[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 93 (Monday, May 15, 1995)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 25872-25877]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-11701]



=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Institute of Standards and Technology

15 CFR Part 292

[Docket No. 950330085-5085-01]


Manufacturing Extension Partnership; Infrastructure Development 
Projects

AGENCY: National Institute of Standards and Technology, Commerce.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The purpose of the proposed rule would be to provide for the 
introduction of effective training, tools, practices, techniques and 
analyses, and information systems into the national manufacturing 
extension system and to codify the process by which NIST will solicit 
and select applications for cooperative agreements and financial 
assistance on projects for providing improved training, tools, 
practices, techniques and analyses, and information systems to the 
national manufacturing extension system. The intended effect is to 
increase the effectiveness of the extension system by providing 
improved infrastructure capability to promote the competitiveness of 
smaller U.S. manufacturers.

DATES: Comments on the proposed program must be received no later than 
June 14, 1995.

ADDRESSES: Comments on the proposed program must be submitted in 
writing to: MEP Infrastructure Development Projects Rule Comments, 
Attention Kathryn Leedy, National Institute of Standards and 
Technology, Building 301 Room C121, Gaithersburg, MD 20899-0001.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Kathryn Leedy, The Manufacturing Extension Partnership Infrastructure 
Development Projects Manager, 301-975-5020.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The purpose of the National Institute of 
Standards and Technology Manufacturing Extension Partnership is to 
promote the competitiveness of smaller U.S. manufacturers. This is done 
primarily through technical assistance provided by a network of 
nonprofit manufacturing extension centers. The purpose of this rule is 
to provide for the development of infrastructure capability to 
effectively support the national manufacturing extension system and to 
codify the process by which NIST will solicit and select applications 
for financial assistance, typically for cooperative agreements, on 
projects which have the benefit of enhancing the ability of the 
extension system to promote the competitiveness of smaller U.S. 
manufacturers. Proposals from qualified organizations will periodically 
be solicited for projects which accomplish any one of the following 
objectives:

    Development and Deployment of Training: To support the delivery 
of effective technical assistance to smaller manufacturers by 
trained service delivery personnel at the manufacturing extension 
centers. Specific categories of training and mechanisms of 
deployment may be specified in solicitations.
    Development of Technical Assistance Tools, Practices, 
Techniques, and Analyses: To support the initial development, 
implementation, and analysis of tools, techniques, or practices 
which will aid manufacturing extension organizations in providing 
effective services to smaller manufacturers. Specific categories of 
tools, techniques, practices, or types of analysis may be specified 
in solicitations.
    Information Infrastructure: To support and act as a catalyst for 
the development and implementation of information infrastructure 
services and pilots which will aid manufacturing extension 
organizations and smaller manufacturers in accessing the technical 
information they need or will accelerate the rate of adoption of 
electronic commerce. Specific industry sectors or subcategories of 
information infrastructure projects may be specified in 
solicitations.

    In general, eligible applicants for these projects include all for 
profit and nonprofit organizations including private companies, 
universities, community colleges, state governments, state technology 
programs, and independent nonprofit organizations. However, specific 
limitations on eligibility may be specified in solicitations.
    Announcements of solicitations will be made in the Commerce 
Business Daily.
    In accordance with the provisions of the National Institute of 
Standards and Technology Act (15 U.S.C. 272(b)(1) and (c)(3) and 2781), 
as amended, NIST will provide assistance to the national manufacturing 
extension system. Under the NIST Manufacturing Extension Partnership 
(MEP), NIST will periodically make merit-based awards to develop and 
deploy infrastructure improvements into extension centers and to other 
organizations for the development and deployment of training, tools and 
techniques, and information infrastructure. MEP assumes a broad 
definition of manufacturing, and recognizes a wide range of technology 
and concepts, including durable goods production; chemical, 
biotechnology, and other materials processing; electronic component and 
system fabrication; and engineering services associated with 
manufacturing, as lying within the definition of manufacturing.

Classification

    This notice relating to public property, loans, grants, benefits, 
or contracts is exempt from all requirements of section 553 of the 
Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. 553(a)(2)) including notice and 
opportunity for comment. Therefore, a Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 
is not required and was not prepared for this notice for purposes of 
the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 603 and 604). The program is 
not a major Federal action requiring an environmental assessment under 
the National Environmental Policy Act. This notice does not contain 
policies with Federalism implications sufficient to warrant preparation 
of a Federalism assessment under Executive Order 12612. This notice 
contains collection of information requirements subject to the 
Paperwork Reduction Act which have been approved by the Office of 
Management and Budget (OMB Control Numbers 0693-0010, 0348-0043 and 
0348-0044). Public reporting burden for this collection of information 
is estimated to average 40 hours per response, including the time for 
reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering the 
data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of 
information. Send comments regarding this burden estimate or any other 
aspect of this collection of information, including suggestions for 
reducing this burden, to the address shown above; and to the Office of 
Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, 
Washington, DC 20503.
    It has been determined that this rule is not significant for 
purposes of EO 12866.

List of Subjects in 15 CFR Part 292

    Grant programs--science and technology, Reporting and recordkeeping 
requirements, Science and technology, Technical assistance.

    [[Page 25873]] Dated: May 5, 1995.
Samuel Kramer,
Associate Director.

    For the reasons set out in the preamble, it is proposed that 15 CFR 
part 292 be added to read as follows:

PART 292--MANUFACTURING EXTENSION PARTNERSHIP; INFRASTRUCTURE 
DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS

Sec.
292.1  Program description.
292.2  Training development and deployment projects.
292.3  Technical tools, techniques, practices, and analyses 
projects.
292.4  Information infrastructure projects.
292.5  Proposal selection process.
292.6  Additional requirements.

    Authority: 15 U.S.C. 272 (b)(1) and (c)(3) and 2781.


Sec. 292.1  Program description.

    (a) Purpose. In accordance with the provisions of the National 
Institute of Standards and Technology Act (15 U.S.C. 272 (b)(1) and 
(c)(3) and 2781), as amended, NIST will provide financial assistance to 
develop the infrastructure of the national manufacturing extension 
system. Under the NIST Manufacturing Extension Partnership (MEP), NIST 
will periodically make merit-based awards to develop and deploy 
training capability and technical tools, techniques, practices, and 
analyses. In addition, NIST will develop and implement information 
infrastructure services and pilots. MEP assumes a broad definition of 
manufacturing, and recognizes a wide range of technology and concepts, 
including durable goods production; chemical, biotechnology, and other 
materials processing; electronic component and system fabrication; and 
engineering services associated with manufacturing, as lying within the 
definition of manufacturing.
    (b) Announcements of solicitations. Announcements of solicitations 
will be made in the Commerce Business Daily. Specific information on 
the level of funding available and the deadline for proposals will be 
contained in that announcement. in addition, any specific industry 
sectors or types of tools and techniques to be focused on will be 
specified in the announcement.
    (c) Proposal workshops. Prior to an announcement of solicitation, 
NIST may announce opportunities for potential applicants to learn about 
these projects through workshops. The time and place of the workshop(s) 
will be contained in a Commerce Business Daily announcement.
    (d) Indirect costs. The total dollar amount of the indirect costs 
proposed in an application under this program must not exceed the 
indirect cost rate negotiated and approved by a cognizant Federal 
agency prior to the proposed effective date of the award or 100 percent 
of the total proposed direct costs dollar amount in the application, 
whichever is less.
    (e) Proposal format. The proposal must contain both technical and 
cost information. The proposal page count shall include every page, 
including pages that contain words, table of contents, executive 
summary, management information and qualifications, resumes, figures, 
tables, and pictures. All proposals shall be printed such that pages 
are single-sided, with no more than fifty-five (55) lines per page. Use 
21.6 x 27.9 cm (8\1/2\'' x 11'') paper or A4 metric paper. Use an easy-
to-read font of not more than about 5 characters per cm (fixed pitch 
font of 12 or fewer characters per inch or proportional font of point 
size 10 or larger). Smaller type may be used in figures and tables, but 
must be clearly legible. Margins on all sides (top, bottom, left and 
right) must be at least 2.5 cm. (1''). Length limitations for proposals 
will be specified in solicitations. The applicant may submit a 
separately bound document of appendices, containing letters of support 
for the proposal. The proposal should be self-contained and not rely on 
the appendices for meeting criteria. Excess pages in the proposal will 
not be considered in the evaluation. Applicants must submit one signed 
original plus six copies of the proposal and Standard Form 424, 424A, 
and 424B (Rev 4/92), Standard Form LLL, and Form CD-511. Applicants for 
whom the submission of six copies presents financial hardship may 
submit one original and two copies of the application.
    (f) Content of proposal. (1) The proposal must, at a minimum, 
include the following:
    (i) An executive summary summarizing the planned project consistent 
with the Evaluation Criteria stated in this part.
    (ii) A description of the planned project sufficient to permit 
evaluation of the proposal in accordance with the proposal Evaluation 
Criteria stated in this part.
    (iii) A budget for the project which identifies all sources of 
funds and which breaks out planned expenditures by both activity and 
object class (e.g., personnel, travel, etc.).
    (iv) A description of the qualifications of key personnel who will 
be assigned to work on the proposed project.
    (v) A statement of worth that discusses the specific tasks to be 
carried out, including a schedule of measurable events and milestones.
    (vi) A completed Standard Form 424, 424A, and 424B (Rev 4-92) 
prescribed by the applicable OMB circular, Standard Form LLL, and Form 
CD-511, Certification Regarding Debarment, Suspension and Other 
Responsibility Matters; Drug-Free Workplace Requirements and Lobbying. 
SF-424, 424A, 424B (Rev 4-92), SF LLL, and Form CD-511 will not be 
considered part of the page count of the proposal.
    (2) The application requirements and the standard form requirements 
have been approved by OMB (OMB Control Number 0693-0010, 0348-0043 and 
0348-0044).
    (g) Applicable federal and departmental guidance. The 
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audits are dependent 
upon type of Recipient organization as follows:
    (1) Nonprofit organizations. (i) OMB Circular A-110--Uniform 
Administrative Requirements for Grants and Agreements with Institutions 
of Higher Education, Hospitals, and Other Nonprofit Organizations.
    (ii) OMB Circular A-122--Cost Principles for Nonprofit 
Organizations.
    (iii) 15 CFR Part 29b--Audit Requirements for Institutions of 
Higher Education and Other Nonprofit Organizations (implements OMB 
Circular A-133--Audits for Institutions of Higher Education and Other 
Nonprofit Organizations).
    (2) State/local governments. (i) 15 CFR Part 24--Uniform 
Administrative Requirements for Grants and Cooperative Agreements to 
State and Local Governments.
    (ii) OMB CIrcular A-87--Cost Principles for State and Local 
Governments.
    (iii) 15 CFR Part 29a--Audit Requirements for State and Local 
Governments (implements OMB Circular A-128--Audit of State and Local 
Governments).
    (3) Educational institutions. (i) OMB Circular A-110--
Administrative Requirements for Grants and Agreements with Institutions 
of Higher Education, Hospitals, and Other Nonprofit Organizations.
    (ii) OMB Circular A-21--Cost Principles for Educational 
Institutions.
    (iii) 15 CFR Part 29b--Audit Requirements for Institutions of 
Higher Education and Other Nonprofit Organizations (implements OMB 
Circular A-133--Audits for Institutions of Higher Education and Other 
Nonprofit Organizations). [[Page 25874]] 
    (4) For profit organizations. (i) OMB Circular A-110--
Administrative Requirements for Grants and Agreements with Institutions 
of Higher Education, Hospitals, and Other Nonprofit Organizations.
    (ii) 48 CFR Part 31--Federal Acquisition Regulation, Contract Cost 
Principles and Procedures.
    (iii) 15 CFR Part 29b--Audit Requirements for Institutions of 
Higher Education and Other Nonprofit Organizations (implements OMB 
Circular A-133).
    (h) Availability of forms and circulars. (1) Copies of forms 
referenced in this part may be obtained from the Manufacturing 
Extension Partnership, National Institute of Standards and Technology, 
Room C121, Building 301, Gaithersburg, MD 20899.
    (2) Copies of OMB Circulars may be obtained from the Office of 
Administration, Publications Office, 725 17th ST., NW., Room 2200, New 
Executive Office Building, Washington, DC 20503.


Sec. 292.2  Training development and deployment projects.

    (a) Eligibility criteria. In general, eligible applicants for these 
projects include all for profit and nonprofit organizations including 
universities, community colleges, state governments, state technology 
programs and independent nonprofit organizations. However, specific 
limitations on eligibility may be specified in solicitations. 
Organizations may submit multiple proposals under this category in each 
solicitation for unique projects.
    (b) Project objective. The purpose of these projects is to support 
the development and deployment of training programs which will aid 
manufacturing extension organizations in providing services to smaller 
manufacturers. While primarily directed toward the field agents/
engineers of the extension organizations, the training may also be of 
direct use by the smaller manufacturers themselves. Specific industry 
sectors to be addressed and sub-categories of training may be specified 
in solicitations. Examples of training topic areas include, but are not 
limited to, manufacturing assessment functions, business systems 
management, quality assurance assistance, and financial management 
activities. Examples of training program deployment include, but are 
not limited to, organization and conduct of training courses, 
development and conduct of train-the-trainer courses, preparation and 
delivery of distance learning activities, and preparation of self-
learning and technical-guideline materials. Projects must be completed 
within the scope of the effort proposed and should not require on-going 
federal support.
    (c) Award period. Projects initiated under this category may be 
carried out over a period of up to three years. If an application is 
selected for funding, DOC has no obligation to provide any additional 
future funding in connection with that award. Renewal of an award to 
increase funding or extend the period of performance is at the total 
discretion of DOC.
    (d) Matching requirements. Matching fund requirements for these 
proposals will be specified in solicitations including the breakdown of 
cash and in-kind requirements. For those projects not requiring 
matching funds, the presence of match will be considered in the 
evaluation under the Financial Plan criteria.
    (e) Training development and deployment projects evaluation 
criteria. Proposals will be evaluated and rated on the basis of the 
following criteria listed in descending order of importance:
    (1) Demonstration that the proposed project will meet the training 
needs of technical assistance providers and manufacturers in the target 
population. The target population must be clearly defined and the 
proposal must demonstrate that it understands the population's training 
needs within the proposed project area. The proposal should show that 
the efforts being proposed meet the needs identified. Factors that may 
be considered include: A clear definition of the target population, 
size and demographic distribution; demonstrated understanding of the 
target population's training needs; and appropriateness of the size of 
the target population and the anticipated impact for the proposed 
expenditure.
    (2) Development/deployment methodology and use of appropriate 
technology and information sources. The proposal must describe the 
technical plan for the development or deployment of the training, 
including the project activities to be used in the training 
development/deployment and the sources of technology and/or information 
which will be used to create or deploy the training activity. Sources 
may include those internal to the proposer or from other organizations. 
Factors that may be considered include: Adequacy of the proposed 
technical plan; strength of core competency in the proposed area of 
activity; and demonstrated access to relevant technical or information 
sources external to the organization.
    (3) Delivery and implementation mechanisms. The proposal must set 
forth clearly defined, effective mechanisms for delivery and/or 
implementation of proposed services to the target population. The 
proposal also must demonstrate that training activities will be 
integrated into and will be of service to the NIST Manufacturing 
Extension Centers. Factors that may be considered include: Ease of 
access to the training activity especially for MEP extension centers; 
methodology for disseminating or promoting involvement in the training 
especially within the MEP system; and demonstrated interest in the 
training activity especially by MEP extension centers.
    (4) Coordination with other relevant organizations. Wherever 
possible the project should be coordinated with and leverage other 
organizations which are developing or have expertise with similar 
training. If no such organizations exist, the proposal should show that 
this is the case. Applicants will need to describe how they will 
coordinate to allow for increased economies of scale and to avoid 
duplication. Factors that may be considered include: Demonstrated 
understanding of existing organizations and resources relevant to the 
proposed project; adequate linkages and partnerships with existing 
organizations and clear definition of those organizations' roles in the 
proposed activities; and that the proposed activity does not duplicate 
existing services or resources.
    (5) Program evaluation. The applicant should specify plans for 
evaluation of the effectiveness of the proposed training activity and 
for ensuring continuous improvement of the training. Factors that may 
be considered include: Thoroughness of evaluation plans, including 
internal evaluation for management control, external evaluation for 
assessing outcomes of the activity, and ``customer satisfaction'' 
measures of performance.
    (6) Management and organizational experience and plans. Applicants 
should specify plans for proper organization, staffing, and management 
of the implementation process. Factors that may be considered include: 
Appropriateness and authority of the governing or managing organization 
to conduct the proposed activities; qualifications of the project team 
and its leadership to conduct the proposed activity; soundness of any 
staffing plans, including recruitment, selection, training, and 
continuing professional development; and appropriateness of the 
organizational approach for carrying out the proposed 
activity. [[Page 25875]] 
    (7) Financial plan. Applicants should show the relevance and cost 
effectiveness of the financial plan for meeting the objectives of the 
project; the firmness and level of the applicant's total financial 
support for the project; and a plan to maintain the program after the 
cooperative agreement has expired. Factors that may be considered 
include: Reasonableness of the budget, both in income and expenses; 
strength of commitment and amount of the proposer's cost share, if any; 
effectiveness of management plans for control of budget; 
appropriateness of matching contributions; and plan for maintaining the 
program after the cooperative agreement has expired.


Sec. 292.3  Technical tools, techniques, practices, and analyses 
projects.

    (a) Eligibility criteria. In general, eligible applicants for these 
projects include all for profit and nonprofit organizations including 
universities, community colleges, state governments, state technology 
programs and independent nonprofit organizations. However, specific 
limitations on eligibility may be specified in solicitations. 
Organizations may submit multiple proposals under this category in each 
solicitation for unique projects.
    (b) Project objective. The purpose of these projects is to support 
the initial development, implementation, and analysis of tools, 
techniques, and practices which will aid manufacturing extension 
organizations in providing services to smaller manufacturers and which 
may also be of direct use by the smaller manufacturers themselves. 
Specific industry sectors to be addressed and sub-categories of tools, 
techniques, practices, and analyses may be specified in solicitations. 
Examples of tools, techniques, and practices include, but are not 
limited to, manufacturing assessment tools, benchmarking tools, 
business systems management tools, quality assurance assistance tools, 
financial management tools, software tools, practices for partnering, 
techniques for urban or rural firms, and comparative analysis of 
assessment methods. Projects must be completed within the scope of the 
effort proposed and should not require on-going federal support.
    (c) Award period. Projects initiated under this category may be 
carried out over a period of up to three years. If an application is 
selected for funding, DOC has no obligation to provide any additional 
future funding in connection with that award. Renewal of an award to 
increase funding or extend the period of performance is at the total 
discretion of DOC.
    (d) Matching requirements. Matching fund requirements for these 
proposals will be specified in solicitations including the breakdown of 
cash and in-kind requirements. For those projects not requiring 
matching funds, the presence of match will be considered in the 
evaluation under the Financial Plan criteria.
    (e) Tools, techniques, practices, and analyses projects evaluation 
criteria. Proposals from applicants will be evaluated and rated on the 
basis of the following criteria listed in descending order of 
importance:
    (1) Demonstration that the proposed project will meet the technical 
assistance needs of technical assistance providers and manufacturers in 
the target population. Target population must be clearly defined. The 
proposal must demonstrate that it understands the population's tool or 
technique needs within the proposed project area. The proposal should 
show that the efforts being proposed meet the needs identified. Factors 
that may be considered include: A clear definition of the target 
population, size and demographic distribution; demonstrated 
understanding of the target population's tools or technique needs; and 
appropriateness of the size of the target population and the 
anticipated impact for the proposed expenditure.
    (2) Development methodology and use of appropriate technology and 
information sources. The proposal must describe the technical plan for 
the development of the tool or resource, including the project 
activities to be used in the tool/resource development and the sources 
of technology and/or information which will be used to create the tool 
or resource. Sources may include those internal to the proposer or from 
other organizations. Factors that may be considered include: Adequacy 
of the proposed technical plan; strength of core competency in the 
proposed area of activity; and demonstrated access to relevant 
technical or information sources external to the organization.
    (3) Degree of integration with the manufacturing extension 
partnership. The proposal must demonstrate that the tool or resource 
will be integrated into and will be of service to the NIST 
Manufacturing Extension Centers. Factors that may be considered 
include: Ability to access the tool or resource especially for MEP 
extension centers; methodology for disseminating or promoting use of 
the tool or technique especially within the MEP system; and 
demonstrated interest in using the tool or technique especially by MEP 
extension centers.
    (4) Coordination with other relevant organizations. Wherever 
possible the project should be coordinated with and leverage other 
organizations which are developing or have expertise on similar tools, 
techniques, practices, or analyses. If no such organizations exist, the 
proposal should show that this is the case. Applicants will need to 
describe how they will coordinate to allow for increased economies of 
scale and to avoid duplication. Factors that may be considered include: 
Demonstrated understanding of existing organizations and resources 
relevant to the proposed project; adequate linkages and partnerships 
with exiting organizations and clear definition of those organizations' 
roles in the proposed activities; and that the proposed activity does 
not duplicate existing services or resources.
    (5) Program evaluation. The applicant should specific plans for 
evaluation of the effectiveness of the proposed tool or technique and 
for ensuring continuous improvement of the tool. Factors that may be 
considered include: Thoroughness of evaluation plans, including 
internal evaluation for management control, external evaluation for 
assessing outcomes of the activity, and ``customer satisfaction'' 
measures of performance.
    (6) Management experience and plans. Applicants should specify 
plans for proper organization, staffing, and management of the 
implementation process. Factors that may be considered include: 
Appropriateness and authority of the governing or managing organization 
to conduct the proposed activities; qualifications of the project team 
and its leadership to conduct the proposed activity; soundness of any 
staffing plans, including recruitment, selection, training, and 
continuing professional development; and appropriateness of the 
organizational approach for carrying out the proposed activity.
    (7) Financial plan. Applicants should show the relevance and cost 
effectiveness of the financial plan for meeting the objectives of the 
project; the firmness and level of the applicant's total financial 
support for the project; and a plan to maintain the program after the 
cooperative agreement has expired. Factors that may be considered 
include: Reasonableness of the budget, both in income and expenses; 
strength of commitment and amount of the proposer's cost share, if any; 
effectiveness of management plans for control of budget; 
appropriateness of matching contributions; and plan for maintaining the 
program after the cooperative agreement has expired. [[Page 25876]] 


Sec. 292.4   Information infrastructure projects.

    (a) Eligibility criteria. In general, eligible applicants for these 
projects include all for profit and nonprofit organizations including 
universities, community colleges, state governments, state technology 
programs and independent nonprofit organizations. However, specific 
limitations on eligibility may be specified in solicitations. 
Organizations may submit multiple proposals under this category in each 
solicitation for unique projects.
    (b) Project objective. The purpose of these projects is to support 
and act as a catalyst for the development and implementation of 
information infrastructure services and pilots. These projects will aid 
manufacturing extension organizations and smaller manufacturers in 
accessing the technical information they need or will accelerate the 
rate of adoption of electronic commerce. Specific industry sectors to 
be addressed or subcategories of information infrastructure projects 
include, but are not limited to, pilot demonstration of electronic data 
interchange in a supplier chain, implementation of an electronic 
information service for field engineers at MEP extension centers, and 
industry specific electronic information services for MEP centers and 
smaller manufacturers.
    (c) Award period. Projects initiated under this category may be 
carried out over a period of up to three years. If an application is 
selected for funding, DOC has no obligation to provide any additional 
future funding in connection with that award. Renewal of an award to 
increase funding or extend the period of performance is at the total 
discretion of DOC.
    (d) Matching requirements. Matching fund requirements for these 
proposals will be specified in solicitations including the breakdown of 
cash and in-kind requirements. For those projects not requiring 
matching funds, the presence of match will be considered in the 
evaluation under the Financial Plan criteria.
    (e) Information infrastructure projects evaluation criteria. 
Proposals from applicants will be evaluated and rated on the basis of 
the following criteria listed in descending order of importance:
    (1) Demonstration that the proposed project will meet the needs of 
the target customer base. The target customer base must be clearly 
defined and, in general, will be technical assistance providers and/or 
smaller manufacturers. The proposal should demonstrate a clear 
understanding of the customer base's needs within the proposed project 
area. The proposal should also show that the efforts being proposed 
meet the needs identified. Factors that may be considered include: A 
clear definition of the customer base, size and demographic 
distribution; demonstrated understanding of the customer base's needs 
within the project area; and appropriateness of the size of the 
customer base and the anticipated impact for the proposed expenditure.
    (2) Development plans and delivery/implementation mechanisms. The 
proposal must set forth clearly defined, effective plans for the 
development, delivery and/or implementation of proposed services to the 
customer base. The proposal must delineate the sources of information 
which will be used to implement the project. Sources may include those 
internal to the center (including staff expertise) or from other 
organizations. Factors that may be considered include: Adequacy of 
plans; potential effectiveness and efficiency of proposed delivery and 
implementation systems; demonstrated capacity to form effective 
linkages; partnerships necessary for success of the proposed activity; 
strength of core competency in the proposed area of activity; and 
demonstrated access to relevant technical or information sources 
external to the organization.
    (3) Coordination with other relevant organizations. Wherever 
possible the project should be coordinated with and leverage other 
organizations which are developing or have expertise within the project 
area. In addition, the project should demonstrate that it does not 
duplicate efforts which already are being performed by the private 
sector without government support. Applicants will need to describe how 
they will coordinate to allow for increased economies of scale and to 
avoid duplication. If the proposer will not be partnering with any 
other organizations, then the proposal should clearly explain why the 
project will be more successful if implemented as proposed. A proposal 
which makes a credible case for why there are no, or very limited, 
partnerships will not be penalized in evaluation. Factors that may be 
considered include: Demonstrated understanding of existing 
organizations and resources relevant to the proposed project; Adequate 
linkages and partnerships with relevant existing organizations; clear 
definition of the roles of partnering organizations in the proposed 
activities; and that the proposed activity does not duplicate existing 
services or resources.
    (4) Management and organizational experience and plans. Applicants 
should specify plans for proper organization, staffing, and management 
of the project. Factors that may be considered include: Appropriateness 
and authority of the governing or managing organization to conduct the 
proposed activities; qualifications of the project team and its 
leadership to conduct the proposed activity; soundness of any staffing 
plans, including recruitment, selection, training, and continuing 
professional development; and appropriateness of the organizational 
approach for carrying out the proposed activity.
    (5) Financial plan. Applicants should show the relevance and cost 
effectiveness of the financial plan for meeting the objectives of the 
project; the firmness and level of the applicant's total financial 
support for the project; and the ability of the project to continue 
after the cooperative agreement has expired without federal support. 
While projects that appear to require on-going public support will be 
considered, in general, they will be evaluated lower than those which 
show a strong ability to become self-sufficient. Factors that may be 
considered include: Reasonableness of the budget, both in income and 
expenses; strength of commitment and amount of the proposer's cost 
share, if any; effectiveness of management plans for control of budget; 
appropriateness of matching contributions; and plan for maintaining the 
program after the cooperative agreement has expired.
    (6) Evaluation. The applicant should specify plans for evaluation 
of the effectiveness of the proposed project and for ensuring 
continuous improvement. Factors that may be considered include: 
Thoroughness of evaluation plans, including internal evaluation for 
management control, external evaluation for assessing outcomes of the 
activity, and ``customer satisfaction'' measures of performance.


Sec. 292.5  Proposal selection process.

    The proposal evaluation and selection process will consist of three 
principal phases: Proposal qualifications; proposal review and 
selection of finalists; and award determination as follows:
    (a) Proposal qualification. All proposals will be reviewed by NIST 
to assure compliance with the proposal content and other basic 
provisions of this part. Proposals which satisfy these requirements 
will be designated qualified proposals; all others will be disqualified 
at this phase of the evaluation and selection process.
    (b) Proposal review and selection of finalists. NIST will appoint 
an evaluation panel to review and evaluate [[Page 25877]] all qualified 
proposals in accordance with the evaluation criteria and values set 
forth in this part. Evaluation panels will consist of NIST employees 
and in some cases other federal employees or non-federal experts who 
sign non-disclosure agreements. A site visit may be required to make 
full evaluation of a proposal. From the qualified proposals, a group of 
finalists will be numerically ranked and recommended for award based on 
this review.
    (c) Award determination. The Director of the NIST, or her/his 
designee, shall select awardees based on total evaluation scores, 
geographic distribution, and the availability of funds. All three 
factors will be considered in making an award. Upon the final award 
decision, a notification will be made to each of the proposing 
organizations.


Sec. 292.6  Additional requirements.

    Federal policies and procedures. Recipients and subrecipients are 
subject to all Federal laws and Federal and Department of Commerce 
policies, regulations, and procedures applicable to Federal financial 
assistance awards.

[FR Doc. 95-11701 Filed 5-12-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-13-M