Nine RFPIs were released and announced on December 10, 2025.
To view Active RFPIs, please click here.
The number of contracts depends on the number of proposals received and the available funding.
There is not a concept paper phase for these RFPIs. Interested applicants should submit their full proposal, including the Initial RFPI Proposal Forms. These forms can be accessed under the “Forms” section of the website, or by clicking the “Download Proposal Forms” button located under each RFPI.
At this time, no outreach activities are currently planned. Instead, interested applicants are encouraged to review the FAQ section of the USABC website and submit any questions through the USABC Help form located under the Tools & Resources section. All questions received and answered will be posted in the FAQ section to ensure transparency and serve as a reference for other applicants.
As shared in the ‘How to Submit a Proposal’ located under the RFPI Process section of the website, an applicant may submit multiple Full Proposals under a single RFP, provided each proposal is for a distinct and scientifically unique project.
Additionally, applicants may submit proposals under different RFPIs and may participate as either the primary recipient or sub-recipient on separate proposals.
When applying to multiple RFPs-whether as the primary recipient, a sub-recipient, or both-this information must be disclosed on the Potentially Duplicative Funding Form submitted with each full proposal.
USABC has previously funded two programs with the same company at the same time, but there is a high bar to pass to demonstrate that the work being performed is not duplicative, and that there are sufficient resources at the company to support multiple programs.
USABC has previously funded two programs with the same company at the same time, but there is a high bar to pass to demonstrate that the work being performed is not duplicative, and that there are sufficient resources at the company to support multiple programs.
USABC has previously funded two programs with the same company at the same time, but there is a high bar to pass to demonstrate that the work being performed is not duplicative, and that there are sufficient resources at the company to support multiple programs.
Developers are NOT required to use the Cell Fabricators identified as part of the USABC Prototype Cell Fabricator RFPI. However, developers that do not have the in-house capability to build the required cell deliverable identified in the respective RFPI may utilize one of the identified Prototype Cell Fabricators.
Any agreement between a developer and a cell fabricator, including a USABC identified fabricator, is a separate negotiation that should be included in the proposed statement of work and budget. This is an independent cost that is NOT covered by USABC as part of its Prototype Cell Fabricator RFPI.
All responses will be considered by representatives of the Members and will be ranked in order of merit.
After submission, applicants can anticipate being notified if additional information is necessary to complete the proposal evaluation or if the application does not meet the RFPI criteria. Applicants will also be informed if their proposal is submitted for DOE Risk Review and advised of the final application documents required upon DOE acceptance. Applicants may choose to complete those forms while awaiting DOE Risk Review clearance or wait until the review is finalized. Additional follow-on conversations may occur as determined by the relevant workgroup or by the leadership team as the proposal progresses through the program approval process.
All applicants will be notified by email to indicate if a proposal is accepted or declined.
Correct. The cost share table is not specific to the RFPI. In many ways, USABC tries to keep RFPIs chemistry agnostic and focus more on application requirements, but the allowable cost share for different technologies was provided by DOE. The intent in providing the full cost share table in each RFPI was for information sharing, not technology guidance within each RFPI.
Subrecipients selected for subawards will retain all right, title, and interest to Intellectual Property developed solely by Subrecipient under subrecipient awards, provided the subrecipient agrees to absorb the non-federal cost share set forth in their Subrecipient Agreement.
These are two separate RFPI topics with different projected funding levels that are funded by the same cooperative agreement from DOE: DE-EE0011268. The differences in program objectives can be seen in the cell design targets shown in Appendix A for each RFPI.
Yes. This Budget Justification form is the form applicable to the terms of our award with the Department of Energy.
The non-federal cost share is expected to be contributed on an individual invoice basis for each budget period. While it is correct that the federal and non-share of costs may vary from budget period to budget period, subrecipients will be obligated to meet the overall non-federal cost share requirement applicable to the total award in the event of an early termination of a subaward.
Applicants should plan for a level of PI effort that is commensurate with the responsibilities of the role and sufficient to oversee and direct the proposed activities. Applicants are advised to ensure that individuals designated as the Principal Investigator and/or Co-Principal Investigators should be personnel responsible for the overall leadership, management, and technical direction of a subrecipient award.
Caution and sound judgment should be exercised when designating very senior leadership personnel as Principal Investigators, unless such individuals will be substantively and consistently engaged in the effort, with demonstrable involvement on a regular (e.g., weekly) basis and active participation in key milestone reviews and reporting (e.g., quarterly). Designations should reflect actual technical and managerial responsibility rather than title alone.
This situation is not expressly prohibited. However, applicants will need to fully disclose proposed subrecipient and lower-tier subrecipient arrangements and demonstrate to the satisfaction of USABC that proper contractual and managerial control mechanisms are in place. These mechanisms must ensure that both individual personnel and entities included in the project team can properly avoid conflicts of interest, cost and effort duplication, intellectual property entanglement/disagreement, as well as other potential inconsistencies and entanglements. Proposals submitted will need to address such risks and demonstrate the value of the overall team and the organizational policies and procedures that will enable proper execution of the proposed project.
The waiver request happens during Phase 2, if your proposal is ranked highly enough to move towards finalizing the SOW. You do not need the approved waiver to submit your proposal for consideration.
Funded work must be done in the US unless a Foreign Work Waiver is approved by DOE. If the program incorporates learning from outside the US or the materials necessary to be successful in the program need to be sourced internationally, this may be acceptable if properly disclosed before work begins and is approved by USABC and the DOE.
End of life is based on the cycle/calendar life targets. The goal is to still meet the power & energy targets after completing the required number of cycles. So, the BOL buffer will depend on your expectation for the technology. If you can demonstrate that you would still have 90% energy after 1000 cycles in an EV program, your BOL energy value could be lower than someone who expects to only have 70% energy at end of life. In the absence of a target from the developer, we have traditionally assumed 20% energy fade to set a BOL target.
USABC understands that the comprehensive set of USABC goals is quite challenging. In the absence of meeting all goals, we would prioritize programs that can demonstrate a feasible path to meeting the goals in the long term, even if they can’t necessarily meet the targets within a single 2-3 year development program, and programs that can offer a compelling improvement in critical areas without negatively impacting other state of the art metrics. We rate and rank proposals based on a quantitative evaluation rubric, so a high score in certain areas may be enough to overcome shortcomings in other areas (relative to target) and make a compelling proposal.
Under Cooperative Agreement DE EE0011268, an institution of higher education may serve as the lead organization, while a for profit company may participate as a subrecipient, provided all DOE, USABC, and subaward terms and conditions are satisfied. This includes the business objectives stated in the RFPI, “At the time of proposal submission all developers are required to have relevant demonstration hardware (e.g. battery cells, materials, equipment) and test results available for USABC inspection to verify technology feasibility. […] Developers lacking relevant hardware and test results available for inspection by USABC at the time of submittal need not respond.”
Prior to a Subaward: As stated in each RFP, proposals submitted to the consortium are not treated as confidential. Applicants are advised not to include proprietary, confidential, or trade secret information in their submissions, as proposals may be shared internally for evaluation and may be subject to disclosure in accordance with applicable policies and laws. Any proprietary data you produce and properly mark as such will be protected accordingly. DOE and USABC do not gain rights to publicly disclose proprietary information beyond what the subaward terms require.
During and after a Subaward: Data generated will be protected in accordance with the Subrecipient Agreement Terms and Conditions which require USABC and DOE to treat any properly marked proprietary or confidential information as protected and restrict its use solely to fulfilling obligations under Award DE EE0011268.
The agreement explicitly states that:
• Confidential information must be used only for performance of the project.
• DOE receives only the rights necessary to meet federal requirements; proprietary data remains protected when properly marked.
• USABC must safeguard information encountered during inspections and may not use it outside the scope of the agreement.
These provisions collectively ensure that your data is protected for the duration of the award and beyond.
All work performed under this award must be performed in the United States. Further all recipients and subrecipients must be organized, chartered or incorporated (or otherwise formed) under the laws of a state or territory of the United States; have majority domestic ownership and control; and have a physical location for business operations in the United States. In limited circumstance paticipation by a non-U.S. entity may be allowable pending DOE approval of a Waiver for Foreign Entity Participation. The waiver must demonstrate to the satisfaction of DOE that the foreign entity’s participation would further the purposes of the award, is in the economic and energy security interests of the United States, does not pose an undue Research, Technology and Economic Security risk, and is otherwise in the best interest of the DOE program goals and agency priorities.
The Subrecipient Agreement does not grant blanket access to all USCAR affiliates. Access is limited and purpose bound. Only those personnel participating in the funded effort or involved in oversight have access, consistent with contract obligations.
• Access is limited to USABC, DOE, and authorized representatives acting strictly within the scope of the cooperative agreement.
• Any information shared must be limited to individuals with a need to know for project execution, oversight, or compliance.
USABC must protect any out of scope subject matter encountered during site visits and treat it as confidential.
No. Your background IP remains entirely your own. Your existing IP is not encumbered, transferred, licensed, or otherwise affected by participating in the program—as long as you clearly identify it as background IP.
New IP does not become joint IP solely because USCAR is the recipient and you are a sub recipient.
Under the DOE Cooperative Agreement framework, ownership of new IP follows inventorship, not award hierarchy. Specifically:
• Each party may retain ownership of Subject Inventions it solely invents, whether that party is the prime recipient (USCAR/USABC) or a sub recipient.
• A Subject Invention becomes jointly owned only if it is jointly invented by personnel from more than one entity, consistent with U.S. patent law.
• The fact that USCAR is the prime recipient and you are a sub recipient does not, by itself, create joint ownership of IP.
• As provided in our Model Subrecipient Agreement, any additional rights granted to USABC, USCAR, USCAR member companies, or their affiliates arise only if USABC absorbs some or all of the SUBRECIPIENT’s required non federal cost share, in which case SUBRECIPIENT grants a non exclusive, perpetual, royalty free license, not ownership.
Absent joint inventorship or such a cost share based license grant, SUBRECIPIENT developed IP remains solely owned by SUBRECIPIENT, subject only to:
• DOE’s standard government use license; and
• The express license provisions set forth in the Subrecipient Agreement.
Proposals are evaluated based on four primary criteria:
• Technical Merit – prior feasibility demonstration, comparison to USABC goals
• Technical Approach – critical gaps are addressed with reasonable tasks
• Program Cost – program cost and cost share is appropriate given gaps and maturity of technology
• Developer Competency – prior R&D experience, capable of existing domestic facilities
We recommend that proposers focus on crafting a submission that clearly aligns with the goals and objectives outlined in the applicable RFPI, as this will be the basis for evaluation.
That is correct. The actual number of subawards entered into and the total amount funded will depend on the quantity and quality of proposals received, as well as the availability of funding.
The Research and Security Training for any individual designated as a Covered Individual does not need to be completed prior to submitting a proposal. However, completion of this training will be required for any proposal that is selected for a subaward.
DOE Award Number DE-EE0011268; NOFO Number DE-FOA-0002965
The proposal containing the technical information and any figures is a maximum of 25 pages with a 1” border. The cover page does not count towards the 25-page limit. The font should be a sans-serif typeface no smaller than 11 point (i.e. Arial, Helvetica, Calibri, or Aptos).
USABC anticipates the first round of funding will begin in July 2026, following technical review, down-selection, negotiation, and DOE coordination.
The primary applicant is responsible for collecting and submitting the required documents for their subrecipients. This includes each subrecipient’s Budget Justification.
While the applicant’s Budget Justification workbook must present the entire project, including all work to be performed by the applicant plus any of its proposed subrecipients and contractors, a separate Budget Justification for each proposed subrecipient is also required. Please refer to Appendix C. of the RFPI for additional subrecipient documentation requirements, as indicated by Note a.
No, second-tier or lower-tier participants do not need to complete the acknowledgement to enter a Subrecipient Agreement as noted in section 6 of the Request For Proposal Information document (RFPI). Proposals submitted to USCAR LLC in response to the RFPI must be submitted by entities responding as first-tier subrecipients. Second-tier subrecipients must submit their proposals and attendant cost estimates to proposing first-tier subrecipients. Proposing tier 1 subrecipients must ensure that all named collaborating organizations at any tier necessary to execute the statement of work being proposed agree to the need to comply with the mandatory flow down terms. USABC LLC therefore recommends proposing tier 1 parties take appropriate steps to ensure proposing lower tier subrecipient or other collaborating organizations understand the need for the entire project team to comply with mandatory cooperative agreement flow-down requirements. The updated RFPI Agreement clarifies that the proposal submission is not itself a binding contractual agreement, but an acknowledgment required for proposal consideration.
Our targets are designed to be chemistry agnostic, but we understand that some targets may not be obtainable for some chemistries. Programs are evaluated based on a quantitative evaluation compared to our targets, so in theory, a very strong showing in some performance categories may be able to overcome shortcomings elsewhere to make a compelling proposal.
This could also be a candidate for the low-cost/earth-abundant EV RFPI if an applicant can either develop their own full cell or partner with a supplier that would be using their cathode for an EV cell.
The final evaluation of program success is generally done as a gap comparison to the performance targets, but it can be helpful to detail cell-level benefits as part of the narrative, especially if you believe it is not addressed in the performance targets table.
As stated under section 3.5 of the RFPI, if you are uncertain about the required cost share, we advise using a conservative cost share of 50%. Likewise, if a proposed technology is not specifically listed in Table 1, we suggest using the same conservative cost share rate of 50%.
Yes, this is possible.
This would likely fall under Area of Interest 5 in Section 2, “Other – Innovation and Enablers.” Please note that there is no comparison chart guidance in Appendix A for AOI 5 because it would not be possible to cover all potential enabling components. In this case, the developer should propose metrics for comparison to state of the art technology for the RFPI reviewers to evaluate.
Another option would be to partner with a company developing silicon anodes and apply to the EV Cells RFPI or Active Materials RFPI.
Si content greater than 50%.
The developer can do their development work in whatever format they feel is most suitable for them. The cell size request is for deliverable cells.
As outlined in the RFPI document Section 3.2, we kindly ask the Fabricator to provide details regarding the cells they are capable of manufacturing. Based on this information, USABC will select cells within the Fabricator’s capabilities (cell chemistry, format, size, capacity, etc.) and request their fabrication. Once the cell chemistry is determined, the selection of commercially available materials may be made by the Fabricator based on prior experience; however, this can be further discussed when USABC places the cell request.
As described in Section 3.2 of the RFPI document, ‘the cells may vary in capacity – ranging from smaller 1-2 Ah cells to larger cells at least 10 Ah – as well as in format, depending on the intended purpose.’ We do not restrict fabricators to producing cells larger than 10 Ah; we are open to any format, including cylindrical designs. Fabricators may provide information on their capabilities regardless of format or capacity. After reviewing the proposals, and if it is selected, USABC will request the fabricator to produce sample cells with the specific format and capacity based on the capabilities provided.
As stated in the RFPI requirements, “at the time of proposal submission, all fabricators will be required to demonstrate the capability to manufacture cells by leveraging relevant hardware (e.g., mixing, coating, cell assembly, etc.) and adapting to various levels of the battery manufacturing process.” Based on this requirement, we regret to inform you that if your operations are not expected to be operational until Q4 2026, the timing may not align well with the requirements of this RFPI.
The competencies of the developer and the projected likelihood of the developer to manufacture in US are taken into consideration when evaluating proposals but being an established high volume manufacturer of separator is not a requirement to respond to the RFPI.