Question 8:
Since the bus capacitors are part of the inverter system, and the funding opportunity announcement identifies a 140C ambient temperature requirement for the inverter system, it is not understood how 85C rated capacitors would be acceptable to operate in a 140C ambient environment. Please provide clarification.
Answer 8:
The requirements within the funding opportunity announcement seek an inverter design with advanced packaging concepts to enable integration of devices with different capabilities and limitations. A major obstacle to using WBG devices is the high-temperature capabilities beyond the capabilities of other devices within the inverter. Through advanced inverter designs and advanced packaging technologies, it is possible to enable use of current capacitor technology (85C) utilizing physics of materials strategies (i.e. heat transfer of materials and temperature isolation) and advanced packaging concepts.
Question 9:
Regarding the Merit Review Criteria Discussion:
1. In addressing the merit review criteria discussion, can some of the responses in this discussion refer back to specific portions of the Project Summary (as in "see page number, paragraph number, line number in Project Summary) or should this discussion be completely self-contained within the Merit Review Criteria Discussion?
2. Similar question in relation to the merit review criteria mentioning the SOPO and project management. Can the merit review criteria discussion refer to specific portions of the SOPO or PMP or should the merit review criteria discussion completely be self-contained?
Answer 9:
R1: In accordance with the table on Page 62 of the funding opportunity announcement (FOA), the Merit Review Criterion Discussion is to be submitted within the Technical Volume (20 page limit), subsequent to the Project Summary, so some references could be made between the two sections of this document.
R2: Contrary to the first inquiry and subsequent response, the second inquiry is somewhat different. The Merit Review Criteria Discussion (MRCD) is to be contained within the Technical Volume, which has a separate purpose than the SOPO or PMP. There are bulleted criterion that reference items to be discussed within the SOPO and PMP documents, but the information requested between the criterion and SOPO/PMP documents have different purposes. In other words, any overlap or references between the MRCD and the SOPO and/or the PMP should be minimal, as the MRCD is an element of a different "self-contained" document, the Technical Volume.
Question 10:
Q1: Regarding PMP Executive Summary Formatting, page 67 states to copy the "Project Narrative (Field 7)" into this area. Is the Project Narrative the same as the "Abstract/Summary"? What is "Field 7" referring to?
Q2: On page 63 for the Technical Volume in the Bibliography & References Cited Appendix, it states "Do not attach a file in field 8". Does this mean we are not to upload a separate bibliography onto the EERE Website 'Upload Forms' tab but to have it be part of the Technical Volume only?
Answer 10:
R1: The Executive Summary to be submitted within the PMP should be the same as the Abstract/Summary. Please disregard the reference to "Field 7".
R2: Please disregard the reference to "Field 8," and as referenced in the funding opportunity announcement, Section IV.D.2.a., please include the Bibiography & References Cited Appendix within the Technical Volume.