Background ARPA-E’s typical funding announcement and award selection process  begins with the agency hiring a program director responsible for  identifying a gap in energy technology research and developing a  program to fill that gap. ARPA-E is required by statute to achieve its  goals through energy technology projects that, among other things,  accelerate transformational technological advances in areas that industry  on its own is not likely to undertake because of technical and financial  uncertainty, while also ensuring that its activities are coordinated with,  and do not duplicate the efforts of, programs and laboratories within DOE  and other relevant research agencies. ARPA-E’s efforts to identify  existing energy technology research gaps and to design a program to  address those gaps involve research; consultation with scientific experts,  including a workshop with outside experts; and internal discussions within  ARPA-E. From this process, program directors develop funding  opportunity announcements that describe the technical requirements  specific to each program’s technology area that applicants have to meet,  as well as the four standard criteria that ARPA-E uses to guide its merit  selection process. Following the issuance of a funding opportunity  announcement, ARPA-E employs the following multi-stage process to  merit review applications, make funding award decisions, and monitor  projects: Concept paper. Applicants initially submit a 4- to 7-page abstract of  their projects. Scientific experts from government, industry, and  academia serve as reviewers. Full application. After reviewing concept papers, ARPA-E  encourages some applicants to submit full applications. Full  applications are generally quite extensive, requesting information on  the technical and financial aspects of the proposed project, among  other things. ARPA-E officials we interviewed noted that these  applications are frequently more than 100 pages and can take 30 to  45 days for the applicant to develop. Full applications are reviewed  against the selection criteria by leading scientific experts in the  relevant field and assigned numerical scores. Reply to reviewer comments. After reviewing a full application,  reviewers provide comments and questions to the applicants, who  then have the opportunity to respond. Selection. A three- to four-person panel, chaired by the relevant  ARPA-E program director, considers the reviewers’ comments and  numerical scores and recommends applications for an award. The  final decisions on which applicants to select for award negotiations  are made by the selecting official, usually the Director of ARPA-E. Award negotiations. Once selections are made, ARPA-E program  directors work closely with selectees to negotiate the terms and  conditions of their award. These negotiations include, among other  things, developing a project plan with technical milestones that are to  be met during the 2 to 3 years that the award is being funded, a  budget and management plan, and an intellectual property and data  management plan. Funds are awarded once negotiations regarding  the terms and conditions of the award are concluded. ARPA-E seeks  to complete negotiations regarding the terms and conditions of an  award within approximately 100 days of sending a letter notifying an  applicant that they have been selected for award negotiations. Selectees may be allowed to begin spending money to start work on  their projects up to 90 days prior to the completion of award  negotiations. However, these expenditures are made with the risk that  applicants may not be reimbursed if award negotiations are  unsuccessful and ARPA-E does not fund the award. Monitoring. ARPA-E monitors and supports the projects it funds  through quarterly reviews and site visits. At any point during the  award, ARPA-E may decide whether to continue or terminate the  project based on whether agreed-upon project milestones are being  met. DOE Developed and  Implemented a New  Process to Assess  the Department’s  Financial Assistance  against the  Administration’s  Priorities In 2017, DOE developed and implemented a new review process to  assess DOE financial assistance for new work against the current  administration’s priorities, including financial assistance for which ARPA- E had already made award selections. DOE reviewed and approved  ARPA-E’s opportunities for financial assistance on a rolling basis from  May to September 2017, and nearly all were approved to proceed. The formal review of DOE financial assistance officially began on May 4,  2017, when DOE’s Chief of Staff issued a memorandum stating that  funding opportunity announcements and determinations of non- competitive financial assistance would be reviewed to ensure consistency  with the administration’s priorities. According to the memorandum, DOE  agencies that award financial assistance—referred to in this report as  funding organizations—were to provide information about each  competitively selected funding announcement and determination of non- competitive financial assistance by May 15, 2017. This information  included, for example, a brief description of the financial assistance, the  number and amount of planned awards, and the technology readiness  level of the projects being funded. DOE Office of Management officials  told us that the agency’s financial assistance review lasted through  September 2017, as some DOE organizations continued to submit new  financial assistance for review, but that the review was largely completed  by August 10, 2017. However, while the formal review of DOE financial  assistance began in May, award negotiations for ARPA-E-funded projects  were suspended nearly 1 month earlier. Specifically, according to ARPA- E officials, DOE’s Deputy Chief of Staff verbally directed ARPA-E on April  6, 2017 to stop all ongoing award negotiations. Figure 1 shows the  timeline of DOE’s review of ARPA-E financial assistance. Pursuant to the DOE Chief of Staff’s May 4th memorandum, ARPA-E and  other DOE funding organizations submitted the requested information to  the DOE review team, which was coordinated and facilitated by the  Director of DOE’s Office of Management. Other members of the financial  assistance review team included DOE’s acting Chief Financial Officer;  deputy assistant secretaries, chiefs of staff, and senior advisors at several  DOE funding organizations; and members of the department’s  congressional affairs and public affairs staff. According to DOE Office of Management officials we interviewed, the  review team assessed the department’s financial assistance against five  criteria: Whether the financial assistance was statutorily mandated; Whether the financial assistance was described in congressional Whether the financial assistance was consistent with administration  priorities, as identified in budget documents and other statements  from the President and Secretary of Energy, among other things; What technology readiness level the financial assistance was  intended to fund; and Whether the technology encompassed by the project was already  being funded by the private sector or others. DOE Office of Management officials stated that the review team did not  use the above criteria to assign quantitative scores to evaluate the  department’s financial assistance; instead, the team collaboratively  discussed each opportunity for assistance. In most cases, the review  team was able to reach consensus on whether the financial assistance  aligned with the administration’s priorities. DOE Office of Management  officials also noted that they met with ARPA-E leadership to obtain  additional information about ARPA-E financial assistance on three  occasions during the course of the review. ARPA-E officials said that, in  addition to those three meetings, they provided written information to  address questions received from the review team and to provide  additional context regarding ARPA-E financial assistance. In total, DOE’s review team assessed 6 ARPA-E fiscal year 2017 or prior- year funding opportunity announcements for which applicants had been  selected for award negotiation, 7 fiscal year 2017 announcements in the  earlier stages of the merit review and selection process, 2 fiscal year  2017 announcements that had not yet been released, and 17  opportunities for financial assistance where ARPA-E funded renewals or  new work under a determination of noncompetitive financial assistance.  According to DOE Office of Management officials, the review team  worked as quickly as possible to review all of DOE’s financial assistance  to minimize potential disruptions for recipients and DOE’s funding  organizations. Once the review team approved an opportunity for financial  assistance, DOE funding organizations were allowed to resume work,  DOE Office of Management officials told us. Figure 2 shows the total  cumulative funds for ARPA-E financial assistance approved by the review  committee at various stages in the review. For example, as shown in  Figure 2, the review team approved roughly $158.3 million (55.6 percent)  of ARPA-E’s proposed financial assistance on May 18, 2017, 3 days after  the deadline for DOE funding organizations to submit information to the  review team. The remaining proposed financial assistance was approved  in several stages from June through August 2017. As of August 25, 2017,  all of ARPA-E’s competitively selected funding opportunity  announcements, renewals, and determinations for noncompetitive  financial assistance, where selectees had been selected for negotiation,  were approved by the review team, representing roughly $265 million, or  93.1 percent, of all ARPA-E funding reviewed by the team. DOE Office of Management officials also stated that the financial  assistance review team made a decision early in the course of the review  to honor all existing DOE commitments to fund new work. These officials  said that this extended to commitments made to entities that had been  selected for award negotiations, even though the department does not  officially commit to providing funds until such negotiations are completed  and the award is finalized. However, according to ARPA-E selectees we  interviewed, this message was generally not communicated to them,  which led to uncertainty about whether their projects would be funded. In  contrast, the review team recommended that the DOE Chief of Staff  cancel ARPA-E’s Facsimile Appearance to Create Energy Savings  funding announcement, which had accepted full applications but had not  selected any applicants for award negotiation. This opportunity would  have funded the development of advanced information technology that  could allow for three-dimensional digital representation of a person in a  room nearly indistinguishable from the person being there in real life,  which might allow for increased telecommuting. DOE Office of  Management officials told us that the review team reached this  recommendation in part because this technology was already being  funded by the private sector. As of November 2017, DOE Office of  Management officials said the review team had cancelled 3 other DOE  funding announcements as a result of the review. According to information we collected, DOE’s review of ARPA-E financial  assistance, as part of the DOE-wide review process, did not require the  President to send a special message under the Impoundment Control  Act. Specifically, the delay in obligating ARPA-E funds for financial  assistance examined through DOE’s review process was for  programmatic reasons. DOE officials explained that the purpose of the  review was to ensure that the agency’s financial assistance aligned with  the priorities of the current administration. DOE’s Financial  Assistance Review  Created Uncertainty  for ARPA-E  Selectees, Which Led  to Delayed Project  Timelines and  Staffing Difficulties,  among Other Impacts According to the 10 ARPA-E selectees we interviewed, DOE’s financial  assistance review process created uncertainty, which led to a variety of  impacts—the most frequently cited of which were potentially delayed  project timelines and difficulties staffing project teams. Selectees told us  that they received little communication from ARPA-E during the review  process, and they indicated that additional information about review  timelines and potential effects on their awards would have helped them  manage some of the uncertainty they experienced during the review  process. DOE Office of Management officials said the fiscal year 2017  review process helped to better identify and coordinate future financial  assistance department-wide on crosscutting issues. DOE is conducting  the fiscal year 2018 review process prior to publicly issuing funding  announcements. As a result, DOE Office of Management officials said,  the delays and uncertainty that selectees experienced in fiscal year 2017  should be reduced. In our structured interviews with ARPA-E selectees, the most frequently  cited impact of the uncertainty caused by DOE’s financial assistance  review was the potential need to delay project timelines. All of the ARPA- E selectees we interviewed told us that they might need to extend their  project timelines because of uncertainty caused by DOE’s review. Four of  these selectees noted that the delay caused by DOE’s review could  cause additional, cascading delays in their timelines. For example, 1  selectee we interviewed said that it would need to re-issue a hiring  announcement it had publicized prior to the review because the review  prevented it from hiring someone. In addition, the selectee would need to  resubmit the hiring announcement to the university and state human  resources departments for approval, which could take months to process.  Another selectee said that it missed 2 months of a 3-month planting  season because it could not start project work, and had the delay lasted  any longer, the selectee would have missed an entire year of data  collection on the project. Selectees also cited challenges to staffing project teams as a result of the  uncertainty caused by the review. Selectees stated that delays caused by  the review affected their ability to hire team members they had planned to  hire based on their original schedule, as potential members moved on to  other projects or took different jobs. For example, 9 selectees told us that  they delayed hiring new project team members while DOE’s review was  occurring. Four selectees we interviewed said that they had difficulty  retaining staff during the review process. For example, 1 selectee had to  lay off 2 of the company’s 15 staff members because of the delay in  receiving funding, and several other staff members left voluntarily.  Furthermore, the selectee said laying off these staff members resulted in  an increase in the company’s unemployment taxes, which was expensive  for a small-sized company. Four other selectees that we interviewed said  they had to assign existing project team members to other funded work or  general activities because they could not begin work on their ARPA-E  project until they received funding. Selectees we interviewed cited additional impacts associated with the  uncertainty caused by DOE’s financial assistance review. These impacts  included: Delaying equipment purchases. Four selectees reported that they  had to delay purchasing important equipment needed to execute their  project. One selectee noted that the delay caused by the review was  long enough that price quotes it had received from equipment sellers  expired, and that prices could increase in later quotes. Changes to project scope. Two selectees told us that they might  need to limit the planned scope of their projects to be able to complete  them in the proposed timeline. For example, 1 selectee said its project  involves helping to scale up three to four different technologies a year,  which it might not be able to do if it has to adhere to its initial  timeframes. Loss of advantage against potential competitors. Four of the  selectees we interviewed said that the delay may have caused their  technology to fall behind their potential competitors in some way. For  example, 1 selectee noted that it was working in a competitive  environment for its technology, with ongoing efforts in multiple  countries, and reported that its project might have fallen behind  others’ efforts as a result of delays associated with DOE’s review.  However, 4 other selectees said that the review was not likely to  cause any loss of competitiveness. Impacts on external project partners. Three selectees noted that  DOE’s review caused uncertainty for partners on their projects,  including partners that provide external funding. For example, 1  selectee told us that private investors in its technology area are most  active in the fall and that its project team might not be able to seek a  second round of funding if it could not demonstrate the necessary  technical results of the project by then. Impacts on pre-award spending reimbursements. One selectee  reported that it had to cease certain pre-award spending. The  selectee said that it spent roughly $10,000 on equipment and 150  hours of labor prior to DOE’s financial assistance review, but it could  not submit invoices for these expenditures to ARPA-E while the  review was ongoing and would not be able to if its project was  ultimately not approved. Furthermore, the selectee said that even if  the award was approved, the delay might result in expenditures falling  outside the 90-day window of allowable pre-award expenditures,  which would require obtaining approval from ARPA-E to be  reimbursed. Selectees we interviewed also stated that they received little  communication from ARPA-E during the review, which contributed to the  uncertainty about the status of their projects. Specifically, 6 of the  selectees said that they would have liked additional information from  ARPA-E on a variety of topics related to the review. For example, 4  selectees said they would have liked additional information about the  review timeline and when it was planned to be completed. One of these  selectees told us that a written document from ARPA-E indicating a rough  time frame and next steps would have helped facilitate better planning for  their project team. Two selectees we interviewed wanted additional  information about whether they could renegotiate their timelines once the  review was completed. Three selectees told us that they would have liked  additional information about whether the review would cause them to lose  their funding. ARPA-E officials we interviewed told us that they made  three separate requests to DOE’s Deputy Chief of Staff to learn what they  could communicate to selectees about the April 6, 2017, verbal order and  the review process. ARPA-E officials told us that they were directed by  the Deputy Chief of Staff not to communicate with selectees about the  verbal order until receiving guidance from his office. ARPA-E developed  proposed language to share with selectees but did not receive approval  from the Deputy Chief of Staff to distribute it. DOE Office of Management  officials we interviewed told us that they did not issue guidance to ARPA- E or other DOE funding organizations about how the organizations should  communicate with selectees during the review. In contrast to its fiscal year 2017 review, DOE began its 2018 financial  assistance review in August 2017, prior to publicly issuing funding  announcements. On August 10, 2017, DOE’s Office of Management sent  an email to DOE funding organizations directing them to submit  descriptions of their proposed financial assistance by September 8, 2017.  Because the review will occur prior to publicly issuing funding opportunity  announcements, and thus before any recipients apply or are selected,  DOE Office of Management officials said the delays and uncertainty that  selectees experienced in fiscal year 2017 should be reduced. DOE Office of Management officials told us that—aside from changing  the timing of its 2018 financial assistance review—the review team’s  membership and evaluation criteria will be largely the same as for the  fiscal year 2017 review. The officials said that they discussed the review  process with senior leaders in DOE’s funding organizations to help  ensure that they understood the priorities, expectations, and steps of the  review process. The officials also told us that the review team developed  additional guidance to clarify certain issues that arose during the fiscal  year 2017 review. This additional guidance included: On August 17, 2017, funding organization managers were informed  that continuation awards—those where the activity is presently being  funded—would be exempt from submission to the review team and  can continue to move forward. On August 29, 2017, funding organizations were informed that they  should identify financial assistance that falls under one of seven  crosscutting research issue areas. According to DOE Office of  Management officials we interviewed, a key benefit of the fiscal year  2017 review process was that the review team noticed that DOE had  several funding announcements at multiple funding organizations  related to these areas. DOE’s funding organizations may be able to  coordinate to issue a consolidated funding announcement in these  crosscutting research issue areas, to ensure efforts are  complementary and not duplicative. Furthermore, DOE Office of  Management officials we interviewed said that knowing which funding  organizations are funding work in these areas will support DOE  meetings on crosscutting issues. Agency Comments We provided a draft of this report for review and comment to the  Secretary of Energy. DOE provided technical comments, which we  incorporated as appropriate. We are sending copies of this report to the appropriate congressional  committees, the Secretary of Energy, and other interested parties. In  addition, the report is available at no charge on the GAO website at  http://www.gao.gov. If you or your staff members have any questions about this report, please  contact me at (202) 512-3841 or neumannj@gao.gov. Contact points for  our Offices of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found  on the last page of this report. GAO staff who made key contributions to  this report are listed in appendix I. Appendix I: GAO Contact and Staff  Acknowledgments GAO Contact Staff  Acknowledgments In addition to the individual named above, Chris Murray (Assistant  Director), Perry Lusk (Analyst-in-Charge), Antoinette C. Capaccio, John  Delicath, Justin Fisher, Kimberly McGatlin, Dan Royer, Tind Shepper  Ryen, Lauren G. Sherman, and McKenna Storey made key contributions  to the report.
ARPA-E provides funding for research to overcome long-term and high-risk technological barriers in developing energy technologies. Since 2009, ARPA-E has awarded approximately $1.3 billion to universities, public and private companies, and national laboratories to fund energy research projects. Starting in May 2017, DOE began reviewing its financial assistance department-wide, including ARPA-E's, to determine if it met the administration's priorities. GAO was asked to examine this review process as it pertained to ARPA-E. This report describes (1) how DOE implemented the financial assistance review process; and (2) the perspectives of ARPA-E selectees on the impacts of the review process. GAO reviewed documents and interviewed officials at ARPA-E and DOE's Office of Management, which coordinated the review. GAO also interviewed a nonprobability sample of 10 of the 68 ARPA-E award selectees whose financial assistance was evaluated under the review. GAO identified selectees to interview based on representation across ARPA-E's recipient types, including universities, private companies, and national laboratories, among other criteria. While the views of selectees GAO interviewed cannot be generalized to all affected ARPA-E selectees, they provide illustrative examples of the effects of DOE's review. The Department of Energy (DOE) developed and implemented a new process to review its financial assistance to ensure that all new work funded by the department—including by DOE's Advanced Research Projects Agency-Energy (ARPA-E)—was consistent with the current administration's priorities. The review process covered funding opportunity announcements as well as certain other types of financial assistance. New awards were delayed until the review of the underlying financial assistance opportunity was completed. DOE reviewed and approved ARPA-E's financial assistance on a rolling basis from May through September 2017, and nearly all ARPA-E financial assistance was approved. DOE Office of Management officials met with ARPA-E officials on several occasions to discuss their review of ARPA-E financial assistance. DOE officials GAO interviewed said they wanted to complete the review as quickly as possible to minimize effects on DOE programs. GAO determined that the delay was not reportable under the Impoundment Control Act. The Impoundment Control Act requires the President to notify Congress if an agency wants to withhold the obligation of funds. GAO has separately informed Congress of an impoundment of $91 million in funds that were not allocated to any financial assistance awards, and was not related to DOE's review process. According to the 10 ARPA-E project selectees GAO interviewed, DOE's financial assistance review process created uncertainty, which led to a variety of project impacts. The impacts most commonly cited by selectees included potentially delayed project timelines, as well as difficulties in staffing their project teams, among other impacts as shown below. DOE officials GAO interviewed said that they are reviewing DOE financial assistance in fiscal year 2018. DOE officials said that a key benefit of the fiscal year 2017 review process was an opportunity to better identify and coordinate future financial assistance department-wide on crosscutting issues. However, DOE plans to review fiscal year 2018 financial assistance prior to issuing funding opportunity announcements to the public, and thus before any recipients apply or are selected. As a result, DOE officials said, the uncertainty that ARPA-E selectees experienced during the fiscal year 2017 review process should be reduced.