Project Categorization

They are making 2 custom robotics projects for Ford. Specifically, we need to find any information in the contracts that might tell us certain parts or components could be considered R&D or not R&D? I provided a summary for a similar file below (See #1). Possible to draft a list of items like this so we can evaluate what parts of the design could capture QREs? I refer to ‘PQ’ as “Potentially Qualified” for R&D activities. It’d be helpful if you include the page number where you reference any of the facts as well. Utilize the 4-Part Test to determine qualification categorization.

QRE = Qualified Research
PQ = Potentially Qualified
NQ = Not Qualified
TU = Technical Uncertainty
POE = Process of Experimentation

1. ABB Quote S5107E – Proposal for Ford rotor assembly systems
   a. Design, build, and test (tryout) at ABB USA Auburn Hills, MI. Installation support and commissioning at Ford Mexico
   i. Separated into two purchase orders: 1) USABB for design and build (PQ); 2) MXABB for onsite activities (NQ)
   b. “Our learnings from Halewood will be directly applied to this program” – Potential NQ for adaptation of existing business component?
   i. Changes in scope (additional costs vs. what was planned) = Elements for dual-language tagging and HMI screens
   c. “Quote is based on set of assumptions. ABB may requote due to changes in scope”
   d. CLARIFICATIONS/DEVIATIONS – The system’s design is broken up in some cases and we can reasonably Q or NQ some of these efforts:
   i. (2) ABB providing standard components developed to meet or exceed industry standards for performance and reliability (PQ if TU and POE during design/build)
   ii. (18) HMI programming is based upon re-using existing user-defined templates that were programmed for the last program ABB has engineered (NQ – Shrinkback on recycling prior designs unless iterations were made following design tests)
   iii. (29) ABB will provide a new socket design for rundown of the lock nut (PQ)
   iv. (39) ABB retains all rights and interest to IP including documents, drawings, and specifications (PQ – Good news here)
   v. There were comments made about disputes with suppliers and if Ford provided incorrect specs. ABB not responsible for these as they are developing the design with expected current information.
   e. ACCEPTANCE PRIOR TO SHIPMENT AT ABB (PQ – Appears all risks are still with ABB here to develop a performant system)