{"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 WPTOFOA@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":82,"n_cols":5,"rows_kept":82,"cut":false,"hidden":false,"merged":[[1,0,1,4],[0,0,0,4]]}
["ADMINISTRATIVE QUESTION AND ANSWER LOG"]
["DE-FOA-0002080: Water Power Technologies Office 2019 Research Funding Opportunity"]
["Question #","Date Submitted","Topic","Question","Answer"]
[1,"2019-04-08",null,"Does river tail race current downstream from dam power house qualify in AOI 2b?","REVISED: Applications proposing river tail race current downstream from dam power house would be aligned with the goals of the FOA. "]
[2,"2019-04-09",null,"\nThe transition in Pumped Hydropower Storage (PHS) from slow diurnal peaking to rapid transmission/grid response is now causing very rapid catastrophic failure in certain classes of pumped storage equipment. This results in major downtime causing massive losses in systems that had previously been very reliable. Congress directed funds to take account: \"of the full range of market-based revenue streams, regional cost savings and environmental benefits pumped storage hydropower provides both as a generation and transmission asset. . . . Funding may also be used for research and analysis that will improve the pumped storage industry more broadly...\"\n\nQuestion: Will Topic AOI 1b accept a proposal to design and model the operation of replacement Pumped Hydropower Storage equipment that would provide reliable rapid transmission (grid) level services much faster and with higher value than is commercially possible with current PHS equipment?\n","Applications proposing a novel operational strategy for commercial or near-commercial equipment that enables improved provision of grid services would be aligned with the goals of the FOA. However, applications proposing technology R&D are specifically not of interest, as stated in section I.C.\n"]
[3,"2019-04-10",null,"Please provide examples of, or provide direction to examples of “advanced Manufacturing Techniques” used for fabrication or otherwise, that have been used in past DOE-funded projects?","Page 26 (Section I.B.2.2a) of the FOA states: “Examples of advanced manufacturing include, but are not limited to, additive manufacturing (the three-dimensional printing of physical components in layers), composite manufacturing, use of new high-strength low-weight materials, automated construction and assembly, and embedded sensors to monitor machine condition and aquatic system health.”"]
[4,"2019-04-10",null,"On pages 81-82 of DE-FOA-0002080, the following evaluation criteria are listed under AOI 4 Specific Technical Volume Requirements:\n• A proposal for how the applicant would like NREL and/or SNL to provide \ntechnical assistance based on the lab technical capabilities described \nin AOI 3 National Laboratory Technical Assistance;\n• Description of how the FOA metrics identified in AOI 3 WEC Device \nPerformance Metrics section will be estimated during the period of \nperformance.\n• Targets values for FOA metrics identified in AOI 3 WEC Device \nPerformance Metrics section that will be achieved during the project \nperiod of performance.\n• How the project will advance the state of the WEC technology towards \ncommercial viability, the target dimensions and power rating of the \ndevice for commercialization, the intended market for the WEC device, \nhow the device will be deployed commercially (e.g., individually or in \narrays), and the anticipated size of the target market.\nQuestion: Are these correctly listed under AOI4 requirements or are they supposed to be listed under AOI3? In other words, are test site infrastructure improvements restricted to those that are only applicable to WECs?\n","These are NOT correctly listed under AOI4 and FOA will be modified to move the last four bullets to AOI3 instead. Thank you for pointing out this mistake. Here are the correct  AOI3 and AOI 4 requirements:\nAOI 3 Specific Technical Volume Requirements\n• Description of the device concept with sketch and dimensions;\n• Detailed work plan to meet project objectives and meet deliverables identified in AOI 3 DELIVERABLES section;\n• Description of the plan for how to incorporate IEC and IEEE standards, identified in in AOI 3 Technical Specifications and Standards section, into the device design;\n• Plan for how to develop a design that can be tested for 2-years of sustained operation at PacWave-South test site;\n• Description of technical merit, innovation, and overall R&D value to MHK industry;\n• Description of technical risks and the risk mitigation strategy;\n• Description of numerical models and design methodologies that will be used to develop the device design;\n• Description of how design tools and methodologies have been or will be validated using previous gathered experimental testing data; or a description of what work will be performed during the period of performance to verify and validate the design tools and methodologies that will be used;\n• A matrix that defines roles and responsibilities of the team members and anticipated subcontractors;\n• A discussion of the WEC design experience of the team members and anticipated subcontractors;\n• Description of the intended market(s) of the WEC device and any associated requirements;\n• A proposal for how the applicant would like NREL and/or SNL to provide technical assistance based on the lab technical capabilities described in AOI 3 National Laboratory Technical Assistance;\n• Description of how the FOA metrics identified in AOI 3 WEC Device Performance Metrics section will be estimated during the period of performance.\n• Targets values for FOA metrics identified in AOI 3 WEC Device Performance Metrics section that will be achieved during the project period of performance.\n• How the project will advance the state of the WEC technology towards commercial viability, the target dimensions and power rating of the device for commercialization, the intended market for the WEC device, how the device will be deployed commercially (e.g., individually or in arrays), and the anticipated size of the target market.\n\nAOI 4 Specific Technical Volume Requirements\n• Project Goal:  The applicant should explicitly identify the targeted improvements to the baseline infrastructure and the critical success factors in achieving that goal.\n• Relevance and Outcomes:   The applicant should provide a detailed description of the infrastructure upgrades, including the scientific and other principles and objectives that will be pursued during the project. This section should describe the relevance of the proposed project to the goals and objectives of the FOA, including the potential to meet specific DOE technical targets or other relevant performance targets. The applicant should clearly specify the expected outcomes of the project. \n• Innovation and Impacts: The applicant should describe the current state of testing infrastructure in the applicable field, the specific innovation of the proposed upgrades, the advantages of proposed upgrades over current and emerging infrastructure, and the overall impact on advancing the state of testing infrastructure if the project is successful.\n"]
[5,"2019-04-11",null,"Will award/selection preference for Area of Interest 2b be given to:\n1. Applicants previously awarded funds through a DOE Water Power Program funding opportunity; or\n2. Applicants that were involved in providing input on the content of this FOA \n","All Concept Paper and Full Application Review Criteria are listed in Section V. of the FOA."]
[6,"2019-04-11",null,"Where will the ppt of the webinar will be posted?","The PowerPoint presentation can be accessed under the \"Documents\" heading within the summary for this FOA in EERE Exchange. A link to a recording and transcript of the webinar will be added to the summary when available. "]
[7,"2019-04-11",null,"These 2 questions are specifically regarding FOA 2080 AOI 2b: Modular Technologies for River Current Energy Converters.\n\n1)    On page 4, footnote 6 indicates that Congress directed the WPTO to release a FOA for RD&D on CEC technologies for run-of-river and \"tailrace applications...\"  This implies that this FOA will also consider Constructed Waterways in its scope. In addition, the list of proposals specifically-not-of-interest on page 52 for AOI 2b states that \"flow in a closed conduit\" will not be considered. This list of non-responsive focus areas does not exclude open-channel flow such as constructed waterways, ie, canals. However, the body of the application (such as page 24) describing this focus area speaks often of \"riverine resources\" but there is no mention in the text of the constructed waterway resource, even though the WPTO identified this important hydrokinetic resource area in its Potential Maritime Markets for Marine and Hydrokinetic Technologies, April 2018, see Chapter 9, page 88, and even though the congressional directive cited on page 4 appears to include constructed waterways in its intent. \n\nMy question is: does AOI 2b allow proposals that focus on the constructed waterway resource, even though it may be suggested as an initial stepping stone for developing CEC technologies that can then later be applied in a new stream reach environment?\n\n\n\n"," Applications proposing constructed waterways would be aligned with the goals of the FOA."]
[8,"2019-04-11",null,"2)    Page 6 states \"projects are required to not only design and fabricate prototype devices, but also that these devices be tested in a realistic operating environment.\" Page 7-8 states, \"AOI 2b projects will design, fabricate, and open-water test modular CEC river systems that incorporate and advance IOM techniques...\"   Page 24 states this requirement as \"Awardees will design, manufacture, and test their technologies in a lab or field environment at appropriate scale.\"  \n\nMy question is: Are awardees expected to test their devices minimally in a laboratory flume, or is the expectation that they will demonstrate full-size systems in an actual site, and also demonstrate IOM strategies/systems as well? What is the definition of \"appropriate scale?\"","Expectations for testing are summarized in the FOA Section I.ii AOI 2b projects will design, fabricate, and open-water test modular CEC river system that incorporate and advance IO&M techniques which require only limited use of port and vessel infrastructure.” For guidance on scale, please insure your design meets the following requirements, from FOA Section I.B.2.2b “The CEC shall be designed with a minimum electrical output power of 10 kW per module at 2.0 m/sec inflow speed, with a minimum of two modules connected to a common support structure module. A system that can provide a total electrical output power of 30 kW or more at 2.0 m/sec inflow speed, although not required, is desirable. The individual CEC optimal performance should lie between an inflow speed of 0.5 m/sec and 2.0 m/sec to maximize availability at low flow sites.”"]
[9,"2019-04-11",null,"Can national laboratories personnel provide advice to developers on their Application submissions?","National labs are excluded from applying as primes or subs as summarized in FOA Section III.ii Table 3, therefore lab personnel should not collaborate with or advise potential applicants on their applications.  "]
[10,"2019-04-12",null,"1. The FOA specifies national lab staff cannot be consulted for AOI’s 1b, 2b, and 3. Are we able to discuss the other AOI’s with the national labs?","See number 9."]
[11,"2019-04-12",null,"2. For the cost share, are existing models, model license fees, or datasets valid for consideration, assuming the value can be verified? Is there guidance on how the valuation be performed?","Data is not allowable as cost share. All items proposed as cost share must be necessary for the performance of the award project. Please review 2 CFR 200.306 Cost sharing or matching for additional information on cost share, including information on determining the value of items proposed as cost share."]
[12,"2019-04-13",null,"I ‘d like to be included in the teaming partner list of FOA DE-FOA-0002080.","Your information has been added. The Teaming Partner List can be accessed under the \"Documents\" heading for this FOA in EERE Exchange."]
[13,"2019-04-15",null,"In the FOA, it says:  “AOI 1 of this funding opportunity is therefore designed to (1) solicit industry-led research to comprehensively understand and assess the flexibility within the fleet, and (2) solicit innovative industry-led techniques to increase flexibility present in the existing fleet.”\n\nDoes this mean that the proposal should be led/submitted by an industry, or the lead organization could be a university as long as the target problem is industry driven and the team includes industry partners?\n","Please see Section III.A. Eligible Applicants of the FOA to determine entities who are eligible to apply as prime applicants. "]
[14,"2019-04-18",null,"Do I have to create an account within EERE Exchange to access the User Manual?","No, you do not have to have an account or log in to EERE Exchange to access a user manual. Please click on \"Manuals\" on the left side of the homepage, then click on \"EERE eXCHANGE Applicant Guide September 2018\". If you are still unable to access or open the manual, please contact the Helpdesk at EERE-ExchangeSupport@hq.doe.gov "]
[15,"2019-04-18",null,"Would a commitment from Google to provide credits to use their computing resources be acceptable as cost share?","Please review 2 CFR 200.306 Cost sharing or matching and 2 CFR Part 910.130 Cost sharing (EPACT) for information on cost share.  Specific items of cost share will be reviewed as part of the negotiation process with successful applicants."]
[16,"2019-04-18",null,"We are considering proposal to analyze the flow regime of the existing hydropower dams in the US considering HydroSource database (https://hydrosource.ornl.gov/market-info-and-data/existing-hydropower-assets) from the Oak Ridge National Laboratory along with potential sites from our topography analyses. We could provide flow regimes at these dams based on our on high resolution hydrological model running in data assimilation mode that incorporates river discharge observations from USGS and/or flow simulations according to NOAA National Water Center’s National Water Model (that is available on Google Cloud). Please let me know if a proposal along these lines would be of interest for you solicitation or this was meant for application where at the end the results are implemented by real hydropower operators.","As indicated in the FOA, the objective of AOI 1b is to increase the utilization of flexible capabilities of existing hydropower plants through innovative operational strategies. Therefore, modeling efforts are only of interest if they address operational strategies that could be applied to real hydropower plants."]
[17,"2019-04-24",null,"Our company is trying to understand the logic behind the restrictions placed on the participation of FFRDCs in this FOA. We made the effort to gain NREL as a subrecipient participant in our recent application to WPTO’s FOA 1837, and consider this an important achievement in our work to commercialize our in-stream turbine innovation. While AOI 2a applicants are allowed to co-participate with ALL FFRDCs except ORNL, AOI 2b applicants are allowed to co-participate with NONE of the FFRDC’s, even if they have an existing relationship.\n\nIn fact, it appears in Table 3 on page 55 of the FOA, that the ONLY AOI that is allowed to co-participate with FFRDCs is AOI 2a. This seems inequitable and unfair.\n\nCan you please explain the WPTO’s reasoning in putting this unbalanced, and apparently preferential, restriction on this FOA?","Each of the FOA's Areas of Interests has a section about National Laboratory Technical Assistance. Restrictions were put on FFRDCs to allow for Technical Assistance to be provided to all final Awardees. Please review National Laboratory Technical Assistance section for the Area of Interest that you plan on applying under."]
[18,"2019-04-25",null,"Regarding AOI 2b: Will applicant teams be allowed to expand their teams (include additional organizations with particular expertise) after the submittal of the concept paper but prior to the submittal of a full application?","The FOA does not prohibit a change of team members between the Concept Paper and Final Application phases."]
[19,"2019-05-01",null,"I am submitting a concept paper for this funding announcement.  The information contained within the concept papers would be confidential or patent protected.  I am receiving a prompt on your website after I registered stating any something to the extent that any information further submitted would be considered property of the DOE.  Could you tell me how to submit the concept papers with out any conflict of contracts?  ","See Section VIII.D. Treatment of Application Information. "]
[20,"2019-05-01",null,"We are a little uncertain about who will retain ownership of any new IP resulting from this project.  We plan on proposing a team that consists of a small domestic business as prime contractor, and a small foreign firm as a team member. We are both bringing existing IP to the project, but we are uncertain about who will retain ownership of new IP developed during the course of the project. For a Domestic Small Business with a Small Foreign Entity, who retains the rights to any new IP developed during the course of the project?","See Sections B.xi, Intellectual Property Provisions and Section VIII.K, Title to Subject Inventions. For additional clarification specific to your organization and application, EERE suggests consulting the Applicant’s attorney."]
[21,"2019-05-01",null,"When submitting the Concept Paper (and Final Submission) - even if we estimate a 10% (for example) work effort from a potential FFRDC, do we list the work effort from the lead organization as 100% or 90%? (Note: I ask this because without the \"contact\" information to put into the \"partnering\" organization field in the EERE online submission, how else do we get that information and reflect the use of a potential FFRDC without any preliminary collaboration? As per the FOA instructions, we have to describe the work effort percentage, but it is specifically unclear about Topic 2a opting for a potential FFRDC collaboration and without the FFRDC information - it is not possible to complete the 10% work effort details in the online description - although we can estimate it)\n\n","The AOI 2a Technical Assistance section states that “ORNL staff cannot be consulted in relation to this AOI prior to the announcement of selection decision(s) under this FOA”. An applicant may contact other FFRDCs with respect to being a sub-contract under AOI 2a only.\n\n"]
[22,"2019-05-01",null,"How does the EERE quantify work effort? Labor-hours, costs, our own estimation, etc?\n","Quantity of work effort is based on the percentage of total project budget.   "]
[23,"2019-05-01",null,"In our timeline / work effort calculations, \"for example\", a potential FFRDC is going to review the design in a \"4 hour session\". Do we have a number of days between the time of submission and when that session will be scheduled (i.e.. can we estimate within a week or so)? If we want additional services from a potential FFRDC, should we \"estimate\" the time?\n\n","The meeting will be scheduled within an estimated 30 days. "]
[24,"2019-05-01",null,"In the Final Application, subrecipient budget justifications, authorization from a cognizant contracting officer, and related docs - do any of these pertain to applicants wanting the \"added\" services of  potential FFRDC under topic 2a? If the answer is yes and an applicant is opting to use the added services of a potential FFRDC, where do they get that information without any FFRDC contact?\n\n","The AOI 2a Technical Assistance section states that “ORNL staff cannot be consulted in relation to this AOI prior to the announcement of selection decision(s) under this FOA”. An applicant may contact other FFRDCs with respect to being a sub-contract under AOI 2a only."]
[25,"2019-05-01",null,"In the cost proposal, should we estimate the proposed cost for a potential FFRDC or do we provide our total cost without that?\n","EERE is unclear as to what is meant by \"cost proposal\". If you are referring to the Budget Justification form, there is a specific area on the \"Contractual\" tab for FFRDC specific costs. The Budget Justification needs to incorporate all project costs including proposed FFRDC funds. "]
[26,"2019-05-01",null,"If we provide our total cost without the proposed FFRDC costs, and if the FFRDC's budget goes over the $1 million cap, do we have to either reduce our costs somehow or choose not to have ORNL, to stay within the cost cap?\n","You should provide the total estimated project costs, including total FFRDC proposed funding. All project costs will be considered in regards to the $1 million cap. While EERE may pay the FFRDC directly, the funds still come out of the total project costs. "]
[27,"2019-05-01",null,"In the FOA, Under IV.D.ix. - The link to Attachment 3 comes up with the error:  Unable to open \nhttps://www.directives.doe.gov/directives-documents/400-series/0412.1-BOrder-a/@@images/file. \n","Please recheck the link by copy and pasting directly into your browser. The link is operable. "]
[28,"2019-05-01",null,"In the online application of the Concept Paper through EERE's website, it asks for the Technical POC / PI. If the PI is different from the Technical POC(s) - should we list the PI or the Technical POC?\n","You should list the Principal Investigator (PI)."]
[29,"2019-05-01",null,"Concept Paper filenames are not specified (while full application submission files are). Is the form: \nControlNumber_LeadOrganization_ConceptPaper.pdf, correct / acceptable?\n","The naming convention is {{ControlNumber}}_{{LeadOrganization}}_Concept_Paper.  "]
[30,"2019-05-01",null,"If we collaborate with another private, small business as a \"team\", and that team is all working under 1 envelope / umbrella/ scope of work for and with the lead organization, and they are technically not subrecipients, contractors, or \"partners\" vs. team members of the core research team, but are contracted agents (vs. employees), do we need to list them \"separately\" as project partners, or do we keep them as part of the core team?\n","Contracted employees should be listed under the \"Contractual\" tab of the Budget Justification as they are not actually employees of the Prime Applicant. "]
[31,"2019-05-02",null,"I noticed that the percentage of the cost share was not defined in the FOA.  Does this imply that the cost share can be very small?","The cost share requirements are listed in the FOA in Section III.B. Cost Sharing. "]
[32,"2019-05-03",null,"For AOI 2a, we would like to propose an innovative technology that fulfills the functional objectives of two separate SMH modules. Because the FOA states only one type of module may be proposed per application, is it possible this unique and distinct technology will be eligible for the equivalent award amount of 2 modules? Some specific reasons why this might be justified include (1) the functional objectives of both SMH module types are completely fulfilled; (2) the functions are inseparable; (3) the work required to develop and validate both functions requires more resources than a single module; (4) it is a more efficient use of funds to develop this dual-purpose module than to attempt to somehow separately develop the functions.","Applicants must propose innovations in one of the modules detailed in section AOI 2a Application Expectations. A module that serves the function of two modules may be proposed, as long as it meets the objectives and requirements for both modules as described in the SMH Design Envelope. "]
[33,"2019-05-03",null,"if an applicant wishes to submit more than one concept paper to this FOA, is a separate, unique control number required for each concept paper?","Yes. Each concept paper must have its own control number.  See section III.F.  Limitation on Number of Concept Papers and Full Applications Eligible for Review for more information. "]
[34,"2019-05-06",null,"Regarding AOI 2b, where are the concept paper formatting guidelines provided? (i.e. font, spacing, margins, etc.)","See Sections IV.A. \"Application Process\" for formatting requirements and IV.C. \"Content and Form of the Concept Paper\" for the content requirements. "]
[35,"2019-05-07",null,"The budget amount that goes into the Concept Paper is just for BP1 or for the combined BP1 and BP2?","The budget amount for the concept paper should be for all Budget Periods of the project. "]
[36,"2019-05-07",null,"Regarding AOI 2a, if our application proposes an innovation that fulfills functions of 2 of the SMH modules, can the project apply for up to $2M of funding?","See answer for #32."]
[37,"2019-05-08",null,"Regarding AOI 1b, will foreign company be eligible as primary awardee? Can a foreign company be sub-contractor?","See answer for #13."]
[38,"2019-05-08",null,"Regarding AOI 1- In the webinar info page 19 “Applications Specifically Not of Interest” (and Section I.C. if the FOA), it says “Applications proposing technology R&D” is not of interest. \nCould you elaborate this a little bit? Does it mean research activities are not allowed? ","Research activities are allowed as they relate to developing a flexibility framework (1a) and innovative operational strategies to increase flexibility (1b). Technology R&D is outside the scope of this AOI. "]
[39,"2019-05-08",null,"I have a strong proposal concept for Topic Area 1b: Operational Strategies for Increasing Hydropower Flexibility.  However, today we found that our planned cost share partner decided to not go ahead with the proposed project due to internal budget constraints.  We have several possible operational stakeholders that are interested in being a collaborator and cost share partner, however, we may not have a solidified cost share partner at the time of submitting the concept paper.  Can we continue our plan and submit the concept paper by listing several potential collaborators and cost share partners, and then solidify the team before the full proposal, or do we need to have every team member committed before the concept paper?\n","Cost share commitments are not required at the Concept Paper stage, but are required with the Full Application.\n\nTeams should be proposed at the Concept Paper stage and will be considered during Concept Paper review. Please refer to Sections IV.C. and V.A of the FOA for Concept Paper Content Requirements and Technical Review Criteria for Concept Papers.\n"]
[40,"2019-05-10",null,"We note the velocity range of .5- 2.0 mps velocity with 10 kW power output for the 2b: Modular Technologies for River Current Energy Converter Applications. Are they using/referencing this formula for calculated power outputs?:  Power = (1/2) (Water Density) (Turbine Flow Area) (Water Velocity) ^3","FOA requirement for AOI 2b is to calculate nominal power rating at at 2.0 m/sec inflow speed. See FOA Section I.B, AOI 2b \"The CEC shall be designed with a minimum electrical output power of 10 kW per module at 2.0 m/sec inflow speed, with a minimum of two modules connected to a common support structure module. A system that can provide a total electrical output power of 30 kW or more at 2.0 m/sec inflow speed, although not required.\""]
[41,"2019-05-13",null,"I see that there is a limit of 25% of total work effort for subrecipients for this award. However, is there a minimum work effort requirement for the main recipient. ","A subrecipient whose estimated budget  is >$250,000 or 25% of the total project costs must provide a budget justification form, but there is not a limit of 25% on work effort of subrecipients. The FOA contains some limitations on FFRDC work effort, but does not specifically prescribe work effort percentages for prime applicants. The prime applicant is always responsible for ensuring that all project work is completed as proposed. Note that the deadline for submission of a Concept Paper under this FOA is 5:00 PM EST today, 5/13/2019. An eligible Concept Paper must be submitted by that deadline in order for a Full Application to be submitted."]
[42,"2019-06-02",null,"Will Funding Agreements with Federally Funded Research and Development Center (FFRDCs) occur at the same time as Cooperative Agreements, or is there action on my part as Applicant required now during the Full Application process?","An FFRDC can only apply as a subrecipient under AOI 2a. If you are applying as the prime recipient and want to include an FFRDC as a subrecipient under that AOI, please see the table in Section IV.D.i. for two documents required from FFRDCs as part of your Full Application.  FFRDCs are funded directly by DOE.  This will occur at the time of the awarding the Cooperative Agreement and no action is needed by the applicant other than to provide the documents referenced above.   "]
[43,"2019-06-05",null,"Regarding the Statement of Project Objectives (SOPO), in the template provided there are three examples given for a Milestone summary table. In the example given for a project with a DOE down-select process at the end of BP1, the Go/No-Go decision point and Budget period 2 are presented in the image provided, where BP2 is detailed as, \"Budget Period 2 Tasks and milestones to be negotiated after down selection process completed.\" As FOA_2080 AOI 2b is also operating on a DOE down-select process should it follow this same format for the SOPO? And should this be extended throughout, with the tasks and activities of BP2 described in summary form in the technical volume, but a full breakdown left until the down selection process is completed?","Please provide full details for all potential budget periods in the technical volume of your Full Application. If selected, your SOPO can be negotiated accordingly."]
[44,"2019-06-05",null,"Regarding the Disclosure of Lobbying Activities form SF-LLL, if there are no lobbying activities connected to the grant by any of the participants, is this form still required or can it be left out?","The SF-LLL is a required form. Please fill in your identifying information. Other blocks can be marked N/A as appropriate."]
[45,"2019-06-11",null,"If we are proposing work for ORNL under DE-FOA-0002080 Area of Interest 2a: Generating Module and are unable to collaborate with them for time and cost, do we need to submit the \"Authorization from cognizant Contracting Officer for FFRDC\" and request a budget proposal with scope to ORNL for them to return to us so we can submit it with our application, or do we just submit our application with the proposed scope and cost and the additional paperwork is not needed?\n","Per Section I.B. of the FOA beginning on Page 29, “WPTO will directly fund ORNL to provide technical assistance to each awardee.” And “If such assistance is desired, applicants must indicate their intent and plan for using ORNL technical assistance within proposed tasks.”  This should not be included  in your budget and the FFRDC forms are not required with the application.   Note that ORNL staff cannot be consulted in relation to this AOI prior to the announcement of selection decision(s) under this FOA."]
[46,"2019-06-11",null,"Can you please confirm that the statement \"Up to 3 awards, range of $1M-$5M in DOE funds per award, 20% cost share, 18-month award duration, with one budget period\" supersedes the information given in II.A.ii.  The previous FOA had language suggesting there may be two budget periods. I just want to confirm that the full 18 months will be looked at as one budget period?","Confirming that as detailed on page 49, Section I.B.4 \"up to 3 awards, range of $1M-$5M in DOE funds per award, 20% cost share, 18-month award duration\" supersedes page 53, Section II.A.ii, \"two (2) Budget Periods are anticipated\". However, final decision will be negotiated with the selected awardee after selections. A modification to the FOA is being processed to clarify."]
[47,"2019-06-11",null,"We are preparing the full proposal to AOI 2b. According to the FOA, this AOI has two budget periods.  In our full proposal, should we prepare budget only for BP1 (9-month)?","See number 43 above."]
[48,"2019-06-11",null,"[For AOI 2b] Are we expected to complete a model test in BP1, or only propose the test plan?","Per Section I.B of the FOA,  AOI1 2b Section, \"Successful applications under this AOI will submit a proposal that includes engineering design and analysis, numerical modeling, and relevant model-scale testing to support project objectives, to satisfy the International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC) Technical Specifications (TS) (described below) and design reviews.\" A complete list of requirements for BP1 deliverables can be found in \"AOI 2b BP1, Initial Design: ANTICIPATED DELIVERABLES\" section starting on page 36."]
[49,"2019-06-12",null,"Please clarify the answer to question #25 from 5/1/19 for AOI 3. Should the potential $400,000 funding for Lab work be included on the Budget Justification, as this would impact the cost share calculations on the EERE 335.","For AOI 3, the Technical Assistance (lab funding) will be funded directly by DOE.  It should not be included in your budget as DOE funding or Cost Share.  Per the FOA, Section I.B. “In their applications, awardees should propose work scope for NREL and/or SNL support.  The final determination of the specific laboratory support will be made during award negotiations based on input from developer, NREL, SNL, and WPTO.  If such assistance is desired, applicants must indicate their intent and plan for using National Laboratory technical assistance within proposed tasks.”"]
[50,"2019-06-12",null,"Is further guidance available as to whether project LCOE calculations for AOI 3 should be prepared according to pre-existing DOE guidance or if the NREL System Advisory Model will be available soon. (pg. 47 of the FOA document).","See \"AOI 3 WEC Device Performance Metrics\" section on page  43."]
[51,"2019-06-12",null,"FOA AOI 3- For generic budget purposes only: SNL / NREL hourly or day rate cost for expertise support?","See number 49 above.  SNL/ NREL  personnel time is not charged to awards for this AOI and should not be included in an award budget."]
[52,"2019-06-12",null,"FOA AOI 3- For generic budget purposes only: WPTO hourly or day rate cost for expertise support?","See number 49 above.  Water Power Technology Office personnel time is not charged to awards and should not be included in an award budget."]
[53,"2019-06-14",null,"We are working to develop a full application for DE-FOA-0002080 (AOI; 3: Advanced Wave Energy Device Design).  Our query relates to the cap on annual average electrical power output of 100kW contained within DE-FOA-0002080. This seemingly arbitrary cap does not match our understanding of the infrastructure to be installed at PacWave or the known resource characterization at the facility.  We are concerned that the cap, if rigidly enforced, would unduly hinder the design process for a utility scale system as well as adding significant engineering costs for devices of a size not suited to the wave resource.  The device we intend to test at PacWave will have the potential to generate up to 1 MW.  However, the DE-FOA-0002080 cap would limit this ability.  Can the Water Power Technologies Office (WPTO) provide assurances to all applicants that devices capable of breaching the 100kW annual cap will not be rejected due to this capability, which, in general terms, seems in alignment with the overall power production and cost reduction goals of the WPTO? In other words, can the WPTO provide assurances that an application for a device designed well matched to the PacWave resource and the infrastructure capabilities planned for the site will be given every due consideration for funding? ","The FOA language stating that devices “should not exceed 880,000 kW-h/year to the grid when deployed in the PacWave-South test site resource, corresponding to a 100-kW average annual electrical power output” indicates a recommendation, not a firm requirement, and was included to encourage applicants to develop device designs at a scale that could be built, deployed, and tested for two years at PacWave-South within the typical resource levels provided by WPTO. Accordingly, applications that propose to design a device that has an annual average power rating higher than 100 kW will be given full consideration, and evaluated against the merit review criteria posted in the FOA."]
[54,"2019-06-14",null,"For AOI 3, if the up to $400k FFRDC funding should be excluded from the budget justification (question #49 from 6/12), should cost share matching for targeted FFRDC funding also be excluded? Would cost share matching for the  \"final determination of specific laboratory support\" also be determined during award negotiations or is it not required at all?","Answer to #49 is revised.  The $400k for lab funding for AOI 3 is provided in the form of Technical Assistance provided by DOE.  Cost share is not required on this Technical Assistance for this AOI.  "]
[55,"2019-06-16",null,"In May I downloaded a template/draft SOPO Word.doc, which I over-wrote and formatted my SOPO.\nAs a check I downloaded a template/draft SOPO Word.doc today and the Sections are slightly re-named and contents slightly changed: \n1st template: A.Objectives; B.Scope of Work; C.Tasks to be Performed; and D.Deliverables.\n2nd-current template: A.Project Objectives; B.Technical Scope Summary; C.Tasks to be Performed; and D.Project Mangement and Reporting.\nWhich shall I re-write using the current template?","The SOPO template to use is found on EERE Exchange. Please navigate to DE-FOA-0002080 and click on \"Required Application Documents.\""]
[56,"2019-06-14",null,"Is further guidance available regarding AOI 3 National Laboratory Technical Assistance? For instance, if an applicant wants a Lab to manage and conduct laboratory testing for an immature sub-system, can third party vendor costs incurred by the Lab, e.g., acquisition of required test hardware or test article, be included in the incremental $400k of funding. This impacts how proposed Budget Justifications will be assembled.","See answers to #49, #51, #52 and #54. Per Section I.B. of the FOA beginning on page 44, \"WPTO will provide all AOI 3 awardees with up to $400K of combined technical, engineering, and testing expertise from NREL and/or SNL. The $400K will not be part of the $1.8M in funding provided to awardees, and instead NREL and SNL will be funded directly by DOE.\""]
[57,"2019-06-20",null,"Our question is if our Subrecipient Budget Justification can be submitted separately from our teaming prime’s recipient application via the EERE-Exchange? Our concern is that the Budget Justification form requires that we disclose fringe rate, overhead rate, G&A, and MSE rates which our institution considers business confidential and does not share with teaming partners that may also be competitors in other disciplines.  We plan to provide our loaded rates to the prime to coordinate in the development of their budget with ours.","All documents must be uploaded with the Full Application submitted by the Prime Recipient. If your normal procedure is to bill using loaded/burdened personnel rates, you should complete the Budget Justification form using loaded/burdened personnel rates. Remember that neither the prime recipient nor any subrecipient can charge fee or profit to an award under this FOA. In the Additional Information section at the bottom of the Personnel tab within the Budget Justification, you should confirm that no fee or profit is included. You should also list the elements of the rates; e.g., taxes, insurance, vacation or sick leave, etc; however, you are not required to provide amounts or percentages for individual elements of the rates."]
[58,"2019-06-20",null,"We at PNNL are collaborating with a business (Prime/Lead) on a proposal under WPTO’s FOA DE-FOA-0002080 Area of Interest (AOI) 2a.  For this project the Lead Business, will require technical expertise from ORNL for their advanced manufacturing capabilities AND PNNL for our aquatic expertise.  We understand ORNL’s effort on the project (should it be selected for award) will be funded directly by DOE, and is NOT a part of the overall project total (capped at $1M), but can you please clarify if PNNL’s effort on the project is required to be included in the overall project total and must be included in the $1M cap?  PNNL’s efforts are estimated to be at $200K which would only leave $800K available for the Lead Business.  If this is correct, please provide an explanation as to why ORNL has access to this other source of $, that other Labs/FFRDC’s do not.","Funds for FRRDCs other than ORNL (such as PNNL) must be included in the budget and project total along with corresponding cost share.  Costs and cost share for ORNL should not be included in the budget and project totals.  See Q&A #17."]
[59,"2019-06-23",null,"SF-424: Item 11 asks for the \"CFDA Title\".  betaSAM.gov does not return a search for '81.087'.  What is the \"CFDA Title\"?","CFDA 81.087 is Renewable Energy Research and Development."]
[60,"2019-06-23",null,"SF-424: Item 12 asks for the \"Funding Opportunity Title\" Is 'Water Power Technologies Office 2019 Research Funding Opportunity' the correct title?","Yes."]
[61,"2019-06-23",null,"FOA_2080_WPTO_R&D_Mod002, Section IV.A is specific about page size, font size and margins. Does this apply to the Gantt Chart to be supplied in the Technical Volume/WorkPlan? Changing paper size and margin sizes would increase data presented and reduce the number of pages.","REVISED: The font in the Gantt chart does not need to be 11 point. It must be legible and easy to read.  It can be landscape or portrait orientation.  It must fit with the margin sizes listed in the FOA.  The Gantt chart normally takes up about one half page to one page max in the Technical Volume.  "]
[62,"2019-06-25",null,"Regarding SF-424, Item 13: What is the 'Competition Identification Number' and 'Title'?","DE-FOA-0002080; Water Power Technologies Office 2019 Research Funding Opportunity"]
[63,"2019-06-25",null,"Regarding SF-424, Item 14:  If awarded the only physical activity out side of [our company's] offices is at a Wave Tank test site.  Is this site a 'Area Affected by Project'?","Yes."]
[64,"2019-06-25",null,"Regarding SF-424, Item 14:  If awarded the only enginering activity out side of [our company's] offices is with the National Laboratories as Collaborations ensue.  Are these sites a 'Area Affected by Project'?","No."]
[65,"2019-06-25",null,"Regarding SF-424, Item 19:  Is this Program covered/not covered by E.O. 12372?\nI seached the California State Clearing House website which recommended I contact the 'Federal Agency'.","Program is not covered by E.O.12372."]
[66,"2019-06-26",null,"We are a small firm developing a submittal for DE-FOA-0002080, AOI 3.\n1) Can DoE EERE provide an indication of the frequency and kind of information collections that will be required for this project? By recipients and sub-recipients?\n2) Will administrative reporting requirements be negotiated during the negotiating period and will awardees therefore be able to amend the budget to allocate resources and personnel to meet the negotiated reporting requirements?","1) Please see FOA Section VI. B. xii. Reporting.  Subrecipients do not report separately to DOE. It is the prime recipient's responsibility to ensure that subrecipients are performing as required.\n2) Reporting requirements are not negotiable; however, the Budget Justification submitted with an application is understood to be an estimate, and a successful applicant will have an opportunity to revise its budget as part of the award negotiation process."]
[67,"2019-06-26",null,"We are the prime contractor (with about 60% of the budget) and have a foreign entity sub-recipient (partner, with about 40% of the budget). For the Budget justification:\n3) Can the foreign entity submit a budget justification in line with their current accounting procedures and formats? That is, can we include their budget as a line item in the prime recipient’s budget with the foreign entity’s budget justification submitted as supplemental information?","Proposed subrecipients should be listed in the Contractual tab of the prime applicant's Budget Justification. A subrecipient whose budget is estimated to be > $250,000, or 25% of the project budget, should also submit a Budget Justification form. See the table in FOA Section IV. D. \nSee also IV. D. xii. Waiver Requests: Foreign Entities and Performance of Work in the United States (if applicable). "]
[68,"2019-06-27",null,"The AOI 3 WEC Device Performance Metrics section on pg. 47 of the FOA states that the metrics should be run for PacWave-South and any intended commercial site. That section also refers to the DOE’s pre-existing LCOE guidance which calls for use of the Humboldt resource, which in our case is not an intended commercial site.\n1) Can the PacWave-South resource be substituted for Humboldt in the LCOE calculations?\n2) If PacWave-South is a reasonable proxy for an intended commercial site, can the application just present metrics using PacWave-South as the resource?\n","1) LCOE should be calculated for both Humboldt and their intended commercial site.\n 2) Yes, the wave resource probability distribution at PacWave-South can be used for all other metrics calculations.\n"]
[69,"2019-06-28",null,"Regarding SF-424, Signature: I can provide an Adobe Digital ID if the form will accept it.  Or, do I print and then wet sign and print to Adobe?  Or, I can copy and paste a digital image of my wet signature.  Which do you prefer?","Either format is acceptable. "]
[70,"2019-07-01",null,"1. In case we believe that the project will be executed better if new entities join us, is it a problem if we add new team members in the full submission? The new members were not referred in the concept paper.","See answer to #18."]
[71,"2019-07-01",null,"2. In order to ask for technical support from the national labs NREL and SNL, in case we take the reward, should we just write that in the technical volume? Should we do an extra procedure or no?","See answer to #49.  No additional steps are required at this stsage. "]
[72,"2019-07-01",null,"3.  In case we want to carry out experiments in USA, but the team members do not have proper facilities , should we contact a university/entity which has a wave tank in order to ask them if we can use their facilities? Then we should include every detail of the facilities in the technical volume, correct?","Per FOA’s “AOI 3 Scope and Technical Requirements” section, “the work scope for AOI 3 projects must include engineering design and analysis, numerical modeling, and any tank and laboratory testing that is needed to complete the scope and deliverables. In order to provide a high level of confidence that designs will perform as expected at PacWave-South test site, during the period-of-performance, awardees must either (1) demonstrate that the design tools and methodologies being used have been previously verified and validated or (2) perform tank or laboratory testing to verify and validate the design tools and methodologies being used.”\n\nHow your Full Application proposes to perform tank testing is not prescribed by the FOA. Technical Review Criteria that will be used to review Full Applications are listed in Section V. A.ii of the FOA.\n\n"]
[73,"2019-07-02",null,"Is it possible to change our project title on the full application from what was submitted with the concept paper? We would keep the same control number, but adjust the title.","Yes, you may revise your project title after you submit your Concept Paper, up until the Final Application is due."]
[74,"2019-07-02",null,"We would like to collaborate with a USGS laboratory on a specific subtask in our proposal for AOI 2a, DE-FOA-0002080. We don't believe this laboratory is an FFRDC, but we'd like to identify any additional requirements for performing research at a federal facility.\n\nA) Is it possible to collaborate with a USGS laboratory on AOI 2a? \nB) Are there any specific authorization forms needed? \nC) How should this entity be categorized on the contractual tab of the Budget Justification Workbook? I.e. would the laboratory contract directly with DOE as an FFRDC, or would they be listed as a vendor?\n","A) USGS is a Federal agency not a FFRDC so per the FOA are eligible to apply.  Federal agencies and instrumentalities (other than DOE) are eligible to apply for funding as a subrecipient, but are not eligible to apply as a prime recipient. \n\nB) No authorization forms are needed, but if they provide cost share they must have a letter or commitment.  \n\nC) They should be listed as a subrecipient or vendor and cost share is required on that amount.  Funding mechanism to the Federal agency  will determined if the applicant is selected for award. "]
[75,"2019-07-03",null,"If collaboration with a USGS laboratory on AOI 2a is allowed, said entity would be obligated to charge some percentage overhead. Can you please confirm whether this would be permitted under the grant? ","The entity may charge overhead, but not fee or profit.  Note that DOE will issue cooperative agreements and not grants under this FOA."]
[76,"2019-07-03",null,"For AOI 2a of DE-FOA-0002080, we would like to include a vendor who is expected to perform work which is estimated at more than $250,000.  Do we need to submit a Subrecepient Budget Justification Workbook for this vendor? Or does this only apply to subrecepients?\n","Per the instructions in the Contractual tab of the Budget Justification form: List all vendors and contractors supplying commercial supplies or services used to support the project. For each Vendor cost with total project costs of $250,000 or more, a Vendor quote must be provided.  Subrecipient Budget Justification is not required for vendors. A quote is required. See also the definition of vendor in those instructions. "]
[77,"2019-07-02",null,"According to the FOA, our device seems to qualify as either a Modular Technology for Low-Head Hydropower Applications and/or a Modular Technology for River Current Energy Converter Applications, outlined respectively in sections 2a and 2b of the FOA. I was hoping to learn how the WPTO came up with the numerical specs for these proposals. Certainly, there must have been deployment sites which WPTO had in mind when coming up with these values.","For AOI 2a, the rationale for setting a maximum head of 30 ft stems from Oak Ridge National Laboratory’s New Stream-Reach Development Resource Assessment, which analyzed the potential for new hydropower development in US stream segments that do not currently have hydroelectric facilities. The study found that the majority of the untapped resource potential lies in streams with 30 ft of head or less, hence why WPTO is focusing on those parameters. More information can be found here: https://hydrosource.ornl.gov/hydropower-potential/new-stream-reach-development-resource-assessment\n\nFor  AOI 2b, this is WPTO’s first call for promotion of this area of interest, and the specifications selected were based on beginning our work in this area in the less challenging low flow river environments.\n"]
[78,"2019-07-05",null,"For AOI3, should Capture Width Ratio and Peak-to-Average Mechanical Power be calculated for the prototype that is being designed during the project or the nth unit from the LCOE calculation, using PacWave-South as the resource","For AOI3, Capture Width Ratio and Peak-to-Average Mechanical Power should be calculated for the prototype that is being designed during the project."]
[79,"2019-09-27",null,"The FOA states that EERE expects to make selection notifications by September 2019.  Is this still the expectation?","EERE now expects to make selection notifications in early November 2019."]

{"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"]