Funder template: Department of Energy · Opportunity: DE-SOL-0008318 · closes no deadline stated

How reviewers read this: DOE merit review typically weighs scientific/technical merit, appropriateness of the proposed method, competency of the team and adequacy of resources, and reasonableness of budget. Applied offices add impact toward program goals and, often, commercialization or community outcomes.

Verify: DOE FOAs specify exact narrative structure and page limits per FOA, and policy riders (e.g. community-benefit or research-plan appendices) change with administrations — mirror the FOA checklist exactly.

---

Project Narrative

Page limit: per the FOA (commonly 10-20 pages) — verify against the NOFO.

Background and Significance

This section should explain the information gap the response addresses and why it matters to DOE-ID’s interest in identifying “capabilities supporting research, training and technology demonstration” that are most important to the nuclear energy research community. Frame the topic in the RFI’s own language and make clear that the submission is a recommendation/input, not a request for funding.

• What specific capability area is your response about, and how does it support nuclear energy research, training, or technology demonstration?
• Why is this capability timely and important for DOE-ID and the broader nuclear energy research community?
• How does the example project on public acceptance of fusion facility siting relate to DOE’s interest in infrastructure work scope development?
• What unmet need, community need, or program gap does your perspective identify?

Proposed Research and Methods

Describe the concept, evidence, or rationale you would submit to the RFI, organized as a clear set of objectives or recommended work-scope elements. Since this is an information request, focus on how you would evaluate, frame, or prioritize the capability rather than on delivering a funded research project.

• What are the specific recommendations you would make to DOE regarding research, training, or demonstration infrastructure?
• What methods would you use to support those recommendations, such as survey research, stakeholder engagement, needs assessment, or comparative analysis?
• How would you gather evidence about community acceptance, engagement practices, or other relevant factors if using the sample idea?

• What preliminary data, prior work, or experience supports the credibility of your recommendations?

• [DRAFT] Propose a survey-based assessment of public acceptance for fusion energy facility siting as a way to identify engagement needs that should inform DOE infrastructure priorities.
• [DRAFT] Recommend tracking how community engagement strategies change support over time, so DOE can distinguish high-value outreach and training capabilities from lower-priority activities.
• [DRAFT] Organize the response around actionable work-scope elements DOE could include in future nuclear energy research community infrastructure planning.

Timetable and Milestones

Provide a concise, phased schedule for developing and delivering the RFI response or the underlying analysis informing it. Include milestones and a clear basis for judging completion or quality, even though no funded project is being proposed.

• What are the major steps needed to prepare the response for submission through NEUP.gov?
• What outputs will be completed by each milestone, and how will you know each step is done?
• If using the example idea, when will survey design, data collection, analysis, and synthesis of recommendations be completed?
• What deliverables best demonstrate readiness to inform DOE-ID’s work-scope development?

Project Management and Team

Describe who is preparing the response, what expertise each person contributes, what institutional resources are available, and whether any collaborators or national-lab partners are involved. Emphasize capability to provide informed feedback relevant to DOE-ID’s request.

• Who on the team has expertise in nuclear energy policy, survey research, community engagement, or technology demonstration?
• What roles will different personnel play in developing the recommendations and ensuring the submission aligns with DOE’s request?
• What institutional support, data access, or analytical resources will be used?
• Are there any national laboratory, utility, community, or industry collaborators whose perspectives strengthen the response?

Budget Justification

Page limit: no page limit — verify against the NOFO.

Budget Justification

Because this is an RFI with no funding award and an award ceiling of $0, the budget narrative should be used only if the submission instructions require any cost information; otherwise explain that no budget is being requested. If any forms must be completed, justify any allowable costs by budget period and category per DOE instructions.

• Does the submission require any budget fields or cost information, despite the $0 award ceiling?
• If so, what costs are being proposed, and why are they necessary for preparing the response?
• Are there any institutional, in-kind, or administrative costs that need to be disclosed?
• How will you ensure the budget information is consistent with DOE-ID’s RFI instructions?

Biosketches and Current & Pending Support

Page limit: per the FOA — verify against the NOFO.

Biosketches and Current & Pending Support

Provide DOE-format biosketches and current and pending support disclosures for all required personnel, following DOE requirements exactly. Because these disclosures are strict and audited, route them through the appropriate institutional research office.

• Which individuals must submit biosketches and current/pending support under the RFI instructions?
• What experience do team members have that supports a credible response to DOE-ID’s request?
• Are all disclosures complete, accurate, and consistent with DOE format and institutional records?
• Has the submission been reviewed by ORS or the appropriate compliance office before upload to NEUP.gov?

Data Management Plan

Page limit: typically short — verify against the NOFO.

Data Management Plan

Explain how any data used to support the response will be handled, shared, preserved, and validated in line with the DOE Statement on Digital Data Management. Even for an RFI, note what data, if any, will be retained and whether any materials can be shared for validation.

• What data, if any, will be generated or compiled in support of the response?
• How will survey data, interview notes, or literature-derived evidence be stored and protected?
• What portions of the material, if any, could be shared to support validation or future use?

• What is the plan for preserving the underlying evidence and documenting methods used in the response?

• [DRAFT] Commit to preserving survey instruments, codebooks, and analysis files used to develop recommendations on fusion facility siting acceptance, subject to any confidentiality or human-subjects constraints.
• [DRAFT] State whether de-identified response data or summary statistics could be shared to validate the recommendations DOE-ID may use in infrastructure work-scope development.
• [DRAFT] Describe how the team will document data sources and methods so the RFI response can be reviewed and, if appropriate, reused in future planning.