Amendment_No._1_to_RFC-5-52012.pdf

National Renewable Energy Laboratory Managed and Operated by the Alliance for Sustainable Energy, LLC

Request for Proposals Number RFC-5-52012

AMENDMENT NO. 1

"Distributed Wind Turbine Competitiveness Improvement Project – Component Improvements and Overall System Optimization”

Amendment Issue Date: 1/20/15 New Due Date for Proposals: 2/23/15 Time Due: 2:00pm Mountain Time

1. Solicitation Type Best Value Selection Fixed Price with Price Participation

Submit offers to the NREL RFP Contact below

2. NREL RFP Contact Maurice Nelson, Senior Subcontract Administrator National Renewable Energy Laboratory 15013 Denver West Parkway, MS RSF 030 Golden, CO 80401 Phone: (303) 384-7029 Fax: (303) 630-2109 Email: maurice.nelson@nrel.gov

Amendment No. 1 is hereby issued in response to questions received regarding the subject Request for Proposals (RFP) No. RFC-5-52012. The proposal due date has also been extended to 2/23/15. Please note that some questions may have been edited to address duplicate questions or to protect business-sensitive information provided in the original questions. The essences of the original questions are not affected. Questions are in no particular order.

Question #1: With regard to the 20% price participation by the submitter, can this be in form of the equivalent dollar value of the labor of personnel working on the project? If a total project was valued at $120,000, could $20,000 come in the form of reducing the cost of labor component of the project by this $20,000 and having NREL providing $100,000 toward the project?

Answer #1: The Offeror’s own labor/effort/expertise can be their 20% contribution. Offerors that offer price participation for the compensated time of their staff, together with associated indirect cost, are considered “cash” rather than “in-kind” Offerors. If the total $ value of the subcontract was $120K, then the Offeror would need to provide $24K of labor/effort to reach the 20% minimum (not $20K). NREL would provide $96K.

Question #2: An Offeror is going to propose the integration of a patent-pending alternator to replace the alternator currently being used by our wind turbine. The Offeror has sophisticated test equipment, which will also be upgraded as part of the propose project, that is used to mailto:maurice.nelson@nrel.gov measure the performance to determine the level of optimization that we achieve. But the project description appears to point toward certified results which the Offeror assume to mean through the AWEA certification process. The cost of performing certification of the baseline and optimized turbine would be outside of the scope of this optimization process. So can the certification of the improved results come from the utilization of the test equipment the Offeror will be using and improving upon?

Answer #2: There is no certification requirement within this RFP. See Qualitative Merit Criteria 3.

Question #3: An Offeror has an alternate proposal in mind to submit, which is different than the project specified in #2 above. But it is aimed at improving the performance of any small wind turbine and not any one in particular. But will use one of its own to show the level of improvement. The Offeror has a prototype controller that can generate a range of data concerning the performance of the turbine and alternator. Data generated by this test controller is used by an operational control board to operate the turbine. The Offeror is going to propose a new combined controller that can use the test data it generates in one part of the controller, to operate the controller in real time based on that data. Potentially this controller can learn the characteristics of performance of the turbine over a range of wind speeds and optimize the level of power extracted at any given wind speed (or RPMs) as to maximize the power output at that speed. This would become a general control product that could learn the characteristics of any turbine it was connected to.

Is this a project that would fit within the scope of the Project Component Improvements?

Answer #3: Yes, this is within the scope of this RFP. This is the case whether the proposed improvement is strictly software or a combination of software and hardware.

Question #4: What is the issue regarding the integration of open source software and stating that none is being used? The Offeror’s test equipment, which is special hardware that is connected to a PC, might use open source graphing software to show the performance results. So the Offeror would not be able to certify that no open source software is in use. We do meet the requirements of such open source in displaying necessary notices on the display terminal during startup, in order to meet the requirements to use such software. So if used under allowable terms, what is the issue which appears to state that such software cannot be utilized?

Answer #4: As long as the test equipment is not the proposed development it is not relevant to the open source software restriction. If the improved wind generator component is software, then that software must not include open source software. Also, there is language provided in the Statement of Work that refers to the Delivery of Computer Software Code.

Question #5: Is the Offeror supposed to submit both the current and proposed LCOE by that date of

February 9, 2015?

a. If the work toward determine the level of improvement has not yet been performed, how can we specified the proposed LCOE.

Answer #5: Some level of improvement must be anticipated and there must be some rational basis for quantifying the improvement. The proposal must include the current LCOE and the expected LCOE, based on the improvement, as described in the Statement of Work.

Question #6: It would appear that the discussion on the approach that is to be taken, is task 4.1 followed by the detailed product development plan which is task 4.2. But the deliverables note that tasks 4.1 and 4.2 are deliverables after the contract is initiated. But wouldn’t the entire product development plan have to be completed before Feb 9th in order to cost the project proposed and break down the list of equipment that might be necessary to complete the 18 month project and to respond to the qualitative merit criteria item #1? Is this just implying that a different level of detail is required to respond to the RFP as opposed to task 4.1?

Answer #6: Yes, a different level of detail is expected for the deliverables. See Merit Criteria 3 for more information on the product development plan outline.

Question #7: The RFP item 3 deliverable, asks for a plan that will lead to successful market introduction and certification. If the turbine being proposed is not yet certified, is this just to indicate that the proposed improvement will not affect the ability to get the product certified or perhaps further insure that it can obtain certification?

Answer #7: If referring to Merit Criteria item 3, then yes, this is correct.

Question #8: Is there an incumbent contract number? If not, is this a new requirement?

Answer #8: There is no incumbent contract number. If selected for award, NREL will issue a Subcontract Number that will be assigned to the awardee.

Question #9: How are multiple applications viewed in the award process? The Offeror has identified projects for 3 out of the 4 topics. Are multiple topic applications encouraged? Are applications for multiple topics more or less likely to be awarded?

Answer #9: All applications will be evaluated separately without regard to whether there are any other applications from the same source. Multiple applications are not discouraged, however additional factors may be considered (see item 9 in the RFP).

Question #10: The Offeror is pursuing performance and cost improvements in many areas. In attachment 4, should the LCOE improvement be based on all projected improvements or limited to the scope covered under the CIP proposal?

Answer #10: The LCOE improvements should be for improvements covered in the CIP proposal only. The proposal can include multiple improvements. Additional information about developments outside of the proposal is acceptable, and will be considered as additional information.

Question #11: If selected for award, what provisions are there to protect confidentiality of proprietary and competition sensitive data?

Answer #11: NREL’s Appendix C-1 or C-2 (Intellectual Property Provisions), whichever is applicable according to the company business size, provides the terms and conditions regarding “Data”. Also, the Offeror will be able to identify data that is proprietary in the required “Representations & Certifications for Subcontracts/Purchase Orders” document. In the Representations & Certification document, the Offeror will be able to provide information regarding Patent Rights, Rights in Proposal Data, and Identification of Technical Data that is Proprietary.

Question #12: Is there a preferred or minimum grant request amount?

Answer #12: There is no preferred or minimum grant request amount.

Question #13: Are there any sample applications and/or product development plans available for potential applicants to review?

Answer #13: There are no sample applications and/ or product development plans available for review.

As a reminder, each proposal must be submitted in an original hard copy and four (4) copies delivered to NREL via USPS, UPS, FedEx or an official carrier by 2:00pm MST on 2/23/15. Also a PDF file of the proposal shall also be sent to maurice.nelson@nrel.gov by the new deadline date of 2/23/15. The proposal receipt date and time are based on the receipt of the original hard copies and not the email submission.

Due to facility access requirements, hand delivered proposals will not be accepted.

If your company submits an offer, please include confirmation of receipt and acceptance of this Amendment in your cover letter. Thank you for your interest in this project. We look forward to receiving your proposal!

mailto:maurice.nelson@nrel.gov

Submit offers to the NREL RFP Contact below