{"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 GOABYIIFOA@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":48,"n_cols":5,"rows_kept":48,"cut":false,"hidden":false,"merged":[[1,0,1,4],[0,0,0,4]]}
["ADMINISTRATIVE QUESTION AND ANSWER LOG"]
["DE‐FOA‐0001471 - ADVANCEMENTS IN ALGAL BIOMASS YIELD, PHASE 2 (ABY2)"]
["Question #","Date Submitted","Topic","Question","Answer"]
[1,"2016-01-26","Eligibility","We would only qualify in the \"dewatering\" or harvest portion of the grant opportunity. Can I just submit for that one item?","As stated in Section I.B, “The biology and engineering work hand-in-hand.  Therefore, applicants must address all three main priority areas.  These priority areas are:  1 – strain/productivity improvement; 2 – improvements in pre-processing technologies (harvesting, dewatering, and extraction and/or equivalent processes); and 3 – integration of cultivation with pre-processing technologies.”"]
[2,"2016-01-26","Technical Topics","Is there a list of bidders that we could partner with, and where might I find that list?","Although DOE does not maintain a list of bidders, partnering to utilize required outdoor cultivation systems and corresponding pre-processing systems is highly encouraged, such as the use of the Programs’ partners’ algae testbed facilities - Arizona State University, http://azcati.com and the University of Arizona Testbeds, http://raft.arizona.edu.  Reviewing the Advanced Algal Systems Program’s section of the 2015 Peer Review Report, http://www.energy.gov/eere/bioenergy/2015-project-peer-review may provide useful information on potential partners as many of the Program’s industry, national laboratory, and academic partners are identified in the Report."]
[3,"2016-02-02","Application Content/Format","Is there a recommended template to use for the Concept Paper?  (If not do you suggest a font or any formatting to avoid, such as table or graphs?)","There is no recommended template for the concept paper.  Section IV.A includes detailed formatting guidelines. Review Section IV.C.1 of the FOA for content and form requirements.  Tables and graphs may be included in the 2 page Technology Description or 1 page Addendum and count toward the page limit maximum."]
[4,"2016-02-02","Eligibility","The individual award range is between $2-5M USD with a maximum of 48 months in length.  Is there a range or minimum time frame for the grant? (i.e. is $5M over 24 months acceptable?)","A minimum Period of Performance has not been established for this FOA.  As stated in Section II(A)(2), “EERE anticipates making awards that will run up to 48 months in length.”"]
[5,"2016-02-02","Eligibility"," Please clarify if we must have received a ABY Phase I award in order to get a Phase II award.","Applicants do not have to have an ABY Phase 1 award in order to be eligible to apply for Phase 2. Please refer to Section III.A for additional eligibility information."]
[6,"2016-02-01","Technical Topics","1.  What definitions of mixotrophic systems and heterotropic systems will be given to the merit reviewers?  \nThe literature lacks clarity and at least four definitions could be considered:                                                                                                                                                                                ●  The classic definition involves bacterial phagotrophy, but that is likely not meant here, and is ignored.                                                                                                                                                                                            ●  Another is photoheterotrophic growth, where algae take-up organics in the presence of light, with cyclic photophosphorylation providing only supplemental energy for organics assimilation and metabolism.                                                                                                                                                                                 ●  A third is mixed autotrophic and heterotrophic growth, possibly with also photoheterotrophic growth.  These could be simultaneous or occurring in opposite times in the day-night cycle.                                                                                                                                                                            ●  A final definition is of algal and bacterial growth in a mixed multi-trophic process, as in wastewater treatment (where bacteria break-down the organic wastes, the CO2 and nutrients which are then used by the algae).  \n\n2. If definitions C or D are applicable, should any heterotrophic growth component (algal and/or bacterial) be subtracted from growth attributed to mixotrophic growth?\n3.  If so, how would it need to be measured?                                                                                                                                                                                                  \n4.   If not, is there a limit to the amount of heterotrophic algal (or bacterial) growth allowed in such a process?                                                                                                                                                                                            \n5.  If definition B is applicable, is there a minimum photon input required per unit mass (e.g. ash free dry weight) of cells?                                                                                                                                                                            \n6.  Is net O2 consumption (indicating at least partial heterotrophic growth) allowed?                                                                                                                                                                                           \n7.   Is heterotrophic growth allowed if the reduced carbon source is not imported but is a waste to be recycled internal to the algae biofuel system?\n ","1.  As noted in the FOA, Section 5.B, applications that are determined eligible will be evaluated in accordance with this FOA, by the standards as set forth in EERE’s Notice of Objective Merit Review Procedure (76 Fed. Reg. 17846, March 31, 2011) and the guidance provided in the “Department of Energy Merit Review Guide for Financial Assistance,” which is available at: http://energy.gov/sites/prod/files/meritrev.pdf. Also as stated in Section 1.A: Mixotrophic systems are also eligible; however, only renewable biomass-derived sugars such as lignocellulosic or carbon-containing waste effluent may be utilized and are considered allowable within this FOA. Food- and grain-based sugars are not allowed. Heterotrophic systems are not eligible.’ \n2.  It is understood that a mixotrophic growth system may include some heterotrophic growth. However; as previously stated above and in Section 1.A, ‘Mixotrophic systems are also eligible…heterotrophic systems are not eligible.’ If the system proposed is mixotrophic and includes photoautotrophic growth and heterotrophic growth, it is not necessary to subtract the heterotrophic growth component.                                                                                                                                                   \n3.  N/A                                                                                                                                                                      \n4.  Mitxotrophic systems are allowed; strictly heterotrophic systems are not. Please recall as well that the heterotrophic portion of a mixotrophic system must utilize only renewable biomass-derived sugars such as lignocellulosic or carbon-containing waste effluent. Food- and grain-based sugars are not allowed. As there is a potential for various mixotrophic systems and not one, specific defined mixotrophic system, it is up to the Applicant to propose their system that meets the requirements within the FOA.                                                                                                                                                             \n5 & 6.  Heterotrophic systems are not eligible.                                                                                                                 \n7.  Heterotrophic systems are not eligible. If a mixotrophic system is proposed, only renewable biomass-derived sugars such as lignocellulosic or carbon-containing waste effluent maybe utilized and are considered allowable within this FOA.        "]
[7,"2016-02-01","Technical Topics","Does \"single cultivation\" refer to the total volume of all culture units used in a project, or the individual growth units (ponds or other)?"," ‘Single cultivation’ refers to a cultivation volume per experiment, not per project. It is anticipated that Applicants will propose multiple cultivations at multiple scales over the performance period. So, for example, one could propose an experiment or series of experiments utilizing two, 30,000 liter ponds. Similarly one could propose a number of tests utilizing two, 30,000 liter ponds followed by some number of tests utilizing a single 60,000 liter pond. If an Applicant proposes experimentation at a scale greater than 60,000 liters for a single cultivation, please refer to Section 1.A. "]
[8,"2016-02-01","Technical Topics","The FOA is for ..,\"technologies that are likely to succeed in producing 3,700 gallons of algal biofuel intermediate (or equivalent dry weight basis) per acre per year (gal/acre/yr) on an annualized average basis...\"  \n\n1.  What is an “equivalent dry weight basis” in this context? \n2.  Does this mean that biofuel intermediates do not actually need to be produced, and the projects only need to demonstrate dry weight algal biomass production with a given composition, from which a conversion into biofuel intermediate can be projected based on literature data and prior experience?                              \n3.  For example, for ethanol, would starch produced by the algae be a suitable intermediate product under this FOA, or will the algal starch need to be fermented to ethanol as part of the project?                  \n4.  If production of biofuels intermediates from the harvested biomass is required, is a laboratory-scale demonstration sufficient?","1.  It is anticipated that not all intermediates are best described with volumetric equivalents; therefore, ‘equivalent dry weight basis’ was added to indicate another option. If an Applicant provides intermediate production on a different unit basis than gallons/acre/year, the Applicant must indicate how the productivity is equivalent to the FOA production targets – 1,900 to 2,500 gallons/acre/year for the baseline and 3,700 gallons/acre/year at the conclusion of the effort. At a minimum, projects must be able to produce between 1,900 and 2,500 gallons/acre/year on an annualized basis at the beginning of their projects – representing each project’s cultivation baseline which must be supported by the inclusion of relevant experimental data within the application to the FOA.       \n2.  No, it does not mean that intermediates do not actually need to be produced. The phrase ‘equivalent dry weight basis’ does NOT refer to a dry weight of algal biomass produced. The baseline and end volumetric targets refer to production of a biofuel intermediate, not of the biomass itself. As noted in Section 1.A, algal intermediates are the end result of cultivation, harvesting, concentration, and preprocessing of the resultant algal biomass into a feedstock suitable for processing to biofuels. Although the focus of this FOA is the production of the intermediate and not on the conversion of the intermediate to biofuels and bioproducts, Applicants will be required to fully characterize their algae intermediate(s) to show how they are suitable feedstocks for biofuels. Applicants are expected to perform whatever production or testing is necessary in order to characterize their intermediate(s) as a biofuels feedstock. Also, Applicants must provide preliminary data and analyses from both indoor and outdoor testing at relevant scales (not a literature search) to support their proposed process that will be utilized to achieve the goal in an outdoor environment. \n3.  Yes, starch produced by the algae would be a suitable intermediate product under this FOA. As noted in the answer to the previous question, the Applicant is required to characterize their intermediate to show how it is suitable as a feedstock for biofuels. Therefore, the Applicant would need to discuss the conversion of the starch to the biofuel. Please recall the baseline intermediate productivity requirement of 1,900 to 2,500 gallons/acre/year and the end target of 3,700 gallons/acre/year.  \n4.   Production of the intermediate from the harvested biomass is required. At a minimum, projects must be able to produce between 1,900 and 2,500 gallons/acre/year on an annualized average basis at the beginning of the proposed project, with an end goal and reasonable, realistic, and supportable path to get to 3,700 gallons/acre/year by 2020. This cultivation yield baseline MUST be supported by the inclusion of relevant experimental data within the application to the FOA.\nApplicants must provide preliminary data and analyses from both indoor and outdoor testing at relevant scales to support their proposed process that will be utilized to achieve the goal in an outdoor environment.\n"]
[9,"2016-02-01","Technical Topics","1.  \"Algal intermediates are the end result of cultivation, harvesting, concentration (dewatering), and preprocessing (extraction or process specific analog) of the resultant algal biomass into a feedstock suitable for processing to biofuels.\" … “ ethanol, renewable diesel, and renewable jet fuel”.  Does the 3,700 gal/acre/year goal apply to all biofuel intermediates regardless of their energy content or their potential refinery yield of actual biofuels in gallons of gasoline equivalent?\n2.  Since ethanol is listed as a final fuel product, will an ethanol plant fall under the definition of refinery?\n3.  Is biodiesel, which is not specifically listed, an acceptable final fuel product and, if so, are triglycerides and fatty acids acceptable intermediates to be supplied to a commercial scale biodiesel plant?\n4.  Will the FOA establish a level playing field by requiring that all intermediates yields be expressed as final fuel gallons of gasoline equivalent?  Will it include a factor for the different refinery energy inputs (e.g. distilling ethanol vs. upgrading HTL crudes)?","1.  Yes, the goal applies to all biofuel intermediates. However, please note from Section 1.A, ‘biofuel intermediates’ are biomass-based feedstocks that can replace petroleum-based feedstocks in downstream refining.  \n2.  Yes\n3.  Yes, biodiesel is an acceptable final fuel product and triglycerides and fatty acids are acceptable intermediates.\n4.  If an Applicant provides their intermediate productivity in a unit other than gallons/acre/year, the Applicant is responsible for discussing and providing their equivalent productivity. Also, each Applicant is required to provide a baseline discussion of sustainability, life cycle analysis, and techno-economic analysis associated with their proposed process. All eligible applications will be reviewed per Section 5.A."]
[10,"2016-02-01","Technical Topics","\"Any intermediate production beyond the 3,700 [gallons/acre-y) may be characterized and modeled for additional products\".  \n\n1.  Can “additional products” include small market products not relevant to the scale US biofuel needs?  \n2.  Is reclaimed water from an algae production system considered a co-product?\n3.  What market size for additional products would be acceptable for co-products to be relevant to biofuels? \n4.  The word \"modeled\" suggests that for higher value products there is no need for experimental verification, but that this could be based on analysis of the biomass and literature data. Is this interpretation correct? \n5.  Is wastewater reclamation, with a large potential market, considered an acceptable co-product for algal biofuels?\n6.  Will the LCA benefits of various co-products and co-services be considered in the project review?  For example, beyond the revenue and LCA value of the reclaimed wastewater product, the co-service of algae treatment offsets conventional wastewater reclamation technologies has a substantial cost and LCA benefit. ","1.  Yes, additional products may include small market products. \n2.  Yes, reclaimed water can be considered a co-product, keeping in mind, as stated in the FOA, characterization and modeling of the 3,700 gallons/acre/year algal intermediates MUST be for the production of a biofuel. Any intermediate production beyond the 3,700 gallons/acre/year may be characterized and modeled for additional co-products.\n3.  For this FOA, BETO’s Advanced Algal Systems Program seeks projects that wil develop technologies that are likely to succeed in producing 3,700 gallons of algal biofuel intermediate per acre per year through multiple batch campaigns or on a semi-continuous or continuous basis, in an outdoor test environment by 2020. There is no market size requirement for additional products within this FOA. \n4.  Yes, this interpretation is correct. There is no requirement in the FOA for experimental verification of a higher value product (note again that the 3,700 gallons/acre/year target is for an algal biofuel intermediate – meaning that all 3,700 gallons/acre/year must be characterized and modeled (LCA/TEA) to go to a biofuel with any intermediate production beyond that to be characterized and modeled as the Applicant chooses). \n5.  There is no requirement within the FOA for co-products. Applicants may consider co-products from any intermediates produced beyond the production of the 3,700 gallons/acre/year of algal biofuel intermediate (to a biofuel). Therefore, co-product acceptability is at the Applicant’s discretion. \n6.  Yes, Section 5.A.2, Criterion 1: Technical Merit, Innovation, and Impact (50%) includes a sub-criterion related to the LCA. It states, ‘Extent to which the application realistically and thoroughly discusses sustainability metrics such as water use/recycle, nutrient use, greenhouse gas reduction, carbon utilization; life cycle analysis; and techno-economic analysis of the proposed project, average production of the 3,700 gallons per acre per year of the algal biofuel intermediates, and any other product stream beyond the intermediates to biofuels’."]
[11,"2016-02-01","Technical Topics","No major construction activities (i.e., ground breaking cultivation system construction) can be undertaken as part of this FOA. .... Modifications to existing experimental infrastructure at one or more of the partnering facilities is allowable. Such modifications may not exceed 20% of the total project cost.\"  \n\nWhat 'modifications' are allowed? Can new ponds be added to an existing facility?","As noted in Section IV.J.4 – Construction: no major construction activities can be undertaken as part of this FOA. Modifications that do not require major construction (ground breaking cultivation system construction) are allowed but may not exceed 20% of the total project cost. Ground level pond construction would be considered major construction as it includes, ‘ground breaking cultivation system construction’. For example, if an existing facility does not have a sufficient pond cultivation system to perform the proposed effort, partnering to utilize the necessary outdoor cultivation systems is highly encouraged."]
[13,"2016-02-09","Eligibility","Once we submit the concept paper, can the collaborators change?  (additions or subtractions)","Yes"]
[14,"2016-02-09","Eligibility","We are in the process of starting a company. Does our company need to be a legal entity at the time of submitting the concept paper?","The company does not need to be a legal entity at the time of submitting a Concept Paper.  Review Section III.A, “Eligible Applicants” and Section VI.B.1, “Registration Requirements”.  These requirements must be met prior to a potential recipient receiving a Federal award.  Additionally, the organization structure in the Full Application phase may change from what was submitted in the Concept Paper phase.  The Concept Paper and Full Application must be submitted under the same Control Number."]
[15,"2016-02-17","Eligibility","When and how will notification be given if we are to pursue submitting a full application?","Applications are due March 25, 2016.  As noted in Section VI (A) (2), “EERE will notify applicants of its determination to encourage or discourage the submission of a Full Application via notification letter by email to the technical and administrative points of contact designated by the applicant in EERE Exchange”.  Applicants will have approximately 30 days from receipt of the Concept Paper Encourage/Discourage notification to prepare and submit a Full Application.  "]
[16,"2016-02-24","Application Reviews","Regarding our concept paper submission, is there something more than the overall summary that will be provided?","No.  As noted in Section IV (C) (1), “EERE may include general comments provided from reviewers on an applicant’s Concept Paper in the encourage/discourage notification sent to applicants at the close of that phase.”"]
[17,"2016-02-23","Application Content/Format","The FOA indicates that the Technical/Financial Data Sheet is part of the Technical Volume.  Is the Technical/Financial Data Sheet included in the 25 page limit?","No.  Though the Technical Volume must include the Technical / Financial Data Sheet as described in Section IV (D) (2), it  is not counted toward the 25 page limit. "]
[18,"2016-03-03","Data Management","Are there Page Limits for the US Manufacturing Plan and the Data Management Plan?","No, there is not a page limit restriction for the U.S. Manufacturing Plan or the Data Management Plant.  Please note that only applicants whose Full Applications are selected for award negotiations will be required to submit a Data Management Plan.  "]
[19,"2016-03-04","Application Content/Format","For subcontracts to DOE FFRDCs, do applicants need to provide a subaward budget justification (EERE 335) in addition to a field work proposal form (BUDGET FOR DOE/NNSA FFRDC)?","No.  For applications that include FFRDCs, applicants are not required to provide a subaward budget justification for the FFRDC in addition to a field work proposal.  As described in Appendix A - Cost Share Information, FFRDC costs must be included in Total Project Costs. "]
[20,"2016-03-04","Application Content/Format","The link to the field work proposal in the FOA is broken.  Where can the form be found?","The Field Work Proposal Template may be found at the following internet address  (See o412a.pdf -- PDF Document, 96 KB):  https://www.directives.doe.gov/directives-documents/400-series/0412.1-BOrder-a/view"]
[21,"2016-03-04","Eligibility","Is it allowable for the full application to add a new partner organization as a Co-PI to the team that had submitted the preproposal?","Principal Investigator(s) must be individuals not organizations.  As described in Section V (A) (2) (Criterion 3:  Team and Resources), applications will be evaluated on \"the capability of the Prinicipal Investigator(s) and the proposed team to address all aspects of the proposed work with a high probability of success.\"  See also Question # 13.  "]
[22,"2016-03-07","Application Content/Format","The FOA indicates there is a SOPO template at https://eere‐Exchange.energy.gov/, but the link is broken.  Where can the template be located?","The SOPO Template may be found at the following internet address (See Forms - Negotiation Forms - Statement of Project Objectives (SOPO) EERE 303):  http://www1.eere.energy.gov/financing/resources.html"]
[23,"2016-03-09","Application Content/Format","Are the Technical Volume documents that are not counted toward the page limit (resumes, letters of commitment, and letters of support, etc.) required to conform to the formatting requirements? ","Yes.  Application documents not subject to page limits must still adhere to the formatting requirements described in Section IV.A, as applicable.  "]
[24,"2016-03-04","Technical Topics","Is there a minimum cultivation system size for testing in an outdoor environment?  I understand the maximum is 60,000L for a single system open pond system or equivalent.","There is not a minimum cultivation volume for outdoor testing. However, please keep the following points in mind from the FOA: A clear barrier exists in translating laboratory successes to demonstrated, scalable, outdoor cultivation environments that capture all the variables not present in laboratory systems. It is expected that the outdoor testing needs to be of a relevant scale in order to inform additional lab work and vice versa. Similarly, as noted in the FOA, it is expected that projects selected under this FOA will be well on their way to demonstrating the production of 2,500 gal/acre/year of algal biofuel intermediate (at a minimum projects must be able to produce between 1,900 and 2,500 gal/acre/yr on an annualized average basis at the beginning of the proposed project – the project baseline). It is expected that this is from iterative indoor/outdoor work at relevant scales (cultivation volumes).   \n\nThe FOA references 60,000 L as the maximum outdoor testing volume for a single cultivation (or equivalent for non-open pond systems). This is not meant as ‘commercial scale’, nor does it mean one large 60,000 L pond. It could be one 60,000 L pond, but it could also be 2-30,000 L ponds, or a combination of other non-open pond systems with equivalent cultivation volumes. A smaller outdoor cultivation volume can be utilized. It is noted in the FOA that data supporting the baseline is expected in the application and it is expected that applicants will include their testing volume and the calculation/translation to support a realistic and reasonable production of 3,700 gal/acre/year on an annualized average basis by the end of the project.   "]
[25,"2016-03-01","Application Content/Format","I downloaded the Budget Justification template for funding announcement 0001471, Advancements in Algal Biomass Yield, Phase 2, and noticed that the spreadsheet has only 3 budget periods, but the FOA states that the funding is for 48 months. Will there be a new template posted soon?","The template spreadsheet does indeed only show 3 budget periods. It is provided as a universal template and, unfortunately, cannot represent every scenario. The FOA allows for projects up to 48 months (projects don’t have to propose the full 48 months if they don’t think they need that time). Budget Period 1, per the FOA, must be for the validation task. Depending on an applicant’s approach to their project, they may propose the number of budget periods that makes sense for their particular project. This means if it makes sense to propose a budget period on a 12-month basis, thus requiring at least 4 (potentially more since the validation effort, Budget Period 1 should not be a full year), the applicant could include a note in the ‘Additional Explanation’ row (Row 34 on the Instructions and Summary tab) indicating that Budget Period 3 will actually be split into additional budget periods should the project be selected for negotiation for award (thus, Budget Period 3 would include all costs for that budget period as well as any beyond BP3). As noted, while the spreadsheet template is not ‘locked’, it is noted that the ‘blue cells’ should not be modified. Note, it is expected that budget periods will align with metrics and goals within the project; therefore, it may make sense for budget periods to be 12, 15, or even 18 months, and they can be shown within the budget as discussed above.  A new template to accommodate additional budget periods will not be posted.\n\nIf applicants prefer, they may use the 5 Budget Period form which can be found at:  \n                                              http://www1.eere.energy.gov/financing/resources.html"]
[26,"2016-03-03","Application Content/Format","I understand that the first budget period should be three months for the Task 1 validation effort. What are the timing requirements for additional budget periods? Is there a maximum allowed length? Should there be a certain total number of budget periods? (for example, the EERE 335 template has space for three budget periods).","Please see Question and Answer # 25."]
[27,"2016-03-10","Application Content/Format","Will DOE EERE BETO be providing an EERE 335 Budget Justification form with four (4) budget periods since the Period of Performance is 48 months in the ABY2 FOA (page 13)? The one provided only has three budget periods. ","Please see Question and Answer # 25."]
[28,"2016-03-11","Application Content/Format","The FOA indicates that the validation task should take place in its own budget period of approximately three months.  Other budget periods may be between 12 and 18 months.  The EERE 335 form provided on EERE Exchange contains three budget periods - space enough for a maximum of a 39 month project.  Is a four (or preferably five) budget period EERE 335 available?  If not, may applicants modify the existing form?","Please see Question and Answer # 25."]
[29,"2016-03-14","Application Content/Format","In regards to the budget justification spreadsheet.  Will the validation period (3 months) be considered budget period 1?  If so, will budget periods 2 and 3 be 24 months in length if the proposal is going out 48 months or will the budget justification spreadsheet need to be manipulated to include additional budget periods if the budget periods will be 12 months in length?","Please see Question and Answer # 25."]
[30,"2016-03-11","Registration Requirements","To submit an application, is it accurate to say that the EERE exchange is the only required website that we must sign up for to submit the application? ","As stated in section VI.B of the FOA, registration in EERE Exchange is required to apply to this FOA.  Additional registration requirements, including DUNS number, SAM, and FedConnect must be completed prior to award negotiations.  Grants.gov is an optional registration."]
[31,"2016-03-11","Application Content/Format","Please advise at what stage we must have:\nSAM.gov\nDUNS #\nGrants.gov\nFedConnect.net","Please see Question and Answer #30."]
[32,"2016-03-11","Application Content/Format","There is a detail [sic] of several additional reports: 2 CFR Part 170, 200 and 910.  Or are these [sic] required for the application, or only required as a part of the award negotiation or award funding process?  ","The Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) is a codification of the general and permanent rules published in the Federal Register by the executive departments and agencies of the Federal Government.  The purpose of the CFR is to present the official and complete text of agency regulations in one organized publication and to provide a comprehensive and convenient reference for all those who may need to know the text of general and permanent Federal regulations.  For further information (including specific regulations) please visit www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr"]
[33,"2016-03-11","Application Content/Format","Do we have to apply as a grant seeking organization in SAM.gov, or a contract seeking organization?   What is desired [sic] level of registration as an applicant for this FOA?  Our registration was active for the Concept paper at the “grant” level, but is now a Work in Progress at the “contract” level, because it appears that the additional information is required for the application, or the award.  Please advise which is required for the application phase.","Please see Question and Answer #30.  "]
[34,"2016-03-11","Application Content/Format"," If we are asserting we are a Small Business in the application, are we required to have registered with the SBA?","No, however, please note that registration with other entities (SAM, etc.) may require information not included in the DOE application.  "]
[35,"2016-03-11","Application Content/Format","Is it necessary to include Executive Compensation information if we are not a public company, as we cannot enter the information in SAM.gov since we are not identified as a public company?  Are we supposed to enter it elsewhere, and is this something that will be required only if we are selected and/or negotiating for an award, and not a concern at the application phase?","For specific questions about SAM registration requirements, please contact www.sam.gov"]
[36,"2016-03-11","Application Content/Format","Other than the above referenced sites (SAM.gov, grants.gov, FedConnect.net), DUNS#, and those documents and information detailed in the FOA Application outline, and approval of the Concept Paper, is there anything else we must do to be eligible to submit an application?","Applicants are responsible for reading and submitting all information (as applicable) described in the FOA to be eligible for consideration."]
[37,"2016-03-16","Application Content/Format","The FFRDC Contractor Authorization letter that’s required should be addressed to whom; name and mailing address, please?","Lalida Crawford\nDOE Contracting Officer\n15013 Denver West Parkway\nGolden CO, 80401"]
[38,"2016-03-16","Application Content/Format","Can respondents to this FOA who have a proposal for greater than 3 budget periods use the  5 Budget Period EERE 335.1 Detailed Budget Justification?","Please see Question and Answer # 25. "]
[39,"2016-03-17","Application Content/Format","Is it permissible for a task to extend over multiple budget periods with a subtask in each budget period?  For example, Task X would extended from BP 2 to BP 4, with subtasks X.1, X.2, and X.3 in each of the budget periods.","Yes"]
[40,"2016-03-21","Application Reviews","Will reviewers have access to the Technical/Financial Data Sheet? ","Yes.  As stated in section I.A, \"Applicants are required to submit the information requested in the data sheet at the time of application, as it will be reviewed during the merit review\"."]
[41,"2016-03-22","Application Content/Format","What will happen to documents that do not comply with the font formatting (not page requirements) requirements of the application – will they be thrown out?  ","The Concept Paper, Full Application, and Reply to Reviewer Comments must conform to the requirements as detailed in Section IV.A. of the FOA unless specifically stated otherwise.  Application documents that do not adhere to the requirements of the FOA may be removed from further evaluation."]
[42,"2016-03-22","Application Content/Format","Please confirm whether External Template Documents that have been provided by the DOE –EERE and are required to include, for example EERE 335, SF-424, etc. and are built using Arial 10 point font, can remain using the formatting as built in the documents, and that their information can be shrunk down to accommodate the page expectations they need to occupy on the proposed spreadsheets.  If they should be changed to comply with the Times New Roman requirement, please advise if they qualify as “Tables”, and therefore can use 10 point font, or are considered text in documents, and therefore are required to use the 12 point font.  They are in table format, however given this late date, please clarify fully.","The provided templates may be completed in the format that they were built."]
[43,"2016-03-22","Application Content/Format","The Project Schedule included in the WorkPlan and Market Transformation Plan is broken down based on the WBS and SOPO task and subtask requirements.  There are a number of tasks in each area of specification, and this is a significant list for our project.  Given these GANTT charts are provided on one page, they automatically format and shrink the related items to cover the one page required to track.  If this one page does not comply with the font requirements, but does comply with the page requirements, will this be acceptable to the EERE?  If it needs to comply with the font parameters, or will be excluded, I assume we can summarize the schedule where possible (tasks/timelines summarized), even if it does not detail on each individual line the timeline for each task mentioned in the project WBS and SOPO?","A GANTT chart, as part of the Technical Volume (25 page limit), may be formatted to 10 point font or larger and must conform to the requirements specified in Section IV.A.  It is up to prospective applicants on how to best utilize the page limit of the Technical Volume.  The specific tasks within a GANTT chart may be summarized."]
[44,"2016-03-24","Application Content/Format","We are submitting an application in response to DE-FOA-0001471 with subrecipients, do we upload one worksheet with all the budget  information or do we upload individual institution worksheets?","A separate budget justification for EACH subrecipient that meets the $250,000 or 25% of total work threshold, must be included in the application.  Exchange will allow multiple file uploads for subrecipient budgets.  "]
[45,"2016-04-01","Application Content/Format","My full application was marked late because the last subrecipient budget sheet submitted to me was corrupted and when the master budget justification incorporated this data the cost share and the project totals were not correct. Hence, I have a submittal that shows an incorrect cost share of only 16%.  \n\nI tried to fix this before the deadline time (unsuccessfully) and during the 1-hr late (\"grace\") period.  I was forced to make the submission in timely fashion with an erroneous, partial budget because I removed budget data entries thinking if I peeled back sufficient inputs I could find the error and rebuild the budget. \n\nIt has taken a full week of evenings to track down the error, reconstruct the master budget sheet and generate the correct project totals. Is it possible to submit a corrected 424 cover sheet with the actual project totals/cost share amount and the associated EERE 335(s)?...and if so, how?  The corrected totals are within the floor/ceiling range and the cost share is >20%.","As stated in Section IV.A.1, \"In the event that an applicant experiences technical difficulties so severe that they are unable to submit their application by the deadline, the applicant should contact the Exchange helpdesk for assistance (EERE‐ExchangeSupport@hq.doe.gov). The Exchange helpdesk and/or the EERE Exchange system administrators will assist the applicant in resolving all issues (including finalizing submission on behalf of and with the applicant's concurrence).\""]
[46,"2016-05-11","Application Reviews","Several reviewers wanted to see the detailed Techfin data file. May I submit this in addition to the response file?","No.  The Reply to Reviewer Comments must conform to the requirements as detailed in Section IV.E. of the FOA (Content and Form of Replies to Reviewer Comments) unless specifically stated otherwise.  Application documents that do not adhere to the requirements of the FOA may be removed from further evaluation.  It is up to respective applicants on how to best utilize the page limit defined in the FOA and address reviewers concerns."]

{"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"]