{"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 BETOBEEPSFOA@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":146,"n_cols":5,"rows_kept":146,"cut":false,"hidden":false,"merged":[[1,0,1,4],[0,0,0,4]]}
["ADMINISTRATIVE QUESTION AND ANSWER LOG"]
["DE-FOA-0001916 - BioEnergy Engineering for Products Synthesis (BEEPS)"]
["Question #","Date Submitted","Topic","Question","Answer"]
[1,"2018-05-03","FFRDC","In the FOA, it is called out under Topic Areas 1 and 2 that FFRDCs cannot be prime and there is a general Eligibility Statement that seems to indicate this. Is this true for the other Topic Areas? Which specific topic areas under the BEEPS FOA can FFRDCs be prime?","FFRDCs cannot be prime recipients on applications/awards in response to or that result from this FOA. FFRDCs can only participate on applications/awards in response to or that result from this FOA as subrecipients. This eligibility requirement applies to all Topic Areas. The FFRDC scope of work may not be more significant than the Prime Applicant’s (as measured by proportion of total project costs proposed.)"]
[2,"2018-05-03","Technical ","Good afternoon, I had a question regarding Topic Area 4 of the Bioenergy Engineering for Products Synthesis. Is this topic area limited to municipal wastewater sources as feedstocks or can it include wet agricultural waste sources such as unused fruit or fruit processing waste? Any clarification you could provide would be greatly appreciated. Thank you.","Food wastes are acceptable for Topic Area 4."]
[3,"2018-05-04","Technical ","I would like to propose an idea of xylo-oligosaccharides (XOS) production from biomass pretreatment hydrolysate.  After purification and a few other steps, XOS can a high-value prebiotic product.  Although this is a novel bio-derived product and will enhance overall biorefinery economics, it does not replace any petroleum-derived products.  Can you advise if this is suitable for Topic Area 3 (or others)?  ","The Funding Opportunity Announcement (FOA) posted at EERE eXCHANGE is comprehensive and designed to allow prospective applicants to assess their proposed projects versus the requirements and criteria of the FOA.  DOE cannot predetermine the suitability or viability of a proposal in advance of the merit review process.  It is up to prospective applicants to review the requirements of the FOA and assess the merits of their proposed project to determine whether to submit an application. Please note that “Processes targeting small, niche, fine chemical markets, pharmaceutical markets, or nutraceutical markets” are specifically not of interest for Topic Area 3”."]
[4,"2018-05-04","Application","There are 6 different Topic Areas in BEEPS FOA.  Can one person be PI for multiple proposals?  I assume (1) one can only lead one proposal (lead-PI), but (2) there is no restriction to be co-PI for multiple proposals.  OR can one person submit two proposals as a lead-PI?","Per FOA Section III.f, Limitation on Number of Letters of Intent and Full Applications Eligible for Review: “Applicants may submit more than one Full Application to this FOA, provided that each application describes a unique, scientifically distinct project.” There is not a limit to the number of applications a single PI can submit, provided they are unique, scientifically distinct projects.  If multiple awards are selected with the same PI, DOE will work with the applicant(s) to negotiate the PI’s project involvement to ensure proper award management is feasible.  "]
[5,"2018-05-06","Technical ","Please provide some more guidance of what the DOE wants for the LCA analysis rewire topic.\n1) What is the boundary's for the analysis.  The process takes renewable electricity, water, CO2 and nutrients in and produces a product.  Do we draw a boundary around the process, or do we for example consider the environmental impact of producing the electricity, water, CO2.  \n2) How detailed does the LCA analysis need to be.  Is a high level analysis concentrating on the large items: increase in water and electricity use, decrease in fossil fuel and CO2 emissions and changes in disposal compared to the conventional process sufficient?  \n","1) The system boundary for LCA should include the process as well as the production of all inputs to the process such as electricity, water, and nutrients. If it can convincingly be shown that the CO2 proposed to be used in this process would otherwise be vented to the atmosphere if not collected it need not be included within the system boundary.                                                  2)  If selected, DOE will work with each project to tailor LCA requirements as appropriate during the project. For the initial application, a high-level discussion is appropriate if it will give reviewers adequate information to evaluate the project and the LCA approach."]
[6,"2018-05-07","Technical ","We are creating a  performance-advantaged bioproduct from biosolids, \nthat will substantially decrease biosolid production from \nmunicipalities. However, in our process we drive anaerobic digestion \nfurther thereby producing more methane. You state in section 1.C that \nmethane can not be an end product. Does this mean methane cannot be the \nsole end product? Or is the production of a PABP and/or decreasing \nbiosolid production over-ride this EERE product limitation?\n","Methane cannot be the sole product for a process in Topic Areas 3 and 4, but it is allowable as a coproduct. For Topic Area 3 performance advantaged bioproducts must fall into one of the following categories: \"polymers, including biopolymers and polymers from novel monomers; small molecules like plasticizers, solvents, surfactants, preservatives; and other building block chemicals\". "]
[7,"2018-05-08","Technical ","For Topic Area 5: Rewiring Carbon Utilization, can other feedstocks be used (for example, biomass feedstocks) in addition to the allowed biogas and carbon dioxide/flue gas feedstocks for the biological upgrading process? Or can only the carbon intermediates generated from CO2 be used?","A small amount of other feedstocks (e.g. biomass) may be used for nutrient supplementation, but the main carbon source for product production must from CO2 to be eligible for Topic Area 5."]
[8,"2018-05-08","Technical ","My question is on Topic Area 4 (Biofuels and Bioproducts from Wet Organic Waste Streams): if the protein value of a corn fiber stream from an ethanol production facility is preserved under our proposal, would corn fiber constitute an acceptable biomass feedstock? Corn fiber from typical ethanol production facilities is currently used to produce DDGS (feed). It is composed largely of protein and cellulosic fiber. It is possible to separate a high-fiber and a high-protein stream from corn fiber where the protein rich fraction could be used as feed and the fiber rich fraction could be converted to biofuel. Would the fiber-enriched material qualify as an acceptable biomass feedstock?","Under Topic Area 4 “wet waste” is an acceptable feedstock. As per Appendix E, “wet waste” refers to the following: Primary, secondary, tertiary, and post‐anaerobic digestion sludge (i.e., biosolids) from municipal wastewater treatment systems; food wastes from industrial, commercial, and residential sources; Organic‐rich wastewaters from industrial and commercial operations; Manure slurries from animal husbandry operations.” The corn fiber stream as described would fall under this definition.  "]
[9,"2018-05-09","Technical ","Does this RFP include research on aquatic plants such as duckweed?","The definition of biomass feedstocks from the FOA begins as follows: \n“Both lignocellulosic and algal feedstocks are of interest. Applicants must identify their target, high‐impact feedstock, which is defined as a feedstock that could be sustainably produced at a rate of at least 50 million dry tons of biomass per year. Alternatively, the proposed technology must be shown to have the ability to convert a variety of biomass feedstocks that together represent a total sustainable potential of at least 50 million dry tons of biomass per year.”\nIt is up to the applicant to determine if their specific feedstock meets this criteria.\n"]
[10,"2018-05-09","Eligibility","Are companies that have an ongoing CRADA project that is funded with the ABF (i.e., from the previous call for CRADA proposals in 2017) eligible for funding under this current FOA?","Companies that have existing agreements with ABF are eligible to apply for funding under this FOA, as long as the proposed work does not overlap with any currently funded agreement. "]
[11,"2018-05-09","Technical ","With regards to Topic Area 3 (Performance Advantaged Bioproducts), will projects that propose direct replacements or functional replacements be acceptable, or does this FOA only cover novel products?","Under Topic Area 3 “Applications are invited for early stage applied R&D for identifying and producing performance advantaged biobased products.” “Performance advantaged biobased products are bioproducts that do not resemble an existing commercial petroleum‐derived product with functions that offer a performance advantage over existing products.” It is up to the applicant to determine if their proposed product falls under this definition."]
[12,"2018-05-11","Eligibility","For topic area 1, does the applicant/prime recipient need to be a business? While this is implied in the topic area title, I do not see any restrictions preventing a university from being the applicant. ","The applicant for topic area 1 need not be a business, but the application must address all elements of the Topic Area. See FOA Section III.A.ii \"Domestic Entities\" for further details on eligibility."]
[13,"2018-05-13","Technical ","This is a follow-up of Question #11 in the Q&A log.  With regards to Topic Area 3, FOA has a definition of Performance Advantaged Biobased Products (PABP) as \"Performance advantaged biobased products are bioproducts that do not resemble an existing commercial petroleum‐derived product with functions that offer a performance advantage over existing products\".  I understand the first part, but what does it mean by \"with functions that offer a performance advantage over existing products\"?  Can we interpret (1) PABP do not resemble an existing commercial petroleum-derived product and (2) PABP offer a performance advantage over existing products?  If so, the second \"existing product\" should be non-petroleum derived existing products.  I am not sure if this makes sense.....  Please advise.   ","As noted in the description of Topic Area 3 “The relationship between a bioproduct and a petroleum‐derived product can be categorized one of three ways: bioproducts can be 1) direct replacements (i.e. the bio‐derived product and the petroleum‐derived product are chemically identical, also known as “drop‐in” replacements); 2) functional replacements (i.e. the bio‐derived product and petroleum‐derived product are different chemically, but they have similar functions/properties), or 3) novel products (i.e. the bio‐derived product does not resemble an existing petroleum‐derived product in structure or function.)”\n\nIn the specific areas of interest section for Topic Area 3, the Performance Advantaged Bioproducts Identification and Production subtopics specifically call for “novel biobased compounds” and “novel performance advantaged bioproducts” respectively.\n\nIn addition, “Existing products” refer to existing petroleum-derived products. For example, if you are targeting a polymer application, the performance-advantaged bioproduct polymer must have superior properties to the petroleum-derived polymer in the application the project is targeting.\n"]
[14,"2018-05-14","Other","Can you provide a link to information regarding the webinar?","The webinar was held on Tuesday, May 15, 2018 3:00 ET. Attendance was not mandatory and will not positively or negatively impact the overall review of any applicant submissions. A recording of the webinar can be found here: https://doe.webex.com/doe/ldr.php?RCID=ff640a8cf352e27d3f2331526f343154   The password is: 3Dr9NGXw "]
[15,"2018-05-14","Technical ","We are creating a performance-advantaged bioproduct from biosolids. The \nproduct is a polypeptide with unique attributes. Would such a product be \nconsidered a biopolymer in order to satisfy the requirement that the \nadvantaged bioproduct must fall into one of the following categories: \n\"polymers, including biopolymers and polymers from novel monomers; small \nmolecules like plasticizers, solvents, surfactants, preservatives; and \nother building block chemicals\"? If we are successful, the use of this \npolypeptide would be on the million metric ton scale.\n","Biopolymers, including polypepties, are acceptable products. Please note that as stated in the FOA \"Processes targeting small, niche, fine chemical markets, pharmaceutical markets, or nutraceutical markets\" are specifically not of interest."]
[16,"2018-05-14","Application","The Call says “A foreign entity may receive funding as a Subrecipient”  but the submission page has a place to upload a “Foreign Entity and Performance of Work in the United States Waiver Request (if applicable)” .  Do we need to file a waiver for a subrecipient?","Please see FOA Appendix B for any work performed by any entity outside of the United States. A foreign entity may receive funding as a Subrecipient, if a “Waiver for Performance of Work in the United States” (Appendix B.2) is submitted as part of the application and is approved by EERE. "]
[17,"2018-05-15","Technical ","With ref to the above FOA, I have the following Qs. Please clarify\n(1) Topic area 6 - will selective thermocatalytic conv of lignin to bioproducts be considered?\n(2) Topic area 6 - Define lignin feedstock. Is it biomass lignin or technical lignin?                             (3) Can you post slides from today's webiner?\n","1) Yes, all technical approaches will be considered under Topic Area 6 as long as they adhere to the other Topic Area 6 and FOA requirements.\n2) The definitions of all feedstocks can be found in Appendix D. ““Lignin” for the purpose of this FOA, refers to a lignin‐containing stream resulting from the deconstruction of lignocellulosic biomass. Model compounds may not be used to meet milestones or metrics. To meet the metric of >50% conversion of lignin, only carbon actually derived from the lignin polymer will be accepted. Therefore, appropriate methods must be in place to determine the extent of lignin conversion and to characterize lignin deconstruction products.”\n3) See Question and Answer 14, above."]
[18,"2018-05-15","Technical ","Is it required that proposal submitted under topic 5 should consist of research goals associated with reduction of CO2 into reduced carbon intermediate(s) as well as  conversion of intermediate(s) into product by a biobased process?","Topic Area 5 will provide funding for applications that combine the two approaches above and leverage non‐biological carbon dioxide utilization technologies which efficiently generate reduced carbon intermediates and biological systems which can use that intermediate to generate a final product."]
[19,"2018-05-15","Technical ","Does Rewiring Biomass mostly focus on CO2 utilization or utilization of the complete biomass structure?","Topic Area 5 will provide funding for applications that combine the two approaches above and leverage non-biological carbon dioxide utilization technologies which efficiently generate reduced carbon intermediates and biological systems which can use that intermediate to generate a final product."]
[20,"2018-05-15","Technical ","Will selective thermocatalytic conversion of lignin to monomers and their polymerization to high performance polymer be considered?","DOE cannot predetermine the suitability or viability of a proposal in advance of the merit review process.  It is up to prospective applicants to review the requirements of the FOA and assess the merits of their proposed project to determine whether to submit an application."]
[21,"2018-05-15","Technical ","Will consider small molecules such as guaiacol as lignin deconstruction molecule? Can new complex hydrocarbon molecules such as C11 or C14 molecules synthesized from low molecular weight biomass decomposition products qualify for Topic 2?","DOE cannot predetermine the suitability or viability of a proposal in advance of the merit review process.  It is up to prospective applicants to review the requirements of the FOA and assess the merits of their proposed project to determine whether to submit an application. Please note that “Processes targeting small, niche, fine chemical markets, pharmaceutical markets, or nutraceutical markets” are specifically not of interest for Topic Area 2."]
[22,"2018-05-15","Other","In terms of confidentiality of our project and data generated, are there guidelines I could read to give me a better understanding of which part of this project would be public and which wouldnt? ","See FOA Section VI.B.xi Intellectual Property Provisions."]
[23,"2018-05-15","Other","One component of the FOA I wanted to get a better understanding of is the precept that the EERE can intervene in a project at set time frames. Is there any more information than what is available in the FOA itself on what this means and potentially example situations? Relinquishing operational control of our companies technology development seems unreasonable, and I'm sure that is not what is meant by substantial involvement, but clarification there would be appreciated. ","See FOA Section II.B.i Cooperative Agreements and Section VI.B.ix Statement of Substantial Involvement. These limitations would not imply that operational control of your company’s technology would be relinquished to DOE. "]
[24,"2018-05-15","Technical ","If our system can be proved to dramatically lower enviromental impact, does this allow us to use any feedstock, even ones that are not biologically derived?","See FOA Section I.C. \"Applications Specifically Not of Interest Under any Topic Area\"."]
[25,"2018-05-16","Technical ","May bioelectrochemical reduction of CO2 (non-photosynthetic) be substituted for the non‐biological CO2 reduction step envisioned for Topic area 5 (Rewiring CO2 Utilization)?  The carbon intermediates produced would then be used for further biological upgrading to hydrocarbon fuels.","Applications proposing Bioelectrochemical reduction of CO2 (non-photosynthetic) is not of interest under Topic area 5. Only non-biological CO2 reduction methods are of interest under this Topic Area."]
[26,"2018-05-16","Technical ","From the FOA: \"Applications that propose mixotrophic algae cultivation strategies that utilize food‐based sugars” are NOT of interest.\n\nWould applications that propose heterotrophic algae cultivation with non-food based carbon sources (yet synthesized from CO2) be of interest?\n\nWould applications that propose mixotrophic algae cultivation with non-food based carbon sources (yet synthesized from CO2) be of interest?\n","Yes. Both mixotriphic and heterotropic algae cultivation strategies that use non-food based sugars are eligible under this FOA for any Topic Area in which biomass is an acceptable feedstock (see Appendix D)."]
[27,"2018-05-16","Application","Is an industry partner required to submit a proposal under Topic Area 1?","An industry partner is not required under Topic Area 1, though a ChemCatBio National Laboratory Partner is required. In addition, applicants should be sure to address any Topic Area specific requirements.”"]
[28,"2018-05-16","Application","There are limitations to National Lab budget share for Topic Areas 1 and 2 (“…no more than 49% of the proposed work budget.”). Do the same limitations apply for Topic Areas 3, 4, 5, and 6?","“DOE/NNSA Federally Funded Research and Development Centers (FFRDCs)\nare eligible to apply for funding as a Subrecipient, but are not eligible to\napply as a Prime Recipient.” Please refer to Section III A of the FOA for additional details.\n"]
[29,"2018-05-17","Technical ","Is organic‐rich sludge from pulp and paper operations considered as an acceptable biomass feedstock for the Topic area 4. The sludge has a solid content around 2% before dewatering. ","It is up to the applicant to determine if their specific stream meets the definition of “wet waste” in Appendix D of the FOA. As described, the stream in question appears to constitute an “organic-rich wastewater from industrial operations”. “Wet waste” for the purpose of this FOA, refers to the following: primary, secondary, tertiary, and post‐anaerobic digestion sludge (i.e., biosolids) from municipal wastewater treatment systems; food wastes from industrial, commercial, and residential sources; Organic‐rich wastewaters from industrial and commercial operations; and manure slurries from animal husbandry operations\n"]
[30,"2018-05-17","Technical ","In topic area 2 of this FOA, it states that the specific areas of interest include development of non‐model host organisms over E. coli and S. cerevisiae. Will proposals using these hosts still be considered?  What information is needed to justify the use of these hosts for producing the target molecule?","One specific area of interest under Topic Area 2 is the development of non-model hosts including E. coli and S. cerevisiae. This does not preclude applications utilizing these hosts from applying to this Topic Area. Applications will be reviewed based on the review criteria in section V.A.i of the FOA. These review criteria include the “Extent to which the proposed technology matches a 'specific area of interest' identified in each topic area”. It is up to the applicant to determine how much information is needed for reviewers to adequately assess the justification of the use of a given host for producing a given target molecule.\n"]
[31,"2018-05-17","Technical ","In Topic 5, we are considering submitting a proposal to convert CO2 into carbon black.  Carbon black is a 12 million tpy of carbon market.  However, the process does not utilize bio treatment or bio processing to the final product.\n\nTopic 6 We are considering a process to convert lignin into carbon black for use in tires and other products.  Again carbon black is a $25 billion per year market producing about 12 million tpy of carbon from oil or natural gas.\n\nWould either of these projects fit within the scope of FOA-0001916.  I sense that the RFP is directed toward bio produced fuels or bio produced products. \n","For Topic Area 5 applicants must utilize a non-biological CO2 reduction strategy as well as a biological CO2 upgrading strategy to be responsive.\n\nFor Topic Area 6, it is up to prospective applicants to determine whether their specific technology is responsive, but a biological processing step is not required under this Topic Area.\n"]
[32,"2018-05-16","Technical ","I'm a supplier of lignosulfonate, and wondering about the scope/definiton of \"lignin\" as it pertains to the opportunity. Are you seeking any varieties of lignosulfonate as a feedstock?","Please refer to the definition of “lignin” for this FOA in Appendix D. ““Lignin” for the purpose of this FOA, refers to a lignin‐containing stream resulting from the\ndeconstruction of lignocellulosic biomass. Model compounds may not be used to meet\nmilestones or metrics. To meet the metric of >50% conversion of lignin, only carbon actually\nderived from the lignin polymer will be accepted. Therefore, appropriate methods must be in\nplace to determine the extent of lignin conversion and to characterize lignin deconstruction\nproducts.”\nIt is up to the applicant to determine if their specific stream meets this requirement.\n"]
[33,"2018-05-17","Technical ","In the introduction of Topic 4, it was suggested that the conversion of waste streams into \"biopower\" is of interests to the topic. But in the specific requirement, the FOA also seems to suggest that the applicable process needs to have \"fuel or fuel and product mixture\" as the product. Our team is very interested in pursuing this FOA under topic area 4 with a novel microbial fuel cell technology, that treat organic waste streams and generate electricity. It does not necessarily product \"fuel or product\", but it produces electrical power. We would like to ask if this technology will be of interest for the current BEEPS FOA."," Under the Topic Area specific requirements section of Topic Area 4 it states that “Proposed systems must utilize wet organic waste streams (or blends thereof) as the primary feedstock (at least 90% dry weight) to produce fuels, or fuel and product mixtures.” In this context, biopower alone as a product does not qualify as a fuel or fuel and product mixture."]
[34,"2018-05-17","Technical ","Similar question as Question #12 in the FAQs documents: For Topic Area 2: Agile BioFoundry Industrial Partnership Initiative, can a university (rather than a business) be the leading applicant? Do we need to have business/company to be involved in the project for sure? ","The prime applicant for topic area 1 can be a university, but an Agile BioFoundry National Laboratory partner is required. See FOA Section III.A.ii \"Domestic Entities\" for further details on eligibility. In addition, applicants are reminded that an  application must address all elements of the Topic Area. "]
[35,"2018-05-17","Technical ","For the lignin topic, two questions.\n\n1. Does the topic require starting with lignin from bioenergy crops, or could lignin waste from paper mills be the feedstock?\n2. Does the upgrading of lignin to fuels or fuels and chemicals have to be a biological upgrading?\n","1) Lignin streams from non-bioenergy crops are of interest for this FOA. For more detail refer to the definition of lignin in Appendix D. “Lignin” for the purpose of this FOA, refers to a lignin‐containing stream resulting from the deconstruction of lignocellulosic biomass. Model compounds may not be used to meet milestones or metrics.\n2) There are no restrictions on upgrading methodology for Topic Area 6 as long as all other requirements are met.\n"]
[36,"2018-05-18","Technical ","For Topic Area 4 will an application be deemed to be non-responsive if the organic-rich wastewater from industrial operation is not the source of the biomass but can be used to grow algal biomass? ","Under the Topic Area 4 requirements, “Proposed systems must utilize wet organic waste streams (or blends thereof) as the primary feedstock (at least 90% dry weight) to produce fuels, or fuel and product mixtures.” Algal biomass as an end product would not qualify as a fuel or fuel and product mixture."]
[37,"2018-05-18","Cost Share","If a multinational corporation is the Prime Contractor for a Project under this FOA, can labor and other expenses incurred outside the US be used as cost share ?","See FOA Section III.A. for information on Eligible Applicants and Appendix B for information on waiver requests. If EERE accepts the wavier request, allowable, allocable and reasonable costs incurred outside of the US could be considered as cost share."]
[38,"2018-05-21","Technical ","Will a project that proposes to incorporate both a bio and fossil feedstock be considered responsive to the FOA?","“Acceptable Feedstocks for each Topic Area of this FOA are specified in Appendix D”. Fossil inputs (e.g. hydrogen, power, etc.) are acceptable as a part of a proposed process, but as per Section I.B. “Applicants must provide a baseline discussion of sustainability, life cycle assessment (LCA) and\ntechno‐economic analyses (TEA) for the applicant’s proposed research. Projects proposing  systems that are not sustainable (excessive freshwater, unit operations, etc.) and/or are not  economical when scaled for commercial operations will not be considered.”\n"]
[39,"2018-05-21","Technical ","The Topic Area 5 specific requirements state that “Both the proposed CO2 reduction technique… as well as the non-photosynthetic biological upgrading approach..”\n\nDoes it mean that it must be a chemo- biological- hybrid process? Or can we use the thermos- catalytic process for the upgrading?\n","Topic Area 5 specifically requires a “non‐photosynthetic biological upgrading approach to generating the target biofuel or bioproducts”."]
[40,"2018-05-21","Technical ","The FOA states that \"artificial lighting‐based cultivation of algae for energy products\" is specifically not of interest. What about artificial lighting-based cultivation of algae for multiple advanced bioproducts, with sustainable life cycle and technoeconomic parameters?","Energy products include all bioproducts in the context of this FOA."]
[41,"2018-05-22","Technical ","We are developing a novel microbial system that uses two feedstocks (~50% by weight of each) simultaneously. If only one of the two feedstocks qualifies as an acceptable biomass feedstock as defined in the FOA, would the application be deemed responsive?","All feedstocks must meet the definitions in Appendix D. See also the answer to question 38."]
[42,"2018-05-22","Technical ","Is crude glycerol produced during biodiesel production when yellow or brown grease is used as the feedstock deemed an acceptable biomass derived feedstock for Topic 2?  ","It is up to the applicants to determine if their proposed feedstock falls under one of the categories outlined in Appendix D of the FOA for Topic Area 2. Specifically, if targeting a biomass feedstock, “Applicants must identify their target, high‐impact feedstock, which is defined as a feedstock that could be sustainably produced at a rate of at least 50 million dry tons of biomass per year. Alternatively, the proposed technology must be shown to have the ability to convert a variety of biomass feedstocks that together represent a total sustainable potential of at least 50 million dry tons of biomass per year.”"]
[43,"2018-05-22","Technical ","When reading the FOA topic 4, we feel there are two important components: a) production of higher value products; and b) reduction of the cost waste disposal. Is reducing the disposal cost the first priority of this FOA or both of these two components are equally important? ","Information on the criteria used to review applications can be found in section V.A.i of the FOA."]
[44,"2018-05-22","Technical ","On page 10 of FOA, it says: \"Emphasis will be placed on processes that minimize the need for both drying and transportation of wet materials, have the potential to either reduce disposal costs or meet local organics diversion requirements, and are economically competitive with existing practices.\" \n\nOur proposal includes a fermentation process to convert carbohydrates to high value products, but there are still about 30% of unfermented solids that need to be disposed by transportation. Does it violate the statement \"minimize the need for transportation\"?  Is there any benchmark to compare with in terms of \"minimize the need for transportation\"? \n","For Topic Area 4, benchmarks for a given technology should be defined as instructed in the “Metric” section for the levelized cost of disposal."]
[45,"2018-05-22","Technical ","The FOA states that the alternative process \"have the potential to either reduce disposal costs or meeting local organics diversion requirements\". Our team is confused about the term \"reduce disposal costs\". Does FOA look for processes that have lower disposal costs compared to existing practices (e.g. anaerobic digestion) or any processes that could reduce the disposal costs compared to the disposal of original food wastes (without any processing)? What is the benchmark for the reduced disposal cost? ","It is up to the applicants to clearly articulate the current state of the art for their particular technology area. The metric section under topic area 4 states that “Applications must include baseline calculations for the current levelized cost of disposal for the proposed technological system.”"]
[47,"2018-05-22","Technical ","Could we incorporate conventional techniques, e.g. centrifuge, in the proposed process to reduce the disposal cost? ","Topic Area 4 does not specifically preclude using conventional technologies (i.e. centrifugation) as part of a proposed project."]
[48,"2018-05-23","Letter of Intent","An incomplete Letter of Intent was inadvertently submitted to Exchange. It does not look like there is the ability to edit the LOI in the Exchange system.  Only the Full Application is accessible.\nWhat is your suggestion for resolving this issue?  Can we delete the LOI from Exchange, and resubmit?\n","You may revise your Letter of Intent until the submission deadline: 5/30/2018 5:00pm ET. For technical issues regarding the eXCHANGE website please contact EERE-ExchangeSupport@hq.doe.gov."]
[49,"2018-05-23","Letter of Intent","To complete the LOI we are asked to list each organization on the project team. For Topic Area 2, should we indicate \"Agile BioFoundry\" as the organization or the specific National Lab(s) as the organization(s)? Similarly, if multiple National Labs are project members, does each National Lab require its own subrecipient budget or should we submit a single subrecipient budget for the entire Agile BioFoundry effort?","See FOA Section IV.B: The project team should include all that apply of the following: \nThe Principal Investigator for the Prime Recipient; Team Members (i.e., Subrecipients); and\nKey Participants (i.e., individuals who contribute in a substantive, measureable way to the execution of the proposed project). Additionally, FOA Section I.B.ii states \"The applicant must clearly articulate which Agile BioFoundry National Laboratories partners they plan to work with and capabilities that they plan to use.\"\n\nIn regards to the full application, see FOA Section IV.C.ix. and iv for budget and authorization information regarding FFRDCs. Individual documentation should be provided for each FFRDC proposed.\n"]
[50,"2018-05-23","Letter of Intent","The FOA specifies that the abstract for the LOI cannot exceed 200 words, while the online LOI  submission form says the abstract can be 4000 characters (including spaces). Can you clarify what the abstract length should be?","Per FOA Section IV.B.i \"The abstract provided should be not more than 200 words in length, and should provide a truncated explanation of the proposed project.\" While Exchange allows for up to 4000 characters, an eligible Letter of Intent must be limited to 200 words in length. "]
[51,"2018-05-24","Other","Regarding the DE‐FOA‐0001916, do all Subrecipients also need to be registered on EERE, DUNS, SAM, FedConnect, and Grants.gov?  We understand registration is required for the Primary Recipient.","The FOA does not require subrecipients to be registered in the referenced systems."]
[52,"2018-05-24","Other","Does the 36 month period of performance include the 3 month Verification Task (for an effective project length of 33 months)? Or is it in addition (for a full combined budget periods length of 39 months)?","The 36 month period of performance is inclusive of the 3 month verification task. "]
[53,"2018-05-24","Application","I am currently working as a tenure track employee in the US, under a Visa, and am pending Lawful Permanent Residency. I intend to submit two proposals to topic areas - Area 2 as Prime Recipient and Area 6 as Subrecipient. \n\nWould you please provide me a clarification of Eligible Applicant - Individuals regarding my status? \n","Based on the information provided in the question, your university would be the applicant (either as the prime recipient or as the subrecipient). Your university should have information regarding your ability to be the PI, or other key personnel member, on the proposed project. "]
[54,"2018-05-24","Technical ","Does  industrial waste sludge from chemical emulsions plant which is biologically treated in waste water plant qualifies as a Wet waste/Wet Organic Waste stream? Currently, it is sent to landfill.","“It is up to the applicant to determine if their specific stream meets the definition of “wet waste” in Appendix D of the FOA. As described, the stream in question may constitute an organic-rich wastewater from an industrial operation.\n“Wet waste” for the purpose of this FOA, “wet waste” refers to the following: Primary,\nsecondary, tertiary, and post‐anaerobic digestion sludge (i.e., biosolids) from municipal\nwastewater treatment systems; food wastes from industrial, commercial, and residential\nsources; Organic‐rich wastewaters from industrial and commercial operations; Manure slurries from animal husbandry operations\n\n"]
[55,"2018-05-18","Technical ","As we are looking at saccharification of lignocellulosic biomass, our end product is soluble sugars; the metric below seems geared only for microbial conversions:\n\n1. Metric: By the end of the project period, all projects will be required to demonstrate titers exceeding 20 g/L of product using cellulosic sugars or other biomass derived intermediates as a feedstock. \n\nI’d like to know whether our proposed project is responsive to the above call?\n","It is up to the applicant to determine if their proposed technology is responsive. Applications will be reviewed based on the review criteria in section V.A.i of the FOA including the “Extent to which the proposed technology or process convincingly demonstrates the ability to meet the required metric within the given topic area\""]
[56,"2018-05-25","Technical ","My question references page 15 of the FOA: \"Applications that propose the use food or feed carbohydrates, lipids,  or proteins (e.g. maize or wheat dextrose, beet sucrose, sugar cane or  grain sorghum syrup, soybean oil or meal), and/or derivatives (e.g.  amino acids from maize dextrose, glycerol from the  transesterification of soybean oil)\", which describes inappropriate materials for this solicitation. My question is whether “food or feed” applies as an adjective to all three nouns—carbohydrates, lipids and proteins. \n\nIn particular, I have a protein that is not derived from food which may be of some use in biorefinery operations. Is that out of bounds? \n","“Food or feed” applies to carbohydrates, lipids, and proteins. All feedstocks must meet the definitions applicable to a given Topic Area in Appendix D."]
[57,"2018-05-25","Technical "," For Topic Area Topic 3b: Performance Advantaged Bioproduct Production (TRL 2‐3), is nanocellulose a responsive biopolymer for the Specific Topic Area Requirements? Nanocellulose, extracted from biomass, is composed entirely of parallel chains of cellulose polymers that are strongly bonded together by intra- and inter-chain hydrogen bonding. Nanocellulose is a biopolymer ‘‘building block’’ that is available for high-performance, next generation materials that are biodegradable, non-petroleum based, and carbon neutral.","It is up to the applicant to determine if their particular product meets the requirements of the FOA. Based on your description, your product of interest appears to fall under the Topic Area specific requirement description here: “Results in the identification or production of bioproducts fitting into one of the following categories: polymers, including biopolymers and polymers from novel monomers; small molecules like plasticizers, solvents, surfactants, preservatives; and other building block chemicals.”"]
[58,"2018-05-25","Technical ","The question is related with the Topic Area 5. We have a technology that combine CO2 utilization from the power plant stack and fermentation to produce ethanol. Would it be of interest to propose only ethanol production in the project, yet provide a clear path how the ethanol will be used as an intermediate by the existing technologies? ","Please refer to section I.C. of the FOA, Applications Specifically Not of Interest Under any Topic Area: Applications that propose hydrogen, ethanol, methane, biogas, syngas, dimethyl ether, and methanol as end products. Note, that while these are not acceptable as end products they are acceptable as intermediates, if the proposal is clear how the intermediates will be incorporated into processes to produce biofuels or bioproducts precursors by project completion."]
[59,"2018-05-25","Technical ","Given the unique nature of our feedstock- we would like to know if it can be qualified for this opportunity. (Wet organic waste vs. Biomass, Biosolids, and Municipal Solid Waste)","“It is up to the applicant to determine if their specific stream meets the definition of “wet waste” in Appendix D of the FOA. As described, the stream in question may constitute an organic-rich wastewater from an industrial operation.\n“Wet waste” for the purpose of this FOA, “wet waste” refers to the following: Primary,\nsecondary, tertiary, and post‐anaerobic digestion sludge (i.e., biosolids) from municipal\nwastewater treatment systems; food wastes from industrial, commercial, and residential\nsources; Organic‐rich wastewaters from industrial and commercial operations; Manure slurries from animal husbandry operations\n"]
[60,"2018-05-25","Other","We will be submitting an application for the above referenced FOA.  I am trying to find out if the application must be submitted for review to the State of New Jersey under EO 12372.  ","Per section IV.H – Intergovernmental Review, “this FOA is not subject to Executive Order 12372 – Intergovernmental Review of Federal Programs.”"]
[61,"2018-05-25","Other","In the PDF document: https://eere-exchange.energy.gov/FileContent.aspx?FileID=319955af-7f52-483e-9d90-cfcb362a6de8 \nThere are multiple links to: https://eere‐Exchange.energy.gov <https://xn--eereexchange-j09f.energy.gov> but this link appears to be broken. ","EERE recommends applicants type in the link: https://eere-exchange.energy.gov/ directly  into their website browswer to avoid issues with broken or incorrect website links."]
[62,"2018-05-28","Technical ","We are modifying our\nprojected bio-refinery production structure to produce the type of\nLignin for use as a precursor for bio-based carbon Fiber. Even though\nwe do not anticipate a bio-fuel stream, would this project meet the\nrequirements of Topic area 3: Performance Advantaged Bioproducts, or\nTopic Area 6: Lignin Valorization?\n","All potential applicants must ultimately decide whether to apply to the FOA based on the stated requirements and their individual technology and situation.  To reiterate, there is not a requirement to co-produce biofuel for Topic Areas 3 and 6. Products proposed for Topic Area 3 must be performance advantaged over existing petroleum-derived products. Applicants are responsible for showing that their product can meet this requirement and all other Topic Area 3 requirements. For Topic Area 6, the product as described in the submitted question may be of interest if it meets all Topic Area 6 requirements (section I.B.vi.) as well as all other general topic area specifications (I.C.). Applications will be reviewed as per section V.A.i. including their ability to meet the metric for Topic Area 6 \"By the end of the project, processes to utilize >50% of the lignin carbon contained in a real deconstructed lignin stream must be developed.\""]
[63,"2018-05-27","Application","It is allowable to submit a single proposal that spans multiple topic areas as long as the technology being employed is the same? For example, would a single proposal looking to employ fermentation to make performance advantaged bioproducts (Topic Area 3) from lignin (Topic Area 6) be responsive to the FOA – or should two separate Full Applications be submitted?","Each full application requires a separate Letter of Intent and must list one Topic Area. Prospective applicants must choose the Topic Area to which their technology would be the most responsive. Although each application can only be to a single topic area, please note as per FOA Section III.F, Limitation on Number of Letters of Intent and Full Applications Eligible for Review: “Applicants may submit more than one Full Application to this FOA, provided that each application describes a unique, scientifically distinct project.”"]
[64,"2018-05-26","Other","We have two participants from the lead organization, one as the lead PI, the other as co-PI. But I could not find a way/place to add the co-PI from lead organization. Would you please advise as soon as possible? Thanks!","As there is only one field for the Technical Point of Contact, only one of the Co-PI's can be listed in that section.  However, in the Key Participants section, there is a Title field where the other Co-PI could be listed. "]
[65,"2018-05-29","Application","For the purpose of submitting the LOI by 5/30, do we definitely need to form and finalize the team? Could we revise/change the team (by adding or removing some participants later on) for the full proposal purpose? Could we even change the leading PI (because we are now having a hard time to determine who is going to lead the proposal due to other uncertain commitments of each team members). ","For the purposes of the Letter of Intent, please provide the most accurate information available on the project’s team members.  The team can be finalized before submitting the full application. Please see FOA section IV.B. for more information on the project team. "]
[66,"2018-05-29","Technical ","In our proposed project (Topic Area 4), biogas is produced from manure slurry for biopower/heating value recovery, and our final product is activated carbon from manure sludge. Does this fit the definition of a “fuel or fuel and product mixture” as required in the FOA? There is a question on our end whether biopower/electricity is considered a “fuel”.","As per Section I.C. Products specifically not of interest are “Applications that propose hydrogen, ethanol, methane, biogas, syngas, dimethyl ether, and methanol as end products.”"]
[67,"2018-05-29","Technical ","We are working on a biological process that converts waste biomass into ammonia (NH3) fuels. Is this product of interest to DE-FOA-0001916? ","It is up to the applicant to determine if their particular product meets the requirements of the FOA for a specific Topic Area. Section I.C lists products not of interest for any Topic Area “Applications that propose hydrogen, ethanol, methane, biogas, syngas, dimethyl ether, and methanol as end products”"]
[68,"2018-05-25","Technical ","In regards to Topic Area  5:\n1)Is the primary hope that this can be used for off gas CO2 from a biofuels fermentation?\n2)Is there a concern regarding energy balance in this topic area, or is CO2 fixation the primary goal? It reads like we can assume near free unlimited electrons, but we wanted to check that.\n3) Can a raw biogas stream (by which I specifically mean the mixture of CO2 and CH4) serve as a starting point, assuming waste materials have been digested before hand?\n4)Are the catalytic options restricted to those that employ electro-catalysis, or can other catalysts be used?\n5) Is this topic area restricted to the reduction of CO2, or can electro-catalysis be used to produce something like hydrogen which can then be used to power a biological fixation of CO2?\n","1) Applications must use a feedstock allowable as defined in Appendix D.  Biogas and Carbon Dioxide/Flue Gas are acceptable under Topic Area 5. \n2) A discussion of the TEA for the proposed process is required under this Topic Area, and the proposal must address the metric for Topic Area 5, but there is no specified limit on the amount of electrons available at a given price.\n3) Biogas as defined in Appendix D is an allowable feedstock for Topic Area 5.\n4) CO2 reduction is not limited to electrocatalysis, but the reduction method must be non-biological coupled to a biological upgrading strategy.\n5) A technology to non-biologically reduce CO2 is required for Topic Area 5.\n"]
[69,"2018-05-25","Technical ","In regards to Topic Area 6:\n1) Is what you are hoping for focused on enzymatic deconstruction of lignin, or would a thermal process (e.g. work to optimize gasification of lignin -both for yield and the avoidance of harmful products- and the subsequent biological conversion of syngas be responsive as well?\n","Any application that meets the requirements of the FOA is of interest. For Topic Area 6, the method of lignin deconstruction is not specified as long as it can meet the  Topic Area Specific Requirements and address the metric “By the end of the project, processes to utilize >50% of the lignin carbon contained in a real deconstructed lignin stream must be developed.”"]
[70,"2018-05-25","Technical ","We would like to ask the following questions:\n\n1. Is fundamental studies on lignin valorization among the areas of interest of this solicitation?\n\n2. Would production of nutraceuticals and high-performance materials be among molecules of interest?\n\n3. Is adipic acid among the molecules of interest?\n4. Is TEA/LCA analysis necessary to appear in the proposal application?\n","1. Fundamental studies on lignin valorization are of interest assuming they meet all criteria outlined in Topic Area 6 and the rest of the FOA. This includes proposing a process that can address the metric, and topic area specific requirements outlined in Section I.B.vi. It also includes meeting all requirements outlined in Section I.D. for verification requirements.\n2. For Topic Area 6 there are no specific molecules of interest/not of interest as long as they can meet all topic area requirements. Section I.C. also specifies products not of interest under any Topic Area: “Applications that propose hydrogen, ethanol, methane, biogas, syngas, dimethyl ether, and methanol as end products.” Additionally, all proposals to Topic Area 6 must target the metric for Topic Area 6” By the end of the project, processes to utilize >50% of the lignin carbon contained in a\nreal deconstructed lignin stream must be developed.”\n3. See above\n4. Yes. As par the Guidance Applicable to All Topic Areas section of I.B. “Applicants must provide a baseline discussion of sustainability, life cycle assessment (LCA) and techno‐economic analyses (TEA) for the applicant’s proposed research.”\n"]
[71,"2018-05-29","Letter of Intent","I submitted a Letter of Intent for the DE‐FOA‐0001916 opportunity this afternoon. The Control Number is 1916-1560. I had some slight edits to the abstract text and the business contact information for the Principal Investigator. I updated the information in the Full Application listed under My Submissions. Do I need to resubmit the LOI to update it? If so, please let me know how to resubmit the LOI. Do I press the Apply button on the FOA and complete the information again?","You may revise your Letter of Intent until the submission deadline: 5/30/2018 5:00pm ET. EERE reviews will not take place before the deadline. For technical issues regarding the eXCHANGE website please contact EERE-ExchangeSupport@hq.doe.gov. The email address should be valid and working, but may require you to type out the address, versus copying and pasting. "]
[72,"2018-05-29","Other","It seems that this web site is not working:  \nEERE‐ExchangeSupport@hq.doe.gov\n","For technical issues regarding the eXCHANGE website please contact the following email inbox: EERE-ExchangeSupport@hq.doe.gov. The email address should be valid and working, but may require you to type out the address, versus copying and pasting. "]
[73,"2018-05-30","Letter of Intent","My collaborators and I have completed an LOI for submission into the exchange system, however, we are at an academic institute, and are unsure if the academic institute should submit the LOI for us through exchange or if one of us should submit the LOI. If we submit the LOI (as instructed by our institution) ourselves, will the institution be able to submit the full proposal (as is typical) with us as PI/Co-PI's.","Full Applications are deemed compliant if, among other requirements, the applicant submitted a compliant Letter of Intent (FOA Section III.C). Therefore, if the university wishes to submit a full application, they should be listed as the applicant on the Letter of Intent.  It is up to the applicant and their own internal policies to determine how to structure their project team and application."]
[74,"2018-05-30","Letter of Intent","Would you be able to confirm that no pdf uploads were required for the letter of intent for this submission?  I don’t recall seeing a place to include this on the page before I received this notice.  Also, once we’ve received this notice of submission, should we be going in and filling out the “Funds and Costs” and “TRL” sections under Submission Details? ","See FOA Section IV.B.i.. For the Content and Form of the Letter of Intent.  For the purposes of the Letter of Intent, Pdf uploads were not required and the Submission Details section does not need to be completed. "]
[75,"2018-05-30","Other","My understanding is that there will not be a down-selection after the submission of the “Letter of Intent”. Is that correct?","There will not be a down-selection based on the technical content of the Letter of Intent. Applicants must have submitted a valid Letter of Intent to have a compliant Full Application, as per section III.C.i. "]
[76,"2018-05-31","Application","The FOA indicates:\nExpected Date for EERE Selection Notifications: August 2018\nExpected Timeframe for Award Negotiations September 2018\nCan you advise what would be a realistic requested start date for the projects? Would October 1 2018 be too early? Would January 1 2019 be more reasonable?\n","Applicants can request a start date as early as 10/1/2018."]
[77,"2018-05-31","Letter of Intent","Is the deadline for the Letter of Intent submission past, or is the deadline of 5/30/2018 an error? If it is the correct deadline, is it a hard deadline, or could we possibly get an extension until 5 pm ET today, 5/31/2018? ","Per FOA Section III.C. “Letters of Intent and Full Applications must meet all Compliance criteria listed below or they will be considered noncompliant. EERE will not review or consider noncompliant submissions, including Letters of Intent, Full Applications, and Replies to Reviewer Comments that were: submitted through means other than EERE Exchange; submitted after the applicable deadline; and/or submitted incomplete. EERE will not extend the submission deadline for applicants that fail to submit required information due to server/connection congestion.” Additionally, see FOA Section IV.B “To be eligible to submit a Full Application, applicants must submit a Letter of Intent by the specified due date and time… EERE will not review or consider ineligible Letters of Intent (see Section III of the FOA).”"]
[78,"2018-05-31","Application","My team and I submitted an LOI yesterday for DE-FOA-0001916: Bioenergy Engineering for Products Synthesis (BEEPS). Is it still possible to add a partner not listed in the LOI on the full proposal?","Please see question and answer #65 above."]
[79,"2018-06-01","Other","The solicitation for the BEEPS proposal calls for BP1 to be 3 months.  Should BP2 and 3 be for longer than 12 months or will there be an updated budget justification workbook to include BP4?","Budget Periods 2 and 3 can be longer than 12 months as long as the total performance period for Budget Periods 1, 2, and 3 is not longer than 36 months. EERE does not advise 4 budget periods for a 36 month project."]
[80,"2018-05-31","Technical ","For Topic area 3, can lignin be considered as one of the biomass feedstocks and can graphene (a 2D polymer) be considered as resulting bioproduct?","Lignin is an allowable feedstock for Topic Area 3 as per Appendix D. It is up to the applicant to determine if their product of interest would qualify as a performance advantaged bioproduct. As per Topic Area 3 “Performance advantaged biobased products are bioproducts that do not resemble an existing commercial petroleum‐derived product with functions that offer a performance advantage over existing products.”"]
[81,"2018-05-31","Application","My question is on the SOPO document length. There are 6 sections of the document that needs to be completed, and for some of them a great level of details is asked. \nEven writing everything as concise as possible, the limit of 5 pages is almost prohibitive. For example, the Milestone Summary Table examples (which seams well done and reasonable ), are 6 pages long, which will already exceed the entire document admissible length. \n\nIs there any suggestions from your side on how to address this?\n","The SOPO and Milestone Template provided on Exchange is a comprehensive template that provides instructions and examples and is meant to be edited accordingly. EERE is looking for a summary of the proposed project with relevant information for the reviewers to complete their evaluations. The page limit is to encourage applicants to not go into extreme detail that distracts from the overall scope of the proposal.  "]
[82,"2018-06-02","Application","The instructions for a full proposal instructs the applicant that Appendix E - Technical and Economic Tables Template form is available on the EERE Exchange at https://eere-Exchange.energy.gov/\nI have searched that site and other sites and have not been able to find the required table. \n\nPlease direct me to an active link or provide the necessary template so that we may complete our application.\n","The Technical and Economic Tables Template is available in an Excel format as an attachment to the FOA. This form is available on EERE Exchange at https://eere-Exchange.energy.gov/. Note, you must first select the FOA number and name. The document is located in the \"Required Application Documents\" section. The file name has been updated to “Technical and Economic Data Tables”."]
[83,"2018-06-04","Application","While preparing our full proposal I’ve downloaded the SF424 Word document and noticed that it shows an expiration date of 1/31/2009.  Is this the correct version that we should be using?","You may use either the Word Document Version with the expiration date of 1/31/2009 or the PDF version, with the expiration date of 8/31/2016. See FOA section IV.C.iv: Save the SF-424 in a single PDF file using the following convention for the title “ControlNumber_LeadOrganization_App424”."]
[84,"2018-06-07","Other","From the FOA: “Topic Area 6: Lignin Valorization. EERE may issue approximately 0‐5 awards in this topic area, with a range of $1,000,000‐$2,000,000 per award.”           \n\nOne quick question for the funding range, does this include the cost chare (20%) or not? \n \nIf the Federal funding ceiling is $2M (following statement for topic area 6 from FOA), so the total cost of the project could be $2.5M (0.5M is the cost share). Is this right?\n","Yes; the funding estimates in FOA Section II.A.i “Estimated Funding” refer to Federal funds only. "]
[85,"2018-06-07","Application","     We have submitted a letter of intent for DE-FOA-0001916, and would like to know if it has been acted upon to date. Should we begin the formal application?\n","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. "]
[86,"2018-06-07","Technical ","The topic area 4 specific requirements on page 10 mention \"utilize wet organic waste streams (or blends thereof) as the primary feedstock (at least 90% dry weight) to produce fuels, or fuel and product mixture\". It sounds like there must be \"fuel\" in the final product. Could you please confirm whether this understanding is correct, i.e. there must be fuel in the final product whether or not some other valuable bioproduct is mixed with it? ","For Topic Area 4, there must be a fuel as part of the final mixture of products as the question notes: “fuels, and or fuel and product mixture”."]
[87,"2018-06-08","Application","At the top of the  Statement of Project Objectives document it asks for the Award Number. Is this the DE-FOA#? If not, where can I find it? Also it asks for Mod Number. Where do I find this number and is it required?","If selected for negotiations towards an award, EERE will assign you an award number.  For the purposes of the FOA application, include your Exchange generated Control Number.  The modification number (0000) is not required."]
[88,"6/8/","Application","With regard to budget allocations we are creating for our application to this funding opportunity, we are hoping to clarify one of the requirements.  Specifically:\n\n1) Is the prime contractor/principal investigator required to receive at least 51% of the DOE funding?\n\n2) Is the portion received by the prime contractor required to be utilized by that entity? In other words, can the prime contractor use portions of the 51% received to pay subcontractors and other entities involved in the project?\n","The Prime can determine how to allocate costs amongst the Project Team so long as it follows the requirements in the FOA (for ChemCat Bio and the Agile BioFoundry, FFRDCs can make up no more than 49% of the proposed work budget). Note, Prime Recipient is solely responsible for managing cost share contributions."]
[89,"2018-06-08","Application","I cannot find in the FOA anything that specifically lays out how we are supposed to divide up the budget periods.  In the Verification Requirements, it is mentioned that the first budget period, Budget Period 1 should be just for the 3 months initial verification task. If we were planning to complete work in 36 months – how are we supposed to break up the rest of the time? I see mentioned that budget periods are 12-18 months, is that just a matter of when you need to have verification or go/no-go decisions? (So if we were planning the initial verification then an intermediate verification at around 18months,  would we have 3 budget periods: BP1 for 3 months, BP2 for 15 months and BP3 for 18 months?)","See question and answer #79, above. Budget periods with different time periods, as proposed in this question, would be acceptable."]
[90,"2018-06-11","Technical ","This is a three-part question about biodegradability as a material performance metric for Topic 3b.  \n\n(1) Is biodegradability per se an acceptable performance metric?  \n\n(2) If so, is it sufficient to simply demonstrate experimentally (using industry-accepted test standards) that the bio-derived product is biodegradable in the application environment, as compared with the conventional product that it replaces?\n\n(3) If biodegradability is an acceptable metric, but simply meeting existing test standards is NOT acceptable, would it be acceptable to demonstrate a >10% improvement over existing standards?  For example, to meet ASTM D6691-09 (Standard test method for determining aerobic biodegradation of plastic materials in the marine environment by a defined microbial consortium or natural sea water inoculum), a material must show ≥70% degradation within three months (~90 days), as measured by CO2 evolution under controlled laboratory conditions.  We would target a 10% improvement to be either ≥77% degradation within ~90 days or ≥70% degradation within ~81 days.  Would this type of biodegradability performance metric be acceptable?\n","As long as the applicant presents a compelling case for its relevance, biodegradability is an acceptable performance metric. It is up to the applicant to propose a set of tests to meet the metric in Topic Area 3 specific to the property that is being assessed. Applications will be reviewed based on how well they address the metric as per section V.A.i of the FOA."]
[91,"2018-06-12","Application","The solicitation for the BEEPS proposal calls for BP1 to be 3 months.  Should BP2 and 3 be for longer than 12 months or will there be an updated budget justification workbook to include BP4?","See question and answer #79 and #98."]
[92,"2018-06-12","Technical ","The specific feedstock that we are proposing will inexpensively produce “fit for purpose” dextrose at large dry-grind ethanol facilities for over-the-fence sale to bioproduct producers.  The opportunity is to produce a [feedstock] that performs like a dilute 95DE in fermentation.","As per the FOA section 1.C. Applications Specifically Not of Interest Under any Topic Area “Applications that propose the use food or feed carbohydrates, lipids, or proteins (e.g. maize or wheat dextrose, beet sucrose, sugar cane or grain sorghum syrup, soybean oil or meal), and/or derivatives (e.g. amino acids from maize dextrose, glycerol from the transesterification of soybean oil).” It appears as though the dextrose from a dry-grind ethanol facility would fall into the excluded definition of maize dextrose above. The “biomass intermediates” in Appendix D must also be derived from an allowable biomass feedstock."]
[93,"2018-06-12","Application","We are applying to Topic 3 for this FOA and have a question on how to fill out the Verification Table.  In the Table it states that we are supposed to list the function of a material.  Does DOE want general statements of function (of the benchmark, mid and long term) or specific property milestones for these materials (such as physical properties)?\n\nFor example,   General statement of function:  Benchmark: Dioctyl phthalate, Intermediate target: similar performance as benchmark, Final Target: similar performance at lower cost\n\nMore specific statement would be providing more specific numbers.  Benchmark:  in model PVC at X % dioctyl phthalate provides y modulus.  Intermediate: new plasticizer in model PVC at X% provides Z modulus.  Final Target: same as intermediate with cost 20% lower than DOP.\n","For the “product” “function” and “market” boxes for Topic 3 only a description is required, and only if one of the three will change during the course of the project does the applicant need to list changes for the initial, intermediate, and final targets. For the “properties” boxes please list the improvement in a given property anticipated to be shown as the project progresses. For example, increasing modulus from the initial benchmark to the final target. Note: the metric for topic area 3b requires demonstrating >10% improvement in properties over the incumbent product during the course of the project."]
[94,"2018-06-13","Application","We are planning to submit a proposal in response to DE-FOA-0001916 and have a question about the budget and TO#1.  Where would we show a separate budget for Task Order#1?  (Other than assigning the number in the first BP of the budget justification spreadsheet)  It doesn’t appear that BP1 should only be TO#1 costs, just that it can only be in BP1.  The SOPO document shows the possibility of more than Task 1 in BP1 and in the discussion of the workplan, the period of performance is described as “approximately annually”.","All applicants must include the initial verification task within their scope as Task 1. It must be separated from the rest of the scope of work by a ‘go/no-go’ decision point, and applicants should estimate a three-month duration for the verification effort. This task, Task 1, will also be within a separate budget period, Budget Period 1 (BP1), from the remainder of the project.” Budget Period 1, therefore, should be around 3 months in length and have only the verification task for that budget period."]
[95,"2018-06-13","Cost Share","I am having trouble calculating indirect costs in relation to federal share, cost share, and total project costs. \n\nIn appendix A of the FOA it is stated that \"EERE almost always uses the term “cost sharing,” as it conveys the concept that non‐federal share is calculated as a percentage of the Total Project Cost.” It then goes on to explain how to calculate the recipient cost share.  The Total Project Cost must include the direct costs + indirect costs + cost share and the Federal Share must then include the direct + indirect costs.\n\nHowever, the instructions in \"Tab i. Indirects” of the Budget Justification state: “3. The indirect rate should be applied to the Federal Share and Recipient Cost Share”.  This is not possible if the indirect cost must already be calculated to then calculate the cost share.  Or - the cost share must already be calculated to then calculate the indirect costs - equally impossible as I understand the instructions.\n","The cost share must be at least 20% of the total allowable costs for research and development projects (i.e., the sum of the Government share, including FFRDC costs if applicable, and the recipient share of allowable costs equals the total allowable cost of the project) and must come from non-Federal sources unless otherwise allowed by law. (See 2 CFR 200.306 and 2 CFR 910.130 for the applicable cost sharing requirements.) Total allowable costs is the sum of all direct costs and indirect costs.  Of this total project cost, 20% must be cost shared. "]
[96,"2018-06-13",null,"At the top of the document it asks for the Award Number. Is this the DE-FOA#? If not, where can I find the Award Number? \n\nAlso it asks for Mod Number. Where do I find this number and is it required?\n","See question and answer 87 above. "]
[97,"2018-06-13","Application","If we do not have Lobbying Activities, do we still need to submit this document with our application? It is showing as a required document. ","If your organiziation does not participate in lobbying activities, please indicate so on the form (you may put \"not applicable\"). It is a required document."]
[98,"2018-06-13","Application","The FFRDC Contractor Authorization letter that’s required should be addressed to whom, name and mailing address, please?  Past BETO FOAs have provided this information via FAQ.","BETO BEEPS FOA Contracting Officer \nBioEnergy Division, Financial Assistance Office \nGolden Field Office\nOffice of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy\nU.S. Department of Energy\n15013 Denver West Parkway\nGolden, Colorado 80401\n"]
[99,"2018-06-14","Application","I'm a tenure-track Assistant Professor at a University under O-1 visa. Also, I'm under the pending status of lawful permanent residence. Am I eligible to apply to this funding opportunity as co-PI or leading PI under lawful permanent residence pending status? I'll have employment authorization document (EAD) this month or July. Once I got the card, I can drop my O-1 status officially. ","See question and answer number 53, above. You should consult with your institution’s HR Office or Sponsored Programs Office regarding your institution’s policies and requirements to be a co-PI or PI on a proposal. "]
[100,"2018-06-13","Application","For the indirect rate calculation in the EERE_335 budget justification, it refers to an “indirect rate proposal in the format provide by your DOE contact”.  How do we identify and connect with our DOE contact?  How do we access the indirect rate proposal format and instructions?","You may visit the following website for information on how to develop an indirect rate proposal: https://www.energy.gov/eere/funding/downloads/sample-indirect-rate-proposal-pre-award-and-profit-compliance-audit"]
[101,"2018-06-13","Application","For the full application, it is specified that the Statement of Project Objectives (SOPO) document should be drafted using font 12. Should the milestone table within the SOPO also be in this font? The SOPO template provided by BETO has these tables at font 10. Please advise what is the minimum font size that can be used in the Milestone table within SOPO. Since the SOPO length is only 5 pages, it is requested that the table font size of 9 or 10 be allowed to craft a meaningfully detailed SOPO.","The font used in the template (size 10) is allowable. "]
[102,"2018-06-13","Application","If DOE national labs are Subrecipients, do they also need to complete the SF-LLL: Disclosure of Lobbying Activities?","The SF-LLL is only required for the prime recipient and subrecipients, per FOA Section IV.C.xi."]
[103,"2018-06-14","Application","Follow up on questions #79, #89 and #91, would the ‘Final Verification’ be within the 36 month project time frame? For example, if we define BP1= 1-3 month (‘Initial Verification’ period), BP2= 4-18 month (Define the 18th month as the ‘Intermediate Verification’ period), and BP3= 19-36 month (Define the 36th month as the ‘Final Verification’ period). Would this be OK? Or: should we define the ‘Final Verification’ period beyond the 36 month period (for example, the 37th month)? On the other hand, should the ‘Intermediate Verification’ and ‘Final Verification’ costs be covered by BP2 and BP3 generally, or do we need to do a specific budget for these Verification Activities (although they are within BP2 and BP3, respectively)?","The intermediate and final verifications will take place within budget periods 2 and 3, respectively. The entire project period must be 36 months maximum, so the final verification will need to occur within that time. There should not be a separate budget associated with the intermediate and final verification periods, just with budget periods 2 and 3."]
[104,"2018-06-14","Application","Follow up the question #70-4: I understand that for the TEA, we need to complete a Table along with the application. But what about the LCA? Is there anything similar that we can complete, or should we just have a ‘baseline’ discussion in the text within the Technical Volume? ","A baseline discussion within the Technical Volume is sufficient for the LCA requirement."]
[105,"2018-06-14","Application","Do we need to provide a ‘Conflict of Interest list’ for each PI and Co-PI for the application? I did not see this requirement from the FOA. ","If selected for negotations towards an award, EERE will provide applicants with the Pre-Award Information Sheet, which contains a section on disclosing conflicts of interest. "]
[106,"2018-06-15","Application","Do we include letters of commitment from sub-recipients regardless as to whether or not they are providing cost share?  ","See FOA section IV.C.ii. Applicants should attach letters of commitment from all subrecipient/third party cost share providers and/or letters of commitment from partners/end users as an appendix to the Technical Volume.  As stated in FOA Section V.A.i Merit Reviewers will assess the level of participation by project participants as evidenced by letter(s) of commitment. "]
[107,"2018-06-14","Application","For the letter of commitment, should it be written by the subrecipient unit, or should written by the Co-PI? For example, if I have two Co-PIs from the same unit, should they provide two separate letters of commitment?","See question and answer 106, above. Third party cost share commitment letters must come from an authorized company representative, on official company letterhead, and clearly state the exact funding the company is willing to commit to, and in what form (cash or in-kind). In this example, one cost share commitment letter is sufficient. Details about the two Co-PI's financial contributions can be included in the letter. "]
[108,"2018-06-15","Application","Do we need to submit resumes for sub-recipients?","See FOA section IV.C.ii. \"Attach one-page resumes for key participating team members as an appendix.\" It is up to the applicant to identify who are key personnel project participants."]
[109,"2018-06-15","Application","We are partnering w/the NREL for this proposal.  I am assuming they are a FFRDC and will need to provide a DOE Field Work Proposal (FWP)?  Where do I download this?  The link in the FOA does not exist.  Also, would they complete an EERE?","See FOA Section IV.C.ix \"If a DOE/NNSA FFRDC contractor is to perform a portion of the work, the applicant must provide a DOE Field Work Proposal (FWP) in accordance with the requirements in DOE Order 412.1, Work Authorization System. DOE Order 412.1 and DOE O 412.1 (Field Work Proposal form) area available at the following link, under “DOE Budget Forms”: https://www.directives.doe.gov/directives-documents/400-series/0412.1-BOrder-a-admchg1/@@images/file.\"  You may have to manually enter the link into your internet browser. A Budget Justification (EERE 335) is not required for FFRDCs that are being directly funded. "]
[110,"2018-06-15","Application","I am preparing my budget for our application.  We are a small business. What is the overhead indirect costs rate we are permitted to charge?  ","See question and answer 100, above. You can use the indirect rate proposal to estimate your overhead rate."]
[111,"2018-06-15","Application","Follow-up question on #102: if the subrecipient is a private entity, does it also need to submit an SF-LLL form?","Question #102 has been slightly revised. Per FOA section IV.C.xi \"Prime Recipients and Subrecipients are required to complete and submit SF-LLL, “Disclosure of Lobbying Activities”. "]
[112,"2018-06-15","Application","Is there a minimum effort requirement for the PI on the budget?","There is no standard minimum effort requirement for the PI, however as per Section V.A.i. of the FOA, applicants will be evaluated based on “Capability of the Principal Investigator(s) and the proposed team to address all aspects of the proposed work with a high probability of success, including individual team members’ qualifications, relevant expertise, and time commitment”"]
[113,"2018-06-16","Application","On Page 18 of the FOA, it is stated that ‘By way of example, the inclusion of the verification in the scope could include something like the following: ’. Then it is followed by three paragraphs in the quotation mark. What does this mean? Should we include these three paragraphs of statement (or something similar) into our Technical Volume (before we present our actual Technical Approaches of the scope of the work)? Do we need to do the similar for the ‘Intermediate Verification’ and ‘Final Verification’, as it was mentioned on the same page of the FOA that ‘Something similar can be included for the Intermediate Verification as..’. This will take a lot of space of the Technical Volume, and it also looks awkward. So, could we just indicate these ‘Initial Verification’, ‘Intermediate Verification’ and ‘Final Verification’ within the Technical Volume with very short and succinct 2-3 sentences?   \n\nOn the other hand, the ‘Initial Verification’ is required to be designated as Task 1. Do we need to put ‘Intermediate Verification’ and ‘Final Verification’ as separate Tasks as well, or maybe we can just indicate these in the Timetable (Gantt Chart)?","Some description of the validation process should be included in the application materials, including the Technical Volume and/or the SOPO. The exact language on page 18 need not appear, and a shorter version is acceptable. The intermediate and final verifications do not necessarily have to be listed as separate tasks, but they may for clarity if the applicant wishes."]
[114,"2018-06-16","Application","To follow up on Question #105: by ‘Conflict of Interest list’, I mean the list of collaborators, co-authors, etc. for each PI/Co-PI, that is provided for DOE BETO’s purpose of selecting potential Reviewers. Do we need to submit this list for each PI/Co-PI along with the full application?","Conflict of Interest information is not requested for the full application. "]
[115,"2018-06-17","Application","I am inquiring about switching the topic area from what was originally sent in my LOI.  Originally, we had intended to apply to topic area 4, but upon further detailed reading we discovered topic area 3 would be more appropriate. Am I able to apply under a different topic area/switch topic areas than what was in my LOI?","Yes, you may submit a full application under a different topic area than proposed in your Letter of Intent. The purpose of the LOI process is for DOE to get an estimate on the number of applications it can expect. It doesn’t lock the applicant into a particular topic area.Your full application may be revised until the full application submission deadline. "]
[116,"2018-06-17","Application","In the Technical Volume, for the ‘Technical Description, Innovation, and Impact’ section, it is required to ‘Include sufficient technical detail in the application to allow reviewers to assess whether the proposed work is scientifically meritorious and revolutionary….’. On the other hand, for the ‘Workplan and Market Transformation Plan’ section, we need to have the ‘Work Breakdown Structure (WBS) and Task Description Summary’. So, I guess for both the ‘Technical Description’ section and the WBS, we need to include enough technical details for the proposed work. I am wondering what are the difference between these two. In another words, which section should have more specific details of the research approaches? If we need to have all technical details for both sections, on one hand, this would be an redundant repeat, and on the other, we would run out of the 25 page limitation easily. ","FOA section IV.C.ii describes the required structure for the Technical Volume, whereas the criteria in Section V.A.i include how the application will actually be reviewed. Applicants can also reference other sections of the Technical Volume within the Technical Volume itself if desired. Generally speaking, the “Technical Description, Innovation, and Impact” section does not include an extremely detailed description of the proposed work, but instead helps to provide some context for the “Workplan and Market Transformation Plan” section."]
[117,"2018-06-17","Application","For the SOPO, it includes some of the exactly the same contents as in the ‘Workplan and Market Transformation Plan’ section in the Technical Volume (Technical Scope Summary, Milestone Summary, Go/No‐Go Decision Points, etc.). In order to save the space in the Technical Volume, can we only have the details of these in SOPO, and then refer this to the SOPO when we write these sections in the Technical Volume?","The applications will be reviewed as per section V.A.i. of the FOA which includes the SOPO in Criterion 2. In addition to the merit review process, the SOPO will serve as the basis for award negotiations with DOE if the project is selected, so can be somewhat redundant with this area of the Technical Volume. It is up to the applicant to determine the appropriate level of detail to include in the Technical Volume to meet the review requirements."]
[118,"2018-06-18","Application","For the ‘Subrecipient Budget Justification (EERE 335)’, if I work with the nationals lab for the Topic area 2, since the national lab will do a DOE Field Work Proposal (FWP) for their budget, do they still need to complete a ‘Subrecipient Budget Justification (EERE 335)’, if their part is beyond $$250,000 or 25 percent of the total work effort? ","See FOA Section IV.C.ix. \"If a DOE/NNSA FFRDC contractor is to perform a portion of the work, the applicant must provide a DOE Field Work Proposal (FWP) in accordance with the requirements in DOE Order 412.1, Work Authorization System.\" The Subrecipient Budget Justification Form (EERE 335) is not required for FFRDC partners."]
[119,"2018-06-18","Application","For the ‘Technical Scope Summary’ within the ‘Workplan and Market Transformation Plan’ section, it was required that ‘The overall work scope is to be divided by performance periods that are separated by discrete, approximately annual decision points (see below for more information on go/no‐go decision points). The applicant should describe the specific expected end result of each performance period.’ Per the instruction from the answer to Questions #79 and #89, we decided to define our budget period as BP1= 3 months, BP2= 15 months, and BP3= 18 months. In this case, how can we make the ‘annual’ decision points? Please give more instruction on this. ","The suggested periods of performance for the three budget periods fits the approximate annual recommendation and would be acceptable. "]
[120,"2018-06-18","Application","I have looked in the FOA but unfortunately haven't found a format recommendation for the resumes (besides the one page limit.) \n\nAre the biosketches that we've used in past applications an acceptable format? ","See FOA Section VIII.P. \"Personally Identifiable Information (PII)\" for additional information regarding the content of resumes. A biosketch would be an acceptable format assuming the FOA requirements (one page limit and PII restrictions) are met. "]
[121,"2018-06-18","Application","If the NREL’s funding is going directly to them, not through the Prime recipient, do we still need to include a FWP for them?  An EERE?  SFLLL? Letter of Commitment?  ANYTHING at all?","See question and answers #118, #106 and #102, as well as FOA Sections IV.C.ix-x."]
[122,"2018-06-18","Application","The requirements for the workplan in the Technical Volume and in the SOPO form seem almost identical.  In the technical volume instructions it states “The SOPO will contain a more detailed description of the WBS and tasks.” Is the technical volume meant to provide a high level summary of the SOPO contents? What details can be omitted in the technical volume?  Should we only describe the major tasks and not the underlying subtasks?","See question and answer #117, above. "]
[123,"2018-06-19","Application","Is it permissible to change the line items for the TechnoEconomic tab of the Technical and Financials Tables? The table states that additional columns can be inserted to break down the raw material. Can we edit or insert other rows?  For Topic 2, the focus is on coproduct development.  In this case can we revise the calculations to highlight the changes in coproduct manufacturing costs rather than total biofuel production costs?","Yes. It is permissible to both change the line items and rows on the Technoeconomic and Financial tables to better fit the specific technology proposed. This includes changing the rows to highlight changes in co-product price."]
[124,"2018-06-19","Letter of Intent"," I didn't submit my Letter of Intent before the deadline stated in the FOA, but Exchange is letting me submit a full application. Will my application be eligible for consideration?","While Exchange allows Full Application profiles to be created after the Letter of Intent deadline has passed, per FOA section IV.A \"Only applicants who have submitted an eligible Letter of Intent will be eligible to submit a Full Application.\"  If the Letter of Intent was not submitted by May 30th at 5:00 ET then the submission would be considered non-compliant.  Any Full Application that did not submit a Letter of Intent will not be considered compliant and therefore will not be reviewed. "]
[125,"2018-06-19","Application","NREL has agreed to provide materials for our project. Since NREL is with BETO, how would they prepare a support letter in a way that does not come off as advocating for the proposal? ","NREL can write a letter of support agreeing to provide hydrolysate and supporting the proposal if they so choose."]
[126,"2018-06-20","Application","The excel workbook contains cells for providing hours of effort and hourly rates – our personnel and those of our sub are not hourly employees – as such, should we simply fill in those totals and provide the explanation/detail in the text box at the bottom of the workbook tab?","EERE recognizes full time employment to be 2,080 hours per calendar year. Applicants can divide personnel yearly wages by the 2,080 hours, provide a percent of effort and/or provide detailed explanation as to how the hourly rates were calculated. "]
[127,"2018-06-20","Application","For BEEPS topic area 2 the stated cap on the budget request is $2 million dollars.  We would like to include additional National Lab partners in our proposal, but we can not fit them under this cap.  Can we propose additional tasks that are above the $2 mm cap, and have those reviewed along with the rest of the proposal for potential funding should additional funding be made available for this topic area at some later date, or will those additional tasks and budget request make our proposal non-conforming?","For Topic Area 2, the FOA provides an estimated funding range of approximately 0-5 awards, with a range of $1,000,000-$2,000,000 per award. Applications will be evaluated against the merit review criteria detailed in FOA section V.A.i. Proposing a budget with total project costs higher than the estimated funding range will not automatically make an application non-compliant. It is up to the applicant to prepare a competitive, compliant application considering all of the review criteria.  "]
[128,"2018-06-20","Application","For the budget, based on the FOA, besides the Budget Justification workbook (EERE 335), do we need to provide another separate detailed budget justification document for each item?","A Budget Justification (EERE 335) is required for the Prime Recipient, and applicable to any sub recipients.  See FOA section IV.C.v for more information."]
[129,"2018-06-14","Application","The SOPO states, “It is required that each project has at least one milestone per quarter for the entire project duration”. Does this mean that each quarter must have at least one active milestone under completion, or that each quarter must have at least one milestone which is completed in that quarter? Is it acceptable for the proposal to have several milestones completed in parallel which span multiple quarters? ","Each project must have one milestone completed in every quarter."]
[130,"2018-06-14","Application","In the Milestone Summary Table, is the “anticipated date” the date at which the milestone starts, or the date at which it is completed? What should be done for milestones that span multiple quarters?","The anticipated date is the date at which the milestone is anticipated to be completed. Applicants can include a Gantt Chart if they wish to show which milestones have active work in which quarters, in addition to the milestone table. It is anticipated that many milestones will involve work in several of the preceding quarters.  Note, the SOPO and Milestone Table must comply with the FOA, specifically section IV.C.iii."]
[131,"2018-06-14","Application","each Task (and its associated milestones) need to fit inside a given Budget Period, or can Tasks/Milestones span multiple Budget Periods? In Example #1 of the Milestone Summary Tables, Budget Period 1 is apparently concluded in Quarter 4, but some of the milestones from Tasks 1 and 2 stretch on to Quarters 5 and 6. ","Tasks/milestones can extend across budget periods. For example, work for a BP3 milestone can be started in BP2 if appropriate."]
[132,"2018-06-14","Application","We are confused about the delineation of the Budget Periods in Example #1 of the Milestone Summary Tables. The first G/NG decision point ends in Quarter 4, suggesting that the first Budget Period also ends in Quarter 4. The second and third G/NG decision points are Quarters 10 and 12, so it is unclear whether Budget Period 2 ends in Quarter 10 or 12. Finally, the “end of project goal” is listed as Quarter 8. Why is the “end of project goal” listed as occurring before the G/NG decision points #2 and #3? Additionally, some of the milestones in Task 5 (Budget Period 3) have “Quarter 1” listed as the “Anticipated Quarter”. How is this possible?","The Milestone Summary Tables are templates for various projects with differing schedules, and serve as possible document examples. Applicants should list a single Go/No-Go Decision Point when they expect Budget Period 2 to end.  As noted, the end of the project goal should not fall before the end of the project and not before the Go/No-Go Decision Points.  Since tasks can span across budget periods, the fact that a milestone is in Task 5 does not necessarily mean that it is in Budget Period 3.  For example, Task 5 can have Budget Period 1 milestones, if appropriate. "]
[133,"2018-06-20","Application"," For the budget justification, it was mentioned that ‘Applicants should include costs associated with required annual audits and incurred cost proposals in their proposed budget documents.’ What does this mean? How should we deal with this?","If applicable, direct costs related to annual compliance audits and/or preparing incurred cost proposals may be included in your project's proposed budget. Please note these types of costs are normally found to be indirect costs and can only be included in your indirect rate cost pool. "]
[134,"2018-06-21","Application","I cannot put the “proposed budget period dates” in the cells for them on the Instructions and Summary tab of the budget justification workbook (the form will not allow me to enter those cells). Is there someway to unlock those or should I specify the budget period dates somewhere else? In the additional explanation on that tab maybe?","If you are unable to unlock those cells for editing you may include the proposed budget period dates in the additional explanation tab."]
[135,"2018-06-21","Application","For the award amounts listed in the FOA, is this total award amount or just the direct cost?","See question and answer #84 and #95."]
[136,"2018-06-21","Cost Share","P 27 / Cost Share Payment  suggests that the cost share ratio be consistent across all budget periods. Given the uneven length of the budget periods, this may not be feasible, although the full 36 month project budget meets the requirements. If clearly shown in the budget workbook, committed by the institution, and with documentation at award negotiation, is that acceptable? (An example might be if a large purchase was cost shared – that would be a one time dollar amount rather than divided over the budget periods)","Recipients must meet their cost share requirement on an invoice basis. In limited circumstances, and where it is in the government’s interest, the EERE Contracting Officer may approve a request by the Prime Recipient to meet its cost share requirements on a less frequent basis. Regardless of the interval requested, the Prime Recipient must be up‐to‐date on cost share at each interval. Please see section III.B.vi., Cost Share Payment of the FOA for more information."]
[137,"2018-06-21","Application","We will be submitting an application to this FOA.  On many DOE announcements, the cost share requirement is reduced to 10% for universities.  Is that the case for this FOA as well?","A cost share reduction waiver was not authorized for this FOA. See FOA section III.B. for the cost share requirements specific to this FOA."]
[138,"2018-06-21","Application","It is mentioned in the FOA that, ‘Attach letters of commitment from all Subrecipient/third party cost share providers as an appendix.’ Therefore, Letter of commitment is only required from Subrecipients, but not needed from Prime recipient. Is this correct?","See question and answer #106. Commitment letters are not required from the Prime recipient."]
[139,"2018-06-22","Technical ","For Topic Area 5, one of the additional KPPs in the verification table asks for \"Electrolyzer usage\". The description is \"Elecrolyzers for producing hydrogen\" and the units provided are \"gm/gm\". We are unclear what is being asked, especially in the provided units. Can you please provide some additional details or explanation for what is requested?","The additional KPPs are meant to be examples of parameters that might be important for a given technology. If your technology does not use an electrolyzer to produce hydrogen that row can be deleted. You may consider substituting a different parameter in its place that is more appropriate for your technology."]
[140,"2018-06-22","Application","Can you verify that the Milestone Summary Table needs to be included in the 5 page SOPO, or as it is an “attachment” does it not count toward the 5 page limit in the SOPO. (The examples given were 3-5 pages.) We want to be sure that we are clear on the page limits. ","See FOA Section IV.C.iii: \"The SOPO, including the Milestone Table, must not exceed 5 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.\" and question and answer #81, above. "]
[141,"2018-06-22","Application","We recently submitted an LOI for the BEEPS Grant application.  Our Control number is 1916-1751.  However, I was unable to find the Award number, Competition No., and Mod No.  Can you assist me with this?","See question and answer #87, above.  The competition number is the FOA number: DE-FOA-0001916."]
[142,"2018-06-23","Application","Follow up question 117: for the Work Breakdown Structure (WBS) in the Technical Volume, we plan to organize it based on our Research Objectives (some of which could span multiple BPs; but we do not break down this part based on BPs, and do not necessary indicate the milestones), while for the ‘Tasks to be Performed’ in the SOPO, we organize them based on BPs, and break down them into detailed Tasks and sub-tasks. Would this be acceptable? Since SOPO will be reviewed as well (as indicated in Question #117), we personally believe the organization as described above is more reasonable. Otherwise, the WBS and ‘Tasks to be Performed’ in the SOPO would be basically repetitive statements. Please advise. ","It is up to the applicants to structure their Technical Volume in a way that best enables them to meet the review criteria in section V.A.i of the FOA. The structure outlined in the question seems to be responsive to this strategy."]
[143,"2018-06-24","Application","The Budget justification worksheet on the indirect cost tab notes that if we check that , if we check that “An  indirect rate has been approved or negotiated with a federal government agency” , that “ A  copy of the latest rate agreement is included with this application, and will be provided electronically to the Contracting Officer for this project.”  We cannot attach such a document to the budget justification since it is an excel document.  Where are we supposed to include the rate agreements (for the prime and subs)? Similarly for the Fringe rates if an agreement exists- where do we include this?","If selected for negotiations towards an award, EERE will ask for the most current rate agreements or rate proposals at that time. "]
[144,"2018-06-25","Application","I am uploading documents for our submission and have two questions about the document upload page:\n\n1) There is no upload space for the block flow diagram. Is it to be added to the end of the Technical Volume?\n2) What document is to be loaded to \"Technical and Economic Tables.\" We found no tech fin table specified in the FOA and would like to know what is required\n","See FOA \"Appendix E - Technical and Economic Tables Template\". On the “BFD” tab, the applicant is expected to insert a block flow diagram (BFD) of their process.  You can find and download the \"Technical and Economic Tables\" under the required application documents section of the FOA on the EERE Exchange Website.  See above question and answer 82.\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"]