DOE proposal guidance

Reviewed 2026-10-01. DOE does not have one proposal format, review weighting, cost-share rate, deadline, or submission portal. Start from the current office's NOFO and all amendments. Distinguish a funding opportunity from an award announcement, RFI, user facility allocation, procurement, or internal national-laboratory competition.

Select the program and route

Use SC funding listings and the closed-call archive to distinguish status. The FY2026 Early Career Research Program is a dated competition, not a permanently open $750,000 award. Copy eligibility and budget from the relevant year's notice.

DOE announced CMEI program realignment in January 2026. Old EERE/FECM office lists should not determine current application routing. The legacy eere-exchange.energy.gov domain currently identifies CMEI eXCHANGE. Use the sponsoring office and portal in the actual NOFO; historical EERE names may still occur in authorizing documents and opportunity records.

Portal contracts

• Grants.gov hosts federal opportunities and application packages. Match the exact opportunity and package; check amendments and status.
• PAMS is SC's management system. Do not send an ordinary SC full application there merely because pre-applications use PAMS.
• A verified historical example, DE-FOA-0003600 Amendment 000001, sends pre-applications/LOIs to PAMS and full applications to Grants.gov, not FedConnect. This illustrates the distinction; it does not establish current availability.
• ARPA-E eXCHANGE is the application portal; OPEN is a program, not the name of a submission system.
• CMEI eXCHANGE carries opportunity-specific application instructions. Do not assume its stage or deadline matches ARPA-E.

These are authenticated user workflows, not documented REST endpoints in this skill. Public listing checks do not validate account access, institutional roles, uploads, or successful submission. Establish SAM/UEI, Grants.gov and any agency account/role requirements early; do not promise immediate registration or transmit credentials.

Build a compliance matrix

Record each requirement with its NOFO section: eligibility, topic, LOI/concept paper, encouragement versus invitation, application components, page limits, fonts, file formats, budget ceiling, period, cost share, review factors, contacts, and deadline with time zone. Concept-paper feedback is not universally an invitation prerequisite; the NOFO determines whether an applicant may proceed after discouragement.

For a narrative outline, allocate space only after checking the actual limit:

1. Problem and objectives: quantify the scientific or technical barrier and why the selected program should support the work.
2. Innovation and evidence: compare to defensible baselines; separate observed results from proposed targets and explain key uncertainties.
3. Technical plan: map tasks to methods, resources, dependencies, risks, alternatives, outputs and measurable success criteria.
4. Impact: for basic science, state the knowledge gain; for technology programs, state the performance/cost basis and credible path to users or markets.
5. Team and execution: name roles, facilities, access agreements, milestones and management responsibilities; a national-lab affiliation is not evidence of access.

Use a work breakdown structure when requested. Match task identifiers across the narrative, schedule and budget. A TRL starting/target level is appropriate when the NOFO uses TRLs; do not impose fixed TRL ranges on every SC or ARPA-E proposal.

Personnel forms and sharing

For opportunities published on/after January 1, 2026, covered individuals generate DOE Common Forms through SciENcv under DOE's Common Forms guidance. Use the agency's current biosketch and Current and Pending (Other) Support instructions, certifications and disclosures. An old NSF-style CV is not a safe substitute. Older opportunities and specific programs can have transitional/additional instructions.

Follow the NOFO's data-management/public-access requirements. Plan for repositories, formats, metadata, preservation, access restrictions, and costs; do not treat a data plan as optional merely because an old example omitted it. Check human/animal research, research security, foreign participation, and other applicable requirements using the opportunity and SC policy guidance.

Budget and cost share

• Justify personnel effort/rates, equipment, supplies, travel, subcontract/subaward roles, and the applicable indirect-cost rate/base. Match the award instrument.
• Copy the required share and exceptions from the NOFO. There is no general "20% university/50% industry" ARPA-E rule. Team composition, work allocation, recipient type and award instrument may change the required share. A dated MAGNITO FAQ illustrates why reductions must be evaluated for the whole project team.
• If share is r of total project cost, nonfederal share is federal_request * r / (1 - r), not federal_request * r. Synthetic example: $800,000 federal at 20% total-project share needs $200,000 nonfederal support.
• Identify the source, valuation, authority, timing and evidence for each permitted contribution. Do not count the same expense twice or assume another federal award qualifies. For basic SC research, cost share is often not required; confirm the call.
• Lab participation may use separate work authorizations or other arrangements. Confirm the allowable funding route with the lab and NOFO rather than assuming a university-to-lab subcontract. Facility time normally has its own access process.

Review and submission

SC reviews scientific/technical merit, method, personnel/facilities and budget under its governing guidance; mission/program relevance and other selection factors also matter. Copy the actual order or weights from the NOFO. Do not invent percentages or transplant one ARPA-E program's rubric to another.

Before submission, reconcile all versions and cost-share letters, complete required institutional review, inspect the generated application, and record accepted receipt and tracking identifiers. A selection for negotiation is not an issued award. Public listings, historical success rates, or informal program feedback cannot establish fundability, authorization to spend, or a guaranteed award date.