{"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 ETOEnergyCropsFOA@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":56,"n_cols":5,"rows_kept":56,"cut":false,"hidden":false,"merged":[[1,0,1,4],[0,0,0,4]]}
["ADMINISTRATIVE QUESTION AND ANSWER LOG"]
["DE‐FOA‐0001917 - AFFORDABLE AND SUSTAINABLE ENERGY CROPS (ASEC)"]
["Question #","Date Submitted","Topic","Question","Answer"]
[1,"2018-05-07","Foreign Entities/Work","I am a USA Citizen resident in Canada. I'd appreciate knowing:\n1. As an individual, can I get a Dun and Bradstreet Universal Numbering System (DUNS) number?\n2. As a Canadian resident, can I qualify to be the Principle Investigator (PI)?\n3. Can the work under the grant be carried out in Canada?\n4. If instead of me the PI were an American Citizen living and working in the USA, would I qualify as co-PI?\n5. If I do not qualify as PI or co-PI, can I be a paid consultant on a grant, if awarded?\n","Regarding any work to be performed outside of the U.S., please review Appendix C and Section IV.I.iii of the FOA for waiver requirements.\n\nIndividuals that are either U.S. citizens or lawful permanent residents are eligible to apply as a Prime Recipient or Subrecipient.  \nDUNS numbers are global but requirements may differ by country, please contact a local office.\n\nAdditional Eligibility information can be found in Section III of the FOA."]
[2,"2018-05-07","Labs/FFRDCs","In the project requirements, it is stated that all projects must submit samples to INL for archiving/characterization in the Bioenergy Feedstock Library. Does this mean that INL should be included as a funded subrecipient in the project proposal for coordinating/conducting the relevant sample characterization and sample/data upload to the Bioenergy Feedstock Library?","INL is not a required project partner. Awarded projects will be responsible for conducting biomass compositional analysis using wet chemistry or other proposed methodology, and uploading/submitting compositional data and biomass samples to the Bioenergy Feedstock Library. Shipping/delivery costs are an allowable project expense to be incurred by the award recipient. INL is responsible for storing physical samples and compositional data as part of standard operations of the Bioenergy Feedstock Library. "]
[3,"2018-05-09","Cost Sharing","Can we charge our Full Federal Negotiated rate of xx% MTDC on the Award side and also on the Cost share side? ","Indirect costs are an allowable project expense and can be included in the budget justification as Federal and/or Cost Share.  Backup documentation will be required at the time of negotiation for award to approve indirect costs.  All Cost Share must also be included as part of Total Project Costs."]
[4,"2018-05-09","Application Content/Format","I am wondering if your organization provides any sort of document outlining what you are looking for in the letter of intent, or should I follow a general LOI format? ","Section IV.B.i of the FOA describes the content requirements of the Letter of Intent.  The LOI is filled out on Exchange as an online form. "]
[5,"2018-05-11","Application Content/Format","The letter of intent is filled out as an online form on exchange. Where can I find this form? ","Applicants must register and create an account on EERE Exchange.  The \"Apply\" button on the FOA landing page in EERE Exchange will direct applicants to the Letter of Intent page."]
[6,"2018-05-10","Eligibility","My interest is in potential biofuel production from invasive estuarine tunicates, which are aquatic invertebrates, universally problematic fouling organisms, and the only animals that produce cellulose. My quandary is that these organisms are aquatic, but not plants, so as a crop they don't fit neatly into the categories defined in the funding announcement.","Crop species that grow in aquatic habitats are not of interest for this FOA. In addition, this FOA is focused on cellulosic energy crops that meet the definition of High Impact Feedstocks (Appendix E)."]
[7,"2018-05-11","Data Management","Appendix D outlines the requirements for the data management plan for submitted proposals, specifically at a minimum, the DMP must describe how data sharing and preservation will enable validation of the results from the proposed work, or how results could be validated if data are not shared or preserved.  The DMP must provide a plan for making all research data displayed in publications resulting from the proposed work digitally accessible at the time of publication.\n\nThe FOA suggests specifically, the USDA National Agricultural Library Data Commons, the USDA Life Cycle Assessment Common, or another appropriate publicly accessible site.\n\nQuestion:  Is the INL Bioenergy Feedstock Library an appropriate repository?","The INL Bioenergy Feedstock Library is a required repository for biomass characterization data but is not sufficient for other types of data generated from a project. As stated in Section I.A. under “Project Requirements,” projects are also required to synthesize and disseminate research findings on crop performance, environmental effects, and ecosystem services. Applicants should therefore explain how these data will be made digitally accessible at the time of publication (per Appendix D). The USDA sites are suggestions but not requirements."]
[8,"2018-05-11","Technical Topics","Are Energy Beets a candidate crop for the Affordable and Sustainable Energy Crops program? ","Per the guidance in Appendix E, the applicant must explain how the fiber component (excluding sucrose) of energy beets meets the definition of a High Impact Feedstock. "]
[9,"2018-05-11","Technical Topics","Can the sucrose contained in candidate energy crops be used in downstream process development or is the program limited to cellulosic, hemicellosic, and pectin based sugars?","This FOA does not cover downstream process development. However, any component could be used in downstream processing, as long as the energy crop meets the criteria specified in Appendix E. "]
[10,"2018-05-11","Technical Topics","The FOA states, “Projects must focus on newer, less well studied varieties/cultivars of energy crops that have not been extensively tested in the field. Applicants must propose research around energy crop genotypes/cultivars/varieties that have been developed but have not yet been brought into widespread commercial use due to a need for additional evaluation and data collection. Applicants are strongly encouraged to use traditionally‐bred and/or transgenic varieties that have been commercially released since January 1, 2000, or are still pre‐commercial.”\na) Does this mean that varieties released after January 1, 2000 are to be used as checks or are they considered as less well studied varieties?\nb) Can varieties/cultivars improvement be included are as a research objective?","a) Varieties released after January 1, 2000, could be used as either type, as long as the check variety has been sufficiently well studied to serve that experimental purpose. The intent is to learn more about the performance characteristics of less-studied varieties.\nb) No. Breeding and selection of new varieties is outside the scope of this FOA."]
[11,"2018-05-11","Technical Topics","The FOA states, “Projects must target land characteristics less suitable for commodity crop production….” Can you define the land use classes that fall under this category?","It is up to the applicant to explain how the research plots represent land characteristics less suitable for commodity crop production and how the introduction of energy crops would be beneficial."]
[12,"2018-05-11","Technical Topics","The FOA states “A letter of commitment from a conversion technology developer to provide the chemical composition specifications for their process design is required as part of the application.” Who qualifies as a “conversion technology developer”? For many years, my university has been involved in assessing cellulosic feedstocks for various biochemical and thermochemical conversion technologies. Does a researcher qualify as a conversion technology developer? If not, who qualifies?","The conversion technology developer can include any entity who has developed/is developing a conversion technology. A researcher is an acceptable conversion technology developer so long as the technical and economic viability of the process can be defended."]
[13,"2018-05-11","Technical Topics"," Plot size for varietal testing (approx. 20 x 30 ft.) would be different compared to plot sizes for environmental evaluations (e.g., 20 acres). Do we need to compare the new varieties along with checks at 20-acre plot size levels relative to traditional cropping and pasture systems?","Experimental field plots should be as small as possible, and yet large enough to collect data relevant to commercial production, harvesting, and logistics systems (production of approximately 30 dry tons of biomass, and at least 4 dry tons per acre per year). It is up to the applicant to justify the appropriate scale of the experimental plots necessary for evaluating specific environmental effects relative to traditional cropping and/or pasture systems."]
[14,"2018-05-15","Application Reviews","Do you have sometime to talk on the phone about DE-FOA-0001917?","This FOA is a competitive solicitation and private discussions, while the announcement is open, is prohibited. "]
[15,"2018-05-14","Technical Topics","What are the specific crops associated with “Affordable and Sustainable Energy Crops”","Applicants should consult Appendix E for a description of acceptable biomass feedstocks, as well as Section I.C for a description of biomass feedstocks that are not of interest. As explained in Appendix E, this FOA targets energy crops that are fast-growing, highly productive cellulosic crops that are cultivated to produce biofuels, bioproducts and biopower from all or part of the lignocellulosic portions of the plant. Furthermore, the proposed energy crop(s) must meet the definition of a High Impact Feedstock, as described in Appendix E. It is the responsibility of the Applicant to explain in the proposal that these criteria can be met. "]
[16,"2018-05-14","Technical Topics","Are any of these crops able to be grown in the state of Alaska?","It is up to the applicant to determine whether the energy crop meets the criteria in Appendix E and whether the proposed energy crop is suitable for the study area.  "]
[17,"2018-05-17","Eligibility","Can team members and key personnel change between the Letter of Intent and Application.","Yes"]
[18,"2018-05-18","Technical Topics","Is THC-free industrial hemp considered to be a qualified feedstock for this FOA?","Please see response to Question 15."]
[19,"2018-05-22","Labs/FFRDCs","Do FFRDCs need to submit a budget justification file like other subs or do they only need to submit the Work Order Authorization and letter that is required?","An EERE 335 Budget Justification is not required for FFRDCs.  The Field Work Proposal and Authorization letter are required for FFRDC participants.  \n\nThe Authorization letter may be addressed to:\nLalida Crawford\nDOE Contracting Officer\n15013 Denver West Parkway\nGolden CO, 80401"]
[20,"2018-05-22","Application Content/Format","Is there a specific format to be used for the “current and Pending Federal Support” document?","No.  All submissions must conform to the form and content requirements as described in Section IV.A of the FOA."]
[21,"2018-05-22","Application Reviews","The FOA states that “Letters of Intent will not be used for down‐selection purposes”—will there be any feedback provided on the letters of intent?","To be eligible to submit a Full Application, applicants must submit a Letter of Intent by the specified due date and time. Letters of Intent will be used by EERE to plan for the merit review process. Applicants will be neither encouraged nor discouraged from submitting a Full  application based on the information provided in the letter of intent. EERE will not provide feedback on the letters of intent. The letters should not contain any proprietary or sensitive business information."]
[22,"2018-05-22","Technical Topics","Is this FOA considering oils, i.e., products not related to the $3 per GGE and $84 per dry ton delivered? Possibly as a co-product contributed to the $3 per GGE and $84 per dry ton delivered targets?  \nFor example, the $84/dt target is for delivered biomass in form of cellulose. The question about oils pertains to extracted oils from plants, in addition to, or instead of, cellulose (e.g., wood, or switchgrass).","As explained in Appendix E, this FOA targets energy crops that are fast-growing, highly productive cellulosic crops that are cultivated to produce biofuels, bioproducts and biopower from all or part of the lignocellulosic portions of the plant. Furthermore, the proposed energy crop(s) must meet the definition of a High Impact Feedstock. The applicant must explain how the fiber component (excluding oils) of the energy crop meets the definition of a High Impact Feedstock. Co-products from non-lignocellulosic components should be dealt with in the context of a lignocellulosic conversion process. It is up to the applicant to justify how a co-product from the conversion process contributes to BETO’s goal of reducing the price of biofuels to less than $3/gge."]
[23,"2018-05-23","Technical Topics","I am exploring leading a team in switchgrass research.  We would be focusing on use and sustainability of switchgrass altered for targeted traits through genetic engineering.  Along these lines, I am wondering if you would support research to create, characterize, and move into field trials, novel transgenics, at the same time that we are characterizing existing lines in the field (through existing APHIS permits).","If a genetically engineered (aka, transgenic) variety is proposed for inclusion in the study, the applicant must have already received a permit from the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) for that variety. This FOA does not support research to breed or develop transgenic varieties. Field trials to evaluate the crop performance and environmental effects of transgenic varieties is within the scope of the FOA, so long as an APHIS permit has already been obtained."]
[24,"2018-05-23","Technical Topics","Our planned focused input feedstock; Cattail (Typha latifolia).\nWe are working on several continents to use this non-food, grass crop to produce ethanol as well as high-value process coproducts.\nWe also need to understand the basic plot size as we have several unique geographic and climatic locations in study currently. \nWe need to know if the Typha latifolia plant qualifies for the proposed study opportunities along with the class of approved plants you have identified.\nEnergy crops are primarily perennial species, including herbaceous grasses (e.g., switchgrass, energycane, miscanthus, mixed grasses) and short rotation woody crops (e.g., willows, hybrid poplars). However, non‐food sorghum varieties, which are grown as annual crops, are also considered to be acceptable energy crops for purposes of this FOA.  ","As described in Appendix E, the proposed energy crop must meet the definition of a High Impact Feedstock. It is the responsibility of the Applicant to explain in the proposal that the energy crop meets this definition as well as the other criteria in Appendix E. The High Impact Feedstock requirement (e.g., the potential of at least 50 million dry metric tonnes) pertains to production in the United States, not worldwide. \n \nRegarding plot size, experimental field plots should be as small as possible, and yet large enough to collect data relevant to commercial production, harvesting, and logistics systems (production of approximately 30 dry tons of biomass, and at least 4 dry tons per acre per year). It is up to the applicant to justify the appropriate scale of the experimental plots necessary for evaluating specific environmental effects relative to traditional cropping and/or pasture systems."]
[25,"2018-05-23","Eligibility","For the affordable and sustainable energy crops letter of intent/application. I am part of a very small, new LLC. There are only two members of this LLC, myself and my partner. We have no other key participants or team members. Are we eligible to apply for this funding opportunity? ","Yes.  Please refer to Section III.A. – Eligible Applicants for more information."]
[26,"2018-05-23","Application Content/Format","We can find no mention of the common federal forms:  1) Current and Pending Grants; 2) List of Collaborators and Cooperators.\nAre these forms required for this grant submission?","There are no template forms associated with these requirements.   All submissions must conform to the form and content requirements in Section IV.A of the FOA.  The \"List of Current and Pending Support from Federal Agencies\" is a separate upload as part of the Full Application in Exchange.  Team information is included in the Technical Volume as described in IV.C.ii as well as a separate tab on the Full Application page in Exchange."]
[27,"2018-05-24","Application Content/Format","The FOA states that projects can be up to 5 years long, but the template only has spaces for 3 project periods.","Budget Periods within the project may be longer than one year in length and it is up to applicants to structure the timelines and milestones of their project.  A 5 Budget Period template has been added to Exchange as an option. "]
[28,"2018-05-24","Eligibility","I am interested in participating in the AFFORDABLE AND SUSTAINABLE ENERGY CROPS (ASEC) funding opportunity by submitting the LOI. However, two groups of research colleagues have invited me to be part of their team and I would like to know if I can be a Co-Investigator in two different LOI at this stage. In the unlikely scenario that both are selected, I will choose one of them but don’t want to restrict my participation at the LOI stage.","There are no limitations to the number of applications a Principle Investigator/Co-Investigator can be a part of. Applicants are reminded that unique entities may submit more than one Full Application, provided that each application describes a unique, scientifically distinct project."]
[29,"2018-05-25","Eligibility","I clicked \"Create Letter of Intent\" and I am now in the Full Application stage.  But I am not done with the letter of intent.  I can still change the abstract and other info, but I am in the full application stage on the web page.\nIf I complete my abstract and other info by the due date,  will my letter of intent be considered complete?","You can update any information if it has changed since the Letter of Intent by navigating to 'My Submissions' and clicking the 'Edit' button. A Letter of Intent will be deemed compliant if applicant has entered and saved all required information, and received a Control Number by the due date."]
[30,"2018-05-24","Technical Topics","the FOA states \"Experimental field plots should be as small as possible, and yet large enough to collect data relevant to commercial production, harvesting, and logistics systems (production of approximately 30 dry tons of biomass, and at least 4 dry tons per acre per year)\".\n\nRegarding the 30 dry tons threshold, does that mean each plot should generate that amount? Or is the intention to generate 30 dry tons total across all research plots?\n","The intent is for each experimental plot to be large enough to collect data relevant to commercial production, harvesting, and logistics systems, which we estimate to be approximately 30 dry tons of biomass for each plot."]
[31,"2018-05-25","Application Content/Format","Does BETO have a preferred format for 1-page resumes, and if so can you please forward it to me? If not, can you tell me is all sections in the attached are required?","There is not a preferred format for Resumes.  Resumes may focus on relevant experience, education, and synergistic activities (publications, patents, etc.) , to stay within the 1 page limit.  EERE may request additional information as described in Sections V.D.ii & iii for further clarification in the selection process."]
[32,"2018-05-28","Technical Topics","\"A letter of commitment from a conversion technology developer to provide the chemical composition specifications for their process design is required as part of the application.\"\n\nOur company, is both developing the conversion technology and running the field trials for these new hybrids. Are we allowed to provide a letter of commitment from our conversion technology team internally to our biomass development team? Or how would you like us to handle this requirement?","The conversion technology developer can include any entity who has developed/is developing a conversion technology. It is allowable to provide a letter of commitment from your company’s conversion technology team."]
[33,"2018-05-30","Cost Sharing","The FOA states that “Individual awards may vary between $2.5 and $5 million.” Do these numbers include the cost share amount or are they only the federal funds requested.","The estimated funding as specified in Section II.A.i of the FOA is the Federal portion of the award.  "]
[34,"2018-05-31","Technical Topics","I have question regarding the comparison of new energy crop cultivars with ‘traditional cropping system’ for economic feasibility. From ‘traditional cropping system’ you mean the current cropping system in the region or to compare with other potential energy crops?","“Traditional cropping system” refers to the current cropping system in the region."]
[35,"2018-06-04","Application Content/Format","The FOA mentions that all Prime Recipients and Subrecipients are required to complete and submit an SF-LLL, “Disclosure of Lobbying Activities”. Do we also have to submit this if we already know we are not and won’t be involved in lobbying activities?","This is a required submittal in Exchange.  If there are no lobbying activities, applicants may fill out Box 10a&b, with \"None - N/A\"."]
[36,"2018-06-04","Technical Topics","Page 3 of RFP states that crop performance must be evaluated over 3 harvest cycles. Does this mean that coppiced hardwoods with a 2 or 3 year rotation would not be considered under this announcement since you would only harvest twice or once, respectively, under the 5 year project timeline?","EERE will be issuing a modification to the FOA shortly. It will include the following change: “Projects must evaluate crop performance (i.e., yield and potential for profitability) and environmental performance over at least three (3) annual cycles to provide empirical data on newer varieties of energy crops relative to traditional cropping and pasture systems. For herbaceous species, this must include at least 3 harvest cycles. For short rotation woody crop species, this must include at least 1 harvest cycle.”"]
[37,"2018-06-04","Technical Topics","Your response to FAQ #13 (5/11/2018) stated that proposed plot sizes\ncould be 'justified' as to appropriate scale by applicants; however,\nyour response to FAQ #30 (5/24/2018) in contrast stated that each\nexperimental plot should be sufficient to achieve 30 dta.  Can you\nplease clarify a definitive minimum required plot size?\n","The acreage corresponding to 30 dry tons per experimental plot will vary depending on the expected crop yield per acre. This may vary from one variety/cultivar to another, and therefore the FOA does not specify the area of an experimental plot. An experimental plot should meet the requirement of expected production of approximately 30 dry tons of biomass, and at least 4 dry tons per acre per year. Aside from this requirement, it is up to the applicant to justify to the reviewers that the experimental design satisfies the expectations of the FOA."]
[38,"2018-06-06","Application Content/Format","Do all the collaborators need to fill SF-424 form or just the PI?","Only the Prime Applicant will need to submit the SF-424 Application for Federal Assistance."]
[39,"2018-06-06","Data Management","Is The Dataverse Project (https://dataverse.org/) an acceptable repository?  It is managed by The Institute for Quantitative Social Science (IQSS) in collaboration with the Harvard University Library and Harvard University Information Technology organization (https://dataverse.org/about).","Applicants should justify how the proposed repository meets the intent of the FOA to broadly and effectively disseminate data generated by the project. At a minimum,  the site(s) must be publicly accessible and accommodate a breadth of data generated by the project."]
[40,"2018-06-06","Technical Topics","We work with shrub willow. Typical harvest cycles are on a 2 or 3 year rotation. The FOA states that \"Projects must evaluate crop performance (i.e., yield and potential for profitability) and environmental performance over at least three (3) harvest cycles\". It also states that projects are required to collect \"yearly crop dry matter yield/productivity\". One of the answers in the Q & A log states that 30 dry tons of biomass should be produced from each plot.\n\n1) If we harvest our plots on a 3 year rotation and our plots each yield 90 dry tons, will this be considered equivalent to 30 dry tons produced by 3 annual harvests?\n\n2) Also, would nondestructive growth measurements collected in years between planting and harvesting satisfy the requirement for yearly crop yield/productivity measurements?","Please see the FOA modification posted on June 7, 2018, which clarifies this requirement as it pertains to short rotation woody crops.\n\n\n\n\n1) Yes, this would be considered equivalent.\n\n\n2) Yes, nondestructive growth measurements would satisfy this requirement."]
[41,"2018-06-06","Technical Topics","For a 5-year project, is it allowable to have two budget periods and one go/no-go decision point?","Yes, this is allowable.  If selected for negotiation of award, EERE may request that scope/budget be modified to better achieve programmatic objectives."]
[42,"2018-06-08","Technical Topics","Would non-food oilseeds such as Brassica carinata qualify for this FOA? Carinata is planted in the winter on underutilized otherwise fallowed lands and grown primarily for the biojet fuel market. In addition, would carinata qualify for this FOA since its presscake is a coproduct targeting the feedstuff market for beef cattle and poultry nutrition?","Please see response to Question 15."]
[43,"2018-06-08","Eligibility","If a USDA-ARS institution will be involved in the proposal, can they be classified as a regular subrecipient, or are would they be a non-DOE/NNSA or DOE/NNSA FFRDC contractor? ","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."]
[44,"2018-06-11","Technical Topics","Our question is about the letter of commitment required from the conversion technology developer: \n\nIs it acceptable for the conversion technology developer who submits the letter to be a company affiliated with one of the co-applicants?","Please see responses to Questions 12 & 32."]
[45,"2018-06-11","Technical Topics","Is the production of approximately 30 dry tons of biomass from experimental plots in a single year, or a total over the 3-year period?","The expected production of 30 dry tons per experimental plot pertains to an annual yield. Additional clarification on equivalent yields was provided in Question 40."]
[46,"2018-06-12","Cost Sharing","The FOA defines “third parties” as “entities that do not have a role in performing the scope of work”. If an outside entity intends on providing an applicant institution with >$250K in cost share, including personnel among other categories, and would not request federal dollars or lead any project tasks, should they be treated as a “subcontractor”, “vendor” or “third party” contributor? How should “third party” contributions be included in the “ EERE 335 Budget Justification given that totals in the “j.Cost Share” worksheet do not increase Total Project Costs?","An entity that is providing personnel or any other direct cost to a project in the form of cost share should be categorized as a subrecipient. Vendors/Contractors may not provide cost share.  Subrecipient costs (Federal and/or cost share), if over $250k, must be detailed in an EERE 335 Budget Justification.  All items listed in \"j.Cost Share\" must also be identified in the applicable cost category in the workbook, in effect, entered twice.  This will ensure all cost share is included in Total Project Costs.  "]
[47,"2018-06-13","Labs/FFRDCs","The FFRDC Contractor Authorization letter that’s required should be addressed to whom, name and mailing address, please?  ","See Question 19."]
[48,"2018-06-12","Application Content/Format","We are including USDA-ARS in our proposal but we’re not sure whether we should treat them as a subrecipient or as an FFRDC as far as which documents you’ll need since they are a federal agency but not, as far as I can tell, an FFRDC.\n• Would USDA-ARS be awarded directly from DOE or as subrecipient to Texas A&M?\n• Do you need the Budget Justification EERE 335 from USDA-ARS or the DOE Field Work Proposal?\n• Will their portion be counted in the total funds for cost share calculations?\n• Which other documents will we need to provide in relation to USDA-ARS?","Non-DOE Federal agencies should be treated as a subrecipient in the Application. An EERE 335 Budget Justification is required for any subrecipient that is expected to perform work estimated to be more than $250,000 or 25 percent of the total work effort (whichever is less). The federal funding would normally be funded directly through an interagency agreement to the non-DOE agency and not included in the award amount to a successful applicant, though the applicant is responsible for cost sharing against the total Federal funding. Additionally, the applicant is responsible for project oversight of the sub-recipient. If selected for negotiation of award, EERE may request additional documentation."]
[49,"2018-06-15","Application Content/Format","The University has negotiated fringe benefits rates for Fiscal Year (FY) 2019 but at this time has not yet release federally approved and signed agreement. Should I use the FY 2019 fringe benefit rates and state that the University is anticipating the signed agreement or should I use FY 2018 benefit rates and include the approved and signed agreement for FY 2018?","Anticipated rates my be used in the Application.   If selected for negotiation of award, EERE may request additional documentation."]
[50,"2018-06-19","Due Dates","Will the Full Application submission deadline be extended?","EERE is NOT considering a deadline extension."]
[51,"2018-06-20","Technical Topics","We've contacted a conversion developer to obtain a letter for feedstock specs as required by the ASEC FOA, however they are already providing a letter to another group. Is there any issue with them providing a letter for more than one proposal?","No, this is not an issue. It is acceptable for a conversion technology developer to provide a letter for more than one proposal."]
[52,"2018-06-21","Application Content/Format","Your budget summary sheet seems to have an error (3-period template):\n\nThe budget summary (Cell C11 - Cell C15) for 'Federal' should match the 'Total Cost' for each period in the Budget Categories (Rows 17-32).\nThe current sheet subtracts the 'Cost Share' from the 'Total Costs' (Row 32), but the 'Total Costs' (Row 32) does not include 'Cost Share', and should not be subtracted.\nAs a result, the 'Total Costs' column (Cell E11-E15) in Budget Summary does not include cost share. The 5-period template has the same problem.","The Budget Justification templates are correct.\n\nAs described in tab \"j. Cost Share\" of the workbooks, \"all items in the chart below must be identified within the applicable cost category tabs a. through i. in addition to the detailed presentation of the cash or cash value of all cost share proposed provided in the table...\"  In effect, cost share is inputted twice in the Budget Justification, in the appropriate cost category as well as the Cost Share tab.  In doing, Cost Share will be included in Total Project Costs."]
[53,"2017-06-25","Application Content/Format","The Exchange website is manipulating the file naming convention for Subrecipient Budget Justifications.  The website is re-naming them \"…._Subawardee_Budget_Justification\"","The file(s) will be accepted with the \"Subawardee\" naming convention."]

{"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"]