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.