U.S. Department of Energy Advanced Reactor Demonstration Program

Admin Keyword Search:       Clear filter Submit a Question Date Questions & Answers 5/14/2020   1. Has the solicitation been issued? If not, when will it be issued? The solicitation has now been issued as of May 14, 2020.   5/14/2020   2. Does DOE intend to issue a draft ARDP FOA for comment by interested parties? No, a draft ARDP FOA is not planned. The final FOA was issued on May 14, 2020.   5/14/2020   3. If a draft ARDP FOA is not planned, how does DOE plan to get feedback from interested parties and hear their concerns, questions, and suggestions on the language of the ARDP FOA? In order to address industry needs, the Department issued a Request for Information/Notice of Intent in February 2020 to provide stakeholders with an early opportunity to help DOE shape the content of the ARDP FOA. Going forward, DOE will provide interested parties with the opportunity to ask questions on the ARDP FOA and provide answers. DOE will also conduct an Industry Day for interested parties to learn more about the program and solicitation requirements, including additional opportunities for Q&A.  5/14/2020   4. What program elements will the ARDP FOA include? The ARDP FOA is comprised of three separate technology development and demonstration pathways. Applicants will need to determine which pathway is the best fit for their proposed project. Pathway 1: Advanced Reactor Demonstrations (Demos) – Projects supported under this pathway are expected to result in a fully-functional, advanced light-water or non-light water nuclear fission reactor to be licensed by the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) and be operational within five to seven years of award. DOE will support all activities, including construction, required to achieve the operational demonstration. Pathway 2: Risk Reduction for Future Demonstrations Program (Risk Reduction) – Projects supported under this pathway will focus on preparing/maturing those reactor designs and technologies that are nearly ready for selection under the Demos so that they can be demonstrated in the near- to mid-term (i.e., approximately five years later than the Demos). Activities proposed under this program would address technical, operational, and regulatory challenges facing the designs, such as: developing representative test facilities and conducting experiments; performing modeling and simulation of the design to address operational and safety issues; developing of innovative plant safety systems; development and submittal of a design certification application, construction permit, and/or site license application, depending on the preferred licensing pathway; and major component or system prototyping and/or manufacture, proving the ability to design and operate innovative capabilities. Pathway 3: Advanced Reactor Concepts 2020 (ARC-20) Program – Projects supported under the ARC-20 pathway will focus on innovative and diverse designs that are lower on the Technology Readiness Level (TRL) scale than Demos or Risk Reduction projects, and that have a commercialization horizon in the mid-2030s. These programs are expected to be in the conceptual design phase, during which essential functions and capabilities of the proposed reactor technology are being identified, design specifications are being solidified, and early licensing requirements established.   5/14/2020   5. How does the Advanced Small Modular Reactor (SMR) Research and Development (R&D) Program relate to this FOA? The Advanced SMR R&D Program is NOT part of the ARDP FOA. Government support for the Advanced SMR R&D Program is awarded separately from the ARDP FOA. The Advanced SMR R&D Program is intended to facilitate industry’s development of a variety of near- to mid-term SMR designs that have the potential to replace much of the existing fossil generation infrastructure due to their potential for improved affordability, resilience, siting flexibility, and safety profiles. The program focuses on cost-shared, private-public R&D partnerships to address technical, operational, and regulatory challenges specific to SMRs such as multi-module control, integrating primary components inside a reactor pressure vessel, and reduction of emergency planning zones. Competitive awards for the Advanced SMR R&D Program are supported through the U.S. Industry Opportunities for Advanced Nuclear Technology Development Funding Opportunity Announcement (Industry FOA). Per Congressional direction, any entity other than a national laboratory that receives fiscal year 2020 funds of more than $200,000 under the Advanced SMR R&D program is not eligible to receive fiscal year 2020 funds from the ARDP.   5/14/2020   6. Can you provide other detail about the ARDP FOA schedule? DOE issued the ARDP FOA on May 14, 2020. Industry Day will be on 2, 3 Jun 2020. For prime entities wanting a 1-on-1 meeting, these are on 4, 5 June. Letters of Intent from all interested applicants are required by 11 Jun 2020. Full application submittals are required 90 days following final FOA release, on 12 Aug 2020. Timing of award review and selection processes will differ for each of the FOA pathways. After selection announcements, award negotiations and processing will occur, followed by the actual issuance of the awards. Demos awards are a tentatively expected to be issued in the last quarter of CY20, with Risk Reduction and ARC-20 awards expected in the first quarter of CY21.  5/14/2020   7. Where and how will the final ARDP FOA be released to the public? The ARDP FOA has been officially announced and posted on the Government’s Grants.gov website. DOE made efforts to ensure the public has been notified of the ARDP FOA release through multiple channels, including postings on the DOE FedConnect website, the DOE’s Office of Nuclear Energy (NE) website, the DOE’s Idaho Operations Office ARDP FOA website for this FOA, and on the National Reactor Innovation Center (NRIC) website (being developed) and the Gateway for Accelerated Innovation (GAIN).   5/14/2020   8. The DOE sought industry feedback on this solicitation with a prior Request for Information/Notice of Intent (RFI/NOI); will DOE share what this feedback was? There was much valuable feedback provided that has helped inform DOE’s process and shaped how the FOA will read. A summary of some of the main feedback received is as follows: • Government approach of using a single FOA is preferable to industry, including both Demonstrations and Risk Reduction activities • NRC needs to be actively engaged • HALEU supply for demonstrations and commercial deployment is a major concern for nearly all respondents . • Consistent DOE funding due to federal government budget process • Preference for a payment for milestone approach • Industry desires a Draft FOA to comment on before the official release • Industry prefers graded implementation of cost share Some of these feedback ideas will be implemented, while others may not. DOE very much appreciates the feedback provided.   5/14/2020   9. For the Risk Reduction and the ARC-20 program, is the period of time over which the award must be spent limited to one year or can the funds be spent over a longer term? The amounts DOE has to obligate are fiscal year 2020 appropriations, and these are to initiate the awards. These funds can be spent over a longer term (across multiple years). We also anticipate additional funding in future years, depending on congressional appropriations.  5/14/2020   10. Is fuel fabrication and qualification allowed under the cost share? Yes, so long as the costs for it occur within the project period of performance and are otherwise found to be allowable, allocable, and reasonable.   5/14/2020   11. Will the total amount of the awards under the Risk Reduction pathway and ARC20 still be $30 million and $20 million, respectively? The Risk Reduction and ARC-20 respective $30 million and $20 million amounts represent available Fiscal Year 2020 funding to initiate the awards under these two pathways; they do not necessarily represent total amounts for individual awards.  5/14/2020   12. Will the number of potential awardees under the Risk Reduction pathway still be up to 5 awardees? How many potential awardees will there be under ARC-20? DOE anticipates selecting between 2 - 5 Risk Reduction awards, and two ARC-20 awards. The available funding this fiscal year will be split among these awards. We plan to incrementally fund awards and anticipate future appropriations to continue to fund the awards going forward.  5/14/2020   13. The RFI indicated that work under the award must be performed in the United States, but talked about a waiver process. Can you please elaborate on the waiver process? The FOA requires that all work under the awards resulting from the FOA must be performed in the U.S., unless otherwise waived by DOE, but that this requirement will not apply to the purchase of services or equipment at or below $250,000. However, it is also anticipated that the Awardee should make reasonable efforts to purchase services and equipment within the U.S. For foreign equipment purchases or for labor over this threshold to be done outside the U.S., it is anticipated that a waiver will be necessary. The FOA will list the necessary information that must be included in a request to waive the Performance of Work in the U.S. requirement. DOE anticipates that the waiver request process will apply to both pre-award as part of the application, and post-award during performance for foreign purchases or work that was not proposed/approved as part of the application process.   5/14/2020   14. What about other foreign involvement apart from labor and supplies? Will the FOA permit foreign investment, including to be used as part of awardee cost share? The FOA specifies that preference may be given for U.S. content, technology, expertise, etc., in selecting applicants for award under the FOA. Applications that have the potential to enhance U.S. nuclear infrastructure may also be given preferential consideration, although it is anticipated that DOE may also consider potential contributions of foreign expertise and supply chains. DOE may consider foreign influence in the selection of applications, including type and amount of foreign involvement in the project, as well as any foreign ownership, control, or influence (FOCI) issues. Regarding foreign investment, including use of foreign funds for recipient cost sharing, DOE anticipates that this will be permitted. However, applicants should also be aware that as part of the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) licensing process, foreign ownership and control may also be a consideration, and while some level of foreign investment is permitted, the NRC may require a negation action plan or other instrument to make sure safety and security decisions are not made by foreign interests. Applicants should work directly with NRC on this matter.   5/14/2020   15. The Answer to Question 4 provided additional detail about Pathway 2. However, comparatively less detail was provided about Pathway 3. Can more information be provided about Pathway 3, either now or before the FOA is issued? Also, the Answer to Question 4 says that Pathway 3 will focus on innovative and diverse designs. Can more information be provided about this focus? For example, in assessing the innovation and diversity of a design, what will be the reference set for this assessment (e.g., those applying under Pathway 3, designs generally being funded under the ARD program, or some other basis)? Pathway 3, ARC-20, is a research and development (R&D) effort to focus on innovative and diverse advanced reactor technologies in their earliest phases of design, with the potential of being demonstrated much later - in the 2035 timeframe. The awards resulting from this pathway will support this overall project objective but include only those activities in the applicant’s proposed work scope that can be completed within the next five years from the effective date of the award.  5/14/2020   16. Can we get our background information protected at the DOE National Labs if we work with them on this project and they get access to this data? Applicants desiring to protect background data at National Laboratories industry are encouraged to use the CRADA process for this purpose.  5/14/2020   17. Question 1 says, 'DOE intends to release the ARDP FOA in late April 2020'. Can you please confirm if that is still the schedule? The FOA was released on May 14, 2020.   5/14/2020   18. In the RFI stage, DOE emphasized the importance of the applicant having a Federally approved indirect rate agreement. Can you please provide additional information on this as well as assistance for who we contact to get this in place? As part of your application you must submit a detailed narrative description of the proposed project (i.e., a project plan) and an associated budget with supporting justification. The budget is the financial plan for the proposed project. The budget will normally include indirect costs. When deciding whether to submit an application in response to the FOA, determine if your organization already has a federally established indirect cost rate. If so, identify this in your budget supporting documentation along with a copy of any federally established rate agreement. If not, you will need to: a. Determine if you are eligible to use a de minimus indirect rate of 10% (see 2 CFR 200.414 for details), or b. Obtain a federally established indirect cost rate. If you do not have a current federally established indirect cost rate you will be required to submit additional information including an indirect rate cost proposal, and additional Government reviews will be Funding Opportunity Number: DE-FOA-0002271 7 required to evaluate, negotiate and determine an appropriate rate. These actions can take an extended period of time (up to six months) to complete so it is vitally important to begin these as early on as possible so as not to unduly delay the application submittal or award process. To start the process if you do not have a federally established indirect cost rate: Identify and contact your cognizant federal agency for indirect costs (see 2 CFR 200.19) and/or request the agency provide you with information/requirements needed to submit an indirect rate cost proposal. The process to establish indirect rates and information needed to do this may vary between agencies. If you are unable to identify your cognizant agency or do not have a cognizant agency, please send an email to advancedreactordemonstration@id.doe.gov to notify DOE of your need to establish a federally approved rate agreement, including to provide the following: Organization name, address and organization representative name, title and email address. Following this, we will contact you with the next steps.  5/14/2020   19. We are interested in getting DOE approval for pre-award costs. How soon can we do this; is it acceptable to request approval for pre-award costs before the issuance of the FOA? Pre-award costs are those incurred prior to the effective date of the Federal award directly pursuant to the negotiation and in anticipation of the Federal award where such costs are necessary for efficient and timely performance of the approved project. Such costs are allowable only to the extent that they would have been allowable if incurred after the date of the Federal award and only with the written approval of the contracting officer. As specified in 2 CFR Part 200.308, all costs incurred before DOE makes the award are at the recipient's risk (i.e. DOE is under no obligation to reimburse such costs for if for any reason the applicant does not receive a Federal award or if the Federal award is less than anticipated and inadequate to cover such costs). There is no set time as to when an applicant can submit a request to the contracting officer for a pre-award cost approval. In practice, however, they are requested after issuance of the FOA, and typically are made after selection announcement but prior to award.   5/20/2020   20. 11-point Times New Roman (TNR) font in exhibits prevents the ability to fully depict concept technical solutions as required by the FOA. Will the Government allow smaller than 11-point TNR font and the use of a san serif font (e.g., Arial Narrow) for exhibits only (tables and figures), which will increase the legibility to depict complex concepts? Yes, this will be permissible. The FOA will officially reflect this change on the next FOA modification.   5/27/2020   21. This is a question about Pathways 2 and 3: Can the dollar amount of a company's proposal be reduced after it is submitted, either by the Company or DOE? For example, in deciding among proposals, may DOE determine that an award of some amount lower than the amount proposed by the Company is appropriate in light of other proposals? Applicants can change or amend their submitted application in any way (including dollar amounts proposed) and any time prior to the time/date set in the FOA for receipt of applications. After that time/date, applications cannot be changed by the applicant except after selection announcement and as part of the negotiation process for award. However, after the time/date set for receipt of applications, the application may be withdrawn by the applicant. When executing financial assistance awards, DOE reserves the right without qualification, to select any application in whole or in part, as a basis for negotiation and/or award. However, although an application may be selected or even awarded, the applicant is not under the obligation to accept the award - recipients are free to accept or reject the award. But, a request to draw down DOE funds constitutes the Recipient's acceptance of the award, including all its terms and conditions. The Government may also enter into discussions with a selected applicant for any reason deemed necessary, including but not limited to if the budget is not appropriate or reasonable for the requirement, or only a portion of the application is selected for award.  5/27/2020   22. To the extent that an applicant for the ARD (demos) award is partnering with a foreign entity, what factors or limitations are placed on the partnership (e.g. JV, teaming arrangement, jointly owned corporation) with respect to the US and foreign entity(ies) use/share of awarded grant funds? Additionally, given the global supply chain used for nuclear power, are there any factors or limitations placed on use of foreign technologies or manufactured components, either currently licensed in the US or that may be in the future? The FOA will specify that applications will be requested from all interested U.S. sources and will encourage interested parties to join together in teams/joint ventures to ensure the successful commercial deployment of the Demo projects. In keeping with the Administration's priorities, DOE only plans to consider awards with prime awardees/recipients that are owned, organized, and operated within the U.S. The FOA will require prime applicants to submit information to show that they meet the eligibility requirements set forth in 2 CFR 910.124. Prime applicants must also submit information to show that they are not owned, controlled, or dominated by an alien, a foreign corporation, or a foreign government as set forth in the NRC's regulations at 10 CFR 50.38, and that their application would not be inimical to the common defense and security or public health and safety as required by 10 CFR 50.40. It is anticipated that the FOA and any resultant awards will require that work be performed in the U.S. unless otherwise approved by DOE. This requirement will not apply to the purchase of supplies and equipment at or below $250,000; however, the Awardee should make reasonable efforts to purchase supplies and equipment within the U.S. The Awardee must also flow down this requirement to its subrecipients. Knowing the current state of the nuclear power industry including the supply chain in the U.S., DOE recognizes that some foreign involvement may be needed; accordingly, the FOA requires a waiver for foreign equipment purchases or for labor over the $250,000 threshold. This waiver request process applies to both the pre-award period (if pre-award costs are requested), and the post-award period during performance for foreign purchases or work that was not proposed/approved as part of the application process. Applications proposing work outside the U.S. must clearly specify what work is to be done, by which entity, where the work is to be performed, the estimated time period for the work, the estimated dollar value of the work, and the rationale/justification for doing the work outside the U.S. Waiver requests will be evaluated as part of the selection process for applicants.  5/27/2020   23. Please clarify what is meant by the ARD (demos) cost-shared projects being able to demonstrate having "the potential to be operational in five to seven years" following award. What constitutes "potential to be operational", i.e. does this mean receipt of an NRC approval (e.g. a COL under 10 CFR 52 or a CP or OL under 10 CFR 50), or that all non-field technology testing (e.g. lab or proto-type testing be completed), or simply that construction has begun, or something else? As a part of the application review process, the Department will need to evaluate whether the proposed advanced reactor can be designed, sited, licensed by the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), constructed, and have performed start-up and testing to assure the advanced reactor is operational and functioning (e.g., producing electricity, process heat, etc.) within 5 – 7 years.  5/27/2020   24. With respect to the ARD (demos) award, is this funding mutually exclusive from financing support through the DOE's Loan Program Office (LPO)? One could envision that the ARD funding could be available for the early or demonstration phases of the project, while the LPO funding could help back end construction and startup phases. Is that possible? Can they be used as complementary funding tools? Also, can the two funding programs be used in series, first with demonstration funds followed by other funds such as the LPO? ARD demo funding and LPO funding are mutually exclusive. However, there are no restrictions at the current time regarding these funds, such that using ARD funds does not preclude use of LPO funds at a later time. The FOA contemplates that ARD funding will be used to demonstrate the advanced nuclear reactor, including to fund construction and startup.  5/27/2020   25. The FOA in section 2.2.2, refers to additional possible awards being made. Can you please provide additional details and specify how this will be done? DOE may make additional awards if determined appropriate. Should an awarded project not be completed for any reason prior to the end of the award's project period of performance, DOE may make additional award(s) from applications submitted under this FOA. These new awards will be considered as competitively reviewed and awarded under this FOA, so long as the new awards from applications submitted in response to this competitive FOA remain within the programmatic boundaries of the FOA and were otherwise considered meritorious under the merit review criteria of the FOA. Should this occur, DOE would verify the Applicant's continued eligibility, capability, and willingness to accept an award, and the Applicant may be permitted to make certain updates to its application; however, all revisions made to the application must be approved by DOE and must remain within the programmatic boundaries of this FOA and the original merit review.  5/27/2020   26. Will DOE allow projects proposed to include isotope production as a commercially viable fission reactor? Yes, so long as the project otherwise meets FOA requirements.  5/27/2020   27. Can DOE provide any NRC licensing assumptions ? The following information is provided in response, but this is not to be considered as official pronouncements from NRC. See the links to NRC's Regulatory Review Roadmap for Non-Light Water Reactors and NRC's Generic Milestone Schedules at https://www.nrc.gov/about-nrc/generic-schedules.html. Also, for non-LWRs, the Draft Non-Light Water Review Strategy Staff White Paper https://www.nrc.gov/docs/ML1927/ML19275F299.pdf?dated September 2019 provides a list of key areas related to the licensing basis of the facility that could be addressed during preapplication interactions. In regards to Permitting, See NEI 10-07, Revision 1, "Industry Guideline for Effective Pre- Interactions With Agencies Other Than NRC During the Early Site Permit Process," https://www.nrc.gov/docs/ML1302/ML13028A392.pdf. Appendix B of this document provides a list of federal, state, and local agency contacts for the benefit of prospective applicants. In regards to Licensing, applicants may refer to NRC's "A Regulatory Review Roadmap for Non-Light Water Reactors," https://www.nrc.gov/docs/ML1731/ML17312B567.pdf for a description of the different licensing processes in 10 CFR Parts 50 and 52. This document encourages early pre-application engagement with the NRC to help better understand the different licensing processes and the use of Regulatory Engagement Plans to define desired outcomes from various interactions between the designer and the NRC. Appendix A includes information regarding NRC testing requirements for advanced reactors in 10 CFR 50.43(e), including when a prototype plant might be needed. Because of the short timeframe associated with the DOE demonstration project, NRC sees 10 CFR Part 50 construction permit and operating license or 10 CFR Part 52 custom combined license (without an early site permit and without a design certification) as the likely licensing processes.  5/27/2020   28. We are struggling to decide whether our technology should be used to apply for a Demo or a Risk Reduction award. Can DOE please give guidance? Ultimately which pathway to apply for is a determination to be made by the applicant. However, please refer to Section 1 of the FOA for guidance on which pathway to apply for. Please also see the Technology Readiness Level (TRL) scale from DOE Guide 413.3-4, U.S. Department of Energy Technology Readiness Assessment Guide in Appendix H of the FOA to help with this decision.  5/27/2020   29. Please specify any restrictions on applying for funding for Demos and Risk Reduction. Please refer to Section 3 of the FOA for complete details on this. This includes the following restrictions: Demos and Risk Reduction: Any prime applicant that receives fiscal year 2020 funds of more than $200,000 under the DOE's Advanced Small Modular Reactor R&D program is not eligible to receive fiscal year 2020 funds from the ARDP. By applying for this FOA, applicants are certifying they comply with this requirement. Risk Reduction: Any entity selected as one of the two Demos is not eligible to receive funding for a Risk Reductions project associated with the same advanced reactor design as selected for the Demos.  5/27/2020   30. Can the same applicant apply but different pathways? For example, if I have a specific reactor that I apply for funding for under a Demo to demonstrate it, can I also apply for an ARC-20 award to get some additional funding to complete some needed R&D for that reactor? How do we determine which pathway to apply under? Can we submit our concept to DOE early and have DOE help us know which pathway we should apply under? An applicant can apply under different pathways, but only if that applicant is applying under the different pathways for separate, distinct reactors; the applicant cannot apply for different pathways with the same reactor, except if the applicant is applying for a Demo but also wants to be considered for a Risk Reduction award for that specific reactor technology. As specified in Section 1.1 of the FOA, the solicitation is comprised of three separate pathways. Each applicant is to self-identify the maturity of its proposed advanced reactor technology based on technical, design and licensing maturity, as well as its manufacturing readiness, and to submit a single application for that reactor technology in the appropriate area, avoiding duplication of submittals for the same technology by the Applicant. If there is R&D to be worked on for your reactor technology, it is likely that it is not ready to demonstrate, and you should consider applying to ARC-20 to obtain funding to accomplish the R&D activity needed instead of a Demo award. If there are certain risks to be worked out in order to demonstrate the project, consider applying for a Risk Reduction award instead of a Demo award.  5/27/2020   31. Is there a certain percentage of work that the prime must do? How much is it? So far as DOE is concerned, there is no specific percentage of work that a prime must do. The FOA in paragraph 3.2.5 specifies, "The scope of work to be performed by the DOE FFRDC/NL contractor may not be more significant (e.g. funding ratio) than the scope of work to be performed by the Applicant."  5/27/2020   32. Can you please clarify page limits of the FOA? Which documents are considered to count as more than one page? Please see the tables by pathway in the FOA paragraph 5.5. Please see also paragraph 5.1.4 of the FOA.  5/27/2020   33. The program calls for building two advance reactors within 7 years. Given the time it takes for design, licensing, and construction, may we assume that these are projects already in development, most likely NuScale's small modular reactor and the Versatile Fast Test Reactor? Funding under this solicitation is not for DOE activities funded under the either DOE's Advanced Small Modular Reactor R&D program or the Versatile Fast Test Reactor. In fact, any prime applicant that receives fiscal year 2020 funds of more than $200,000 under DOE's Advanced Small Modular Reactor R&D program is not eligible to receive fiscal year 2020 funds from the ARDP solicitation. Advanced reactors in this solicitation are defined as any light water or non-light water fission reactor with significant improvements compared to the current generation of operational reactors in the U.S. fleet. The aggressive five to seven year timeline for an advanced reactor demonstration reflects our urgent need to deploy clean energy technologies, coupled with the number of advanced reactor developers already making progress toward commercial deployment. Advanced reactors in this solicitation are defined as any light water or non-light water fission reactor with significant improvements compared to the current generation of operational reactors in the U.S. fleet. This solicitation is intended to be "technology neutral", meaning that any advanced fission nuclear power reactor that is licensable and commercially viable may be proposed for award consideration. A number of U.S. advanced reactor developers have made substantial progress toward design maturation, supply chain development, regulatory engagement and development of strategic partnerships for commercialization. It is anticipated that a potentially successful applicant would likely have commenced conducting these and other important activities by the time of application.  5/27/2020   34. At the top of page 13 (end of 2.3), the ARC-20 estimated funding is stated to be "approximately" $20 million and that there will be "at least" two ARC-20 awards. Will more definitive guidance be given before the application due date as to the exact amount of the estimated funding and of the range of potential awardees? If not, will there be guidance before the application date on how the exact amount of funding and the number of awardees will be selected? DOE plans to initiate/award at least two ARC-20 cooperative agreements using the approximately $20 million it has in fiscal year 2020 funding. Depending on the proposed award sizes and the quality of applications, two awards could be made; accordingly, the exact number of awards cannot be specified at this time. Because DOE is directed in Congressional budget language to allocate a percentage of funds appropriated to Nuclear Energy Research and Development programs to fund university-led R&D and university infrastructure projects through the Nuclear Energy University Program (NEUP), the amount of funds available for ARC-20 activities may vary; accordingly, the exact amount of funding cannot be specified at this time. DOE does not anticipate it will be able to specify exact information regarding the number of ARC-20 awards or funding during the time period set in the solicitation for preparation of applications.  5/27/2020   35. Will DOE publish who attends Industry Day, including 1-on-1 sessions from Industry Day? Yes, DOE will provide a list of entities registered for Industry Day.  5/27/2020   36. Please differentiate between the types of projects that should be applied for under each pathway, as well as between this FOA and the iFOA? Please see the Advanced Reactor Demonstration FOA section 1, in particular the individual descriptions for each of the three pathways covered under this FOA. For the U.S. Industry Opportunities for Advanced Nuclear Technology Development FOA number DE-FOA-0001817, with particular emphasis on Section 1.C Industry Application Pathways. See that FOA at https://www.id.energy.gov/NEWS/FOA/FOAOpportunities/Industry FOA DE-FOA-0001817 Amend 007.pdf.  5/27/2020   37. Our company was recently selected by DOE for an Advanced Research Projects Agency–Energy (ARPA-E) award. Will accepting this ARPE-E preclude us from getting an ARD award? The ARD FOA does specify that any prime applicant that receives fiscal year 2020 funds of more than $200,000 under the DOE's Advanced Small Modular Reactor R&D program is not eligible to receive fiscal year 2020 funds from the ARDP. However, your acceptance of the ARPA-E award will not preclude you from applying for or receiving an ARD award since the ARPA-E award you are referring to does not use funds from the Advanced Small Modular Reactor R&D program. Any applicant with specific questions about this restriction should contact DOE.  6/18/2020   38. For the Risk Reduction projects, the total award size varies from $40-400 million during up to 5-7 years. Would it be possible to apply for a Risk Reduction Project that is 3 years but total size $20-30 million? Yes. These amounts in the FOA are guidelines. For Risk Reduction and ARC-20, or even for Demos, if the applicant can do it quicker or for less money, then that is just fine. It is recommended you provide DOE a realistic proposal for this in the application.   6/18/2020   39. Can multiple questions be submitted in a single file emailed to email given in the FOA section 8.1 instead of submitting one by one through this link? Yes, this is fine.  6/17/2020   40. The FOA states the offeror should "Indicate lead and collaborating sites where work will be performed" and "Demos. Indicate the primary site where the work will be done for pre-construction activities to be performed under the award." We assume this requirement includes pre-construction activities such as design, fabrication, and testing sites and not just the plant construction site. There are many sites where pre-construction project work is performed by the offeror, teammates, and suppliers. And although the requirement for US work performance is a flow-down, compiling a list to identify all project site locations for all pre-construction activities is significant and would consume a significant use of Project Narrative page allocation. For the purpose a FOA Project Narrative response would the Government consider limiting the scope of the Project Narrative response to a WBS level (e.g., level 4) or permitting the use of an Appendix (not within page limits) to provide the requested information. Does 5.8 apply to the location of the power plant site and supporting sites only? Yes, requirement includes pre-construction activities. FOA specifies this is to be the primary site(s) where the work will be done for pre-construction activities. <br /><br /> Demos. Indicate the primary site where the work will be done for pre-construction activities to be performed under the award. If a portion of the project will be performed at any other site(s), identify the site location(s) in the blocks provided. Indicate the actual construction location (if different than the location for the pre-construction activities and if this information is available at this time). <br /><br /> Risk Reduction and ARC -20. Indicate the primary site where the work will be performed. If a portion of the project will be performed at any other site(s), identify the site location(s) in the blocks provided. This will require the applicant to use its best judgement to determine the sites to be identified in the application. Applicants should specify primary work sites, meaning “significant” or “key”, as determined by the applicant. For example, if there are several of these, including key fabrication. <br /><br /> The FOA does not require the use of a WBS. A WBS may be used by the applicant if in the estimation of the applicant that this would help convey the applicant’s proposed project. The applicant must use its best judgement. <br /><br /> <strong>Demos</strong>. Indicate the primary site where the work will be done for pre-construction activities to be performed under the award. If a portion of the project will be performed at any other site(s), identify the site location(s) in the blocks provided. Indicate the actual construction location (if different than the location for the pre-construction activities and if this information is available at this time). <br /><br /> <strong>Risk Reduction and ARC -20</strong>. Indicate the primary site where the work will be performed. If a portion of the project will be performed at any other site(s), identify the site location(s) in the blocks provided.   7/1/2020   41. Will additional information be provided during the Industry Day presentations regarding the level of detail required for the Letter of Intent (number of pages, technical elements to address, etc)? No, the information required for the LOI is specified already in the FOA.   6/18/2020   42. Would proposals that address technical gaps spanning multiple reactor designs be of interest under this FOA? In other words, would proposals led by a third party entity (i.e., not reactor vendors or utility companies) targeting a cross-cutting technical issue be as desired as a proposal from a reactor vendor targeting a specific technical gap for their design? For ARC-20 awards, DOE is seeking technologies that are entering or already in the conceptual design phase. For the purposes of the FOA, conceptual design is defined as the period when essential functions and capabilities of the technology are being identified, design specifications are being solidified, and early licensing requirements are being established. You may want to consider applying under DOE’s Industry FOA (U.S. Industry Opportunities for Advanced Nuclear Technology Development FOA Number DE-FOA-0001817, instead.   6/18/2020   43. Will the government consider allowing the resultant cooperative agreement to include monthly invoicing of all incurred allowable, allocable, and reasonable costs? No. The Demos and Risk Reduction awards will be done using milestone based payments, with invoices tied to achievement of milestones. ARC-20 can do monthly invoicing, or may milestone based payments may be proposed, at the applicant’s option.   7/1/2020   44. Will the government consider allowing the resultant cooperative agreement to include monthly invoicing of all incurred allowable, allocable, and reasonable costs? For Demos and Risk Reduction awards, a milestone based payment approach is planned. This means the Government will pay after successful completion of milestones by the awardee. However, recognizing that some time may lapse between the time the milestone has begun until the milestone is achieved and invoiced for, DOE will permit the awardee to submit a monthly cost tracking document similar to an invoice of all incurred allowable, allocable, and reasonable costs for that month. DOE will review this information for completeness and adequacy just as it would for an invoice. This will allow the parties to track costs incurred and greatly assist in the timely processing/payment of the actual invoice submitted once a milestone is achieved. For ARC-20 awards, monthly invoicing is permitted.   6/18/2020   45. Can you expand on the role of milestone payments in cost share as discussed in Appendix O to help us understand if it is an option or if it is a new approach for DOE? Milestone based payments is not optional for Demos and Risk Reduction awards, but is optional for ARC-20 awards.  6/18/2020   46. Why is work for others, which would increase industry accountability, precluded as a vehicle for hiring FFRDC? Applicants to the ARD FOA may propose to have work done by FFRDCs/National Labs. The procedure DOE follows when doing financial assistance is to award to a DOE Lab under an FOA against the Lab’s existing prime contract with the Department through the DOE Work Authorization System, as outlined in DOE Order 412.1. DOE O 481.1, Strategic Partnership Projects (SPP; formally Work For Others), is not applicable. And, a new grant, cooperative agreement, contract, or technology investment agreement is not awarded. DOE Labs remain bound by the terms and conditions of their contract with DOE. Among other things, this ensures an efficient awardee access to Lab capabilities, as well as helps the Department to minimize its costs to accomplish its financial assistance activities. The DOE’s existing contracts have typically already been awarded competitively by DOE following extensive competitive source selections. They are existing contracts with the terms and conditions already negotiated, as well as with existing approved rates. Having the applicant go out to separately award these as new distinct awards would negate all of this expense and effort the DOE has already expended to get these awards in place. Additionally, the applicant would have to incur these costs to put these in place and turn around and pass these on to DOE. Keeping FFRDCs as separate awards under the work authorization system ensures the awardees do not place administrative pass through costs on these efforts; DOE already pays for these FFRDC resources under separate contracts. Keeping these as separate awards under the work authorization makes it clear this is DOE cost share for any awards. There are a number of other implications if an SPP were to be permitted under the cooperative agreement award beyond the scope of this Q&A, including in areas such as data rights, publication rights, etc. If an entity wants to do an SPP, then the SPP work scope should cannot be included as part of the cooperative agreement. The entity would have to negotiate the SPP separately with the Labs and have to pay 100% of the cost in keeping with the SPP full cost recovery requirements.   6/18/2020   47. Does DOE have any concerns with project recipients receiving cash investment from foreign sources to reduce the recipients' net level of investment? (Reference Appendix K) This must be fact specific and will be considered on case by case basis. See additional information in Q&A 14 on the FOA website.   6/18/2020   48. Would the DOE allow a company to be designated as a subrecipient for the pre-construction phase and then transition to a subcontractor for the construction phase? Yes this is fine, depending on the role they are playing in a given stage. Please identify in the application the role they are playing in each phase.   6/18/2020   49. Are there any limitations on performing pre-contruction and construction work at two sites under one DEMO proposal? If this is allowed, can a subrecipient become a prime recipient should the initial prime recipient exit the project, to prevent the project from terminating? (Reference RFP 2.2.2) So far as the FOA is concerned, with the exception of the US work requirements, there are no limitations regarding where work is to be done. If licensed by the NRC, there are limitations, depending on the licensing approach , but some work can be performed once requested/approved. Using the construction permit (CP) licensing process in 10 CFR Part 50 or the combined license (COL) licensing process in 10 CFR Part 50, construction (as defined in 10 CFR 50.10(a)(1)) can’t start until after the permit or license is issued, unless the applicant also requests a limited work authorization (LWA) in accordance with 10 CFR 50.10. An NRC-issued LWA allows holders of early site permits (ESPs), as well as CP and COL applicants, to perform certain limited construction activities before the issuance of the license, at their own risk. The LWA application needs to include a safety analysis report, an environmental report, and a plan for redress. The NRC performs both a safety review and an environmental review of a LWA application. The LWA includes a mandatory and potential contested hearing. If underlying CP or COL application is withdrawn or denied, then the holder must implement the redress plan submitted in the LWA and return the site to the pre-construction condition. Activities not defined as construction (see 10 CFR 50.10(a)(2)) can be performed without an NRC license, permit, or approval. The NRC can review two LWAs, CPs, or COLs at two different sites in parallel. A sub could not become a prime later on for the same award, unless there was some kind of novation agreement done. For financial assistance, and when doing a novation, DOE follows the procedures under the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) 42.12. If this were to happen and the subrecipient were to become a prime recipient (i.e. the applicant), then NRC will do a review to ensure that the new applicant is technically qualified (e.g. 10 CFR 50.34(a)(1)(ii)(E)(9)) and financially qualified (e.g. 10 CFR 50.33(f)) to perform the requested activity.  6/18/2020   50. In the event actual costs incurred (that are allowable, allocable, and reasonable) are greater than one of the milestone payment caps proposed and in the resultant contract, will the government allow those allowable costs exceeding that milestone payment cap to be eligible for cost share under the cooperative agreement? (Reference Appendix O - Section 58) Milestones and the associated milestone based payment amounts proposed and negotiated/accepted by the parties prior to award are estimates and are essentially cost caps that may not be exceeded, except as agreed to in writing by the Contracting Officer. Upon successful completion of a milestone, the recipient may invoice for the achievement of that milestone, at the actual amount of costs incurred reaching that milestone, in an amount not to exceed the milestone cost cap. DOE may allow costs to exceed caps. Any changes to proposed application milestone-based payments or proposed different/additional milestones will be proposed by the recipient at least 120 calendar days prior to the milestone completion date for DOE review and approval and negotiation with the recipient, if necessary. If the parties cannot agree on the milestones, milestone payments, amounts, etc., the Contracting Officer will issue a unilateral decision regarding these which is not subject to appeal.   6/18/2020   51. Since the project narrative file is limited by a page count, Is it acceptable to provide the whole schedule as an attachment/appendix to demonstrate the basis for the schedule plan instead of count it as part of the page count? (Reference Page 7 of the FOA,Page 27 of FOA references the PMP which includes the schedule baseline Page 44 to 46 Criteria) Yes. This is acceptable, and the FOA will be amended to clarify this.   6/18/2020   52. Can DOE please provide specific examples of what can be considered as pre-application engagement with the regulator under the ARC-20 pathway? Are there any specific points of contact within the NRC that DOE would recommend? ARC-20 applications should have a commercialization horizon of 10-17 years. Since the goal of this pathway is to assist the progression of advanced reactor designs in their earliest phases of design, early engagement with NRC could influence concept maturity research priorities. During pre-application engagement, the NRC can tailor its interactions to match the needs of the developer. These interactions can include activities such as exchanges of information, developers submitting white papers to the NRC for verbal feedback during a meeting, or submitting topical reports and NRC documenting conditional or conclusive staff findings in safety evaluations which can be referenced in subsequent license applications. The NRC staff developed guidance on pre-application engagement, among other items, in document, "A Regulatory Review Roadmap for Non-Light Water Reactors." The "roadmap" is also intended to help designers prepare technology- or design-specific regulatory engagement plans. Regulatory engagement plans define desired outcomes from various interactions between the designer and the NRC, considering factors such as the resources available to the designer and the NRC and the coordination of regulatory issues with other aspects of the overall program for developing and deploying non-LWR designs. Regulatory engagement plans also define the timing and scope of regulatory interactions in order to align with stakeholders’ activities related to plant design, research and development, finance, public policy, and the fuel cycle. The “roadmap” can be found at: https://www.nrc.gov/reactors/new-reactors/advanced.html. The point of contact at the NRC for pre-application engagement for advanced reactors is Ben Beasley (Benjamin.Beasley@nrc.gov, 301-415-2062). Ben is the chief of the Advanced Reactor Licensing Branch.  6/18/2020   53. Does DOE have a recommendation on how best to allocate annual budgets in the proposals to accommodate a 5-year project? Specifically, can the applicant assume around $20M per yr. of total available DOE funding for the ARC-20 pathway? This is dependent on the needs of a particular project. Funding for the ARC-20 awards is contingent on annual Congressional appropriations. DOE does not provide guidance for annual funding. It is the responsibility of the applicant to provide an annual and overall budget based on achievable performance, available resources and measurable milestones. Each applicant will be able to establish budget periods that coincide with concept development and will be flexible to support different designs and concepts. The budget proposed will track to the work to be performed, which may be higher in some periods and lower in others, depending on project work and needs.   6/18/2020   54. There are a couple of conflicting statements in the FOA about the number of expected ARC-20 awards. For example, in Sec. 2.2.1 (p. 12), it states 2 awards, whereas in Sec. 2.3 (p. 13) it states at least two awards. Can the number of expected awards for the ARC-20 pathway be clarified? (Award Question Secs 2.2.1, 2.3; pg. 12 and 13) DOE will amend the FOA to clarify. It will read, “at least two awards”.  6/18/2020   55. If the FFRDC budgeted costs in an awardees proposal vary over the period of performance, is the cost share percentage also expected to vary in time or will an overall percentage be applied only to awardee costs. Cost share will be a specific percentage of total costs. At different points of the award, costs will vary resulting in cost share amounts also varying, but the percentage of costs the parties share will not vary.  6/18/2020   56. In regards to ARC-20 50 page Project Narrative File, is the scope of work section limited to half of a page (FOA states one-half page? (Sec 5.16) The half page refers to a summary section for the SCOPE OF WORK. This section must not exceed one-half page and should summarize the effort and approach to achieve the objective(s) of the work. Overall applications should not be greater than 50 pages. FOA will be amended to clarify that is refers only to a summary of the Scope of Work. The rest of the Statement of Project Objectives will detail the work details.   6/18/2020   57. In regards to ARC-20, can DOE please reconcile and clarify details concerning the merit criteria, in regards to what will be reasonably expected for low TRL levels of promising and unprecedented designs? (Designs that are interpreted as encouraged by DOE for execution in ARC-20. Specifically if a bidder were to offer an unprecedented design in which much work needs to be done on all the merit review criteria, and yet the design concept offers great potential to revolutionize the US nuclear power industry and provide exceptional assistance to the US electric power generation market , how might the reviewers proceed with an assessment versus competing concepts? In the merit review, each application/concept will be individually evaluated using the merit review criteria specified in the FOA. Of the ARC-20 merit review criteria, Criterion 1 – Technical Merit of the Reactor Concept, is most important. DOE will evaluate the technical merit of the proposed ARC-20 applications with respect to safety, operations, and economics. Advantages of the proposed advanced reactor concept relative to the current reactor technology will also be evaluated. So, if a concept has greater technical merit, it will get scored higher. When the DOE Selection Official makes the selection decision, he/she will consider this. While DOE appreciates the intent of this question, it is the responsibility for each application to provide the details of the design concept to include innovative applications and/or power generation. For all applications, Subject Matter Experts (SME) will be consulted to provide an independent review for each application. The merit review criteria weighs the applicants’ responses for each criteria and does not compare competing concepts.   6/18/2020   58. Is there a specific CWBS desired to be followed (per DOE WBS Handbook), or will contractor format be accepted? Applicant (contractor) format is acceptable.  6/18/2020   59. Appendix D states, The Statement of Substantial Involvement may be negotiated with the recipient prior to award. Can more details concerning points of contact and the process of negotiating this contractual memo be provided? After selection, if you are selected, you will be notified who the Contract Specialist (CS) that is who will be preparing the award. The CS will be working under the CO who would approve any negotiation from the DOE side. DOE will do “negotiations”, which may include negotiating the Statement of Substantial Involvement. The CS/CO will conduct these. The CS will bring in other people to assist with negotiations, as needed.   6/18/2020   60. Budgeting Justification and other submittals that a specific format is not dictated are expected to be submitted with proposal. The Appendixes or FOA in some cases do not specify formatting of reports. Is recipient format acceptable where specific forms are not specified? Yes.  6/18/2020   61. In reference to sub-recipients, sub-contractors, and third party contributors; are these parties all synonymous or distinct? (General Question, Apdx G) These are different. Please refer to 2 CFR 200.330.  6/18/2020   62. In the Merit Criteria, Risk Management is not listed as a weighted criterion or any requirement for for ARC-20. However Appendix I infers (by title inclusion only) Risk Management is required for ARC-20. Is Risk Management a requirement for ARC-20? If Risk Management is NOT a required submittal, but included, would it be considered a preferable in evaluation? (Sec 6.1) DOE’s intent is that risk management is a part of ARC-20. Appendix I, Risk Register and Risk Management Plan Application Preparation Instructions are applicable to ARC-20 and should be part of the application. Not including the reference under the ARC-20 pathway was an oversight and will be corrected in an amended FOA.  6/18/2020   63. If applicable documents (like FOCI) do not apply for our submittal, should we simply omit or still provide documentation that states Not Applicable? Submit, but state Not Applicable.  6/18/2020   64. In FOA, DMP mentioned for Demo and Risk Reduction, but not ARC-20. However, Appendix X title implies it is required for ARC-20. Is DMP a required submittal artifact? Yes. FOA will be amended to clarify.  6/18/2020   65. Our assumption is that we will provide specification for fuel, and then work to collaborate technically with DOE during its manufacture, transport, delivery including loading into the reactor. However, the actual cost of fuel production up to and including reactor fueling will be borne by DOE, outside the FOA, Is this correct? No. Fuel should be part of the FOA application. Costs for producing fuel for the demonstration reactors will be part of the application and either provided as part of the DOE cost share or as part of the Industry contribution.  6/18/2020   66. Similar to the previous fuel question submitted, the cost of defueling the reactor and dispositioning the irradiated fuel will be borne by DOE outside the FOA. Is this correct? No. For Demos, this cost is outside the scope of this project and must be borne by the awardee.  6/18/2020   67. It is assumed that authorization for reactor operation will be led by DOE with collaboration from the applicant. Is this correct? What are the expectations for information from the applicant? Such as testing data, analysis results, safety analyses, etc. Authorization is led by the awardee; DOE will support, as needed.   6/18/2020   68. Does DOE plan to be receptive to proposals that include fuel fabrication facility establishment as part of the demonstration project if needed to make fuel for the reactor to be demonstrated in the project? Yes. An application that includes specifications of fuel design and fabrication capabilities (scaled to the needs of the proposed demonstration) would be welcomed by DOE. Whether the fuel is produced by DOE as part of DOE cost share or provided as part of the Industry cost share should be stated and subject to negotiation upon award.  6/18/2020   69. Can DOE clarify how it will utilize the milestone-based payment budget schedule to manage payments under this program? Development of the schedule, milestones, and key decision points is the responsibility of the project. DOE has provided guidance on expected milestones, such as: cost sharing requirements, key licensing activities, technical progress on design and engineering processes, long-lead or safety critical equipment deliveries, or similar items. If an applicant is selected for a Demo or Risk Reduction award, milestones and payment structure for milestone completion will be negotiated as part of the award.   6/18/2020   70. Will DOE be open to proposals that seek to use plutonium as a fuel? The FOA does not specify a particular fuel type. However, paragraph 5.15 of the FOA specifies that for any fuel form proposed that cannot be fabricated using existing industry uranium fuel processes, the applicant is to provide plans for developing the fuel processing and fabrication capability.  6/18/2020   71. For some developers, the level of DOE involvement may be a showstopper; so would DOE consider an option where the industry cost share would be greater than 50% with a commensurate reduction in the DOE stewardship and oversight? No. Current regulations do not allow for the proposed shift in stewardship or oversight based on a greater industry cost share. DOE may have substantial involvement, but the payment by milestone approach is anticipated to permit the awardee work towards achievement of the identified milestones, with DOE primarily in a role of monitoring performance via reports submitted by the awardee. DOE is likely to get more involved if there are performance, progress or award compliance issues.   6/18/2020   72. Some of our members estimate that the level of DOE involvement could lead to a substantial increase in administrative costs (30%-60% or more). What plans does DOE have to minimize the impact of the compliance and overhead costs resulting from their involvement and management, and how is it tracking these impacts? DOE policy regarding DOE substantial involvement in the project is to limit Federal involvement in the cooperative agreement activities to the minimum consistent with program requirements. If the recipient is compliant with the award requirements and is making planned progress toward project success, it is anticipated that DOE involvement will be less; however, if there are compliance, performance or progress issues, DOE will become more involved, with the goal of assisting the awardee resolve these issues and achieve project success.  6/18/2020   73. Can used fuel disposition and decommissioning costs be included in the project scope? No, not for Demo awards; these costs are considered out of scope of this project and will be the responsibility of the awardee/awardee team.  6/18/2020   74. How would a proposal be considered if an applicant proposed front loading the cost share (higher federal portion in the early stages and lower federal portion in later years)? This would not be acceptable. The recipient must at least meet its cost sharing minimum obligation (as calculated based on total cost incurred to date) on every invoice submitted for payment to ensure that the awardee’s cost sharing requirement is always met on an on-going basis throughout performance, unless otherwise authorized by the Contracting Officer. Since DOE will incrementally fund the award, the recipient must at least contribute the required cost share amount incrementally over the life of the award. The recipient’s cost share amount listed for each billing period must always reflect not less than minimum required cost share percent from nonfederal sources, i.e., the amount of cost sharing included on each Invoice – and the cumulative amount of cost sharing listed relative to the total costs billed - must always be at least equal to the figure calculated by multiplying the total costs of the project incurred to date (including costs incurred by the FFRDC/NL) by the cost sharing percentage required by the award. If the recipient has incurred a greater amount of cost sharing than is required at that point in the Budget Period, the higher amount of cost sharing may be reflected on the Invoice - but in no case may the Invoice ever reflect a lower amount of cost share than is required.  6/18/2020   75. Would DOE consider increasing the $250,000 threshold for purchase of supplies and equipment from outside the U.S.? Yes. The FOA will be amended to raise this threshold.  6/18/2020   76. How can an applicant clarify or take exceptions to the proposed contracting terms? The applicant may include a separate file with this information. This should be clearly marked along with a rationale. It will not be included in the Project Narrative or the page limits. While this will not impact the selection evaluation or selection, taking exception to the proposed award terms may impact and lengthen the negotiations for award, and may even preclude an award being made at all, if the parties cannot come to agreement during the negotiations.   6/18/2020   77. How will DOE address applicant expectations that the projects will be co-funded by the U.S. Government to completion? While DOE will make reasonable efforts to secure funding of the projects to completion, ultimately funding is subject to the availability of additional funds appropriated by Congress for the purpose of this program and the availability of future-year budget authority.  6/18/2020   78. DOE plans to make 2 demonstration awards and 2-5 risk reduction awards; and there is always the potential that one or more of the selected projects could run into technical or funding issues in future years that would result in the halt of a particular demonstration. How does DOE intend to address the off-ramp issue and how would it plan to address funding that may be freed up as a result? If an awardee is unable to perform or obtain its portion of required cost share on the project such that it was unable to perform, DOE would work to help the awardee resolve the issues, if possible. However, if the issues are unable to be resolved, the award may be suspended and/or ended – either by the applicant, by mutual agreement of the parties, or perhaps by termination. Upon the ending of the award, any excess Federal funding would be deobligated. Assuming those funds would still be available for obligation (e.g., these were “no year” funds, etc.), these may be used on another existing award or on a new award, as described in the FOA, paragraph 2.2.2, Additional Possible Awards.   6/18/2020   79. If the lead inudstry organization is doing testing and characterization work at DOE labs will the industry pay cost share on the work the labs perform? Yes, these costs will be considered as part of the overall project cost, and this cost is paid for by DOE (thus being counted as DOE cost share), meaning that the awardee must cost share other project costs to meet its required cost share for the overall total project cost.  6/18/2020   80. Is there a limit on the amount of the funds that can be granted to a sub-recipient/awardee? No, there is no limit on this.  7/1/2020   81. Mr. Boston's presentation indicates that financial assurance will be reviewed for several items. This could be interpreted as requiring longer term financial assurance. However, given that Congressional appropriations are done on an annual basis, there could be a question about financial assurance for the future. How will INL's (or other DOE) evaluation of financial assurance take into consideration this uncertainty? High level, DOE-Idaho Operations Office is looking at does an applicant’s financial plan make sense for the work scope and is it reasonable to have the funding needed to accomplish the demonstration work when it’s needed. Breaking it down further, the process DOE-Idaho Operations Office uses on the Idaho National Laboratory (INL) site use permit review is this: What is the overall financial plan? Where does the applicant for an INL site use permit plan on getting the funding for a demonstration project? Is it DOE? Outside investors? A combination of the two? The INL site use permit process isn’t tied to the ARD FOA, so the effort could be completely funded by industry/investors and DOE would just be providing a location at INL for the demonstration. However, the ARD FOA requires a 50/50 cost share; so, DOE-Idaho Operations Office would like to see a minimum of the applicant requesting an INL site use permit to show it has ARD cost share funding for year one of the ARD cooperative agreement award, and preferably funding available for two years or longer of the ARD cooperative agreement award. This should include where the funding is coming from (i.e, who the investors are), whether the applicant for the INL site use permit has letters of commitment from the investors, and whether the applicant for the INL site use permit has foreign affiliation. Long term, DOE funding is subject to congressional appropriations and it would apply the same to applicants/winners of the ARD FOA awards. If DOE funding from congressional appropriations is part of an applicant’s financial plan then DOE-Idaho Operations Office will look at the assumptions made on the funding amounts. Is the applicant for the INL site use permit requesting reasonable amounts and is congressional funding available? However, DOE congressional funding is only a piece of the overall funding that would be required for a demonstration to be done at the INL and DOE will review the overall plan.   7/1/2020   82. Mr. Boston's presentation indicates that financial assurance will be reviewed for several items. This could be interpreted as requiring longer term financial assurance. However, given that Congressional appropriations are done on an annual basis, there could be a question about financial assurance for the future. How will INL's (or other DOE) evaluation of financial assurance take into consideration this uncertainty? Duplicate question. See answer to Q&A 81.  6/18/2020   83. Can a university be the LEAD ORGANIZATION for a proposal under Risk Reduction? Yes, so long as all other eligibility requirements are met, e.g., U.S. owned, etc.   6/18/2020   84. When trying to submit a question we get a "This expression does not validate" response ?? The website Q&A function is now working. Certain special characters and line breaks were previously not allowed. Did you get this resolved? If not, please contact the Contract Specialist, Andrew Ford, at fordaj@id.doe.gov.  6/18/2020   85. We are trying to submit LOI under Advanced Reactor Demonstration Program...link gives UNAUTHORIZED ACCESS response at LOI link despite being signed in. ?? The date for LOI submittal has passed. Did you get this resolved? If not, please contact the Contract Specialist, Andrew Ford, at fordaj@id.doe.gov.  6/18/2020   86. Will having submitted a combined license application under Part 52 to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, which would allow the construction and operation of a reactor when approved be recognized as a valuable component of the merit review process? Duplicate question – please see Q&A 87  6/18/2020   87. Will having submitted a combined license application under Part 52 to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, which would allow the construction and operation of a reactor when approved be recognized as a valuable component of the merit review process? This is likely to be viewed positively, since the Demos and Risk Reduction pathways Merit Review criterion 2 evaluates the likelihood that the design can be licensed for safe operations by the NRC, including that the application will be evaluated on the identification of a clear and logical strategy addressing efforts assuring the reactor design and selected site can be licensed by the NRC, including depth, breadth, and quality of engagement with or plans for pre-application interaction with the regulator, including any early licensing topical reports, operating license applications, design certification applications, or any other activities addressing technical topics supporting licensing, as well as quality and completeness of the plans to address the requirements of the Applicant’s selected licensing strategy (e.g., Part 52), etc.   6/10/2020   88. If an applicant submits a Letter of Intent (LOI) or a proposal identifying specific strategic partners, is that applicant bound to those specific partners for funding? Can those partnerships change (i.e., new and/or different partners) during the process/project without penalty? LOI's provide the Department with a general understanding of potential applicants for the purposes of preparing for review and approval processes. DOE will not penalize applicants for changes made on the final application. However, DOE asks that the prime/lead applicant not change, if possible. FOA Amendment 000002 will specify that information submitted in the original Letter of Intent may be updated when submitting the full application, with wording substantially as follows: Update of Letter of Intent Information Between the Time of Letter of Intent Submission and the Submission of Full Applications. All information submitted in the Letter of Intent items a through f – other than the project itself described in paragraph d above - may be updated with the submission of the full application. It is understood that the project description information in paragraph d above will be provided in full detail in the final application submittal. If any information in the Letter of Intent is changed between the time the original Letter of Intent was submitted, and the time the full application is submitted, the applicant must clearly specify what has changed along with a brief explanation. This will not be counted towards page limitations or page counts of the full application document.   6/10/2020   89. Can LOI info submitted change after the LOI is submitted? Yes, with the exception that the name of the prime applicant is not to be changed. Any LOI information changed should be provided as soon as possible to the Contracting Officer.  6/10/2020   90. Is it okay if one team member files the LOI and the decision is later made to have a different team member (who would be identified in the LOI) file the actual application for the project? The LOI is to be submitted by the primary applicant. This should not change between the time the LOI is submitted and the time of the full application submission. However, if subrecipients or team members change between these times, this is permissible.  6/10/2020   91. Are the changes allowed in the proposal vs LOI? for example point of contact, team membership, lead organization? The lead organization cannot change. All other LOI information may change if needed between the time of LOI submission and full application submission. DOE requests that the applicant specify if changes are made; this could not be included in any page counts.  6/10/2020   92. Is there a page limit for the Letter of Intent? There is no page limit for the Letter of Intent.  6/10/2020   93. FOA, paragraph 4.4 e iv, Letter of Intent. The statement in item iv ends with a reference to 910.124(b) 2. Since 910.124(b) does not have numbered paragraphs and the numbering it does contain pertains to numbered items under specific definitions, please confirm that the number 2 at the end of the citation is referring to "2 CFR 910.124(b)". You are correct. This error will be corrected on the next FOA amendment.  6/10/2020   94. Will additional information be provided during the Industry Day presentations regarding the level of detail required for the Letter of Intent (number of pages, technical elements to address, etc.)? No additional information on this is planned. The FOA is explicit in what information should be provided, with the exception of the brief project/technology description. Please use your judgment for this. Please keep in mind that Letters of Intent are not applications; as such they are not scored or evaluated, except as it relates to the prime's eligibility – which is a pass/fail determination. DOE will primarily use this information to help us in planning for the merit review so that we are ready to immediately begin the review process upon receipt of applications.  6/10/2020   95. General question - given the audio issues, will there be rescheduling of any key dates related to this FOA? As example, 1-1 meetings, letter of intent due date, etc.? Or is it too early to make a determination? DOE does not plan at this time to adjust any of the key FOA dates. Industry Day briefings and Q&As have/will be posted to the FOA website.  6/18/2020   96. Can I request a phone conversation to discuss a situation regarding cost sharing? Yes, please send an email to the Contract Specialist, Andrew Ford, at fordaj@id.doe.gov to request this.   6/18/2020   97. After the LOI was submitted, it is unclear where one needs to go to start the full submission application as well as get access to the templates for the numerous documents that need to be submitted. Where do we go to find this information? Please go to the FOA website at https://www.id.energy.gov/NEWS/ARDFO/ARDFOOpportunities/ARDFO.htm Once there, use the Submit Full Application button on the lower left side of the page to submit the application. Application documents, by pathway, are located on the same webpage on the right side of the page in the middle of the page.   6/18/2020   98. Appendix O, Section 99 states the following - "Any entity other than a national laboratory that receives fiscal year 2020 funds of more than $200,000 under the US Department of Energy Advanced Small Modular Reactor Research and Development (SMR R&D) program is not eligible to receive fiscal year 2020 funds from within the Advanced Reactor Demonstration Program. Further, funds provided under the Advanced Reactor Demonstration project award are not permitted to be used for the SMR R&D award activities." Are funds received from Advanced Nuclear Technology Development DE-FOA-0001817 counted as an Advanced SMR R&D award activity? (We expect to be receiving funding under pathway 2) No, the restriction does not apply to this since this was not SMR FY2020 funding.  6/18/2020   99. Can an award subrecipient receiving more than $200,000 SMR R&D program funding in FY2020, also receive ARDP funding as a subrecipient (i.e., does the $200K SMR R&D limit apply just to prime recipients)? Duplicate question – see Q&A 100  6/18/2020   100. Can an award subrecipient receiving more than $200,000 SMR R&D program funding in FY2020, also receive ARDP funding as a subrecipient (i.e., does the $200K SMR R&D limit apply just to prime recipients)? This restriction applies to prime applicants only.  7/1/2020   101. This is a test. I received an email this morning that the question link was not working. I forwarded the question to Eliot Dye and Alice Caponiti. Thank you, Teresa Krynicki, GAIN Administrative Specialist Working now. Thanks  6/18/2020   102. If we have an advanced reactor design that meets or exceeds all the requirements and expectations set forth in the FOA for a Demos award, except that it can be sited, NRC licensed, constructed and operational within 8 years from the date of award of the cooperative agreement, can this design get a Demos award? The FOA is clear that a primary objective of the Demos awards is that the demonstration reactor must be designed, sited, licensed by the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), constructed and operational within 5 – 7 years from the date of award of the cooperative agreement. This is also reflected in the merit review evaluation criteria of the solicitation. Applicants proposing advanced reactor technologies/designs unable to meet this timeline should consider applying for a Risk Reduction or an ARC-20 award, as applicable to the level of technological maturity of the design and the Applicants' ability/readiness to demonstrate it. In Section 1.1 of the FOA, applicants are requested to self-identify the maturity of their proposed technology based on technical, design and licensing maturity, as well as its manufacturing readiness, and to submit a single application in the appropriate area, avoiding duplication of submittals by the Applicant. If the applicant meets all eligibility criteria specified in Section 3 of the FOA, elects to propose a Demo project that does not meet the criterion of being operational within 5-7 years, that application will be reviewed using the Demos merit review criteria and evaluated accordingly.  6/18/2020   103. The ARD is mandated under fiscal year (FY) 2020 appropriations; can DOE provide any insight into plans for legislative support or appropriations for continuation of the program in FY2021 and beyond? NE believes that there is strong and sustained congressional support for the program, and intends to work with the appropriators to assure that outyear funding is requested and made available under ARD to support the needs of selected Demo and Risk Reduction projects, and under the Advanced Reactor Technologies program to support ARC-20 projects.  6/18/2020   104. Assuming such support, does DOE expect to issue another FOA for an FY2021, or are the awards under this FOA expected to constitute multi-year DOE commitments for the full period of performance? NE intends to make award selections under this ARD FOA and to support these awards through the completion of their stated goals. For example, once the Demo awards have been completed, DOE will consider issuing another FOA for a new round of Demonstration awards, if appropriate.  6/18/2020   105. Please provide details on how execution of the ARD FOA is intended to streamline the procurement process (as directed in the FY2020 appropriations language). In an effort to concurrently expedite the development of multiple domestic advanced reactor in accordance with the Office of Nuclear Energy’s mission, hawse have combined the solicitation of multiple reactor technologies at all levels of technology maturity into a single FOA. NE has also expedited the development and issuance of the solicitation documents for public issue, and has compressed the anticipated review, selection, and award schedules to the extent possible.  6/18/2020   106. Please elaborate on the expected scope and level of maturity of an applicant’s (a) data management program; (b) business plan and methodology; and (c) cost breakdown projections and uncertainties. What minimum requirements must be met for consideration, and will a nontraditional developer be penalized for using innovative approaches rather than traditional methods? NE does not intend to specify the level of detail or maturity of information included in the requirements identified. DOE understands that many of the applicant plans may lack fidelity at the time of application, and the applications will be rated based on the information that is provided by the applicant.  6/18/2020   107. Please clarify the tension between criteria associated with commercial certainty and diversity of technologies; for example, what is the relative prioritization of traditional light-water reactor applications compared with advanced designs? The FOA has been issued as a technology agnostic product and DOE has no intent to prioritize any proposed technology. Each application will be rated based on its responsiveness to the criteria.  6/18/2020   108. Please clarify the Technology Readiness Level (TRL) expectations at the time of ARD FOA proposal submittal. The language in the FOA suggests higher TRLs will be considered, but it is not clear whether there are expected/required minimum TRLs at the time of submittal. DOE expects applicants to identify the TRL level of their proposed technology as a part of the application process. The self-identified TRL should be current as of the time of the submittal of the application. DOE looks at the TRL specification as a level of maturity that would be expected of the applicant’s designs at the time of submittal, but do not require a minimum TRL. We will evaluate applications based on the information submitted against the review criteria, regardless of the TRL level identified.  6/18/2020   109. Are 11x17 pages allowed in the ARD application? Applicants are expected to provide all information on 8 1/2" by 11" pages. No 11" by 17" pages are allowed. Please follow the directions identified in the FOA.  6/18/2020   110. The Fed connect link is broken on the announcement page. Can it be restored? Yes.  6/18/2020   111. Please provide clarification on page 28 of the FOA, "Summary of Application documents" table item 9, which refers to "Current and Pending Support (see paragraph 5.15m)." We believe the correct reference is 5.15l. You are correct. This error will be corrected on the next FOA amendment.  6/18/2020   112. The website https://www.id.energy.gov/NEWS/ARDFO/ARDFOOpportunities/ARDFO.htm says the application due date is August 14 but Grants.gov https://www.grants.gov/web/grants/view-opportunity.html?oppId=326997 shows August 12 as the due date. Which date is accurate? The correct date is Aug 12, 2020. This has been corrected on the website.  6/18/2020   113. What assurances do applicants have that the projects will be co-funded to completion? While DOE will make reasonable efforts to secure the funding required to support completion of the selected projects, ultimately, government funding is subject to the availability of additional funds appropriated by Congress for the purpose of supporting the NE programs funding projects awarded under the ARD FOA, and the availability of future-year budget authority.  6/18/2020   114. Could an applicant propose front loading the cost share (higher federal portion in the early stages and lower federal portion in later years)? Would this be considered? No. The recipient must at least meet its cost sharing minimum obligation (as calculated based on total cost incurred to date) on every invoice submitted for payment to ensure that the awardee’s cost sharing requirement is always met on an on-going basis throughout performance, unless otherwise authorized by the Contracting Officer. Since DOE will incrementally fund the award, the recipient must at least contribute the required cost share amount incrementally over the life of the award. The recipient’s cost share amount listed for each billing period must always reflect not less than minimum required cost share percent from nonfederal sources, i.e., the amount of cost sharing included on each invoice – and the cumulative amount of cost sharing listed relative to the total costs billed - must always be at least equal to the figure calculated by multiplying the total costs of the project incurred to date (including costs incurred by the FFRDC/NL) by the cost sharing percentage required by the award. If the recipient has incurred a greater amount of cost sharing than is required at that point in the Budget Period, the higher amount of cost sharing may be reflected on the Invoice - but in no case may the Invoice ever reflect a lower amount of cost share than is required.  6/18/2020   115. Is DOE giving M&O contractors the authority to allow use of their sites (e.g. national labs) for Demo projects? How will DOE value the DOE contribution of the Site? Will it count as a part of federal funding or non-federal cost-share? M&O contractors have the ability to request from their cognizant Contracting Officer the authority to participate in these projects. This is done with a Letter of Authorization, as specified in paragraph 5.7 of the FOA. The work proposed for the laboratory must be consistent with or complimentary to the missions of the laboratory, not adversely impact execution of the DOE/NNSA assigned programs at the laboratory, and not place the laboratory in direct competition with the domestic private sector. Cost for work done by M&O contractors, other national laboratory contractors, e.g., Federally Funded Research and Development Centers/National Laboratories, etc., will count as Federal cost share.  6/18/2020   116. Section 1.5.2 provides examples of significant improvements for advanced reactors. The merit review criteria only discuss a subset of these. Does the application need to address these topics? Yes. The designs proposed are expected to provide significant improvements in safety, security, economics, and environmental impacts over current nuclear power plant designs. The items listed in Section 1.5.2 are only examples of the types of significant improvements that may be proposed. Paragraph 5.15 specifies that significant improvements are to be detailed as part of the Advanced Reactor Technology Description section of the Project Narrative file. The FOA will be amended to clarify that such significant improvements will be part of the merit review evaluation.   6/18/2020   117. Should a yearly funding request profile be included in the cost proposal (with escalation allowance)? Yes. As specified in Appendix G of the FOA, the application must separately provide, for each year of funding requested past the first year of the project, specific out-year cost profiles for each future year budget request, along with rationale. Escalation of costs based on anticipated market conditions or inflation may be included in the applicant's funding request if appropriately justified.  6/18/2020   118. Will the requested level of yearly funding profile impact the potential award success? Potentially. These designs are expected to enable a market environment in which commercial reactor services are available that are safe and affordable to both construct and operate when compared to competing, alternative sources of energy in the near- and mid-term. The merit review criteria for the Demos and Risk Reduction awards include "Affordability", which encompasses affordability of the design for full-scale construction and cost competitiveness in the commercial market. This includes: <ul><li>the quality and completeness of efforts or results of value engineering to optimize reactor cost.; the quality and completeness of efforts or results of manufacturing and construction evaluations to minimize plant deployment costs;</li> <li>the quality and completeness of efforts to address appropriate levels of plant staffing to optimize operations and maintenance costs; and</li> <li>the quality, completeness and feasibility of the business plan, strategy, and market analysis (short- and long- term) to achieve commercial success. This includes the identification of current and future customers, economic or cost competitiveness, and feasibility of the reactor's commercial product.</li></ul> Also, the DOE Selection Official must take into consideration the amount of funds available to initiate awards when making a decision regarding which applications to fund. One of the Program Policy Factors states that cost of the overall demonstration project may be considered.  6/18/2020   119. Does a $40M annual request have a better chance of success than a $200M annual request – regardless of the design power level, or is a higher contribution from an applicant toward cost share more appealing? Not necessarily. While funding levels and affordability are considerations, other evaluation criteria also will be considered, various of which are of higher importance than the affordability criterion. Regarding higher cost share contributions by the applicant, the DOE Selection Official may consider proposed cost sharing that exceeds minimum required amounts on the part of the Applicant as part of the Program Policy Factors used in making the ultimate selection of applications.   6/18/2020   120. What information/format is desired for the "commitment letter" specified in the resume template? No format is specified. The applicant should select a format that works best for the information they wish to convey. At a minimum, information in the commitment letter should demonstrate a level of commitment of key personnel to the project. The FOA's merit review criteria will be amended to clarify that key personnel commitment will be evaluated to determine the extent to which this commitment is likely to help ensure the project's success.  6/18/2020   121. Does the current and pending support section count as part of the project narrative? It is ambiguous because Section 5.15.l.ii puts current and pending support under the project narrative but the table in Section 5.5. does not. The FOA will be amended to clarify that the pending support information is to be a separate attachment to the project narrative file, and that it will not be included in the page count limit for the project narrative file.  6/18/2020   122. Should the risk management plan be listed in the project narrative contents? It is included in the Section 5.5 Table "Summary of Application Documents" and the introduction to Section 5.15, but is not listed specifically in Section 5.15. Yes. The FOA will be amended to clarify this.  6/18/2020   123. If DOE does not continue the awards in subsequent years due to a lack of appropriations, is DOE open to considering terms that would allow applicants more flexibility, such as relaxation of U.S. Competitiveness requirements in the planned Class Waiver and/or more limited governmental rights? Not at this time. This condition would need to be addressed on a case-by-case basis.  6/18/2020   124. Section 4.8, Foreign Disclosure, states that "Applicants (including team members and sub-applicants) must disclose to the DOE all foreign interest in the Applicant's company or corporation, which for purposes of this FOA is defined as all foreign government ownership, investment, interest, and/or influence , as well as foreign nongovernment public, private ownership, interest, and/or investment in an applicant's company or corporation." Section 6.3, Selection and Other Program Policy Factors, states "DOE may consider foreign influence in the selection of application(s), including type and amount of foreign involvement in the project, as well as any foreign ownership, control, or influence (FOCI) issues." How will DOE use foreign disclosure information in assessing the merits of a proposal, particularly if an Applicant Team's capabilities are enhanced by one (or more) Team members that have foreign ownership? While the FOA includes a requirement and a clear preference for U.S. ownership and work, the Program Policy factor considering foreign influence in the selection of application(s), including type and amount of foreign involvement in the project, may be either a negative or a positive consideration depending on what that foreign involvement is in the project and how it may contribute to project success.  6/18/2020   125. On page 6 of the FOA it states "For the purposes of this FOA, a demonstration is defined as an advanced reactor operated as part of the power generation facilities of an electric utility system or in any other manner for the purpose of demonstrating the suitability for commercial application of the advanced nuclear reactor." Could a non-electricity generating reactor qualify as demonstration project if it is demonstrating the suitability for eventual commercial application? Yes. As specified in the FOA, the demonstration reactor can be operated "in any other manner for the purpose of demonstrating the suitability for commercial application of the advanced nuclear reactor". There may be many different commercial applications, including non-electricity commercial applications, for the advanced reactor.  6/18/2020   126. Does an application need to have a potential owner/operator of the demonstration unit as a member of the project team at the time of application submittal? No. Demo applications must show a path to achieving commercial operation with a customer. As part of the Business Plan to be included in the application, the applicant must provide a Market Overview, which includes Client/Market Needs; specifically, the Business Plan must include your client analysis, which demonstrates your understanding of customer requirements, and your analysis and evaluation of the market and the viability potential (including long-term viability) of your reactor and plant to be successful in this market. It must identify the customer(s), and the customer involvement in the project, including customer commitment. If the customer is not yet identified, you must describe your plan, including activities, milestones, milestone completion verification, and tentative dates to get customers. However, having a committed owner/operator as a member of the project team the selection process could be viewed favorably in the selection process. Merit Review Criterion 4 will evaluate the quality, completeness and feasibility of the business plan, strategy, and market analysis (short and long term) to achieve commercial success, including the identification of current and future customers.   6/18/2020   127. Section 1.2, demonstration pathway, describes a demo in a level of detail that appears to include requirements (e.g., "Demos are expected to be the most technologically mature of the designs proposed, and closest to a final design (e.g., at a Technology Readiness Level (TRL) of TRL 6 or higher" and "For the purposes of this FOA, being in a final design state indicates that the design is sufficiently mature to begin procurement or construction activities."). However, the merit review guidelines do not reflect these potential requirements. Are the items outlined in Section 1.2 effectively review criteria? Applicants are expected to respond to the information requirements outlined in Section 5 of the FOA. The merit review will consider the information submitted in each application and use this information to assess the applications independently against the merit review criteria. If the applicant believes that specifically addressing elements identified in the demonstration pathway description section supports the technology readiness case for their proposed project, they are welcome to do so. Applicants are expected to use their own judgement in determining the depth and breadth of information required to address the requirements in Section 5 and the merit review criteria.  6/18/2020   128. Section 2.3 outlines estimated/potential funding level for year 1 of the award. Should the scope of work and deliverables defined in the proposal be for just the first year of funding or the entire 5 to 7 years duration of the project? What level of detail (e.g., yearly costs, deliverables, schedule) is necessary for out years when the level of annual federal funding is unknown? Requirements for identification of work scope and deliverables are provided in Appendix J - PROJECT MANAGEMENT PLAN AND OBJECTIVES, and are expected to be outlined for the duration of the project. Expectations for project budget requirements are outlined in Appendix G - APPLICATION BUDGET INFORMATION, and are expected to be provided for the duration of the project, despite the lack of information regarding outyear Federal funding levels. This budget information should be based on the applicant’s estimate of what funding levels are required to complete the project.  6/18/2020   129. Section 2.5 states "However, the objective of the Demos awards is to have the Demos reactors designed, sited, NRC licensed, constructed and operational within 5 – 7 years; accordingly, applicants should neither propose nor plan for project durations longer than 5 – 7 years." Will applications that show a timeline beyond 7 years be rejected? Will applications that have a 7-year timeline or less but discuss scenarios that could result in extensions being requested be rejected? Applicants are expected to identify projects that are able to support the anticipated 5-7 year timeline defined in the FOA. However, if a project is submitted with a rational project timeline that exceeds 7 years, it would not necessarily be rejected. Such an application may be considered competitively with other applications.  6/18/2020   130. Section 5.15 requests discussions on "Start Up and Testing" and "Reactor End of Life." Since these do not appear to be discussed in the merit review criteria, how much will these topics factor into the selection process? The FOA will be amended to specify that these topics are explicitly identified in the merit review criteria; The applicant’s responses to these information requests will help the reviewers understand the applicant’s ability to meet the goals of the program, and will be considered in an integrated fashion as a part of the merit review process.  6/18/2020   131. Section 6.3 discusses other program policy factors and mentions "Applications that have the potential to enhance U.S. nuclear infrastructure may be given preferential consideration. The Selection Official may also consider potential contributions of foreign expertise and supply chains." If the necessary enriched uranium, or other materials, can only be obtained from international suppliers in the necessary time frame, will this reflect negatively on the application? The use of foreign sourcing for fuel or other materials, components, or services will need to be identified by the applicant as a part of the application process. The use of foreign sources will not necessarily reflect negatively on the application; however, it is the preference of the Department that U.S. sources be used in support of these projects, and the Selection Official has the prerogative to apply this policy factor to give preference for projects that primarily leverage U.S. sources.  6/18/2020   132. Will the DOE demonstration award identify the total federal cost for the life of the project and will there will be opportunities to reevaluate the amount of the award as project cost estimates and schedules are revised during the project? Applicants are expected to identify a total project cost as a part of the project budget, and should also identify the required Federal investment, up to 50% of the total project cost. The Department will use the selected project requirements to make an annual budget request. As always, the availability of funds to support these projects is subject to Congressional appropriations. We expect that there will be opportunities to reevaluate the amount of the award as project cost estimates and schedules are revised during the project, but any changes will need to be negotiated with the Department, and will be based on project success to date and a determination that the change is reasonable in the context of the original request.  6/18/2020   133. Draft Appendix O states for the demonstration program that "The intent of the ARD Project is for the recipient to own the reactor at the end of the program." Does the prime applicant have to be the ultimate owner of the reactor? DOE's position is that demonstration reactors will be privately owned at the end of a Demo project. DOE will amend the FOA to state that the intent of the project is that the Demo reactor not be owned or operated by DOE, but by the recipient, or another private entity; or by a Federal, tribal, state, or municipal utility.   6/18/2020   134. Draft Appendix O states that "The intent of the ARD Project is for the recipient to own the reactor at the end of the program." Is DOE considering being a potential owner in the project or has DOE firmly decided that it will not own any portion of the demonstration reactor? Would DOE consider being a partial owner if desired by the project applicants? DOE has determined that, once a demonstration project is complete, DOE will not own or consider being a partial owner of the operating reactor. Per Appendix O, DOE’s expectation is that a private owner will "continue to use the property after the project period until its useful life (and value) are exhausted."  6/18/2020   135. Section 58 of Draft Appendix O states that "This award uses a milestone for payments approach." In addition, it states "As this is a cost-reimbursable award, …" Since a milestone for payments approach and cost-reimbursable approach differ, what opportunities will industry have to inform the final terms and conditions? Since the awardee will be paying for allowable project work up front, and receiving Federal cost share payment as reimbursement for this work upon successfully achieving agreed-upon milestones, the Department considers this award to be cost-reimbursable. The DOE Contracting Office will negotiate the terms and conditions of the award, including the project milestones/milestone payment amounts, with the awardee and will assure that project cost requirements are fully clarified.  6/18/2020   136. How should the project management plan for Demos applications include information for a Risk Reduction project? Is an entirely separate project management plan desired, or is it sufficient to describe what would be different in a Risk Reduction project? For those who are applying for the Demos and are interested in being considered for Risk Reduction activities if they are not selected, DOE is not interested in a separate project management plan but only in understanding how it would be different for the Risk Reduction project.  6/18/2020   137. How should the budget sections for Demos applications include information for a Risk Reduction project? Should multiple sets of forms be submitted? For applications submitted under the <strong>Demos</strong> pathway, but also desire consideration for <strong>Risk Reduction</strong>, the application must include two estimated total costs for the overall project – one for the Demo, and another for Risk Reduction, using two separate form submissions.  6/18/2020   138. Is the intent of the risk management plan to both describe project risk management processes and to identify project risks and mitigations? Yes, Merit review criteria #3 indicates that DOE will be looking at the Risk Management Plan, Risk Register and risk mitigation strategies.  6/18/2020   139. Are there requirements for how the risk management plan for a Demos application should include information for a Risk Reduction project? <strong>Demos</strong> applicants who wish to have their Demo application also be considered for <strong>Risk Reduction</strong> awards should they not be selected for a Demo award need to identify the specific risk reduction activities that they would conduct. Associated budget information is also required.  6/18/2020   140. Are there requirements for how the business plan for a Demos application should include information for a Risk Reduction project? No, the business plan should be based on commercial viability of the reactor concept and potential market.   6/18/2020   141. In Section 5.15, Project Narrative, it states under Advanced Reactor Fuel and Fuel Cycle that "if the Applicant plans to use an unproven fuel design, the application must include a technically complete plan for fuel development and demonstration in a timeframe that supports operation of the demonstration reactor (within five to seven years for Demos; five to seven years thereafter for Risk Reduction)." In addition, Section 6.1 provides a merit review criterion that states "Technical feasibility that the demonstration reactor can be operational within five to seven years from completion of award, and for Risk Reduction, to achieve a demonstration reactor in approximately 10-14 years, will be evaluated." Since the Risk Reduction awards are only for 5 to 7 years and are to prepare designs for potential demonstration within 5-7 years after Risk Reduction project completion, do Risk Reduction proposals have to outline a schedule for achieving a demonstration within 10-14 years from award? DOE expects applicants applying for Risk Reduction projects to be able to provide very high-level information on outyear plans for key activities such as fuel development, construction and eventual operation of the proposed reactor technology being developed. This information will provide the DOE with a strategic vision of the applicant’s plans for the reactor project through commercialization and operation.  6/18/2020   142. Section 1.3, Risk Reduction pathway, states that a proposed design could include "demonstrating a prototype, sub-scale reactor, or a portion of the reactor as part of an overall reactor system." Through this pathway would DOE fund the design, licensing, construction and initial operation of a prototype or sub-scale reactor? If the applicant chooses to pursue a pathway that involves design, licensing, construction and initial operation of a prototype or sub-scale reactor, DOE would consider selecting such a project depending on the quality of the application.  6/18/2020   143. Draft Appendix 0, Award Terms and Conditions for Demos, has a section "Special Disposition of Property at the End of the Award." Similar sections do not appear in Draft Appendices P or Q, Award Terms and Conditions for Risk Reduction and ARC-20, respectively. Will it be possible to obtain similar special disposition for awardee acquired property under these pathways if desired? The "Special Disposition of Property at the End of the Award" clause under the Demo project section was specifically included to clarify the understanding that DOE will not be the owner of the demonstration reactor at the conclusion of the project. It is anticipated that property disposition arrangements for awards made under Risk Reduction and ARC-20 awards will follow standard disposition actions, as specified in 2 CFR 200.   6/18/2020   144. Will the Risk Reduction and ARC-20 pathways cover costs associated with licensing review activities in addition to development of licensing reports? If the applicant's Risk Reduction or ARC-20 project involves licensing activities that are appropriate to the status of the technology during the project performance period, costs associated with these activities should be allowable and allocable in the context of the award.  6/18/2020   145. Does DOE intend to seek additional funding and authority to extend Risk Reduction and ARC-20 projects into a demonstration phase? DOE intends to make award selections under this ARD FOA and to support these awards through the completion of their stated goals. Once the Demo awards have been completed, DOE will consider issuing another FOA for a new round of Demonstration awards, if appropriate, under which projects under the current Risk Reduction or ARC-20 category could apply.  6/18/2020   146. Is there a potential for an extension to the Risk Reduction and ARC-20 awards? Risk Reduction and ARC-20 awards may be proposed up to the time periods specified in the FOA, paragraph 2.5. There is no current plan to extend awards' periods of performance under the Risk Reduction and ARC-20 categories. DOE anticipates there will be funding provided by Congressional appropriations for the out-year performance periods of these awards.  6/18/2020   147. Section 1.4, ARC-20 pathway, states "This pathway will focus on an industry-led competition that will include both industry and DOE's Federally Funded Research and Development Centers/National Laboratories (FFRDCs/NLs) participants in the development of two advanced reactor projects." What is meant by "industry-led competition" and does a FFRDC/NL have to be part of the project team? DOE anticipates domestic industry entities interested in developing advanced reactor designs to be the prime (lead) applicant for applications submitted under the ARC-20 pathway. DOE understands the value that the DOE national laboratories can bring to the development of emerging advanced reactor designs and would encourage their involvement in industry projects. However, applicants for ARC-20 projects are not required to partner with national laboratories to be selected for award.  6/18/2020   148. Regarding ARC-20, on page 7 the FOA states that: "This pathway provides funding for up to two awards to support advanced reactor concepts for further development….". Page 13 of the FOA says that the estimated funding for ARC-20 is "Approximately $20 Million; DOE will use this to initiate at least two ARC-20 awards". Is DOE’s preference to award two $10M projects only, or will consideration also be given to more than two projects all of which are in the multi-million dollar range and totaling no more than $20M? The Congressional direction for the ARC-20 awards indicates that DOE should develop "a new solicitation for at least two new public-private partnerships focused on advancing reactor designs towards demonstration phase." The statement on page 7 that states "This pathway provides funding for <strong>up to two awards</strong> to support advanced reactor concepts" was made in error, and this will be corrected in an amendment to the ARD FOA. DOE intends give consideration to more than two ARC-20 projects, and will make the determination of the split of the $20 M based on the applications selected and their associated funding requirements.  6/18/2020   149. In section a) of the budget narrative/justification file on page 2 of Attachment G, there is a reference to attaching a single budget justification file for the entire project period in Field L that will automatically carry over to each budget year. This is a typographical error and will be corrected in the next FOA amendment.  6/18/2020   150. Section 3 and section 5 are titled Other Direct Costs. Should the first be titled Travel Costs Since this is the subject of the instruction? This was a formatting error. Section 3 covers Other Direct Costs. Within this category are subcategories of Travel, Equipment, Subrecipients, Subcontractors, and Any Other Direct Costs. The Appendix G will be reformatted to clarify this on the next FOA amendment.   6/18/2020   151. The instructions stipulate that budget commitment letters be included as an appendix to the Budget Justification and saved as a file named: Commitment Letters_[Insert Application ID#]. Can the commitment letters be combined into a single Budget Justification file and titled in accordance with the instructions contained in the FOA? Yes, this is acceptable so long as they are clearly marked.  6/18/2020   152. The instructions require that a working financial model be provided in a Microsoft Excel spreadsheet (MS Excel version 2003 or 2007). However, the FOA section that stipulates the submission requirements and file types does not mention the file type or requirement for this spreadsheet. According to the instructions stipulated in the summary of applications documents starting on page 27 of the FOA instructions, the Budget Justification should be submitted as and Adobe Acrobat file (PDF). Appendix G and page 27 of the FOA will be changed in the next FOA amendment to require MS Excel files using an .xlsx extension, or earlier MS Excel version.  6/18/2020   153. Should this travel spreadsheet be part of SF 424 A form submission, part of a complete cost build up spreadsheet, or a free-standing file? If the latter two, what is the naming protocol that should be followed? This will be included as part of the Budget Justification file, using the single file named "Budget.pdf".  6/18/2020   154. Can a later version of MS Excel be used for this purpose? Yes.  6/18/2020   155. The instruction in Attachment G (3) IIIc. indicates that the required data for travel must be provided in a Microsoft Excel spreadsheet. However, the FOA section that stipulates the submission requirement and file types does not mention the file type or requirement for this spreadsheet. According to the instructions stipulated in the summary of applications documents starting on page 27 of the FOA instructions, the Budget Justification should be submitted as and Adobe Acrobat file (PDF). Appendix G is correct. The FOA will be changed in the next FOA amendment to require MS Excel files using an .xlsx extension, or earlier MS Excel version.  6/18/2020   156. Should this travel spreadsheet be part of SF 424 A form submission, part of a complete cost build up spreadsheet, or a free-standing file? If the latter two, what is the naming protocol that should be followed? This will be included as part of the Budget Justification file, using the single file named "Budget.pdf".  6/18/2020   157. The FOA requires that the Budget Justification be provided in an Adobe Acrobat file (PDF). However Attachment G has mention of several spreadsheets that must be provided. Will the Government allow submission of a working MS Excel of the budget cost estimate as an accompaniment to the Budget Justification? If so, is there a particular naming protocol that should be followed as identified for other sections in the FOA? Appendix G and page 27 of the FOA will be changed in the next FOA amendment to require MS Excel files using an .xlsx extension, or earlier MS Excel version. This will be included as part of the Budget Justification file, using the single file named "Budget.pdf".  6/18/2020   158. FOA states "DOE's intent is for the Awardee to own the plant/reactor upon completion of the award." This seems counter to the intent of a reactor vendor being the applicant and awardee and the Owner/Operator being a utility. If the reactor vendor is the prime contractor, and the Owner/Operator is on the team, is that considered compliant with DOE's intent? If the prime awardee is the reactor vendor, and the awardee does not desire to continue to own/operate the reactor at the end of the demonstration award period of performance, the awardee may request disposition instructions from the DOE Contracting Officer transferring the property to the utility that will operate the reactor. This may also occur if the utility/operator is on the prime awardee's team. FOA Appendix O, clause 54) SPECIAL DISPOSITION OF PROPERTY AT THE END OF THE AWARD, will be amended to clarify this.  6/18/2020   159. Will the Government allow free-standing and working copies of project schedule to be submitted? If so, are there specific software limitations? What naming convention is required for such a submission, if allowed? Yes. There are no specific software limitations. There is not a specific naming convention. Please just ensure it is clearly named and identified, e.g., Name File: Project Schedule XXXX [Insert Application ID#]  6/18/2020   160. Section 5.5, Summary of Application documents item 9 (Current and Pending Support) cites paragraph 5.15 m for more information. Since 5.15 m is labeled Facilities and Resources, that appears to be an incorrect citation. Please confirm that the correct citation is 5.15 l ii which is labeled Current and Pending Support. You are correct. This error will be corrected on the next FOA amendment.  6/18/2020   161. Section 5.5, Summary of Application documents item 4 (Resume/Vitae) cites paragraph 5.15 m for more information Since 5.15 m is labeled Facilities and Resources, that appears to be an incorrect citation. Please confirm that the correct citation is 5.15 l iii which requests information on key personnel qualifications and references Appendix M (resume template). You are correct. This error will be corrected on the next FOA amendment.  6/18/2020   162. Resumes are limited to 2 pages each. The resume template includes a Letter of Commitment. Adequate descriptions of our Key Personnel's' leadership and technical expertise and how it relates to their ARD position, combined with the remaining requirements, will be challenging within the 2-page limit. Please consider excluding the Letter of Commitment from the resume page count. This is acceptable; the next FOA amendment will specify that the Letter of Commitment is excluded from the Resume 2-page limit.  6/18/2020   163. FOA requires "Identify the essential facilities (e.g., office, laboratory, computer, etc.) and other major resources to be used for the project and extent of their availability to the project. Describe only those resources that are directly applicable to the proposed work." There are hundreds of facilities and resources across our WBS that are directly applicable to the work. The Government's parenthetic reference to "computers "suggests the Government requires great detail. But the page count does not allow for complete detail. For example, vast facilities, suppliers, and resources are involved in manufacturing of a reactor pressure vessel or construction of a conventional plant. Will the Government consider limiting the "identification of essential facilities ) to those items at a reasonable WBS level, (such as level 4)? Yes. This will be clarified on the next FOA amendment. Major essential facilities (as determined by the applicant) should be identified.  6/18/2020   164. Under Demos and Risk Reduction - Other Policy Factors: "d. Applications that have potential to enhance US Nuclear infrastructure may be given preferential consideration..." Are there other factors that are part of US infrastructure besides "potential contributions of foreign expertise and supply chains? The Policy Factor is intended to indicate that any proposed project that has the potential to improve and broaden the capability of the domestic nuclear manufacturing enterprise through anticipated long-term sales of additional plants to other utility customers, both domestic and international, may be viewed favorably under the evaluation process. Applicants may consider providing letters of support or interest from supply chain vendors that have long-term interest in manufacturing parts and components for the proposed technology or from potential future customers as a means of indicating market potential.  6/18/2020   165. Paragraph 1.d acknowledges the planning uncertainty in future "out-years" of the project. This uncertainty extends from tasks, to cost profiles, and to timelines. But similar "rolling wave" language is not included in section 4 or 5. Since tasks to be performed, costs, and timeline must be synchronized, will the Government accept an equivalent uncertainty in out-year costs and timeline information appropriate for a "rolling wave" management approach? Yes.  6/18/2020   166. What is the DOE definition for "cost effective" and "commercially viable" in terms of overnight capital costs, $/MW-hr. generation, etc. vs. "competing, alternative sources of energy in the near- and mid-term"? Due to the expected uncertainty in applicant cost estimates, DOE did not specify threshold acceptability of project proposals in terms of overnight capital costs or $/MW-hr generation. DOE expects that applicants will identify the economic feasibility of their proposed projects as compared to existing and expected future energy generation technologies such as nuclear, coal, gas, and renewable energy sources.  6/18/2020   167. The Demo Description speaks of designs at TRL 6 and above, but also states "technology in final design phases" and "[f]or the purposes of this FOA, being in a final design state indicates that the design is sufficiently mature to begin procurement or construction activities." The description of TRLs 6 and 7 given in DOE G 413.3-4A Table 1 do not support procurement or construction activities at the time the award is finalized. Please clarify the scope of procurement and construction expected of applicants and at what corresponding milestone. For example, does this mean that procurement specifications and construction bid packages should be developed prior to the project start such that those could be sent to the respective companies for bid, or that this is considered as milestones in the proposed design schedule? DOE has assumed a broad definition of procurement or construction activities. Activities that could be commenced at the time the award is finalized could include the procurement of services or capabilities supporting the design development, or possibly procurement of long lead items such as large steel components of the reactor, depending on the maturity of the design. If a site has been identified for the project, construction activities could include efforts such as site clearing and preparation, establishing staging areas, pouring non-nuclear concrete such as pads, and other such early construction activities. DOE would consider the completion of procurement specifications and construction bid packages as milestones that would likely need to be specified in the proposed project schedule.  6/18/2020   168. This section (1.2) states the Demo path design should be at TRL level 6. Does that mean each major part of the plant should be at TRL 6 and greater or the overall plant TRL should be 6 or greater? Because the TRL definition is open to interpretation, DOE is looking for the overall plant TRL to be somewhere around level 6. The applicant is welcome to identify TRL levels of major systems, elements or components of the plant as necessary to support its overall TRL assertion.  6/18/2020   169. Given the ARD project is an public/private partnership and funded at up to 50% by the DOE, could the NRC fees associated with this project be fully funded with NRC off-fee based funds? In accordance with 10 CFR Part 170, NRC is required to charge hourly fees for licensing services, such as for preapplication consultations and reviews and for the review of applications for new licenses and approvals, and for special projects such as reviews of topical reports. Therefore, the NRC cannot use off-fee based funds for the review of these types of activities. These funds were appropriated for developing generic regulatory infrastructure development activities for advanced reactors. Under the cooperative agreements developed for this program, NRC fees incurred as a part of the proposed projects are eligible and could be invoiced for reimbursement under the program at 50% by DOE. DOE will not fully fund regulatory review activities with NRC off-fee based funds.  6/18/2020   170. The FOA clearly states that the Demonstration reactors are to be NRC licensed. Should the awardee assume NRC review fees will be invoiced for reports and applications to obtain the needed license(s) given this a demonstration project? If so, should the awardee assume the DOE shares the cost of these NRC fees to support reactor demonstration licensing up to 50%? NRC review fees for all reports and applications that are specifically required to support licensing requirements during the proposed project period of performance for the selected project will be eligible for cost reimbursement up to 50%.  6/18/2020   171. The FOA expects all permitting, certifications, etc. to be completed in the 5-7 year time frame. If a project is sited in a state with a regulated utility market which has lengthy processes for determining need and approving new generating resources, is the DOE willing to be the customer for the plant process heat and/or electrical output (e.g., power purchase agreement) in order to support the 5-7 year timeframe? No, DOE does not intend to act as the customer for any of the projects. The applicants are expected to establish a project plan that addresses the unique regulatory and market requirements and deliver an operational product within the timeframes specified.  6/18/2020   172. For a Demo project, DOE expects that the Applicant will be able to clearly exhibit that in 5-7 years it would be able to complete the appropriate permitting, certification and licensing reviews/activities with the regulator, establish final design configurations, execute long-lead procurements, develop operational programs and complete operator training, demonstrate supply chain readiness, establish an engineering, procurement, and construction (EPC) contract , construct the reactor, and perform start-up and testing to assure the advanced reactor is operational and functioning (e.g., producing electricity, process heat, etc.)... What is the criteria for demonstrating supply chain readiness? There is no specific criteria associated with supply chain readiness. DOE expects the project to be able to identify and execute contracts with all parts suppliers, vendors, service providers, or other entities required to fully design, license, construct and operate a demonstration reactor.  6/18/2020   173. Can Risk Reduction award funds be applied to physical construction of elements of a demonstration reactor versus "to prepare for future demonstration opportunities"; e.g. prepare by doing? For example, could a key piece of equipment such as a reactor vessel or heat exchanger be fabricated to demonstrate a new process, and if the process is found to be acceptable both technically and from a regulatory perspective, then installed in a future demonstration plant? Yes, this is an acceptable approach but DOE expects the applicant to provide discussion on how the proposed activities will serve to reduce risk and prepare the technology for future demonstration.  6/18/2020   174. Will the applicant for Risk Reduction be required to show a viable pathway (plan) to demonstrate the technology (through operation of a reactor) by 10-12 years (5 years after the demonstration path)? Yes, the business plan requires the identification of product and understanding of the market conditions. This is to ensure that the reactor concept can be competitive in the marketplace. For Risk Reduction projects, DOE expects the applicant to identify or discuss long range plans and a high-level schedule that supports the development of the technology and the eventual path to licensing, commercialization, construction and operation of the technology.  6/18/2020   175. Does the DOE plan to make additional awards at any time up to the seven years? If so, from what funding source is this provided? It is unclear how any additional awards would be administered by DOE. DOE may make additional awards if determined appropriate and subject to appropriations, although none are specifically planed at this time. Should an awarded project not be completed for any reason prior to the end of the award's project period of performance, DOE may make additional award(s) from applications submitted under this FOA. These new awards will be considered as competitively reviewed and awarded under this FOA, so long as the new awards from applications submitted in response to this competitive FOA remain within the programmatic boundaries of the FOA and were otherwise considered meritorious under the merit review criteria of the FOA. Should this occur, DOE would verify the Applicant's continued eligibility, capability, and willingness to accept an award, and the Applicant may be permitted to make certain updates to its application; however, all revisions made to the application must be approved by DOE and must remain within the programmatic boundaries of this FOA and the original merit review. DOE could also issue another, similar funding opportunity at some time when the awards made under the current FOA have achieved the goals of the Department.  6/18/2020   176. 2.3 says at least 2 ARC-20 awards… earlier sections like 1.4 say up to 2 ARC-20 awards--which is correct? "At least two" is correct. This will be corrected on an amendment to the FOA.  6/18/2020   177. If FFRDC/NL scope in aggregate totaled more than the applicant, is that okay? That is, is it the value of a single FFRDC/NL or cumulative FFRDC/NL? Section 3.2.5 of the FOA specifies that the scope of work to be performed by the DOE FFRDC/NL contractor may not be more significant (e.g. funding ratio) than the scope of work to be performed by the Applicant. This refers to the cumulative work to be done by FFRDC/NLs.  6/18/2020   178. The Project Narrative File is expected to contain around 100 pages of text, tables, and figures for Demonstration and Risk Reduction applications. However, the FOA states, "The maximum file size that can be uploaded to the https://www.id.energy.gov/ website is 10MB. Files in excess of 10MB cannot be uploaded and cannot be submitted for review." As the Project Narrative File could be greater than 10 MB, will the DOE accept the Project Narrative File portion of the application in multiple individual, sub-10 MB files? Yes, this is acceptable. The applicant should verify with DOE that all files are received.  6/18/2020   179. Please define "pre-construction activities" as used in this FOA regarding the Demonstration pathway. Is this work intended to encompass "knowledge work" such as production of the detailed engineering design and NRC license application content, "physical work" such as the production of long-lead materials and equipment such as heat exchangers at a fabrication shop, or a combination of both? Construction can't start until after NRC issues a construction permit or combined license, unless the applicant also requests a limited work authorization (LWA) in accordance with 10 CFR 50.10. An NRC-issued LWA allows holders of early site permits (ESPs), as well as Construction Permit (CP) and Combined License (COL) applicants, to perform certain limited construction activities before the issuance of the license, at their own risk. If underlying CP or COL application is withdrawn or denied, then the holder must implement the redress plan submitted in the LWA and return the site to the pre-construction condition. 10 CFR 50.10(a)(1) defines construction as driving of piles, subsurface preparation, placement of backfill, concrete, or permanent retaining walls within an excavation, installation of foundations, or in-place assembly, erection, fabrication, or testing for design features such as safety-related structures, systems, and components (SSCs). 10 CFR 50.10(a)(2) clarifies that construction does not include activities such as site exploration (e.g. borings); preparation of a site for construction (e.g. clearing of the site, grading, installation of drainage, construction of temporary roads); erection of fences; excavation; and erection of support buildings; building of service facilities (e.g. paved roads, parking lots, railroad spurs, potable water, sewage treatment facilities, transmission lines). These activities are not defined as construction for purposes of the NRC licensing process and can be performed without an NRC license, permit, or approval; however, they are defined as construction under the cooperative agreement and may be subject to DOE review and approval in accordance with the terms and conditions of the cooperative agreement award.  6/18/2020   180. The concept of an Operating Basis Earthquake (OBE) has been depreciated in recent NRC regulatory guidance and plant designs, focusing rather on the Safe Shutdown Earthquake. Would DOE consider deleting line K from the list of contents? Yes, DOE will delete line K from the list of contents in the next FOA amendment. 10 CFR 50 Appendix S defines the operating basis earthquake ground motion (OBE) as the vibratory ground motion for which those features of the nuclear power plant necessary for continued operation without undue risk to the health and safety of the public will remain functional. The OBE is only associated with plant shutdown and inspection and not for the design of structures, systems, and components (SSCs). Appendix S also defines safe-shutdown earthquake ground motion (SSE) as the vibratory ground motion for which certain SSCs must be designed to remain functional. 10 CFR 100.23 requires that a SSE for a site be determined considering investigations and that uncertainties need to be addressed through an appropriate analysis. Regulatory Guide (RG) 1.166, Revision 1 provides guidance regarding the OBE. RG 1.208 provides guidance for determining the site-specific SSE ground motion response spectrum (GMRS). Currently, RG 1.208 is tailored to just large light water reactors (LLWRs) which are referred to as Seismic Design Category (SDC) 5 for determining the SSE GMRS. NRC is in the process of updating RG 1.208 to be applicable to SDCs 2-5. The American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) standard is used to develop the actual SSE GMRS for SDCs 2-5 is ASCE 43-19. Microreactors and small modular reactors (SMRs) are likely to fall somewhere between SDC 2-4. The supporting American Nuclear Society (ANS) Standards are:<br /> 1) ANS 2.26 (risk criteria for selecting SDC),<br /> 2) ANS 2.27 (site investigations for geology, seismic, and Geotech), and <br /> 3) ANS 2.29 (probabilistic seismic hazard analysis guidance). <br /><br /> ANS Standards 2.27 and 2.29 all reference the latest Senior Seismic Hazard Analysis Committee (SSHAC) guidance on how to conduct investigations in order to capture the uncertainty as required by 10 CFR 100.23. NUREG 2213 also provides SSHAC guidance. There are 4 levels of SSHAC investigation with the higher levels 3-4 providing the most regulatory assurance. SSHAC levels 1-2 are likely to be more appropriate for microreactors and SMRs.  6/18/2020   181. Regarding 5.15 ii. Site Characteristics/Balance of Plant, are the responses to these line items expected to be for the specific proposed demonstration reactor site, or a typical generic site for the technology? The expectation is for the applicant to provide a reasonable amount of information regarding site characteristics, for the site or sites at which the applicant intends to construct and operate the proposed reactor, as well as a reasonable level of information regarding balance of plant systems such as power conversion, water intakes, heat rejection, plant support functions, or other capabilities required outside the nuclear island.   6/18/2020   182. Does the applicant project pay for nuclear fuel disposal/storage/end-of-life (on-site or off-site) if awarded the Demonstration? For Demo awards, these costs are considered out of scope of this project and will be the responsibility of the cooperative agreement awardee/NRC-licensee.  6/18/2020   183. Does the applicant project pay for nuclear fuel disposal/storage/end-of-life (on-site or off-site) if awarded the Risk Reduction? Cost shared funding (DOE / Applicant) may be used to pay for all aspects of the project proposal within the period of performance of the award.  6/18/2020   184. End of Life. The US currently lacks a permanent civilian used nuclear repository. For demonstration plants sited on DOE-controlled land, is transfer of the used fuel to the DOE for disposal a viable disposal path? It is the goal of the Advanced Reactor Demonstration Program to support the construction and operation of two NRC-licensed nuclear reactors. DOE remains committed to fulfilling its legal obligations under the Nuclear Waste Policy Act (NWPA). Applicants for a combined license or operating license must enter into an agreement with the Secretary for the disposal of high-level radioactive waste and spent nuclear fuel that may result from the use of such license. NWPA § 302; NRC Generic Letter 83-07. It is expected that the awardees for the Demo pathway will enter into a standard contract with the Department. NWPA 302; 10 CFR Part 961.  6/18/2020   185. Will awardees for Demos be required to enter into the Standard Contract for the spent fuel with DOE? Entities pursuing a combined license or operating license must enter into an agreement with the Secretary for the disposal of high-level radioactive waste and spent nuclear fuel that may result from the use of such license. NWPA § 302; NRC Generic Letter 83-07. It is expected that the awardees for the Demo pathway will enter into a standard contract with the Department. NWPA 302; 10 CFR Part 961.  6/18/2020   186. Does the applicant project pay for site decommissioning/dismantling/disposal if awarded the Demonstration? For Demo awards, the Government shall not be responsible for or have any obligation to the recipient for (i) Deactivation and/or Decommissioning (D&D) of any of the recipient's facilities, or (ii) any costs which may be incurred by the recipient in connection with the D&D of any of its facilities due to the performance of the work under this Agreement, whether said work was performed prior to or subsequent to the effective date of this Agreement.  6/18/2020   187. Does the applicant project pay for site decommissioning/dismantling/disposal if awarded the Risk Reduction but not located on a DOE site? (FOA addresses that for DOE sited facilities) Yes, if this is proposed as part of the project cost and within the project period of performance time. Proposals for the Risk Reduction and ARC-20 pathways may include all costs associated therewith including those relating to end of life of the project.  6/18/2020   188. The FOA states, "Any assumed reliance on DOE for access to enriched uranium for the initial core load is identified and reasonable/achievable based on plans, subject to appropriations." Should this statement be taken by applicants to mean that a fuel supply strategy which relies on the DOE providing access to sufficient quantities of enriched uranium for the initial fuel load is automatically considered acceptable by the DOE reviewers? What level of U-235 enrichment (e.g., HALEU) may be assumed by applicants per the FOA statement? Does this imply the DOE will not consider supplying enriched uranium (e.g. HALEU) for refueling AFTER the initial core load, or that it would not be covered as a project cost after the initial core load? No, the statement should not be interpreted to mean that a fuel supply strategy which relies on the DOE providing access to sufficient quantities of enriched uranium for the initial fuel load is automatically considered as an acceptable strategy. Applicants that are assuming reliance on a DOE source of fuel will need to identify the fuel requirements for their project and provide appropriate justification for the ability of the Government resources to be able to meet their needs, including assurance of financial compensation. The applicant’s fuel acquisition strategy should address in some form the applicant’s expected fuel need for the operational life of the plant.  6/18/2020   189. Please provide information on the intended process (Subject Matter Expert panels or otherwise) for review of progress, Milestones, and Key Decision Points the DOE plans to implement throughout each of the pathways to ensure these are considered during the development of the schedule for the project. Development of the schedule, milestones, and key decision points are the responsibility of the applicant. DOE has provided guidance on expected milestones such as: cost share requirements, licensing, technical progress, long lead or safety critical equipment deliveries, or similar. If selected for a Demo or Risk Reduction award the milestones will be negotiated as part of the award. <br />The cooperative agreement will establish DOE oversight parameters regarding review of progress, milestones, and Key Decision Points.  6/18/2020   190. Please describe the level of involvement the DOE plans to have in the licensing process with the NRC. The applicant is responsible for the licensing activities with the NRC. This is their statutory role. DOE's intent is only to measure progress as part of the project's activities.  6/18/2020   191. Does DOE plan to support meetings with key stakeholders at the local, state, and federal level? DOE may support the awardees in their interactions with key stakeholders including local, state, tribal, and other authorities as appropriate. DOE's attendance at these meetings would be determined on a case-by-case basis.   6/18/2020   192. Ref. FOA paragraph 3.2.7 Do applicants have to budget for NRIC in their project if they use them? i.e., do they have to come up with cost share for NRIC? NRIC can provide two broad types of support: 1. These capabilities include generic support related to identification of demonstration sites, preparation of infrastructure and tools that can be adapted for specific demonstration needs, demonstration of supporting technologies, and limited project planning support (up to 50 hours) to assist with identifying, scoping, scheduling and general planning support for activities with national laboratories. These generic support activities are directly funded by DOE and made available to potential applicants broadly. This support would be separate from the ARD cooperative agreements and would not count as Federal cost share. 2. NRIC team members can also be incorporated into an application’s project scope as a representative of their national laboratory/Federally Funded Research and Development Center (FFRDC) employer (e.g. INL, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, etc.) to provide direct support for project activities, such as experiment development and execution, facility modification, fuel fabrication and other supportive work. Such project-specific work in support of an awarded project would normally/preferably be done in accordance with instructions provided in the FOA under paragraph 3.2 Using a DOE FFRDC/NL, via the DOE work authorization process. However, such work may also be executed through an agreement, such as a Cooperative Research and Development Agreement (CRADA), between the awardee and the performing national laboratory/FFRDC. Either way, funding for that work would be included in the total amount of the award and subject to the cost-share requirements. DOE will directly fund the national laboratory/FFRDC work as part of the government cost share.   6/18/2020   193. Can applicant begin earlier than after selection announcement to provide DOE will information it needs to make an affirmative responsibility determination? Yes. While not required until after selection announcement, this information can be provided at any time to DOE and DOE will begin the responsibility determination process. Doing so may help speed the time period between selection announcement and actual award execution.  6/18/2020   194. De minimus rate - can it be changed during performance? Yes, at any time during performance the awardee may contact DOE to request it be changed over to Federally accepted rate agreement.  6/18/2020   195. "All applicants" does this include subs or only the primary applicant? This is intended to mean the primary applicant, although the prime is responsible to flow down applicable requirements to subrecipients.  6/18/2020   196. For ARC20 path, can milestone based payments be proposed? Yes, if the applicant wants to do so, but it is not required.  6/18/2020   197. A milestone-based payment model places the cost burdens on award recipients up front, and since the taxpayers' part of the payment schedule would clearly be less than 50% of the total costs, would the burdens of budget "scrutiny" and government evaluation of administrative programs and controls be lessened? The overhead costs of these programs on the recipients' side can be significant and lead to less overall cost efficiency of the project which may challenge the cost objectives of the demonstration. No, these will not be lessened. The recipient will be required to track and segregate costs and show costs incurred on invoices.  6/18/2020   198. Would a greater than 50% industry cost share allow for clarified roles under substantial involvement to be less burdensome to the recipient? The roles of DOE as currently described are potential nonstarters to venture funded companies. DOE has certain responsibilities and obligations associated with Federal monies that make this unlikely. As explained in the Industry Day presentations, while DOE reserves the right to become more substantially involved if necessary for the successful outcome of the project, DOE’s policy is to limit its involvement to the minimum necessary consistent with program requirements. Finally, the Statement of Substantial Involvement is subject to negotiation between the parties following selection announcement and prior to award.  6/18/2020   199. Taxpayers bear significant downside risk in this program, what upside benefits will taxpayers have if the assets are turned over to the recipient to generate revenues? The objectives of this program are to develop and demonstrate advanced nuclear reactors. Advanced nuclear energy systems hold enormous potential to lower emissions, create new jobs, and build a strong economy. Rapidly demonstrating advanced reactor designs is necessary to provide clean energy and expand market opportunities before access to key infrastructure and supply chain capabilities in the United States is lost.  6/18/2020   200. If we make a proposal using the De Minimis rate and win, can we change to an approved Federal rate as some point during the award and execution of the project? Yes, this can be done at any time during the period of performance of the award.  6/18/2020   201. On the ARD “Collaboration Hub”, I think you may have the “Build a Team” and “Join a Team” buttons reversed. FYI. Thanks for providing this service! The buttons are labeled correctly. DOE labeled the buttons this way with the thought that those seeking to build a team would want to see a list of those seeking to join a team and vice-versa.  6/18/2020   202. At end of plant life, whom has the decommissioning liability, if any? For Demos awards, the awardee is responsible for Deactivation and/or Decommissioning (D&D) of any of the recipient's facilities, and any costs which may be incurred by the recipient in connection with the D&D of any of its facilities due to the performance of the work under this Agreement, whether said work was performed prior to or subsequent to the effective date of this Agreement. <br /> For Demos, the costs of D&D should not be included in the application; these are not allowable under the agreement. <br /> The licensee of the reactor will be responsible for D&D. The NRC requires that the licensee submit some decommissioning-related information as part of the license application process, but not a full plan. A decommissioning plan will be required within 2 years of permanently ceasing operations.  6/18/2020   203. When will the recorded video be available because many have no audio? DOE is sorry for the inconvenience. Industry Day presentations have been posted to the FOA website, as will written questions posed and answers given during the Industry Day.  6/18/2020   204. If a group of applicants wants to submit an application and then post-award notice form a joint venture entity, how does that affect the award and negotiation process? If this is proposed to occur post selection announcement, but prior to award, it would not be allowed. The “entity” that submitted the original application is the entity that was selected for award consideration. If this is proposed after the award is negotiated and awarded, then 1:) the originally awarded entity may either obtain approval from DOE for a subaward to the new joint venture entity; or 2:) the original award may be novated to the new joint venture entity; or 3:) the original award may be terminated.   6/18/2020   205. General question - given the audio issues, will there be rescheduling of any key dates related to this FOA? As example, 1-1 meetings, letter of intent due date, etc.? Or is it too early to make a determination? DOE does not plan at this time to adjust any of the key FOA dates. Industry Day briefings and Q&As will be posted to the FOA website.  6/18/2020   206. Please explain how the cost of obtaining and maintaining private/third party financing should be represented in the cost/budget part of the FOA application. Thank you. If the applicant is a for profit entity, the cost principles under FAR 31.2 apply. Interest and other financial costs are unallowable and should be excluded from the budget direct and indirect costs. <br /><br /> <em>31.205-20 Interest and other financial costs.<br /> Interest on borrowings (however represented), bond discounts, costs of financing and refinancing capital (net worth plus long-term liabilities), legal and professional fees paid in connection with preparing prospectuses, and costs of preparing and issuing stock rights are unallowable (but see 31.205-28 ). However, interest assessed by State or local taxing authorities under the conditions specified in 31.205-41(a)(3) is allowable. </em><br /><br /> If this was not the intent of the question, and you were asking about a third party who is contributing towards covering cost share, the budget should include all project costs. The cost share amount would include the third party contribution. The budget justification would explain who is providing the cost share and how the cost share will be covered (money, donated labor, etc.). A cost share commitment letter/document should be provided by an authorized agent of the third party. <br /><br /> Cost share cannot include interest since it is unallowable.   6/18/2020   207. Will you wait to make any awards until all negotiations are done with everyone or will you make them as you complete negotiations? Individual awards will be made as soon as each is ready.   6/18/2020   208. For the cost share, in which the awardee is responsible, does the applicant, as the prime have to be the sole provider of cost share, or can it be made up by various members of the applicant's team? Cost sharing can come from any of the applicant team, as well as from third parties.   6/18/2020   209. In the risk management section, it details for Demo and RR, but ARC-20 (in FOA body) doesn't request risk management plan... Is risk management expected for all pathways? Yes, risk management will apply to ARC-20 as well. The FOA will be amended to reflect this.  6/18/2020   210. For example, the Risk Reduction can go from $40-400M and it considered to be up to 5-7 years. Would it be possible to apply for a Risk Reduction that is 3 years and less than $40M. Burn rate is the same; it's just to shorten the timeline Yes, this is fine.  6/18/2020   211. Has the COVID-19 stay at home orders, and other aspects of the pandemic have an impact on the review period and the timeline for announcements? No, things are proceeding as planned, including using virtual technologies, as needed.  6/18/2020   212. Will today's slides be available this week (prior to when the presentation itself is available next week)? DOE has posted Industry Day presentations to its FOA website.   6/18/2020   213. It would be helpful if the slides could be immediately distributed and before the recorded presentation itself is available. Thanks Yes, DOE has posted these to the FOA website.   6/18/2020   214. Should the owner and the operator of the demo plant be identified in the application. Demo applications must show a path to achieving commercial operation with a customer. As part of the Business Plan to be included in the application, the applicant must provide a Market Overview, which includes Client/Market Needs; specifically, the Business Plan must include your client analysis, which demonstrates your understanding of customer requirements, and your analysis and evaluation of the market and the viability potential (including longer term viability) of your reactor and plant to be successful in this market. It must identify the customer(s), and the customer involvement in the project, including customer commitment. If the customer is not yet identified, you must describe your plan, including activities, milestones, milestone completion verification, and tentative dates to get customers. Merit Review Criterion 4 will evaluate the quality, completeness and feasibility of the business plan, strategy, and market analysis (short and long term) to achieve commercial success, including the identification of current and future customers.  6/18/2020   215. Do all participating entities get identified in the Demo application? Designer, Supply Chain, licensee, owner, operator, constructor, etc. Certainly all entities are to be identified for the first year of the project. Preference is also for the applicant to identify these for the entire project, to the extent possible at the time of application submission, including if the entities planned for work during the out years are known at time of application submittal, please specify this. However, DOE recognizes that given the nature of the work and the extended timeframes for the award, that these may either change over time or not yet be fully identified at the time of full application submission. In this case, general plans selecting/obtaining participating entities are to be provided. For example, regarding the manufacture and construction of the reactor components and the eventual construction, the applicant is to describe general plans for reactor construction (e.g. plans to secure an Engineering-Procurement-Construction [EPC] contractor, plans for transporting major components to the construction site, materials, power needs, and other needs for the plant to become fully functional, as well as procurement of major long-lead components and commodities and how any other special equipment purchases will be handled, etc.), as well as procurement plans for various phases of the project. For work to be done by entities which are not identified at the time of application submission, the application should explain the types of entities that will contribute in a substantial, measurable way to the project (including for subrecipients and consultants), describe their overall role in the project and the qualifications, skills and capabilities they will be required to have to support achieving the project outcomes, and your general plans for obtaining access to entities having these skill sets. The FOA will be amended to clarify this.  6/18/2020   216. What happens if the Congress does not fund subsequent years of Demo Project? While DOE will make reasonable efforts to secure funding of the projects to completion, ultimately funding is subject to the availability of additional funds appropriated by Congress for the purpose of this program and the availability of future-year budget authority. Should Congress not fund subsequent years DOE will work with the awardee to determine the best path forward with existing funds. Such outcomes could include but are not limited to delaying work, extending performance milestones and dates, de-scoping remaining work to be done, and ending the award, etc. In all cases, the maximum DOE liability to the Recipient is the funds that are available which have been obligated to the award for the current approved Budget Period.   6/18/2020   217. No federal role in decommissioning? Notwithstanding any other terms of this Agreement, DOE shall not be responsible on Demos for or have any obligation to the recipient for (i) Deactivation and/or Decommissioning (D&D) of any of the recipient's facilities, or (ii) any costs which may be incurred by the recipient in connection with the D&D of any of its facilities due to the performance of the work under this Agreement, whether said work was performed prior to or subsequent to the effective date of this Agreement. Recipient will remain liable for all maintenance, remediation, and end of life disposition activities associated with the complex throughout its entire lifecycle.  6/18/2020   218. No special arrangements for nuclear liability? The Price Anderson Act (42 U.S.C. § 2210) provisions for NRC-licensed reactors will apply to the two demonstration reactors. DOE cannot extend its indemnification coverage under Price Anderson Act to these reactors. However, costs relating to the procurement of insurance for these reactors will be allowable at the 50-50 cost-share for the demonstration reactors under the cooperative agreement.  6/18/2020   219. Since the DOE will not be the owner of the project, and it does not represent a "Capital Asset Acquisition", will the DOE O 413.3b Program and Project Management for the Acquisition of Capital Assets be applicable to the management of the ARD project? No. DOE does not intend to direct the use of DOE O 413.3b. DOE does expect that the projects will incorporate sound project/project management practices. This will be evaluated as part of Merit Review Criteria.  6/18/2020   220. Does DOE plan to issue FOA Amendments? Yes, as needed. These will be posted to the Website and to Grants.gov  6/18/2020   221. What is the difference between a sub-applicant and a subcontractor? The main differences between these are:<br /><br /> <strong>Subrecipient:</strong><br /> (1) Determines who is eligible to receive what Federal assistance;<br /> (2) Has its performance measured in relation to whether objectives of Federal program were met;<br /> (3) Has responsibility for programmatic decision making;<br /> (4) Is responsible for adherence to applicable Federal program requirements specified in the award; and <br /> (5) Uses Federal $$$ to carry out program for public purpose specified, as opposed to providing goods or services for the benefit of pass-through entity <br /><br /> <strong>Contractor:</strong><br /> (1) Provides the goods and services within normal business operations;<br /> (2) Provides similar goods or services to many different purchasers;<br /> (3) Normally operates in competitive environment;<br /> (4) Provides goods or services ancillary to operation of program; and<br /> (5) Not subject to compliance requirements of Federal program as a result of agreement, though similar requirements may apply for other reasons <br /><br />Please see 2 CFR 200.330 for additional details. <br /> The applicant must make case-by-case determinations whether each agreement it makes for the disbursement of Federal program funds casts <br /> During award negotiations, DOE may require you show your determination to see if it was adequate.  6/18/2020   222. The concept of the HUB to form teams was new to me. Could you explain a little more how DOE sees that working please? The ARD FOA Collaboration Hub is a service provided by DOE through GAIN for this FOA. It is a tool provided to parties interested in applying for funding under the FOA and its use of the ARD Hub is entirely optional. <br /><br /> The ARD FOA Collaboration Hub is intended to foster collaborations between nuclear industry entities who wish to form a consortium, a team, or to join a team that is submitting an application to the ARD FOA. <br /><br /> Here you can enter as much information as you feel is necessary to make a connection with a potential teaming partner. Your information will be shared on the GAIN website for the Hub after a brief review by DOE.  6/18/2020   223. Is the size in terms of MWe a criteria in your evaluation? There are no criteria or limits for MWe.  6/18/2020   224. How are long lead time acquisitions handled? As part of the application package for Demos and Risk Reduction projects, applicants are to describe their approach for the manufacture and construction of the plant/reactor. This includes general plans for procurement of major long-lead components and commodities.  6/18/2020   225. Should the risk management plan be listed in the project narrative contents? It is included in the Section 5.5 Table "Summary of Application Documents" and the introduction to Section 5.15, but is not listed specifically in Section 5.15. Yes. The FOA will be amended to clarify this.  6/18/2020   226. Is DOE open to increasing the $250K threshold for obtaining a waiver and/or excluding procurement scope if project/performance site location is outside the U.S. (FOA Sec. 5.8 & 5.12)? This seems like a very low threshold given both the aggressive timeline for this FOA and the large amounts of funding involved. Yes, the FOA will be amended to raise this threshold.   6/18/2020   227. If an applicant wishes to make any clarifications and/or exceptions to the proposed contracting terms, how and where in the application should the applicant do so? The applicant may include a separate file with this information. This should be clearly marked along with rationale. It will not be included in the Project Narrative or the page limits. While this will not impact the selection evaluation or selection, taking exception to the proposed award terms may impact and lengthen out negotiations for award, and even preclude an award being made, if the parties cannot come to agreement during the negotiations.  6/18/2020   228. Can a university be the Prime Applicant under an ARC-20 application? Yes, they can so long as they otherwise meet FOA-specified eligibility requirements (e.g., US entity, etc.).   6/18/2020   229. Can foreign nationals work on this project? The following restrictions apply to foreign nationals working on projects receiving financial assistance. Specific restrictions or requirements apply. This list is not comprehensive. <br /><br /> An entity receiving DOE financial assistance is responsible for its own compliance with United States export control laws including, but not limited to, Export Administration Regulations (EAR)(15 CFR 730-744); Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) export regulations (10 CFR 110); and DOE export regulations (10 CFR 810). The nationality of foreign national working on the project and the type of work being performed would need to be reviewed utilizing 10 CFR 810, “Assistance to Foreign Atomic Energy Activities”. If the individual will have access to information that meets the definitions of an export or the definitions contained in 10 CFR 810, then the process (identified in 10 CFR 810) requiring DOE’s authorization must be followed. In addition to the 10 CFR 810 analysis, the previously mentioned EAR and NRC regulations should also be reviewed for applicability. <br /><br /> Additionally, DOE recommends that all applicants review the following to determine applicability to the project and work being completed. <br /><br /> <u>Appendices O (Demos); P (Risk Reduction) and Q (ARC-20) – Special Terms and Conditions:</u><br /> 1. Federal, State, and Municipal Requirements – requires recipients to follow federal, state, and municipal requirements. This would include 10 CFR Part 810, EAR, and NRC regulations. <br /> 2. National Security: Classifiable results originating under an award.<br /> <br /> <u>National Policy Assurances:</u><br /> 1. Cooperation with the Government in blocking and prohibiting transactions with persons who commit, threaten to commit, or support terrorism (Exec. Order No. 13,224; 66 Fed. Reg. 49,079.)<br /> 2. Use of uniform system for classifying, safeguarding, and declassifying national security information (32 C.F.R. Parts 2001 & 2003).<br /> <br /> Regarding any work on the project at FFRDCs/NLs, DOE Order 142.3A defines a program for unclassified foreign national access visits and requests to DOE sites, information, technologies, and equipment, including processes for review, approval and documentation of such foreign visits. <br /><br /> Previously, this order had a provision to exempt institutions of higher education from certain provisions of the order which were limiting the free flow of scientific information. But, this exemption has now been removed with the Chg 2, dated 12-13-2019, to the Order. Accordingly, awards with institutions of higher education are no longer exempted from its requirements.  6/18/2020   230. Between the first and second sentence, the word "them" appears by itself. Please confirm that this is a typo and that it is not part of a missing sentence or provide the missing sentence. This is a typo and will be corrected on the next FOA amendment.   7/1/2020   231. Is the application website down? I have been unable to log in for the past 4 days. We apologize for any inconvience. The website is working. If you have further difficulties, please contact Andrew Ford at fordaj@id.doe.gov   7/1/2020   232. One of the merit criteria for Demos proposals is "the quality and completeness of the Applicant's risk management plan, Risk Register, and mitigation plans." For a Demos project, a complete risk register would require a significant fraction of the overall page limit. Would it be acceptable to include a full risk register as a separate attachment, or is it instead preferable for the Risk Management Plan to include a summary of the risk register, describing major risks? A summary is acceptable. The FOA will clarify this on this next FOA amendment.   7/1/2020   233. The amended FOA (0001) does not reflect the font requirement change alluded to in the answer provided on 5/20/20: 5/20/20 Question: 20. 11-point Times New Roman (TNR) font in exhibits prevents the ability to fully depict concept technical solutions as required by the FOA. Will the Government allow smaller than 11-point TNR font and the use of a san serif font (e.g., Arial Narrow) for exhibits only (tables and figures), which will increase the legibility to depict complex concepts? 5/20/20 Answer: Yes, this will be permissible. The FOA will officially reflect this change on the next FOA modification. Will the Government please amend the FOA to reflect this change? This was an oversight. The change will be reflected in the next FOA amendment.   6/24/2020   234. On the website https://www.id.energy.gov/ARDFO/ the questions are numbered 1-37 then 88-95 is that an error or are questions 38-87 not yet posted? Questions are numbered as they are received, and posted to the website when an answer is finalized for that particular question. Questions may appear to be missing, until all answers are finalized and posted.   6/24/2020   235. Section 5.1.2 states This FOA is intended to be 'technology neutral', meaning that any advanced fission nuclear power reactor that is licensable and commercially viable may be proposed for award consideration. Section 6.1.2 states Technical feasibility that the demonstration reactor can be operational within five to seven years from completion of award. Section 5.15.c states For Demos - Achieve commercial operations within 5-7 years. These statements are conflicting. We assume that 5.15c should be commercial viability. Please confirm. Commercial viability is for the Nth of a kind reactor, meaning that the system is viable beyond just the first demo unit. DOE does not see that these statements conflict. Demos applications are to explain how the advanced reactor proposed can be operational within 5 – 7 years from the time the cooperative agreement is awarded. On the next amendment to the FOA, DOE will change FOA paragraph 6.1.2 Criterion 1), to clarify that DOE will evaluate the technical feasibility that the demonstration reactor can be operational within five to seven years from the effective award date of the cooperative agreement, and for Risk Reduction, to achieve a demonstration reactor in approximately 10-14 years from the effective award date of the cooperative agreement.   7/1/2020   236. In Appendix O, Sec. (5), would DOE add the words in effect on the date of this award after the words as approved by DOE, to make it clear amendments are covered? Yes, this change will be done and reflected in the next FOA amendment.   7/1/2020   237. In order to clarify which FAR and DEARs apply, would DOE add a clarification to Appendix O, Sec. 1, by adding the following sentence at the end as follows: All references to FAR and DEAR clauses and articles incorporated by reference are, unless otherwise specified to the version applicable as of the effective date of this Agreement? Yes. This change will be reflected in the next FOA amendment.   8/4/2020   238. In Appendix O, Sec. 5, would DOE please confirm that the National Policy Assurances are the Research Terms and Conditions Appendix C National Policy Requirements October 1, 2017? Yes, your understanding is correct.   7/1/2020   239. Would DOE please fix the drafting in Sections 33, 37, and 39 of Appendix O, so it does not refer to you? Yes. This will be changed in the next FOA amendment.   7/1/2020   240. Would DOE please fix the paragraph cross-references in Appendix O, Sec. 47, which are all incorrect? Please specify which are incorrect so that DOE can consider changes needed.  7/1/2020   241. For Appendix O, Sec 64 and Sec 99, these sections conflict with DOE Q and A 33 and 100, because they refer to any subaward entity, and those answers clarified that only the prime applicant on an award was disqualified due to taking funding under the DOE Advanced SMR program. Further, Appendix O, Sec 99 only specifies 2020 funds. Would DOE please update and fix these clauses so they are internally consistent and consistent with DOEs Q and A answers? Yes, this will be corrected on the next FOA amendment. Note that the requirement for 2020 funds is correct.   7/1/2020   242. On Appendix O, Sec 77, what are the requirements for obtaining a DOE approved purchasing system? To have an “approved purchasing system” the awardee must meet the Procurement Standards set forth in 2 CFR 200, sections §200.317 -§200.326, as applicable and as unilaterally determined acceptable by the contracting officer. In making this determination, the contracting officer will look to see if the awardee has written procurement policies and procedures meeting or exceeding the standards set forth in 2 CFR 200. In so doing, DOE generally asks questions such as these provided below: 1. Non-Federal entity has documented written procurement procedures? 2. Procurement procedures appear to reflect applicable State, local, and tribal laws and regulations, provided that the procurements conform to applicable Federal law and the standards identified in 2 CFR 200? 3. Non-Federal entity has procurement procedures to maintain oversight to ensure that contractors perform in accordance with the terms, conditions, and specifications of their contracts or purchase orders? 4. The non-Federal entity maintains written standards of conduct covering conflicts of interest and governing the actions of its employees engaged in the selection, award and administration of contracts and the standards of conduct provide for disciplinary actions to be applied for violations of such standards? Note: If the non-Federal entity has a parent, affiliate, or subsidiary organization that is not a state, local government, or Indian tribe, the non-Federal entity must also maintain written standards of conduct covering organizational conflicts of interest. 5. The non-Federal entity's procedures avoid acquisition of unnecessary or duplicative items? a. Consideration is given to consolidating or breaking out procurements to obtain a more economical purchase b. Where appropriate, an analysis is made of lease versus purchase alternatives, and any other appropriate analysis to determine the most economical approach 6. The non-Federal entity’s procedures provide that awards are only made to responsible contractors possessing the ability to perform successfully under the terms and conditions of a proposed procurement, including considering such matters as a. Contractor integrity b. Compliance with public policy c. Record of past performance d. Financial and technical resources to perform e. The contractor is neither suspended nor debarred from federal procurement 7. Procedures require the non-Federal entity to maintain records sufficient to detail the history of procurement? 8. If procedures permit the use a time and materials type, they only allow its use after a determination that no other contract is suitable and if the contract includes a ceiling price that the contractor exceeds at its own risk? 9. The procedures require all procurement transactions be conducted in a manner providing full and open competition, unless otherwise justified/documented in writing? 10. The written procedures for procurement transactions provide that all solicitations: a. Incorporate clear and accurate description of technical requirements which do unduly restrict competition b. Identify factors to be used in evaluating bids or proposals 11. The written procurement policy provides for the use of one or more of the following methods of procurement in accordance with §200.320, as applicable: a. Micro-purchases b. Small purchase procedure c. Sealed bids (formal advertising) d. Competitive proposals e. Noncompetitive proposals, including documentation of the circumstances justifying a noncompetitive procurement 12. The procedures provide affirmative steps to assure that small businesses, minority businesses, women-owned businesses, and labor surplus area firms are used when possible? 13. Cost/Price Analysis. a. The procedures require that non-Federal entity perform a cost or price analysis in connection with every procurement action in excess of the Simplified Acquisition Threshold including contract modifications? b. The procedures require the non-Federal entity to negotiate profit as a separate element of the price for each contract in which there is no price competition and in all cases where cost analysis is performed? 14. The procedures prohibit cost plus a percentage of cost and percentage of construction cost methods of contracting?   7/1/2020   243. Would DOE please qualify Appendix O, Sec 83, to add the words as required by applicable law at the end of this section, because this would not apply to industrial areas of a facility? Yes. This term will be changed on the next FOA amendment to read, substantially as follows: FROM: The Recipient must ensure that all persons have ready access to, and use, of buildings regardless of disability in the design, construction or alteration of buildings and facilities financed with Federal funds. TO: The Recipient must ensure that all persons have ready access to, and use, of buildings regardless of disability in the design, construction or alteration of buildings and facilities financed with Federal funds to the extent practicable consistent with existing applicable statute and NRC regulations.   7/1/2020   244. Consistent with the cost reimbursable nature of this FOA, in Appendix O, Section 94, would DOE please delete the words without additional expense to the Government, and add the words instead at the end of the first sentence: which shall be an allowable expense? Yes. This term will be changed on the next FOA amendment to read, substantially as follows: FROM: For the construction portion of this award, the recipient shall, without additional expense to the Government, be responsible for obtaining any necessary licenses and permits, and for complying with any Federal, State, and municipal laws, codes, and regulations applicable to the performance of the work. The recipient shall also be responsible for all damages to persons or property that occur as a result of the recipient’s fault or negligence. The recipient shall also be responsible for all materials delivered and work performed until completion and acceptance of the entire work, except for any completed unit of work which may have been accepted under the award. TO: For the construction portion of this award, the recipient shall be responsible for obtaining any necessary licenses and permits, and for complying with any Federal, State, and municipal laws, codes, and regulations applicable to the performance of the work. Expenses associated with such permits and licenses shall be deemed allowable costs that are eligible for DOE cost share. The recipient shall also be responsible for all damages to persons or property that occur as a result of the recipient’s fault or negligence. The recipient shall also be responsible for all materials delivered and work performed until completion and acceptance of the entire work, except for any completed unit of work which may have been accepted under the award.   7/1/2020   245. Is the DOE Field Work Proposal (FWP) the only budget information required from FFRDC collaborators? Or is a separate budget narrative/justification file required in addition to the FFRDC's FWP? Along with the FWP, please include a FFRDC budget justification, to include a breakdown of the cost categories and rationale regarding the necessity of the expenditures, as well as the basis of estimate for each of the budget cost categories (e.g., labor, travel, materials, etc.). No justification is required for FFRDC rates (directs, indirects, and fee), as these are already pre-established on the FFRDC contract. Reference FOA Appendix G.   7/1/2020   246. In Amendment 000001 to the FOA Document, DE-FOA-0002271, the Business Plan is listed twice in the list of required documents for the Demos and Risk Reduction Applications. See page 42 (Commercialization Efforts) and page 44 (Business Plan). Please advise. This is a duplication. Only one Business Plan is required. This will be clarified on the next FOA amendment. Thank you for bringing this to our attention.   7/2/2020   247. The following subcriterion appears in both merit criterion 1 and criterion 3: the quality and completeness of the Applicants plans to address site specific engineering requirements at the selected deployment location. Is this intended to be listed as part of only one criterion? This will be removed from Criterion 1 on the next FOA amendment. I will remain in Criterion 3.   7/2/2020   248. Document App G, Section 3, Travel. The instruction stipulates the following: "If travel is proposed, proposed, provide the folloing on a Microsoft Excel spreadsheet; the travel spreadsheet is to be included as part of the Budget Justification file, using the file named "Budget.pdf" Is this to be a working Excel file or an Adobe file, as Excel files are not saved with a pdf extension? If an Excel file these should be saved as .xlsx extension pursuinat to FOA pragraph 5.1.2. Please clarify. This is to be a working Excel file. Please save and submit using an .xlsx extension. This change will be clarified on the next FOA amendment.   7/2/2020   249. Document App F: Since the threshold for requesting a waiver for work performed or supplies, equipment, or services purchased outside the US was raised in Amendment 000001, will Appendix F be modified to agree with the new threshold? Yes. Appendix F will be changed on the next FOA amendment to reflect the revised thresholds.   7/2/2020   250. Document App G, Section Title Cost Sharing Information Application Submission Instructions, e: The file name still says Insert Application ID#. Amendment 000001 removes that from the other file names. Should it removed here as well? Yes, it should be removed. This change will be reflected on the next FOA amendment.   7/2/2020   251. Document App G: The budget justifications provided by bidders could potentially contain numerous tables that might not avail themselves to presentation within a 8.5 x 11" page. Will the Government allow 11x17 sized pages in this section to better present tables and explanations. Yes. This will be clarified on the next FOA amendment.   7/2/2020   252. Document App L, Section Business Plan Executive Summary: The Government asks for a summary of 'Marketing and Sales of Other Reactor Outputs, as well as Additional Reactors/Plant.' Please clarify what is meant by 'Reactor Outputs.' This is intended to be whatever the reactor commercially produces (e.g., electricity, process heat, etc.).   7/2/2020   253. Document App L, Section - Company Financing-Exit Strategy: Can the Government please clarify Exit Strategy as it pertains to the ARDP. Presuming that, per FOA 1.5.1: A demonstration is defined as an advanced reactor operated as part of the power generation facilities of an electric utility system or in any other manner for the purpose of demonstrating the suitability for commercial application of the advanced nuclear reactor marks the completion of the ARDP, then what is meant by Exit? The Business Plan requirements for an Exit Strategy is made along the lines of DOE ensuring that the potential awardees understand the entire scope of their potential responsibilities. The intent here is that the applicant's business plan should describe the business planning as it relates to the future of the advanced reactor, e.g., marketing and building not just the first of a kind reactor but also the nth of a kind. The intent is also for the applicant to show DOE that it indeed has a comprehensive strategy to commercialize the design. An exit strategy is part of a comprehensive, well-thought out business plan. No matter what stage the project or the company is in, commercial business planning should consider and plan an exit strategy. The advanced reactor is an asset in which both the awardee and the DOE will have invested money. Planning an exit strategy is the most commonly overlooked consideration of a business strategy, yet the exit strategy plays a key role in determining the strategic direction for the advanced demonstration reactor and the applicant’s company. By not proactively planning an exit strategy, the business, or its successors, may find that future options are limited. Having an exit strategy is a means by which the business transitions to the next major stage. From this perspective, the awardee will not necessarily leave the business, but its role could change over time. Accordingly, the awardee would want to carefully evaluate its business plan, strategy and vision and determine what a favorable exit strategy looks like for the business, including as a means to achieving its highest goals as related to the advanced demonstration reactor that aligns with business goals. To prevent the advanced demonstration reactor and the applicant’s business from taking a path other than the one intended, the applicant can consider integrating the exit strategy into its business’s vision, goals and strategy. Just because the applicant defines a exit strategy now doesn’t mean it necessarily has to execute it anytime soon. Other benefits of having this strategy could include: • Protecting the value and enhancing the future worth of advanced demonstration reactor • Creating a smooth transition for company management team and other stakeholders • Generating a potential income • Creating a strategic direction for the business’ growth By describing an exit strategy, the applicant will show DOE that it has a complete and well-thought-out business plan for the full life of the commercialization of the advanced demonstration reactor.   7/2/2020   254. I see on the ARD website under the Related Links section a number of new documents (e.g., b. Attach 2 Indirect Rate Two Tier System example c. Attach 3 Indirect Rate Three Tier System example d. Attach 4 Procurement Standards Review Checklist e. Attach 5 Travel Policy Checklist f. Attach 6 Characteristics of compliant property system g. Attach 7 Accounting System Checklist h. Attach 8 Environmental Checklist Is the applicant supposed to use/address these as part of the application? Partially. These are informational documents only. Some of them are to assist applicants in getting approved indirect rates. Indirect rates are to be used in preparing budgets and submitted as part of the application. However, regarding the other documents (e.g., Procurement Standards, Travel Policy, etc.), these are not be addressed in the application package. Following DOE's review of submitted applications, DOE will announce which applications are selected for award negotiations leading to an actual award. As part of the post-selection processes, the DOE Contracting Officer will be required to make an affirmative responsibility determination for each applicant selected for award; the Contracting Officer will also be required to accomplish a Budget Review of the proposed application project budget to ensure the costs are allowable, allocable, reasonable, consistently treated in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles, and that the budget adequately supports the proposed project activities. In doing these reviews, the Contracting Officer will review different applicant policies/systems, among other things. The documents provided here comprise different considerations the Contracting Officer does in making some of these reviews/determinations. These documents are provided as information to the applicants, and to assist them in getting ready for the post-selection budget review and responsibility determination activities.   7/14/2020   255. Appendix G states: "A separate budget for each budget period year of support requested must be completed." Does this mean that for a seven year project, seven copies of the SF 424A Budget form should be submitted?A single form only has space for the first five years of a project. Appendix G will change from the SF-424A to the SF-424 R&R for non-construction budgets. The applicant may either submit a separate SF-424 R&R for each budget year, or may submit one showing the first five years along with a second SF-424 R&R for the last two years. Either is fine. For Construction work on Demos, the specific construction portion of the award using the SF 424C must be submitted. (note: a separate SF 424 C will be required for each budget year of the construction activity).   7/14/2020   256. Appendix G states "The form will generate a cumulative budget for the total project period. Complete all the mandatory information on the form before the "next period" button is activated." There is no "next period" button on the form. How do you suggest we enter budgets for multiple budget periods? The next FOA amendment will change Appendix G to delete the wording regarding the form cumulating the total for the project, as well as the language regarding the "next button". The next FOA amendment will also change the SF-424A to require applicants use the SF-424R&R for non-construction costs. Appendix G will require Applicants for Demos to submit two budget forms – one for the non-construction portions of the award using the SF 424 R&R (the applicant may either submit a separate SF-424 R&R for each budget year, or may submit one showing the first five years along with a second SF-424 R&R for the last two years), and another for the specific construction portion of the award using the SF 424C. A separate SF 424 C will be required for each budget year of the construction activity.  7/6/2020   257. For construction of ancillary facilities (e.g., a fuel fabrication facility), should the budget for those facilities be included in the "construction" categoryof an SF 424A form, in a combined SF 424C form with demonstration reactor construction, or in a separate SF 424C form? This may be included in a combined SF 424C form with the demonstration reactor construction.   7/6/2020   258. For project partners that are providing cost-share as well as key personnel, may their cost-share commitment letter also state their commitment to providing their key personnel to the project instead of stating this commitment in a separate letter that is attached to the key personnel's resumes/vitae? No, please provide separate cost sharing commitment letter(s), and the separate commitment letter(s) for key personnel attached to the resume. To help avoid confusion between these two distinct letters, the next FOA amendment will re-title the resume commitment letter to be a "Key Personnel Pledge Letter":   7/14/2020   259. The SF 424A form has an entry for "construction" budget. Should costs for construction of facilities be included on both the SF 424A and SF424C forms, or only on the SF 424C form? Also, is it permissible to list construction costs for ancillary facilities (e.g. fuel fabrication facility) solely on the SF 424A form? The next FOA amendment will change from the SF-424A to require the use of the SF-424 R&R. Non-construction costs are to be included on the SF-424 R&R form, with construction costs (including construction costs for ancillary facilities) on the SF-424C form.   7/14/2020   260. The Project/Performance Site Location was originally supposed to be submitted in the Project/Performance Site Location form, and Amendment 1 of the FOA clarifies this file is submitted as part of the Project Narrative File and is included as part of its page count limit. Can you clarify whether this information should be populated in the provided .pdf form and inserted into the narrative file, or should it be drafted in its own section and not populated in the form? The form is for the convenience of the applicant. This information should be populated in the provided .pdf form in the document library of the FOA website and inserted into the narrative file. However, at its option, the applicant may draft its own section and not use the form so long as all required information as listed on the form is provided.   7/14/2020   261. Is a letter of commitment required from all individual key personnel we submit a resume for or just from PIs from each partnering institution? This letter should be submitted for each key person proposed. The next FOA amendment will change the name of this letter and clarify the requirement, substantially as follows: Key Personnel Pledge Letter: As a separate attachment to the resume (i.e., not included in the resumes 2-page limit), include a Key Personnel Pledge Letter. This letter, from each key person proposed should specify the key person’s commitment to successfully accomplish the project . Include an estimate of how long the key person intends to work on the project (e.g., which budget periods, and approximately how long/how many hours/percentage of time will be dedicated to the project) and in what capacity to help ensure the project’s success. The Key Personnel Pledge Letter is excluded from the Resume 2-page limit.   7/14/2020   262. On Page 46 of 69 of Amendment 1 to the ARDP FOA, the ARC-20 project requirements for TASKS TO BE PERFORMED were revised to allow applicants to propose tasks using milestones, including the use of a milestone payment approach, or the ability to propose payments be made as project costs are incurred, e.g., monthly invoices. Does DOE anticipate allowing similar optionality for monthly invoicing under the Demo and Risk Reduction projects? This optionality is not anticipated for Demos and Risk Reductions; these projects are to be proposed using the milestone based payments approach. However, recognizing that some time may lapse between the time the milestone has begun until the milestone is achieved and invoiced for, DOE will permit the awardee to submit a monthly cost tracking document similar to an invoice of all incurred allowable, allocable, and reasonable costs for that month. DOE will review this information for completeness and adequacy just as it would for an invoice. This will allow the parties to track costs incurred and greatly assist in the timely processing/payment of the actual invoice submitted once a milestone is achieved.   7/15/2020   263. Per 5.1.2 all spreadsheets are to be uploaded in Excel file format using an .xlsx extension. However, the Summary of Application Documents in 5.5 indicates the Budget (item 5) is to be submitted using the budget forms (SF 424A and SF 424C) which are fillable pdf files that are downloaded from the application website library via the link in Appendix G. Does DOE want an Excel file in addition to the SF 424A and SF 424C? This depends on the pathway applied for, as follows: Demos: Applicants must submit two budget forms – one for the non-construction portions of the award using the SF 424 R&R (the applicant may either submit a separate SF-424 R&R for each budget year, or may submit one showing the entire project period – the form available on the ARD website document library has provision for the full 5 – 7 years of the project), and another for the specific construction portion of the award using the SF 424C. (note: a separate SF 424 C will be required for each budget year of the construction activity). Risk Reduction and ARC-20: Applicants must submit the SF-424 R&R form for the budget (the ARD website document library has a 10-year form to be used for the 5-7 year Risk Reduction application, and a 5-year form to be used for the ARC-20 application). The SF 424 form(s) may be submitted in either an Excel or .pdf format. In addition to the SF-424 budget forms, for each budget period and for the entire project period; attach a budget justification narrative document to cover all award budget periods. For Demos, in addition to completing the SF-424 R&R and SF-424 C forms, and the budget justification, the application must also include an Excel spreadsheet that shows the yearly construction and non-construction budgets by cost element, which also shows the overall total project budget. The application must include a Budget Justification. A separate Microsoft Excel file instead of a written budget narrative for the Risk Reduction and ARC-20 may be used for the Budget Narrative / Justification documentation, if desired by the applicant.   7/14/2020   264. Amendment 1 changed the submission file names to remove the Application ID# from the file name. However in reviewing the application submission site, the requirement is still there to include the Application ID# in the file name. Please clarify if the Application ID# should be included in the file name of the files to be uploaded to the application submission site. FOA Amendment 000001 incorrectly removed the Application ID# from the file names. These will be re-inserted in the upcoming Amendment 000002.   8/4/2020   265. In section 3.2.2 on conflicts of interest for DOE FFRDC/NL, it states "If no COI exists, check the box and proceed." Is there a box to check as part of the application process, or is this referring to a specific form that should be filled out? On the application site you may select Yes or No under the Conflict of Interest Section. If you select yes, you must attach the COI statement(s). If you select no you may proceed without uploading a document.  7/14/2020   266. On page 44 of 69, of the Amendment 000001 for the Funding Opportunity Number DE-FOA-0002271, it was added a new Section "t. Business Plan." However, a Business Plan is also included as part of section "m. Commercialization Efforts" (on page 42). Was than an unintended duplication of the request for a business plan? Yes, this was an unintended duplication. The next FOA amendment will correct this.   7/14/2020   267. In the Rev of the FOA, there is now have a 5.15m for "Commercialization Efforts" and a 5.15t for "Business Plans." Both of these sections seem to want a business plan and reference Appendix L. Is this an error? Are these intended to be the same section? Yes, this was an error and will be corrected on the next FOA amendment.   7/14/2020   268. Current and Pending support is now clearly called out as a separate doc. However, it's still listed in the narrative section of the FOA (5.15n). Are the other sections of 5.15n (parts i, iii, and iv) supposed to be in a separate doc as well or in the project narrative? This is to be included as a separate attachment to the Project Narrative File; but, it is not included in the Project Narrative File page count.   7/14/2020   269. In the table under section 5.5 (Content and Application forms) of the FOA Manual for 2271, there is a column identifying who the form is "required from." There are participants identified as "collaborators*/subrecipients" but there is no footnote to explain the *. Please clarify the definitions of collaborators, subreceipients, and sub-applicants. The "*" in the FOA tables for all three pathways in 5.5 is in error and will be deleted on the next FOA amendment. A collaborator is a person or entity who is proposed to work jointly on the project. Subaward means an award provided by a pass-through entity to a subrecipient for the subrecipient to carry out part of a Federal award received by the pass-through entity. It does not include payments to a contractor or payments to an individual that is a beneficiary of a Federal program. A subaward may be provided through any form of legal agreement, including an agreement that the pass-through entity considers a contract. A subrecipient means a non-Federal entity that receives a subaward from a pass-through entity to carry out part of a Federal program; but does not include an individual that is a beneficiary of such program. A subrecipient may also be a recipient of other Federal awards directly from a Federal awarding agency. A subapplicant is an entity proposed as part of the application to perform work on the project as a subrecipient.   8/4/2020   270. I am not finding the Certs and Assurances for non-construction programs (SF-424B) at the application website library Under the application documents for pathway 1 or 2 listed under item 12 are the certs and assurances for non-construction (SF-424B). You can get directly with this link: https://www.id.energy.gov/NEWS/ARDFO/ARDFOOpportunities/SF424B-V1.1.pdf   7/14/2020   271. Similar to how the Current and Pending Support section of Team Identification and Expertise was revised in Amendment 1 to clarify that it will be included as a separate attachment to the Project Narrative File; and that it is not included in the Project Narrative File page count, will the same be revised for Resume's in Team Identification and Expertise? Yes. The next FOA amendment will clarify that each resume has a 2-page limit. However, resume pages are not included in the overall Project Narrative File page count.   7/14/2020   272. Is it required that we use the Project/Performance site location form and insert it into the project narrative file, or is it sufficient to create a table in the narrative that includes the requested information? The form is for the convenience of the applicant. This information should be populated in the provided .pdf form in the document library of the FOA website and inserted into the narrative file. However, at its option, the applicant may draft its own section and not use the form so long as all required information as listed on the form is provided.   7/15/2020   273. Regarding Appendix L, will the Government please clarify what is meant by "Sourcing and Fulfillment?" Sourcing and fulfillment (which are direct costs) are the other side of the “what do you sell”, e.g., commercialization of the advanced reactor, question: How will the nth of a kind advanced reactor be built? Where do you buy or how will you (or customers) obtain main components? How will the advanced reactor outputs or products be provided to customers? These are critical factors for successful commercialization of the advanced reactor. Sourcing or fulfillment are descriptions of where you get the products or services you sell (sourcing); and how you fulfill the services you sell (fulfillment). This would cover how you purchase from distributors, vendors of raw materials, suppliers, and so forth. For services, fulfillment commonly includes how you work with customers or other utilities. For purposes of the Business Plan for the ARD application, sourcing and fulfillment costs may be merely implied in a few bullet points in tactics or operations. For the building of nth of a kind advanced reactors for the commercial marketplace, briefly discuss sourcing from vendors. Note that detailed breakdowns of standard costs and the materials or services necessary to be purchased as part of the manufacturing operations of nth of a kind reactors is not needed; neither are spreadsheet lists, bills of materials, or standard cost breakdowns. Just provide a brief, top-level description of how sourcing will work for nth of a kind commercial reactors to be built. You may provide additional documentation that can be attached as appendices to the Business Plan, e.g., contracts with important suppliers and other information if desired, although this is not required. If certain materials are particularly vital to the nth of a kind advanced reactor manufacturing, you might discuss whether second sources or alternative sources are available, and whether or not you use them or maintain relationships with them. You may also wish to discuss your sourcing strategy, and whether or not you can improve your business by improving your product sourcing.   7/14/2020   274. The amended FOA (amendment 000001), states the period of performance for the different pathways. Does that mean that we can choose a PoP of less than the stated anticipated PoP's (if we can complete the proposed work in that shorter timeframe)? Yes, projects for shorter periods than the stated periods of performance in the FOA may be proposed.   7/15/2020   275. For a Demos/Risk Reduction application, should the Coordination and Management Plan be placed after the Project/Performance Site Location section (as shown in the Summary of Application Documents Table) or after the Facilities and Resources section (as shown in section 5.15)? Either location is fine, so long as the information is provided, labeled, and referenced in the table of contents.   7/22/2020   276. On page 30 of 69 in the FOA document Item 4 "Resume / Vitae - Technical Expertise and Qualifications (2-page limit each) there are references to 15.5n and Appendix M. Neither of these references describe what to name the PDF file that is to be uploaded. The name is specified for other items that require file upload. What should we name this file? This may be submitted using the file name: CV_"Last Name"_"Insert ID#".pdf  7/22/2020   277. Does the Foreign Ownership, Control or Influence (FOCI)-Appendix K need to be signed? The template includes a certification but no signature line so please clarify if the intent is for the applicant and subapplicants to submit a signed foreign disclosure. Yes, this certification is to be signed and included with the application submission.   8/5/2020   278. Since the Coordination and Management Plan has been moved to the Project Narrative, is it correct that it no longer needs to be included in the Project Management Plan? The Coordination and Management Plan is included as part of the Project Narrative File, and is included in its page limits. Likewise, the Project Management Plan is included as part of the Project Narrative File. Appendix J of the FOA still specifies that the Coordination and Management Plan is part of the Project Management Plan. Due to the confusing/overlapping FOA instructions and Appendix J instructions, DOE will accept applications having the Coordination and Management Plan submitted either as part of the Project Management Plan or simply included as part of the overall Project Narrative File. Please be sure to clearly identify the Coordination and Management Plan whichever why it is submitted to ensure DOE reviewers can find it.   8/5/2020   279. Per the Government's answer to question #269, a collaborator is a "person or entity who is proposed to work jointly on the project." For persons who are considered collaborators, please confirm that separate submission files are not required for 8. Budget Justification, 15. Past Performance, and 16. Foreign Government Ownership, Control, or Influence Disclosure. A separate budget and budget justification should be completed and submitted for each of these. For the past performance, a separate Past Performance information template (see Appendix N) should be completed for each entity. However, all the completed separate Past Performance information templates should be combined into a single document for upload to the application submission site (the site will only permit one Past Performance document to be updated). Likewise, for the Foreign Government Ownership, Control, or Influence (FOCI) Disclosure submission, as separate disclosure is required from each entity, but all completed FOCI disclosures should be combined into one document for upload/submission to the application submission site.   7/22/2020   280. When will the next FOA amendment be released? Amendment 000002 was released on July 21, 2020. It is available on the FedConnect and Grants.gov sites; the ARD website page should be updated accordingly on July 22, 2020.   7/28/2020   281. Is the Past Performance Information Submission included in page count? No, it is not included in the page count.   7/28/2020   282. For the purposes of the Project Summary/Abstract, must the template be used or may applicants submit their own file as long as it meets the 1-page requirement? Please use the template provided in the FOA. DOE often publicly posts these abstracts; accordingly, using the FOA-provided template will help ensure consistency in such postings.   8/6/2020   283. Project Narrative, PMP (Section Q) and Appendix J, Deliverables: Deliverables are required to be described in the PMP. Direction is provided in the form of Appendix T for Federal Assistance Reporting. There is additionally a requirement that other deliverables be described, with examples relating to construction. We request clarification on two items relating to the deliverables requirements: 1. Does DOE expect to have engineering and licensing records articulated as part of the project Deliverables or is that intended to be part of the scope description? If so, please provide examples of engineering and licensing related Deliverables which the DOE expects to see included to the proposal PMP. 2. Please clarify if project Deliverables (such as the engineering and licensing items requested above) other than those specified in Appendix T are intended to be submitted to DOE or must simply be verified as delivered. If submission to DOE is required, please clarify if submissions will be publicly available. If submissions are required and will be publicly available, can submissions be protected such as by redaction of proprietary information intended to be commercialized by the applicant or by deferring submission until after commercialization? Answer to Question 1> It is DOE's expectation that Applicants propose/provide sufficient information on licensing deliverables in the PMP and the schedule. These deliverables maybe used to track progress depending on final negotiations if the applicant is selected. Required documentation for the regulator should be summarized in the PMP. Per merit review criteria number 2: The likelihood that the design can be licensed for safe operations by the NRC will be evaluated. The application will be evaluated on the identification of a clear and logical strategy addressing the following efforts assuring the reactor design and selected site can be licensed by the NRC, including: • depth, breadth, and quality of engagement with or plans for pre-application interaction with the regulator, including any early licensing topical reports, operating license applications, design certification applications, or any other activities addressing technical topics supporting licensing. • quality and completeness of the plans to address the requirements of the Applicant’s selected licensing strategy (e.g., 10 CFR § Part 50, Part 52, or other). • quality and completeness of plans to address site permitting, environmental requirements and reporting, safeguards and securities, and other requirements for licensing reactor operations, including reactor end-of-life, at the selected site(s). Answer to question 2> DOE does not intend to require multiple submissions for engineer and licensing related deliverables. It is sufficient to provide verification that the required documentation has been submitted to the regulator or authorizing authority. However, should some submission to DOE be needed, DOE does not intend to make these publicly available; nevertheless, recipients may want to consider placing restrictive markings on any submissions made during performance, which could help preclude the inadvertent public release of information (e.g,, through a Freedom of Information request, etc.). DOE may review any submissions made during performance with restrictive markings on them to verify the appropriateness of such markings and challenge any that are deemed inappropriate.   8/4/2020   284. For the Risk Reduction Pathway we are considering a first year cost-share higher than 20%. This will result in invoices according to project milestones earlier in the project (year 1) with a cost share greater than 20%. Is the cost-share requirement intended to ensure that in sum the total cost-share by the applicant never reduces below 20%, such that in year 2 certain invoices could have an individual cost-share less 20% provided the cost-share to date is always at least 20% overall? Or, is the requirement that every individual invoice meets at least the 20% cost-share, even if some invoices are at a higher applicant cost-share? An illustrative example: Year 1 Invoice A – $70 to DOE, $30 to applicant (applicant cost share 30%) Year 1 Invoice B - $35 to DOE, $15 to applicant (applicant cost share 30%) Total cost share to-date: $150 total project, $105 to DOE, $45 to applicant (applicant cost share 30%) Year 2 Invoice A – $90 to DOE, $10 to applicant (applicant cost share 10%) Year 2 Invoice B - $45 to DOE, $5 to applicant (applicant cost share 10%) Total cost share to-date: $300 total project, $240 to DOE, $60 to applicant (applicant cost share 20%) The recipient cost share must always be at least at the required percentage (20%) for the Total Project Costs incurred and billed. Total Project Cost is the sum of the Government share, including FFRDC contractor costs, and Recipient share of the incurred project costs. DOE FFRDC contractor cost is not included in the total approved budget for the award because DOE will pay the DOE FFRDC contractor portion of the effort under an existing DOE contract. In answer to your question, yes, the recipient may choose to cost share at a higher rate early on in a given budget period or during the project period, e.g., in the early stages of the project with the expectation that the recipient shall share at a lower rate during later stages in order to achieve an overall recipient cost-share percentage of at least 20% of the total allowable project costs. However, DOE intends to incrementally fund the awards and can only be liable up to the amount of Federal funds obligated. So, should the recipient elect to cost share at a higher rate early on, the recipient does so at its risk and essentially by so doing agrees that, notwithstanding the project period and/or budget period cost-share percentage set forth in the award, that the Government is only liable for 80% of the total allowable project costs up to the amount of obligated Federal funds at any given time, even if the project is terminated early or is not funded to completion. If the recipient has not achieved at least 20% cost-sharing at the time of project termination or discontinuance, the recipient shall refund sufficient funds to the Government in order to achieve a Recipient cost-share percentage of 20% based on total allowable project cost incurred to date. The recipient must maintain records of all project costs that it claims as cost sharing, including in-kind costs, as well as records of costs to be paid by DOE. Such records are subject to audit. Failure by the recipient to provide the cost sharing required by the award may result in the subsequent recovery by DOE of some or all the funds provided under the award.  7/23/2020   285. The FOA specifies that applicants are required to establish a plan by which they would obtain the fuel/special nuclear material needed for their projects. If we propose to get this fuel (or any other needed resources) from the DOE or any other Federal agency how is this to be treated in the application and in the resultant award? Please see answers related to this question previously provided on the ARD FOA website under Q&A numbers 65 and 68. The following additional information is provided in response to the above question. If the applicant proposes to obtain fuel or any other resource from the Federal Government, this would be required to be clearly specified in the application. The process for doing this would be similar to how the applicant would propose to use FFRDC or National Laboratory resources. Specifically, the applicant must obtain the following and include these in its application: (1) an approval letter from the cognizant Government office/official to use this resource; (2) an estimated cost, availability, and any other terms/conditions for using that resource from the cognizant Government office/official from which that resource will be obtained. The Recipient's cost share must come from non-Federal sources unless otherwise allowed by law. Accordingly, just as is the case with using FFRDC or National Laboratory resources, the estimated cost for these Federal resources must be included as part of the overall project cost, and counted as Federal cost share on this award. No Federal funding for this Federal resource will directly go the Recipient unless otherwise specifically stated in the cooperative agreement award. These costs will not be included in the Recipient’s total approved budget for the award, because DOE will directly pay these under existing DOE contracts or programs. Any resources of any kind that applicants propose to get from DOE must be counted as Federal cost share under the award, unless DOE agrees to sell such resources separately from the ARD award and the applicant purchases them at a fair market value, or other acceptable arrangement are made. Also, that the Department will provide such resources must be unilaterally determined by the Department to be legally permissible, feasible and affordable for DOE, and otherwise determined to be in DOE’s best interest to provide. Any federally-owned property provided will be listed on the cooperative agreement and made accountable under this award. Title to Federally owned property remains vested in the Federal government, unless otherwise specifically provided for on the cooperative agreement award. Federally-owned property shall be managed in accordance with 2 CFR Part 200.312 and the cooperative agreement award will prescribe any required reporting concerning it. The cooperative agreement award will contain a special term/condition for any Government provided property, which will be substantially the same as the clause at 48 CFR 52.245-1. Unless otherwise specifically stated in the cooperative agreement award, the Recipient will be responsible for communication/coordination with the cognizant Government office for this resource, including to coordinate shipping and delivery arrangements. Unless otherwise stated in the cooperative agreement award, all Government property to be provided shall be done on an FOB Origin basis; when the property is returned to the Government, it shall be done on a FOA Destination basis. Unless otherwise stated in the cooperative agreement award, all Government furnished property shall be delivered in an “as is” condition with no express or implied warranty. The recipient would continue to be bound by the terms of the agreement associated with the fuel and or equipment provided the US Government. Any applicant proposing to use Government provided fuel or other resources may also decide to provide an alternative for such resources in its application, in accordance with FOA Appendix I instructions to address the scenario that the Government resource may not be available.   8/6/2020   286. The Coordination and Management Plan is requested both as a section in the project narrative, and as a subsection in the project management plan, with the same instructions. Is this duplication intended, and is there a preferred location for the Coordination and Management Plan? No, this duplication was not intended. Please see the response to Q&A 278.   8/5/2020   287. I can’t log into my account. I keep failing on the secuirty question of what is my email. I don’t remember setting up this account in the first place, or how long ago (I just know that there IS an account associated with macc@muonsinc.com and “macc@muonsinc.com” is the ID). I may have used another email account at the time for that question that I no longer use... can I get some assistance here? Thanks! Our apologies for these issues. They should have been resolved now, but below are points of contact if you still have issues or concerns: For questions on FOA content or requirements please contact Andrew Ford at 208-526-3059 or fordaj@id.doe.gov. For assistance with the log in or electronic submittal of the FOA, please contact us at 208-526-8178 or Gregory.Bala@inl.gov   8/6/2020   288. I have the following two questions: 1) Section 5.9 of the FOA has instructions for “Past Performance Information” and APPENDIX N has a template for past performance. Both are mentioned in item 15 of the Demos table on page 29. Is section 5.9 asking applicants to enter text/content for its items a through g, in addition to the form in APPENDIX N? 2) Is APPENDIX N asking for one, and only one, specific example of a past performance (while asking/allowing the discussion of additional examples of past experience, per section 5.9)? Thank you No. FOA paragraph 5.9 describes the types of past performance information applicants should submit; you will use the template at Appendix N to submit this information. You may submit as much past performance information (as many specific examples as you deem necessary) to address the elements described in FOA paragraph 5.9. A separate Appendix N Past Performance template should be used for each prior contract or job you have done demonstrating your past performance. When submitting the information to the application submission website, please combine all the separately completed Appendix N templates into a single document to ensure it can be submitted to the application submission website without difficulties.   8/6/2020   289. I can’t log into my account because I can’t get past the security question. I need to be able to log in to start filling in the necessary files. Who can I contact for assistance? Our apologies for these issues. They should have been resolved now, but below are points of contact if you still have issues or concerns: For questions on FOA content or requirements please contact Andrew Ford at 208-526-3059 or fordaj@id.doe.gov. For assistance with the log in or electronic submittal of the FOA, please contact us at 208-526-8178 or Gregory.Bala@inl.gov   8/13/2020   290. For the ARC-20 pathway, is information about a specific reactor design required as part of the application, or could an application focus only on an enabling technology? Applicants should focus on a reactor design.   8/6/2020   291. For the sake of clarification, this question is the opposite of questions 74 and 114. In a “Demos” project, could an applicant or its subawardees propose front-loading the cost share, i.e., lower federal portion in the early stages and higher federal portion in later years, but in a way that the overall (cumulative at each point in time) cost share will be no more than $1 of federal cost share for each $1 spent by the awardee/subawardee team, as prescribed in the FOA? Yes, this is permissible. Please see Answer to Q&A 284 for additional details relevant to this.   8/6/2020   292. I have the following questions (I submitted the first two questions earlier. Here, I am adding a third question, but I re-submit the first two for context): 1) Section 5.9 of the FOA has instructions for “Past Performance Information” and APPENDIX N has a template for past performance. Both are mentioned in item 15 of the Demos table on page 29. Is section 5.9 asking applicants to enter text/content for its items a through g, in addition to the form in APPENDIX N? 2) Is APPENDIX N asking for one, and only one, specific example of a past performance (while asking/allowing the discussion of additional examples of past experience, per section 5.9)? 3) Or should each example that we present have its own APPENDIX N form, and we can present several of those forms? Thank you Please see the answer to question 288. In answer to your 3rd question, each example of past performance you present should have its own completed Appendix N Past Performance form. You can present as many examples of past performance as you feel are necessary to answer the requirements of FOA paragraph 5.9. Please combine all the separately completed Appendix N templates into a single file for submission to the application submission site.   8/6/2020   293. If we submitted an LOI for a Demo or Risk Reduction track, but we would like to instead do a smaller project of more limited scope, and apply through the ARC-20 track for a project with relevance to the reactor design proposed in the LOI, is it possible to make that change at this stage? The Letter of Intent required that the applicant provide a description of the project/technology. Amendment 000002 of the FOA specified that all information submitted in the Letter of Intent – other than the project itself - may be updated with the submission of the full application. So long as the project/technology proposed in the full application is for a smaller, more limited scoped project for the same or relevant project/technology proposed in the original Letter of Intent, this should be acceptable. In your revised Letter of Intent to be submitted in the full application, please specify this and clearly state which FOA application pathway you are applying under.   8/6/2020   294. If we submitted an LOI for a Demo or Risk Reduction track, but we would like to instead do a smaller project of more limited scope, and apply through the ARC-20 track for a project with relevance to the reactor design proposed in the LOI, is it possible to make that change at this stage? See answer to Q&A 293.   8/6/2020   295. The FOA specifies that the scope of work to be performed by the DOE FFRDC/NL contractor may not be more significant (e.g. funding ratio) than the scope of work to be performed by the Applicant. As previous mentioned in the Q&As, this refers to the cumulative work to be done by FFRDC/NLs; however does "the scope of work to be performed by the Applicant" refer to the cumulative work to be performed by the Prime and all the Subs, or just the work to be performed by the Prime? The phrase ""the scope of work to be performed by the Applicant" (see FOA paragraph 3.2.5) refers to the cumulative work to be performed by the Prime and all its subrecipients (excluding the FFRDC/Lab).   7/28/2020   296. If sub-awardee agrees to use DeMinimis 10% for indirect rate and pursue federally approved indirect rates simultaneously, once the federally approved rate is in place can it be retroactive to award date? No, the federally approved indirect rate would be applied prospectively, and not retroactively.   8/6/2020   297. The FOA Q&A Number 272 states the below. 272. Is it required that we use the Project/Performance site location form and insert it into the project narrative file, or is it sufficient to create a table in the narrative that includes the requested information? The form is for the convenience of the applicant. This information should be populated in the provided .pdf form in the document library of the FOA website and inserted into the narrative file. However, at its option, the applicant may draft its own section and not use the form so long as all required information as listed on the form is provided. Amendment 2 seems to add language that requires the use of the .pdf form provided in the document library on the FOA website. Is an applicant still allowed for an applicant to draft its own section and not use the form so long as all required information as listed on the form is provided? We apologize for the confusion. Yes, the answer to Q&A 272 is still valid - the information should be populated in the provided .pdf form in the document library of the FOA website and inserted into the narrative file. However, at its option, the applicant may draft its own section and not use the form so long as all required information as listed on the form is provided.   7/28/2020   298. When the FOA says the application needs information regarding "collaborators", does this refer to subrecipients, subcontractors, or both? Collaborators for purposes of the application refers to subrecipients. It does not refer to subcontractors.   7/28/2020   299. Is "Current and Pending Support" required for FFRDC participants? No, this information is not required from FFRDC participants.   8/6/2020   300. Section 9.9 "Treatment of Application Information" requires that each line or paragraph containing trade secrets or commercial or financial information that is privileged or confidential must be enclosed in brackets. In reviewing and classifying the information contained with the project narrative, our classifiers are concluding that entire pages are considered to contain either trade secrets or commercial or financial information. An example is information included in the Commercialization section of the narrative is highly sensitive and significant resources have been expended to develop the information. Will it be allowable to insert in the footer and header of each page the following statement: "This page in its entirety contains trade secrets or commercial or financial information that is privileged or confidential and exempt from public disclosure"? Attempts to apply individual opening and closing brackets throughout such a page, even to entire paragraphs, is proving to be difficult and leads to a very cumbersome display of the text. Yes, what you propose is acceptable.   8/7/2020   301. If an Applicant plans to work with FFRDC's/NL's on their project, are they required to be listed in the Collaborators section of the submittal website as being a partner receiving funding over the life of the cooperative agreement? No, unless the FFRDC national lab participant is a non-funded collaborator, in which case they should be listed.  8/7/2020   302. Instructions in Appendix G for Commitment Letters require that financial sponsors provide certain financial information to support their letters of commitment. In discussions with our financial sponsors some have requested that they may deliver sensitive/confidential financial information directly to the Contracting Officer. Would this be permitted? If so would you please provide instructions/email address for delivery? We request an expedited response due to the upcoming submission date. Yes, this is permissible. These documents may be submitted to the contracting officer directly at dyeej@id.DOE.gov. They may be submitted using encryption, or maybe submitted using a protected password with the password to access these been provided in a follow on separate email. The contracting officer will provide a confirming email back for any of these received.  8/7/2020   303. Section "4.8 Foreign Disclosure" instructs that "applicants (including team members and subapplicants)" must sign a FOCI document (according to the template in Appendix K). Should applicants and subapplicants submit one FOCI document per organization participating in the consortium, or should each person in the teams under the applicant and subapplicants sign his/her own FOCI document? Question 277 See answer to question 304  8/7/2020   304. Section "4.8 Foreign Disclosure" instructs that "applicants (including team members and subapplicants)" must sign a FOCI document (according to the template in Appendix K). Should applicants and subapplicants submit one FOCI document per organization participating in the consortium, or should each person in the teams under the applicant and subapplicants sign his/her own FOCI document? One completed FOCI per participating organization is sufficient.  8/7/2020   305. If indirect rates are negotiated with sub-awardee, once the sub-awardee establishes federally approved rates, will they be allowed to use those federally approved rates from approval date going forward? Yes, the applicant/subapplicant should contact for contracting officer to modify the award accordingly when the federal approval rate agreement is approved so that it can be incorporated into the award.   8/7/2020   306. Is it allowed to apply both under this FOA (DE-FOA-000271), and also apply for a GAIN voucher? This should normally be permissible, although all cost shared funding from the applicant must come from non-federal sources for the ARD awards.   8/4/2020   307. Section 5.15 Project Narrative File states, " A table of contents is required, but is NOT included in the page limitation." If an acronym table is included to assist the evaluators, can this provided and not be included in the page limitation? Yes, this may be proposed/included and will not be counted as part of the page limits.   8/4/2020   308. Can Applicants submit a list of acronyms along with their Table of Contents and it not count towards the page limitations of the Proposal? Yes, this is acceptable to propose and not count as part of the page limits.   8/7/2020   309. (ARC-20) Section 5.8 specifies we use the .pdf form in the document library to list Project/Performance Site Locations. That form has problems -- can we use our own format as long as it contains the required information in an obvious way? Problem1: the form has only three locations per page, and it takes up almost 10% of our allowed pages. That seems excessive for such pedestrian information. Problem2: the form is a PDF, which Microsoft Word cannot insert; we can only insert screen shots of its pages, which is both cumbersome and rather ugly. Yes, the applicant may use its own form/format to submit this information instead of the PDF form in the document library. Please just ensure that all the information required in the PDF gets submitted.   8/4/2020   310. What institution do we specify as "Offeror" in key personnel CVs? The term "offeror" in FOA Appendix M, APPLICATION INSTRUCTIONS – RESUME TEMPLATE, should correctly read, "applicant, subapplicant, or consultant". The intent here is that the applicant provide a resume for individual key personnel (including for personnel of the applicant, subrecipients and consultants, as applicable), who will contribute in a substantial, measurable way on the project. So, whatever professional entity/organizational affiliation the key person is employed by should be listed here. Given the relatively short time period between now and when the applications are due, DOE does not intend to modify the FOA to make this minor correction.   8/3/2020   311. In appendix M a “Key Personnel Pledge Letter” is required. Where should this be uploaded? This may uploaded as a separate file upload under the Resume/Vitae section of the application site naming the file as specified in appendix M “Name File: Key Personnel Pledge Letter [insert application ID#]”. Alternatively, it may be included in the resume/Vitae file as an attachment within that document.  8/3/2020   312. In the FOA, paragraph 6.1.2 Merit Review Criteria, under Demos/Risk Reduction Criterion 1) it says: "Technical feasibility that the demonstration reactor can be operational within five to seven years from completion of award, and for Risk Reduction, to achieve a demonstration reactor in approximately 10-14 years, will be evaluated." We are confused over the words, "five to seven years from completion of award". Does this mean DOE will evaluate the technical feasibility that the demo reactor will be operational within five to seven year from when the cooperative agreement is awarded, or within five to seven years after the cooperative agreement's award period of performance ends? This means that DOE will evaluate the technical feasibility that the demonstration reactor can be operational within five to seven years from the date that DOE places the cooperative agreement award with the recipient. The demos awards are anticipated to have a period of performance of 5 to 7 years; by the end of this period of performance, the advanced reactor should be "demonstrated" by the recipient, meaning the recipient has designed, sited, licensed, constructed an advanced nuclear reactor and the reactor is operated as part of the power generation facilities of an electric utility system or in any other manner for the purpose of demonstrating the suitability for commercial application of the advanced nuclear reactor (see FOA 1.1.1).   8/4/2020   313. For Demo projects that wish to also be considered for Risk Reduction, is a separate budget form, budget justification excel file, and budget justification narrative document required? The FOA allows extra pages in the Project Narrative to explain the differences in the projects proposed for a Demo vs a Risk Reduction. If the proposed Risk Reduction project activities are different than the proposed Demo project activities, then the proposed budgets for each of these projects must be set forth in the Budget Submission documents. DOE prefers separate Budget submission documents. However, if the Budget submission documents are combined they must CLEARLY indicate which budgeted costs are for the Demos project and which are for the Risk Reduction project.  8/4/2020   314. For Demo projects that wish to also be considered for Risk Reduction, can the Risk Reduction budget information be included in separately identified sections within the same budget justification and narrative documents as the demo information? Yes, however, DOE prefers separate Budget submission documents for the Demo and Risk Reduction projects proposed. If the Budget submission documents are combined they must CLEARLY indicate which budgeted costs are for the Demos project and which are for the Risk Reduction project.  8/4/2020   315. For Demo projects that wish to also be considered for Risk Reduction, for the Risk Reduction budget forms, should a RESEARCH & RELATED BUDGET and a separate SF 424C be submitted if significant construction is contemplated? Yes. In fact, required application information related to construction activity to be done for the Risk Reduction project, including the SF 424 C, must be submitted and CLEARLY indicated as being applicable to the Risk Reduction project’s construction activities, as part of the application submission.   8/5/2020   316. Where should the separate file for questions or clarifications to the proposed terms and conditions (as acknowledged under Q&A 227) be uploaded to the proposal site? This file, as well as any additional documents that don’t have a specific section, may be uploaded under the budget justification section with an appropriate name of file to distinguish it from the budget justification document, as this doesn’t have any limitations on the number of uploads.   8/4/2020   317. The FOA has weights for the merit review criteria specified for the Demos and Risk Reduction, but not for ARC-20; what are the weights of the ARC-20 merit review criteria? See Q&A 318 for answer.   8/4/2020   318. The FOA has weights for the merit review criteria specified for the Demos and Risk Reduction, but not for ARC-20; what are the weights of the ARC-20 merit review criteria? No weighting of ARC-20 merit review criteria is specified.   8/4/2020   319. On page 10 of the FOA, under note 2., it says, "Awardees will be required to establish a plan by which they would obtain the fuel/special nuclear material needed for their projects." So is this something that will happen post award, or are we required to submit this plan for getting fuel as part of the application? This should correctly read, "Applicants will be required to establish a plan by which they would obtain the fuel/special nuclear material needed for their projects." Accordingly, how the applicant proposes to obtain fuel/special nuclear material for their project is to be described in the application. Given the short period of time remaining prior to receipt of applications, DOE does not plan to amend the FOA to correct this error. Please follow the application instructions for Demos and Risk Reduction projects as given in FOA paragraph 15.g regarding application submission requirements related to fuel.   8/4/2020   320. Appendix K, Foreign Ownership, Control or Influence (FOCI) Disclosure Template is worded like a certification, but the template does not have a signature block. Are we required to sign this certification as part of the application package? Yes, this certification should be signed by an officer or official of the company with the authority to do so and submitted with the application. Electronic signatures are acceptable.   8/5/2020   321. Under section 5.9 it states "This section of the application must include past performance information only." However, the template in appendix N number 13. provides the option to indicate the current status of the contract/financial assistance as "work continuing". Is it permissible to show projects currently in progress? Yes, this would be acceptable to show past performance even if it is an ongoing project.  8/7/2020   322. Our legal team is concerned about the pledge letter connected to the resume/vitae. From the perspective of a national laboratory, the concern is that is may not be appropriate for an individual employee of an M&O contractor to make such a commitment in the context of an FOA. Is the pledge letter a required piece for national laboratories? The pledge letter is not required from FFRDC/NL personnel who will be participating in the project.   8/7/2020   323. Does FOA Section 9.9, Treatment of Application Information, apply only to the Narrative submission or all portions of the submission, such as Budget? Does DOE intend to disclose any content of other items of the submission, such as disclosures and financial data and if so, can these be requested to be treated as commercial or financial information which is privileged or confidential? Please apply this instruction to the entire application submission. DOE does not intend to disclose application information publicly. However, for those applications ultimately awarded a cooperative agreement, DOE typically incorporates the project narrative by reference into the award. The award becomes a publicly available document, subject to release under the Freedom of Informaton Act. Accordingly, privileged or confidential information in applications should be marked appropriately so that it can be properly protected from unwanted release or disclosure.   8/5/2020   324. The ARDP FOA DE-FOA-0002271 document requests audited company financial statements (two years) to be provided with the Application. Can these be sent to you directly in password protected files without violating the requirements? Must these be included with the Application? Yes, these may be sent to me directly at fordaj@id.doe.gov  8/10/2020   325. What is DOE intention/expectation for the audited financial statements? For US. entities is a 10K filing report appropriate? For international funding partners, who may not have a U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission report are audited (internal/external) financial statements sufficient? The 10-K filing includes audited financial statements and would be acceptable. A financial statement audit by qualified independent, external auditors would be acceptable.  8/11/2020   326. If an applicant proposes a DOE FFRDC/NL contractor as a subrecipient or team member to its application, should the associated costs for the DOE FFRDC/NL contractor scopes of work be captured on Form SF424R&R under “Other Direct Cost”, or somewhere else within the document? List the FFRDC amount under section F. Other Direct Costs, listed under item 5. Subawards, or list the FFRDC under the blank fill in area 8-10. When you list it on the budget sheet, be certain that the indirect costs are not calculated on the amount going to the FFRDC, as DOE will fund the FFRDC directly.   8/6/2020   327. For the Risk Reduction pathway, the FOA (Section 7.1) states that: Anticipated Selection Date (calendar year) will be in the 4th quarter of 2020 (for Risk Reduction), and the Anticipated Award Date (calendar year) will be in the 1st quarter of 2021 (for Risk Reduction) Should Applicant's applying under the Risk Reduction pathway use April 1, 2021 as the project’s anticipated period of performance start date? This is acceptable for purposes of the application. Should your application be selected for award, the actual period of performance may be subject to negotiation.   8/7/2020   328. Outside of the Field Work Proposals and Budget/Budget Justification Information required for FFRDC/NL's, do Applicant's need to also submit Key Pledge Letters, Letter of Commitment, Resume's, or any of the other documentation that is listed in the FOA as required for Collaborators? The other collaborator required documents you ask about here not required for FFRDC/national labs.  8/7/2020   329. In the resume template, how is the “Offeror” different than the “Name of the Company with who the Key person will be employed”? Please consider these to be synonymous.   8/6/2020   330. Could you please provide a definition for the term "key personnel" as it is used in this FOA 0002271? Thank you. Key personnel refers to individuals who are specifically and uniquely important to the successful outcome of the project; these are personnel who will contribute in a substantial, measurable way to the project, and whose expertise and/or performance the project is largely dependent on. This will typically include the Project Manager and co-PMs, but is depend upon the individual project proposed. The determination of who the key personnel are is at the discretion of the applicant.   8/6/2020   331. Could you please provide a definition for the term "key personnel" as it is used in this FOA 0002271? Thank you. See answer to Q&A 330  8/6/2020   332. Could you please provide a definition for the term "key personnel" as it is used in this FOA 0002271? Thank you. See answer to Q&A 330  8/7/2020   333. How may our company submit information on our products, in order to gain consideration for this project? Information on company products is not requested and should not be submitted, unless it is been submitted as part of the overall application package in responding to a specific FOA submittal requirement. If this is the case, then the submittal should be done as part of or included in the other FOA requirement submittals, as specified in the FOA.   8/6/2020   334. Which documents must the prime supply regarding subcontractors and vendors? Is a 'quote for services' to be attached to the budget justification sufficient? The FOA manual doesn't specifically address this. We assume your question is specifically regarding what documentation is required in the Budget Justification submission as related to subcontractors and vendors. As specified in FOA Appendix G, please explain in the Budget Justification file how you determined the subcontractor costs were determined to be fair and reasonable. Attaching a quote is one method of providing this needed budget justification - please refer to the answer to Q&A 335. Work done by subcontractors must support the award’s overall project scope; so, this work should be discussed in the project narrative as well.   8/6/2020   335. Is there a specific requirement for obtaining quotes from vendors (for specific equipment, any materials/supplies over a specific cost, etc.)? I couldn't find anything in the FOA manual or FAQs which addresses this. No, vendor quotes are not specifically required; but, applicants/subapplicants should provide some reasonable basis for the budgetary estimates as part of the Budget Justification submission of the application. Obtaining vendor quotes is one way to do this, but other reasonable estimating methods may also be used.   8/10/2020   336. Is the Foreign Government Ownership, Control, or Influence Disclosure form required for FFRDC/NL participants? This seems like it may be unnecessary for entities that are owned and/or operated by the U.S. Government. The Foreign Government Ownership, Control, or Influence Disclosure form is NOT required for FFRDC/NL participants.   8/10/2020   337. Appendix G of the FOA requires an SF424C for Demos applications that involve construction. This is not required in Appendix G for Risk Reduction. If a risk reduction award proposes eventual construction of a portable prototype reactor for testing at INL as part of the ARDP scope (but not construction for a commercial reactor at a fixed location), is an SF424C required? Additionally, we may propose milestone based payments for multiple phases of the project, and construction of the prototype reactor would not occur until the later phases of construction (Phase 4), and so we are not asking for any construction to be funded as part of the first phase of the ARDP award. Given this situation, is an SF424C required? If a Risk Reduction application proposes construction as part of the project to be funded under the award, and occurring during the cooperative agreement's period of performance, then an SF 424C should be used for the construction phases of the project, adhering to the same FOA instructions as dictated for the construction portions of the awards for Demos.   8/11/2020   338. Due to changing COVID-19 restrictions in various states and localities, some team members are experiencing delays delivering documentation, particularly those requiring high level signature approvals. Will the Government consider extending the due date by one week from August 12, 2020 to August 19, 2020? Yes, DOE will extend the Application Due Date/Time (for all applicants) by one week to Aug 19, 2020, 4:00 PM EDT. Please watch for an FOA amendment officially making this change.   8/10/2020   339. On ARC-20 submissions, the RESEARCH AND RELATED OTHER PROJECT INFORMATION is required to be submitted as part of the Statement of Project Objectives. Does this form count towards the page limits? For ARC-20 submissions, applicants are to complete items 1–6 on the R&R Other Project Information form available at the library and upload a completed PDF copy of the form. Items 7-12 will be completed in the application form and does not need to be completed here. The 424 R&R Other Project Information from will not count towards page count limits on ARC-20.   8/10/2020   340. The submission portal has been hung since last night! Is there a problem. There are a lot of documents that need to be submitted! Thanks! Our apologies. We are aware of this and working to fix it. If necessary, an FOA amendment will be issued providing an alternative method of application submission.   8/10/2020   341. HALEU fuel is a challenge. I know the DOE has done a presentation on HALEU that is available on the application website, but can you tell us any other information about HALEU and its availability? The FOA requires applicants to establish a plan by which they would obtain fuel /special nuclear material needed for their projects. However, DOE recognizes that the lack of availability of a commercial supply of HALEU puts applicants and DOE at risk for the successful accomplishment of advanced reactor demonstrations, including with design and licensing. DOE is considering taking a more active role in the procurement of HALEU feedstock, including assessing options for acquiring HALEU to be made available to awardees. Awards of full scale reactor demonstrations and risk reduction activities under the ARD FOA in late CY 2020 will clarify the HALEU needs and inform increased certainty by DOE, which will improve the argument for accessing the DOE uranium inventory in the near-term, and support additional resources for mobilizing a sustainable production capability for over the next 5-10 years, until the market can sustain longer term production. The specific quantities and supply schedules are anticipated to be identified when the ARDP FOA awards are made, and specific options will be evaluated to match the supply schedules. In the meantime, DOE continues to review and refine different options to possibly help support the HALEU fuel needs. ARD FOA applicants are reminded that any resources that applicants propose to obtain from DOE must be counted as Federal cost share under the award, unless DOE agrees to sell such resources separately from the ARDP award and the applicant purchases them at fair market value, or other acceptable arrangements are made. A unilateral determination must also be made by the Department whether the proposed use of a resource is legally permissible, feasible, and affordable for DOE, and otherwise determined to be in the best interest of the government. Applicants are also reminded that the merit review criteria for Demos and Risk Reduction awards will evaluate that the applicant has a compelling basis for the viability and feasibility of a nuclear fuel supply, addressing: procurement strategy, fabrication, transportation, availability, handling, and used fuel management; any assumed reliance on DOE for access to enriched uranium for the initial core load is identified and reasonable/achievable based on plans, subject to appropriations.   8/11/2020   342. Please confirm the file name for SF424 Form for the Demos and Risk Reduction pathways. The FOA DE-FOA0002271 Amendment 000002 lists Name File: SF424 with no Application ID #. Is this correct? Also, the Project Narrative has no associated file name in Amendment 000002. How should this file be uploaded? Please Name File: SF424 [Insert Application ID#] Please Name File Project Narrative [Insert Application ID#] This will be corrected on the next FOA amendment.   8/13/2020   343. Can you provide any details on the binding or non-binding nature of cost share commits? An interested investor is having trouble understanding what would happen to them if they run into unforeseen financial trouble and are unable to pay the cost share in the future. Please explain the process in such as case, as well as financial and legal implications. Cost sharing means the portion of project costs not paid by Federal funds. The Recipient's cost share must come from non-Federal sources unless otherwise allowed by law. As part of its pre-award reviews, DOE will review the source and amount of the proposed contribution of cost sharing and assess the likelihood of the applicant being able to provide the required cost sharing. DOE will incorporate the cost sharing requirement and the agreed upon cost share amount in the resulting cooperative agreement award. Once the cooperative agreement is signed (in writing or electronically) by the Contracting Officer it is a valid award. Recipients are free to accept or reject the award. A request to draw down DOE funds constitutes the Recipient's acceptance of the terms and conditions of this Award, meaning the award has legal authority and effect, including the cost sharing requirements. During performance, the recipient will be required to submit reports that include information verifying that cost share requirements are fulfilled. DOE intends to incrementally fund the awards. As a recipient, you are not obligated to continue performance of the project beyond the total amount obligated by DOE at any given time and your pro rata share of the project costs where cost sharing is required. You will be obligated to pay your share of the project costs for the amounted funded by DOE. By accepting federal funds under this award, you agree that you are liable for your percentage share of total allowable project costs, on a budget period basis, even if the project is terminated early or is not funded to its completion. If an investor backs out or is unable to provide cost share, the legal details of what would happen between the recipient and the investor would be between those two parties. However, it is the recipient that has the cost share obligation to the Government, and this obligation would not change if the investor was unable to contribute its cost sharing. So, at that point, the recipient would need to seek some other way to meet its cost sharing obligation. If you as a recipient discover that you are or may be unable to provide required cost sharing during performance, you must immediately provide written notification to the DOE Contracting Officer stating whether you will continue with, or phase out, the project. If you plan to continue the project, the notification must describe how replacement cost sharing will be secured. Failure to provide the cost sharing required by the award may result in the subsequent recovery by DOE of some or all the funds provided under the award. In accordance with 2 CFR § 200.338, if the recipient fails to comply with the terms and conditions of an award (cost sharing or otherwise), DOE may impose one or more of the additional specific award conditions described in § 200.207 Specific conditions, as appropriate for the circumstances. In addition to the additional specific award conditions in § 200.207, DOE may take one or more other actions, including and up to suspension and/or termination of the award.   8/14/2020   344. Is the Foreign Government Ownership, Control, or Influence Disclosure form required for sub-contractors? No, this is not required from subcontractors or vendors; it is only required from the applicant and subapplicants (i.e., entities that will perform as subrecipients on the award).   8/14/2020   345. For individuals and small businesses contributing to the 20% cost share, “audited financial statements for the most recent two years” (or any year), do not exist. Please provide guidance on acceptable options/waivers for this circumstance. These investors have the resources to support this vital work effort, but not the audited financial statements. As specified in Appendix G: "Audited financial statements for the most recent two fiscal years shall be provided for each nongovernmental source of funds. If a source does not have audited financial statements, that source should provide equivalent financial statements prepared by the party, in accordance with Generally Accepted Accounting Principles, and certified as to accuracy and completeness by the Chief Financial Officer of the party providing the statements." If circumstance does not allow for the above direction, any type of document that shows the financial capability to contribute the proposed cost share amount would be acceptable.  8/17/2020   347. from 7/22 Q276 says "CV_Lastname_[ID]” for CV file name. Appendix M amend 3 from this week says "Resume “Last Name” [insert application ID#]. Which is it? Please adhere to directions in the FOA Appendix M, i.e., Resume “Last Name” [insert application ID#].   8/18/2020   348. We have a few questions regarding the ARDP submittals through box. - Once a submittal is complete, can an applicant independently confirm it was received? As an example, will they see a file explorer version of the box account to confirm they uploaded all the documents they needed to. - Once they start to upload to the box account, is it possible to make changes until the ‘time expires’ on submitting the application? In simple words, can you replace a document after it is loaded? - Will the DOE can provide feedback that completed applications were received in the box and nothing appears to be missing? Based on our understanding: 1. No, you cannot confirm it independently. It may be that this is possible but we didn’t set it up this way. 2. No, can submit a new document but cannot replace a document. Documents with the same name will be versioned so it should be relatively easy to tell which document was submitted last. 3. Yes, we will have access to check and confirm that documents have been received. If you want to confirm DOE receipt of your package (e.g, confirmation of the number of files submitted), please contact Andrew Ford at fordaj@id.doe.gov; DOE will send you a courtesy email confirming this. Applicants retain the responsibility to submit the entire application package.   8/18/2020   349. We are concerned that we may have difficulties in submitting our application via the box.com method that has been indicated to us. Can we send the application via a zipped email if we experience any problems with the box.com submission? The box.com method should work without problems. However, if for some reason you do experience a problem, please contact the Contract Specialist, Andrew Ford at fordaj@id.doe.gov for further help and guidance, including possible alternative submission methods. The applicant retains full responsibility to ensure that the full application is submitted by the date/time specified in the FOA.   8/18/2020   350. If we are applying to the Demos pathway, but also want to be considered for the Risk Reduction pathway, we have two different budgets and budget justifications for these different pathway projects. Should we also be submitting separate SF424s for each of these? Yes, separate SF424s should be submitted for each pathway.   9/3/2020   351. Please inform me of the applicants for ARDP grants, DE-FOA-0002271. DOE does not release this information.   9/3/2020   352. Hello, when will an announcement be made that will show which companies will get funding through the ARDP program? Thank you, DOE hopes to announce applicants selected for the Demos pathway some time mid- to late-October 2020, and to announce selections for the Risk Reduction and ARC-20 pathways sometime in December 2020.