{"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":3,"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 IBR_Optimization@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":91,"n_cols":5,"rows_kept":91,"cut":false,"hidden":false,"merged":[[1,0,1,4],[0,0,0,4]]}
["ADMINISTRATIVE QUESTION AND ANSWER LOG"]
["DE-FOA0001689 - Integrated Biorefinery Optimization"]
["Question #","Date Submitted","Topic","Question","Answer"]
[1,"2017-01-06","Labs/FFRDCs","I’d like a clarification on our eligibility for the IBR optimization FOA (attached). We are a federal USDA-ARS lab, and pg 23 notes that federal non-DOE labs can only be sub-recipient. The FOA makes clear that most of the funds will be from EERE (pg 18); however, a portion of the funds will be from USDA-NIFA, which we are normally entitled to receive as primary. Is there some other variable that prevents eligibility as primary? ","As stated in section \"III.A.i.b. Domestic Entitles\" of the FOA, non-DOE/NNSA FFRDCs are eligible to apply for funding as a Subrecipient, but are not eligible to apply as a Prime Recipient.  "]
[2,"2017-01-06","Technical Topics","Are algae-based IBR's eligible, i.e. IBR's that utilize a waste carbon dioxide feedstock for algae production and conversion to biofuels, or are only cellulosic IBR's eligible? If an algae IBR is eligible, what is the correct metric for minimum throughput, e.g. is it based on carbon dioxide feedstock input? ","Yes, the algae-based IBRs are eligible. Please refer to the Appendix H addressing the Feedstock eligibility.                                             "]
[3,"2017-01-06","Registration Requirements","Could you please provide a MS Word efile of the CONCEPT PAPER template?","The word template has been posted on the EERE Exchange website"]
[4,"2017-01-09","Technical Topics","Is lignin considered a waste or under-valued stream? Is xylose to ethanol as opposed to xylose to furfural considered an under-valued stream? Is the biorefinery paradigm underlying this FOA based on aqueous weak acid hydrolysis with enzymatic cellulose to glucose (to ethanol) conversion, such that the premise supporting the waste/under-valued streams is that they originate in such a plant? If the biorefinery premise is not predetermined, will a solvent-based biomass deconstruction and fractionation biorefinery platform application receive competitive consideration? ","Lignin can be a waste stream or under-valued stream. The xylose to ethanol as opposed to furfural is not considered an under-valued stream. The FOA is not targeting any specific process as such it does not target only aqueous weak acid hydrolysis with enzymatic cellulose to glucose conversion and there is no premise that waste/under-valued streams should originate in such a plant. The FOA will consider various conversion technologies for example, biochemical, thermochemical, hybrid."]
[5,"2017-01-09","Technical Topics","Is there any specifications on the feedstocks that can be used under this FOA?","Modification 00001 has further specified the allowable feedstocks for this FOA, please see the newly added Appendix H.  Additionally, as specified in the FOA, the actual, non-pristine commercial scale relevant feedstock must be used to successfully pass the performance validation.  The feedstocks to be tested should include variations in the geographic source, age, moisture content and harvest/storage methods. Applications considering multiple variability factors in feedstocks will score higher. Feedstock specifications must be provided in the technical/financial datasheets including particle size distribution, moisture content, yield, and other requested information. Applicants must provide the scale or feed rate associated with prior experiments used to generate benchmark data, as well as the envisioned scale or rate for the planned (proposed) intermediate and the final targets."]
[6,"2017-01-11","Technical Topics","Regarding Topic Area 2: High value products from waste/or other undervalued streams in an integrated biorefinery, would a waste stream from Gen 1.5 cellulosic ethanol, which uses corn fiber, be considered an acceptable feedstock for upgrading?","Yes, a waste stream from Gen 1.5 cellulosic ethanol, which uses corn fiber, will be considered as an acceptable feedstock for upgrading as long as it fulfills requirements of the feedstock specified in newly added Appendix H."]
[7,"2017-01-12","Technical Topics","Would animal manures, manure digestate, or a combination be an allowable feedstock? Each individually or in combination would easily satisfy the 1 MDTD requirement of the solicitation. And if allowed for consideration, I assume there are no exclusions as to type -dairy, cattle, swine, poultry?","Yes, the animal manures, manure digestate, or a combination will be considered as an allowable feedstock. Please refer to the Appendix H addressing the Feedstock eligibility."]
[8,"2017-01-17","Technical Topics","We feel that our technology is at the TRL3 level in the lab and we would like to take it to TRL6 in the plant. This will call for scale up of our process to a 500 gallon fermenter, which is equivalent to about 0.16 DTPD.  However, we feel that if we are successful at that level, we would be able to go to the 1 dry TPD level using equipment in the plant.  \n\nWe would like to know whether a project to go from TRL3 (lab scale) to TRL6 (500 gal) would qualify for a 20% non-federal match for a $1.5 million grant.\n","Please note the minimum through puts for topic areas is 1 DMTD (Per Appendix H).  Throughputs lower than that will not be eligible for funding.  \n\nCost Share will be determined by topic area.  \nTopic Area 1 (which has a TRL of 4 to 5) will require a minimum of 50% cost share. \nTopic Area 2 (which has a starting TRL of 2 to 4) will require a minimum of 20% cost share. \nTopic Area 3 (which has a minimum TRL of 4 to 5) will require a minimum of 50% cost share. \nTopic Area 4 (which has a minimum TRL of 2 to 4) will require a minimum of 20% cost share.\nSection III.B. Cost Sharing states, \n\"Special Cost Share Waiver for Domestic Institutions of Higher Education, Domestic Nonprofit Entities, FFRDCs, or U.S. State, Local, or Tribal Government Entity. \n  The Assistant Secretary for the Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy has issued a Cost Share Reduction determination pursuant to Section 988(b)(3) of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 that is applicable to certain entities applying under this FOA. Specifically, Recipient cost share requirement for applied research and development activities projects is reduced from 20% to 10% where:\n     1. The Prime Recipient is a domestic institution of higher education; domestic nonprofit entity; FFRDC; or U.S. State, local, or tribal government entity; and\n     2. The Prime Recipient performs more than 50% of the project work, as measured by the Total Project Cost.\nApplicants who believe their project qualifies for the reduced Recipient cost share must be able to provide verification that the above requirements are satisfied.\""]
[9,"2017-01-18","Technical Topics","We are interested in developing a concept paper and would like to ask two clarification questions about Topic Area 2.\n\n1. In Page 15, it says \"will appropriately scale up to a minimum of 1DTPT\".  Do we need to actually demonstrate a 1 DTPT scale OR do we need to develop a technically that is scale-able?  We are looking at TRL 2-3 to start and TRL 3-4 to end.  I am not sure TRL 3-4 needs 1 DTPT pilot demonstration.\n\n2. In Page 15, it says \"lowering the overall minimum fuel selling price (MFSP) by at least 10%\".  We wonder what should be the baseline of this calculation. ","1. The requirement of Funding Opportunity Announcement is that the applicant must demonstrate and achieve the throughput  of 1 Dry metric Tonne/day.  \n\n2. Links have been provided for several NREL design cases in \"Appendix F – Technical and Economics Tables Template\".  If you do not have an TEA for your process, these may be used."]
[10,"2017-01-18","Eligibility","Can you clarify this statement in the Applications Specifically Not of Interest Section: \"Applications that do not include any direct linkage to the biofuel production as opposed only to bioproducts production.\"\n\nMy company would work with a wastewater treatment plant that produces biogas by removing hydrogen sulfide from the product stream. Hydrogen sulfide is a known issue in anaerobic digestion. Would we qualify to apply for this grant?\n","H2S scrubbing systems are currently commercially available.  Therefore, this technology would not qualify under this solicitation."]
[11,"2017-01-18","Technical Topics","1. The first question is regarding engineering.  We plan to build a unit to perform separations (Topic 3).   The final facility we plan to build will process 30 dry TPD.  The FOA says  it will cover engineering design.  The engineering company tell us that to provide the engineering they need to do pilot testing (30 dry kg/day) first.  Could we include this piloting as part of the engineering design? \n2. The second question relates to exclusions or “C. applications not specifically interested”  The last bullet point (page 18) reads: “Applications that do not include any direct linkage to the biofuel production as opposed only to bioproducts production”.  This is a bit confusing for our case. For the 30 dry TPD facility we were planning to produce fuel intermediates as the main product, which demand a higher price than fuels at the moment when directly commercialized as biochemicals.  We may produce some fuel from such fuel intermediates as a proof-of-concept, but in the near term we wanted to simply sell those fuel intermediates as such to the market.   Would such application that calls for the production of the fuel intermediates rather than the fuels as the main product be considered non-responsive? \n","1) Yes\n2) The application must show how the proposed technology could provide a direct linkage to the production of advanced biofuels."]
[12,"2017-01-19","Eligibility","I have a question about feedstocks for Topic 2, allowing for the utilization of “waste and/or other under-valued IBR streams.” However, Appendix H does not seem to list any of these streams as allowable feedstocks. Would upgrading glycerin to chemicals count? Glycerin is surely an undervalued stream currently, but also is not listed in Appendix H. What about processing biodiesel bottoms into more fuel? This follows along the same token, but the result is more biofuel as opposed to biochemicals.","1) Yes, if the glycerin is the by-product from the biodiesel production and it is being upgraded into the advanced fuel.\n2) The biodiesel being produced would have to be produced using a feedstock as described in appendix H.  Biodiesels being produced by transesterified oil are not of interest."]
[13,"2017-01-19",null,"We’d like clarification on one aspect of the IBR FOA (DE-FOA-0001689), pertaining to Focus Area 2. Page 15 states: “The proposed technologies must have previously achieved successful operations at a minimum of lab scale and will appropriately scale up to a minimum of 1 DTPD.” \n\nIs this (1 DTPD) referring to the overall process (i.e. biomass feed rate) or to the actual production rate of coproduct? \nThanks for your time. \n","This represents the biomass feed rate into the front end of the system."]
[14,"2017-01-20","Technical Topics","I have two questions regarding the concept paper cover sheet.\n\nFirst, if responding to Topic Area 2, should the details of the system (feedstock, products and co-products) be completed for the entire biorefinery, or just the technology being developed to utilize an undervalued stream within the biorefinery.  For example, if a Topic Area 2 proposal is focusing on upgrading waste water from a lignocellulosic biorefinery, should the feedstock be lignocellulosic biomass or the waste water?  Should the primary and co-products only include those from that waste water stream, or all products and co-products from the lignocellulosic biomass?\n\nSecond, should the percentage of carbon utilized by the products be stated on a feedstock carbon basis, with the sum being the carbon conversion rate?  Or, should the carbon percentage for products and co-products be shown as a percent of carbon in salable products, with the sum equal to 100%?\n","1) The feedstock to your system can be waste water from a cellulosic biorefinery.  Actual waste water from a cellulosic biorefinery is a requirement.  Description of products and coproducts are up to the discretion of the applicant.\n2) The percentage of carbon utilized by the products should be stated on a feedstock carbon basis, with the sum being the carbon conversion rate."]
[15,"2017-01-20","Technical Topics","Regarding the maturity of the TEA and LCA analyses of proposed projects, the FOA seems ambiguous to me. On page 7 it states:\n\"Full applications must submit the life cycle analysis (LCA), and techno‐economic analysis (TEA) for the proposed pathway certified by credited expert. Selected applicants must plan to perform ongoing TEA and LCA throughout the project in order to use experimental results to illustrate how improved yields and system processes contribute to lowering the cost of production of biofuels and bioproducts.”\n\nOn page 39 it states:\nEnvironmental Impact: The Applicant must include a life cycle analysis (LCA) or compelling narrative that demonstrates that the proposed technology will have an improved environmental profile over conventional production. Applicant must include explanations of assumptions and appropriate references.\n\nAre applicants to have a fully certified LCA for the process at the time of application, or is it sufficient to have a preliminary estimate done by a credited expert at the time of application with a plan to provide a more complete LCA by the end of the project period?\n","The applicant has to submit the preliminary estimate done by certified LCA expert at the time of application.  As per Section \"I.B.Topic Area 2\": The final estimate must be submitted after the selection process. The final estimate must be certified by a relevant accredited organization, or by utilizing the GREET model, or the applicant can perform the analysis with the cooperation of the national laboratories or other certified experts.  The final estimate cannot be lower than 10% from the preliminary GHG estimate unless an accredited effort found a much greater reduction in GHG emissions."]
[16,"2017-01-25","Cost Sharing","1. Regarding cost share, what are the time limits for acceptability? For example, can previous work be counted towards cost share, assuming the previous work is directly relevant to the project?\n2. Which type of biomass can we use for Topic Area 2? For example, can we use Pine Saw Dust biomass?\n","1) Project costs, including cost share, are only eligible during the project period of performance.  In some cases preaward costs may be allowable, but only up to the date that recipient selections are made by the Selection Official.  Inclusion of preaward costs must be approved by the Contracting Officer and incorporated into the budget during negations of the award. Applicants are encouraged to refer to 2 CFR 200.306 as amended by 2 CFR 910.130 & 10 CFR 603.525‐555 for additional guidance on cost sharing.\n2) Appendix H list approved feedstocks.  Pine Saw Dust would be an allowable feedstock if it is domestically available and has the agronomically and ecologically sustainable ultimate availability potential of at least 50 million dry metric tons of cellulosic biomass per year."]
[17,"2017-01-25","Eligibility","Are bio-refineries that just produce bio-chemicals (not to be used in biofuels) qualify for DE-FOA-0001689?","Section I.C. Applications Specifically Not of Interest states, \"Applications that do not include any direct linkage to the biofuel production as opposed only to bioproducts production\" are specifically not of interest."]
[18,"2017-01-26","Technical Topics","Relative to topic 2, is an approach using a portion of the biofuel plant raw feedstock to produce higher value product(s) other than fuel a viable alternative under this FOA? This approach would make the facility a true “cogeneration” facility.","Yes, only if the portion of the raw feedstock could not otherwise be used to produce the facilities main biofuel.  For example, an application would not be eligible if the applicant's process would simply have a slip stream taken off to produce a separate coproduct. An application could be eligible if the feedstock is fractionated into separate streams, however it is up to the applicant to show the  minimal value of the fractionated stream."]
[19,"2017-01-26","Application Content/Format","I have a question about FOA-0001689. Do I address the question to this address?","Yes.  Please send questions related to the INTEGRATED BIOREFINERY OPTIMIZATION (DE-FOA-0001689) FOA mailbox, IBR_Optimization@ee.doe.gov"]
[20,"2017-01-26","Technical Topics","Topic Area 2 is concerned with the waste streams from an integrated biorefinery. Is this addressed only to existing biorefinery technologies? For example, our company is developing a process that uses wood as a feedstock to create biochemicals. The “streams” that come from this process are to be converted into high-value chemicals. These streams do not exist in the marketplace today. Would our process that converts these “not-yet-in-the-marketplace” streams receive consideration?","The purpose of this Topic Area is to address waste/under-valued streams from a cellulosic integrated biorefinery. The application must show how the proposed technology could provide a direct linkage to the production of advanced biofuels. Section I.C. Applications Specifically Not of Interest states, \"Applications that do not include any direct linkage to the biofuel production as opposed only to bioproducts production\" are specifically not of interest."]
[21,"2017-01-27","Technical Topics","1) please confirm biofuel from hydrogen through woody biomass pyrolysis qualifies as renewable/advanced biofuel for this FOA\n\n2) can primary product be bioelectricity or bioheat, rather than biofuel, from woody biomass through pyrolysis?\n","1) Please see the definition of the  renewable/advanced biofuel in the Appendix D.  The appendix H defines the allowable feedstock  \n2) The primary product must be a biofuel as defined in Appendix D's Definitions section."]
[22,"2017-01-30","Technical Topics","Do waste streams under Topic 2 refer only to the waste streams from existing biorefinery technologies? If an integrated cellulosic biofuel refinery is being developed that will create a byproduct stream that is inherently valuable and that is not produced by any biofuels technology in operation today, is that byproduct stream considered a “waste” under this FOA? Or is this FOA aimed at alleviating issues with only existing integrated cellulosic biofuel refineries?","1) No, the waste streams under Topic 2 do not refer only to the waste stream from the existing biorefineries. \n2) No, the byproduct, created on purpose, is not considered a waste stream. \n3) The FOA does not alleviate issues only with existing integrated biofuel refineries. "]
[23,"2017-01-31","Eligibility","This is to inquire whether a proposed project would be eligible for consideration under Topic area 2 of the published FOA.\n\n[Description of technology has been removed]\n\nPlease advise us whether what we have in mind meets your criteria.  If so we will prepare a concept paper and submit it.","Thank you for your interest in the requirements of the Department of Energy. The Funding Opportunity Announcement (FOA) posted at EERE exchange is comprehensive and designed to allow prospective applicants to assess their proposed projects versus the requirements and criteria of the FOA.  We cannot predetermine the suitability or viability of a proposal in advance of the merit review process.  It is up to prospective applicants to review the requirements of the FOA and assess the merits of their proposed project to determine whether to submit an application.  All questions concerning this announcement must be submitted via e-mail to IBR_Optimization@ee.doe.gov not later than 3 business days prior to the application due date.  All questions and answers related to this FOA will be posted on EERE eXCHANGE at: https://eere-exchange.energy.gov/   Please note that you must first select this specific FOA Number in order to view the questions and answers specific to this FOA.  "]
[24,"2017-02-02","Eligibility","We are submitting concept paper related to integrated biorefinery optimization to DOE. Since our proposal is a scaling-up particle-size based ultraseparation of cellulose nanocrystals, which does not include biogas, flue gas or other co-products/byproducts and does not use algal cultivation or other microorganism, may we submit our concept paper to this funding opportunity? This FOA requires a format of concept paper, if we do not have biogas production, may we just fill the related items and leave other blank?","1) Thank you for your interest in the requirements of the Department of Energy. The Funding Opportunity Announcement (FOA) posted at EERE eXCHANGE is comprehensive and designed to allow prospective applicants to assess their proposed projects versus the requirements and criteria of the FOA.  We cannot predetermine the suitability or viability of a proposal in advance of the merit review process.  It is up to prospective applicants to review the requirements of the FOA and assess the merits of their proposed project to determine whether to submit an application.  All questions concerning this announcement must be submitted via e-mail to IBR_Optimization@ee.doe.gov not later than 3 business days prior to the application due date.  All questions and answers related to this FOA will be posted on EERE eXCHANGE at: https://eere-exchange.energy.gov/   Please note that you must first select this specific FOA Number in order to view the questions and answers specific to this FOA.  \n\n2) Section I.C. Applications Specifically Not of Interest states, \"Applications that do not include any direct linkage to the biofuel production as opposed only to bioproducts production\" are specifically not of interest."]
[25,"2017-02-04","Cost Sharing","We are interesting in submitting to the IBR FOA Topic 4 and have our \nconcept paper nearly ready to submit. We are a small business and our \npartner is a university.\n\nHowever, we remain confused on the cost sharing requirements. In the \nFOA, it indicates that an institution of higher education will have a \n10% cost share (see P. 25) , but the application webpage insists on 20% \nfor the minimum .... Further, In Appendix B it appears that no cost \nshare is needed for Task 4 (See the table on p. 87 where the federal \nshare is 100%).\n\nCan you please clarify?\n","A prime recipient that is a Domestic Institution of Higher Education, Domestic Nonprofit Entity, FFRDCs, or U.S. State, Local, or Tribal Government Entity may apply for a Special Cost Share Waiver. Please see Eligibility Information in the FOA for further information. \nAppendix D provides an example of cost share for a proposed project, certain tasks may be higher or lower than others but the overall Cost Share for the example is 27.9% of the total project cost. "]
[26,"2017-02-15","Application Content/Format","Could you please point me in the right directions for the various templated referred to as part of the FOA, the SOPO template and the Excel template refered to in Appendix F?","All templates referenced in Appendix F can be found under \"Documents - Technical and Economic Data Tables Final (Excel)\" in the FOA information for DE-FOA-0001689 at https://eere-exchange.energy.gov."]
[28,"2017-02-20","Application Content/Format","In section IV Application and Submission Information, Sub-section D Content and Form of the Full Application on page 37 a Research Data Package is listed.  However, no document specifications other than a 10 page limit is given in the FOA.  Is this a required document?  If so, what are the specific requirements to be contained with the document?  What is the definition of ‘Research Data’ in relationship to this package?","Yes, the Research Data package is required as part of the Full Application.  The definition of Research Data can be found in the Definitions section of the FOA on page 94.  There are no specific requirements for the Research Data package other than it must not exceed 10 pages and must meet the definition."]
[29,"2017-02-22","Application Content/Format","The FFRDC Contractor Authorization letter that’s required should be addressed to whom, name and mailing address, please?","The letter from the cognizant Contracting Officer for the FFRDC should be sent to the applicant and included as part of the full application to DOE."]
[30,"2017-02-23","Application Content/Format","Please define what Appendix C is asking for in the \"Foreign Work outside the U.S\"? Is this a form that needs to be submitted with the full proposal if it is applicable to the project?","All work under EERE funding agreements must be performed in the United States.  There may be limited circumstances where it is in the interest of the project to perform a portion of the work outside the United States. To seek a waiver of the Performance of Work in the United States requirement, the applicant must submit a written, explicit waiver request in the Full Application. A separate waiver request must be submitted for each entity proposing performance of work outside of the United States.  There is not a specific form for this type of request, however, it must include the information described in Appendix C on Page 90 of the FOA."]
[31,"2017-02-23","Technical Topics","The FOA details and requests a “Certified LCA” as part of the submission.  However in the  description for the LCA and TEA (page 39),  it is stated “or a compelling narrative” as an alternative in place of the analysis. It will be helpful to confirm and ascertain that a “compelling narrative” description would not require “certification” to meet the requirements of the proposal?","The FOA requires the certified LCA submission."]
[32,"2017-02-24","Technical Topics","Are we required to submit Technical and Economic Data Tables (up to 20 pages) as part of a Topic 4 proposal? This seems irrelevant to the Research focus of Topic 4. The requirement is shown on page 47 of the RFA.","The Topic Area 4 does not require Technical and Economic Data tables."]
[33,"2017-02-28","Technical Topics","We are preparing a submission for Topic Area 1. We noticed reference to a life cycle analysis (LCA) and techno-economic analysis (TEA) but that did not specify the topic areas to which the requirement applied. Given the nature of Topic Area 1, we are unsure if the DOE intended to apply this requirement to all topic areas.  \n\nTopic Area 1 is concerned with the robust handling of variable feedstocks in the feeder-to-reactor portion of an integrated biorefinery. Because the feeder-to-reactor portion of an integrated biorefinery is primarily comprised of mechanical (not chemical) processes, there will be very little to no change in the emissions output as a result of the proposed changes. While detailed LCA is quite logical for other topic areas that rely on the adjustment of chemical processes, given the costs and time involved, we are not sure of the value of incorporating a detailed LCA into a Topic Area 1 proposal. \n\nWould an application to Topic Area 1 without an LCA be considered non-responsive, or can we assume, given our feeder-to-reactor focus, that for our application we can omit such an LCA? ","As stated in Section I.A on Page 7 of the FOA, \"Full applications must submit the life cycle analysis (LCA), and techno-economic analysis (TEA) for the proposed pathway certified by credited expert\"."]
[34,"2017-02-28","Technical Topics","Question: Is corn fiber an eligible feedstock for Topic Area 2?\n\nBackground for context:\nCorn kernel fiber is being used today as a feedstock for ethanol production, generating RINs, and this feedstock has the potential to annually generate over 1 billion gallons of D3 RINs domestically.  Elevated animal feed value for non-ruminant applications of DDGs are based largely upon their usable protein and energy content rather than their fiber content. This is also the trend with cattle feed.\n\nCurrent fiber pretreatment processing methods, in addition to hydrolyzing cellulose from fiber, also degrade the protein component that ends up in the coproduct stream, decreasing its value in application. A 5% reduction in protein digestibility represents a $1.5 M USD loss in feed value for a 50 MMGY ethanol plant. We have proposed (in concept paper) a viable solution to reduce degradation and valorize this fiber stream that, once sufficiently demonstrated, can be rapidly rolled out to the ~200 existing dry mill fuel ethanol plants in the U.S., making broad commercialization very favorable for this process optimization.","Yes, a waste stream from Gen 1.5 cellulosic ethanol, which uses corn fiber, will be considered as an acceptable feedstock for upgrading as long as it fulfills requirements of the feedstock specified in newly added Appendix H."]
[35,"2017-02-28","Technical Topics","If a Subcontractor plans to engage a FFRDC under the project, what is the protocol for this?  If the procedure is the same, as if the FFRDC is engaged by the Prime, does the Prime need to be involved in the process, or is this handled entirely by the Subcontractor?\n\n","As stated in Section E.ii on Page 31 of the FOA, \"The Prime Recipient will be the responsible authority regarding the settlement and satisfaction of all contractual and administrative issues including, but not limited to, disputes and claims arising out of any agreement between the Prime Recipient and the FFRDC Contractor\".  This statement also applies to any agreement between a subcontractor and an FFRDC."]
[36,"2017-02-28","Application Content/Format","Regarding the contents of the Research Data Package, specified in the Submission Table in \"Section i. Full Application Content Requirements\" (10 page limit).  Can you please specify what this attachment should contain? ","See Question 28."]
[37,"2017-02-28","Cost Sharing","Row 11 of the most recent Q&A states that Topic Area 1 (which has a TRL of 4 to 5) will require a minimum of 50% cost share.  We read the solicitation instructions as specifying that \"Demonstration\" scale projects under Topic 1 required 50% cost share, and \"Pilot Scale\" projects under this Topic required 20%.  Can you please confirm that we have correctly interpreted the requirements in the solicitation?","The cost share must be at least 50% of the total allowable costs for demonstration projects.  The cost share must be at least 20% of the total allowable costs for research and development projects. "]
[38,"2017-03-01","Cost Sharing","We submitted a concept paper to DE-FOA-0001689. At the time of concept paper submission, we had not noticed the section of the FOA that indicated that university-led projects – where the university was more than 50% of the project – could apply for 10% cost share. In the concept letter, our share of the contract was below 50%, so Exchange assigned us 20% cost share. But, we can easily adjust the budget to make sure that our share is >50% of the total budget. Will EERE hold us to the initial budget break down and 20% cost share, or can we re-adjust the budget in the full proposal to meet the requirements for 10% cost share?","Applicants should be able to adjust the Exchange values, however, the actual application documents should show the 10% requested cost share."]
[39,"2017-03-01","Technical Topics","One of the required documents list for the application is a Research Data Package.  I cannot find any information about the desired contents of this document.  Could you provide some clarification?","See Question 28."]
[40,"2017-03-01","Technical Topics","On page 15, paragraph 6, of the FOA, it states that “The proposed technologies mush have previously achieved successful operations at a minimum of lab scale and will appropriately scale up to a minimum of 1 DTPD”. The goal of our proposed research is to reduce the overall minimum fuel selling price (MFSP) of bioethanol by more than 10%. Our pathway to reach this goal is to develop a novel integrated biorefinery platform for the utilization of whole stillage from lignocellulosic-based bioethanol production. The liquor stream obtained from the whole stillage after the mechanical solid-liquid separation will be used, as a complementary feedstock to paper mill sludge for producing lactic acid, while the lignin-enriched solid stream obtained will be utilized as an added high value feedstock in the production of linerboard and corrugating medium and for the production of biofuels and bioproducts.  \n\nTo meet the indicated FOA objective of 1 DTPD, should we target a minimum of 1 DTPD throughput based on: \na) 1 DTPD of the usage of the lignocellulosic biomass feedstock for the bioethanol production, or \n\nb) 1 DTPD whole stillage generated from the bioethanol process, or\n\nc) 1 DTPD bioethanol production.","a) The applicant must target at least 1 DTPD of the usage of the lignocellulosic biomass feedstock for the bio[fuel] production."]
[41,"2017-03-02","Technical Topics","Clarify the boundaries for the topic area 1 scope. Is this topic area limited or must it include preprocessing of the biomass delivery to the reactor throat? Our concept paper addressed the handling of the biomass from reactor throat to removal of the solids from the reactor, which was deemed outside of scope. No modifications to a working preprocessing was proposed.","If the applicant can show that their process will ensure reliable and continuous feeding of biomass feedstocks into a reactor operating under vacuum or at positive pressures, then the focus of the removal of the solids from the reactor is allowed."]
[42,"2017-03-02","Technical Topics","The FOA states on page 54, Section J. x., that awards made by USDA-NIFA limits indirect costs to 30% of total Federal funds (or 42.857% of total indirect costs). \n\nThe FOA also states on the front page that EERE and USDA-NIFA will be making awards under this FOA and that applicants will submit proposals in response to the FOA, not a specific agency. With this statement, if our F&A is greater than what USDA allows, but is a federally approved rate, can we use our federally approved rate?","As stated in Section J.X, Page 54 of the FOA, \"when preparing budgets, you should limit your request for the recovery of indirect costs to the lesser of your institution’s official negotiated indirect cost rate or the equivalent of 30 percent of total Federal funds awarded.\""]
[43,"2017-03-03","Technical Topics","The response to question number 8 in the Q&A document, FOA_FAQs_2-28-17.xlsx, classified cost-share requirements according to topic area. The FOA states that cost-share requirements are classified according to whether the project is a research-and-development project or a demonstration project.  \n\nAppendix B in the Solicitation indicates different rates are utilized to calculate cost share, based on R&D or demonstration activities.  We are planning on submitting to Topic Area 1 with a research-and-development project, which will be transitioned from TRL 4 to TRL 5 (note that the TRL table has demonstration occurring at TRL 6). Our reading of the FOA is that this project would require 20% cost share. Is this correct?  ","Topic Area 1 (which has a TRL of 4 to 5) will require a minimum of 50% cost share. "]
[44,"2017-03-03","Technical Topics","One of our submitted concept papers proposed converting a co-product to a more valuable product, but the review said that because the co-product already had value, it may not be responsive to the FOA. However, the FOA had the example of increasing the value of a co-product from a burner fuel to valuable chemicals. If the project increases the value of a co-product significantly, with capital and operating costs low enough to reduce the minimum fuel selling price by the amount required by the FOA, would the project be considered responsive?","It is up to the applicant to provide the required data (Techno Economic Analysis) that shows the favorable increase in value of MFSP and coproducts."]
[45,"2017-03-03","Technical Topics","I was not aware that TEA and LCA certifications existed and I am having trouble finding information about them. Can you please provide some additional information? Specifically, is there a list of entities that can provide an acceptable certification of TEAs and LCAs prepared by applicants? Also, how can applicants with experience in TEA and LCA become certified?","The analysis must be certified by a credited expert.  This can be a Subject Matter Expert, but does not need to be a specified entity that performs LCA certifications.  The intent is to ensure a non-speculative analysis."]
[46,"2017-03-07","Cost Sharing","The EERE 335 form says \"A Recipient who elects to employ the 10% de minimis Indirect Cost rate cannot claim resulting costs as a Cost Share contribution, nor can the Recipient claim unrecovered indirect costs as a Cost Share contribution.  Neither of these costs can be reflected as actual indirect cost rates realized by the organization, and therefore are not verifiable in the Recipient records as required by Federal Regulation (§200.306(b)(1)).” \n\n1.  Is the prohibition on claiming unrecovered indirect costs limited to the sub-recipients that are employing the 10% de minimis Indirect Rate? \n\n2.  As an institution with a Federally-negotiated F&A rate, may we claim unrecovered indirect costs as cost share on this project?","1.  A recipient or subrecipient who elects to employ the 10% de minimis Indirect Cost rate may claim unrecovered indirect costs as a Cost Share contribution as long as the indirect costs are adequately documented per 2 CFR §200.403(g) and otherwise allowable in accordance with 2 CFR §200.403, verifiable in the recipient / subrecipient records as required by Federal Regulation 2 §200.306(b)(1) and conform to all other requirements for cost sharing contributions in accordance with 2 CFR §200.306.\n\n2.  As stated in 2 CFR Part 200.306(c) - Cost Sharing or Matching, \"Unrecovered indirect costs, including indirect costs on cost sharing or matching may be included as part of cost sharing or matching only with the prior approval of the Federal awarding agency.  Unrecovered indirect cost means the difference between the amount charged to the Federal award and the amount which could have been charged to the Federal award under the non-Federal entity's approved negotiated indirect cost rate.\"\n"]
[47,"2017-03-09","Application Content/Format","How much time should we allow for DOE to make the critical decisions (CD 2, 3, &4) before we schedule the beginning of the next budget period?  Or should we assume a seamless transition.  For example, there is a critical decision point between BP1-A and BP1-B, when developing the Gantt chart should I put BP1-A to be 10/1/17-12/31/17 and  BP1-B 1/1/18-xxxx? Or should I schedule the start of BP1-B to be a month or so later to give DOE time to make a decision?","Please allow 1 month for a smooth transition between the phases."]
[48,"2017-03-10","Technical Topics","Can a Topic 1 project include R&D only or does it have to have a demonstration component?","Topic Area 1 may have an R&D component, however it must focus on the demonstration of the technology as stated in the Topic Area description. "]
[49,"2017-03-10","Technical Topics","How is a demonstration component defined? Is it scale of operation, or is it duration of operation?","Please refer to the topic areas requirements. The demonstration requires the scale and also the duration of the operation. "]
[50,"2017-03-10","Cost Sharing","Based on your answers to questions 8 and 43, we understand that Topic Area 1 requires  50% cost share.  \nAppendix B shows an example of blended cost share calculations.  \nPlease clarify that for a Topic 1 project, we could have 20% (reduced to 10% for a institute of higher education) for the for the Validation (BP1-A), Definition(BP1-B), and Execution (BP2) phases, and 50% cost share requirement for the Operations (BP3) phase.  Or do we need to use 50% for the entire project?","Topic Areas 1 and 3 will require 50% cost share for the entire project."]
[51,"2017-03-10","Cost Sharing","Please clarify if institutions of higher education get a waiver of cost share from 50% to 10%.","As stated in the FOA, Section III.B, Page 25, the Assistant Secretary for the Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy has issued a Cost Share Reduction determination pursuant to Section 988(b)(3) of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 that is applicable to certain entities applying under this FOA. Specifically, Recipient cost share requirement for applied research and development activities projects is reduced from 20% to 10% where: \n1. The Prime Recipient is a domestic institution of higher education; domestic nonprofit entity; FFRDC; or U.S. State, local, or tribal government entity; and \n2. The Prime Recipient performs more than 50% of the project work, as measured by the Total Project Cost. \nApplicants who believe their project qualifies for the reduced Recipient cost share must be able to provide verification that the above requirements are satisfied."]
[52,"2017-03-11","Application Content/Format","Please clarify what budget form the subrecipient should use. ","Subrecipients over $250,000 should complete EERE 335 budget justification form"]
[53,"2017-03-11","Application Content/Format","Does the subrecipient complete their own  Budget_Justification_(EERE_335).xlsx document? ","Subrecipients over $250,000 should complete EERE 335 budget justification form , and the prime recipient should incorporate the total amounts on tab F. Contractual of the overall project budget."]
[54,"2017-03-11","Application Content/Format","Are the Subrecipient's totals for each budget period then entered into tab f. Contractual of the Prime Recipients Budget Justification EERE 335 form? ","Please see the Instructions on the Contractual worksheet in the EERE 335 Budget Justification form."]
[55,"2017-03-13","Cost Sharing","Per Question 43 of the Q/A, the answer is stated “Topic Area 1 (which has a TRL of 4 to 5) will require a minimum of 50% cost share. “  \nHowever, on page 14 of the Funding Opportunity Announcement (FOA), it states the “Applications are required to be at a minimum starting TRL of 4 or 5, and will end at TRL 5 or 6 respectively….”  According to page 103, TRL 6 is the level for a demonstration. On page 26 of the FOA, the cost share for demonstration is listed at 50% and for research and development (R&D) projects it is 20%.  \nIt is our understanding that the FOA, as written, does allow one to propose a R&D project (i.e., 20% cost share) in Topic Area 1.  As such, if our project ends at TRL 5 (component and/or process validation), the cost share should be at 20%.  We understand that changing the FOA requirements is at the discretion of the DOE/USDA.  Will the DOE issue an Amendment to the FOA that incorporates the DOE response to Question 43?","The DOE will issue Amendment 000002 to the FOA to address Question 43"]
[56,"2017-03-14","Application Content/Format","In the table under \"Full Application Content Requirements\", one of the components is \"Research Data package (10 page limit)\". However, I cannot find any information in the FOA regarding this item. What should be included in this package?","Please see the asnwer to question 28."]
[57,"2017-03-14","Application Content/Format","The third submission component is Research Data Package.  I cannot find any information or alternate mention in the FOA document on the Research Data Package. There is also no mention of that term on the EERE website that discusses the requirements for the Full Application for this funding opportunity.  Can you please provide guidance on what is required for the Research Data Package?","Please see the answer to question 28."]
[58,"2017-03-15","Due Dates","Is it possible to still submit a concept paper for this opportunity?  Please let me know if there is still opportunity to apply for DE-FOA-0001689.","As stated on the cover page of the FOA, the Due Date for Concept Papers was 5:00 PM ET, 2/06/2017.    EERE will not review or consider noncompliant submissions, including Concept Papers and Full Applications that are submitted after the applicable deadline."]
[59,"2017-03-16","Technical Topics","The FOA states on page 54, Section J. x., that awards made by USDA-NIFA limits indirect costs to 30% of total Federal funds (or 42.857% of total indirect costs).  \n\nThe FOA also states on the front page that EERE and USDA-NIFA will both be making awards under this FOA. With the statement above regarding indirect costs, if our proposal is being submitted to the EERE part of FOA rather than USDA, can we use our federally approved F&A rate?","As stated in the FOA on Page 54, \"...when preparing budgets, you should limit your request for the recovery of indirect costs to the lesser of your institution’s official negotiated indirect cost rate or the equivalent of 30 percent of total Federal funds awarded.\" "]
[60,"2017-03-16","Application Content/Format","Per page 36 of the FOA, a research data package is a required element.  However, we cannot find anything in the FOA describing what information the agency is looking for or a description of what is expected.  Please advise on what is needed here.","Please see the answer to question 28."]
[61,"2017-03-17","Cost Sharing","I am confused about the cost share.   Mod 000002 says (For Topic Area 2) Projects under this Topic Area require cost share be at least 50% of the total allowable costs.  However, Page 25 of the FOA still says that Institutions of higher education and FFRDCs can reduce the cost share from 20% to 10%.  Can higher education institute still have reduced cost share of 10%? ","Modification 00003 has revised the language for Topic Area 2 to clarify the issue of cost share. Topic Area 2 will allow a blended total cost share, with a required minimum 20% cost share for Research & Development tasks/budget periods (with 10% waiver for applicable organizations) and a required minimum of 50% cost share for demonstration tasks/budget periods. The waiver only applies to R&D tasks/budget periods, and will not be applicable for demonstration level work (TRL 5-6)."]
[62,"2017-03-18","Cost Sharing","You now seem to be saying that Domestic Institutions of Higher Education performing Topic 2 research have to provide 50% cost share for any work in Topic 2, regardless of the TRL level?  For example, you are now defining someone with going from a TRL level of two to three in Topic 2 as not being R&D now but demonstration?  So any TRL levels in Topic 2 are now in essence defined as Demonstration?  Note that on page 25 under Special Cost Share Waiver, Universities are given 10% cost share for R&D activities.  And the definitions of TRL readiness levels indicate that you have to get to TRL level 6 before you hit Demonstration work.  So the recent modification 00002 seems to contradict this statement.","Please see the answer to Question 61"]
[63,"2017-03-18","Cost Sharing","Based on the newly released FOA-0001689 modification 2, the cost share for proposals in Topics 1, 2, and 3 is increased to 50%. Could you please clarify if high education institutions can get a cost share waiver from 50% to 10%? On the original FOA, it mentioned the waiver from 20% to 10%. It is not clear about the waiver from 50% to 10%.","Please see the answer to Question 61"]
[64,"2017-03-20","Application Content/Format","Can an organization based in Burundi apply?","To be eligible to submit a Full Application, applicants must have submitted a Concept Paper by 5:00 PM ET, February 6, 2017.  Foreign entities, whether for-profit or otherwise, are eligible to apply for funding under this FOA.  If a foreign entity applies for funding as a Prime Recipient, it must designate in the Full Application a subsidiary or affiliate incorporated (or otherwise formed) under the laws of a State or territory of the United States to be the Prime Recipient. The Full Application must state the nature of the corporate relationship between the foreign entity and domestic subsidiary or affiliate."]
[65,"2017-03-20","Cost Sharing","In Modification 2 of the FOA, the cost share requirement for Topic Area 1 was increased from 20% to 50%; however, it was not clear from the modification if the cost share waiver still applies for Topic Area 1 for non-profits.  Could DOE verify whether or not there is an applicable cost share waiver for non- profits for Topic Area 1? If there is an applicable waiver could DOE provide the amount of the deduction? ","Please see the answer to Question 61"]
[66,"2017-03-20","Cost Sharing","In the FOA Mod 2, do I understand that under Topic 2 that there is a 50% cost shared required regardless if you are an institute of higher education?","Please see the answer to Question 61"]
[67,"2017-03-20","Eligibility","As the original lead organization of a proposed idea, we submitted a concept paper that was encouraged for full proposal. We identified several partners that were included in the concept paper. In the recent modification (Mod2) the cost share requirements were defined for the individual topic areas. With 50% cost share required for Topic Areas 1, 2 & 3 we are re-evaluating the financial requirements for our full proposal. We feel that it is more appropriate for one of our partners to lead the full proposal based on these new cost share requirements. Is it possible to change the lead organization on a full proposal compared to who was the lead organization that submitted the concept paper?","It is allowable to change a partner to the lead organization on the full application submittal. "]
[68,"2017-03-20","Cost Sharing","Can you confirm that the cost share waiver for Domestic Institutions of Higher Education still applies (i.e. that a 10% cost share requirement applies rather than 50%)?","Please see the answer to Question 61"]
[69,"2017-03-16","Application Content/Format","1.  I am wondering where we “prove” that our LCA and TEA were certified by a credited expert. I know this is a requirement, but do not see a place where we provide the documentation of having done so.\n\n2.  Also, what specific elements must be included in the LCA? I only see where it says “applicants must provide information on how their proposed system addresses the aspects of sustainability (water use/recycle, nutrient uptake, etc.), greenhouse gas reduction (CO2 utilization), and cost effective production towards being competitive with petroleum-based fuels and products by 2030.” Is this all we need to include for the LCA? Many projects will not touch all of these areas either, i.e. nutrient uptake, so I am just wanting to make sure we include everything that is required to be responsive.","1.  You should be able to attach documents to your application submission.  For further assistance, please send an Email to: EERE-ExchangeSupport@hq.doe.gov \nInclude the FOA name and number in the subject line.\n\n2.   It is up to the applicant to determine the level of detail presented in the  application.  Please keep in mind that the applicant has to submit the preliminary estimated conducted by a certified LCA expert at the time of application."]
[70,"2017-03-20","Application Content/Format","We are in the process of preparing this submission and would like clarification as to what is needed for the Research Data Package on page 37 of the FOA. This is the only reference we see to this in the entire FOA. Can you please clarify what is needed?","Please see the answer to Question 28."]
[71,"2017-03-21","Application Content/Format","This question is about format of references…. Page #32 narrates info on references as follows. Is this was only Concept Paper or does it apply for full applications as well. Is there any different format that we must use for full application?\n\nPage # 32: ‘References must be included as footnotes or endnotes in a font size of 10 or larger. Footnotes and endnotes are counted toward the maximum page requirement.’ \n","Per section IV.A. Application Process - The Concept Paper, Full Application, and Reply to Reviewer Comments must conform to the following requirements: \"All pages must be formatted to fit on 8.5 x 11 inch paper with margins not less than one inch on every side. Use Times New Roman typeface, a black font color, and a font size of 12 point or larger (except in figures or tables, which may be 10 point font). A symbol font may be used to insert Greek letters or special characters, but the font size requirement still applies. References must be included as footnotes or endnotes in a font size of 10 or larger. Footnotes and endnotes are counted toward the maximum page requirement.\""]
[72,"2017-03-21","Cost Sharing","Topic 4 is defined as having a starting TRL level of 2 through 4, and ending at a TRL level of 3 through 5.   Topic 4 has a 20% cost share obligation.  Topic 2 also has the same starting and ending TRL levels as objectives.  Why doesn’t Topic 2 qualify for the 20% cost share obligation in the same way Topic 4 does?  Can you please provide the EERE criteria which were used to differentiate these cost share levels between Topics 2 and 4? ","Modification 00003 has revised the language for Topic Area 2 to clarify the issue of cost share. Any research and development tasks/budget periods are required to have 20% cost share, and applicable organization would be eligible for the 10% waiver. Any demonstration level tasks/budget periods for TA2 are required to have 50% cost share and are not eligible for the waiver. ."]
[73,"2017-03-21","Application Content/Format","This is a question about LCA/TEA (page #39) and Technical and Economic Data Tables (Page #47 and Appendix F) as it applies to TOPIC 4. I would like to clarify that LCA/TEA is needed but Technical and Economic Data Tables are not needed? Is this correct?","Technical and Economic Data tables are required for Topic Areas 1-3"]
[74,"2017-03-21","Technical Topics","We are developing a project for Topic Area 2, specifically utilizing the syrup waste stream. According to the FOA, the minimum scale required by the end of the project is 1 Dry Metric Tonne per Day (DTPD). For a process utilizing a waste stream, is the required scale the waste stream produced from 1 DTPD (i.e., 1 DTPD is fed to the fermentation and produces a waste stream which we utilize) or must we directly utilize 1 DTPD of biomass (i.e., 1 DTPD is fed directly to our process)?","The 1 DTPD requirement is for the front-end of the integrated biorefinery system."]
[75,"2017-03-21","Cost Sharing","Due to the changes in the cost share requirements found in modification 2 would it be possible to request a 4 week extension to the proposal date to allow for more time to meet these new requirements?","DOE has extended the deadline to April 5, 2017 at 5 pm ET."]
[76,"2017-03-21","Cost Sharing","Under the revised cost sharing requirements outlined in Mod 2 - does the FFRDC waiver (reducing cost share to 10%) still apply?","The waiver applies to research and development projects only, not to demonstration level projects/tasks. "]
[77,"2017-03-21","Cost Sharing","Regarding mod 2 and cost share\n\nCan institutions of higher education apply 10% cost share for topic areas 1 through 3 if the projects are research and development and not demonstration/commercial applications?\n\nMod 2 doesn't seem to differentiate between R+D and demonstration and commercial applications\n","Topic Areas 1 and 3 will require 50% cost share for the entire project because these are expected to complete the project at a demonstration level TRL (5-6)"]
[78,"2017-03-21","Cost Sharing","I wanted to confirm the cost share requirement for our submission for the above referenced FOA. I understand that this proposal falls under \"demonstration projects\" and in the FOA it states a cost share requirement of 50%. However, the FOA also states a lower cost share amount for Domestic Institutions of Higher Education. My understanding is that the University of California of San Diego fall under this. Will you please confirm if this is correct and if our cost share requirement will only be 10%?","Please see the answer to Question 76"]
[79,"2017-03-22","Cost Sharing","The March 17 modification states that Topics 1, 2, & 3 require 50% cost share, and Topic 4 requires 20% cost share.\n\nOn pages 25-26 of FAO-1689, a distinction is made between \"research and development projects\" and \"demonstration projects.\"  \n\nConsidering that Topic Area 2 requires a starting TRL of 2, 3, or 4, advancing to TRL 3, 4, or 5, one would conclude that work in Topic Area 2 can be classified as \"research and development,\" since only TRL 5 is a \"demonstration\" level project.\n\nAs a Domestic Non-Profit, we will be seeking a cost share reduction to 10% for Topic-2, based on the ENERGY POLICY ACT OF 2005, section 988, b (3), since we are starting at TRL 3 and advancing to TRL 4. It appears from this EACT, section 988, c(2) also applies to a cost share reduction for certain entities. \n\nPlease confirm that this makes sense.\n","Please see the answer to Question 61"]
[80,"2017-03-23",null,"May we change from a Lead to a Sub for full proposal submission for the subject FOA. Additionally, may we change Principle Investigator if needed?","1) See the answer to Question 67\n2) Yes"]
[81,"2017-03-23","Cost Sharing","The original guidance given for Topic Area 2 in answer to FAQ #4 was \nthat a 20% cost share was required.  That answer is still listed when \nyou download the FAQ.  With Mod 2 it seems that the requirements for TA \n2 now require a 50% cost share.\nA.  Is that change correct?\nB.  Does the 50% also apply to university or National Lab partners? Part \nof the project is pure scale-up, part of the project is using those for \nTRL 3 to 4 work that a university and/or national lab would conduct.\nB.  Given that one might be a small company when do you have to have the \nmatching funds on hand?  Can you provide the match as you hit the key \nmilestones as required or do you need the funds in the review process \nused to award the grant?\n\nThank you for any clarifications that you can offer.\n","A. Please see the answer to Question 61\nB. Any demonstration tasks/budget periods require a 50% cost share, which applies to all applicants as there is not a waiver for demonstration level work. \nC. Cost share must be meet on an invoice by invoice basis. In order to ensure that that requirement can be met, the recipient needs to have the cost share when the project starts. If any amount of cost share is coming from 3rd parties, the applicant will need to provide letters of commitment as part of the application."]
[82,"2017-03-24","Technical Topics","We plan to submit a proposed budget that includes our full negotiated\nindirect cost rate with our cognizant agency, which exceeds 30% of the total\nFederal funds requested.   Will the proposal be rejected, even if it is\nselected for funding by the DOE/EERE, which does not have the USDA/NIFA rate\nlimitation?\nWe understood the language in the solicitation to mean that the maximum\nindirect cost rate of 30% of total Federal funds awarded, applies only to\nprojects chosen for funding by the USDA, which will receive the program\nfunding through the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2017.   Will our\nproposal be rejected, if submitted with IR rates appropriate to a DOE/EERE\naward?   Please update the Q&A to respond to this question, as soon as\npossible, or amend the solicitation with consistent language, as we have\npartners who are engaged in the effort and need to know if we will be able\nto proceed with a submission.\n","Please see the answer to Question 59"]
[83,"2017-03-24","Labs/FFRDCs","We are not clear if a FFRDC is requesting funds as a part of our proposal, if we need to include that amount into the Total Project Value for the purpose of calculating the 50% required cost share.... can you clarify?","As stated in Appendix A- Cost Share Information on Page 84 of the FOA, \"FFRDC costs must be included in Total Project Costs\"."]
[84,"2017-03-27","Application Content/Format","Can the Budget Periods have a duration of less than 12 months, as we envision a project of around 24 to 27 months?  We would maintain the required 3 Budget Periods.   ","Yes.  As stated in Section II.A.ii - Period of Performance on Page 20 of the FOA, \"EERE and USDA-NIFA anticipate making awards that will run up to 36 months in length, comprised of one or more budget periods.\""]
[85,"2017-03-27","Application Content/Format","On page 47 of FOA_DE-FOA-0001689, the last sentence is: \" The Technical and Economic Data Table attachment cannot exceed 20 pages.\" My question is, since the template of the \"Economic Data Table\" is an Excel file rather than a Word file, how should we count this 20 pages in Excel file?","To print a worksheet with the exact number of pages that you want, you can adjust the page breaks in the worksheet before you print it. Use Excel's Page Break Preview view to adjust page breaks so that you can see how other changes that you make (such as page orientation and formatting changes) affect the automatic page breaks."]
[86,"2017-03-28","Application Content/Format","We would appreciate some guidance on what is required for the \"Research Data Package\"; there is not any information provided in the RFP or that we could find online other than the page limit and how to name the file.  Any insights on what this document is intended for and should contain will be greatly appreciated.","Please see the asnwer to Question 28."]
[87,"2017-03-28","Application Content/Format","In the FOA mod 3 pg 44 a PowerPoint summary slide is listed as part of the Full Application. Is there any preference on slide format (16x9 vs 4x3), font sizes etc.?","There is a Powerpoint Template included in the Required Documents section on Exchange."]
[88,"2017-03-29","Due Dates","We lost ten days of proposal preparation time when we thought that Topic 2 would be subjected to a 50% cost share.  We informed our commercial partners that we were no longer able to apply to this FOA.  Now that the cost share has been clarified as 20%, we are rebuilding our team and working on the proposal.  On behalf of many other organizations who lost significant preparation time during the cost share confusion, can the EERE extend the submission deadline to April 12th?","Please see the answer to Question 75"]
[89,"2017-09-11","General Annoucement","The FOA stated the \"expected date for EERE selection notifications\" was 7/17/2017.  Seeing that the date has past, when will the selections be annouced?","Due to various items out of the control of the FOA team, announcements have been delayed past the July date published in the FOA.  Please note, this was an expected announcement date. DOE hopes to announce the selections as soon as possible, however this may still be a month or so out.  Thank you for your renewed patience."]

{"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"]