1

6/22/2012

ANNOUNCEMENT OF FEDERAL FUNDING OPPORTUNITY (FFO)

Manufacturing Extension Partnership (MEP) Centers for Arizona, Maryland, and Rhode 

Island

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

 Federal Agency Name: National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), United 

States Department of Commerce (DoC)

 Funding Opportunity Title: Manufacturing Extension Partnership (MEP) Centers for 

Arizona, Maryland and Rhode Island

 Announcement Type: Initial

 Funding Opportunity Number: 2012-NIST-MEP-AZ-MD-RI-01

 Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance (CFDA) Number: 11.611

 Dates: All proposals, paper and electronic, must be received no later than 5:00 p.m. 

Eastern Time on August 20, 2012. Proposals received after this deadline will not be 

reviewed or considered. Review, selection, and award processing is expected to be 

completed in September 2012. The approximate start date for awards under this FFO is 

expected to be October 1, 2012.

 Proposal Submission Address:

- For electronic submission - Applicants should follow the Application Instructions provided 

at www.grants.gov

- Paper Submission: Diane Henderson

National Institute of Standards and Technology

Manufacturing Extension Partnership

100 Bureau Drive, Mail Stop 4800

Gaithersburg, MD 20899-4800

Phone: 301-975-5105

 Funding Opportunity Description: NIST invites proposals from eligible proposers for 

funding projects that provide manufacturing extension services to primarily small- and 

medium-sized manufacturers in the United States. Specifically, NIST seeks proposals for

projects to establish MEP centers in Arizona, Maryland and Rhode Island. 

 Total Amount to be Awarded: Approximately $3,000,000 for new awards.

 Anticipated Amounts: NIST anticipates funding three (3) proposals at the level of up to

$1,000,000 for the state of Arizona, up to $1,000,000 for the state of Maryland and up to 

$1,000,000 for the state of Rhode Island. The projects awarded under this FFO will have a 

budget and performance period of one (1) year. Each award may be renewed on an annual 
2

basis subject to the review requirements described in 15 C.F.R. 290.8. Renewal of each

project shall be at the sole discretion of NIST and shall be based upon satisfactory 

performance, priority of the need for the service, existing legislative authority, and availability 

of funds. 

 Funding Instrument: Cooperative Agreement

 Who Is Eligible: The eligibility requirements given in this section will be used in lieu of 

those published in the MEP regulations found at 15 C.F.R. part 290, specifically 15 C.F.R. § 

290.5(a)(1). Each award recipient must be a U.S.-based nonprofit institution or 

organization. For the purpose of this FFO, nonprofit organizations include, but are not 

limited to, universities and state and local governments. An eligible organization may work 

individually or include proposed subawards or contracts with others in a project proposal, 

effectively forming a team or consortium. Existing MEP centers are eligible.

 Cost Sharing Requirements: This Program requires a non-Federal cost share of at least 

50 percent of the total project cost for the first year of operation. Any renewal funding of an 

award will require non-Federal cost sharing as follows: 

Year of Center Operation Maximum NIST Share Minimum Non-Federal 

Share

1-3 1⁄2 1⁄2

4 2/5 3/5

5 and beyond 1/3 2/3

 Webinar Information Session. NIST MEP will hold an information session for 

organizations considering applying to this opportunity. An information session in the form of 

a webinar will be held approximately 14 business days after publication in the Federal 

Register. The exact date and time of the webinar will be posted on the MEP website at

www.nist.gov/mep. Organizations wishing to participate in the webinar must sign up by 

contacting Diane Henderson at diane.henderson@nist.gov.

FULL ANNOUNCEMENT TEXT

I. Funding Opportunity Description

NIST invites proposals from eligible proposers for funding three (3) separate MEP centers to 

provide manufacturing extension services to primarily small- and medium-sized manufacturers 

in three separate locations: Arizona, Maryland, and Rhode Island. These MEP centers will 

become part of the MEP national system of extension service providers, currently comprised of 

more than 400 centers and field offices located throughout the United States and Puerto Rico. 

The objective of an MEP center is to provide manufacturing extension services that enhance 

productivity, innovative capacity, and technological performance, and strengthen the global 

competitiveness of primarily small- and medium-sized U.S.-based manufacturing firms in its 

service region. Manufacturing extension services are provided by utilizing the most cost 

effective, local, leveraged resources for those services through the coordinated efforts of a 

regionally-based MEP center and local technology resources. The management and 

operational structure of an MEP center is not prescribed, but should be based upon the 
3

characteristics of the manufacturers in the region and locally available resources with 

demonstrated experience working with manufacturers. 

It is not the intent of this program that the centers perform research and development.

Information regarding MEP and these centers is available at www.nist.gov/mep. 

The statutory authority for the MEP Program is 15 U.S.C. 278k, as implemented in 15 C.F.R. 

part 290.

II. Award Information

1. Funding Instrument

The funding instrument that will be used for each award is a cooperative agreement. The 

nature of NIST’s “substantial involvement” will generally be collaboration between MEP and the 

recipient organizations. This includes MEP collaboration with a recipient on its progress and 

approving changes in the statement of work. Additional forms of substantial involvement that 

may arise are described in the Department of Commerce (DoC) Grants and Cooperative 

Agreements Interim Manual, which is available at 

http://www.osec.doc.gov/oam/grants_management/policy/doc_grants_manual/default.htm

2. Funding Availability

NIST anticipates funding three (3) proposals: one (1) at the level of up to $1,000,000 for an 

MEP Center in the state of Arizona, one (1) proposal at the level of up to $1,000,000 for an MEP 

Center in the state of Maryland, and one (1) proposal at the level of up to $1,000,000 for an 

MEP Center in the state of Rhode Island. The projects awarded under this FFO will have a 

budget and performance period of one (1) year. Each award may be renewed on an annual 

basis subject to the review requirements described in 15 C.F.R. 290.8. Renewal of each project 

shall be at the sole discretion of NIST and shall be based upon satisfactory performance, priority 

of the need for the service, existing legislative authority, and availability of funds. 

III. Eligibility Information 

1. Eligible Proposers

The eligibility requirements given in this section will be used in lieu of those published in the 

MEP regulations found at 15 C.F.R. part 290, specifically 15 C.F.R. § 290.5(a)(1). Each award 

recipient must be a U.S.-based nonprofit institution or organization. For the purpose of this 

FFO, nonprofit organizations include, but are not limited to, universities and state and local 

governments. An eligible organization may work individually or include proposed subawards or 

contracts with others in a project proposal, effectively forming a team. Existing MEP centers are 

eligible.
4

2. Cost Sharing or Matching Requirement

Non-Federal cost sharing of at least 50 percent of the total project costs is required for the first 

year of operation. Any renewal funding of an award will require non-Federal cost sharing as 

follows:

Year of Center Operation Maximum NIST Share Minimum Non-Federal Share

1-3 1⁄2 1⁄2

4 2/5 3/5

5 and beyond 1/3 2/3

Non-Federal cost sharing is that portion of the project costs not borne by the Federal 

Government. The proposer’s share of the MEP center expenses may include cash, services, 

and third party in-kind contributions, as described at 15 C.F.R. Sec. 14.23 or 24.24, as 

applicable, and the MEP program rule, 15 C.F.R. Sec. 290.4(c). No more than 50% of the 

proposer’s total non-Federal cost share may be third party in-kind contributions of part-time 

personnel, equipment, software, rental value of centrally located space, and related 

contributions, per 15 C.F.R. Sec. 290.4(c)(5). The source and detailed rationale of the cost 

share, including cash, full- and part-time personnel, and in-kind donations, must be documented 

in the budget submitted with the proposal and will be considered as part of the evaluation review 

under Section V.1.d.iv. of this FFO.

All non-Federal cost share contributions require a letter of commitment signed by an authorized 

official from each source.

Any cost sharing must be in accordance with the “cost sharing or matching” provisions of 15 

C.F.R. Part 14, Uniform Administrative Requirements for Grants and Cooperative Agreements 

with Institutions of Higher Education, Hospitals, Other Non-Profit, and Commercial 

Organizations or 15 C.F.R. Part 24, Uniform Administrative Requirements for Grants and 

Cooperative Agreements to State and Local Governments, as applicable.

As with the Federal share, any proposed costs included as non-Federal cost sharing must be an 

allowable/eligible cost under this Program and the following applicable Federal cost principles: 

1) Institutions of Higher Education: 2 C.F.R. part 220 (OMB Circular A-21); 2) Nonprofit 

Organizations: 2 C.F.R. part 230 (OMB Circular A-122); and 3) State, Local and Indian Tribal 

Governments: 2 C.F.R part 225.

As with the Federal share, any proposed non-Federal cost sharing will be made a part of the 

cooperative agreement award and will be subject to audit if the project receives MEP funding. 

3. Other

Pre-Proposals. NIST is not accepting pre-proposals or white papers under this MEP funding 

opportunity.

IV. Application/Proposal and Submission Information

1. Address to Request Application Package 
5

The standard application package, consisting of the standard forms, i.e., SF-424, SF-424A, SF424B, SF-LLL, and the CD-511, is available at www.grants.gov. The standard application 

package may also be requested by contacting:

Diane Henderson

National Institute of Standards and Technology 

Manufacturing Extension Partnership

100 Bureau Drive, Mail Stop 4800

Gaithersburg, MD 20899-4800

Phone: 301-975-5105

2. Content and Format of Application/Proposal Submission – The requirements given in 

this section of this FFO will be used in lieu of those given in the MEP regulations 

found at 15 C.F.R. part 290, specifically 15 C.F.R. § 290.5(a).

The NIST MEP Operating Plan Guidelines are a resource framework for proposers to consider 

in developing their proposal. These guidelines are available at http://nist.gov/mep/. Complete 

proposals must, at a minimum, include the following forms and documents:

a. Required Forms and Documents

(1) SF-424, Application for Federal Assistance. The SF-424 must be signed by an 

authorized representative of the proposer organization. The FFO number 2012-NISTMEP-AZ-MD-RI-01 must be identified in item 12 of the SF-424. The list of certifications 

and assurances referenced in item 21 of the SF-424 is contained in the SF-424B. 

(2) SF-424A, Budget Information - Non-Construction Programs (The budget should reflect 

anticipated expenses for no more than five (5) years, considering all potential cost 

increases, including cost of living adjustments.) 

(3) SF-424B, Assurances - Non-Construction Programs 

(4) CD-511, Certification Regarding Lobbying 

(5) SF-LLL, Disclosure of Lobbying Activities (if applicable)

(6) Technical Proposal. The Technical Proposal is a word-processed document not 

exceeding 25 pages responsive to the program description (see Section I. of this FFO) 

and the evaluation criteria (see Section V.1. of this FFO). It should contain the following 

sections: 

(a) Executive Summary. The executive summary should briefly describe the

proposed project, consistent with the evaluation criteria (see Section V.1. of this 

FFO).

(b) Project Narrative. A description of the proposed project, sufficient to permit 

evaluation of the proposal, in accordance with the evaluation criteria (see Section 

V.1. of this FFO).

(c) Qualifications. A description of the qualifications and proposed center 

operational or management activities of key personnel who will be assigned to 

work on the proposed project.

(d) Statement of Work. The statement of work should discuss the specific tasks to 

be carried out, including a schedule of measurable events and milestones.

(e) Integration Plans. Include plans for integration into the MEP national system 

and linkages to appropriate national resources.
6

(f) Past Performance (for existing or previous MEP center proposers only). 

Proposals from existing or previous MEP centers or partners must provide 

specific information that addresses whether the proposer’s past performance with 

the program is indicative of expected performance under a possible new award 

and describing how and why performance is expected to be the same or 

different.

(g) Additional Information. In addition, the proposal must contain the following 

requirements, which are being included in lieu of those identified in 15 C.F.R.

290.5(a)(3), which are:

 

i. A plan for the allocation of intellectual property rights associated with any 

invention or copyright which may result from the involvement in the Center’s 

technology transfer or research activities consistent with the conditions of 15

C.F.R. 290.9;

ii. A statement that provides adequate assurances that the host organization will 

contribute the required cost share. (Although the MEP regulation, 15 C.F.R.

290.5 (a)(3)(ii), states that applicants should provide evidence that the 

proposed Center will be self-supporting after six years, this requirement is no 

longer in effect.)

iii. A statement describing linkages to industry, government, and educational 

organizations within its service region.

iv. A statement defining the initial service region including a statement of the 

constituency to be served and the level of service to be provided, as well as 

out-year plans.

v. A statement agreeing to focus the mission of the Center on technology 

transfer activities within the region but not to exclude companies based on

state boundaries.

vi. A proposed plan for the annual evaluation of the success of the Center by 

NIST, including appropriate criteria for consideration and weighting those 

criteria.

vii. A plan to focus the Center’s technology emphasis on areas consistent with 

NIST technology research programs and organizational expertise. 

viii. A description of the planned Center sufficient to permit NIST to evaluate the 

proposal in accordance with 15 C.F.R. 290.6.

(7) Budget Narrative. There is no set format for the Budget Narrative; however, it should 

provide a detailed breakdown of each of the object class categories as reflected on the 

SF-424A. It should include:

(a) All expenses for year one (1) of operation and identify all sources of funds to pay 

these expenses.

(b) A budget outline for annual costs and sources of funds for potential years two (2) 

through five (5) at no more than $1,000,000 per year in NIST support for an MEP 

center in Arizona, at no more than $1,000,000 per year in NIST support for an MEP 

center in Maryland, and at no more than $1,000,000 per year in NIST support for an 

MEP center in Rhode Island. 

(8) Letters of Commitment for Non-Federal Cost Sharing. Letters of commitment from all 

sources of the non-Federal cost sharing are required. Letters of commitment do not 

count toward the page limit. General “letters of support” are not required and will be 
7

counted toward the page limit for the Technical Proposal if included in the proposal. A 

summary listing of this support is allowed, but will count toward the page limit. It is 

inappropriate for any Federal employee to provide critique or feedback on project ideas, 

etc., and it is also inappropriate to ask Federal employees for a letter of support.

(9) Indirect Cost Rate Agreement. If indirect costs are included in the proposed budget, 

provide a copy of the approved negotiated agreement if this rate was negotiated with a 

cognizant Federal audit agency. If the rate was not established by a cognizant Federal 

audit agency, provide a statement to this effect. Successful proposers will be required to 

obtain such a rate.

If submitting the proposal electronically via Grants.gov, items IV.2.a.(1) through IV.2.a.(5) above 

are part of the standard application package in Grants.gov and can be completed through the 

download application process. Items IV.2.a.(6) through IV.2.a.(9) must be completed and 

attached by clicking on “Add Attachments” found in item 15 of the SF-424, Application for 

Federal Assistance. This will create a zip file that allows for transmittal of the documents 

electronically via Grants.gov. Proposers should carefully follow specific Grants.gov instructions 

at www.grants.gov to ensure the attachments will be accepted by the Grants.gov system. A 

receipt from Grants.gov indicating a proposal is received does not provide information about 

whether attachments have been received.

If submitting a proposal by paper, all of the required proposal documents should be submitted in 

the order listed above.

b. Proposal Format

(1) Double-sided copy. For paper submissions, print on both sides of the paper (front to 

back counts as two (2) pages).

(2) E-mail submissions. Will not be accepted.

(3) Facsimile submissions (fax). Will not be accepted.

(4) Figures, graphs, images, and pictures. Should be of a size that is easily readable 

or viewable and may be landscape orientation.

(5) Font. Easy to read font (10-point minimum). Smaller type may be used in figures and 

tables but must be clearly legible.

(6) Line spacing. Single.

(7) Margins. One (1) inch top, bottom, left, and right.

(8) Number of paper copies. For paper submissions, one (1) signed stapled original and 

two (2) stapled copies. If original proposal is in color, the two (2) copies must also be 

in color. If submitting electronically via Grants.gov, paper copies are not required.

(9) Page layout. Portrait orientation only (except figures, graphs, and pictures (see

Section IV.2.b.(4)).

(10) Page Limit. Twenty-five (25) pages.
8

Page limit includes: Table of contents (if included), Technical Proposal with all 

required sections, resumes, figures, graphs, tables, images, and pictures. 

Page limit excludes: SF-424, Application for Federal Assistance; SF-424A, Budget 

Information – Non-Construction Programs; SF-424B, Assurances – Non-Construction 

Programs; SF-LLL, Disclosure of Lobbying Activities; CD-511, Certification Regarding 

Lobbying; Budget Narrative; letters of commitment for non-Federal cost sharing; and 

Indirect Cost Rate Agreement.

(11) Page numbering. Number pages sequentially.

(12) Paper size. 21.6 by 27.9 centimeters (8 1⁄2 by 11 inches).

(13) Proposal language. English.

(14) Staple paper submission. For paper submissions, staple the original signed 

proposal and each of the two (2) copies securely with one (1) staple in the upper lefthand corner.

(15) Typed document. All proposals, including forms, must be typed.

3. Submission Dates and Times

All proposals must be received by NIST no later than 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time on August 20, 

2012. This deadline applies to all modes of proposal submission, including courier services, 

express mailing, and electronic. 

Proposals not received by the specified due date and time will not be considered and will be 

returned without review. NIST determines whether proposals submitted by paper have been 

timely received by the deadline by the date and time receipt they are physically received by 

NIST at its Gaithersburg, Maryland campus. For electronic submissions, NIST will consider the 

date and time stamped on the validation generated by www.grants.gov as the official 

submission time.

NIST strongly recommends that proposers do not wait until the last minute to submit a proposal. 

NIST will not make any allowances for late submissions, including but not limited to incomplete 

Grants.gov registration, delays in mail delivery caused by Federal Government security 

screening for U.S. Postal Service mail, or for delays by guaranteed express mailing and/or 

couriers. To avoid any potential processing backlogs due to last minute Grants.gov 

registrations, proposers are highly encouraged to start their Grants.gov registration process at 

least four (4) weeks prior to the proposal due date.

Important: All proposers, both electronic and paper submitters, should be aware that adequate 

time must be factored into proposers’ schedules for delivery of their proposal. Submitters of 

electronic proposals are advised that volume on Grants.gov may be extremely heavy on the 

deadline date, and if Grants.gov is unable to accept proposals electronically in a timely fashion, 

proposers are encouraged to exercise their option to submit proposals in paper format. 

Submitters of paper proposals should allow adequate time to ensure a paper proposal will be 

received on time, taking into account that Federal Government security screening for U.S. 
9

Postal Service mail may delay receipt of mail for up to two (2) weeks and that guaranteed 

express mailings and/or couriers are not always able to fulfill their guarantees.

In the event of a natural disaster that interferes with timely proposal submissions, NIST may 

issue an amendment to this FFO to change the proposal submission due date.

4. Executive Order 12372 (Intergovernmental Review of Federal Programs) 

Proposals under this Program are not subject to Executive Order 12372.

5. Funding Restrictions

No special restrictions apply. 

6. Other Submission Requirements 

a. Proposals may be submitted by paper or electronically.

(1) Paper proposals must be submitted in triplicate (an original and two copies) and sent to:

Diane Henderson

National Institute of Standards and Technology 

Manufacturing Extension Partnership

100 Bureau Drive, Mail Stop 4800

Gaithersburg, MD 20899-4800

Phone: 301-975-5105

(2) Electronic proposals must be submitted via Grants.gov at www.grants.gov. Submitters of 

electronic proposals should carefully follow specific Grants.gov instructions to ensure the 

attachments will be accepted by the Grants.gov system. A receipt from Grants.gov 

indicating a proposal is received does not provide information about whether 

attachments have been received. For further information or questions regarding 

applying electronically for the 2012-NIST-MEP-AZ-MD-RI-01 announcement, contact 

Christopher Hunton by phone at 301-975-5718 or by e-mail at 

christopher.hunton@nist.gov.

Proposers are strongly encouraged to start early and not wait until the approaching due 

date before logging on and reviewing the instructions for submitting a proposal through 

Grants.gov. The Grants.gov registration process must be completed before a new 

registrant can apply electronically. If all goes well, the registration process takes three 

(3) to five (5) business days. If problems are encountered, the registration process can 

take up to two (2) weeks or more. Proposers must have a Dun and Bradstreet Data 

Universal Numbering System (DUNS) number and must be registered with the Federal 

Central Contractor Registry and with a Credential Provider, as explained on the 

Grants.gov Web site. After registering, it may take several days or longer from the initial 

log-on before a new Grants.gov system user can submit a proposal. Only authorized 

individual(s) will be able to submit the proposal, and the system may need time to 

process a submitted proposal. Proposers should save and print the proof of submission 

they receive from Grants.gov. If problems occur while using Grants.gov, the proposer is 

advised to (a) print any error message received and (b) call Grants.gov directly for 
10

immediate assistance. If calling from within the United States or from a U.S. territory, 

please call 800-518-4726. If calling from a place other than the United States or a 

U.S. territory, please call 606-545-5035. Assistance from the Grants.gov Help Desk will 

be available around the clock every day, with the exception of Federal holidays. Help 

Desk service will resume at 7:00 a.m. Eastern Time the day after Federal holidays. For 

assistance using Grants.gov, you may also contact support@grants.gov.

Information essential to successful submission of proposals on the Grants.gov system is 

detailed in the For Applicants section found in red on the left side of the www.grants.gov 

home page, and all potential proposers should pay close attention to the information 

contained therein. The All About Grants, Applicant FAQs, and Submit Application FAQs 

sections found under the Applicant Resources option are particularly important.

Refer to important information in Section IV.3. Submission Dates and Times, to help ensure 

your proposal is received on time. 

b. Any amendments to this FFO will be announced through Grants.gov. Proposers can sign 

up for Grants.gov FFO amendments or alternatively may call Diane Henderson at 301-975-

5105, to request copies. Since this opportunity is also announced in the Federal Register, 

any amendments to that notice will be published in the Federal Register. Copies of the 

Federal Register announcement and any amendments published in the Federal Register 

may also be requested from Diane Henderson. 

V. Application/Proposal Review Information

The evaluation criteria, selection factors and review and selection process provided in this 

section will be used for this competition in lieu of that provided in the MEP regulations found at

15 C.F.R. part 290, specifically 15 C.F.R. §§ 290.6 and 290.7

(http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/cgi/t/text/textidx?c=ecfr&sid=8652afebd3b81ef821cdaba9a0b5197c&rgn=div5&view=text&node=15:1.2.2.10.

13&idno=15):

1. Evaluation Criteria

The proposals will be evaluated based on the evaluation criteria described below, which are set 

in the context of the proposer’s ability to align the proposal for accomplishing the objectives of

NIST MEP’s Next Generation Strategy: Continuous Improvement, Technology Acceleration, 

Supplier Development, Sustainability and Workforce. The NIST MEP Next Generation Strategy 

can be found at www.nist.gov/mep.

The evaluation criteria that will be used in evaluating proposals are as follows:

a. Identification of Target Firms in Proposed Region. Does the proposal clearly address 

the entire service region, providing for a large enough population of target firms of smalland medium-sized manufacturers that the proposer understands and can serve, and which 

is not presently served by an existing Center?

(1) Market Analysis. Demonstrated understanding of the service region’s manufacturing 

base, including business size, industry types, product mix, and technology requirements.
11

(2) Geographical Location. Physical size, concentration of industry, and economic

significance of the service region’s manufacturing base. Geographical diversity of the 

Center as compared to existing Centers will be a factor in evaluation of proposals.

b. Technology Resources. Does the proposal assure strength in technical personnel and 

programmatic resources, full-time staff, facilities, equipment, and linkages to external 

sources of technology to develop and transfer technologies related to NIST research results 

and expertise in the technical areas noted in the MEP regulations found at 15 C.F.R. part 

290 as well as from other sources of technology research and development?

c. Technology Delivery Mechanisms. Does the proposal clearly and sharply define an 

effective methodology for delivering advanced manufacturing technology to small- and 

medium-sized manufacturers and mechanism(s) for accelerating the adoption of 

technologies for both process improvement and new product adoption?

(1) Linkages. Development of effective partnerships or linkages to third parties such as 

industry, universities, nonprofit economic organizations, and state governments who will 

amplify the Center’s technology delivery to reach a large number of clients in its service

region.

(2) Program Leverage. Provision of an effective strategy to amplify the Center’s 

technology delivery approaches to achieve the proposed objectives as described in 15 

C.F.R. 290.3(e).

d. Management and Financial Plan. Does the proposal define a management structure and 

assure management personnel to carry out development and operation of an effective 

Center? 

(1) Organizational Structure. Completeness and appropriateness of the organizational 

structure, and its focus on the mission of the Center. Assurance of local full-time top 

management of the Center. This includes a clearly presented Oversight Board structure 

with a membership representing small- and medium- sized manufacturers in the region. 

MEP has determined that centers clearly benefit when a majority or more of its Board 

members/Trustees compose a membership representing principally small and medium 

manufacturing as well as committed partners and do not have dual obligations to more 

than one Center. Two-thirds of the members of the Center’s oversight board must not 

be members of any other MEP Center boards. 

(2) Program Management. Effectiveness of the planned methodology of program 

management. This includes committed local partners and demonstrated experience of 

the leadership team in manufacturing, outreach and partnership development.

(3) Internal Evaluation. Effectiveness of the planned continuous internal evaluation of 

program activities. The proposal must provide the methodology for continuous internal 

evaluation of the program activities and demonstrate the effectiveness of defined 

methodology.

(4) Plans for Financial Cost Share. Demonstrated stability and duration of the proposer’s 

funding commitments. Identification of the sources of cost share and the general terms 

of funding commitments. The total level of cost share and detailed rationale of the cost 
12

share, including cash and in-kind, must be documented in the budget submitted with the 

proposal.

(5) Budget. Suitability and focus of the proposer’s detailed one-year budget and budget 

outline for years two (2) through five (5).

Each of these factors will be given equal weight in the evaluation process. 

2. Selection Factors 

The Selecting Official shall select proposals for award based upon the rank order of the 

proposals, and may select a proposal out of rank based on one or more of the following 

selection factors: 

a. The availability of Federal funds.

b. The need to assure appropriate regional distribution.

c. Whether the project duplicates other projects funded by DoC or by other Federal 

agencies.

d. Proposer’s performance under current or previous Federal financial assistance awards. 

Note: Proposals from existing or previous MEP centers or partners must contain specific 

information that addresses whether the proposer’s past performance with the program is 

indicative of expected performance under a possible new award and describing how and 

why performance is expected to be the same or different.

3. Review and Selection Process. 

a. Initial Administrative Review of Proposals. An initial review of timely received proposals

will be conducted to determine eligibility, completeness, and responsiveness to this FFO 

and the scope of the stated program objectives. Proposals determined to be ineligible, 

incomplete, and/or non-responsive may be eliminated from further review.

b. Full Review of Eligible, Complete, and Responsive Proposals. Proposals that are 

determined to be eligible, complete, and responsive will proceed for full reviews in 

accordance with the review and selection processes below: 

(1) Evaluation and Review. NIST will appoint an evaluation panel, consisting of at least 

three technically qualified reviewers to evaluate each proposal based on the evaluation 

criteria (see Section V.1. of this FFO) and assign a numeric score for each proposal. If 

more than one non-Federal employee reviewer is used on the panel, the panel member 

reviewers may discuss the proposals with each other, but scores will be determined on 

an individual basis, not as a consensus. Panelists will assign each proposal a score, 

based on the proposal’s responsiveness to the criteria above, with a maximum score of 

100. Proposals with an average score of 70 or higher out of 100 will be deemed 

finalists.

(2) Site Visits. Site visits may be required to make full evaluation of a proposal that has 

been determined to be a finalist. If site visits are deemed necessary, all finalists will 
13

receive site visits conducted by the same evaluation panel reviewers referenced in the 

preceding paragraph. NIST may enter into negotiations with the finalists concerning any 

aspect of their proposal. Finalists will be reviewed, evaluated, and assigned numeric 

scores based on the evaluation criteria (see Section V.1. of this FFO).

(3) Ranking and Selection. Based on the average of the panel member reviewers’ scores, 

a rank order will be prepared and provided to the Selecting Official for further 

consideration. The Selecting Official, who is the Director of the NIST MEP Program, will 

then select funding recipients based upon the rank order and the selection factors (see

Section V.2. of this FFO).

NIST reserves the right to negotiate the budget costs with the proposers that have been 

selected to receive awards, which may include requesting that the proposer remove certain 

costs. Additionally, NIST may request that the proposer modify objectives or work plans and 

provide supplemental information required by the agency prior to award. NIST also 

reserves the right to reject a proposal where information is uncovered that raises a 

reasonable doubt as to the responsibility of the proposer. NIST may select part, some, all, 

or none of the proposals. The final approval of selected proposals and issuance of awards 

will be by the NIST Grants Officer. The award decisions of the NIST Grants Officer are final.

4. Anticipated Announcement and Award Date

Review, selection, and award processing is expected to be completed in September 2012. The 

earliest anticipated start date for awards made under this FFO is expected to be October 1, 

2012.

5. Additional Information

a. Proposal Replacement Pages. Proposers may not submit replacement pages and/or 

missing documents once a proposal has been submitted. Any revisions must be made by 

submission of a new proposal that must be received by NIST by the submission deadline. 

b. Notification to Unsuccessful Proposers. Unsuccessful proposers will be notified in 

writing.

c. Retention of Unsuccessful Proposals. One (1) copy of each non-selected proposal will 

be retained for three (3) years for record keeping purposes and the other two (2) copies will 

be destroyed. After three (3) years the remaining copy will be destroyed.

VI. Award Administration Information

1. Award Notices. Successful proposers will receive an award from the NIST Grants Officer. 

The award cover page, i.e., CD-450, Financial Assistance Award is available at 

http://ocio.os.doc.gov/s/groups/public/@doc/@os/@ocio/@oitpp/documents/content/dev01_

002513.pdf and the DoC Financial Assistance Standard Terms and Conditions (March 

2008), which may be updated by the time of award, are available at 

http://www.osec.doc.gov/oam/archive/docs/GRANTS/DOC%20STCsMAR08Rev.pdf.

2. Administrative and National Policy Requirements. 

a. DoC Pre-Award Notification Requirements. The DoC Pre-Award Notification 
14

Requirements for Grants and Cooperative Agreements, which are contained in the Federal 

Register notice of February 11, 2008 (73 FR 7696), are applicable to this FFO and are 

available at http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2008-02-11/pdf/E8-2482.pdf.

b. Employer/Taxpayer Identification Number (EIN/TIN), Dun and Bradstreet Data 

Universal Numbering System (DUNS), and Central Contractor Registration (CCR). All 

proposers for Federal financial assistance are required to obtain a universal identifier in the 

form of DUNS number and maintain a current registration in the CCR database. On the 

form SF-424 items 8.b. and 8.c., the proposer’s 9-digit EIN/TIN and 9-digit DUNS number 

must be consistent with the information on the CCR (www.ccr.gov) and Automated Standard 

Application for Payment System (ASAP). For complex organizations with multiple EIN/TIN 

and DUNS numbers, the EIN/TIN and DUNS numbers MUST be the numbers for the 

applying organization. Organizations that provide incorrect/inconsistent EIN/TIN and DUNS 

numbers may experience significant delays in receiving funds if their proposal is selected for 

funding. Confirm that the EIN/TIN and DUNS numbers are consistent with the information 

on the CCR and ASAP.

Per the requirements of 2 C.F.R. Part 25, each proposer must:

(1) Be registered in the CCR before submitting a proposal;

(2) Maintain an active CCR registration with current information at all times during which it 

has an active Federal award or a proposal under consideration by an agency; and

(3) Provide its DUNS number in each application or proposal it submits to the agency.

See also the Federal Register notice published on September 14, 2010, at 75 FR 55671.

 

c. Funding Availability and Limitation of Liability. Funding for the program listed in this 

FFO is contingent upon the availability of appropriations. In no event will NIST or DoC be 

responsible for proposal preparation costs if this program fails to receive funding or is 

cancelled because of agency priorities. Publication of this FFO does not oblige NIST or 

DoC to award any specific project or to obligate any available funds.

d. Award Implementation. Given the partnership nature of MEP Centers, and to clarify and 

support the project activities and budget, including cost sharing, NIST may ask recipients to 

provide copies of sub-tier agreements, including subawards and contracts over $100,000. 

In addition, to better understand and implement the national manufacturing extension 

network and partnership, NIST may ask recipients to provide an Operating Plan and Budget 

showing manufacturing extension service activity and costs in which the Center is engaged 

outside the Federal share and cost share for the project.

e. Restrictions Governing Making Grants to Corporations Convicted of Felony Criminal 

Violations and/or Unpaid Federal Tax Liabilities. Pursuant to sections 543 and 544 of 

Public Law 112-55, Commerce, Justice, Science and Related Agencies Appropriations Act 

2012, execution by an applicant of the Representation by Corporations Regarding a Unpaid 

Delinquent Tax Liability or a Felony Conviction Under Any Federal Law (see Appendix A) 

will be required in a format requested by NIST before any cooperative agreement will be 

entered into or any award will be made under this FFO.

3. Reporting 
15

a. Reporting Requirements. In lieu of the reporting requirements described in sections A.01 

Financial Reports and B.01 Performance (Technical) Reports of the DoC Financial 

Assistance Standard Terms and Conditions dated March 2008 

(http://www.osec.doc.gov/oam/archive/docs/GRANTS/DOC%20STCsMAR08Rev.pdf), the 

following reporting requirements shall apply:

(1) Financial Reports. Each award recipient will be required to submit an SF-425, Federal 

Financial Report in triplicate (an original and two (2) copies), on a quarterly basis for the 

periods ending March 31, June 30, September 30, and December 31 of each year. 

Reports will be due within 30 days after the end of the reporting period

(2) Performance (Technical) Reports. Each award recipient will be required to submit a 

technical progress report in triplicate (an original and two (2) copies), on a quarterly 

basis for the periods ending March 31, June 30, September 30, and December 31 of 

each year. Reports will be due within 30 days after the end of the reporting period. A 

final technical progress report shall be submitted within 90 days after the expiration date 

of the award. Two (2) copies of the technical progress report shall be submitted to the 

Project Manager and the original report to the NIST Grants Officer. Technical progress 

reports shall contain information as prescribed in the NIST MEP Reporting Guidelines 

available at www.nist.gov/mep (OMB Control Number 0693-0032).

b. OMB Circular A-133 Audit Requirements. Single or program-specific audits shall be 

performed in accordance with the requirements contained in OMB Circular A-133, “Audits of 

States, Local Governments, and Non-Profit Organizations,” and the related Compliance 

Supplement. OMB Circular A-133 requires any non-Federal entity (i.e., including non-profit 

institutions of higher education and other non-profit organizations) that expends Federal 

awards of $500,000 or more in the recipient’s fiscal year to conduct a single or programspecific audit in accordance with the requirements set out in the Circular. Proposers are 

reminded that NIST, the DoC Office of Inspector General or another authorized Federal 

agency may conduct an audit of an award at any time.

c. Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act of 2006. In accordance with 2 

C.F.R. Part 170, all recipients of a Federal award made on or after October 1, 2010, are 

required to comply with reporting requirements under the Federal Funding Accountability 

and Transparency Act of 2006 (Pub. L. No. 109-282). In general, all recipients are 

responsible for reporting sub-awards of $25,000 or more. In addition, recipients that meet 

certain criteria are responsible for reporting executive compensation. Proposers must 

ensure they have the necessary processes and systems in place to comply with the 

reporting requirements should they receive funding. Also see the Federal Register notice 

published September 14, 2010, at 75 FR 55663.

4. Performance Reviews. NIST will perform program evaluations of the recipient as follows: 

(1) in an annual review, as required by 15 C.F.R. Sec. 290.8, and (2) in an independent 

review during the third year of operation, at the sixth year, and at least every two years 

thereafter, as required by 15 U.S.C. Sec. 278k(c)(5).

5. Post Client Project Follow-Up. The recipient will be required to provide client and project 

data in the specified format to the organization identified by NIST/MEP in order for postproject follow-up data to be obtained (OMB Control Number 0693-0032).

VII. Agency Contact(s)
16

Questions should be directed to the following contact persons:

Subject Area Point of Contact

Administrative, budget, cost-sharing, 

eligibility questions, and other 

programmatic questions.

Diane Henderson

Manufacturing Extension Partnership

NIST

Phone: 301-975-5105

Fax: 301-963-6556

E-mail: diane.henderson@nist.gov

Grants.gov - Proposal submission Christopher Hunton

Grants & Agreements Management Division

NIST

Phone: 301–975–5718

Fax: 301–840-5976

E-mail: christopher.hunton@nist.gov

Grant rules and regulations Jannet Cancino

Grants & Agreements Management Division

NIST

Phone: 301-975-6544

Fax: 301-926-6458

E-mail: jannet.cancino@nist.gov

VIII. Other Information

Webinar Information Session. NIST MEP will hold an information session for organizations 

considering applying to this opportunity. An information session in the form of a webinar will be 

held approximately 14 business days after publication in the Federal Register. The exact date 

and time of the webinar will be posted on the MEP website at www.nist.gov/mep. Organizations 

wishing to participate in the webinar must sign up by contacting Diane Henderson at 

diane.henderson@nist.gov.
17

Appendix A. Representation by Corporations Regarding an Unpaid Delinquent Tax 

Liability or a Felony Conviction Under Any Federal Law

Sections 543 and 544 of Public Law 112-55 Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related 

Agencies Appropriations Act 2012, Title V (General Provisions) [the Act] prohibit funds made 

available by the Act from being used to enter into a cooperative agreement with or make a grant 

to any corporation thata) Was convicted of a felony criminal violation under any Federal law within the preceding 

24 months, unless any agency has considered suspension or debarment of the 

corporation and made a determination that this further action is not necessary to protect 

the interest of the Government; and/or, 

b) has any unpaid Federal tax liability that has been assessed, for which all judicial and 

administrative remedies have been exhausted or have lapsed, and that is not being paid 

in a timely manner pursuant to an agreement with the authority responsible for collecting 

the tax liability, unless an agency has considered suspension or debarment of the 

corporation and made a determination that this further action is not necessary to protect 

the interest of the Government. 

The Applicant represents thatIt is [ ] or it is not [ ] a corporation that was convicted of a felony criminal violation under a 

Federal law within the preceding 24 months.

It is [ ] or it is not [ ] a corporation that has any unpaid Federal tax liability that has been 

assessed , for which all judicial and administrative remedies have been exhausted or have 

lapsed, and that not being paid in a timely manner pursuant to an agreements with the authority 

responsible for collecting the tax liability.

[signature of person who has authority to certify on behalf of the corporation]

[typed name of the signing individual]

[typed title of the signing individual]

[typed name of corporation]

[typed phone number of the signing individual]

[typed email address of the signing individual]

_____________________