{"text_format":"2","workbook":"xlsx","n_sheets":3,"sheets":["INSTRUCTIONS & TIPS","FOA CONTENT QUESTIONS","Admin Pick List"],"not_rendered":{"charts":0,"images":0,"macros":0,"external_links":0,"defined_names":2,"comments":0,"pivot_tables":0},"unopened":[],"bounds":{"document_bytes":16777216,"sheet_cells":100000,"run_cost":"one","rows_first":2000,"rows_last":500,"rows_between":2000,"halvings":0,"cell_chars":16384,"cell_head_chars":4096},"cells_cut":0,"cells_raw":0,"read":"whole","date_system":"1900"}

{"sheet":"INSTRUCTIONS & TIPS","index":0,"n_rows":12,"n_cols":2,"rows_kept":12,"cut":false,"hidden":false,"merged":[[0,0,0,1],[9,0,9,1]]}
["INSTRUCTIONS"]
[1,"All questions pertaining to this funding opportunity announcement should be emailed to  ModularChemicalPI@ee.doe.gov . "]
[2,"All questions pertaining to EERE Exchange should be emailed to EERE-ExchangeSupport@hq.doe.gov. Include FOA name and number in subject line."]
[3,"All questions and answers pertaining to this FOA will be posted on EERE Exchange within this spreadsheet."]
[4,"DOE will attempt to respond to a question within 3 business days, unless a similar question and answer has already been posted in this spreadsheet. "]
[5,"All questions should be submitted not later than 3 business days prior to the application due date. Questions submitted after this date will not be answered."]
[6,"Questions are assigned a number in accordance with when they are reviewed by DOE.  "]
[7,"Questions are assigned a topic area by DOE when reviewed."]
[]
["TIPS"]
[1,"Applicants may sort questions and answers in the question tabs of this spreadhseet by selecting the drop-down box arrow on the column headers and selecting any of the listed attributes."]
[2,"Applicants may search for questions and/or keywords by holding CTRL+F on the keyboard and typing in a phrase or keyword."]

{"sheet":"FOA CONTENT QUESTIONS","index":1,"n_rows":22,"n_cols":4,"rows_kept":22,"cut":false,"hidden":false,"merged":[[1,0,1,3],[0,0,0,3]]}
["ADMINISTRATIVE QUESTION AND ANSWER LOG"]
["DE-FOA-0001578 - MODULAR CHEMICAL PROCESS INTENSIFICATION INSTITUTE FOR CLEAN ENERGY MANUFACTURING"]
["Question #","Date Submitted","Question","Answer"]
[1,"2016-05-11","Is there any way we can receive the presentation that was given?  Is this found on your website? ","The slides and transcript from the webinar held on 5/11 have been posted to the exchange website.  Additionally, the recorded webinar can be found here: https://attendee.gotowebinar.com/recording/8943953521415379203 "]
[2,"2016-05-12","1)  DOE states clearly that they want to be involved in the important decisions related to the institute, yet, within days of the announcement, DOE requires the naming of the leadership staff - one of the most important sets of decisions that the institute will make - not in the proposal, but in the concept paper.  The process of selecting the executive director should be a very deliberate and informed decision.  Is this really what DOE intended?\n\n2)  The FOA and the webinar made general statements about the difference between cash and in-kind.  In the institutes that have been formed and are running, this has been a point of contention in the final review process and the awards.  Can DOE not offer a clearer definition of the discrimination process that it will use in evaluation to avoid this disconnect?\n\n3)  Can DOE provide a description of its view of the distinction between the smart manufacturing institute and the proposed process intensification institute?\n\n4)  In the instructions, it states that a control number must be affixed to every page of the concept paper.  It further states that a control number will be supplied for those who receive encouragement letters for the full proposal.  From where do the control numbers come for the concept papers?\n","1) Applicants should provide as much detail as possible in the concept paper including known identified personnel and/or the proposed individuals that will be responsible for recruiting and selecting permanent key Institute personnel.  DOE recognizes that full staffing may not be identified at the time of concept paper and that updates will be included in the full application.  \n\n2) Please see Appendix A in the FOA, the EERE 335 Budget Justification form, as well as the discussion of cost share in FOA Section III.B.  Applicants should classify their cost share commitments as to whether it is “cash” or “in-kind” according to the definitions provided in the FOA, the EERE 335 form, and the webinar, and include this information in the proposed budget documents as well as in summary form in the Qualifications and Resources section of the Technical Volume.  \n \n3)  Smart manufacturing is focused on the process control, sensors, modeling and simulation among other aspects as defined in the Smart Manufacturing Institute FOA (DE-FOA-0001263 available on the EERE Exchange website).  The process intensification institute is focused on process design, unit operations performance, equipment design and other focus areas as identified in the Modular Chemical Process Intensification Institute for Clean Energy Manufacturing FOA.  As described in Section I.B. of the FOA, it is expected that a proposed Institute might leverage (on an open and fair basis) a pending Smart Manufacturing Institute, as well as other Institutes in the NNMI.  \n \n4) The EERE Funding Opportunity Exchange system will create a submission record and assign a Control Number when an applicant clicks the “Apply” button that is located on the funding opportunity announcement then completes the “Concept Paper Details” form and clicks the “Create Concept Paper” button.  Only applicants who submitted their Concept Paper record in Exchange by the deadline are eligible to submit a Full Application\n"]
[3,"2016-05-16","It seemed that in the webinar it was stated that a proposing organization could report any match that they desire, but that no additional credit (or scoring advantage) would be given for a match over 1 to 1.  Is it possible that this is the message that was intended?","Section V.C.i. of the FOA, Other Selection Factors, states that “Note: Cost sharing above the minimum required will not be considered in the evaluation.” and this was also covered in the webinar for the FOA.  Please note that the quality and clarity of cost share proposed is a consideration in the merit review criteria for Full Applications (Section V.A.ii, Criterion 2).   "]
[4,"2016-05-25","One of the key features of an institute is the strong public/private investment.  The strong contributions from the public sector have been celebrated in all of the recent awards.  However, in the webinar, it seemed clear that DOE was taking the position that a 1:1 match was required, and no value would be placed on larger matches.  Is that a true position?  If so, how is that reasonable as we seek most value from the institutes?","Please see question #3 of the FOA FAQs posted to exchange."]
[5,"2016-06-06","Can an entity contribute its patent as cost share?  What methods are acceptable for valuing the patent?","Please refer to the following for information regarding cost share type and allowability: FOA Section III.B. “Cost Sharing”, and FOA Appendix A - \"Cost Share Information\".  Additionally, applicants are encouraged to refer to 2 CFR 200.306 as amended by 2 CFR 910.130 for additional guidance on cost sharing. No costs incurred by an organization prior to award are allowable.  "]
[6,"2016-06-16","We have a question as a prospective subawardee of a proposal, EERE FOA #DE-FOA-0001578.  \n\nWe know that we are required to provide the prime awardee with an EERE 335 for our institution, but do the same rules apply if we have our own subs?  \n\nAre subs of subs also required to provide a separate EERE 335 if their budget exceeds $250K or 25%?\n","Yes – all subawards, including those made to a sub to the prime awardee, which meet the threshold tof work estimated to be more than $250,000 or 25 percent of the total work effort (whichever is less) are required to provide a separate budget justification, EERE 335.  Per section IV.D.viii. of the FOA,  “Subaward Budget Justification (EERE 335) (if applicable) Applicants must provide a separate budget justification, EERE 335 (i.e., budget justification for each budget year and a cumulative budget) for each subawardee that is expected to perform work estimated to be more than $250,000 or 25 percent of the total work effort (whichever is less). The budget justification must include the same justification information described in the “Budget Justification” section above. Save each subaward budget justification in a Microsoft Excel file using the following convention for the title “ControlNumber_LeadOrganization_Subawardee_Budget_Justification”.”"]
[7,"2016-06-17","We are interested in applying for this FOA (DE-FOA-0001578) entitled:\n\n\"MODULAR CHEMICAL PROCESS INTENSIFICATION INSTITUTE FOR CLEAN ENERGY\nMANUFACTURING\"\n\nWe missed the deadline for the concept paper Jun 15, 2016 but have a\nvery strong idea for a proposal.  Would it be possible to be eligible\nfor the Aug 17th, 2016 full submission deadline if we are able to\ndevelop a proposal paper in a few days?\n","No - Per page i. of the FOA, applicants must submit a Concept Paper by 5:00pm ET June 15, 2016 to be eligible to submit a Full Application.  Please note that EERE will compile an optional Teaming Partner List to facilitate the formation of new project teams for this FOA and this may offer you an opportunity to participate with another applicant team.   See Section I.B. of the FOA for more information.   Also, it is suggested you monitor Grants.gov and EERE-Exchange.energy.gov for future Funding Opportunity Announcements."]
[8,"2016-06-29","Would you be in a position to let us know who some of the potential applicant leaders are so that we might partner with them in the application process?","DOE cannot release the names of applicants, however the FOA has established a process called the Teaming Partner List to assist in the formation of project teams.  "]
[9,"2016-06-30","The FOA states that the SOPO including the Milestone Summary Table be submitted as 1 word document, yet the MTS template provided is an Excel document. Do you require that the MTS template be converted to a word doc format and then embed it in the SOPO?","Yes. The Milestone Summary Table in the SOPO template on eere-exchange are tables in a word.doc format.  The Milestone Summary Table can be compiled in an Excel document format and then be converted and embedded in the word document if the applicant desires and retains  the same column headings in the table.  "]
[10,"2016-06-22","On page 25 of the FOA, item #2, there is guidance that calls for “energy productivity” improvements by a “combination of both improvement in capital equipment capacity cost ($/kg per day) and operating cost related to improved feedstock and fuel efficiencies.”  It is not intuitive how capital and other costs are rolled into an energy productivity metric, which usually has units of kg product/kW-h energy consumed.  Please help clarify this metric and how costs should be factored in.\n\nOn page 25 of the FOA, item #3, the guidance calls for “modular and intensified process that has all of 10x reduced capacity cost ($/kg per day).”  These units seem like those commonly used for a capital cost number.  Please clarify this metric.  \n\nAlso on page 25 of the FOA, item #3, the guidance calls for “improved energy efficiency (kg/kJ).”  Is this metric supposed to be in units of kJ/kJ?  \n","Energy productivity is defined in the FOA in footnote 108, “Energy productivity is related to the economics of creating products and services and is measured as economic value resulting from a unit energy expended (ex: $/kwH). Energy productivity improvements can exceed energy efficiency improvements through issues such as improved factory utilization or supply-chain improvements resulting from more energy efficient processes.”   Energy productivity can be achieved by improvements in economics (lower capital and/or operating costs) or through efficiency improvements lowering the energy input to generate the same economic output.\n\nModification 001 corrected the units ($/(kg per day)). The term “capacity cost” refers to capital equipment capacity cost and is used to clarify that the value is related to the capital cost per unit production value of the facility, rather than a simple total dollar value capital cost.  \n\nModification 001 corrected this removing the kg/kJ and provides a target of 20% improved energy efficiency.  KJ/KJ is an appropriate energy efficiency unit comparing an improved process for example to an existing one.\n"]
[11,"2016-07-07","Can an expenditure for a company on a ‘proprietary project’ or part of a proprietary project, be counted as cost share? Is this an allowable cost share?","Please see question #5 of the FOA FAQs posted to exchange."]
[12,"2016-07-14","I was beginning the process to fill out the EERE_335 (Budget Justification) form for application 1578-1504 when I saw this instruction:\n\nAdd rows as needed throughout tabs a. through j. If rows are added, formulas/calculations may need to be adjusted by the preparer. Do not add rows to the Instructions and Summary tab. If your project contains more than three budget periods, consult your EERE contact before adding additional budget period rows or columns.\n\nThe project is for 5 budget periods, so what is the process going forward?\n","Please click on “View Required Application Documents” under the DE-FOA-0001578: Modular Chemical Process Intensification Institute for Clean Energy Manufacturing FOA announcement on the Exchange website for a copy of the EERE 335 - Budget Justification (5 Period)."]
[13,"2016-07-18","On page 49 of the FOA, the requirement for how the Institute will Leverage Resources - specifically related to how the Institute will utilize and leverage technical services to be provided by DOE/NNSA FFRDCs, NIST MEPs, NSF ATE Centers, national laboratories and other govt investments is described to be included in the \"Qualifications and Resources\" section of the Technical Volume.  However, the grading criteria for that particular requirement is included on page 68 of the FOA under Technical Merit, Innovation and Impact (specifically the Impact subsection).  We feel that this could cause confusion for reviewers and would like for DOE to provide clarification on where this requirement should be included in the proposal and ensure that this correction is reflected in the final reviewers instructions.","The location of the content regarding how the Institute will leverage resources is now under Criteria 2 “Qualifications and Resources” on pg. 70 of Mod 001.  Please make sure to look at Mod 001 available on EERE Exchange as the content has been modified."]
[14,"2016-07-25","Can you tell me if “technical focus areas” (see p. 20ff of FOA) are supposed to be the same as “technical topic areas” (pp. 48ff)? The FOA specifically defines the technical focus areas. I wasn’t sure if the technical topic areas are supposed to be the same, or if they are the specific topics that we select for research. ","“Technical topic areas” are the same as “technical focus areas” as defined in the FOA and may also include areas of research the applicant chooses to focus on that may expand beyond those discussed explicitly in the FOA. "]
[15,"2016-08-01","Can other sources of federal funding beyond DOE AMO initial funding be used to support the institute?  For example, Is NSF/DOD(or other non-DOE AMO) funding a source of sustainment funding for the DOE manufacturing institutes.","Yes. Other non-DOE AMO federal agencies could provide funding that would help sustain the Institute after the award period funded by AMO ends. If this scenario is relevant to the Institute’s financial sustainability it should be described in the Operations and Management section of the Technical Volume (see pg. 53 of the FOA) in sufficient detail to ensure that the non-DOE AMO agency’s appropriate procurement/contracting/financial assistance methods and regulations (such as federal funds not being used to meet the Institute’s cost share requirements, etc.) have been considered.  "]
[16,"2016-08-01","Under Market Transformation, the FOA (pg. 49) states:  “Identification of target market, competitors, and distribution channels for proposed technology along with known or perceived barriers to market penetration, including a mitigation plan.”  Can you explain \"competitors\" in that context? The sentence could read, identification of competitors for the proposed technology?  It seems, in the context that it would make more sense to define how we plan to work with competing companies in the institute?","Please reference evaluation Criteria 1 (pg. 69): “The quality of the Market Transformation plan for the initial proposed projects and technical work and the extent to which the Applicant demonstrates the likelihood of successful technology adoption by industry and supports precompetitive technology development.”  Both interpretations mentioned in the question may impact “successful technology adoption by industry”, and should be addressed in accordance with the Applicant’s assessment of market transformation circumstances and needs. "]
[17,"2016-08-01","A significant number of people contributing to the various proposals are all in one conference that starts Nov 13-18, 2016.  Essentially, for some individuals the time period in question is Thursday Nov 13 through Thursday November 20th.  Can DOE publish the time frame/schedule expected for the expected oral presentations and account for the conference schedule listed above in the oral presentation schedule?","We currently anticipate Pre-Selection Interviews occurring mid- to late-October.  Sufficient notice will be given to applicants selected for Pre-Selection Interviews so that oral presentations can be prepared and travel arrangements scheduled."]
[18,"2016-08-02","Section II, A, i states that Budget Period 1 is for establishing the institute:\n1)  Is it forbidden to start technical work during this period?\n2)  The FOA states that 4 to 6 million is available for that period.  With match, without technical work, this seems excessive.  Is it acceptable to submit a lower budget for this period, and will DOE consider the merits of such an offering?\n","1)  Technical work may be started during Budget Period 1 provided the necessary administrative structure and processes to support this work have been established and implemented.\n2)  Applicant should submit a realistic budget for Budget Period 1, which may be less than the amount stated in Section II.A.i.  DOE will consider the merits of a smaller budget.  Please note – per Section V. C. i. of the FOA, “Program Policy Factors - In addition to the above criteria, the Selection Official may consider the following program policy factors in determining which Full Applications to select for award negotiations: • The degree to which the proposed project optimizes the use of available EERE funding to achieve programmatic objectives;”\n"]
[19,"2016-08-09","Q: For DE-FOA-0001578, we will be submitting several appendices as indicated in the FOA; One for the letters of support and one for the one page resumes.  The FOA does not provide a naming convention that I can find.  \n\nQuestion 1: should these be named as the following: \nControlNumber_LeadOrganization_Appendix_Letters\nControlNUmber_LeadOrganization_Appendix_Resumes\n\nQuestion 2: Does the control number need to be printed on each page of the appendix?\n\nQuestion 3: Does a page number need to be on each page of each appendix?\n","A: 1. Please include letters of support and one-page resumes in the Technical Volume component of the Full Application submission.  Per Section IV.DC.ii. of the FOA, “Technical Volume – Qualifications and Resources – …Attach one-page resumes for key participating team members as an appendix. Resumes do not count towards the page limit. Multi-page resumes are not allowed... Attach any letters of support and all cost share commitment letters from partners/end users as an appendix (1 page maximum per letter). Letters of support and cost share commitment letters do not count towards the page limit.”    “Save the Technical Volume in a single PDF file using the following convention for the title: “ControlNumber_LeadOrganization_TechnicalVolume”.  \n\nPer IV.D.i: “Note: The maximum file size that can be uploaded to the EERE Exchange website is 10MB. Files in excess of 10MB cannot be uploaded, and hence cannot be submitted for review. If a file exceeds 10MB but is still within the maximum page limit specified in the FOA it must be broken into parts and denoted to that effect. For example:\nControlNumber_LeadOrganization_TechnicalVolume_Part_1\nControlNumber_LeadOrganization_TechnicalVolume_Part_2, etc.\nEERE will not accept late submissions that resulted from technical difficulties due to uploading files that exceed 10MB.”\n\n2. No\n\n3. No\n"]

{"sheet":"Admin Pick List","index":2,"n_rows":15,"n_cols":1,"rows_kept":15,"cut":false,"hidden":true,"merged":[]}
["Pick List"]
[]
["Registration Requirements"]
["Webinar"]
["Eligibility"]
["Labs/FFRDCs"]
["Foreign Entities/Work"]
["Cost Sharing"]
["Due Dates"]
["Application Content/Format"]
["Intellectual Property"]
["Data Management"]
["U.S. Manufacturing Plan"]
["Application Reviews"]
["Technical Topics"]