LIBRARY

VOLPE JOURNAL

HIGHLIGHTS

PUBLISHED AND
PRESENTED

BIBLIOGRAPHIES

TRANSPORTATION
STRATEGIC PLANS

LINKS

BACKGROUND

The basis for the Advanced Vehicle Program (AVP) can be found in the FY 1999 Program Announcement, also known as The Red Book, issued November 3, 1998. The Red Book provides information concerning the background of the program transition from the Defense Advanced Research Project Agency’s (DARPA) Electric and Hybrid Vehicle (EHV) Program to the Department of Transportation (DOT). It identifies the key issues of concern relative to energy security, air quality, and transportation industry development that will be addressed by the AVP.

Program goals and objectives for the AVP were established as part of the Red Book. These have not changed. The Advanced Vehicle Program will develop, demonstrate, and deploy in the United States advanced transportation vehicle technologies. The primary vehicle focus of the program is on medium and heavy-duty vehicles planned for realization by 2004. The technology focus of the program is on electric and hybrid electric vehicles and their technologies and infrastructure. The goals of the program are:

• Reduced vehicle emissions.
• Significantly improved fuel efficiency.
• Establishment of a globally competitive U.S. industry for advanced vehicles and their components.
• Increased public acceptance of the advanced vehicles.

Program and performance objectives as part of the AVP goals and objectives also were established with the Red Book.

FY 2001 PROGRAM DIRECTIONS

The AVP will be funded in FY 2001 by funds from DOT. FY 2001 DOT funds may be supplemented by FY 2001 funds from DOE and DOD.

The FY 2001 AVP will maintain a balanced approach for the Program by selecting projects of differing modes, periods of performance, risk levels, technical approaches, applications, and project sizes. A balanced portfolio of selected projects of small, medium and large projects with a variety of technical risks and applications will achieve the most significant benefits. The guidance set forth is to help the Proposer address the issues rather than to indicate a DOT preference or focus.

For FY 2001, the AVP intends to work towards its objectives with the following additional considerations:

• All projects must support the Program goals and objectives, but projects within the focus areas identified below are preferred.
• Efforts that duplicate the approach and objectives of other U.S. efforts are of lower priority to the Program.
• The Program seeks to have some of the funds directed toward radical, innovative technologies that could provide significant payoff.
• Indication of the ability and a sincere intent to commercialize the results of the project is very important. High quality cost share is a strong indicator of both the ability and the intent to commercialize. Clear demonstration of a technical advantage coupled with a sound commercialization plan reinforces this indication.
• DOT is interested in efforts that will lead to the commercial deployment of vehicles. Deployment project efforts should involve specific users of the vehicles with interest in the advantages offered by electric and hybrid electric vehicles. Preference is for projects with users who have resources available for large-scale purchases of additional vehicles. Some potential user partners include: transit agencies (Federal Transit Administration’s bus capital program including the Clean Fuels Formula Grant Program), national parks (Federal Highway Administration’s Federal Lands Highway Program), airports (Federal Aviation Administration’s Airport Improvement Program), military bases (DOD Alternative Vehicle System Program), and local municipalities (DOE Clean Cities Program, DOT’s Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Program).
• DOT is interested in deployment efforts that establish or reinforce sustainable transportation solutions for communities with widespread applicability to other geographical areas.
• Projects should be performed over a period of three years (36 months) or less.
• In general, no single project should require more than approximately $1,000,000 in FY 2001. Dependent on the level of funding, DOT may be receptive to larger scale projects.

FY 2000 FOCUS AREAS

The following are DOT’s greatest interest:

• Technologies that have multi-modal applications.
• Demonstrations and deployment projects that lead to sustained large-scale adoption of electric and hybrid-electric vehicles.
• Micro-electro-mechanical systems (MEMS) that have significant payoff in advancing electric and hybrid-electric vehicles.
• Nano-technology for advanced materials that significantly enhance electric and hybrid-electric vehicles.
• Demonstrations and deployment projects that support sustainable transportation solutions for communities.

Focus areas are outlined below. These are the areas believed to be most important to the Program.

Enabling technologies:

• Charging infrastructure
• Light-weight materials
• Micro-electro-mechanical systems
• Nano-technology

Electric and hybrid-electric drive systems:

• Energy storage – ultracapacitors, batteries, flywheels
• Energy and battery management
• Power electronics
• Auxiliary sub-systems
• Fuel cells and reformers

Vehicles:

• Trucks
• Buses
• Marine vessels
• Rail

PROPOSAL SUBMISSION

The consortia and DOT will select AVP projects by a process of proposal submission, review, and acceptance. The consortia will prepare proposals and submit them to the DOT. DOT will select the best proposals for funding and fund them through agreements between DOT and the consortia.

In order to minimize the effort required for proposal preparation and review, the selection will take place in two phases. First, the consortia will prepare white papers for DOT to review and comment on. The consortia will then prepare proposals on the best topics.

Prospective project performers should submit white papers to their consortia. The consortia will select and edit the white papers for submittal of five copies of each to DOT by February 4, 2000. White papers should be two pages or more, but less detailed and less complete than full proposals while addressing all of the important topics. Important topics include a description of what will be done and why, the commercialization plan, the qualifications of the performers, the technical innovations, the expected cost, the source of cost share.

DOT expects to complete its review of the white papers and provide feedback to the consortia by February 29, 2000.

The consortia should submit five copies of each completed proposal to DOT on or before March 15, 2000. DOT anticipates making awards by April 14, 2000.

Both white papers and proposals should be submitted to:

Mr. Shang Hsiung

Questions may be addressed to Shang Hsiung (202-366-0241, shang.hsiung@fta.dot.gov)

COST SHARE

The performer pays for all of the cost of each project. The performer is reimbursed in part by the government. The portion not reimbursed by the Government is referred to as cost share. The Government expects to share in the costs of all tasks of a project. The Government evaluates the quality of cost share in the following terms:

High Quality Cost Share - These are financial resources that will be expended by the award recipients on the proposed project’s statement-of-work (SOW) and will be subject to the direction of the project management team. This basically means the funds the non-federal participants will spend for man-hours, materials, new equipment (prorated if appropriate), subcontractor efforts expended on the project’s SOW, and restocking the parts and material consumed. High quality cost share can include new IR&D effort, but only if those funds are offered by the proposers to be spent on the SOW and subject to the direction of the project management team.

Low Quality Cost Share - These are non-financial resources that will be expended on the proposed project’s SOW and will be subject to the direction of the project management team. This is typically wear-and-tear on in-place capital assets like machinery or the prorated value of space used for the project.

Unacceptable Cost Share - This is a resource that either (1) will not be expended on the proposed project’s SOW or (2) will not be subject to the direction of the management team as discussed above. Unacceptable cost share will be subtracted from the proposer’s claimed total cost for the project, and the required industry cost share recalculated. Unacceptable cost share examples include:

• Sunk costs, i.e., costs incurred before the start of the proposed project;
• Foregone fees or profits;
• Foregone G&A or cost of money applied to a base of IR&D;
• Bid and proposal costs;
• Value claimed for intellectual property or prior research;
• Parallel research or investment, i.e., research or other investments that might be related to the proposed project but which will not be part of the SOW or subject to the direction of the project management team. Typically these activities will be undertaken regardless of whether the proposed project proceeds;
• Off-Budget Resources, i.e., resources that will not be risked by the proposer on the SOW, and should not be considered when evaluating cost share.

PROPOSED GUIDELINES

Each consortium may propose more than one project. The consortium proposal should have a main section and a section for each project. One project may be for consortium program management.

Project or milestone costs are referred to below. Where referred to, they always include, in order: cost to the Government, cost to the project team, and total cost. The total cost should be the cost to the Government plus the cost to the project team.

The main section and each project proposal should be separately page numbered and dated on all pages. If a project proposal is revised, reissue and re-date the entire project proposal. (If attachments do not have the same date, make a specific reference to each attachment and its date in the project proposal.)

Main Section

This section of the consortium proposal should include the following:

• Body. This should include any preliminary information and a statement submitting the proposal. Also, the body should include a brief statement for each of the projects stating:
• Why each project is believed to be for additional work within the scope of the original agreement.
• Projects list with one line for each project and a line for the total costs. For each project give the project name, the date of the most recent proposal for the project, and project costs as explained above.

Project Proposals

Proposals should be complete in all respects, even where the Government has asked no questions about a white paper on the project. Where the Government has asked questions about the white paper, cover the answers in the body of the proposal, not as a separate section of the proposal. Each project proposal should contain the following:

• Objective of the proposed work and a summary of the work to be done. These should be brief and fully supported by the detailed proposal.
• List of participant organizations with the name, telephone, and e-mail for the point of contact at each organization. Identify the lead organization.
• Other detailed information on the proposed project such as:
• Background. This may include information on the state of the technology and the longer term goals of the performing organization.
• Importance of the work.
• Explanation of the principle of operation of the product to be developed.
• Quantitative specifications for the expected performance of product to be developed or produced. Specifications of major subcomponents should also be stated. The Government frequently compares specific power and energy and power and energy density.
• Test or performance data that give credibility to the proposed innovation.
• Plans for commercialization and/or military application.
• Qualifications and experience of the performing organization.
• Statement of Work consisting of a list of numbered tasks with descriptions. Milestones, including the milestone number, short description, expected date, and milestone payments should be part of the SOW and associated with the completion of key events. (Milestones, even if listed separately from the SOW, must reflect the work being done.)
• Schedule chart showing the timing of all tasks listed in the Statement of Work and their major precedence relationships.
• Costs.

Prepare a matrix showing the uses of funds (costs) by milestone and by category. The suggested form is one row of the matrix for each category and the total, and one column of the matrix for each milestone and for the total. The major categories are labor, materials, subcontracts, travel, overhead, and total. The costs for a milestone are the costs of the underlying tasks.

Also show, in similar matrix form, the sources of funds for each milestone. These include the costs to the Government, other federal funds (if any), cash costs to the project team, in-kind costs to the project team, and total costs. Show the contribution from each team member separately for each milestone. Costs of labor and materials purchased for the project are considered cash costs. Explain any of the in-kind costs to the project team, such as value claimed for use of buildings, previously purchased materials, or capital equipment that could and would be used for other purposes. The explanation should indicate who is making the in-kind contribution.

The two cost matrices may be combined into one with a single column for each milestone. In a combined matrix include rows for the uses of funds and rows for the sources of funds.

Costs not acceptable as cost share may be claimed and discussed, but not included in the matrices.

EXAMPLES OF PROJECT SCHEDULE & COSTS

Consortium Project List

Motor Project Schedule

Jan         Feb         Mar         Apr         May         Jun         Jul         Aug         Sept         Oct

Motor Project Costs

(Additional details and explanations of labor, materials, and subcontracts may be appropriate.)

Motor Project Sources of Funds

*Rental value of 2500 sq. ft. test facility @ $2,000 per month.
In addition, Ajax Corp. is supplying patents and prior research worth $200,000.

Return to Top

Next section

Research and Special Programs Administration