Defense Production Act Title III for Lithium Ion Battery Production for Military Applications Project | Apply Online

FAQs: DPA Title III for Lithium Ion Battery Production for Military Applications (U.S. Air Force Research Laboratory)

1) What is this funding opportunity?

This was a U.S. Air Force Research Laboratory funding opportunity under the Defense Production Act (DPA) Title III focused on lithium-ion battery production for military applications. The goal was to strengthen domestic industrial capacity for advanced lithium-ion battery manufacturing tailored to defense needs.

2) What was the main purpose of the project?

The central purpose was to stand up or expand a long-term, viable, world-class U.S.-based manufacturer that could deliver high energy density lithium-ion cells at scale with consistent performance. The emphasis was on building a dependable domestic supply and production base that could meet military expectations over the long run.

3) Was this meant to fund basic lab research only?

No. The intent was explicitly not limited to lab-scale research. The opportunity emphasized establishing or expanding manufacturing capability that can reliably produce cells at scale, with consistent quality and performance.

4) Why was domestic manufacturing capacity emphasized?

The government emphasis was on a dependable U.S. supply and production base. The desired outcome was an industrial capability that can satisfy military customer expectations for reliability, quality control, on-time delivery, and competitive pricing over the long term.

5) What battery technology area did this opportunity focus on?

The opportunity focused on advanced lithium-ion battery manufacturing, specifically high energy density lithium-ion cells suitable for demanding defense applications.

6) What cell performance targets were stated?

The target performance window was approximately 250 Wh/kg energy density while sustaining 250 W/kg continuous power output at a 1C discharge rate. This combination of energy density and sustained output was highlighted as important for military platforms where endurance, weight, and steady power delivery matter.

7) What does the 1C discharge rate reference mean in this announcement?

The announcement referenced performance at a 1C discharge rate in connection with sustaining continuous power output. The key point in the opportunity description is that the cells were expected to deliver steady power in that operating condition while maintaining the stated performance window.

8) What types of defense applications were the batteries intended to support?

The batteries were intended to support long-endurance unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs), dismounted soldier power needs, long-endurance autonomous systems, and tactical vehicles.

9) What kinds of real-world expectations were described for the batteries?

In practical terms, the cells were expected to combine high energy storage per unit mass with the ability to deliver steady power without rapid degradation, while also meeting military expectations around safety, ruggedness, and consistent operation in real-world conditions.

10) What is the Funding Opportunity Number for this program?

The Funding Opportunity Number provided was BAA 11 17 PKM.

11) What type of funding was this categorized as?

It was categorized as discretionary funding.

12) What funding instruments were expected under this opportunity?

The listed funding instruments were cooperative agreements and grants, indicating an approach where the government expected an active partnership structure rather than a hands-off procurement.

13) What activity category did the opportunity fall under?

The activity category was listed as science and technology and other research and development.

14) What CFDA program was associated with this opportunity?

The opportunity was tied to CFDA 12.800, the Air Force Defense Research Sciences Program.

15) How many awards were anticipated?

The program anticipated making up to five awards.

16) What was the estimated total funding level?

The estimated total funding level was $48,800,000.

17) Was cost sharing or matching required?

Yes. A cost sharing or matching requirement applied, meaning recipients were expected to contribute their own funds or resources alongside federal investment. The description notes this is common in DPA Title III efforts aimed at catalyzing durable industrial capability rather than fully funding it through federal dollars alone.

18) Who was eligible to apply?

Eligibility was described as unrestricted and open to any type of entity, subject to any clarifications contained in the full announcement.

19) When was the opportunity posted and created?

The opportunity was posted on July 8, 2011, and the listing indicates it was created on August 9, 2011.

20) What was the original closing date and was it extended?

The opportunity originally closed on August 22, 2011. The closing date was later extended to September 22, 2011.

21) When was the archive date?

The archive date was October 22, 2011.

22) Who was the point of contact for access issues or support?

The listed point of contact was Cathie Stropki, Agreements Negotiator.

23) What contact phone number was provided?

The phone number provided for the point of contact was 937-656-9003.

24) What was the government looking for beyond technical performance?

Beyond meeting the stated cell performance targets, the government emphasized long-term manufacturing viability and the ability to deliver at scale with consistent performance, along with reliability, strong quality control, on-time delivery, and competitive pricing.

25) What is the broad takeaway for prospective applicants from the description provided?

The description signals that proposals would need to align with both (1) the specific high energy density and sustained power performance window for lithium-ion cells intended for defense platforms and (2) the industrial base objective of establishing or expanding a U.S.-based manufacturer capable of consistent, scalable production that meets military customer expectations.