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

{"sheet":"INSTRUCTIONS & TIPS","index":0,"n_rows":12,"n_cols":2,"rows_kept":12,"cut":false,"hidden":false,"merged":[[0,0,0,1],[9,0,9,1]]}
["INSTRUCTIONS"]
[1,"All questions pertaining to this funding opportunity announcement should be emailed to XX@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":50,"n_cols":5,"rows_kept":50,"cut":false,"hidden":false,"merged":[[1,0,1,4],[0,0,0,4]]}
["ADMINISTRATIVE QUESTION AND ANSWER LOG"]
["DE-FOA0001697 - Generation 3 Concentrating Solar Power Systems"]
["Question #","Date","Topic","Question","Answer"]
[1,"2017-09-12","Technical Topics","Are CSP systems that use Fresnel lens rather than mirrors allowed?","This FOA is not funding research on collector systems.  It is is only funding the thermal systems from the receiver to the thermal energy transfer to a heat engine."]
[2,"2017-09-12","Eligibility","Are post-doctoral candidates at US national laboratories eligible to apply as a Principal Investigator (PI)?","Applicant eligibility is determined by the organization applying.  See section III.E.1 for requirements for FFRDC's as applicants. "]
[3,"2017-09-14","Foreign Entities/Work","Are non-US companies elible to apply?  For US companies, what status of company establishment / structure is acceptable for the program, for an established a presence in the United States?\n","See section III.A.3 for eligibility information for Foreign Entities."]
[4,"2017-09-19","Cost Sharing","If the project is led by a non-profit and one of the sub receipient is a for profit how is the cost share calculated?\nDoes 10% apply to all - nonprofit Prime and for Profit sub recepient?","See section III.B for Cost Share requirements.  All projects are required to provide a minimum of 20% cost share for research and development.  Topic 2B applications from certain entities may apply for a cost share waiever. The Prime Recipient must be a domestic institution of higher education; domestic nonprofit entity; FFRDC; or U.S. State, local, or tribal government entity; and perform more than 50% of the project work, as measured by the Total Project Cost."]
[5,"2017-09-19","Technical Topics","Can component development tasks ( like those sought in Topic Area 2A) and research and analysis (like those sought in Topic Area 2B), be included with a proposal for Topic Area 1, or do they need to be submitted as separate proposals?","Yes, Topic Area 1 encompasses all activities necessary for a Gen 3 thermal system to successfully complete through to Phase 3 to test the integrated systems.   "]
[6,"2017-09-26","Cost Sharing","On Page 11 (section I.D.2) the FOA states \"A cost share waiver is allowed for eligible Topic Area 2B applicants\"  However in section III.B there is no mention of cost share waiver; please clarify.","To clarify, the cost share waiver refers to a reduction in the cost share requirement for qualifying entities.                                                                                                                                 Section I.D.s states that \"A cost share waiver is allowed for eligible Topic Area 2B applicants from universities, FFRDCs, or other non-profit organizations.\"  Section III.B goes on to specify the restrictions on the eligibility for applying for the waiver under \"For applicants to Topic Area 2B ONLY\":\n\"Specifically, recipient cost share requirement for applied research and development activities projects is reduced from 20% to 10% where: \n\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.\n\nApplicants who believe their project qualifies for the reduced recipient cost share must be able to provide verification that the above requirements are satisfied.\" \n"]
[7,"2017-10-02","Cost Sharing","Does the 50% cost share apply to installation of an off-the-shelf solar field?\nFor demonstrations of next generation solar fields, which are outside of the FOA scope, would the 50% cost share requirement apply to those experimental systems?\nDoes the 50% requirement apply only to the equipment cost or to the entire Phase 3 budget?\nIf a team already has a solar field, how would that be treated?","Next generation solar fields are outside the scope of this FOA, therefore no scope or costs for developing and testing such technology would be permitted as part of the project scope or costs (including cost share).  The application will be evaluated in the Merit Review with consideration for any imposed additional risk or cost to the project.  If an existing solar field is used for the proposed work, the use fees and operating costs to perform the scope of work proposed would be considered as qualified expenses requiring a 20% cost share (see III.B. Cost Sharing of the FOA), or may be considered as in-kind contribution towards overall project cost share (see III.B.3.Cost Share Types and Allowability in the FOA).  If a solar field is built for the purposes of this FOA it will require a 50% cost share for the entire project and be subject to §910.360 - Real property and equipment of CFR Title 2, Subtitle B, Chapter IX, Part 910 – Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards. The Government retains an undivided reversionary interest in the share of the property value equal to the Federal participation in the project. "]
[8,"2017-10-05","Application Content/Format","Couldn't upload concept papers to Exchange, please assist.","This problem has been resolved and you should be able to upload your Concept Papers at this time."]
[9,"2017-10-05","Application Content/Format","The FOA states that the Technology Description is limited to 2 pages and the addendum on project team qualifications is limited to 3 pages.   However, the webinar on 9/19 stated the opposite.  Technology description 3 pages; team qualification is 2 pages.    Which is correct?","Any content within the webinar presentation discrepant from the Funding Opportunity Announcement (FOA) language is superseded by the FOA language.  The FOA states that for Concept Paper Technology Description 2 pages are recommended, and for the Addendum 3 pages are recommended.  The total Concept Paper is limited to 6 pages, including the Cover Page, Technology Description and Addendum.  "]
[10,null,"Cost Sharing","We are preparing a proposal for laboratory demonstration of component behavior and corrosion behavior for components (topic 2A) and materials interactions (topic 2B)   Our proposed project will  have some of each – maybe a little more of components but also a significant portion on material characterization and durability testing.  If we choose to identify as 2A, DOE requires 20% cost share.  If we identify as 2B, we are allowed 10% cost share.  However, if DOE determines that we should have chosen the 2A option based on the nature of our project, will that disqualify us?","\nThe applicant is responsible for idetifying the topic area based on the criteria in Section 3.B of the FOA.  If DOE determines the application is not the correct Topic Area, this will not disqualify the application, but it may require the applicant to adjust the budget to to comply with the cost share requirements.\n"]
[11,"2017-10-09","Application Content/Format","In Gen3CSP FOA on page 32, Technology Description is recommended as 2pages and addendum recommended as 3 pages However on webinar slides page 17 technology description is recommended 3 pages and team description as 2 pages, please confirm which one is correct.","Please see answer to question #9."]
[12,"10/09/20147","Technical Topics","We have a question regarding to Topic 2A and 2B application. If we submit a concept paper in 2A, but later we find that the concept could be generalized and applied to 2B, can we switch the full proposal from 2A to 2B when the concept paper is invited for proposal? ","This would be acceptable to declare the appropriate Topic Area at the time of the Full Application.  It is also acceptable that tasks are blended between the Topic Area 2A and Topic Area 2B.  The tasks for Topic Area 2A would be at a 20% cost share.  The tasks for Topic Area 2B would be eligible for a cost share waiver for qualifying organizations.\n"]
[13,"2017-10-16","Cost Sharing","The Topic 2B criteria for eligibility of reduced cost share from 20% to 10% states that the primary recipient must perform no less than 50% of the work, by cost. If a proposal under this topic involves a team consisting of multiple organizations that qualify under rule (1), whom in aggregate perform more than 50% of the project work, but none of which individually incur more than 50% of the project costs, will the team qualify for reduced cost share?","Based on the FOA language, to be eligible for the reduced cost share the following 2 requirements must be met:\n\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.\n\nTherefore, a consortia, in which the Prime does not perform more than 50% of the project work, is ineligible.\n"]
[14,"2017-10-20","Application Content/Format","The Gen3 FOA is all about retirement of risk for the SunShot pathways. We are concerned about congressional language about doing earlier stage R&D but I think that particularly Topic 1 tends to be moving what is work that is presently at ~TRL5 to ~TRL6.  Would we be wrong to be making this assumption?\n\nAre there TRL cutoff points or targets for each of the topics in the Gen3 FOA?  \n","The state of technology readiness for thermal energy transport and storage components and materials that are feasible for Concentrating Solar Power systems which achieve SunShot targets, is believed to be currently at a TRL of 4 for some components, but lower for known key barriers in all pathways.  The goal of this FOA is to advance all the technologies within a single integrated thermal transport and storage system to a TRL 6."]
[15,"2017-10-20","Application Content/Format","Under the assumption that the teaming organizations named in the concept paper remain consistent, can the lead organization be transferred from one organization to another prior to submission of a full proposal?","\nYes, the lead organization can change from Concept Paper to Full Application."]
[16,"2017-10-21","Application Content/Format","The following needs to be reworded in respect to application for grant:\n\nThere is a section that speaks to team percentage of project. It appears they confuse the concept developer with the contractor developer.\n\nThe section is: Lead Organization Percent Effort (1-100).\n\nThe above cannot apply to the innovator as if the innovator is the intellect behind concept, but uses a EPC/EPCM contractor to conduct feasibility study and also project implementation.\n\nIn theory it is the innovator using 100% of their concept but employing the EPC/EPCM contractor to carry out the work based on the EPC/EPCM experience in such areas.\n\nSo would be correct for the innovator who is submitting for grant concept which is 100% their IP to be responsible for only 1% of project implementation, while EPC/EPCM is responsible for 99%? \n","The indicator for \"Lead Organization Percent Effort (1-100)\" in the EERE Exchange system refers to the anticipated percentage of total project budget that goes directly to the Lead Organization and does not include costs to sub-contracts to the lead organization."]
[17,"2017-10-22","Intellectual Property","Are applicants applying for grants allowed to submit patent pending material?\n\nWhat are the ramifications in this event?\n","An applicant is allowed to submit patent pending material in its application.  However, the applicant needs to make its own determination or seek its own legal counsel of whether including patent pending material in the application is in its best interest or could impact its ability to seek patent protection.  Please see Article VIII.E of the FOA for more information on how DOE treats information in the applications, including information that is considered privileged or confidential.  "]
[18,"2017-10-20","Application Reviews","There seems to be a discrepancy between the FOA and the information provided in the information webinar on the concept paper review criteria and while we understand that the FOA should take precedent, we’d like to know which set of criteria will the reviewers be given?","The FOA language takes precedent and the Concept Paper reviews will be based on Overall FOA Responsiveness and Viability of the Project (Weight: 100%) as stated on p. 50 of the FOA.\n"]
[19,"2017-10-24","Foreign Entities/Work","WE are European based public research institution. Are we eligible to apply to the call?","Please see answer to question #3."]
[20,"2017-10-27","Cost Sharing","I am planning to submit a concept paper in the area Topic 2B of Cen3 CSP call . I think we will qualify for 10% cost share. We are partnering with a lab, do each organization has to show their individual cost share match. Can FFRDCs show cost share?","Based on the FOA language, to be eligible for the reduced cost share the following 2 requirements must be met:\n\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.\n(see answer to question 13)\nCost share requirements are determined at an overall project budget level.  Allocation of cost share from the partner organizations is up to the discretion of the lead organization.\n"]
[21,"2017-10-23","Intellectual Property","What is your policy on copyright material stated as such in the footer of document being submitted for funding program?","Applicants are able to assert copyright in their applications in accordance with U.S. law.  There is no prohibition of applicants placing copyright notices in their applications."]
[22,"2017-10-27","Application Content/Format","This question is with respect to the Gen3 Integration FOA. The FOA document provides instruction for formatting and naming requirements. For example, the application title should be “ControlNumber_LeadOrganization_TechnicalVolume_Part_X”. For proposing teams with two co-leading organizations or principal investigators, what naming convention is recommended? ","You must designate a single entity to serve as the prime recipient.  See Unincorporated Consortia under Section III.A.5 in the FOA.\nIn the alternative, you could form a special purpose company to apply for the award.  How you structure the ownership of that company is up to the applicant.  \n"]
[23,"2017-11-01","Application Content/Format","For the funding Opportunity Announcement: Generation 3 Concentrating Solar Power Systems (Gen3CSP), can an organization based in Burundi apply? ","Please see answer to Question #3"]
[24,"2017-11-01","Foreign Entities/Work","Request your consideration of an extension from 3 Nov to 10 Nov 17 for the submittal of the subject FOA’s Concept Paper.   ","At this time, DOE does not intend to extend the Concept Paper submission deadline.  The purpose of concept papers is to allow applicants to receive feedback on proposed ideas without requiring applicants to expend significant resources preparing an application.  DOE encourages any interested parties to submit a concept paper so that they may receive feedback and so that they will be eligible to submit a full application.  \n\nAs noted on the cover page of the FOA, the submission deadline for the Concept Papers is November 3, 2017 5:00 PM EST. As stated in Section IV.A Of the FOA, \"Only applicants who have submitted an eligible Concept Paper will be eligible to submit a Full Application.\" and in Section IV.C.1, \"EERE will encourage a subset of applicants to submit Full Applications. Other applicants will be discouraged from submitting a Full Application. An applicant who receives a “discouraged” notification may still submit a Full Application. EERE will review all eligible Full Applications.\"\n"]
[25,"2017-11-01","Application Content/Format","For the Concept paper, The FOA states that 2 pages are recommended for the technology description and 3 pages for t he team and partners.  However, the Webinar and t he script from the webinar recommended 3 pages for the technology description and 2 pages for the team and partner addendum.,  Can you clarify?  What are the page limits?  ","Please see answer to question #9."]
[26,"2017-11-03","Topic","I am preparing a concept paper submission for development of a thermal energy storage cell.  The envisioned project involves some basic metallurgical research (chemistry) on the storage medium to enhance specific heat and scaling temperature, and construction and testing of a laboratory scale prototype cell complete with pumps, heat exchangers, etc..  Which funding catagory does this fall into; 2A or 2B?","Please see answer to question #10."]
[27,"2017-11-03","Application Content/Format","If possible, I would appreciate an extra 2 work days in order for us to complete and submit our concept.","Please see answer to question #24"]
[28,"2017-11-28","Application Content/Format","Should the EERE Exchange portal for submitting a Full Application to the subject FOA list a Technical Volume as a required submittal?","Please see section IV.D.1 and  IV.D.2 Technical Volume for Application and Submission information."]
[29,"2017-11-28","Application Content/Format","We went to capture all the required documents on EERE exchange and there was not any forms listed under the FOA. \n\nWill there be templates and/or forms to complete for the submission of this full application (e.g. budget, SF424, proposal template)?\n","The templates have been added."]
[30,"2017-11-30","Application Content/Format","1. If we can convince our university and industrial partners to provide a higher cost-share, could the requested DOE funding be increased for the full proposal from the amount that was specified in the concept paper, while remaining with-in the FOA-specified upper limit? \n2. Also, do you allow adding new partners/contributors to the full proposal?\n","EERE makes an independent assessment of each Concept Paper based on the criteria in Section V.A.1 of the FOA. EERE will encourage a subset of applicants to submit Full Applications.  As long as the Application aligns with the criteria that the Concept Paper was evaluated on (V.A.1) and the purview of the Full Application guidelines (V.A.2) there are no restrictions.  "]
[31,"2017-11-30","Application Content/Format","Slide 7 states:\n“development low TRL novel thermal desalination techniques that, if further developed, can achieve the FOA targets.  \nTopic”\n\nPlease define TRL \n","Technology Readiness Levels (TRLs):  Identify the readiness level of the technology associated with the project as well as the planned progression during the course of project execution.  A detailed explanation of the rationale for the estimated technology readiness level should be provided. Specific entry criteria for the next higher technology readiness level should be identified. The following definitions apply:  \n\n1. TRL-1. Basic principles observed and reported: Scientific problem or phenomenon identified. Essential characteristics and behaviors of systems and architectures are identified using mathematical formulations or algorithms. The observation of basic scientific principles or phenomena has been validated through peer-reviewed research. Technology is ready to transition from scientific research to applied research.\n\n2. TRL-2. Technology concept and/or application formulated: Applied research activity. Theory and scientific principles are focused on specific application areas to define the concept. Characteristics of the application are described. Analytical tools are developed for simulation or analysis of the application.\n\n3. TRL-3. Analytical and experimental critical function and/or characteristic proof of concept: Proof of concept validation has been achieved at this level.  Experimental research and development is initiated with analytical and laboratory studies. System/integrated process requirements for the overall system application are well known. Demonstration of technical feasibility using immature prototype implementations are exercised with representative interface inputs to include electrical, mechanical, or controlling elements to validate predictions.\n\n4. TRL-4. Component and/or process validation in laboratory environment- Alpha prototype (component): Standalone prototyping implementation and testing in laboratory environment demonstrates the concept.  Integration and testing of component technology elements are sufficient to validate feasibility. \n\n5. TRL-5. Component and/or process validation in relevant environment- Beta prototype (component): Thorough prototype testing of the component/process in relevant environment to the end user is performed. Basic technology elements are integrated with reasonably realistic supporting elements based on available technologies. Prototyping implementations conform to the target environment and interfaces.\n\n6. TRL-6. System/process model or prototype demonstration in a relevant environment- Beta prototype (system): Prototyping implementations are partially integrated with existing systems. Engineering feasibility fully demonstrated in actual or high fidelity system applications in an environment relevant to the end user.\n\n7. TRL-7. System/process prototype demonstration in an operational environment- Integrated pilot (system): System prototyping demonstration in operational environment. System is at or near full scale (pilot or engineering scale) of the operational system, with most functions available for demonstration and test. The system, component, or process is integrated with collateral and ancillary systems in a near production quality prototype. \n\n8. TRL-8. Actual system/process completed and qualified through test and demonstration- Pre-commercial demonstration:  End of system development. Full-scale system is fully integrated into operational environment with fully operational hardware and software systems. All functionality is tested in simulated and operational scenarios with demonstrated achievement of end-user specifications.   Technology is ready to move from development to commercialization.\n"]
[32,"12/12/0017",null,"Are there any signature requirements for this waiver? If we have multiple foreign subawardees do we submit one form with info about each?","Please see Appendix C.  It states, \"To seek a waiver of the Performance of Work in the United States requirement, the applicant must submit an 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.\"  Additional information on the requirements  can also be found in Appendix C."]
[33,"2017-12-13",null,"If a foreign entity subrecipient is participating in a proposal project through  cost share and that cost-shared work is performed outside of the United States, is a Waiver for Performance Work necessary?","Please see answer to question #32."]
[34,"2017-12-13",null,"We submitted a concept paper for Topic area 2A. For the full proposal to be submitted next month, is it OK if we switch the Topic area 2A to Topic area 2B and submit the full proposal?","Yes"]
[35,"2017-12-05","Topic Area",". Looking at pages 35 and 36 of the FOA, I notice a section of the Technical Volume that deals with Market Transformation Plans. However, topic 2B is expected to play a supporting role and provide research and development data, without getting into even component-level testing. Issues such as \"identification of target market, competitors and distribution channels\" as well as \"commercialization timeline, financing\" do not seem relevant to submissions under category 2B. Am I missing something? I would appreciate any clarification you would have on these issues. ","The Market Transformation Plan is applicable for Topic Area 2B and for example should demonstrate the relevance or value to customer’s needs compared to alternative or competing research capabilities, and have a plan for protecting potential IP or disseminating resulting data and analysis."]
[36,"2017-12-18","Cost Sharing","Does the maximum award value of $2,000,000 include the cost match?\n\nTo be more specific regarding the maximum budget:\n\n1) Is the total of DOE support + 20% cost match = $2,000,000 ($1,600,000 from DOE + $400,000/20% cost match = $2,000,000)\n\nOr\n\n2) Is the total of DOE support + 20% cost match = $2,500,000 ($2,000,000 from DOE + $500,000/20% cost match = $2,500,000) \n","The maximum value of $2,000,000 only includes Federal funding."]
[37,"5017-12-15","Application","Please let us if we could change the Prime as we move on to submitting the Full Proposal.","There is nothing in the FOA that precludes you from changing the Prime."]
[38,"2017-12-30","Cost Sharing","Does this maximum 2M include both federal and cost share or just federal? ","Please see answer to question #36"]
[39,"2018-01-02","Application","Normally there is a space to upload each of the required components. There are currently only 4 showing, missing Tech narrative, FWP  , Sub Budget, FFRDC Auth fields.","Additional fields have been added.  Please note you are also allowed to upload \"Optional Files\"."]
[40,"2018-01-02","Application","Is the SOPO okay to be 20 pages","Please see page #39 of the FOA where it states:                                                                                             \"3. Statement of Project Objectives\nApplicants are required to complete a Statement of Project Objectives (SOPO).  A SOPO template is available on EERE Exchange at https://eere-Exchange.energy.gov/. The SOPO, including the Milestone Table, must not exceed 10 pages when printed using standard 8.5 x 11 paper with 1” margins (top, bottom, left, and right) with font not smaller than 12 point. Save the SOPO in a single Microsoft Word file using the following convention for the title “ControlNumber_LeadOrganization_SOPO”.\"\n"]
[41,"2018-01-03","Application","Can you advise me on how to proceed with adding an additional budget period to the Budget Justification template?","Either use this attached budget template with 5 Budget Periods (just added) or reframe your budget in three phases for now, and negotiate a more detailed budget once selected.\n"]
[null,"2018-01-06","Application","In the FOA it states that the full\nproposals are limited to 50 pages.  We are submitting\na proposal for Topic 2A.\nIs there a lower page limit for these proposals, or\nare do all proposals have the 50 page limit.\n","Please see section IV.D.1 for Application and Submission information."]
[null,"2018-01-10","Application","On page 1 of EERE 303: Statement of Project Objectives (SOPO) what is  [Award Number] [Mod Number] ","The \"Award Number\" and \"Mod Number\" can either simly be deleted or replaced with the application number."]
[null,"2018-01-11","Application","Can you please add the template for summary slide in documents section.","It has been added."]
[null,"2018-01-11","Application","Could you please explain which letters are required in the full application from cost share providers? Is both a letter of support and a letter of commitment required, or are the letters of commitment required post-award?","Please see section III Eligibility.B.5.Cost Share Verification where it states \"Applicants are required to provide written assurance of their proposed cost share contributions in their Full Applications.\n\nUpon selection for award negotiations, applicants are required to provide additional information and documentation regarding their cost share contributions. Please refer to Appendix A of the FOA.                                                                                       \nAlso,  please see required documents in section  IV. Application and Submission Information.D.1. Full Application Content Requirements"]
[null,"2018-01-11","Application","Is the EERE 335 needed for the FFRDC subawardee.  We already have a field work proposal from the FFRDC.  I think the FWP serves as the budget justification for the FFRDC.  Please advise. ","Please see  section   IV. Application and Submission Information.D.9 &10 for Budget for DOE/NNSA FFRDC (if applicable) submission requirements and Authorization for non-DOE/NNSA or DOE/NNSA FFRDCs (if applicable)."]
[null,"2018-02-20","Application Reviews","We have recently logged into our EERE Exchange account and noted that the “Reviewer Comments” section has been opened.   Within the Reviewers Comments section, it is only a copy and paste of the “Technical Review Criteria”.  Can we please have some clarification as to whether we should expect to receive actual comments to our submission at a later date?","This automated message generated from the Exchange system was sent prematurely; there are not available reviewer comments at this time.\nAll applicants will have access to reviewer comments after March 1, and will be given the opportunity to reply to reviewer comments by March 8, 2018 5:00pm ET. The Reviewer Comments section has been closed now.\n"]

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