Amendment No. 3 to SUB-2020-10121 - 2020 Distributed Wind Turbine Competitiveness Improvement Project.pdf

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

Request for Proposals Number SUB-2020-10121

AMENDMENT NO. 3

"2020 Distributed Wind Turbine Competitiveness Improvement Project”

Amendment Issue Date: 04/21/20 Due Date for Proposals: 05/05/20 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 Kyndall Jackson, Subcontract Administrator National Renewable Energy Laboratory 15013 Denver West Parkway, MS RSF 030 Golden, CO 80401 Phone: (303) 275-4253 Email: Kyndall.Jackson@nrel.gov

Amendment No. 3 is hereby issued in response to questions received regarding the subject Request for Proposal (RFP) No. SUB-2020-10121. 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.

1. When applying for the Prototype Testing track (design evaluation, power curve performance, acoustics, functional + safety test) can the certification of the evaluation + test results by an accredited body be included in the proposal budget?

NREL Response: Prototype testing is directed towards technology that is not ready for certification, for example where there are still questions in the design or performance that requires more consideration before the turbine is ready for certification testing. The prototype testing can be done at an accredited site and may be used for certification if there are no changes to the turbine after prototype testing, but the costs for certification cannot be included in a prototype testing budget. If an offeror believes the turbine is ready for certification, they should apply for certification testing topic area. If there are expected changes to the design, the offeror is likely not ready for certification and prototype testing to address these potential questions should be the focus, even if some of the certification tests are included in the testing plan. It is worth noting that the design review identified in both prototype and certification testing is conducted by NREL in collaboration with the awardee as a check to make sure the turbine would pass specific aspects of the certification process.

mailto:Kyndall.Jackson@nrel.gov

2. Is the cost of the actual turbine in the Prototype Testing track or Turbine Certification track an eligible cost? Same question for the balance-of-system costs?

NREL Response: Yes, these costs are allowable either as part of price participation or as an expense under the subcontract.

3. Can an offeror include the NREL-NWTC test site as a possible subcontractor to provide the test location and perform some of the testing (power curve verification, acoustics…)?

NREL Response: This is discouraged as there are other very suitable private and university affiliated accredited testing sites. It also creates a conflict of interest for NREL. If there is a clear justification of why testing must happen at NREL, this should be discussed prior to the formal solicitation process.

4. Is the NREL-NWTC an eligible site to perform the testing?

NREL Response: See question 3. Any requested technical support should be clearly identified in the proposal but do not make your proposal dependent on receiving that support.

5. From the top of page 13 of the RFP:

Proposals submitted for technology innovation topical areas including Pre-Prototype Development, Component Innovation, System Optimization and Manufacturing Process Innovation shall be organized in the following sections: Technical Concept and Innovation, Product Development Plan, Cost Benefits and Qualifications and Resources.

Question: The Component Innovation, System Optimization and Manufacturing Process Innovation qualitative merit criteria are laid out in four (4) distinct sections following the Technical Concept and Innovation, Product Development Plan, Cost Benefits and Qualifications and Resources sections listed above. However, the Pre-Prototype qualitative merit criteria appears only in 3 sections, with the Technical Concept and LCOE combined. Is it acceptable/advisable to organize in the following 3 sections: Technical Concept and Innovation/Cost Benefits, Product Development Plan, and Qualifications and Resources?

NREL Response: Use the format requested on page 13. The merit criteria will be evaluated based on the information in the proposal, not whether it is presented in the order of the merit criteria. If an offeror would like to make specific cross reference between the suggested format and the review criteria, they are free to do so.

6. What is the expected timing for environmental review and is NEPA approval is typically required for sites that will be hosting CIP-funded field testing?

NREL Response: Yes, NEPA review is required for any federally funded project. The time and depth of the review will depend on the amount of applicable work and disturbance to the proposed site. Placing a turbine at an existing testing pad with no ground disturbance and if the site has already been reviewed typically results in a minimal review process.

Installing a new foundation and other infrastructure on a site that has not undergone a previous NEPA review will increase the depth and time of the review. If the project does not start with a turbine installation, it may be possible to start the project before the NEPA review is complete but must be completed before construction begins.

7. Could NREL and U.S. Department of Energy leadership expedite review and award processing under this solicitation with consideration of “essential services” to be provided by distributed wind manufacturers in advancing cost-effective on-site power solutions and U.S. employment during this critical time for support of infrastructure and the economy?

NREL Response: NREL and U.S. Department of Energy work diligently to complete proposal review, selection and contracting in as timely a fashion as possible and that will be the case this year, understanding that at this time NREL and DOE staff are operating under the same state and national restrictions as everyone else. The subcontract negotiation phase has the potential to be one of the lengthier processes involved in making an award.

Simplifying the NEPA review (question 6), appropriately labeling critical intellectual property within the proposal and acceptance of NREL’s standard terms and conditions can greatly simplify and shorten the negotiation process.

8. Is it possible to engage NREL in an offeror’s project, namely for technical support in the optimization of the back-end electrical component base (e.g. powertrain/generator synchronization with the mechanical (turbine) component base performance characteristics)? If such a possibility exists, can NREL please advise on the mode and process for coordinating this effort with inclusion in our proposal i.e. contact information and/or advise on the method of approaching NREL technical support with this request?

NREL Response: It is strongly encouraged that proposals rely on technical expertise from the private and university sector before identifying NREL as a source. If expertise is only available at NREL, this requested technical support should be clearly identified in the proposal but do not make the proposal dependent on receiving that support as discussed in section 10. P. of the RFP.

9. Would a company be eligible for funding if it is intending to become incorporated in the US but isn’t currently in this position?

NREL Response: No. At the time of proposal submission, eligibility verification (Attachment

3) must be submitted which identifies the submitting company as being a U.S. company.

Additionally, to the extent possible efforts funded under this project shall be performed by the U.S. company within the United States or its territories, which includes any testing efforts. A U.S. company is defined as a business incorporated or formed as a legal entity in the United States.

10. We designed a wind turbine which will harness three times more energy in the turbulent air than the one harness the energy in the steady wind we applied for patent in India but there is no place to go for prototype manufacturing and testing available to us. Can we be given the opportunity for the same in USA?

NREL Response: The question is not clear. If a company meets the submission eligibility requirements as identified in attachment 3 “Eligibility Verification” the proposal to this request for solicitation will be considered. A proposal can identify a prototype testing location that meets the defined testing needs within United States or its territories.

As a reminder, each proposal must be submitted as an electronic PDF file by 2:00 p.m. Mountain Time on 05/05/20. Please send submissions to Kyndall.Jackson@nrel.gov.

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:Kyndall.Jackson@nrel.gov

Submit offers to the NREL RFP Contact below