Note: The amendment below was added to RFGA-01 on April 21, 2006. This amendment has been added to clarify the intended use of the results gathered for RFGA-01 and should not impact the content.
The Strategic Technology Assessment Project is designed to provide better emissions inventory data for modeling from two activities:
- Developing detailed databases for diesel engines found in on-road mobile vehicles, locomotives, marine vessels and airports.
- Developing emission profiles of HGB, DFW and several other U.S. cities.
Additional information will be gathered to evaluate and quantify possible emission control strategies for SIP modeling by identifying emerging NOx reduction technologies and their likelihood to penetrate into the marketplace.
Question
As a follow up to the page limitation issue, why is there a strict page limitation in RFGA-02 - SmartWay Technologies Test Program, but not in RFGA-01? Does the 5-6 page "target" include the forms that we are mandated to submit, or are the 5-6 pages purely narrative? How strictly will the 5-6 page limit be enforced? Our concern is that someone who submits 10-15 pages would put another party submitting 5-6 pages at a distinct disadvantage.
Answer
When RFGA-01 was posted no strict page limit was assigned. Since it is several weeks since posting we will not turn down any proposal based on the length of the narrative. The 5-6 page target does not include the forms that you are mandated to submit. The 5-6 page limit is merely a guideline. The reviewers of this RFGA-01 will be asked to review many other documents as well, so we are requesting a concise description to allow them more time for detailed reviews of other portions of RFGA-01 as well as the other RFGA's that they may be reviewing. Ultimately the length of the narrative is up to you. We will pass on your concerns about the length of the narrative to the reviewers.
Question
Hello, my comapny had a question regarding page limits for the RFGA-01 proposal. We have not been able to find a stated page limit for the project narrative in RFGA-01. Is it safe to assume that there are no page limits for this particular narrative?
Answer
No page limit has been specified, however anything more than 10 pages would likely be considered excessive. Please target for 5 to 6 pages.
Question
Task 1 of the Work Breakdown Structure states that "Similar processes, with similar levels of detail should be applied to all on-road and off-road equipment in the HGB and DFW areas." Does this include all classes of on-road diesel vehicles, including light-duty cars and trucks? Does this include equipment beyond the 80% market share target?
Answer
Light-duty diesel cars and trucks are not a target of this project. The intent is that the focus be on the 80% market share, however if data on the remaining market share is available and simple to add to the database, then it should be included.
Question
Under Task 1, should the 80% market share target be determined at the equipment category level? If so, should equipment categories be defined by major use category, SCC, or some other method? If the market share target is to be met for each diesel SCC category, this will require significant resources for many low horsepower (and therefore inherently low-emitting) source categories such as signal boards, welders, air compressors, among others, which may result in an inefficient use of available resources.
Answer
Yes, the 80% market share target should be determined at the equipment category level.
Question
Task 1 states that "Obtaining the data on both on-road and off-road equipment that ‘travels through' an area is difficult." What determines if a piece of off-road equipment resides in a target area, or if it is merely traveling through the area?
Answer
The intent was mainly for on-road equipment traveling through an area. For off-road equipment the data must be estimated based on the time the equipment resides in the specified area (HGB or DFW) according to the leasing company, construction company, etc. that uses the equipment.
Question
Under Task 2 it is assumed that all diesel powered airport ground equipment should be included in this project. Should stationary diesel sources such as emergency generators, also be considered in this study?
Answer
Yes, however if you are able to demonstrate that the relative NOx contribution of any equipment is small, then less time/effort should be placed on that equipment.
Question
In Task 3, are mobile sources such as marine vessels and on road vehicles to be included with cargo handling equipment?
Answer
Marine vessels are of primary interest for this task. On road vehicles may be included in Task 1.
Question
In Task 3, if marine vessels were to be included, should only diesel-powered vessels using marine distillate be considered, which would exclude compression engines that use blends of distillate and residual fuels? This would focus resources on the local "captive" fleet that spends the majority of their time in and near the Houston Ship Channel.
Answer
For marine vessels consider blends of distillate and residual fuels as well as diesel when doing the inventory.
Question
In Task 3, should shore diesel-powered cargo handling equipment be supplemented with onboard cargo handling engines such as cranes, generators, and pumps?
Answer
Yes. Again, consider the relative amount of NOx be given off.
Question
Should yard locomotives that operate at port terminals be included in Task 3 (port) or task 4 (locomotives)?
Answer
Task 3.
Question
Task 6 states that emissions profiles for several U.S. cities may include San Antonio, Austin, etc. Will the list of cities be finalized by the client at a later time? Can the Proposer and/or Contractor make recommendations regarding the cities to be included?
Answer
The proposer should include commitments and recommendations in the proposal. E.G. "We will develop emissions profiles for A, B, C etc. and will do any of the two following cities: W,X,Y and Z."
Question
Task 7 calls for identification of "key types of engines and the primary sources of diesel NOx emissions…" Two questions arise:
- We assume this means key types of engines associated with, or causing the most NOx emissions. Please confirm.
- To what level of detail are engine types to be identified? Is it to be based upon specific equipment and vehicle types, or specific engine manufacturer makes/models? Given the lack of nonroad engine registration data, this assessment will become increasingly challenging at the specific make/model level of detail.
Answer
- Yes, the most NOx emissions is what we're looking for.
- We want as much detail as can be provided. Ultimately we are looking for how many engines we can install specific technologies on to reduce NOx.
Question
Task 8 calls for the evaluation of technologies applicable to the types of engines identified in Task 3 (port-related emission sources). Are engines identified in Tasks 1, 2, and 4 to be evaluated elsewhere, such as Task 10?
Answer
It should read Task 7 (i.e. all engines) instead of Task 3.
Question
There appears to be considerable overlap between Tasks 8 and 10, especially if Task 8 encompasses the types of engines evaluated in Task 3, as well as those from Tasks 1, 2 and 4. We propose to subdivide the deliverables between Task 8 and Task 10 as follows:
- Task 8 - Overview from a technical, cost, and "level of commercial availability" perspective of new and emerging technologies, national and foreign.
- Task 10 - Build upon Task 8, and add:
- Manufacturer names and contact information for individual technologies.
- Describe technology combinations, benefits and drawbacks, costs and commercial availability, with references and manufacturer contact information where appropriate.
Is this approach consistent with the TERC's expectations?
Answer
Again, Task 8 should refer to Task 7 not Task 3. Your suggested approach is fine. Tasks 8, 9 and 10 may be bundled together. Please note that we may opt to award parts of RFGA-01 on a schedule that meets our information requirements and our budget schedule. It is also possible that some Tasks may be split out to different proposers.
Question
In general, when evaluating opportunities to reduce emission, should infrastructure considerations be included, such as availability and distribution of alternative fuels?
Answer
Yes. SCR/Urea is a good example.
Question
Objective #8 in Exhibit #1 refers to technologies related to "engines identified in # 7". Later in the exhibit, Task 8 Deliverables refer to "engines identified in Task 3". Should that be Task 7?
Answer
Yes, you are correct.
Question
Under Application Content, Section 5 (Budget Information), it appears that the award will be a cost-reimbursement agreement. We plan to use our actual salaries, indirect rates, and computer/telephone use allocations that have been approved by the U.S. Government (DCAA), plus a profit that is appropriate to the type of work. Please confirm this is what you are expecting, and please confirm that you will protect proprietary indirect rates from exposure to our competitors through the open records laws.
Answer
Assuming the rates used to develop the budget are reasonable and customary and are based upon actual, verifiable costs, the approach described is acceptable. HARC will not publish the details of any of the budgets submitted, but the application information including the budget may be subject to disclosure under the Texas open records laws. Please see the section in the RFGA entitled "Confidentiality of Information."
Question
The Strategic Technology Assessment and vehicle inventories that are to be the deliverables of these tasks appear to request a snapshot in time for 2006. Are we reading this correctly? Is there any requirement to provide projected 2007+ vehicle inventory data?
Answer
There is no requirement to provide a projected 2007+ vehicle inventory. Although RFGA-01 looks at overall inventories in 2006 and how they compare to other cities, keep in mind that much of the inventory work is on a per engine basis, which varies according to manufacturer, model, year, etc.
Question
The RFGA prohibition against including administrative costs, indirect costs, fees or profit in the budget has the effect of decreasing competition for this grant by discouraging for-profit companies from applying.
Page 2 of the RFGA says that for profit firms are eligible to compete under this RFGA. However, based on Form 55-Budget and the information in the RFGA under Eligible Activities and Costs, we cannot include indirect costs, fees or profit margin in our bid. The information in the previous two sentences is in conflict. Please clarify.
Answer
This question has been raised in various ways by multiple organizations. The RFGA prohibition against indirect costs and profits/fees was originally included because the purpose of the NTRD funding, in general, is to assist the grantees in reaching their goals, i.e. the commercialization of new technologies.
In this specific RFGA, it is recognized that there will not be a product or intellectual property that can later be sold or licensed for profit. Consequently, we are modifying this RFGA to allow for inclusion of indirect or administrative costs and fees. The maximum total award amount for this RFGA remains $350,000, including both direct and indirect costs.
|
