EERE eXCHANGE: FAQs

Question 1: If the institution does not currently have access to CAEBAT platform or was not part of the original CAEBAT grant award, will it be able to compete in this grant (AOI 8)? If yes, will the participants be given access to CAEBAT platform
Answer 1: If selected for negotiations and negotiations resulted in an award, the recipient would receive access to CAEBAT.

Question 2: Is this related to an NNMI initiative?
Answer 2: While AOIs 1 and 2 indirectly support National Network for Manufacturing Innovation (NNMI) related efforts, the FOA is not related to the specific NNMI initiative.

Question 3: Is it mandated that multiple organizations apply to this solicitation as a consortium or can we go with the typical Prime/sub proposal instead?
Answer 3: It is not mandatory that multiple organizations apply to the solicitation as a consortium. Please refer to the Executive Summary on Pages 2 and 3 and Section III. Eligibility Information of the full Funding Opportunity Announcement (FOA) for more information.

Question 4: Re: Cost Share, pages 51-52 of the solicitation lays out what the cost share would be for a Prime Contractor for each AOI, but what percentages could either Federal Labs or FFRDCs acting as subs or in an unincorporated consortium be allowed to cover?
Answer 4: Cost share provided by Federal Labs or FFRDCs generally cannot be used to meet the cost share requirement, as these entities are funded by the Federal Government. In order to be valid, cost share contributions must consist of Non-Federal Funds. Please refer to page 54 and Appendix B of the FOA for further information on cost share.

Question 5: When submitting the optional concept paper on FOA-0000793, who will be your audience for the optional concept papers, and will our proposed concept paper be made public?
Answer 5: The audience for the optional Concept Papers will be only Federal reviewers. Information received (unless specified as: "Business Sensitive", "Proprietary", or "For Official Use Only") is eligible for release under a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) Request.

Question 6: Do concept papers have to be in any particular format?
Answer 6: Please refer to Section IV. Application and Submission Information Part C. for the prescribed content and form of the optional Concept Papers.

Question 7: Under Section II.B (pages 46 & 47), is the “Anticipated Maximum Award Size for Any One Individual Award (Fed Share)” based on the entire proposed period of performance or a per year basis?
Answer 7: The table contained in Section II. B. reflects the entire period of performance.

Question 8: Since the bus capacitors are part of the inverter system, and the funding opportunity announcement identifies a 140C ambient temperature requirement for the inverter system, it is not understood how 85C rated capacitors would be acceptable to operate in a 140C ambient environment. Please provide clarification.
Answer 8:

The requirements within the funding opportunity announcement seek an inverter design with advanced packaging concepts to enable integration of devices with different capabilities and limitations. A major obstacle to using WBG devices is the high-temperature capabilities beyond the capabilities of other devices within the inverter. Through advanced inverter designs and advanced packaging technologies, it is possible to enable use of current capacitor technology (85C) utilizing physics of materials strategies (i.e. heat transfer of materials and temperature isolation) and advanced packaging concepts.

Question 9: Regarding the Merit Review Criteria Discussion: 1. In addressing the merit review criteria discussion, can some of the responses in this discussion refer back to specific portions of the Project Summary (as in "see page number, paragraph number, line number in Project Summary) or should this discussion be completely self-contained within the Merit Review Criteria Discussion? 2. Similar question in relation to the merit review criteria mentioning the SOPO and project management. Can the merit review criteria discussion refer to specific portions of the SOPO or PMP or should the merit review criteria discussion completely be self-contained?
Answer 9:

R1: In accordance with the table on Page 62 of the funding opportunity announcement (FOA), the Merit Review Criterion Discussion is to be submitted within the Technical Volume (20 page limit), subsequent to the Project Summary, so some references could be made between the two sections of this document.

R2: Contrary to the first inquiry and subsequent response, the second inquiry is somewhat different. The Merit Review Criteria Discussion (MRCD) is to be contained within the Technical Volume, which has a separate purpose than the SOPO or PMP. There are bulleted criterion that reference items to be discussed within the SOPO and PMP documents, but the information requested between the criterion and SOPO/PMP documents have different purposes. In other words, any overlap or references between the MRCD and the SOPO and/or the PMP should be minimal, as the MRCD is an element of a different "self-contained" document, the Technical Volume.

Question 10: Q1: Regarding PMP Executive Summary Formatting, page 67 states to copy the "Project Narrative (Field 7)" into this area. Is the Project Narrative the same as the "Abstract/Summary"? What is "Field 7" referring to? Q2: On page 63 for the Technical Volume in the Bibliography & References Cited Appendix, it states "Do not attach a file in field 8". Does this mean we are not to upload a separate bibliography onto the EERE Website 'Upload Forms' tab but to have it be part of the Technical Volume only?
Answer 10:

R1: The Executive Summary to be submitted within the PMP should be the same as the Abstract/Summary. Please disregard the reference to "Field 7".

R2: Please disregard the reference to "Field 8," and as referenced in the funding opportunity announcement, Section IV.D.2.a., please include the Bibiography & References Cited Appendix within the Technical Volume.

Frequently Asked Questions