COORDINATING RESEARCH COUNCIL, INC.
3650 MANSELL ROAD, SUITE 140
ALPHARETTA, GA 30022
TEL: 678/795-0506 FAX: 678/795-0509
WWW.CRCAO.ORG
February 16, 2010
In reply, refer to:
CRC Project No. E-90-2a
Dear Prospective Bidder:
The Coordinating Research Council (CRC) invites you to submit a written proposal to provide services for " Evaluation of Inspection and Maintenance OBD II Data to Identify Vehicles that May be Sensitive to E10+ Blends" (CRC Project No. E-90-2a). A description of the project is presented in Exhibit A, “Statement of Work.”
Please indicate by letter, fax, or email by February 24, 2010, if you or your organization intends to submit a written proposal for this research program. CRC will answer technical questions regarding the Request for Proposal if they are submitted in writing. CRC will then return written answers to all of the bidders, along with a copy of the original questions.
A CRC technical group composed of industry and government representatives will evaluate your proposal. CRC reserves the right to accept or reject any or all proposals.
The reporting requirements will be monthly progress reports and a summary technical report at the end of the contractual period. The reporting requirements are described in more detail in the attachment entitled, “Reports” (Exhibit B).
The proposal must be submitted as two separate documents. The technical approach to the problem will be described in part one, and a cost breakdown that is priced by task will be described in part two. The cost proposal document should include all costs associated with conducting the proposed program. The technical proposal shall not be longer than 10 pages in length.
CRC expects to negotiate a cost-plus fixed fee or cost reimbursement contract for the research program.
Contract language for intellectual property and liability clauses is presented in Exhibit C and in Exhibit D, respectively.
Important selection factors to be taken into account are listed in Exhibit E. CRC evaluation procedures require the technical group to complete a thorough technical evaluation before considering costs. After developing a recommendation based on technical considerations, the costs are revealed and the recommendation is modified as needed.
Thirty (30) copies of the technical proposal and three (3) copies of the cost proposal (or one each electronic-copy) should be submitted to:
Dr. Chris Tennant
Coordinating Research Council
3650 Mansell Road, Suite 140
Alpharetta, GA 30022
Phone: 678-795-0506
Fax: 678-795-0509
E-mail:
The deadline for receipt of your proposal is March 10, 2010.
Yours truly,
Chris Tennant
Deputy Director
EXHIBIT A
STATEMENT OF WORK
CRC Project E-90-2a
Evaluation of Inspection and Maintenance OBD II Data to Identify
Vehicles that May be Sensitive to E10+ Blends
Background
The 2007 Energy Independence and Security Act (EISA) mandates that significant additional volumes of renewable fuels be introduced into the transportation fuel pool in the U.S. It is anticipated that much of the renewable fuel will be ethanol for use in gasoline vehicles. Assuming the EISA mandates are met, ethanol volumes will likely exceed 10 volume percent in gasoline in the 2012-2014 timeframe. As a result, significant efforts are underway by the Department of Energy (DOE), the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the Coordinating Research Council (CRC), and other organizations to determine whether so-called mid-level ethanol or E10+ blends (e.g., E15 or E20) can be used in the existing motor vehicle fleet without causing harm to those vehicles using an E10+ blend.
CRC is currently funding an effort to identify in-use production vehicles that may have on-board diagnostic (OBD II) systems that are sensitive to E10+ blends and may illuminate the malfunction indicator light (MIL) when the vehicle is still within design tolerances. That study, designated CRC Project E-90, is accessing long-term fuel trim data from vehicles at inspection and maintenance (I/M) stations that are there for periodic inspection. There is concern that for vehicles near the lean limit on E0 or E10, operation on E15 or E20 may cause the MIL to illuminate and a diagnostic trouble code (DTC) to be stored. Thus, the results from E-90 will be used to identify specific makes, models, engine size, and model years that would be acquired and tested on E15 and E20 blends.
Scope of Work
Although very useful data are being collected in the E-90 project, the number and range of vehicles that are being tested is limited. As a result, CRC is interested in alternative data sets that could supplement the testing being conducted in E-90. One potential source of data is from I/M programs. For example, it may be possible to identify specific vehicle models that have a propensity to fail for lean operation in customer service on E10 and lower ethanol blends; that propensity could be exacerbated when operating with E15 or E20.
Figure 1 shows the overall MIL-on failure rate and the failure rate for two specific Diagnostic Trouble Codes (DTCs) associated with lean limit malfunctions from a small sample of California I/M data for 1999 model year vehicles tested in calendar year 2009 (~70,000 total records):
P0171 – Fuel Trim System Lean (Bank 1)
P0174 – Fuel Trim System Lean (Bank 2)
The data were segregated by make, model, model year, and engine displacement, and the results are shown for vehicle groups with more than 100 I/M tests having a P0171 and/or P0174 failure rate more than six times the sample average. As observed in the figure, these vehicle categories have lean limit failure rates that are substantially above the average for this data set, with three of the categories having a P0171/P0174 failure rate that is more than 10 times the sample average.
Figure 1
Although the highest failure rate for P0171/P0174 faults observed in Figure 1 is only 6.6%, it should be recognized that these vehicles were tested in California’s decentralized I/M program that allows pre-inspection repair and has had OBD II checks in place for several years. Thus, one would expect that the failure rates in this I/M data set would be much lower than observed generally for the in-use fleet, i.e., motorists would likely seek repair for an obvious defect such as a MIL-on condition before getting an I/M test.
Previous comparisons of failure rates in the California I/M program versus those observed in random roadside tests conducted by the Bureau of Automotive Repair have indicated on-road failure rates several times higher than those in the I/M program. For example, an analysis of roadside data prepared by Sierra Research in 2003 under contract to the California Air Resources Board showed an on-road MIL-on rate of about 13% for seven-year old vehicles (model year 1996 vehicles tested in calendar year 2002), which were the oldest vehicles equipped with OBD II systems in the data analyzed for that effort (see Figure 1.1 of http://www.arb.ca.gov/msprog/inusecom/tsdver5.doc). However, the average visual/functional failure rate (under which a MIL-on condition would fall) observed in the I/M program for model year 1996 vehicles tested in calendar year 2002 was only 4.2% (see http://www.bar.ca.gov/
80_BARResources/02_SmogCheck/Engineering/ExecutiveSummaryReports/ES01_A_200201200212S_AllPA_AllStn_SW_x_xxx.htm). This is a 3-fold difference between the I/M failure rates and failure rates observed on the road, potentially increasing the highest P0171/P0174 failure rate shown in Figure 1 to near 20%.
Under this effort, CRC would ask a contractor to analyze I/M data from several state programs to identify vehicles that may be particularly sensitive to E10+ blends. Specific elements of this effort are outlined below. As noted above, these data would be used to supplement the effort being conducted under the E-90 project.
Task 1: Identify I/M Program Data to Analyze – Under this task, the contractor will identify I/M program data they intend to analyze. A number of issues should be considered when making this selection:
· There should be at least one area reflecting E0 and one area reflecting E10. Areas with E5.7 (e.g., California) should also be considered.
· Ideally, data would be analyzed from an I/M program that changed from E0 to E10 over the course of testing. This information could be used to assess lean failures on the same fleet of vehicles (albeit at different ages) operating on E0 and E10. A step-change in lean-limit failures for specific vehicle categories might signal particularly sensitive vehicles.
· I/M program data do not reflect on-road performance of the fleet. That is because pre-inspection repairs are often performed by motorists prior to the scheduled I/M inspection. How will the contractor address this issue? One possibility includes “normalizing” MIL-on rates observed in the I/M program data to reflect those rates observed in roadside inspections, similar to the example presented above. The contractor should also consider normalizing or adjusting fleets compared in this effort by odometer reading.
· Many I/M program exempt newer vehicles from testing. To the extent possible, data from newer model year vehicles (i.e., 2001 and newer) should also be analyzed in this effort.
Task 2: Identify Specific DTCs to Analyze – In addition to the P0171 and P0174 DTCs noted above, other codes may also be of use in this effort. For example, some manufacturers may have manufacturer-specific DTCs (i.e., P1XXX format) that are related to lean limit issues. It may be useful to also collect data on rich failure modes so that a ratio of lean-to-rich failure modes for specific vehicle categories could be calculated. The contractor should work with the CRC Technical Panel assigned to this project for review and input on specific fault codes recommended by the contractor before proceeding to Task 3.
Task 3: Analyze Data and Identify Sensitive Vehicles – Based on the results of Tasks 1 and 2, the contractor should analyze I/M program data to identify vehicles that may exhibit increased OBD II failure rates if run on E10+ blends. Vehicles identified in the E-90 project should also be specifically targeted in the I/M data analysis (that information would be provided by CRC). In addition to identifying specific vehicle categories, CRC would like an assessment of the fraction of the in-use vehicle fleet that might be sensitive to increased OBD II failures when operating on E10+ blends. Finally, for programs that perform exhaust emissions tests in addition to an OBD II scan for 1996 and newer vehicles, those data should also be analyzed to determine exhaust emission rates from OBD II passing and failing vehicles.
Task 4: Meetings and Reporting – Under this task, the contractor should budget for an initial kick-off meeting via telephone as well as several telephone calls to review progress on the study. At the conclusion of the project, a draft report should be prepared for submittal to CRC. The contractor would address comments on the draft report before a final report is issued.
EXHIBIT B
REPORTS
MONTHLY TECHNICAL PROGRESS REPORTS
The contractor shall submit a monthly technical progress report covering work accomplished during each calendar month of the contract performance. Thirty-five (35) hardcopies or one electronic Microsoft® Word compatible file (<1 MB) of the monthly technical progress report shall be distributed by the contractor within ten (10) calendar days after the end of each reporting period. The report shall contain a description of overall progress, plus a separate description for each task or other logical segment of work on which effort was expended during the reporting period.
FINAL REPORT
The contractor shall submit to or distribute for CRC thirty-five (35) hardcopies (or one hardcopy and one electronic pdf-compatible copy transmittable via email) of a rough draft of a final report within thirty (30) days after completion of the technical effort specified in the contract. The report shall document, in detail, the test program and all of the work performed under the contract. The report shall include tables, graphs, diagrams, curves, sketches, photographs and drawings in sufficient detail to comprehensively explain the test program and results achieved under the contract. The report shall be complete in itself and contain no reference, directly or indirectly, to the monthly report(s).
Within thirty (30) days after receipt of the approved draft copy of the final report, the contractor shall make the requested changes and deliver to CRC fifty (50) hard copies. The final report shall also be submitted as an electronic copy in both a Microsoft® Word and a pdf or pdf-convertible file format. The final report may be prepared using the contractor’s standard format, acknowledging author and sponsors. An outside CRC cover page will be provided by CRC. The electronic copy will be made available for posting on the CRC website.
EXHIBIT C
INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS
Title to all inventions, improvements, and data, hereinafter, collectively referred to as (“Inventions”), whether or not patentable, resulting from the performance of work under this Agreement shall be assigned to CRC. Contractor X shall promptly disclose to CRC any Invention which is made or conceived by Contractor X, its employees, agents, or representatives, either alone or jointly with others, during the term of this agreement, which result from the performance of work under this agreement, or are a result of confidential information provided to Contractor X by CRC or its Participants. Contractor X agrees to assign to CRC the entire right, title, and interest in and to any and all such Inventions, and to execute and cause its employees or representatives to execute such documents as may be required to file applications and to obtain patents covering such Inventions in CRC’s name or in the name of CRC’s Participants or nominees. At CRC’s expense, Contractor X shall provide reasonable assistance to CRC or its designee in obtaining patents on such Inventions.
To the extent that a CRC member makes available any of its intellectual property (including but not limited to patents, patent applications, copyrighted material, trade secrets, or trademarks) to Contractor X, Contractor X shall have only a limited license to such intellectual property for the sole purpose of performing work pursuant to this Agreement and shall have no other right or license, express or implied, or by estoppel. To the extent a CRC member contributes materials, tangible items, or information for use in the project, Contractor X acknowledges that it obtains only the right to use the materials, items, or information supplied for the purposes of performing the work provided for in this Agreement, and obtains no rights to copy, distribute, disclose, make, use, sell or offer to sell such materials or items outside of the performance of this Agreement.