Reply to the comment on ‘Pople versus Dunning basis-sets for group IA metal hydrides and some other second row hydrides: The case against a De Facto standard’ by R.A. Klein and M.A. Zottola [Chem. Phys. Lett. 419 (2006) 254–258]

In their Comment on our recent Letter [R.A. Klein, M.A. Zottola, Chem. Phys. Lett. 419 (2006) 254–258], Feller and Peterson point out that density functional theory combined with the Pople triple split-valence basis-set 6-311++G(2d,p), does indeed perform well in comparison to second-order perturbation and coupled cluster theory in combination with correlation-consistent basis-sets for the prediction of bond lengths and harmonic frequencies but does not provide acceptable accuracy for dissociation energies. MPW1PW91/6-311++G(2d,p) is, therefore, highly suitable and computationally efficient for generating starting structures for subsequent single-point (SP) calculations at higher and more computationally expensive levels of theory.