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.
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.