{"text_format":"2","workbook":"xlsx","n_sheets":2,"sheets":["NOFO CONTENT QUESTIONS","Admin Pick List"],"not_rendered":{"charts":0,"images":0,"macros":0,"external_links":0,"defined_names":1,"comments":0,"pivot_tables":0},"unopened":[],"bounds":{"document_bytes":16777216,"sheet_cells":100000,"run_cost":"one","rows_first":2000,"rows_last":500,"rows_between":2000,"halvings":0,"cell_chars":16384,"cell_head_chars":4096},"cells_cut":0,"cells_raw":0,"read":"whole","date_system":"1900"}

{"sheet":"NOFO CONTENT QUESTIONS","index":0,"n_rows":71,"n_cols":6,"rows_kept":71,"cut":false,"hidden":false,"merged":[[1,1,1,5],[0,1,0,5],[2,1,2,5]]}
[null,"DE-FOA-0003627 - ADMINISTRATIVE QUESTION AND ANSWER LOG"]
[]
[null,"For questions regarding NETL eXCHANGE please contact the NETL Exchange Helpdesk at NETL-ExchangeSupport@hq.doe.gov and include the NOFO name and number in the subject line.\n\nQuestions regarding this NOFO must be submitted no later than three business days prior to the application due date. Please note, feedback on individual concepts will not be provided through Q&A."]
[null,"Question #","Topic","Question","Answer","Date Posted"]
[null,1,"Cost Share Requirement","We wanted to confirm the minimum cost share for Topic Area 1B. While under 1.A. Key Facts (pg. 6) it states that the cost share minimum is 20%, 1.A.1 Funding Details (pg. 7) it states, “Minimum cost share required: 0% of the total project costs”. We assume the true cost share is the former (20%) but wanted to confirm. ","See Modification 000002 (dated 07/10/2026) of the NOFO for current cost sharing information.   All projects are required to include a minimum 20% cost share.","2026-07-15"]
[null,2,"Cost Share Requirement","I believe there may be a discrepancy in the stated cost share amount. For Topic Area 1b, page 7 states that the \"minimum cost share required [is] 0% of the total project costs.\" Is this supposed to be 20% like the other topic areas and as stated on page 11? Please let me know if I am mistaken and the amount is correct as stated on page 7. ","See Modification 000002 (dated 07/10/2026) of the NOFO for current cost sharing information.   All projects are required to include a minimum 20% cost share.","2026-07-15"]
[null,3,"FFRDC Requirement","A Work Proposal for FFRDCs is listed under required documents in IV.C.2; however, the funding for FFRDCs is listed as coming through the prime recipient to the FFRDC on page 12, Section II.D.1. Since DOE FFRDCs will be funded by the prime and not directly by DOE through the work authorization process, can the work proposal requirement be exempt or removed from required documents?","Applicants should submit required documents as outlined in the NOFO documents.  No exemptions or removal of required documents are anticipated at this time.","2026-07-15"]
[null,4,"Deadline Dates","Given the September 8 submission deadline, the timeline is challenging for assembling the technical scope, partner commitments, and cost-share arrangements needed for a competitive proposal. I wanted to ask whether DOE anticipates any similar funding opportunities in upcoming cycles.\nAdditionally, is there any possibility of an extension to the current deadline or another submission window?","There are no current plans to extend the submission deadline.  Applications should be submitted by Application due date outlined in the NOFO documents.  Modification  002 includes changes meant to lessen the level of documentation required in association with partnership commitment under the NOFO given the current submission deadline.","2026-07-15"]
[null,5,"Cost Share Requirement","Topic 1b Advanced Characterization of Fracture Propagation, Proppant Behavior, and Well Diagnostics. To ensure our budget and cost-share documentation are prepared correctly before the submission deadline, we would like to request formal clarification on the cost-share requirements specific to Topic 1b. We would greatly appreciate a written confirmation or guidance at your earliest convenience.\nPlease let us know if any additional information is required to process this request.","See Modification 000002 (dated 07/10/2026) of the NOFO for current cost sharing information.   All projects are required to include a minimum 20% cost share.","2026-07-15"]
[null,6,"Cost Share Requirement","We are evaluating a potential application under Topic Area 1b – Advanced Characterization of Fracture Propagation, Proppant Behavior, and Well Diagnostics and would appreciate clarification regarding the required cost share.\nThe NOFO's Topic Area summary appears to indicate a 0% minimum cost share for Topic Area 1b, while other sections reference the standard 20% cost share requirement applicable to research and development projects.","See Modification 000002 (dated 07/10/2026) of the NOFO for current cost sharing information.   All projects are required to include a minimum 20% cost share.","2026-07-15"]
[null,7,"Concept Paper","DE-FOA-0003627 mentions many times an option for a concept paper but does not describe how to submit one. \nWe would love the opportunity to submit one so that we don’t put together an application for a project that would not be of interest. Can you confirm if the concept paper is an option and if so where to find the requirements for that submission?","Concept papers are not applicable for this NOFO.  Applicants should submit applications as outlined in the NOFO documents.","2026-07-15"]
[null,8,"Cost Share Requirement","It mentions on page 6 that the minimum cost share is 20% for Area 1a, which involves field demonstration.\nOn page 11, it is mentioned that for field demonstration, the minimum cost share is 50%.\nPlease clarify this ambiguity.\nAlso on page 7, line 8, the minimum cost share for 1b is written as 0%. Is this a typo?","See Modification 000002 (dated 07/10/2026) of the NOFO for current cost sharing information.   All projects are required to include a minimum 20% cost share. No demonstration level projects are anticipated under any Topic Area of this NOFO.  All field activities, as requested within the NOFO, as part of any application should remain Research and Development (not demonstration).","2026-07-15"]
[null,9,"Technical Requirement","The NOFO states \"research efforts of interest include... Integrated water treatment facilities capable of treating large quantities of water at high throughput rates (15,000 to 50,000 barrels of water per day).\" and then later says proposals should give \"Details regarding the anticipated rate of produced water treatment (gpm and/or barrels of water per day) of the proposed technology during the project and anticipated treatment rate of a future commercial system based on the proposed technology.\" Do proposals need to achieve over 15,000 bpd *during* the project, or may they achieve a smaller bpd while showing a *future* commercial system could achieve over 15,000 bpd?\"","Per NOFO Section II. entitled \"Eligibility\", \"DOE will not determine eligibility for potential applicants before the application due date.\" The decision whether to submit an application in response to this NOFO lies solely with the applicant. Applicants are permitted to submit applications with bpd less than 15,000.  Applications will be evaluated against the technical review criteria outlined in Section VI.C.2 of the NOFO documents. ","2026-07-15"]
[null,10,"Technical Requirement","I am writing to seek clarification on the following questions:\n1. For the NOFO - Topic area 1 (a,b,c) are Coalbed Methane Reservoirs considered Unconventional Reservoirs.\n2. Will proposals targeting improvement of gas recovery in Coalbed Methane Reservoirs be considered for award?","Within the NOFO (pages 16, 17, and 24, but applicable to content throughout) the term unconventional is defined as \"oil-bearing and gas bearing shales and other tight rocks that are being developed via long horizontal laterals coupled with high volume hydraulic fracturing\"","2026-07-15"]
[null,11,"Technical Requirement","Topic Area 2 references the development of a \"centralized, multi-stage water treatment facility using customizable treatment trains.\" Can DOE clarify the intended meaning of \"centralized\" in the context of this FOA?\nSpecifically, is DOE envisioning:\n•\tA regional treatment hub serving multiple operators and water sources?\n•\tA facility located within a single operator's existing water management system?\n•\tEither approach, provided the proposed system demonstrates scalability and commercial relevance?\n•\tOr something different?","Per NOFO Section II. entitled \"Eligibility\", \"DOE will not determine eligibility for potential applicants before the application due date.\" The decision whether to submit an application in response to this NOFO lies solely with the applicant. Applicants are permitted to submit applications for either approach and/or something different.  Applications will be evaluated against the technical review criteria outlined in Section VI.C.2 of the NOFO documents. ","2026-07-15"]
[null,12,"Technical Requirement","We wanted to confirm the throughput expectations for Topic 2: are you looking for all submissions to propose systems treating flowrates of ~15,000-50,000 bbl/day, or is the size flexible? If flexible, is there a floor or ceiling to the flowrates of interest?","Per NOFO Section II. entitled \"Eligibility\", \"DOE will not determine eligibility for potential applicants before the application due date.\" The decision whether to submit an application in response to this NOFO lies solely with the applicant. Applicants are permitted to submit applications with flowrates outside the 15,000-50,000 bbl/day range.  Applications will be evaluated against the technical review criteria outlined in Section VI.C.2 of the NOFO documents. ","2026-07-15"]
[null,13,"Eligibility","Our company has developed and operated equipment at industrial scale capable of economically processing oilfield produced water into clean freshwater, the quality of which exceeds EPA Drinking Water Standards. The other effluent stream is either dry salt or saturated brine. \nWould it be possible to schedule a brief call to determine our eligibility for this opportunity? ","All communication related to the NOFO must be conducted in accordance with the established question and answer process for NOFO 3627 as described in Section I.C. entitled \"Agency Contact Information\" Please also reference the Technology Readiness Levels TRL) requested in each Topic Area as well as the DOE TRL Definitions included in Section IX.A of the NOFO.","2026-07-15"]
[null,14,"Cost Share Requirement","We understand that all topic areas require field testing and validation at a relevant field site with an operating industry partner. However, we would appreciate clarification on whether such field-testing projects are still treated as R&D projects requiring the 20% cost share shown in the topic-specific funding tables, or whether they are considered demonstration-level projects requiring 50% cost share. Since the NOFO targets TRL 5 at project start and TRL 7 at project end, we assume that all projects require a 50% cost share.","See Modification 000002 (dated 07/10/2026) of the NOFO for current cost sharing information.   All projects are required to include a minimum 20% cost share. No demonstration level projects are anticipated under any Topic Area of this NOFO.  All field activities, as requested within the NOFO, as part of any application should remain Research and Development (not demonstration).","2026-07-15"]
[null,15,"Eligibility","Our eligibility question is specific: does Topic Area 1b, as revised in Modification 000002, contemplate applications from technology developers at TRL 3–4 with a project scope focused on design validation and bench-scale prototype demonstration — or does the program office expect applicants to be at a higher readiness level with existing prototype hardware?","As per Section III.C. on page 16 of the NOFO: the key performance goals for Topic Areas 1a, 1b, and 1c projects include: Field-based technology readiness levels (TRLs) of 5 at project start and a minimum of 7 at project end.  As per Section III.D.2 on page 23 of the NOFO: Technologies proposed for research under this subtopic should exhibit a beginning TRL of 5 (laboratory scale, similar system validation in relevant environment), and the proposed research plan should support delivering an ending TRL of 7 (full-scale, similar [prototypical] system demonstrated in relevant environment). Note that the TRLs listed are for the project’s proposed technologies and not necessarily the overall field test site.  As per Section III.E on page 30 of the NOFO: DOE will not review or consider the following types of applications as determined by DOE without appeal (also refer to the Responsiveness Review section below): All Topic Areas – Technologies that fall outside the requested TRLs specified in the Topic Area.","2026-07-27"]
[null,16,"Cost Share Requirement","1) Modification 000002 states: \"Revised Section II Eligibility, C. Cost Sharing, 1. Cost Share Requirements – removed cost share requirement for demonstration level projects.\"  Can DOE/NETL confirm that demonstration-level projects under DE-FOA-0003627 now have a 0% minimum cost-share requirement? If so, are there any circumstances under which a demonstration project would still be expected to provide cost share?\n2) Can DOE/NETL provide the criteria that will be used to distinguish between a Research & Development (R&D) project and a Demonstration project for purposes of determining the applicable cost-share requirement under this NOFO? For example: is it based on TRL level, field deployment / validation, commercial scale?\n3) Many projects may include both research activities intended to generate new technical understanding and field deployment, pilot operation, or technology validation activities intended to demonstrate performance under operating conditions. How should applicants determine the applicable cost-share requirement when a project contains both R&D and demonstration elements? Specifically:\n• Will DOE classify the entire project as either R&D or demonstration? Or should cost share be applied separately to different project phases or work packages?\n• If separate treatment is permitted, what method should applicants use to allocate costs between R&D and demonstration activities?\n4) The Topic Area funding table currently identifies: Topic Area 1b requiring 0% minimum cost share while the other topic areas are set as 20% minimum cost share. Can DOE/NETL confirm that the 0% minimum cost-share requirement shown for Topic Area 1b is intentional and should be used when developing proposal budgets?","See Modification 000002 (dated 07/10/2026) of the NOFO for current cost sharing information.   All projects are required to include a minimum 20% cost share. No demonstration level projects are anticipated under any Topic Area of this NOFO.  All field activities, as requested within the NOFO, as part of any application should remain Research and Development (not demonstration).","2026-07-27"]
[null,17,"Technical Requirement","1.\tWould a project primarily focused on the field-testing, validation, and demonstration of technologies, processes, or infrastructure for managing high-density brine concentrate effluent generated from produced water desalination treatment via injection disposal be considered responsive to Topic Area 2?\n\n2.\tMust Topic Area 2 proposals include a produced water treatment technology pilot as a principal element of the project, or would a project focused on downstream management, beneficial use, resource recovery, waste minimization, concentrate handling, or wellbore and reservoir response to injection of the resulting concentrate qualify independently?\n\n3.\tIf a produced water treatment technology is already being tested for commercially demonstrated and the proposed research is focused on the concentrated residual stream generated by that TRL 7 treatment process, would the project still be considered within the scope of Topic Area 2?","Per NOFO Section II. entitled \"Eligibility\", \"DOE will not determine eligibility for potential applicants before the application due date.\" The decision whether to submit an application in response to this NOFO lies solely with the applicant.  See Section III.E. of the NOFO for Applications Specifically Not of Interest. ","2026-07-27"]
[null,18,"Application Requirement","Environmental Considerations Summary and Environmental Impact Volume are both listed as required documents in NOFO part 1 (page 34).\nNOFO part 2 (page 20) says if the Environmental Considerations Summary and Environmental Impact Volume are required, the templates can be found in eXCHANGE. \nI do not see these templates posted in the eXHANGE in the Application Forms and Templates section for this solicitation. Please let me know where the templates may be found. ","Environmental Considerations Summary and Environmental Impact Volume documents will not be required in applications for this NOFO. ","2026-07-27"]
[null,19,"Cost Share Requirement","This question is regarding cost share requirements. We understand that, for Topic Area 1b, the proposed project should not directly include the drilling of new production wells or new hydraulic fracturing in wells. Therefore, if we were to obtain an industry partner with a pre-established hydraulic fracturing program, could the funds spent on the hydraulic fracturing efforts be counted toward the cost share requirement of the project, considering that it would be vital to the stated objectives of Topic 1b, and no federal funds would be expended for this portion of the effort? ","No.  Actions specifically related to hydraulic fracturing should not be included in the project either as DOE share or Cost share because of potential NEPA implications associated with those actions. Refer to the NOFO documents for Cost Share requirements and information. As per Section II.A.3. of the NOFO Part 2: Cost share must meet requirements set forth in 2 C.F.R.  §§ 200.306 and 910.130 and the cost principles set forth in 2 C.F.R.  §§ 200.400-476 and 2 C.F.R.  §§ 910.352.  Also see Section II.C.2.of the NOFO part 1 for additional information on Unallowable Cost Share Sources.  Also see Section III.D.2. of the NOFO part 1: Also, proposed projects should not directly include the drilling of new oil/gas production wells and/or new hydraulic fracturing for a new oil/gas well due to potential NEPA/environmental issues. Proposed projects could include drilling of monitoring/observation well(s) for diagnostics related to the proposed project contingent on adequately addressing NEPA/environment issues and the well(s) being necessary for the proposed research project while also not being directly related to commercial production/revenue. Proposed projects should try to use existing wells as applicable.","2026-07-27"]
[null,20,"Eligibility","Regarding DE-FOA-0003627 (Improved Oil and Gas Recovery and Produced Water Management Technologies): could you clarify whether the same individual (e.g., a university professor) may serve as Co-PI on multiple, separate Topic Area 1b applications, provided each describes a unique, scientifically distinct project per Section II.B? We'd also appreciate knowing how DOE evaluates overcommitment when the same individual appears on multiple applications' Current and Pending Support disclosures.","An individual may serve as Co-PI on multiple applications for unique, scientifically distinct projects contingent on meeting requirements outlined in the NOFO documents. As per Section IV.C.6. of NOFO Part 1: Current and pending (other) support (CPS Common Form) helps us identify potential duplication, overcommitment, potential conflicts of interest or commitment, and all other sources of support. As per Section VI.C. of NOFO Part 1: Applications will be evaluated against the technical review criteria shown below. That technical review criteria includes Criterion 3 that includes: Credentials, capabilities, experience, and availability of key personnel from the applicant and partnering organizations to carry out their specifically identified role within the proposed project.","2026-07-27"]
[null,21,"Technical Requirement","For Topic Area 2, does the stated 15,000-50,000 barrels-per-day range represent a required minimum throughput for the field demonstration itself, or may an applicant demonstrate a lower-throughput commercial module while providing a technically and economically validated pathway to a modular facility within that throughput range?","Per NOFO Section II. entitled \"Eligibility\", \"DOE will not determine eligibility for potential applicants before the application due date.\" The decision whether to submit an application in response to this NOFO lies solely with the applicant. Applicants are permitted to submit applications with flowrates outside the 15,000-50,000 bbl/day range.  Applications will be evaluated against the technical review criteria outlined in Section VI.C.2 of the NOFO documents. ","2026-07-31"]
[null,22,"Application Requirement","Can you confirm the full-application deadline? The NOFO and eXCHANGE listing show September 8, 2026, while the energy.gov announcement page references October 5, 2026.","Per NOFO Mod. No. 000001, the Application due date was revised from October 05, 2026 to September 08, 2026.  The Application due date is now September 08, 2026.","2026-07-31"]
[null,23,"Teaming Partners","Does NETL/HGEO maintain a teaming or partnering list for this NOFO where organizations seeking consortium partners can be listed? If so, we would like to be added.","NETL/HGEO does not maintain a partnering list for this NOFO.","2026-07-31"]
[null,24,"eXCHANGE Helpdesk","Please confirm we are subscribed to receive future modifications and Q&A log updates for this NOFO.","This appears to be a question on technical issues involving NETL eXCHANGE.  As per Contact Information on the eXCHANGE site for the NOFO, contact NETL-ExchangeSupport@hq.doe.gov for technical issues involving NETL eXCHANGE. It remains the applicant's responsibility to periodically monitor for the most up-to-date versions of the NOFO and any associated Q&A log updates.","2026-07-31"]
[null,25,"Cost Share Requirement","Which types of industry partner contributions (e.g., operational labor, equipment usage, and access to existing field infrastructure/wells) are eligible to count toward the non-federal cost share?","Eligibility of items for cost share dependent on details of project and items. Labor, equipment usage, access to field infrastructure/wells, and/or other items may be acceptable depending on the details of the project and items. Refer to the NOFO documents for Cost Share requirements and eligibility information. See Section II.A.3. of the NOFO Part 2 for cost share types and allowability. Cost share must meet requirements set forth in 2 C.F.R.  §§ 200.306 and 910.130 and the cost principles set forth in 2 C.F.R.  §§ 200.400-476 and 2 C.F.R.  §§ 910.352.  Also see Section II.C.2.of the NOFO Part 1 for additional information on Unallowable Cost Share Sources.","2026-07-31"]
[null,26,"Technical Requirement","For eligible field infrastructure and well access, what is the acceptable methodology for determining dollar value (e.g., incremental operational time/site usage vs. capital value or depreciation)?","Acceptable methodologies for determining dollar amount for cost share dependent on details of project and items. Fair rental value, depreciation, use charges, and/or other methods may be acceptable depending on the details of the project and items. Refer to the NOFO documents for Cost Share information. See Section II.A. of the NOFO Part 2 for cost share information. Cost share (including methodology for determining dollar amount) must meet requirements set forth in 2 C.F.R.  §§ 200.306 and 910.130 and the cost principles set forth in 2 C.F.R.  §§ 200.400-476 and 2 C.F.R.  §§ 910.352.  Also see Section II.C.2.of the NOFO Part 1 for additional information on Unallowable Cost Share Sources.","2026-07-31"]
[null,27,"Cost Share Requirement","Section I.A.1 states award amounts are \"Up to $20,000,000 Federal Funds.\" Could you confirm whether there is a minimum threshold or floor for federal funding per award under Topic Area 1c, provided the 20% non-federal cost share ratio is maintained?","There is no minimum threshold or floor for federal funding provided minimum 20% cost share ratio is maintained. ","2026-07-31"]
[null,28,"Application Requirement","Can you please clarify whether the SOPO and PMP are separate from the Technical Volume or incorporated into.","As per Section IV.C.2. of the NOFO Part 1 document, the Statement of Project Objectives (SOPO) and Project Management Plan (PMP) are separate documents from the Technical Volume.","2026-07-31"]
[null,29,"Cost Share Requirement","Our team has a follow up question to Q19 regarding cost share requirements.  Can you confirm that materials costs related to hydraulic fracturing efforts are also unallowable cost share sources?","A definitive decision on allowability of items as cost share is dependent on further details of the project and is generally addressed as part of award negotiations.  In general terms, activity or cost not directly tied to the action resulting in the creation of hydraulic fracture can be an allowable project cost.  Action directly resultant in hydraulic fracturing should be avoided as a direct part of the project due to potential NEPA / Environmental concerns.  Refer to the NOFO documents for Cost Share information. See Section II.A. of the NOFO Part 2 for cost share information. Cost share must meet requirements set forth in 2 C.F.R.  §§ 200.306 and 910.130 and the cost principles set forth in 2 C.F.R.  §§ 200.400-476 and 2 C.F.R.  §§ 910.352.  Also see Section II.C.2.of the NOFO Part 1 for additional information on Unallowable Cost Share Sources.","2026-08-03"]
[null,30,"Technical Requirement","The FOA states that \"proposed projects should not directly include the drilling of new oil/gas production wells and/or new hydraulic fracturing for a new oil/gas well due to potential NEPA/environmental issues\" and encourages applicants to \"try to use existing wells as applicable.\" Could DOE clarify whether the application of novel hydraulic fracturing or fracture initiation techniques on an existing (old) well is an allowable R&D/prototype deployment activity under Topic Areas 1a and 1c?\nSpecifically, if the creation of fractures in an existing well is conducted purely for research, development, and diagnostic purposes (rather than new site development/commercial production drilling) and fully complies with all NEPA and environmental requirements, is this activity eligible for DOE funding and/or inclusion in the project scope?","Per NOFO Section II. entitled \"Eligibility\", \"DOE will not determine eligibility for potential applicants before the application due date.\" The decision whether to submit an application in response to this NOFO lies solely with the applicant. Applications will be evaluated against the technical review criteria outlined in Section VI.C.2 of the NOFO documents.\n\nIn general terms, any action resulting in creation of fracturing (regardless of the timing or purpose of the fracturing) should be avoided as a direct part of the project due to potential NEPA / Environmental concerns.","2026-08-03"]
[null,31,"Cost Share Requirement","If an industry operator donates or dedicates an existing, producing well for use in project R&D activities, could DOE clarify the eligibility and valuation rules under Section II.C? Specifically:\na.\tIs the dedication or donation of an existing producing well (or well access) eligible to count as a non-federal in-kind cost-share contribution?\nb.\tIf eligible, is the PV10 valuation (present value of reported proven reserves) an acceptable methodology for determining the dollar value of the cost-share contribution, or must the valuation be based on alternative standard methodologies (such as operational site usage/lease rates or asset depreciation)?","(a) Donating or dedicating an existing well for use in project R&D activities is most likely eligible to count as a non-federal in-kind cost-share contribution. However, to be allowable, the specifics of the use of the well must be directly necessary for the performance of the Statement of Project Objectives (SOPO).  The methodology used to assess and define the valuation of such a contribution is dependent on details of the project and is generally addressed as a part of award negotiations and related to specific value to the performance of project scope / activity and confined to the project performance period.  Refer to the NOFO documents for Cost Share information. See Section II.A. of the NOFO Part 2 for cost share information. Cost share must meet requirements set forth in 2 C.F.R.  §§ 200.306 and 910.130 and the cost principles set forth in 2 C.F.R.  §§ 200.400-476 and 2 C.F.R.  §§ 910.352.  Also see Section II.C.2.of the NOFO Part 1 for additional information on Unallowable Cost Share Sources.\n\n(b) The methodology used to assess and define the valuation of such a contribution is dependent on details of the project and is generally addressed as a part of award negotiations and related to specific value to the performance of project scope / activity and confined to the project performance period. Refer to the NOFO documents for Cost Share information. See Section II.A. of the NOFO Part 2 for cost share information. Cost share must meet requirements set forth in 2 C.F.R.  §§ 200.306 and 910.130 and the cost principles set forth in 2 C.F.R.  §§ 200.400-476 and 2 C.F.R.  §§ 910.352.  Also see Section II.C.2.of the NOFO Part 1 for additional information on Unallowable Cost Share Sources.","2026-08-03"]
[null,32,"Application Requirement","We are a team preparing an application under DE-FOA-0003627, Topic Area 1a, and would appreciate clarification regarding the required Technical Volume format.\nThe NOFO states that the 20-page Technical Volume must address the technical review criteria and provides general content requirements, but we have not located a separate template or prescribed section order in eXCHANGE.\nOur current approach is to organize the volume as follows:\n1.\tProject Objectives \n2.\tRelevance, Outcomes, and Impacts \n3.\tCriterion 1 \n4.\tCriterion 2 \n5.\tCriterion 3 \n6.\tReferences \n\nWithin these sections, we would incorporate all applicable Technical Volume instructions and Topic Area 1a requirements.\nCould you please confirm whether:\n•\tan official Technical Volume template or mandatory section structure exists; and \n•\tin the absence of a template, applicants may organize the volume around the technical review criteria, provided all required content and formatting requirements are addressed? ","There is no Technical Volume template in eXCHANGE for this NOFO.  Technical Volume in applications should follow content and requirements outlined in NOFO documents including Section IV.C.4 of the NOFO Part 1 document.","2026-08-04"]
[null,33,"Technical Requirement","While not specified in the section entitled \"Applications Specifically Not of Interest\" the NOFO description's opening paragraph contains a discussion of Permian Basin challenges.  We interpret the lack of excluding other CONUS basins in this section as meaning other basins like the DJ Basin, LA Basin et al, are not disqualified under Topic Area 2.  Please confirm.  DOE scoring teams should be made aware of the allowability of other basins to compete without deductions.","Other basins are not disqualified.  Applications are permitted to include projects for any basin contingent on meeting the requirements outlined in the NOFO documents.","2026-08-04"]
[null,34,"Technical Requirement","My current research focuses on advancing data-driven, physics-informed hydraulic fracture completion optimization by developing machine learning surrogate models that capture time-dependent fracture conductivity impairment under field-representative conditions. These models are intended to enable more efficient optimization of hydraulic fracture completion designs—including proppant selection, proppant loading, stage spacing, cluster spacing, and pumping schedules—to improve hydrocarbon recovery, sustain long-term well productivity, and enhance the operational efficiency of unconventional oil and gas development.\nBased on this brief description, would this type of predictive characterization and physics-informed modeling research generally be considered responsive to the objectives of Topic Area 1b, or is the topic intended to focus primarily on experimental and field-based fracture characterization technologies?","Per NOFO Section II. entitled \"Eligibility\", \"DOE will not determine eligibility for potential applicants before the application due date.\" The decision whether to submit an application in response to this NOFO lies solely with the applicant.","2026-08-04"]
[null,35,"Eligibility","Our company develops proprietary technologies that use sound as a source of information. With a focus on the U.S. unconventional oil and gas sector, our technologies expand the measurement space, transforming high-frequency acoustic signals into real-time insight on stage efficiency, flow distribution, and completion performance.\n \nOur company is actively evaluating a recently issued Notice of Funding Opportunity (NOFO) regarding U.S. unconventional oil and gas resources and improving the efficiency of resource recovery and produced water management.  \n \nWe would welcome the chance to speak with you and your team as we prepare our formal response ahead of the September 8th deadline. Would you or anyone on your team have availability for a short virtual call in the next week or two? ","Communications regarding the NOFO are limited to the use of the provided NOFO specific e-mail address and the resulting publication of questions and answers resultant from those communications such that information is universally available to all potential applicants.  Direct contact with any specific entity is prohibited.  Per NOFO Section II. entitled \"Eligibility\", \"DOE will not determine eligibility for potential applicants before the application due date.\" The decision whether to submit an application in response to this NOFO lies solely with the applicant.","2026-08-04"]
[null,36,"Application Requirement","Please advise of the reasoning for moving up the application deadline one month.  Due to depth and breadth required for proposals, particularly in Topic 2: Advanced Field-Testing of Multi-Scale Produced Water Treatment Technologies & Processes, it would benefit both the DOE and applicants if the original submission deadline of October 5th was reinstated.  This would ensure high quality applications and sufficient time to bring together the breadth of partners required to make grants for produced water beneficial reuse successful.","There are no current plans to extend the submission deadline.  Applications should be submitted by Application due date outlined in the NOFO documents.  Modification  002 includes changes meant to lessen the level of documentation required in association with partnership commitment under the NOFO given the current submission deadline.","2026-08-04"]
[null,37,"Application Requirement","Where can I find the forms to fill out for this project?","From the NETL eXCHANGE webpage, navigate to DE-FOA-0003627. From there, look for the “APPLICATION FORMS AND TEMPLATES” heading and click the link \"View Application Forms and Templates\" to access the required forms. ","2026-08-04"]
[null,38,"Application Requirement","1.  Is this the only call, or are there going to be more later?\n2.  If the application is rejected, can we reapply later with another bid?\n3.  What are the specific requirements for the application?","1. There are currently no scheduled or guaranteed future \"rounds\" or \"calls\" for this specific NOFO.\n\n2. There is no opportunity to reapply a rejected application once the submission deadline has passed and the evaluation cycle is complete. Although, a rejection does not bar an organization from applying to future, separate funding opportunities and/or any potential future \"rounds\" or \"calls\" of this NOFO. \n\n3. See the NOFO documents for specific requirements for the application.","2026-08-13"]
[null,39,"Eligibility","We are requesting clarification regarding the language in Topic Areas 1a and 1b stating that proposed projects “should not directly include the drilling of new oil/gas production wells and/or new hydraulic fracturing for a new oil/gas well due to potential NEPA/environmental issues.” Our question concerns the general application of this restriction to the following circumstances:\nAn operator has a pre-existing, independently approved commercial development program under which it will drill new production wells regardless of whether it receives a DOE award. The operator would pay 100% of all drilling, pad construction, roads, permitting, and other site-development costs outside the proposed award, and none of those costs would be requested from DOE or claimed as cost share. The well could be drilled before the DOE project commences but would not yet have received its initial completion. The proposed DOE project would involve field research and validation of a novel nonaqueous, hydrocarbon-based fracturing-fluid system and associated additives, diagnostics, and monitoring,\nfollowed by non-CO₂ cyclic-injection enhanced recovery research. The applicant would not undertake DOE-supported field activities before completing the required NEPA review and receiving all required written authorizations.\n\n1. May an independently funded and independently drilled development well serve as the field-test platform for this research, subject to DOE’s NEPA review, or would DOE consider the well’s initial experimental fracturing treatment to fall within the statement that projects “should not directly include” new hydraulic fracturing for a new oil/gas well?\n2. If this structure is permissible, may the proposed award include otherwise allowable R&D and field-validation costs associated with the experimental fracturing-fluid system, diagnostics,\nmonitoring, and subsequent enhanced-recovery operations, while excluding all drilling and site-development costs?\n3. If an initial experimental completion on an independently drilled well is not permissible, does DOE intend field demonstrations of novel fracturing fluids, additives, and treatment techniques under Topic Area 1b to be conducted only through refracturing or treating existing previously completed wells?","1, 2, & 3: Per NOFO Section II. entitled \"Eligibility\", \"DOE will not determine eligibility for potential applicants before the application due date.\" The decision whether to submit an application in response to this NOFO lies solely with the applicant.  \n\n A definitive decision on allowability of items is dependent on further details of the project and is generally addressed as part of award negotiations.  Relative to hydraulic fracturing related activity, in general terms, activity or cost not directly tied to the action resulting in the creation of hydraulic fractures (things peripheral to the actual pumping of the hydraulic fracture job) can be an allowable project cost dependent on details.  Action directly resultant in hydraulic fracturing should be avoided as a direct part of the project due to potential NEPA / Environmental concerns.  In general terms, costs associated with performance of operations necessary to generate, collect and analyze information needed to achieve the objectives of the NOFO topic area under which the project is proposed can be allowable project costs dependent on details.","2026-08-13"]
[null,40,"Eligibility","\n1.\tFirst,  I was wondering if vendors can be part of a team applying for funding?  Obviously, I understand you need an oil company with wells to offer up, but I see partnerships forming with academics and was wondering how you feel about an oil company partnered with a vendor or if that would be frowned upon.  For example, I am thinking about a reservoir simulation company as possible partner.  Other avenues might be a company involved with a well surveillance technology.\n2.\tCan an oil company apply under more than one category?  (i.e. separate applications for topic 1A and 1B)","1. It is acceptable to have vendors as part of the project team contingent on meeting the requirements outlined in the NOFO documents. See NOFO Part 1 Section II.A. Eligible Applicants for more information on eligible applicants.\n\n2. As stated in NOFO Part 1 Section II.B, You can submit more than one application to this NOFO, provided that each application describes a unique, scientifically distinct project as determined by DOE.","2026-08-13"]
[null,41,"Eligibility","We request clarification regarding the treatment of non-hydraulic well stimulation methods under this NOFO.\n\nTopic Area 1a identifies as a research effort of interest \"field based R&D of novel treatments and techniques for improving production from unconventional oil and natural gas reservoirs, including but not limited to improved completion, conductivity, and/or conformance,\" and Topic Area 1b identifies field deployment of advanced refracturing and completion technologies. Both Topic Areas state that proposed projects should not directly include the drilling of new oil/gas production wells and/or new hydraulic fracturing for a new oil/gas well, and should try to use existing wells as applicable. Q&A #19 further states that actions specifically related to hydraulic fracturing should not be included in the project as either DOE share or cost share because of potential NEPA implications.\n\nOur questions:\n\n1.\tWould a field-based R&D project that applies a novel, non-hydraulic stimulation treatment (i.e., a downhole treatment that does not involve high-pressure fluid injection or hydraulic fracturing) to existing, previously completed and produced wells (for the purpose of improving conductivity and recovery efficiency, with associated diagnostics and production-response validation) be considered responsive under Topic Area 1a and/or Topic Area 1b?\n2.\tDo the exclusions related to hydraulic fracturing referenced in the Topic Area descriptions and in Q&A #19 apply to non-hydraulic stimulation treatments performed on existing wells, or are those exclusions limited to hydraulic fracturing operations?\n3.\tIf such non-hydraulic treatments on existing wells are permissible, may costs directly associated with performing the treatment (prototype fabrication and modification, equipment mobilization, downhole deployment, and operation) be included in the project budget as DOE share and/or cost share?","1, 2, & 3: Per NOFO Section II. entitled \"Eligibility\", \"DOE will not determine eligibility for potential applicants before the application due date.\" The decision whether to submit an application in response to this NOFO lies solely with the applicant. \n\n A definitive decision on allowability of items is dependent on further details of the project and is generally addressed as part of award negotiations.  Restrictions identified within the NOFO regarding the inclusion of hydraulic fracturing activity and potential NEPA implications relate directly to actions resulting in the creation of hydraulic fractures (and would not apply to non-hydraulic stimulation treatments)."]
[null,42,"Application Requirement","On behalf of our project team and several collaborating industry partners, we respectfully request that the proposal submission deadline for DE-FOA-0003627 be extended by approximately one month.\n\nOver the past several weeks, our team has been working closely with multiple U.S. oil and gas producers, service companies, and research organizations to assemble a high-impact proposal that aligns with the objectives of this funding opportunity. Based on extensive discussions with industry participants, several factors have significantly impacted the ability to finalize project scope, secure management approvals, and obtain the necessary commitments and support letters within the current schedule.\n\nThese factors include:\n•            Reduced industry availability during the summer vacation season, resulting in limited access to key technical and management decision-makers.\n•            Higher-than-expected oil prices, which have increased field activity and shifted technical and management resources toward operational priorities.\n•            Preparation for the return-to-school season, which has further constrained the availability of many senior personnel responsible for proposal review and approval.\n•            The recent resumption of multiple DOE-funded oil and gas projects, requiring companies to simultaneously evaluate participation across several federal opportunities and allocate limited technical resources.\n•            Longer internal approval cycles for both project participation and letters of support, particularly following recent DOE project cancellations and funding uncertainties. Many companies have added additional management and legal review stages before committing to new DOE-funded efforts.\n•            Greater selectivity by industry in pursuing DOE partnerships, with organizations implementing more rigorous internal stage-gate processes to ensure alignment with corporate priorities and investment strategies.\n\nThese circumstances are affecting not only our team but also many of the industry organizations whose participation is essential to achieving the objectives of this NOFO.\n\nAn extension of approximately one month would provide applicants the opportunity to complete the necessary internal reviews, secure broader industry participation, and develop more technically robust and impactful proposals. We believe this additional time would ultimately benefit DOE by increasing proposal quality, strengthening industry cost share and collaboration, and improving the likelihood of successful project execution and technology deployment.","There are no current plans to extend the submission deadline.  Applications should be submitted by Application due date outlined in the NOFO documents.  Modification 002 includes changes meant to lessen the level of documentation required in association with partnership commitment under the NOFO given the current submission deadline.","2026-08-13"]
[null,43,"Eligibility","Clarification of Topic Area 1c regarding the following language under “Applications Specifically Not of Interest”:\n“Technologies that use anything other than CO₂ as the main injection fluid and/or mobility control additives for EOR or EGR.”\nOur proposed project would use CO₂ unequivocally as the principal EOR injectant. However, we are considering whether a small amount of surfactant could be used solely to improve CO₂ mobility/conformance control and reservoir contact.\nWould the application remain responsive if the surfactant were used only in either of the following ways?\n1.\tAs a foaming/stabilizing agent to generate CO₂ foam for mobility/conformance control; or \n2.\tAs a limited treatment in an offset well to reduce preferential CO₂ migration through a connected fracture system. \nIn both cases, the surfactant would not be proposed as an independent EOR injectant or primary recovery fluid. Its sole purpose would be to improve the distribution, conformance, and effective reservoir contact of the injected CO₂.","Per NOFO Section II. entitled \"Eligibility\", \"DOE will not determine eligibility for potential applicants before the application due date.\" The decision whether to submit an application in response to this NOFO lies solely with the applicant. A definitive decision on allowability of items is dependent on further details of the project and is generally addressed as part of award negotiations. \n\nAs per Section III.E. of the NOFO Part 1 document: Applications specifically not of interest for Topic Area 1c include: Technologies that use anything other than CO2 as the main injection fluid and/or mobility control additives for EOR or EGR.  Technologies that include other agents/fluids in the project but maintain CO2 as the main injection fluid and/or mobility control additive would most likely be considered responsive.","2026-08-13"]
[null,44,"Application Requirement","For the requirement below for topic 1b, is the industry partner able to remain anonymous to the public?\n\nEvidence (letter(s) of intent commitment at the time of application and letter(s) of commitment prior to award if selected) from an industry partner or partners willing to permit access to and use of a well or wells and approval to obtain, analyze, and publish data collected as part of the project. ","As per Section IV.A of the NOFO Part 2 document: All application information is subject to public release under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) except information that qualifies under a FOIA exemption.  One of the exemptions is trade secrets or commercial or financial information that is confidential or privileged.  Accordingly, if you include Proprietary Information with your application, you must mark it with the Notice below and follow the marking requirements below to protect it from disclosure under FOIA or otherwise.  Note that the protective markings alone do not automatically make the information exempt under FOIA but help the DOE’s designated FOIA Officer determine if the information qualifies for a FOIA exemption.  You can find more information on how DOE process FOIA requests at 10 C.F.R. § 1004.  See that section and other sections of the NOFO documents for more information.\n\nAlso, see Section VIII.A.1. of the NOFO Part 1 document for more information on Government Rights in Data.","2026-08-13"]
[null,45,"Application Requirement","If there is only one proposed field location, are subrecipients still required to submit a separate Environmental Questionnaire for each subrecipient performing work at that location, or would we submit a single Environmental Questionnaire covering the entire field location/project?\n\nThe guidance states that a separate Environmental Questionnaire is required for each proposed subrecipient performing work at every location, so I want to confirm how this applies when there is only one field location.","As provided in Section IV.C.17 of NOFO Part 2, applicants must submit a separate Environmental Questionnaire for each proposed subrecipient performing work at every location. Therefore, if multiple proposed subrecipients will perform work at the same location, a separate Environmental Questionnaire is required for each applicable proposed subrecipient.","2026-08-21"]
[null,46,"Application Requirement","I was wondering if there is a template for the LOI that is required from industry partners.   What information needs to be included?  I understand that there will be a LOC at a later time","There is no prescribed template for industry partner Letter(s) of Intent (LOI) for this NOFO. Applicants should refer to NOFO Part 1, Section VII.C.2, for the applicable technical review criteria. The LOI should provide information sufficient to demonstrate the industry partner's intended participation and support the application, as applicable to the technical review criteria and other NOFO requirements.","2026-08-21"]
[null,47,"Application Requirement","NOFO Part 2 of DE-FOA-0003627, the link to the Transparency and Foreign Connections template is not hyperlinked nor available. A Google search shows this website with this document, is this the correct one we should use for DE-FOA-0003627 applications?  https://www.energy.gov/ia/transparency-foreign-connections","\n\n\nApplicants should obtain the Transparency of Foreign Connections Template through the application materials associated with DE-FOA-0003627 in NETL eXCHANGE. From the DE-FOA-0003627 opportunity page, select “View Application Forms and Templates” under “APPLICATION FORMS AND TEMPLATES” to access the applicable forms and templates. Applicants should use the current version of the template available through the NOFO application materials. Hyperlink functionality does not alter the application requirements.","2026-08-21"]
[null,48,"Application Requirement","I am working with a PI on his budget justification workbook, and he has indicated that he will need more lines for supplies than are currently available. We have already gone in and unhidden the lines that are there; however, the workbook is password protected and will not let me add any additional lines. Can you please advise me on the best course of action?","If additional lines are needed, applicants may consolidate/group related supply items within the available lines and provide the itemized breakdown and associated explanation in the “Justification of Need” cells in Column G and/or the “Additional Explanation” section at the bottom of the worksheet. Applicants should not alter the structure or protection settings of the Budget Justification Workbook.","2026-08-21"]
[null,49,"Application Requirement","As an Office of Science National Laboratory, in accordance with the Memorandum on Streamlining SPP and CRADA, dated June 3, 2025, the Office of Science no longer requires Contracting Officer approval at the time of proposal submission for responses to DOE Notices of Funding Opportunity:  \"National Laboratory proposals in response to a DOE NOFO no longer require contracting officer approval at submission. National Laboratories must ensure proposals are aligned to the scope of the M&O contract. Contracting Officer approval will be required if the proposal is subsequently approved for funding.\"\n\nWe respectfully request confirmation that Office of Science FFRDCs may rely on this guidance and are not required to submit a separate FFRDC Authorization letter at the full application stage, unless and until an award is made.","Consistent with the DOE Office of Science memorandum dated June 3, 2025, “Streamlining Strategic Partnership Projects and Cooperative Research and Development Agreements,” Office of Science National Laboratory proposals submitted in response to a DOE NOFO do not require cognizant Contracting Officer approval at the time of application submission. The National Laboratory must ensure that the proposed work is aligned with the scope of its M&O contract. Contracting Officer approval will be required if the proposal is subsequently approved for funding","2026-08-21"]
[null,50,"FFRDC Requirement","If we are including a FFRDC as a subaward in a proposal, do they need to include a Work Proposal and the Subrecipient Budget Justification workbook, or just the Work Proposal?","If an FFRDC is proposed as a subrecipient, the application must include both the applicable Work Proposal for the FFRDC and a Subrecipient Budget Justification for that FFRDC, in addition to all other application materials required by the NOFO for the proposed FFRDC/subrecipient.","2026-08-21"]
[null,51,"Application Requirement","Is the environmental questionnaire required, as it is not applicable in our case and for many other companies. ","Yes. The Environmental Questionnaire (EQ) is a required application document under this NOFO. Applicants should complete and submit the EQ(s) in accordance with the instructions in the NOFO and the EQ form, including the requirements applicable to the location(s) and organization(s) performing the proposed work. The level of information required will depend on whether the proposed activities fall within Group A, Group B, or Group C, as described in the EQ form.","2026-08-21"]
[null,52,"Technical Requirement","For Topic Area 2, if a proposed demonstration consists of an integrated treatment train containing multiple treatment stages, how should technology readiness be evaluated? Must each individual technology component meet the stated TRL requirement, or may the TRL requirement be assessed at the level of the overall integrated system being demonstrated?","For Topic Area 2, applicants should evaluate the TRL of the project's proposed technologies consistent with the requirements and TRL descriptions provided in NOFO Part 1. As stated in Section III.D.4, “the TRL levels listed are for the project's proposed technologies and not necessarily the overall field site/lab.” Applicants proposing an integrated treatment train should provide sufficient information in the application to demonstrate the TRL of the proposed technologies and how the integrated system satisfies the applicable Topic Area 2 requirements. DOE will evaluate the information provided in the application in accordance with the NOFO.","2026-08-21"]
[null,53,"Technical Requirement","As part of our proposed project, our operator, \"Company Name\", intends to pump some novel proppants to increase the extent of propped fractures. These are more expensive than their standard sand proppant. Can any or all of the costs of these novel proppants be used as cost-share?","Per NOFO Section II. entitled \"Eligibility\", \"DOE will not determine eligibility for potential applicants before the application due date.\" The decision whether to submit an application in response to this NOFO lies solely with the applicant. \n\n A definitive decision on allowability of items/costs is dependent on further details of the project and is generally addressed as part of award negotiations.  Relative to hydraulic fracturing related activity, in general terms, activity or cost not directly tied to the action resulting in the creation of hydraulic fractures (things peripheral to the actual pumping of the hydraulic fracture job) can be an allowable project cost (including cost share) dependent on details.  Action directly resultant in hydraulic fracturing should be avoided as a direct part of the project due to potential NEPA / Environmental concerns.  In general terms, costs (including cost share) associated with performance of operations necessary to generate, collect and analyze information needed to achieve the objectives of the NOFO topic area under which the project is proposed can be allowable project costs dependent on details.","2026-08-21"]
[null,54,"Technical Requirement","1. Pilot throughput requirement (15,000–50,000 bbl/day): Section III.D.4 states that Topic Area 2 seeks field testing of produced water treatment at \"high throughput rates (15,000 to 50,000 barrels of water per day)\" over a period longer than one year (excluding design/construction time). Given that the period of performance spans multiple budget periods (12–24 months each) with Go/No-Go decisions at each stage, is it acceptable for a proposed project to reach the 15,000– 50,000 bbl/day range through a phased scale-up across budget periods — for example, validating at a smaller throughput in an early budget period before scaling to the full range in a later period — or must the field test operate within the 15,000–50,000 bbl/day range for the full duration of the greater-than-one-year test window?\n\n2. Cost share tier (20% vs. 50%): Section II.C.1 sets a minimum cost share of 20% of total project costs for research and development, but 50% for \"any demonstration level project proposed.\" Given that Topic Area 2 targets TRL 7 at project end and a sustained, high-throughput, multi-year field test, could you clarify whether a Topic Area 2 project of this scale and duration would generally be considered \"research and development\" or \"demonstration level\" for cost-share purposes, or whether that determination is made case-by-case based on the specific application?","1. Per NOFO Section II. entitled \"Eligibility\", \"DOE will not determine eligibility for potential applicants before the application due date.\" The decision whether to submit an application in response to this NOFO lies solely with the applicant. Applicants are permitted to submit applications with flowrates outside the 15,000-50,000 bbl/day range and/or with phased scale-up.  Applications will be evaluated against the technical review criteria outlined in Section VI.C.2 of the NOFO documents.\n\n2. See Modification 000002 (dated 07/10/2026) of the NOFO for current cost sharing information.   All projects are required to include a minimum 20% cost share. No demonstration level projects are anticipated under any Topic Area of this NOFO.  All field activities, as requested within the NOFO, as part of any application should remain Research and Development (not demonstration).","2026-08-26"]
[null,55,"Application Requirement","Could you confirm the font size requirements for the application? Also, if utilizing an image that includes text within the image (i.e., diagram), are there requirements for the equivalent font size?","See NOFO Part 2 document Section IV.B. for font size information including, but not limited to, the following: \"Size 12-point or larger (except in figures or tables, which may be 10-point font).\"","2026-08-28"]
[null,56,"Technical Requirement","Does the key performance goal of \"evaluation of scalability...to support an array of beneficial use opportunities\" imply that the field demo can be built to process something less than 15,000 barrels/day so long as we can demonstrate that it can be scaled to that input, or is the 15,000 barrels/day a fixed lower limit that the demo must process, and the scalability evaluation refers to even larger volumes?","Per NOFO Section II. entitled \"Eligibility\", \"DOE will not determine eligibility for potential applicants before the application due date.\" The decision whether to submit an application in response to this NOFO lies solely with the applicant. Applicants are permitted to submit applications with flowrates outside the 15,000-50,000 bbl/day range.  Applications will be evaluated against the technical review criteria outlined in Section VI.C.2 of the NOFO documents.","2026-08-28"]
[null,57,"Application Requirement","1. Tribal Lands Documentation\n\nOur proposed project activities will not take place on Tribal Lands, nor do we anticipate any impacts to Tribal Lands. Could you please advise what, if anything, should be submitted in response to the Tribal Lands requirements within the FOA? Specifically, is a brief statement indicating that the project has no Tribal Land impacts sufficient, or is additional documentation required?\n\n2. Lobbying Forms for Subrecipients\n\nWe would also appreciate clarification regarding the lobbying disclosure requirements. Are all proposed subrecipients required to submit lobbying-related forms and certifications as part of the application package, or are these forms only required under specific circumstances (e.g., if lobbying activities have occurred or if certain thresholds are met)?","1. Per NOFO Part 1 Section IV.C.3. \"For any application that potentially impacts Indian Tribes,8 including when the potentially impacted Indian Tribe is the applicant, you must submit additional documentation:\"  If an application would not potentially impact Indian Tribes, then Tribal Lands Documentation and/or additional related documentation would not be required.\n\n2. See the NOFO documents for information on lobbying disclosure requirements.  Per NOFO Part 2 Section IV.C.18.: Applicants and proposed subrecipients that have lobbying activities to disclose, complete and submit the Disclosure of Lobbying Activities (SF-LLL). Recipients and subrecipients that have no lobbying activities to disclose, complete and submit the Certification Regarding Lobbying form (OMB 4040-0013).","2026-08-28"]
[null,58,"Technical Requirement","1. May a U.S. applicant satisfy the Topic Area 1a industry-partner requirement using a non-U.S. operating industry partner and foreign field test site if the applicant can demonstrate substantial prior field experience at that location and the proposed work directly supports validation and subsequent commercialization of a U.S. developed and U.S. manufactured technology in the United States?\n2. If foreign field activity would require a waiver, is such a waiver permissible under Topic Area 1a or is the requirement for a U.S. field test site absolute?\n3. Alternatively, could existing foreign field results, data and operating experience be incorporated as the technical baseline for the project, with a U.S. field demonstration subsequently incorporated into the project prior to award or during award negotiations?","1. & 2. Per NOFO Section II. entitled \"Eligibility\", \"DOE will not determine eligibility for potential applicants before the application due date.\" The decision whether to submit an application in response to this NOFO lies solely with the applicant.  Locations of test sites must be within the United States as per NOFO Part 1 Section III.D.1. for Topic Area 1a. Please refer to NOFO Section II.A.2 for eligibility considerations for foreign entities.\n\n3. Per NOFO Section II. entitled \"Eligibility\", \"DOE will not determine eligibility for potential applicants before the application due date.\" The decision whether to submit an application in response to this NOFO lies solely with the applicant.  In general, any data used within an application, or potentially contributed to the project (if selected for award), would need to demonstrate direct relevance to the specific field site and activities planned under the proposed project. Any definitive decision on allowability of baseline data would be dependent on further details of the project and specific data and would generally be addressed as part of award negotiations if a project is selected.","2026-09-01"]
[null,59,"Application Requirement","My company is considering applying for the funding opportunity DE-FOA-0003627, topic area 2, and has a question;\nCan a non-owner of the technology being used in the application be the primary applicant? For example, \"Company Name\" will be the primary applicant for this funding opportunity. \"Company Name\" will build and operate a plant, using \"Company Name\" technology, and license this as a service to Company B. Company B will own the plant and the land in which the plant is located.","Per NOFO Section II. entitled \"Eligibility\", \"DOE will not determine eligibility for potential applicants before the application due date.\" The decision whether to submit an application in response to this NOFO lies solely with the applicant.  Non-owners of a technology can most likely be primary applicant (prime) for an application contingent on meeting the requirements of the NOFO.  See NOFO Part 1 Section II.A for more information on Eligible Applicants.  Although, a definitive decision on allowability of teaming arrangements is dependent on further details of the project and is generally addressed as part of award negotiations if a project is selected.","2026-09-01"]
[null,60,"Application Requirement","Would requesting state appropriations in the next state legislature be considered lobbying?","That activity would most likely be considered lobbying.  See NOFO Part 2 Section IV.C.18 for more information on Lobbying Activities.","2026-09-04"]
[null,61,"Application Requirement","1.\tIf a subrecipient for Department of Energy (DOE) funding under DE-FOA-0003627 does not have a federally negotiated indirect cost rate, can elect to use the federal de minimis rate of up to 15% of Modified Total Direct Costs (MTDC)?\n\n2.\tDoes a subrecipient for Department of Energy (DOE) funding under DE-FOA-0003627 have to have a Unique Entity Identifier (UEI) at the time of submission?","1. A subrecipient that does not have a current Negotiated Indirect Cost Rate Agreement (NICRA) approved by a federal cognizant agency may elect to charge a de minimis indirect rate of up to 15% in accordance with 2 CFR 220.414(f).\n\n2.  Subrecipients (not applicants) do not have to have a UEI at time of submission of application but would need one by time of award if the project is selected. See NOFO Part 2 Section V.1 for more information on Unique Entity Identifier. ","2026-09-04"]
[null,62,"Application Requirement","1.\tWill we still be eligible for the grant if the technology we are using currently has a TRL of 6, and may reach a TRL of 7 or an 8 (from a current project) by the award date for this funding opportunity? I understand this is outside the limits of the announcement, but please let me know if there is still interest and if our application would not be automatically disqualified.\n2.\tIn regard to the cost share, we may not have approval for funding from a partner until after it's time to submit the application. Should we still apply? Would you recommend we include an LOI from the partner stating their intention to secure funding?\n3.\t\"Company Name\" is in the process of re-registering in SAM.gov. There is a chance we may not have an active registration by the application submission date. Will we still be able to submit our application with a pending registration?\n4.\t\"Company Name\" intends to be the primary applicant for this submission. Is this allowed, even if our partner will be the entity who owns the location and the plant? \"Company Name\" will design the plant and license their technology and services for the project.","1. Per NOFO Section II. entitled \"Eligibility\", \"DOE will not determine eligibility for potential applicants before the application due date.\" The decision whether to submit an application in response to this NOFO lies solely with the applicant.  As per Section III.C. on page 16 of the NOFO Part 1: the key performance goals for projects include: Field-based technology readiness levels (TRLs) of 5 at project start and a minimum of 7 at project end. Applications will be evaluated against the technical review criteria outlined in Section VI.C.2 of the NOFO documents.\n\n2. Per NOFO Section II. entitled \"Eligibility\", \"DOE will not determine eligibility for potential applicants before the application due date.\" The decision whether to submit an application in response to this NOFO lies solely with the applicant. As per NOFO Part 2 Section VII.B.5 \"You must provide written assurance of your proposed cost share contribution in your application.  If selected for award negotiations, you must provide additional information and documentation on your cost share contributions.  NOFO Part 1, Eligibility—Cost Sharing, provides specific requirements.\"\n\n3. See NOFO Part 2 Section V.A.1 for more information on SAM.gov registration.\nEvery applicant for an award must be registered in SAM.gov before submitting an application.\n\n4. Per NOFO Section II. entitled \"Eligibility\", \"DOE will not determine eligibility for potential applicants before the application due date.\" The decision whether to submit an application in response to this NOFO lies solely with the applicant.  Non-owners of a location/plant can most likely be primary applicant (prime) for an application contingent on meeting the requirements of the NOFO.   Although, a definitive decision on allowability of teaming arrangements is dependent on further details of the project and is generally addressed as part of award negotiations if a project is selected. See NOFO Part 1 Section II.A for more information on Eligible Applicants. ","2026-09-04"]
[null,63,"Technical Requirement","We are working with an industry partner that is a publicly traded company. To ensure compliance with their internal disclosure and communications policies, could you clarify how the summary slide (PPT) will be used? Specifically, will the slide remain internal to DOE reviewers, or will it be released publicly alongside the one-page summary or other project announcement materials? This information will help our partner determine the level of internal review required before approving the content. ","See NOFO Part 2 Section IV.A. for information on Use and Disclosure of Application Information including, but not limited to, trade secrets or business-sensitive, proprietary, or otherwise confidential information.  All application information is subject to public release under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) except information that qualifies under a FOIA exemption.  ","2026-09-04"]
[null,64,"Technical Requirement","If treated produced water generated under Topic Area 2 is transferred without sale to the industry partner’s frac-water pits for internal reuse, thereby avoiding freshwater purchases and produced-water disposal costs, will DOE treat those avoided costs solely as project economic benefits rather than program income or cost share? If any resulting value is considered program income, may the recipient request approval under 2 CFR 200.307(b)(3) to apply it toward the required cost share?","Per NOFO Section II. entitled \"Eligibility\", \"DOE will not determine eligibility for potential applicants before the application due date.\" The decision whether to submit an application in response to this NOFO lies solely with the applicant. A definitive decision on allowability of items/cost share is dependent on further details of the project and is generally addressed as part of award negotiations.  See NOFO Part 2 Section II.A for information on cost share.","2026-09-04"]
[null,65,"Application Requirement","What are specific deliverables needed for the table in SOPO?  \n\nA.\t DELIVERABLES (Required: Applicant insert the Language provided below in quotes and continue to complete.)","See Statement of Project Objectives (SOPO) template for Project Management Plan (PMP) and Data Management and Sharing Plan (DMSP) deliverables to include in SOPO.  Applicant to identify any further deliverables for the SOPO. Applications will be evaluated against the technical review criteria outlined in Section VI.C.2 of the NOFO documents. ","2026-09-04"]
[null,66,"Application Requirement","We are currently working on the proposal for DE-FOA-0003627 and have one question regarding Costing profile in PMP template on p. 4.\nThe table is shown as follows, but do we need to break down into each fiscal year? Because the project will start in May 2027.\nAre we supposed to break down into each project year, or budget period?","As per the Project Management Plan (PMP) template: Provide a table (the Spend Plan) that projects the expenditures of government funds by fiscal year for each project team member.","2026-09-04"]
[null,67,"Technical Requirement","We are preparing a Topic Area 1a application and have a responsiveness question on the unconventional reservoir definition (Section III.D.1, \"typically less than 1 millidarcy\").\n\nOur proposed site is a California heavy-oil sandstone: absolute permeability 330–676 mD, but 17–18° API crude at 700–1,000 cP with an oil/water viscosity ratio of ~230. Primary recovery moves oil saturation only from 33% to 31%, effective permeability to the oil phase is below 1 mD, and the oil is immobile without specialized thermal extraction (hot-water pattern flood, no hydraulic fracturing).\n\nDoes a reservoir of this type meet the 1a definition, or is the topic limited to sub-1 mD matrix rock developed with horizontals and fracturing? ","Per NOFO Section II. entitled \"Eligibility\", \"DOE will not determine eligibility for potential applicants before the application due date.\" The decision whether to submit an application in response to this NOFO lies solely with the applicant. Applicants are permitted to submit applications for permeability over 1 mD.  Applications will be evaluated against the technical review criteria outlined in Section VI.C.2 of the NOFO documents. ","2026-09-04"]

{"sheet":"Admin Pick List","index":1,"n_rows":17,"n_cols":1,"rows_kept":17,"cut":false,"hidden":true,"merged":[]}
["Pick List"]
[]
["Registration Requirements"]
["Webinar"]
["Concept Paper"]
["Eligibility"]
["Labs/FFRDCs"]
["Foreign Entities/Work"]
["Cost Sharing"]
["Due Dates"]
["Application Content/Format"]
["Intellectual Property"]
["Data Management"]
["Other"]
["U.S. Manufacturing Plan"]
["Application Reviews"]
["Technical Topics"]