please see the answer to Q1a. It is not necessary for applicants to complete this column at this time.

A1c: Relative to the PMP template, a Stage Gate milestone refers to an official Stage Gate Review. Please see Section I.D regarding the Option for Continuation, Appendix E regarding the Stage Gate Review, and The Stage Gate Management Guide for additional information on the formal Stage Gate Review. There will be one Stage Gate Review during Performance Period 1 as noted in Section I.D, so only one Stage Gate milestone should be noted in the PMP. A go/no go decision point (often used interchangeably with Stage Gate) relative to the PMP, may be an internal go/no go decision point within the project that is relevant to the applicant and is not the formal Stage Gate Review noted in the FOA. An example may be something like, an applicant is performing strain selection work within their proposed tasks. At the end of the first quarter, they decide to do an internal review to down select strains to the most promising 2. This could be considered an internal go/no go decision point within the project. Another example may be that an applicant must propose metrics and milestones throughout the project and may want to have go/no go decision points associated with meeting those metrics. Aside from the required Stage Gate toward the conclusion of Performance Period 1, it is at the applicant’s discretion how many go/no go decision points to include.

A2: No, this should not be interpreted that way. The statement is related to constructing new facilities. For example, if an applicant has an algal cultivation and harvesting system, but does not have a downstream processing system, funds cannot be utilized to purchase the downstream processing systems and facilities. The applicant, in that scenario, should explore partnering opportunities, not limited to, but including utilizing the testbed facilities, to accommodate the unit operations/technologies/processes they need for a complete system. Funding may be proposed to cover any of the eligible budget categories such as personnel, travel, supplies, etc.

A3: The purchase of the facility and the set up cannot be counted directly as cost share. Similarly, if the PBRs have already been purchased, they cannot be counted directly as cost share. Please note, though, the partner could establish a use/user fee (as a direct cost or captured as part of the indirect cost) regarding the project’s use of this facility and PBRs, and that use/user fee could be counted as cost share, subject to review, audit, and approval by DOE. A user fee would not be subject to the 15% limit relative to construction costs.

A4: Costs associated with ‘moving equipment’ are generally not considered construction costs and would not be subject to the 15% limit (keep in mind the answer to the question about whether or not the cost of the PBRs themselves can be included as cost share). All costs, including moving costs, must be allowable in accordance with the applicable Federal cost principles referenced in: 2 CFR 220 for Educational Institutions; 2 CFR 225 for State, Local, and Indian Tribal Governments; 2 CFR 230 for Non-Profit Organizations; and FAR Part 31 for Commercial Organizations.

Question 91: Q1: When including equipment or other infrastructure items for cost share (e.g. lab equipment, or lab building lease costs, or indirect costs such as office supplies or management labor), are applicants expected to estimate the percent of that resource’s time that will be spent on the ABY project? Q2: For equipment that has already been purchased, can we use the purchase price of that equipment when calculating its contribution to cost share, or are applicants expected to use some method of depreciating that equipment to get to some “current used value” or equivalent?
Answer 91:

A1: Yes, applicants are expected to estimate the percent of that resource’s time that will be spent on the ABY project, as that is the only portion that would be allowable as cost share. For complete information on allowable costs, including cost share, please refer to 10 CFR Part 600. Please review the applicable Subpart, based on your organization, e.g. educational; non-profit; commercial, etc.

A2: No, you cannot use the purchase price of already purchased equipment as the cost share contribution. Applicants are expected to use some method of depreciating that equipment to get to a ‘current used value’ or equivalent. The basis for that derivation should be included as well. As noted in the previous question, for complete information on allowable costs, including cost share, please refer to 10 CFR Part 600. Please review the applicable Subpart, based on your organization, e.g. educational; non-profit; commercial, etc.

Question 92: Q: Is it correct to assume that vendor costs (consultants, contractors, etc. that are NOT “partners” on the application) can exceed $100,000 without us (the prime recipient) needing to provide a separate SF-424A and justification for them?
Answer 92:

A: Subawardees is not necessarily limited to ‘partners’. You must provide a separate budget (i.e., budget for each budget year and a cumulative budget) for each subawardee that is expected to perform work estimated to be more than $100,000 or 50% of the total work effort (whichever is less). For example, if an applicant has a vendor providing a particular service and that vendor is not a partner in the project, but the cost exceeds $100,000 and/or 50% of the work effort, the cost still needs to be supported by a quote, contract, agreement, basis for the amount including details of work to be performed, etc.

Question 93: Could you please tell me to whom the CO authorization letter should be addressed for the subject FOA?
Answer 93: Grants Management Specialist - DE-FOA-0000811 Biomass/Solar Division Financial Assistance Office Golden Service Center, Office of Business Operations Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy U.S. Department of Energy

Question 94: If a project team includes a Federally Funded Research and Development Center (FFRDC), are the costs incurred by the FFRDC included in the team’s share of total project costs on this FOA?
Answer 94: No, FFRDC’s are funded directly from the Treasury and considered part of the Federal Funds. If the applicant decides to use an FFRDC, that amount should be reflected in the Budget Justification (PMC 123.1) and not the SF-424a. This will notify the DOE that the applicant is planning on using a FFRDC.

Question 95: Is the requirement for the cover page in the project narrative the same as in the concept paper? Specifically, do we need to write the Description of Project?
Answer 95:

Yes, the cover page for the project narrative file does need to include a 1-2 sentence of the Description of the Project.

Question 96: How do I calculate cost share?
Answer 96: The minimum cost share requirement for this FOA is 20%, not 25%. The calculations on page 53, are only an example of how to calculate cost share.

Question 97: Please advise whether the START DATE for this opportunity can be OCTOBER 1, 2013?
Answer 97: The DOE cannot provide an anticipated start date, because all selected applicants have to go through negotiations first. Therefore, please put a date in which you would like to start. However, please note, that this could change and doesn't give the awardee the right to start work on that date.

Question 98: 1) We received an “Encourage” response to our submission but no comments. From reading the Q&A above I thought we would receive comments. Do you know what happened and if we will receive comments? 2) We have registered on FedConnect but cannot find the opportunity for this DE-FOA-0000811. Is it available on FedConnect and do we need to register there to receive notifications?
Answer 98:

1. If you log-in to your application/control number you will see the comments. However, there are only comments for the “discouraged” applications.

2. Funding Opportunity Announcement DE-FOA-0000811 is not available through FedConnect. The FOA is only available through this EERE Exchange website.

Question 99: How should subawardee budget of less than $100,000 be presented in the application?
Answer 99: Subawardee budgets of less than $100,000 should be presented in the Prime applicants Budget Justification (PMC123.1) under the Contractual Tab, under Subcontractor or Vendor, as a single line item totaling the overall budget of the subrecipient.

Question 101: Q: If a key participant’s salary exceeds the pay of an executive on the Federal pay scale, does that person’s salary need to be limited to the Federal pay scale (i.e., are there salary limitations)?
Answer 101:

A: DOE does not have a salary limitation for Principal Investigators/key participants.

Question 103: One of the required documents for the ABY FOA is the disclosure of lobbying activities. What is the correct way to fill the form out if no lobbying activities have or will take place?
Answer 103: If applicable, complete the SF- LLL.

Question 104: Is a lobbying disclosure form required for all of the subawardees/contractors or is one form sufficient for all parties involved in the FOA?
Answer 104:

No, the SF-LLL form is just required for the Prime Applicant, if applicable.

Question 105: We are wondering if the deadline you provided in Answer #74 was intended to be E.D.T., since we just changed to Daylight Savings Time?
Answer 105: Per the FOA, the deadline is, “4/01/2013, 5:00 PM Eastern Time”.

Question 108: Does the total project cost in the full application have to be the same as the number in the concept paper or can it change? (Because we have not yet filled out a complete budget when submitting a concept paper)
Answer 108:

No, the total project cost in the Full Application doesn't need to be the same number as the Concept Paper.

Question 110: Does the title and abstract need to be the same for the full submission as it was for the concept paper?
Answer 110: No, the title and the abstract can be modified, as long as the Control Number remains the same.

Question 111: Q1) There are different review criteria in the FOA document (Section V.A – pages 32-33) and the Stage Gate Management Guide (pages 35-36). In particular, the Stage Gate criteria includes Market/Customer and Regulations. Can you discuss how you will balance these 2 criteria in your review? Q2) The SF-424A budget spreadsheet lists Year as “Year1, Year2, etc”. Is Year1 a calendar year (i.e. the rest of 2013 after receiving the award) or is it 12 months irrespective of when the period starts?
Answer 111:

A1) As noted in Section I.D, applications must include a go/no go decision point approximately 6 months before the end of Performance Period 1. Although the Section continues to discuss the Stage Gate Review and the Stage Gate Management Guide is provided as a reference, applicants do NOT need to address anything noted in the Stage Gate Management Guide. As further noted in Section I.D, ‘Additional details regarding the Stage Gate review such as reviewer information, presentation materials, review criteria, and what to submit…will be provided to the selected Performance Period 1 Awardees…’.

A2) The ‘year’ should correlate with a project year (12 months from the project start) rather than a specific calendar year (where year 1 would be the remainder of 2013).

Question 112: Does this type of relationship (Canadian processor providing vendor services) require the waiver paperwork outlined in the FOA in Section IV, #16?
Answer 112:

Yes, this type of relationship requires the waiver paperwork outlined in the FOA in Section IV, #16. As noted, as all work and all funds must be done and spent, respectively, in the U.S., services provided in Canada and paid to a Canadian vendor would require a waiver.

Question 113: Can you tell me if the bibliography is included in the 25 page limit?
Answer 113:

Yes. The Bibliography is included in the 25-page limit of the Project Narrative File, located in Section IV.C.3. of the FOA.

Question 114: Will the respondent companies be publically announced? If so, on what website?
Answer 114: No, respondent companies will not be publically announced.

Question 115: Q1: NETL will be a possible team member on a proposal. NETL is a GOGO laboratory not an FFRDC but I am wondering if we will need to submit a FWP as well? Q2: It isn't clear from the FOA if FFRDCs need to submit both an FWP and the SF 424A budget/PMC123 BJ, or just the FWP?
Answer 115: A1: Since NETL is not an FFRDC, an FWP is not required. Instead, an SF424a and Budget Justification is required.
A2: FFRDCs only need to submit a Field Work Proposal (FWP), not an SF424a or Budget Justification with the prime applicant.

Question 116: Who should be the DOE/EERE BTO POC for FWPs associated with proposals under the ABY FOA?
Answer 116: Valerie Reed, Acting Program Director

Question 117: Is it correct that the prime recipient does not have to submit a letter of commitment if they are providing cost share using their own cash or equipment?
Answer 117: Yes, it is correct that he Prime Recipient does not have to submit a letter of commitment if they are providing cost share using their own cash or equipment. The signature on the SF 424 constitutes the Prime Recipient’s commitment.

Question 118: I have just recently seen the FOA. Is it still possible to take part in this FOA opportunity?
Answer 118: Thank you for your interest. However, as noted in Section IV.E of the FOA, ‘Applicants must submit a concept paper by the due date to be eligible to submit an application.’ Concept papers were due 2/11/13. Therefore, if you did not submit a concept paper, you are not eligible to submit an application.

Question 119: Where is the appropriate place to include these letters (letters of support from government officials and purchase order agreements)? May we put them in the appendix with letters of commitment or should we include them within the 25 page limit of the narrative document.
Answer 119:

Letters of support and purchase order agreements may be uploaded with the letters of commitment as part of the appendix to the Project Narrative File. Similarly, as applies to letters of commitment as noted in Section IV.C.8, letters of support and purchase order agreements uploaded as part of appendix to the Project Narrative will not count towards the Project Narrative page limit. Letters of this nature should NOT be included within the Narrative itself, otherwise they will count within the Narrative page limit.

Question 120: FOA #DE-FOA-0000811 indicates that a separate SF424A and PMC123.1 budget should be uploaded in EERE Exchange for each subawardee. However, EERE Exchange only allows a single SF424A and PMC123.1 budget to be uploaded; more than one SF424A and PMC123.1 budget for multiple subawardees cannot be uploaded in EERE Exchange. Also, I noticed that EERE Exchange is changing the filenames as files are uploaded. May I receive instructions from you on how to proceed in uploading multiple files for subawardees (should they all be combined into a single file?) as well as whether our application will be impacted negatively by the filenames being changed by EERE Exchange?
Answer 120: The Exchange system should now allow uploading of multiple budgets using the Optional Files field. The naming function was not working properly for the SF424A Budget but this has been corrected.

Question 121: We have two national labs as subs and a University sub as well, the upload page ‘browse’ button disappears after 1 files is uploaded, how do I upload multiple SF424s and PMC123s?
Answer 121: Please refer to answer # 120.

Question 122: Q1: I am trying to upload my application but when I click on Upload nothing happens. Please advise. Q2: It says in the application that if the file is bigger than 10MB to separate it into different parts and label them. However, it is not possible to upload more than one document to each section? Please advise.
Answer 122:

A1: Please use the browse button located to the right of the upload field to select the file that you want to upload from your computer and then click the upload button. Sometimes the browse button can be found just to the right of the visible screen in your browser window. Please try scrolling to the right to bring the Browse button into view.

A2: The Additional files can be uploaded in the Optional files field. The Optional Files field is located on the Upload and Submit page with the other required files.

Question 123: Our Concept Paper was originally submitted through a partner and we would like to submit the full application now as the lead rather than with the partner as the lead. However, we are having trouble accessing the application upload site. Can we apply as the lead organization?
Answer 123: Only organizations that submitted a concept paper to this FOA may now apply with a full application. Therefore, a partner on a concept paper cannot now apply as the lead organization.

Question 124: Should the Stage Gate Management Guide be included as part of the submission package?
Answer 124:

No, the Stage Gate Management Guide was provided to potential applicants for reference purposes only. It should not be uploaded as part of a submission package.

Question 125: I was wondering how to upload multiple subawardee budgets (both 424a and PMC123.1)? The current website does not appear to let us do that.
Answer 125:

Please refer to Q/A #120.

Question 126: Q1: In the FOA instructions are clear about the naming convention for the FWP BUT In the upload documents section there is not a spot to upload it? Can you please advise where this is supposed to be? Q2: Also the system does not appear to be allowing more than 1 file per upload area, there is no ‘additional file upload’ button can you please advise?
Answer 126:

A1: The FWP may be uploaded under the Optional Files field. It is not an ‘optional file’ if a national lab is a participant; however, it can be uploaded under this file in eXCHANGE.

A2: The Exchange system should now allow uploading of multiple files using the Optional Files field. The naming function was not working properly, but this has been corrected.

Question 127: Could you give some clarification on how to complete SF 424A, in Section A of the form SF 424 A - Budget Summary.
Answer 127: In Section A, each line item should correspond to a yearly budget. (line # 1 = Year 1). Columns e, f, and g should reflect Federal, non-Federal, and Total, respectively, for each year listed.

Question 128: Could you please let us know when you expect to notify ABY applicants of your decisions related to the program?
Answer 128:

DOE anticipates announcing its decision on ABY applications this month.

Frequently Asked Questions