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

{"sheet":"INSTRUCTIONS & TIPS","index":0,"n_rows":12,"n_cols":2,"rows_kept":12,"cut":false,"hidden":false,"merged":[[0,0,0,1],[9,0,9,1]]}
["INSTRUCTIONS"]
[1,"All questions pertaining to this funding opportunity announcement should be emailed to BETOMegabioFOA@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":129,"n_cols":5,"rows_kept":129,"cut":false,"hidden":false,"merged":[[1,0,1,4],[0,0,0,4]]}
["ADMINISTRATIVE QUESTION AND ANSWER LOG"]
["DE-FOA0001433 - MEGA-BIO: BIOPRODUCTS TO ENABLE BIOFUELS"]
["Question #","Date Submitted","Topic","Question","Answer"]
[1,"2016-02-08","Registration Requirements","Are the links active to access information for this FOA?  ","The links are active for accessing the annoucement at https://eere-exchange.energy.gov/. The full Announcement can be downloaded from Exchange in PDF format"]
[2,"2016-02-08","Webinar","How do applicants sign up for the webinar? ","The Bioenergy Technologies, MegaBio: Bioproducts to Enable BioFuels Informational Webinar will be held Tuesday, February 16, 3:00 p.m. - 4:00 p.m. ET. Standard application questions regarding the EERE Office and FOA procedures will be discussed. Please register for the webinar at: https://attendee.gotowebinar.com/register/1383093641231265538"]
[3,"2016-02-08","Application Content/Format","How can applicants successfully download application documents through Mozilla? ","If applicants are having trouble using one browser, please switch to a different browser to download documents."]
[4,"2016-02-09","Technical Topics","Is there a more detailed definition of advanced hydrocrabon biofuels? Would dimethyl ether (DME comply? DME's chemical composition is C2H60, also depicted often as CH3 - 0 - CH3. It is a high cetane, clean-burning, replacement for diesel.","In appendix E of the FOA, we require that “targeted fuels must be either currently approved hydrocarbon fuels or likely to be approved in the future.” If the applicant chooses to write the application based on DME as the final fuel, the applicant must make a compelling case for the likelihood that DME will be widely accepted as a diesel replacement or blendstock and this will be evaluated by external merit reviewers. "]
[5,"2016-02-09","Technical Topics","For the biomass resources provision, our technology takes advantage of biomethane from any source, but primarily from anaerobically digest food and green waste from urban areas divereted from landfills. Would that qualify?","Biomethane from anaerobic digesters is an acceptable feedstock. If a proposal using biomethane is awarded, the project team must demonstrate to the Validation Team in person (see Validation Task p4 of FOA) that the biomethane used for any approved tasks is bioderived  and contains any residual contaminants that will be present in the anticipated commercial system.  No pure methane can be used unless the anticipated commercial system will incorporate sufficient cleanup steps to provide pure methane to the downstream process and those cleanup steps must be included in the TEA. To be clear, stranded natural gas or other sources of methane are not acceptable feedstocks.”"]
[6,"2016-02-09","Cost Sharing","Does this mean that if cost share waiver is granted (e.g. 10% cost share is required) the FFRDC can perform more than 50% of the total effort? If the waiver is not granted (e.g. 20% cost share is required) the FFRDC is limited to less than 50% of the total effort?","If a DOE FFRDC applies as a prime recipient, there is no limit on the FFRDC % of total effort. In order to qualify for the cost share waiver of 10%, the DOE FFRDC must perform more than 50% of the work as the prime recipient."]
[7,"2016-02-09","Cost Sharing","We are an FFRDC. What assumptions should we make to budget the proposal? Given the timeline laid out in the FOA, should we assume that the waiver will apply and hence budget for 10% cost share in year 1 or assume that the waiver will not apply and budget for 20% cost share? Or should we submit 2 budgets; one with 10% cost share and a second with 20% cost share?","It is unknown at this time whether the cost share waiver will be extended for FY17 funding. If applicable, develop budgets utilizing the cost share waiver for the entire project.  EERE may renegotiate with selectees if cost share requirements change in future years."]
[8,"2016-02-09","Technical Topics","Can you clarify what is meant by “No sugars derived from sugarcane, sweet sorghym, or beets and oils derived from soy, canola, sunflower, peanut and other such food sources normally recovered using conventional food processing methods are not eligible as feedstock under this FOA.” Does this include waste products from the food processing industry, or does it only apply to products that are currently used as food sources?","Waste products from the food processing industry are acceptable feedstocks. "]
[9,"2016-02-09","Technical Topics","Does the prohibition of food products like sugar beets extend to non-food energy beets not specifically grown for consumption but for Energy purposes? ","As stated in the FOA (Appendix E – Definitions and Acceptable Biomass Feedstocks), sugars derived from beets are not acceptable feedstocks. "]
[10,"2016-02-12","Technical Topics","Will BETO rethink excluding  \"Applications that propose to develop technology for the artificial lighting-based cultivation of algae for energy products (other than as an enabeling tool for high throughput laboratory-based screening)? ","EERE appreciates your interest, however artificial lighting will not be considered an eligible technology in responding to this FOA. The contents of this FOA has been structured to achieve specific goals of the Bioenergy Technologies Office.  Areas specified as “not of interest” will not be reconsidered.  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. The Department of Energy’s Golden Field Office posts funding opportunity announcements (FOA) on EERE eXCHANGE, at https://eere-exchange.energy.gov/, and at Grants.gov, at http://www.grants.gov/.  "]
[11,"2016-02-15","Technical Topics","Does the bullet in Section C, \"Applications Specifically Not Of Interest\",  “Applications that propose the production of alcohols or biogas as a final fuel product. Note that while ethanol and biogas are unacceptable final products, they will be accepted as process intermediates for upgrading to other advanced biofuels and products, if derived from applicable biomass sources,” apply to n-butanol? ","n-Butanol is not of interest as a fuel for the purpose of this FOA. It is an acceptable bioproducts and can be the focus of a proposal. "]
[12,"2016-02-16","Technical Topics","Please clarify if Waste (Brown grease) qualifies as a feedstock for this FOA?","Brown grease is an acceptable feedstock (food waste is an acceptable feedstock). However, please note that “Biodiesel” or other diesel-equivalent fuel derived from trans-esterification of renewable biomass, including vegetable oil and animal fat, is specifically excluded (Appendix E). Also, please note that the feedstock must fulfill the following requirements (from Appendix E of the FOA): Applicants must identify their target, high-impact feedstock, which is defined as a feedstock that has the potential to ultimately produce 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."]
[13,"2016-02-16","Technical Topics","Can you please confirm the applicable feedstocks for this FOA? ","Please see Appendix E for the relevant definitions and acceptable biomass feedstocks"]
[14,"2016-02-16","Eligibility","Is it acceptable under this FOA to re-submit a previous application which was reccomended for funding, however, was not funded, under a previous FOA?","Yes, if you were not funded for the previously submitted application you may re-submit that application. "]
[15,"2016-02-16","Technical Topics","On page 75 of FOA (Appendix E),  \"For purposes of this FOA, the term 'advanced biofuels' means renewable fuel, other than sugar, starch and lignocellulosic based alcohols.\" Does \"alcohol\" here refer to ethanol specifically or all forms of alcohol? In other words, if a proposed work is using lignocellulose or algal biomass to produce higher alcohols like butanol, would that be considered acceptable by EERE?","Alcohols are not of interest as a fuel for the purpose of this FOA. Alcohols are acceptable bioproducts and can be the focus of a proposal."]
[16,"2016-02-16","Technical Topics","How does DOE define a \"unit of operation\" for purposes of determining what TRL level is appropriate. Please provide examples of \"single unit operation\" and \"multiple integrated units of operation\" projects. ","Please see Appendix G of the FOA and the “Technical and Economic Date Tables Template” excel spreadsheet. It includes the requested examples and definitions."]
[17,"2016-02-16","Technical Topics","On page 7 of FOA, it said \"Topic Area 1. Early TRL R&D to optimize one unit operation of the proposed conversion pathway\". Reflected in the conversion pathway from biomass to biofuels and bioproducts A/B/C/D on P2, does this one unit correlates to one arrow in the pathway?","No, the figures on page 2 of the FOA do not correlate to single unit operations. Please see Appendix G of the FOA and the “Technical and Economic Data Tables Template” Excel spreadsheet available on EERE Exchange for examples of unit operations and processes that would be appropriate for Topic Area 1 and Topic Area 2."]
[18,"2016-02-16","Technical Topics","The FOA makes no mention of final TRL. The webinar indicated that technologies are expect to be at TRL 2-4 at project start and TRL 4-5 at project end. Is it acceptable for a project that begins in the TRL 2-4 range to reach a higher TRL at project end, as long as that can be achieved within the timeline and budget?","Yes, it is acceptable for a project to reach a higher TRL at project end as long as the R&D can be achieved within the timeline and budget."]
[19,"2016-02-16","Technical Topics","Does the FOA require that R&D be performed on hydrocarbon fuel production, or simply that the R&D performed towards a bioproduct enable or reduce the cost of hydrocarbon fuel production through the proposed strategy?","The FOA does NOT require R&D be performed on hydrocarbon fuel production. From the FOA, page 3: Although the primary focus of a proposed project is not required to be the creation of a biofuel (i.e., the R&D can be on producing a bioproduct), the project must specify a route and include a strategy for producing cost-competitive biofuels, and the applicant must demonstrate how the R&D will lower the overall cost of producing a biofuel."]
[20,"2016-02-16","Application Content/Format","Does the concept paper require techno-economic justification of the proposed pathway, bioproduct, and biofuel? Or is this required for the full application only?","Please see section IV Application and Submission Information for the requirements of the concept paper and full applications."]
[21,"2016-02-16","Technical Topics","Is it required that the fuel, a hydrocarbon, be devoid of oxygen? Similarly, is it required that the bioproduct contain oxygen? Can this apparent contradiction be explained, as it limits the technical flexibility to meet the FOA targets?","Yes, it is required that the fuel be devoid of oxygen. No, it is not a requirement that the bioproduct contains oxygen. Regardless, there is no contradiction in producing a hydrocarbon biofuel and an oxygenated coproduct. For examples of pathways to hydrocarbon fuels that include oxygenated bioproducts, please see: Process Design and Economics for the Conversion of Lignocellulosic Biomass to Hydrocarbons: Dilute-Acid and Enzymatic Deconstruction of Biomass to Sugars and Biological Conversion of Sugars to Hydrocarbons http://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy14osti/60223.pdf or Process Design and Economics for the Conversion of Lignocellulosic Biomass to Hydrocarbons: Dilute-Acid and Enzymatic Deconstruction of Biomass to Sugars and Catalytic Conversion of Sugars to Hydrocarbons http://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy15osti/62498.pdf"]
[22,"2016-02-16","Technical Topics","Is biogas limited to AD gas (methane, etc.)?","Biogas or biomethane derived through anaerobic digestion is an allowable feedstock under this FOA (See Appendix E) , If a proposal using biomethane is awarded, the project team must demonstrate to the Validation Team in person (see Validation Task page 4 of FOA) that the biomethane used for any approved tasks is bioderived  and contains any residual contaminants that will be present in the anticipated commercial system.  No pure methane can be used unless the anticipated commercial system will incorporate sufficient cleanup steps to provide pure methane to the downstream process and those cleanup steps must be included in the TEA. To be clear, stranded natural gas or other sources of methane are not acceptable feedstocks."]
[23,"2016-02-16","Technical Topics","FOA states non-interest in algae grown exclusively under artificial light (i.e. closed PBRs), but what is the policy towards hybrid open/closed systems?","Any artificial lighting for cultivation, regardless of the configuration of the system, is not of interest under this funding opportunity.  This does not apply to bench-scale screening in the laboratory.  Hybrid open/closed systems (combination of photobioreactor and open ponds), are of interest if the system uses entirely natural light."]
[24,"2016-02-16","Technical Topics","Does hydrocarbon fuels include short-chain or long-chain alcohols?","No, alcohols are not included as hydrocarbon fuels for the purpose of this FOA. "]
[25,"2016-02-16","Technical Topics","Is n-butanol an acceptable biofuel?","n-Butanol is not of interest as a fuel for the purpose of this FOA"]
[26,"2016-02-16","Application Content/Format","Can you send me the template to use for the techinical and economic tables? ","The referenced FOA documents are only available through the EERE eXCHANGE website, and will not be provided by DOE personnel via any other means. If you are having trouble accessing the FOA, please contact the EERE eXCHANGE help desk to resolve the issue(s) by e-mail to EERE-ExchangeSupport@hq.doe.gov. Please also reference Section IV. D. 1 \"FULL APPLICATION CONTENT REQUIREMENTS\" for all required documentation.   "]
[27,"2016-02-16","Technical Topics","Is food waste and food processing waste are allowable feedstocks except for lignocellulosic and algal biomass.","Waste products from the food processing industry are acceptable feedstocks. "]
[28,"2016-02-16","Application Content/Format","How do we obtain a control number? Is one generated through the application process? ","EERE Exchange will generate the control number through the application process. "]
[29,"2016-02-16","Technical Topics","EERE FOA mentioned the production of bioproduct in additional to biofuel (Page 2) as a viable route. To this end, would the production of different bioproducts be acceptable, or only one species of bioproduct should be pursued?","Proposals can address the production of multiple bioproducts"]
[30,"2016-02-17","Eligibility","Would an algae biomass to a chemical molecule hydrothermal liquefaction project qualify?","Hydrothermal liquefaction of algae is of interest"]
[31,"2016-02-17","Technical Topics","Do oxygenated hydrocarbons (non-alcohol) qualify as hydrocarbon fuels?","In appendix E of the FOA, we require that “targeted fuels must be either currently approved hydrocarbon fuels or likely to be approved in the future.” If the applicant chooses to write the application based on a non-alcohol oxygenated hydrocarbon as the final fuel, the applicant must make a compelling case for the likelihood that it will be widely accepted as a diesel replacement or blendstock and this will be evaluated by external merit reviewers."]
[32,"2016-02-17","Technical Topics","I would like to clarify exactly what is prohibited by the \"Applications that propose to develop technology for the artificial lighting-based cultivations of algae for energy products (other than as an enabling tool for high throughput laboratory-based screening) are specifically not of interest.\" Is this stipulation meant to prohibit applications that propose a system consisting solely of PBRs? Or does it prohibit completely the use of PBRs in a particular aspect of a broader system? ","A photobioreactor means that there is a transparent cultivation vessel that allows the culture to be illuminated and grow via photosynthesis.  To be eligible for the FOA, applications cannot propose to develop technology for cultivating algae under artificial lighting.  This stipulation is not intended to limit the ability of a project to grow and maintain seed stocks of culture in laboratory conditions using standard laboratory procedures.  Overcoming R&D barriers, if they exist, in the generation and maintenance of laboratory seed culture stocks is not an area of interest for this FOA. A system may consist solely of PBRs. If within the application there is a proposal to develop technology related to the cultivation system, the cultivation system (e.g. PBR, pond, thin film, etc.) should be designed to operate under natural lighting (i.e. sunlight).    "]
[33,"2016-02-18","Application Content/Format","Is the the one page maximum in the addendum supposed to include the charts, graphs, or other data supplement AND include the description of the project team? ","Please refer to section IV.C.1 of the FOA. \"Applicants may provide graphs, charts, or other data to supplement their Technology Description, however this is not a requirement. Applicants are required to describe succinctly the qualifications, experience, and capabilities of the proposed Project Team.\" Page limits are listed in the table. "]
[34,"2016-02-19","Technical Topics","Would the Wastewater treament plant brown grease (skimmed - a sudgy non vaulue non food product) and/or cattle manure feedstocks be eligible for bio oil funding applications? ","Please see question 12 above for the answer regarding brown grease. Cattle manure is an acceptable feedstock."]
[35,"2016-02-16","Webinar","Where are slides posted from 2/16 Webinar?","The webinar slides are posted in the  \"Documents\" section of the FOA. Due to technical difficulties, the web presentation could not be posted. However,  a copy of the word-for-word transcript has been included along with the slides."]
[36,"2016-02-22","Technical Topics","Does co-production need to be simultaneous (biofuel + bioproducs)? For example, is it within the FOA scope to include an operation where co-products are produced in the same reactor or different reactors in the same plant? Alternatively, is it within the FOA scope for a plant to only have the ability to produce one product, and subsequently switch to a second product if market economics justify it?","No, co-production does not need to be simultaneous. Yes, it is within the FOA scope to include an operation where co-products are produced in the same reactor or different reactors. Yes, it is within the FOA scope for a plant to have the ability to produce only one product and subsequently switch to a second product if market economics justify it. "]
[37,"2016-02-22","Registration Requirements","Do all applicants on a proposal need to be registered with EERE Exchange? Do participants from private companies need to be registered in EERE Exchange? ","No, only the main point of contact for the application needs to be registered. If a private company is submitting a full application then they should register in EERE Exchange. "]
[38,"2016-02-22","Eligibility","Can a FFRDC perform more than 50% of the work and be eligible for the waiver? ","As stated in the FOA Section III.B.ii an FFRDC can qualify for the waiver if they're the prime recipient and they perform more than 50% of the work. As stated in Section III.E.2.vi The FFRDC involvement is only restricted when they're listed as a sub-recipient which would make them ineligible for the cost share waiver."]
[39,"2016-02-22","Eligibility","Do we qualify if we use a non edible corn oil as our feedstock? Or if we are likely to be an approved hydrocarbon fuel in the future? ","‘Non-edible’ corn-oil is not an acceptable feedstock for this FOA. In appendix E of the FOA, we require that “targeted fuels must be either currently approved hydrocarbon fuels or likely to be approved in the future.” If the applicant chooses to write the application based on a fuel that is not currently approved, the applicant must make a compelling case for the likelihood that it will be widely accepted in the future and this will be evaluated by external merit reviewers. Please note that alcohols are not acceptable final fuels for this FOA."]
[40,"2016-02-22","Technical Topics","Is single-cell oil, in the form of triacylglycerides produced within an oleaginous microorganism, an acceptable product for the advanced fuel component? Or is the fuel component restricted to hydrocarbons (CH only)?","In appendix E of the FOA, we require that “targeted fuels must be either currently approved hydrocarbon fuels or likely to be approved in the future.” If the applicant chooses to write the application based on a fuel that is not currently approved, the applicant must make a compelling case for the likelihood that it will be widely accepted in the future and this will be evaluated by external merit reviewers. "]
[41,"2016-02-22","Technical Topics","Are the TRL restrictions for Topic Area #1 set, or will DOE consider allowing projects with a current TRL of 4 in Topic Area #1?","There are many ways to interpret TRL with respect to an individual technology and the proposed TRLs are meant to be guidance, not restrictions. DOE will not evaluate an application’s TRL (see FOA Section V.A Technical Review Criteria)."]
[42,"2016-02-22","Technical Topics","If the TRL restriction is not changed, such that Topic Area #1 is limited to TRL 2-3, will DOE view only the specific \"unit of operation\" under research in regards to evaluating the application's TRL? Or, will the DOE view the entire block flow diagram when determining the TRL for the application?","DOE will not determine the TRL for the application. "]
[43,"2016-02-22","Technical Topics","Project developers in this sector have been advancing technology such that many innovations impact more than one \"unit of operation\" (e.g. using waste heat to heat incoming feedstock in the thermochemical reaction chamber as well as to dry the incoming feedstock in a dryer bin). If such innovations are deployed by a technology, can they still be in Topic Area #1 even though the research on a single \"unit of operation\" effects other aspects of the block flow diagram? ","Yes"]
[44,"2016-02-23","Technical Topics","For Topic Area 2 (TRL 4-5), one of our unit operations is at TRL 3, but the second is at TRL 5 or higher. Would it be acceptable to submit to Topic Area 2 with these unit operations, with most of the focus on the lower TRL unit operation but still showing integration of both operations?","Yes, that would be acceptable. "]
[45,"2016-02-23","Technical Topics","Could you please define \"unit operation\" for use in the topic areas? ","Please see Appendix G of the FOA and the “Technical and Economic Date Tables Template” excel spreadsheet. It includes the requested examples and definitions."]
[46,"2016-02-23","Technical Topics","Does this only include equipment components of an operating unit or could it include catalyst improvement for a particular operation.","Improvements for a unit operation can extend beyond equipment components."]
[45,"2016-02-23","Technical Topics","Is co-pyrolysis of biomass and waste plastics (less than 20%) allowed for the FOA? ","Yes, waste plastics are an acceptable feedstock as long as they are not recyclable. Furthermore, the applicant must demonstrate through life cycle analysis that the final fuel has lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions that are at least 50% less than baseline greenhouse gas emissions. See Appendix E of the FOA."]
[47,"2016-02-23","Technical Topics","If it's possible to focus on multiple components of a single unit operation, would that still be applicable in Topic Area 1?","Yes."]
[48,"2016-02-24","Application Content/Format","If invited to submit full proposal can requested budget be increased/decreased? ","Yes"]
[49,"2016-02-24","Application Content/Format","If there is a change regarding team members is that allowed?","Yes"]
[50,"2016-02-24","Application Content/Format","Is a consultant listed as a subawardee on the concept paper? ","Please see section IV Application and Submission Information for the requirements of the concept paper and full applications."]
[51,"2016-02-24","Technical Topics","If we propose to convert biomass to upgraded bio-oil through pyrolysis, will pretreatment and postreatment be considered separate unit operations?","Yes, pretreatment and post treatment would be considered separate unit operations."]
[52,"2016-02-25","Technical Topics","Is it required to produce a biofuel that is strictly classified as a hydrocarbon? Or would a biofuel made of combustible esters (not biodiesel) count as acceptable? ","In appendix E of the FOA, we require that “targeted fuels must be either currently approved hydrocarbon fuels or likely to be approved in the future.” If the applicant chooses to write the application based on combustible esters as the final fuel, the applicant must make a compelling case for the likelihood that it will be widely accepted as a diesel replacement or blendstock and this will be evaluated by external merit reviewers."]
[53,"2016-02-25","Registration Requirements","Is it required to have a registered DUNS number prior to submitting a concept paper/full application","Please see page 33 of the FOA Webinar and section IV.B.1. of the FOA.  A DUNS number and SAM registration are not required to submit an application or concept paper. However, they must be completed before an application can be selected as an award under this FOA"]
[54,"2016-03-05","Application Content/Format","When should we expect to see encourage/discourage decisions?","See the table on page one of the FOA for full application deadline information. Encourage/discourage notifications are anticipated to be released around 03/15/2016"]
[55,"2016-03-07","Cost Sharing","If campus contributes more than the required cost share for the first year, can any of this be “rolled over” to the second and third years? How long is a billing period? ","Please refer to page 14, # 6, DOE can approve a request to cost share on a less frequent basis. A recipient can front load it's required cost share. A billing period is determined by the recipient however."]
[56,"2016-01-03","Cost Sharing","In section II. A. 1. Estimated Funding, of the FOA appears the following sentence:Individual awards may vary between $1 and $8 million. I have a question regarding the $8 million upper limit. Does that refer to:\n1) $8 million DOE funding with a $2 million (20%) company cost share resulting in a total project of $10 million; OR\n2) $6.4 million DOE funding with a $1.6 million (20%) company cost share resulting in a total project of $8 million.","Individual awards may vary between $1 and $8 million federal funding not including cost share"]
[57,"2016-03-14","Application Content/Format","Is it possible to add a co-PI to the full proposal if they were not included in the concept paper? ","Yes"]
[58,"2016-03-16","Application Content/Format","Is there specific information required for the 1 page resume of key participating team members?","There are no specific guidelines set for the 1 page resume, however, it should have a strong indication of the key team mebers relevant experience and qualifications to the proposed project. "]
[59,"2016-03-16","Due Dates","We respectfully request a 30-day extension to the current deadline of 15 April 2016 to a new date of 15 May 2016 in order to prepare a responsive Application.","An extension will not be granted. Please refer to section IV.A. Application Process of the FOA for full details on timely submittals of proposals. Also, please refer to the first page of the FOA which lists the application deadline as 4/15/2016 at 5:00PM ET"]
[60,"2016-03-15","Application Reviews","How many concept papers under Topic Area 1 and Topic Area 2 were encouraged to submit a full proposal?","DOE cannot disclose the number of encouraged or discouraged concept papers"]
[61,"2016-03-18","Application Content/Format","For strictly oxygen-free, hydrocarbon fuels, there does not seem to be a technology that is close to commercialization. If our focus is on the biochemical products, how much attention should be given to the fuel component? Is it sufficient just to mention possible fuels as options? How about a category of fuel molecules, such as fatty alkanes? Does there need to be demonstrated results for the specified fuel, or can it be theoretical?","The objective of the FOA is to demonstrate new pathways that could lead to cost-competitive hydrocarbon biofuels. So while your R&D work might focus exclusively on the biochemical/bioproduct, it is imperative that your proposal explains quantitatively how producing this product will enable the production of cost-competitive hydrocarbon biofuels. It is expected that projects that are awarded will have a TEA task that will demonstrate how the results from the R&D will affect the cost of hydrocarbon biofuels. See the TechnoEconomics tab in the Technical and Economic Data Tables found in Exchange under “Required Application Documents” and the links to design cases published by NREL.  DOE recognizes that there are not many conversion pathways that could lead to cost-competitive hydrocarbon biofuels and that is the reason we have issued this funding opportunity. Our objective is to accelerate the time to commercialization of hydrocarbon biofuels. "]
[62,"2016-03-18","Application Content/Format","We had submitted our concept paper with topic area 2 but are planning to predominantly focus on optimizing one of the unit operation rather than 2-3 as mentioned in the concept paper. Can we switch to topic area 1 for our full application?","Yes"]
[63,"2016-03-17","Application Content/Format","We are wondering if we propose optimization of one unit operation if it is considered responsive to the RFA to produce more than one bioproduct to support biofuels?  For example, can we propose conversion of a lignin byproduct from our unit operation to monomers, modified lignin, and carbon products and still be considered responsive to the call?  Alternatively, should only one product be considered?  Each product will be considered as part of the lifecycle and technoeconomic analysis.","Topic Area 1 is for proposals that are seeking to optimize one unit operation. One unit operation can produce multiple products. For more clarification on how we define unit operations, see the Technical and Economic Data Tables under “Required Application Documents” in Exchange. "]
[64,"2016-03-21","Application Content/Format","What format/template should be used for the acknowledgement to participate in independent third party validation? ","A template is not provided for this requirement."]
[65,"2016-03-22","Technical Topics","Do we also need to have separate Tasks for an Interim validation and Final validation or are these only to to be included as Go/No Go decision points?","The intermediate validation should be included as a clear go/no-go.  As the final validation is intended to collect and capture the data at the end of the project, this is not considered a go/no-go.  However, it is up to the applicant whether they include the Intermediate and Final validation as separate tasks as it is not required and many previous applicants have defined the intermediate and final validations as milestones.  "]
[66,"2016-03-22","Data Management","Is the Data Management Plan required with the Full Application?  ","The Data Management Plan is not required with the full application. Exchange has been updated. "]
[67,"2016-03-22","Technical Topics","Will the Initial Validation Task take place immediately after agreement execution?  ","DOE and the Validation team intend to initiate the Initial Validation task immediately after Budget Period 1 has been authorized and the agreement has been executed.  However, this is dependent on many variables and is subject to scheduling and other potential conflicts."]
[68,"2016-03-22","Technical Topics","Should the Interim and Final Validation periods also be estimated as separate Tasks, and within separate Budget Periods?  In that case, is it expected there will be 4 Budget Periods?","It is up to the applicant how they decide to organize the intermediate validations.  It is recommended that the intermediate validation should be included as a clear go/no-go. It is up to the applicant whether they include the Intermediate and Final validation as separate budget periods as it is not required and not necessary."]
[69,"2016-03-22","Technical Topics","The Initial Validation Period is estimated to be 3 months in length.  Should the applicant estimate a similar length for the Interim and Final Validation Effort periods?","The intermediate and final validations do not need to have 3 months of time allocated to just the validation.  "]
[70,"2016-03-22","Technical Topics","If an effort would normally be anticipated to be around 36 months in length, would the three validation periods be expected to extend this timescale, or should they be included within this 36 month length?","The initial validation period should be expected to extend the project timescale by ~ 3months.  The intermediate and final validations should not be expected to extend the project length. As there are many variables it is up to the applicant on how to structure the schedule."]
[71,"2016-03-23","Technical Topics","The FOA clearly lists corn-based distillers grain (DDG) as an unacceptable feedstock based on EPAct 2005 Section 932 (a)(1)&(2).  This definition does not include a restriction for DDGs however.  Further, DDGs are not generally intended for food but are a coproduct of ethanol production and utilized as a feed product.  We would like to consider processing DDGs to produce both a feed component and a fuel feedstock effectively reducing the input cost of the biofuel feedstock as a result of the process.  Would this approach be considered responsive to the intent of the FOA?","No, processing DDGs to produce a fuel feedstock is not considered responsive to this FOA. "]
[72,"2016-03-23","Cost Sharing","Can you please confirm for us that we are allowed to use unrecoverable overhead costs as part of our cost share commitment in our proposal budget?  ","Allowable indirect costs can be used as cost share."]
[73,"2016-03-23","Labs/FFRDCs","The FFRDC Contractor Authorization letter that’s required should be addressed to whom; name and mailing address, please?","DOE Contracting Officer                                                                                                                  BioEnergy/Fuel Cells Branch                                                                                             Golden Field Office/ Financial Assistance Office                                                              U.S. Department of Energy/Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy              15013 Denver West Parkway                                                                                              Golden, Colorado 80401 "]
[74,"2016-03-23","Technical Topics","Can you please clarify what is required in the document for the “Validation and Participation Acknowledgement” upload? Do we need this document from sub-awardee institutions? Who is required to sign this document?","Please see question 64 above. All applicable parties should submit an acknowledgement. DOE cannot determine signature authority for organizations."]
[75,"2016-03-23","Application Content/Format"," I submitted two concept papers, and both were encouraged for a full submission. Is it possible to find out the relative ranking of the two, or get an idea of which the DOE would be more interested in? This would help focus our efforts to the one with higher potential for success.","DOE cannot disclose the rankings on applications or concept papers."]
[76,"2016-03-23","Cost Sharing","Does the $8 MM budget cap (for topic area 2) include the cost share portion, or is this the total amount to be requested in DOE funding?","Please see question 56 above. "]
[77,"2016-03-23","Application Content/Format","Other than the $8 MM cap, do you have any other budget recommendations? Will high budget projects be looked upon unfavorably?","Please see Section V Application Review "]
[78,"2016-03-23","Due Dates","Can the deadline for submissions for MEGA-BIO be postponed until the recipients of BETO2 are known and debriefings are held? Currently MEGA-BIO is due April 15th, which is before the timeline BETO2 has indicated awards will be announced, and surely before debriefings will be held.","No. The deadline will not be postponed. "]
[79,"2016-03-23","Technical Topics","Is the 3 month duration for the validation effort included in the 36 month length of project?  Or is the project length 36 months PLUS the 3 month duration for the validation effort?","Please see question 70 above. "]
[80,"2016-03-24","Cost Sharing","I need a bit more clarification on the Cost Share Reduction determination on page 17 of the FOA.  We will be using the funds starting in FY17.  We will be the prime recipient on this award and we are an institution of higher education and will be doing more than 50% of the work, as measured by the total project cost.  With all 3 of those pieces (starting in FY17, prime an institution of higher education and doing more than 50% of the work) being taken into consideration we would then qualify for the 10% cost share under the requirements for the reduced recipient cost share for this grant, right?  There is just some confusion at our institution about if this is an FY16 reduction or FY17 for the 10% cost share requirement.","The 10% cost share waiver is for FY16. It is unknown at this time whether the cost share waiver will be extended for FY17 funding. If applicable, develop budgets utilizing the cost share waiver for the entire project.  EERE may renegotiate with selectees if cost share requirements change in future years."]
[81,"2016-03-25","Application Content/Format","I have a questions on the SF-424.   Is there a Competition Identification Number and title for this award?","Block 13 of the SF424 is not a required field and can be skipped"]
[82,"2016-03-25","Application Content/Format","Is the prime institution allowed to add an additional co-PI from its institution that would support the intellectual merit even though he was not named in the concept paper?","Yes"]
[83,"2016-03-25","Application Content/Format","Is the prime institution allowed to increase the amount of its contribution from 56% to 58% if this is allowed?  This will also reduce the collaborating institution’s amount by 2%.","Yes"]
[84,"2016-03-25","Application Content/Format","I can only see a part of the comments after I logged into  http://eere-exchange.energy.gov/login.aspx. Can you let me know how to get the full comments for concept paper 1433-1503?","Please contact the EXCHANGE Help desk for any issues regarding access"]
[85,"2016-03-28","Application Content/Format","Can the project duration be changed (reduced) from the concept paper submission?","Yes"]
[86,"2016-03-28","Application Content/Format","I see in the FAQs for this FOA that the 3 month validation period can extend the length of the project from 36 to 39 months.  My question pertains to the EERE 335 Budget Justification.  Including the 3 month validation period, would we now have 4 budget periods?  ","It is up to the applicant to determine the timing and schedule of the project. There only needs to be one intermediate validation. Please note Budget Periods are not restricted to a 12 month period (i.e. an applicant could propose two 18 month Budget Periods). Applicants are allowed to add additional Budget Period columns but are cautioned to ensure the embedded formulas in the spreadsheet remain intact.  "]
[87,"2016-03-28","Application Content/Format","Can you please provide some guidance on how to answer Question 19 on the SF 424 application form: \"Is Application Subject to Review By State Under Executive Order 12372 Process?\"  The place of business of the prime recipient, and where the program work will be primarily managed (and a lot of the work will be performed), will be in a state that is not covered. Some of the work will be performed at a testing facility that is in a state that is covered. How do we respond to this section 19?\n","DOE recommends the applicant check with the covered state's SPOC (https://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/grants_spoc/) and ask them for additional guidance."]
[88,"2016-03-28","Application Content/Format","Please provide the name of the Contracting Officer for this opportunity so that we may properly address the letters of support from our partners.","You may address documentation to a generic \"DOE Contracting Officer\", as the Contracting Officer's information is not publically available.  See above Question and Answer number 73. "]
[89,"2016-03-30","Technical Topics","The DOE price of gasoline equivalence $3.00 in 2022, does this include RIN value or any tax credit?","No, it does not include tax credits or RIN values."]
[90,"2016-03-30","Cost Sharing","We are an institution of higher education doing more than 50% of the work. Does our project start date need to be in FY16 in order to get the 10% cost share waiver?","Please see question 80 above. "]
[91,"2016-03-31","Application Content/Format","I am hoping you can provide some clarification regarding subrecipient requirements for this FOA.  On page 30 of the FOA, the instructions state that any subaward recipient receiving at least $250,000 or 25 percent of the total work effort must complete Form EERE 335. We have two subrecipients who will receive less than this.  How do we account for their budget in the proposal?","The sub-recipient's budget amounts should be reflected on the 'Contractual' tab of the EERE 335 for the Prime Recipient. "]
[92,"2016-03-31","Technical Topics","the BETOMegabioFOA specifies that we ought to plan to attend bi-annual Peer Review Process meetings. The term bi-annual is ambiguous, does this mean twice a year or once every two years?","Once every two years. "]
[93,"2016-04-02","Application Content/Format","Is a PI change allowed for the project going forward? ","Yes"]
[94,"2016-04-02","Application Content/Format","Is it okay to change the number of objectives and budget?","Yes"]
[95,"2016-04-04","Application Content/Format","Can you please direct me on where to find an example of the “Validation and Participation Acknowledgement” upload","Please see question 64 above."]
[96,"2016-04-04","Data Management","There is a section in the Full Application to submit a Data Management Plan, but the FOA states that DMPs are only needed if the Full Application is selected for award negotiations","Please see question 66 above."]
[97,"2016-04-04","Application Content/Format","Please advise if there is template language to use for the Validation Participation Acknowledgement.","Please see question 64 above."]
[98,"2016-04-04","Application Content/Format","Please confirm whether this FOA is paid for by ARRA funding.","ARRA Funding is not being utilized for this FOA."]
[99,"2016-04-04","Application Content/Format","Please clarify whether there are font and margin requirements for the Technical Volume section.","Please see Section IV Application and Submission Information, Section A Application Process"]
[100,"2016-04-04","Technical Topics","Please advise if computer deskwork performed outside the United States would necessitate submission of a Waiver for Performance of Work in the United States","Yes"]
[101,"2016-04-05","Cost Sharing","We have a question regarding in-kind cost contributions.  Should elements of the in-kind cost share be broken out and listed on pages A thru I of the budget justification workbook, along with all prime contractor costs?  Or should we just be listing it as a lump sum cost share on the cost share page of the budget justification workbook?  ","The EERE 335 should include all project costs, with the total DOE and Recipient share combined into the total cost of each line item expense. The 'Cost Share' tab should annotate the in-kind and cash amounts being cost shared by the Prime and any applicable third party cost share contributors."]
[102,"2016-04-05","Application Content/Format","The SOPO template for this FOA specifies that it is to be limited to 5 pages, including the summary table. The level of detail required for a three year SOPO, including the summary table and gant chart, makes it virtually impossible to fit into 5 pages.  for example, the table templates provided as examples are each 3 or 4 pages long on their own. Should we err on the side of page limitation or detail required?","The table templates are for example only and may need to be shortened. Only the first 5 pages submitted as the SOPO will be considered."]
[103,"2016-04-06","Cost Sharing","The question is, should the in-kind cost share contributions be included as direct project costs, like the prime contractor with personnel, fringe, etc.  or do we only place them on the cost share page?  ","See question 101 above."]
[104,"2016-04-06","Cost Sharing","On the EERE 335 Detailed Budget Justification please clarify the following. We will be submitting the Application as the prime recipient with an unincorporated consortia, the consortia members will not be receiving any DOE funding, only the prime. The consortia members will be contributing in-kind cost-share. Do we need to put all the elements of this in-kind cost-share in tabs a. through i. or just list this in tab j.? The other consortia members are not sub-recipients or vendors, they are our strategic partners that will be supplying in-kind labor and materials as their in-kind contribution.recipient will.  "," See question 101 above, and Appendix A of the FOA document. "]
[105,"2016-04-06","Application Content/Format","Regarding the attached RFP, could you please let me know if a subawardee should submit their own SF424, or is the subawardee budget justification the only requirement?","Please see Section IV Application and Submission Information for the requirements of the  full application."]
[106,"2016-04-06","Application Content/Format","I’m working with the budget periods and I understand that the Go/NoGo (3 months) should be in Budget Period 1.  Do you have a problem with Budget Period 2 being 21 months and Budget Period 3 being 12 months in length?","Please see question 86 above."]
[107,"2016-04-06","Application Content/Format","I am working on the budget justification workbook for the DE-FOA-0001433.  I have a 3 year budget and understand that I need to break out the year 1 budget into a 3 month go-no-go period.  Do I include the entire 1st year budget in the Budget period 1 and label the portion for the go-no-go period as task 1?","Budget Periods should align with Go/No-Go Decision Points. Please see question 86 above. "]
[108,"2016-04-06","Application Content/Format","I guess the biggest question is does the budget periods have to be in 12 month increments?  Can we do 3 months in period 1, 16 months in period 2, and 17 months in period 3?  Or whatever it takes not to add a fourth column.","Please see question 86 above."]
[109,"2016-04-07","Cost Sharing","I just want to confirm that we only need to include 10% cost share for the submission with the understanding that we may have to increase if the waiver is not extended.","See Section III.B. \"Cost Sharing\" of the FOA document. "]
[110,"2016-04-07","Labs/FFRDCs","Please confirm whether or not NREL, a DOE FFRDC, applying as a Subrecipient to Mega Bio DE-FOA-0001433, would be paid directly by DOE.","Funding agreements between DOE, the Prime and applicable FFRDC's are negotiated once selections are made.  Typically, FFRDC's are paid directly by DOE.\""]
[111,"2016-04-07","Cost Sharing","We anticipate utilizing the waiver for 10%.  However the indication is that waiver is only for FY16 funds.  Understanding future budgets are yet to be determined, should we determine 10% cost share in FY16 and 20% in last two periods (FY17 and FY18)? Or can we indicate 10% cost share for all periods at this time?","It is unknown at this time whether the cost share waiver will be extended for FY17 funding. If applicable, develop budgets utilizing the cost share waiver for the entire project.  EERE may renegotiate with selectees if cost share requirements change in future years."]
[112,"2016-04-07","Application Content/Format","The link to the Federal Assistance Reporting Checklist is broken, can you please provide a new link? ","http://www1.eere.energy.gov/financing/resources.html"]
[113,"2016-04-08","Application Content/Format","We need to submit SF-LLL forms for two of our sub-recipients, but Exchange appears to only allow one SF-LLL to be uploaded and will not permit additional documents","Exchange has been updated to allow more than one submission of the SF-LLL."]
[114,"2016-04-08","Technical Topics","Are we allowed to change the bioproduct being targeted from what was in the concept paper if we can provide justification that it can enable the biofuels industry?","That is not a problem but the applicant should be advised that the concept paper reviews provided feedback on the appropriateness of the target bio product. The applicant risks targeting a bio product that would have been discouraged at the concept paper stage. "]
[115,"2016-04-08","Cost Sharing","The answer refers to question 102 which relates to ARRA funding and has nothing to do with cost sharing. Can you please clarify the answers for questions 107 and 108?","Please note that line numbers do not match question numbers. For question numbers, please see column A. The questions were updated with the correct answer \"see question 101.\" "]
[116,"2016-04-10","Technical Topics","My question refers to the Technical and Economic data table, Technoeconomics tab. Does the column \"Final Target Process\" correspond to a commercial facility incorporating our technology at the end of the 3 year grant period, or incorporating our technology beyond the grant period when all commercial targets are hit? For early TRL projects, the readiness at the end of the grant period will not be at the desired final commercial targets.","“Final Target Process\" corresponds to a commercial facility incorporating technology at the end of the 3 year grant period. "]
[117,"2016-04-10","Application Content/Format","Sheet “I” of the Budget Justification spreadsheet says, “When this option is checked, the entity preparing this form shall submit an indirect rate proposal in the format provided by your DOE contact, or a format that provides the same level of information and which will support the rates being proposed for use in performance of the proposed project.” Is there a template for submitting such a proposal, and if not, please provide information on the preferred format.","A template is not provided for this requirement. However, a sample indirect rate proposal is available at: http://www1.eere.energy.gov/financing/resources.html"]
[118,"2016-04-11","Application Content/Format"," The FOA requires funds for validation.  We were going to put those funds in the EERE 335 as budget period 1 and then have 3 additional budget periods for the research component of the project.  However, the EERE 335 form only allows 3 budget periods – are we allowed to add additional budget periods or is there a different form that we can use?","Applicants are allowed to add additional Budget Period columns but are cautioned to ensure the embedded formulas in the spreadsheet remain intact."]
[119,"2016-04-12","Application Content/Format","If our institution is not involved in lobbying activities is the SF LLL Disclosure of Lobbying Activities required as part of the proposal?","No"]
[120,"2016-04-12","Application Content/Format","If we do not have a current federally approved indirect rate agreement, should an indirect rate proposal be submitted with the application? If yes, do we include it as an additional file in EERE?","Yes"]
[121,"2016-04-12","Application Content/Format","Do you recommend that I modify the form EERE_335 to add another Budget Period? The form currently only contains 3 Budget Periods","Applicants are allowed to add additional Budget Period columns but are cautioned to ensure the embedded formulas in the spreadsheet remain intact."]
[122,"2016-05-09","Due Dates","Is DOE on track to stay on the schedule proposed in the FOA?","Yes, DOE is on schedule for the tentative dates posted in the FOA."]
[123,"2016-05-23","Due Dates","Can you please confirm the deadline to reply to Reviewer Comments for DE-FOA-0001433?\n\nDeadline confirmation in response from reviewers is 5/25/2016 – 8:00 PM, is this EST?\n","The deadline for responses to reviewer comments is 5/25/2016 , 8:00 PM ET."]
[124,"2016-05-23","Technical Topics","Is cellulosic EtOH in scope for this FOA?","On page 7 of the FOA under “Applications specifically not of interest,” the FOA states: \nThe following types of applications will be deemed nonresponsive and will not be reviewed or considered (See Section III.D of the FOA): Applications that propose the production of alcohols or biogas as a final fuel product. Note that while ethanol and biogas are unacceptable final products, they will be accepted as process intermediates for upgrading to other advanced biofuels and products, if derived from applicable biomass sources. \n"]
[125,"2016-05-24","Application Content/Format","In the initial full application submission, [applicant] did not include a Letter of Commitment from our Subcontractor, with associated project cost, which was not a required document.  A reviewer of the [applicant's] proposal has expressed interest in seeing this letter.  Is it possible to include the letter as an Appendix to our Review response, without the letter being included in the three page limitation?","You may include the letter in your Review Response, however the response must conform to the 3-page maximum requirement set forth in FOA section IV.F. "]

{"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"]