MQC Proposer's Day QA Notes.docx

MQC Proposer’s Day Q&A

Julie Carrico:

It is important to provide information on related proposals Include technical components Are international collaborators/PIs allowed? Does there need to be a US lead PI?

Foreign institutions are eligible to propose.

Proposed budget is important to include in White Paper.

Erin:

Started with description from FOA.

Is the government lab partnership limited to LPS, NIST, and Sandia? Or are we allowed to partner with AFRL instead? Government labs submit their WP to Erin and Sara at LPS. Any Gov Lab is able to participate.

Should the proposed budget count within the 5pg limit of the white paper, and how detailed at this stage? Only need high level budget information at WP stage. Helpful to include material information. Budget information not required but encouraged. Is included in 5 page max.

Can you confirm the award ceiling (max possible request) is 6.75MUSD and not 8MUSD as indicated in the Synopsis? Ceiling for award is $6.75M.

Are the budgets from partnerships between Gov Labs and private entities subject to the combined budget limit of 6.75M$ Gov Labs are not limited to funding limit, but should use as guidance.

PIs can participate in more than 1 proposal, but participation will be looked at by program officers. Is effort reasonable/acceptable? Proposed effort may be questioned in regard to PI effort level. Roles and responsibilities for each proposal must be clearly defined.

Data and results from this research are expected to be shared. Can the PM team expand on their expectations for disclosure of materials deposition and processing parameters? Up to performing teams to decide what they do/do not want to publish. But results must be shared with the gov i great detail. Purpose of grant is for public benefit. Specific details are not shared. Data management plan required for proposal, but not WP. Gov wants details but decision to publish is with the teams.

IBM has announced 433 Superconducting QUBITs, what should be a new approach here compared to the IBM's advancements? Not the goal of this FOA to make 433 qubit, or most qubits. Goal is for looking at materials, not making records. Correlations between materials and QIS properties, not a quantum computer. Gov can not advise on research direction. Written doc, commitment from gov lab is required, word of mouth is not good enough.

Can the two characterization steps in the full loop involve cryogenic meausrements? Cannot comment on this question as it is a specific technical question.

If we have a Government partner other than the "official" ones, can we still submit a joint White Paper, or are you saying that it is mandatory that the Government lab submits its own White Paper? Gov lab must submit an independent WP. Letter of commitment form Gov lab should be included in institution’s proposal. Gov labs don’t have to abide by budget ceiling, but it gives good guidance. High level budget info encouraged from institutions and gov lab WPs.

Are materials science limits to uniformity, reproducibility, or defectivity in scope for this FOA? Spatial and temporal fluctuations – is that in scope? It is basic science FOA, looking for advancement of understanding. Quantification counts as advancement.

Are whitepapers public information? Can they include proprietary information? WPs are not public information and will not be shared. NDAs are required before anyone reads WPs.

Can a govt lab (FFRDC) submit a WP for an incubator project, or need a university partner as prime? Welcome to send proposal to LPS anywhere you can support.

Are there plans for any downselection of teams in the later years? Potentially down-select could happen, but no specific plan for down-select. Budget dependent.

Does the PM team expect to make regular visits to the grantees? Site visits could happen. We hope to see performers at in-person reviews yearly, and telecons.

Re: the letter of support needed from gov't labs or FFRDCs: is that req'd at the whitepaper stage, or just with the proposal? Proposers can state what gov lab they are working with in WP, it is ok to not include support letter in WP if there are time constraints.

the FOA states that FFRDCs are ineligible as primes. Has that changed? FFRDCs and gov labs do not respond directly to the FOA – WPs must be sent to LPS.

How to link up WPs with collaborators? Institutions send to FOA with details on gov lab support, gov lab sends WP to LPS in tandem describing support they would provide.

After the start of the program will there be any opportunity to share and potentially standardize where appropriate, on figures of merit, protocols to measure them, software, device geometries, etc.? (Our group would be interested in such efforts whether or not we have the opportunity to participate in the program). AFOSR would like to see that happen. Looking to build strong collaborations.

Are there any limitations on what research tasks a Govt. partner can take on? For example, can we have the Govt lab do materials growth while we as Prime focus on characterization work? No, roles must be clearly defined in WP/Proposal.

You say novel qubit/materials designs are not a focus. In some sense every device is novel, which is why metrology/correlation is needed. What rougly speaking constitutes a novel design in your view? Goal is not to make new qubit types. Not developing qubits. Goal is to find material correlations. Goals – find correlations; stretch goals – how to take advantage of correlations.

could you expand a little on what type of computational modeling of materials/interfaces you are expecting in the proposal. there are standard microwave loss modeling approaches in the superconducting qubit community but I think you are looking for something more, perhaps? It is up to proposers to explain what kind of theory/modeling is required.

You've made it clear that private entities and Gov. Labs need to submit separate White papers. Is that also the case for proposals? Private entities do not need to submit a separate white paper or proposal, only gov. labs should submit separately On the gate-based QD qubites, is the FOA limited to Si, or does it also extend to gate based QD qubits based on CMOS-compatible materials other than Si? Gate-based quantum dots are not limited to silicon.