Oil & Gas
1. How should the Industry Advisory Board (IAB) feedback be taken?
IAB feedback is meant to provide industry perspectives and is not part of the review criteria. The RFP is the base document for the reviewers and should be followed while developing proposals.
2. Is there a list of industry consortium members that are willing to partner on the proposal?
The OESI has shared a list of consortium members who have volunteered to share their areas of expertise and are available for collaboration. This list can be requested by emailing at [email protected].
3. Will a Cycle I awarded project team be better situated for Cycle II RFP?
Both cycles are independent of each other. The opportunity exists for a Cycle I Team to submit a proposal, but they must still address the Cycle II Pathway Issue Statement and Desired Outcomes. Cycle II is not an extension of Cycle I.
4. What is the scope of the OG-2.1 (direct and indirect measurement methodologies to detect imminent system failure which would likely result in a hydrocarbon release) pathway?
A methodology could be demonstrated onshore as part of the deliverable but should address the issue statement and desired outcomes for the US Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) as stated in the RFP. It is not limited to the surface, subsea, or inside of any assets. The idea is that direct or indirect measurements from an asset can be used to predict imminent failure or evolving failures. Specifically, the issue statement mentions the gap in all three, subsea, subsurface, and topside, for direct and indirect measurements.
5. For the OG- 2.1 pathway, is predicting system failure in wells of interest?
Yes, as long as it addresses the issue statement and desired outcomes.
6. For the OG- 2.1 pathway, what is the context of IAB feedback when referring to subsea leak detection?
The IAB feedback refers to everything from the wellhead to the production platform.
7. What is the scope of the OG- 2.1 pathway for developing effective methodologies?
Your proposal needs to make an impact and not just develop a methodology. Note that the last statement in the desired outcome does address hardware, but it isn’t the full scope of the pathway. The research could develop or improve existing methodologies, technologies, and hardware.
8. For OG-3.1 (develop methods to monitor asset health and assess life extension using in situ inspection and maintenance data), as it relates to global warming, we are at risk of hurricanes in the Gulf of Mexico. Is this something that would pertain to the request in the RFP?
When addressing the issue statement, it would be best to clarify what you are doing to meet the desired outcome. This pathway identifies a gap in methodologies to monitor and assess life extension using in situ inspection and maintenance data; thus, methodologies and technologies that address this gap for OCS infrastructure are valued. Metocean and sea level impacts from climate change are part of each infrastructure asset’s site condition, which would contribute to health and life extension feasibility.
9. For OG-3.1, Is a set of regulations that must be met part of the scope?
No, regulations are outside the scope of the RFP.
10. The OG-3.1 pathway and the previous (OG- 2.1) discuss historical data; where do I differentiate between the two pathways?
Pathway 2.1 is focused on leveraging historical data to determine deteriorated components or system conditions before failure to enable mitigation or intervention. Pathway 3.1 is focused on leveraging historical data to determine the remaining life of components or systems. Pathway 3.1 covers life extension where, as stated by the IAB feedback, the gap can many times be that there is no historical data for the whole life of the component or system since installation; thus, technology that can take in-situ measurement or maintenance data to assess remaining life is of value.
11. In OF-3.1, Is the desired outcome a methodology and not a technology?
Yes, if it leads to a technology that addresses the issue statement.
12. Are OG-7.3 (Regulatory / Industry Joint training courses) for training operators, BSEE, or both?
This pathway is training for both the operator and BSEE. The unique part of this pathway is an opportunity to enhance safety culture, shifting to risk management for increased (operator/BSEE) understanding.
13. For OG-4.4 (fatigue monitoring and history of equipment used in subsea and subsurface operations), can the proposal include permanent and retrievable equipment or only one type that addresses the issue statement?
It can consist of both. See the last sentence in the desired outcome.
14. Does OG-5.1 (improve mechanical integrity performance of offshore lifting equipment) cover personnel lift baskets?
The pathway is broader, and the desired outcomes mention “lifting equipment” versus personnel lift baskets. Mechanical lifting incidents are among the most frequently reported incidents on the OCS.
15. What is the target technology readiness level (TRL) for the tool/technology to be developed for OG-5.1?
One would want a solution at a high TRL level at or near the field testing stage to achieve the desired outcomes. Technologies and tools are mentioned as potential solutions to address this pathway.
16. For work scope OG-3.1. In Desired Outcomes, on page 26, the FFP states: The research may focus on one or more of the following infrastructure types: fixed jack-up structures, floating production systems, steel catenary risers, rigid risers, flowlines, umbilicals, pipelines, manifolds, jumpers, trees, mooring lines, tendons, and marine foundations. Is the term “fixed jack-up structures” correct, or can we interpret it as “fixed AND jack-up structures”?
There is a typo; there should be a comma after ‘fixed.’ The complete sentence should read, “The research may focus on one or more of the following infrastructure types: fixed, jack-structures, floating production systems,…….”
17. In the OG-3.1 section about the ‘Desired Outcome,’ the following infrastructure types are proposed: fixed jack-up structures, floating production systems, steel catenary risers, rigid risers, flowlines, umbilical, pipelines, manifolds, jumpers, trees, mooring lines, tendons, and marine foundations. Can OESI provide a more detailed and comprehensive description of the asset systems considered within the scope?
At this point, the OESI cannot provide further details beyond what is mentioned in the desired outcome.
18. Are there any existing databases or sources that can be leveraged for this project (OG-3.1), or is there an expectation to develop new data-gathering methods?
Many companies, third-party services, and US regulatory agencies like BSEE maintain databases. These can be leveraged. It is the responsibility of the proposer to secure access to these databases.
19. Regarding OG-3.1 Desired Outcome, also Section 6.1 - Evaluation Criteria. Would a developed technology be required to specifically apply to these structures, or would a more generic technology that might apply to several structures be acceptable?
The evaluation criteria will consider the specific applicability of the developed technology. The applicability could be for one or more structures mentioned in the desired outcome. Clarity in how the proposed technology applies to a specific structure or structure is encouraged.
20. In terms of the ‘novel approaches’ referred to in OG-3.1 (Develop methods to monitor asset health and assess life extension using in-situ inspection and maintenance data), how is ‘novel' defined? Are the results of the work, once funded, required to be published, or is it sufficient to demonstrate awareness of the state of the art?
Novel approaches refer to new or innovative approaches that do not exist. The proposer may publish novel approaches; however, publication is not a requirement. The proponent is expected to do a state-of-the-art review to demonstrate the novelty of the proposed approach.
21. Regarding OG-3.1 (Develop methods to monitor asset health and assess life extension using in-situ inspection and maintenance data), what equipment types are included in the term infrastructure? Is only underwater, out-of-sight infrastructure the scope?
It is stated in the Issue Statement of OG-3.1.
Wind Energy
1. What are the commonalities between different pathways (1.1, 2.1)? When there is a proposal that crosses pathways, is there a way to state that? Or do I need to stay with one pathway?
You will need to submit under both pathways and make sure that the proposal maps directly to the desired outcome for your proposed pathway. Look at how your proposal will be reviewed, which is published in the Consortium Operations Document (COD). It must be aligned with the issue statement and desired outcome for the exact pathways for which the proposal is submitted.
2. In W-1.1 (enhanced understanding of site condition, resulting in proper design basis (metocean, geotechnical, and seismic) and safe operation windows), will this framework be like software, or are we looking at a research framework?
The first three desired outcome bullets are particular, and there would need to be several deliverables beyond just a framework. Go to the desired outcome to see what is being asked for.
3. For W-1.4 (modeling, measurement, and forecasting of dynamic loading (ice, wind, wave, seismic, scour and rain) on turbine systems, components, and their connection to the grid), do I have to address all of the aspects (ice, wind, wave, ….)? Or can I address a specific aspect in depth?
One does not have to address all aspects (ice, wind, wave, …), but be specific in your proposal regarding your intent and how it addresses the issue statement and desired outcome.
4. In W-2.3 (improved understanding and risk analysis to reduce personnel transport and transfer risk), does that final sentence of the issue statement provide for a novel device or technology?
The final sentence refers to a risk analysis approach that could apply to all available personnel transport technologies. You must focus on the desired outcome, which is not just one personnel transfer method. There would need to be a clear demonstration to show how the risks are addressed for available tools or technology and how those compare to all available personnel transfer technologies that would be appropriate for the region or system type.
5. In W-2.3, is there a mandated TRL level for this?
Please see desired outcome point 2, “currently available personnel transport and transfer technologies”(TRL 9).
6. Does W-2.3 exclude a novel technology? Would it need to be supplemented with the other requests?
No, it does not. Please see the desired outcome point 4.
7. Around all three application areas (Oil and Gas, Wind, and Marine), would there be any priority given to cross-functionally?
In the Cross-Function (CF) COD Section, there is a place to discuss the CF, but be aware that the reviewers in Wind will not necessarily be the same as the pathway in Oil and Gas or Marine. Ensure that your CF is clear in your proposals. Ensure that you address the desired outcomes in each pathway under which you submit a proposal.
8. Is there any preference for Small Business, Women Owned Business, or academia?
All submitters are considered equal.
9. How do I disseminate that I have a technology and want to respond to a pathway with other potential team members within the consortium?
This request was addressed in our town hall, and we are offering our consortium members the opportunity to share their pathway interests and contact information with other consortium members. Please contact the OESI Operations Team at [email protected] if you have not already provided this information and wish to.
10. In W-2.3, Are you looking for risk analysis or tools and technology that mitigate risk?
Risk Analysis (RA) is the main ask, but it would have an element of mitigation. From the Desired Outcome, several required elements, including risk analysis, mitigations, and best practices, need to be demonstrated, including the awareness that they don’t all have the same personnel transfer approaches.
Marine Energy
1. In M-1.1 (mapping use cases and connecting small-scale marine energy solutions to enhance safety, security, and sustainability of offshore oil and gas operations), what is the final deliverable of a research paper with high-level details related to marine energy and its relevance to oil and gas?
Please read the RFP and ensure you address the issue statement and desired outcomes.
2. In M-1.1, what does Offshore and OCS entail?
It covers US Federal offshore waters (not state waters).
3. In M-1.1, What is the research focus, mapping what’s there vs. a unique solution?
The pathway is looking for specifics of one or more available marine energy solutions that offer feasibility, reliability, and viability for offshore Oil &Gas operations. It should also demonstrate how one or more marine energy solutions enable specific enhancement opportunities in offshore Oil and Gas operations.
4. In M-1.3 (identification of recommended minimum system and personnel safety considerations and potential standards for the design of marine energy technology), why are we targeting large-scale companies while small companies struggle?
Please disregard the first sentence of the RFP issue statement. The issue statement is focused on smaller, non-utility scale marine energy situations.
5. In M-1.3, are you discussing novel technologies, existing technologies, or devices (utility-scale)?
This pathway is focused on a non-utility scale.
6. In M-1.5 (development of real-time monitoring tools and data dashboards for operational performance and integrity of marine energy technology), regarding desired outcome #4 - can we do numerical testing vs. open water?
Please read desired outcome #4 carefully. Researchers should avoid repeating work that NREL has already done.
7. In M-1.1 (mapping use cases and connecting small-scale marine energy solutions to enhance safety, security, and sustainability of offshore oil and gas operations), what is OESI expecting in the proposal submission, and what would a final look like? I have read through the RFP and the consortium's operational document, but I still am unsure. Could you please explain what is required for a submission?
Please log in to your member's area using the link https://oesi.tamu.edu/oesi-project-proposal-submission-form/, and you will be able to see all required documents to complete your application.
Request for Proposals (RFP)
1. How often will proposals be solicited?
A request for proposals will be released at least annually.
2. How do I submit a proposal?
Proposal submissions will be conducted using the OESI website.
3. Who is eligible to submit proposals?
Any consortium member can lead a project proposal. Other qualified project team members are not required to be OESI members.
4. What is the timeline for potential RFPs?
The schedule will be posted on the OESI website on the Project Call page.
5. Do you encourage or discourage multiple applications for different pathways?
There are no restrictions; however, ensure you address the pathway-specific issue statement and desired outcomes.
6. What is the best way to fill out an online RFP application?
Please visit the RFP member area on the OESI website to see, download, print, and fill out the submission form. Once ready, you can fill out the online application. We recommend viewing the RFP Workshop videos on YouTube for more discussion. Please note that the reviewers will only have the RFP and your submission form for their evaluation; the IAB feedback is not part of the review criteria.
7. Is a budget cap for individual items, such as lab equipment, within the $50,000 to $100,000 range?
No, there is no budget cap for any individual items. However, the maximum funding request is up to $500,000. Please refer to page 11 of the RFP.
8. Can you confirm if award funding will go through the lead applicant only for distribution to any partner applicants? Or will all eligible application members listed be funded through OESI?
Awarded funding will go to the lead applicant, and fund distributions to team members are the responsibility of the lead applicant.
9. Can we submit two proposals addressing two different focus areas? Specifically, we are considering submissions under OG-T3 and M-T1.
Yes, you can submit multiple proposals.
10. Can the same OESI member lead multiple proposals?
Yes, these can be led by the same team or the same PI.
11. Can the proposals have common members?
Yes, proposals can have the same or some of the same members.
12. Is there any limitation on the number of organizations partnering to submit a proposal?
No, there are no limitations on the number of partnering organizations.
13. Is any partner required to be a U.S.-based entity, or can they be based in any country, provided there are no legal restrictions, like sanctions, etc.?
OESI funding is limited to US entities only. The lead organization must be a member of the OESI and a US-registered entity. Please register your organization at the link https://sam.gov/content/home
14. Does OESI have access to any data to support the development of the proposed solution?
We do not provide any assistance in developing proposals.
15. What technological readiness level (TRL) is expected for the proposed solutions by the end of the project period?
Please refer to FAQs for TRL.
16. How does OESI envision integrating newly developed methods or technologies with current asset management and assessment tools?
Please read the Desired Outcome for more details.
17. Are there specific frameworks or standards the proposed solution must be compatible with?
The proposed solution is required to comply with requirements and standards applicable to the US OCS. It may include but is not limited to regulations, recommended practices, and standards incorporated by reference in the BSEE regulations, etc.
18. Some of the already undertaken research that might be used in this proposal has been published in academic journals and is, therefore, in the public domain. Is this something that might hinder the application?
The proposal should be unique and innovative in addressing the issue statement and accomplishing the desired outcomes. Already completed work that supports the proposed approach should be clearly identified in the submitted proposal.
19. Can we apply for RFP-II funding for more than one Wind sub-category?
Yes, you can apply for more than one wind sub-category (pathway).
Conflict of Interest (COI)
1. Will there be any concern over conflicts of interests or advocacy when a company as a Co-PI of a proposal also serves as the vendor or service provider for a technology (e.g., managed pressure drilling or dual gradient drilling)?
It will not be a concern over conflict of interest (COI) as long as the research and learnings are not specific to a commercially available technology. The research and learning should be generally applicable to several technologies commercially available (Technical Merit: Broad applicability).
2. If a company participates in a project as a Co-PI, can it also receive research funding for it?
This is allowed as long as the entity is not from a sanctioned country. Research funding cannot be utilized to procure tools or materials from the affiliated institute of the PI/Co-PI (since that will be in violation of DOE COI policy as per Section VI of FAL 2022-02).
3. Does OESI view the participation of industry companies generally as a positive or negative for a proposal (e.g., closer to end-user application as a “pro” and more potential conflict of interests or advocacy as a “con”)?
Yes, OESI views the participation of the industry generally a positive as an end user part of the project team. Industry team member(s) would be a method to have the end user perspective on the project team. To make sure the compliance on the conflict of interest, please follow the attached TEES and DOE COI policy.
4. Where can I download the Conflict of Interest form?
The form can be downloaded on the Request for Proposal (RFP) pages as well as below:
Membership
2. Who can be an OESI member?
The Ocean Energy Safety Institute (OESI) membership is open to eligible, qualified and relevant organizations.
Industry Engagement
1. What are the ways in which industry can engage with OESI?
Participate in workshops, participate in project teams, participate as a member of the Industry Advisory Board (IAB), and participate as a technology transition partner.
Project Budget
1. Can a proposal request $450K for year 1, and another $400K for year 2? The total budget for the entire project including the extension exceeds $500K, but it is under $500K for the original duration of the project.
2. What is the policy regarding the spending of OESI funds for project proposals, particularly about spending outside the USA?
OESI funds must be spent within the USA. Money from the allocated budget can only be spent in the USA. Proposers submitting their project proposals must ensure that all expenditures, including goods, services, and project activities, are confined to the United States. Any proposal indicating the use of funds for activities or purchases outside the USA will not be considered compliant with OESI's funding policy.
Intellectual Property (IP)
1. Am I allowed to partner with an external industrial partner?
Yes, as long as the industry is not based in a sanctioned country.
1a. In the case of a partnership, how much money will be allowed to be sub awarded to the partner?
There is no limit. That is up to the PI and the project proposal team.
1b. Who will own the IP in the case of a collaboration?
Please review the Subaward Agreement form that was posted on the member portal for details.
1c. Can we have terms such as first right of refusal with the industry partner in the potential contract?
If right of refusal is related to partnering on the project, that is up to the organizations involved in the proposal. If right of refusal is related to the use of IP, then please review the Subaward Agreement form.
1d. Can the industrial partner provide the 20% cost share that is being asked as a requirement?
Yes, the distribution of the cost-share component among the proposed project team is up to the project team.
2. Is OESI solely looking for ocean-based solutions or would land solutions also be of interest?
Solutions may be applicable to land. However the solution must be directly applicable to ocean energy development and production (e.g., safer drilling mud handling and measurement system).
