2. What qualifies as a Massachusetts-based company?
Please refer to section III. Eligibility of the RFP for complete eligibility requirements. To qualify as a Massachusetts-based company, the company currently has and will maintain throughout the course of the Project a majority of the following in Massachusetts (i.e., if four (4) apply, then three (3) must be in Massachusetts, and if three (3) apply, at least two (2) must be based in Massachusetts): company headquarters (primary executives located in Massachusetts); primary research and development operations; primary manufacturing operations; and primary sales & marketing office.
3. May entities submit more than one Application?
Applicants may submit up to two different projects per round, with different project partners.
4. How many letters of support does a typical applicant have?
At least one letter from a committed Demonstration Partner is required. Applicants usually provide a total of 1 to 3 letters of support. These are typically from project partners, such as a manufacturing partner or investor.
5. What role does the third-party technical support from MassCEC play?
The Technical Consultant will meet regularly with awardees to review workplans, discuss and resolve technical and other project-related barriers, and review performance monitoring and evaluation plans. They act as the day-to-day project managers representing MassCEC. MassCEC meets with the TA on a monthly basis to get a project status update on each awardee.
6. If a company has won an InnovateMass grant previously, is it eligible to apply again?
Previous InnovateMass Awardees may apply to the Program only if they are proposing a technology that is new and distinct from that in the previously awarded project. In the Application, the Lead Applicant must explain how the project and product in this current proposal are meaningfully different than the previous InnovateMass product and project (from a technology and/or market perspective) and how these additional InnovateMass funds will be critical to the company’s overall success and the commercialization of the product moving forward. In addition, the previous InnovateMass project must be completed before applying for a different InnovateMass grant.
7. What is a “Total Addressable Carbon” analysis?
The TAC is an estimate of the potential reduction in greenhouse gas emissions or the avoidance of future GHG emissions achievable given widespread use of the technology/innovation.
While addressing the greenhouse gas mitigation potential, it is recommended that applicants reference MassCEC’s Total Addressable Carbon (TAC) analysis or other credible public data sources such as the United States Department of Energy’s Energy Information Administration, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s National Emissions Inventory (especially for greenhouse gases other than carbon dioxide), the EPA's Greenhouse Gases Equivalencies Calculator, and others. Other quantification methods include but are not limited to potential megawatt-hours of clean energy generated, tons of carbon dioxide emissions avoided or captured, energy savings compared to existing or alternative technology(ies), efficiency improvement over existing technology(ies). Applicants are encouraged to quantify and/or describe of the potential to mitigate impacts of climate change through adaptation and resiliency (A&R), and consider environmental sustainability (for example, using indicators across social, economic, and environmental impacts). MassCEC acknowledges that quantifying A&R is an emerging field, and we recommend utilizing the 2023 ResilientMass Plan, as well as the World Economic Forum and FEMA’s BCA Toolkit etc. for toolkits and guidance."
Further information can be found in the Submittable application form.
8. What is a Public Benefit Site (PBS) and what are the PBS requirements?
"Public Benefit" Project Sites are defined as any of the following:
- Massachusetts publicly owned facilities.
- Low- and moderate-income (“LMI”) buildings located within the Commonwealth.
- Single-family residential homes that are owned by residents meet less than sixty percent (60%) and have deed restriction and/or fuel assistance verification.
- Multifamily affordable housing buildings that have an eligibility letter from the Low-Income Energy Affordability Network (LEAN)’s Low-Income Multifamily (LIMF) Energy Retrofits Program; or A deed restriction that explicitly states the development has reserved at least fifty percent (50%) of the units for households earning eighty percent (80%) or less of state median income.
- A site that is physically located in a MA-based Gateway City or Burdened Area is in an underserved geographic region (i.e., such as Western Massachusetts, the Berkshires, or Cape Cod).
"Public Benefit" Project Sites are eligible for a reduced cost share of 25%. Please refer to Section I. of the RFP for more details.
9. Are visuals allowed in the application?
Yes, visuals are allowed in the application. Please note that if you add images, the page limit requirement still needs to be met.
10. Are hardware and software technologies evaluated differently?
No, hardware and software technologies are evaluated using the same criteria and InnovateMass funds both types of technologies. In the application, please make it clear the challenges you face in developing and commercializing either type of technology.
11. Is the funding amount and employee count guideline a strict eligibility requirement?
No, this is a suggested guideline for best fit for the program, but companies are welcome to apply if they do not fit into the suggested guidelines.
12. How is “a majority of the following” counted — three of the four, or two of the four? How are criteria handled that don’t yet apply to a pre-commercial company? We have no primary manufacturing operations anywhere today. Is that criterion treated as unmet, or excluded from the count?
If the four criteria are not relevant to your company at this stage, you would then need the majority (2/3) of the other three criteria. In this case, since there is no primary manufacturing currently, you’d have to have the majority of the following in Massachusetts:
- Company headquarters
- Primary research and development operations
- Primary sales and marketing office
13. What does MassCEC consider an adequate “plan to relocate” at the application stage — a board resolution, an executed lease, a letter of intent, or a narrative commitment? And is the relocation assessed at the award announcement in late January, or at contracting in the summer?
We’re interested in seeing plans that are definitive, rather than hypothetical, and we’d like for these plans to be described in the application. The examples listed above would be helpful for us to determine if the plans described are adequate. If MassCEC wants more information we may follow up if an applicant makes it to the finalist stage to see the status of the move. Companies will have to meet the Massachusetts-based eligibility requirement at time of award. If you anticipate needing more time, we are planning on opening another round of InnovateMass in early 2027.
14. Our current Massachusetts presence is the Greentown Labs desk, which we staff a few days a month, and we expect to add Massachusetts headcount as we commercialize. If we grew that into a staffed sales and marketing office, and the demonstration site was also in Massachusetts, would that satisfy the requirement? More generally, does incubator residency at Greentown count toward any of the four criteria?
An incubator residency at Greentown Labs does not count toward the four criteria unless it is where the company’s primary headquarters is located. If that is your primary headquarters and where the primary sales and marketing office is, then you could be considered a MA-based company. Please review the RFP in full to make sure you satisfy the requirement if needed.
15. If we are not eligible to lead, can our organization participate as a project partner on an application led by a Massachusetts-based company? If so, is that structure evaluated any differently?
Yes, you can participate as a project partner on an application led by a MA-based company. We would evaluate the proposal that is submitted by the lead company. For information on how we fully evaluate a proposal, please refer to section 9 of the RFP.
16. Would an InnovateMass proposal focused on field demonstration and commercialization of the same core technology be considered an ineligible continuation or iteration of the previously Catalyst-funded work, or could it be eligible if the proposed scope is substantially different and focused on TRL 5–8 demonstration?
Previous Catalyst awardees are able to apply to InnovateMass with the same core technology, as long as the technology has advanced from the Catalyst TRL to the required TRL 5–8 for InnovateMass. The scopes of the project must be different, which should be the case based on the different TRL requirements of the programs. Catalyst is intended for scaling at a lab and research scale to develop a prototype, while InnovateMass is intended for pilots of technologies.
17. How does MassCEC determine whether an InnovateMass project is sufficiently distinct from a prior Catalyst project? For example, would moving from laboratory-scale manufacturing and preliminary testing to pilot installation, durability validation and customer-site demonstration generally be considered a sufficiently distinct scope?
As described above in question 16, the eligibility requirements are different for both programs, most importantly in this case the TRL. As long as you are at the correct TRL level and meet other eligibility requirements you would be eligible. The scopes of the projects must be different, which should happen naturally because of the TRL stage and goals of each program.
18. Our company is a new spinout company, while the underlying intellectual property is currently owned by a university. Would an exclusive license, field-limited license, or option agreement from the university be sufficient to satisfy the requirement that the Lead Applicant own or control the necessary commercialization rights? At what stage would such an agreement need to be fully executed?
Yes, these would be sufficient to satisfy the requirement of the applicant having the proprietary technology intended for the deployment.
19. Our company is currently an early-stage company with no full-time employees and limited outside capital raised. Would the company still be considered eligible and competitive if the project team includes experienced university founders, technical collaborators, and a strong commercial Demonstration Partner, even though we fall outside the program’s typical 5–30 FTE and $1M–$10M capital-raised profile?
As per the RFP, “The Lead Applicant that are considered the ‘best fit’ for this Program typically have raised between $1 million and $10 million in capital and employ between five (5) and thirty (30) full-time equivalent (‘FTE’) employees. Companies that fall outside of these ranges are still encouraged to apply and will be considered if they meet all eligibility requirements; however, they may be competing against applicants that more closely align with this best-fit profile.”
20. Can a university participate as a technical subcontractor or project partner while an independent commercial organization serves as the required Demonstration Partner and host site?
Yes, you may have technical subcontractors or additional project partners, as long as you meet the requirement of having a Letter of Commitment from the Demonstration Partner providing a host site.
21. For the cost-share requirement, can documented university labor, equipment use, Demonstration Partner contributions, materials, or other in-kind project resources count toward the required cost share, provided they are directly related to the project and meet the program requirements?
Per the RFP, in-kind cost share may include direct labor of project team members at reasonable rates as well as services and materials used for the project; for example, use of equipment provided by a project partner. Please refer to section 10 (Budget) of the RFP for a full list of eligible/ineligible budget items and cost-share requirements.
22. Based on our Catalyst results would MassCEC consider the technology potentially eligible at TRL 5, or would completed field validation generally be expected before applying?
This would be determined based on the Technology Readiness Level Calculator, linked in the RFP. Please fill this out before application to determine if you fit the TRL requirement. MassCEC will review the completed TRL calculator at time of application.
23. We have been developing our submission for the InnovateMass RFP and wanted to ask whether an editable Word version, or another editable format, of the RFP will be made available in addition to the current watermarked PDF template. Alternatively, should we copy the information from the posted RFP into our own document for our submission?
There will not be an editable version of the sample application in the RFP, as all applications should be completed directly in the online application portal linked in the RFP.
24. Could we request an initial technical screening or introductory meeting with a program advisor to review the underlying logistics and merit of our technology?
InnovateMass does not complete initial technical screening or review any type of proposals other than the full application once it is submitted. We have a formal review process for each applicant that begins after the submission deadline, and would provide a full review of your proposal at that time.
25. Please clarify the ARL of the ideal candidate, as there appears to be a discrepancy on this topic in the RFP. We note that page 3 states that “technologies demonstrating ‘Medium Readiness’ or ‘High Readiness’ may be viewed as a better fit for the Program,” while on page 6 the RFP states that “Applicants that are best suited for InnovateMass are expected to be at a ‘Low Readiness Level’ for this program.”
Applicants that are the best fit will be at a Medium Readiness or High Readiness. Where it says “Low Readiness” on the RFP is a typo and has been corrected.
26. We wanted to check directly — would a technology framed around GHG displacement of conventional animal agriculture meet the Program’s definition of Climatetech and be considered eligible for this cycle?
Please refer to the definition of “Clean Energy Technologies” or “Climatetech” listed in section 2 of the RFP to determine if the technology would be eligible. We are unable to determine full eligibility without reading a complete application and leave it up to the applicant to determine if the technology meets the definition of “Clean Energy Technologies” or “Climatetech” at time of applying.
27. Could you confirm that as long as we commit $20,000 in cash during the project period and cover the remaining $80,000 through documented direct labor (in-kind founder/team salary at market rate), our application meets the minimum cost share threshold for a $200,000 request?
Yes, as described in the RFP, at least 20% of the cost share must be in the form of cash, while the remaining 80% can be in-kind.
28. Could our company qualify while retaining operations in New York if our Massachusetts partner establishes and leads enough primary business functions to meet the Massachusetts presence requirement? What documentation would demonstrate this, and when must the arrangement be in place?
Per the RFP, the Lead Applicant must be a MA Climatetech Startup with proprietary technology intended for deployment. If your organization is the lead applicant, you must meet the definition of Massachusetts-based described in the RFP: “Massachusetts-based Company” is defined, for the purposes of this RFP, as a company that currently maintains, and will maintain throughout the Project, a majority of the following in Massachusetts: (1) company headquarters (primary executives located in Massachusetts); (2) primary research and development operations; (3) primary manufacturing operations; and (4) primary sales and marketing office. A majority of the applicable functions must be located in Massachusetts (e.g., three of four, or two of three). We leave it up to the applicant if they fit into that definition and will determine eligibility upon a full application.
29. Would a demonstration focused on reducing energy consumption for dust and VOC treatment qualify?
Please refer to the definition of “Clean Energy Technologies” or “Climatetech” listed in section 2 of the RFP to determine if the technology would be eligible. We are unable to determine full eligibility without reading a complete application and leave it up to the applicant to determine if the technology meets the definition of “Clean Energy Technologies” or “Climatetech” at time of applying.
30. The program guidance highlights publicly owned facilities such as buildings. Can you clarify if open land or right-of-way property — specifically municipal sidewalks or real estate under MassDOT — qualifies as state or publicly owned property? If a municipal owned sidewalk or MBTA land is not classified as a publicly owned facility in itself, would it meet the Public Benefit Site requirements if the physical location falls within a designated burden area on the state map?
Yes, this would be considered publicly owned property. Please note that the public entity that owns that site would have to be the Demonstration Partner and provide a Letter of Commitment for the project.
31. For Fall 2026 awardees, what is the anticipated project start date?
If awarded, the anticipated start date would be Summer 2027.
32. Is the 24-month project period a maximum rather than a required project term? Could an applicant propose a substantially shorter project, such as approximately 6–12 months, if the deployment, baseline measurements, installation, post-installation monitoring, analysis, and final reporting can reasonably be completed within that period?
Yes, this is a maximum and projects could be shorter than 24 months.
33. Can engineering and operations personnel time, installation assistance, facility access, equipment access, data-collection support, insurance for the covered assets, and other host-site services provided by a Demonstration Partner qualify as in-kind cost share?
Demonstration Partners may contribute in-kind cost share towards the projects, as long as it fits into the eligible budget items listed in section 10 of the RFP. Please note that insurance would be considered an indirect cost. MassCEC’s policy on indirect costs is a cap of 15% of total direct salary and fringe expenses. Please refer to section 10 for further information.
34. Can the Lead Applicant satisfy the required cash portion of its cost share through direct eligible project expenditures such as manufacturing/material costs, instrumentation, installation contractors, testing, and other project-specific expenses paid by the Lead Applicant, or is a separate cash payment to the Demonstration Partner required?
The Lead Applicant may satisfy all the cost-share requirements of the program. Please note that cash cost share is an actual cash payment made by the Lead Applicant for costs incurred and paid for during the project. It is not required that Demonstration Partners contribute cost share.
35. For a Massachusetts-based Lead Applicant conducting the demonstration outside Massachusetts, what evidence of benefit to the Commonwealth does MassCEC expect? Would Massachusetts-based R&D, product development, manufacturing, employment growth, and commercialization activity resulting from the demonstration satisfy this objective?
As stated in section 9 of the RFP, under the Clean Energy and Climate Impact and Project Benefits Criteria, evaluators will look at:
“The technology demonstrates the potential to deliver transformative climate and clean energy impacts, representing a significant advancement over existing solutions. For primarily mitigation technologies, the technology has the potential to mitigate a substantial amount of fossil-fuel driven greenhouse gas emissions (tens of millions of tons annually) on a global scale. For primarily adaptation and resilience technologies, the technology has the potential to significantly lessen the impact climate change will have, at minimum, on a regional (Massachusetts/New England) scale, through adaptation, resiliency, and environmental sustainability. For technologies that both mitigate and adapt, both of the above should be true.
The proposed technology offers economic development benefits (i.e., jobs, long-term infrastructure, etc.) to the Commonwealth — this might include the Lead Applicant growing its business in the Commonwealth and/or the proposed technology having significant impact on the Commonwealth (such as delivering cost benefits and ratepayer savings to Massachusetts customers).”
36. For the Total Addressable Carbon analysis, should applicants calculate the potential emissions reductions associated specifically with the end-use application and target market being validated through the proposed InnovateMass project, or may the analysis consider the broader range of applications and markets addressable by the underlying technology?
As per the TAC section of the application, you will be asked to provide an analysis of the potential reduction in greenhouse gas emissions or the avoidance of future GHG emissions achievable given widespread use of the technology/innovation and to describe the current and future market in which emissions reductions are expected. Please refer to section 7 of the application for a full set of instructions for the TAC analysis.
37. Follow-on phase of an existing pilot: If a Lead Applicant and its Demonstration Partner already have a privately funded initial pilot underway, is a proposal eligible if its InnovateMass scope is a separate follow-on phase at/with the same host (e.g., a next-generation design iteration of the piloted product, additional units, and/or extended performance and reliability monitoring), provided all grant and cost-share costs are incurred after the grant agreement is executed?
Yes, this would be eligible as long as the project is distinct to the InnovateMass program and the funding supports the commercialization of innovative clean energy and climate technologies.
38. Platform technologies: If a company’s core component is commercially available in limited volumes for other applications, and the project demonstrates a new, not-yet-commercial product or system/application built upon that component for a new market, will MassCEC assess TRL and the “commercially available” criterion based on the new product or system/application?
The TRL and commercially available criterion will be based on the specific InnovateMass application and the technology/product that would be developed during this specific project.
39. Mobile demonstrations: For demonstrations on mobile equipment that are based at a facility outside Massachusetts but operate partly within Massachusetts, how should applicants complete the project location fields? May they describe the operating region, including the Massachusetts locations served?
In the project location section you may list what addresses/regions you know you’ll be working at and can describe the region/any additional details you’d like to convey in section 1.13.
40. Three-application limit: Is the limit counted per core technology or per product/application/concept, and does it include applications submitted in all prior rounds?
As per the RFP on page 10, Applicants may not submit Applications to the Program for the same technology, product, or concept more than three (3) times, unless there has been a substantial advancement in the technology, market opportunity, or commercialization pathway that materially strengthens the case for funding. Yes, it includes all applications submitted in prior rounds.
41. Lead Applicant labor: Section 10 lists “personnel costs” as an example of cash cost share, and “direct labor of project team members” as in-kind. Does documented, payroll-paid Lead Applicant employee time count toward the 20% cash minimum? May fringe benefits and indirect costs (within the 15% cap) be counted as cost share, even though fringe is excluded from grant-funded direct labor?
Yes, documented payroll-paid Lead Applicant employee time would count as a cash cost-share source. Yes, fringe benefits and indirect costs within the 15% cap could be counted toward cost share.
42. Travel: Section 10 says that travel may be attributed to cash cost share, but Attachment F, Other Requirements (e), excludes “travel (by Grantee)” from Allowable Expenses. Can you clarify this? Is vehicle mileage for field service at an out-of-state demonstration site treated as travel?
Travel expenses can be paid for in the form of cash cost share, but not by grant funding. Vehicle mileage for field service at an out-of-state demonstration site is considered a travel cost.
43. Other funding as cash cost share: Section 10 allows documented grants from other state or federal agencies. Does this include (1) grants from Commonwealth quasi-public entities such as MassVentures, and (2) federal SBIR/STTR contracts (as opposed to grants), where the funded scope directly supports the project and is not counted toward another funding requirement?
Yes, you may use funding from other MA quasi-public entities as a form of cost share, as long as it is not another MassCEC grant. Federal SBIR/STTR contracts may be used as cost share if they directly support the InnovateMass project.
44. Demonstration units: May grant funds and cost share cover fabrication of demonstration units installed on a Demonstration Partner’s equipment? At project end, may those units remain in service with the partner or be sold to them? Are there restrictions on the grant-funded equipment?
At the end of a project, there are no restrictions on grant-funded equipment and what is done with it upon completion of the project.
45. May previously purchased hardware owned by the Lead Applicant (e.g., existing units refurbished and deployed during the project) be valued as in-kind cost share?
As per the RFP, acceptable project budget items include equipment, as long as it is a new purchase, though the purchased equipment may be new or used.
46. Letter of Commitment signatory and in-kind value: For large corporate Demonstration Partners, may the LoC be signed by the regional or business-unit manager responsible for the host site, or must a corporate officer sign? If the partner contributes in-kind cost share, must its dollar value appear in the LoC, or can it be documented at contracting?
There is no restriction on who from the Demonstration Partner must sign, as long as you have a signed LoC. The LoC does not need to have the specific dollar value listed; it just needs to list what general resources the partner will be contributing (i.e., “host site, in-kind contributions,” etc.). In the workplan budget tab you may estimate the cost-share resources, but this would not need to be finalized until time of contracting if awarded.
47. LoC exceptions: May a written LoC exception request be submitted during the no-questions period (September 29 – October 20)? Is there a deadline for submitting one?
The LoC must be submitted at time of application, as part of the application package.
48. Partner confidentiality: Some Demonstration Partners restrict disclosure of operational information. May project performance data be reported to MassCEC in anonymized or aggregated form (e.g., KPIs stripped of partner, customer, route, and location identifiers)?
Yes, if awarded, we would discuss during workplan deliverables the data that the Demonstration Partner and Awardee are comfortable sharing.
49. If awarded, may the Demonstration Partner decline to be named in MassCEC’s public announcements and case studies, recognizing that application materials are public records?
Yes, if awarded we could discuss logistics of press and case studies and make sure all parties are comfortable with or without being named.
50. Can the required site visit be arranged to follow the host’s security and photography policies?
Yes.
51. TAC scope: If the project demonstrates the first commercial application of a platform technology, may the TAC analysis and MMT CO2e estimate reflect the platform’s broader addressable market (with assumptions stated), or should they be limited to the demonstrated application?
As per the TAC section of the application, you will be asked to provide an analysis of the potential reduction in greenhouse gas emissions or the avoidance of future GHG emissions achievable given widespread use of the technology/innovation and to describe the current and future market in which emissions reductions are expected. Please refer to section 7 of the application for a full set of instructions for the TAC analysis.
52. Generative AI: Is disclosure in the portal’s Generative AI Disclosure field sufficient, or must applicants obtain MassCEC approval before submitting? Are uses such as summarizing source documents, outlining, drafting assistance, and editing acceptable, provided applicants review and take responsibility for all final content? What level of detail should the disclosure include, and does disclosed use affect scoring?
Disclosure in the portal’s Generative AI Disclosure field is sufficient, and no further notification is necessary. We do not have requirements or guidance on what or how applicants disclose in that section of the RFP.
53. Public Benefit Site terms: Section 2 refers to Gateway Cities and “Burdened Areas,” while portal field 3.1 lists “Environmental Justice Community.” Does a headquarters located in a block group designated as an Environmental Justice population on the EEA 2020 map qualify as a Public Benefit Site for the +1 point? Which map defines “Burdened Area”?
Please refer to section 2 in the RFP for the most up-to-date definition. On our end, we are not seeing “Environmental Justice Community” in the dropdown in section 3.1, and this may be a carryover from previous rounds. “Burdened Areas” can be found using this map, which is also found in the RFP.
54. Length limits: The FAQ notes that visuals must still meet “the page limit requirement.” In the portal, which uses per-field word limits, what page limit applies, and do the “Additional Materials” files count toward it? Since field 8.2 is a single-line field, should the key-personnel table be uploaded instead?
Please refer to the word limits listed in Submittable and go off of word count rather than page count. These word counts equate to our page limit restrictions. You may submit up to five (5) additional material attachments that do not count toward the word count.
There is no word limit in 8.2, so you should be able to list all team member information. You may also submit a table if you’d like to use that as one of your five (5) attachments. Please note there is also a spot for resumes, which are not included as part of the five (5) additional attachments.
55. The RFP states that technologies related to woody biomass are not considered Climatetech. Would a technology using residue-derived biochar be eligible?
Biochar is not considered woody biomass, so this would not be deemed ineligible due to the exclusion of woody biomass.
56. Demonstration partner: Must the Demonstration Project Partner or site be located in Massachusetts, or could it be out of state?
The demonstration partner and site may be outside of Massachusetts.
