1. DOE EPSCoR Implementation Grants Program Presentation January 7, 2016 WV DOE EPSCoR Contacts Richard Bajura and Cristina Dumitrescu – WVU Jan Taylor – WV EPSCoR

2. What is DOE EPSCoR Implementation Grant Program ? Proposals should be in key science and technology areas related to DOE’s mission(s) that are also of interest to WV EPSCoR Grants are intended to support a group of scientists and engineers including graduate students and postdoctorals working on a common scientific theme The proposal needs to describe how completing this research will position the team to get sustainable (i.e., continued) support in their research area after the grant is completed. A coordinated effort on the part of the team is needed and should be clearly stated in the proposal. The proposal should be in line with the goals of one of the DOE Offices listed in the Funding Opportunity Announcement. E.G., science, nuclear, fossil,, EERE, ARPA-E Program Office Cost Share Collaboration encouraged with 10 Office of Science National Labs; other labs also encouraged

3. What is DOE EPSCoR Implementation Grant Program ? Cost sharing comments – not required, but has value if available, especially with respect to support of the Jurisdiction (and its constituent institutions) Requires Technical Principal Investigator and Project Director (recommended to be State DOE EPSCoR Lead) Involvement of junior faculty, postdoctoral staff, and students (graduate, undergraduate) essential ingredients for successful proposal Funding is for three years with possible three year extension; Latest solicitation ranged from minimum of $1.0 M to $2.5 M

4. WV EPSCoR Requirements Pre-Proposal Elements Element Format Affirmations Cover Page – not counted in four page limit of pre-proposal Narrative / Budget information Template provided  Institutional endorsements on cost sharing and other commitments  Information related to status of DOE Program Office cost sharing Three Page NarrativeOpen format; refer to Observations on Merit Review Criteria for recommendations Fourth Page – Budget Information Template provided  Amount of cost sharing proposed by institutions supporting the pre-proposal application Roster of Investigators – not counted in four page limit of pre- proposal Template provided Comments on DOE Program Office interest in proposed research Open format; copies of communications from DOE Program Officer if available

5. Estimated Costs for Three Year Program - Use Fully Burdened Costs in Each Entry Do not enter data in yellow filled boxes - calculations done automatically Principal Investigator:Enter PI Name Here Year 1Year 2Year 3 NumberCostFTE *NumberCostFTE *NumberCostFTE * Total CostCost Sharing Faculty Personnel1 $ 111 11 1 $ 3 $ 1 Postdoctoral / Research Assoc.1 $ 111 11 1 $ 3 $ 1 Graduate Students1 $ 111 11 1 $ 3 $ 1 Sub Total3 $ 333 33 3 $ 9 $ 1 Current Expense Items $ 1 $ 3 $ 1 Equipment ** $ 1 $ 0 $ 1 Travel *** $ 1 $ 3 $ 1 Other **** $ 1 $ 3 $ 1 Total $ 7 $ 6 $ 19 $ 8

6. Legend *For faculty members, 1 FTE = 12 months of effort. This entry is the sum total for all team members. For postdoctoral and research associate personnel, 1 FTE = 12 months of effort. This entry is the sum total for all team members. For graduate students, appointment for 20 hours per week = 0.5 FTE on an annual basis. This entry is the sum total for all team members. **Equipment is defined here as items of lasting duration that cost in excess of $5,000 Provide a short justification below *** Provide short justification for travel costs that exceed nominally 2 conference / technical meetings per year per faculty member plus necessary travel related to project discussions and reviews with sponsors. ****Provide short justification for substantive "Other" expenses. List student tuition waivers under cost sharing (Other category, Cell O-16) Justifications Enter Justification Comments Below. Start each comment in a new row. Number the comments. (Also summarize cost sharing)

7. Proposed Roster of Team Members Instructions 1. List team members in groups: regular faculty members first, research associates and postdoctoral staff second, and students third. Separate groups by empty rows. 2. In Roles column, identify all roles that apply 3. Under Other Comments, be brief 4. Use Wrap Text feature to stay within column boundaries 5. See Sample tab for illustration Name (last, first)InstitutionDepartment Title (Faculty Rank, Res. Assoc., Postdoctoral, Student, ….) Role(s) in Research Team [e.g., Area Leader (identify), Co-PI, Consultant, …]Relevant Area(s) of Expertise Number of Relevant Pubs. in AreaOther Comments List Technical PI First List Alt Contact Second

8. Pre-Proposal Submission Cover Page West Virginia EPSCoR DOE Implementation Grants Program Calendar Year 2016 Solicitation Proposal Title in 16 Point Font Principal Investigator Name Title / Rank / Institution Email Address Phone Number Name of Secondary Contact for Research Team Title / Rank / Institution Email Address Phone Number Date of Submission Institutional Endorsement Name(s) of Authorized Endorser(s) Title Name of Institution (List all endorsers regarding any cost share or other institutional commitments promised, unless one endorser is approved to sign for all institutional commitments; signatures not required on this page)

9. Relevant DOE Program Office: (list Office name here) Program Office Point of Contact: (list Staff Member name(s) here) List Name(s) of Topical Area(s) of Research Relevant to Program Office List phone number and email for Point(s) of Contact Commitment Status: (enter Confirmed or Under Discussion or To Be Contacted)

10. Submission Deadlines Letter of Intent Monday January 11, 2016 5:00 PM Eastern Standard Time Pre-Proposal Friday January 29, 2016 5:00 PM Eastern Standard Time to Jan.Taylor@wvresearch.org

11. Review Criteria January 7, 2016 Summary of review criteria used by WV EPSCoR in previous evaluations of pre-proposals. This information is representative of the review factors to be considered for the 2016 competition.

12. Reviewer Scoring Guidelines Rating Word Description Numerical Score Range Outstanding Fulfills every expectation of criterion109.5 – 10.0 Strong Requires only minor modifications or improvements87.5 – 8.5 Meritorious Requires substantive, but attainable, improvements65.5 – 6.5 Weak Requires major modifications43.5 – 4.5 DeficientUnlikely, even with modifications, to be responsive to criterion21.5 – 2.5 Unresponsive Does not address criterion; no data; not applicable, …00 – 0

13. Scientific and/or Technical Merit – 30 weight Score Question / Comments What is the scientific innovation of proposed effort? How does the proposed work compare with other efforts in its field, both in terms of scientific and/or technical merit and originality? How might the results of the proposed work impact the direction, progress, and thinking in relevant scientific fields of research? What is the likelihood of achieving influential results? What is the significance or potential impact of the results obtained from completing the proposed research?

14. Appropriateness of Proposed Method or Approach – 25 weight Score Question / Comments Does the proposed effort employ innovative concepts or methods? How logical and feasible are the approaches? Are the conceptual framework, methods, and analyses well justified, adequately developed, and likely to lead to scientifically valid conclusions? Does the applicant recognize significant potential problems and consider alternative strategies?

15. Competency of Applicant’s Personnel and Adequacy of Proposed Resources – 15 weight Score Question / Comments Does the proposed work take advantage of unique facilities and capabilities? What is the past performance of the team? o What is the past performance of the Project Director and the Principal Investigator in managing a research team working on a common scientific theme How well qualified is the team to carry out the proposed work? Are the environment and facilities adequate for performing the proposed effort?

16. Reasonableness and Appropriateness of the Proposed Budget – 12 weight Score Question / Comments Are the proposed budget and staffing levels adequate to carry out the proposed work? Is the budget reasonable and appropriate for the scope?

17. Synergism among the Pis in the Program and Programmatic Focus of the Multi-phase Effort – weight 10 Score Question / Comments Does the application exhibit a coherent focus on one energy-related research area bringing together multiple researchers? Does the application present an adequate management plan for coordinating multiple investigators working on a common theme including performance milestones and a timetable for achieving project goals and deliverables?

18. Likelihood of Success of the Program – weight 8 Score Question / Comments How well does the application couple with the jurisdiction’s strategy to develop and utilize the scientific and technological resources that reside in its research universities and the jurisdiction’s industrial or economic resources? Does the application adequately present the opportunities for enhanced academic research and development competitiveness and if appropriate, industrial or economic competitiveness, for the jurisdiction, including plans for the acquisition of sustained non-EPSCoR support? Does the applicant have a plan to (or has the awardee made) competitive faculty hires and retained outstanding faculty within the scope of the implementation award? Does the applicant have a plan to attract (or has the awardee hired) outstanding graduate students and post docs? Does the applicant have plans to develop (or have they developed as part of the implementation grant unique infrastructure capabilities) that are critical to the advancement of science or technology? Alternatively, are they planning to or making unique contributions to DOE oriented capabilities (e.g., building or developing unique capabilities for a DOE experiment or facility)? Does the applicant have plans to (or are the grantees on track to) achieve a sustainable leadership position in their discipline(s)? Does the applicant have plans to (or are the grantees effectively) leveraging DOE funding and capabilities with local and regional resources? Are there commitments from the applicant's jurisdiction, institution or from private sources to assist in this leveraging?

19. Program Policy Considerations – weight (TBD) Score Question / Comments XXXXXXXX Is the proposed research relevant to the programmatic needs of the collaborating DOE Program Office? Is the proposed research relevant to the terms of the Funding Opportunity Announcement under which the proposal is submitted? o Will the project improve research competitiveness? o Will the project improve research infrastructure development through increased human and technical resources and support a group of scientists and engineers working on a common scientific theme with mutually supporting goals and objectives? o Will the project include strong participation from junior faculty, postdoctoral fellows, and graduate students? o Does the project promote collaborations with industry and other higher education institutions where appropriate? o Does the project support basic and applied research and development? o Have Project Director and the Principal Investigator made a significant commitment of their time to ensure success of the project over the course of the funding period? Significance / Impact of Research Sustainability of Program after EPSCoR funding is no longer available Is the proposed program relevant to the programmatic needs of the Collaborating DOE Program Office Will the program increase competitiveness