1

October 17, 2016

ANNOUNCEMENT OF FEDERAL FUNDING OPPORTUNITY (FFO)

Embedding MEP in Manufacturing USA Institutes Pilot Projects – Round Two

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

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

United States Department of Commerce (DoC)

• Funding Opportunity Title: Embedding MEP in Manufacturing USA Institutes

Pilot Projects – Round Two

• Announcement Type: Initial

• Funding Opportunity Number: 2017-NIST-MEP-EMUSA-01

• Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance (CFDA) Number: 11.611,

Manufacturing Extension Partnership

• Dates: Electronic applications in response to this FFO must be received no later than

11:59 p.m. Eastern Time on Thursday, December 1, 2016. Applications received

after the deadline will not be reviewed or considered. The approximate start date for

awards under this FFO is expected to be January 1, 2017.

Applicants are strongly urged to read Section IV.2.b., Attachment of Required 

Application Documents, found on page 19 of this FFO. Applicants should 

carefully follow the instructions and recommendations regarding adding 

attachments to an application and using Grants.gov’s Download Submitted 

Applications feature to check that all required attachments were contained in 

their submission. Applications submitted without the required documents 

will not pass the Initial Administrative Review, described in Section V.2.a. of 

this FFO, which may result in the application not being considered for funding.

• Application Submission: Electronic applications must be submitted to

www.grants.gov. See Section IV.7.a. in the Full Announcement Text of this FFO.

• Funding Opportunity Description: NIST invites proposals from current MEP 

Centers to pilot test approaches to providing needed technology acceleration 

assistance to small and mid-sized U.S. manufacturers (hereinafter referred to as 

small U.S. manufacturers) through the establishment of meaningful and results 

oriented collaborations between the nationwide system of Centers operating as part 

of the NIST Hollings Manufacturing Extension Partnership (MEP) Program

(hereinafter referred to as NIST MEP), and the public-private manufacturing 

innovation Institutes operating as part of Manufacturing USA (previously known as 
2

the National Network for Manufacturing Innovation (NNMI), and hereinafter referred 

to as Manufacturing USA Institutes).

The emphasis of these Pilot Projects will be to demonstrate ways to more fully 

leverage the assets and resources of the national MEP Program to provide 

assistance to small U.S. manufacturers in technology areas that are the focus of the 

Manufacturing USA Institutes.

NIST MEP previously made funding awards to MEP Centers in FY 2016 to embed 

personnel in five (5) of the nine (9) Manufacturing USA Institutes pursuant to Round 

One of this pilot program.

1 This FFO is targeting the issuance of up to four (4)

cooperative agreements to existing MEP Centers to embed personnel in the four (4)

Manufacturing USA Institutes identified below:

o America Makes, the National Additive Manufacturing Innovation Institute,

o Lightweight Innovations for Tomorrow (LIFT),

o The Advanced Functional Fabrics of America (AFFOA) Institute, and 

o The Clean Energy Smart Manufacturing Innovation Institute

Pilot Projects awarded via this FFO will focus on the cultivation of enduring 

collaborations among small U.S. manufacturers, Manufacturing USA Institutes, and 

MEP Centers for the benefit of all these entities. The projects will accelerate the 

processes by which small U.S. manufacturers transition the latest and most 

compelling technological innovations into the manufactured goods needed by our 

Nation.

Proposals submitted in response to this FFO should clearly articulate approaches to 

MEP Center – Manufacturing USA Institute collaborations that is based upon the 

embedding of personnel from MEP Centers within Manufacturing USA Institutes in 

accordance with the requirements of this FFO. Such personnel embedding must 

involve the placement of MEP Center representatives from one or more MEP 

Centers within residence on at least a 1.0 FTE cumulative basis and at least a 0.5 

FTE basis for any single embedded Center employee at a particular Manufacturing 

USA Institute for the entirety of the federal award period, which may not exceed two 

years. Specifically, the Pilot Projects proposed by applicants should: 

• Develop innovative approaches for transferring technology from the 

Manufacturing USA Institutes to small U.S. manufacturers based on the 

technological needs of manufacturers;

• Create approaches for engaging small manufacturers in the work of the 

Manufacturing USA Institutes through hands-on assistance mechanisms and 

 1 https://www.nist.gov/sites/default/files/documents/mep/MEP-Embedding-MEP-into-NNMI-Institutes-FFO-4-19-

16.pdf
3

services, such as those that are currently, or that could be, offered by MEP 

Centers;

• Develop and test business models by which MEP Centers and Manufacturing 

USA Institutes may viably and effectively serve the needs of small U.S. 

manufacturers in the technology areas of the Manufacturing USA Institutes, as 

well as facilitating knowledge and best practice sharing between the 

Manufacturing USA Institutes and MEP Centers; and

• Cultivate an enhanced nationwide network of partnerships among Manufacturing 

USA Institutes and MEP Centers for the benefit of small U.S. manufacturers.

Activities conducted as part of these MEP Center – Manufacturing USA Pilot

Projects will be expected to take place in collaboration with local and regional 

stakeholders and other partners, including local, state, and/or regional advanced 

manufacturing and/or technology-based economic development organizations;

industry and/or professional associations; technical and community colleges; universities; 

industry-university partnerships, small U.S. manufacturing companies, and other 

manufacturing organizations. See Section I. of this FFO for a detailed description of 

this program.

• Anticipated Amounts: NIST anticipates funding up to four (4) Pilot Project awards

at a level of approximately $300,000 - $600,000 per year for each award. The Pilot

Projects awarded under this FFO will have a budget and performance period of up to 

two (2) years. See Section II.2. of this FFO for more information regarding the 

availability of NIST funding for this program. 

• Funding Instrument: Cooperative Agreement. See Section II.1. of this FFO for 

additional information concerning the funding instrument for these awards.

• Who Is Eligible: Eligible applicants for this program are MEP Centers receiving 

current cooperative agreement funding from NIST. An applicant MEP Center must 

form a collaboration, teaming arrangement, or other appropriate relationship with 

one (1) or more of the four (4) Manufacturing USA Institutes identified in Section I. 

of this FFO. These four (4) Manufacturing USA Institutes are not currently hosting 

embedded MEP Center representatives in residence at their Institute locations as 

the result of the 2016-NIST-MEP-ENNMI-01 funding opportunity.2 These four 

Manufacturing USA Institutes are:

o America Makes, the National Additive Manufacturing Innovation Institute,

o Lightweight Innovations for Tomorrow (LIFT),

o The Advanced Functional Fabrics of America (AFFOA) Institute, and 

o The Clean Energy Smart Manufacturing Innovation Institute. 3

NIST encourages project proposals involving participation from multiple MEP 

 2 https://www.nist.gov/sites/default/files/documents/mep/MEP-Embedding-MEP-into-NNMI-Institutes-FFO-4-19-

16.pdf

3 http://www.manufacturing.gov/nnmi-institutes/
4

Centers and multiple Manufacturing USA Institutes, as well as other collaborating 

entities such as local economic development organizations, universities, community 

colleges, technology incubator programs, and other organizations. 

An MEP Center may serve as the applicant on only one proposal. There are no 

restrictions on the number of applications in which MEP Centers or Manufacturing 

USA Institutes can be proposed as collaborators, nor are there restrictions on MEP 

Centers receiving Round One awards serving as collaborators on projects funded 

pursuant to the Round Two competition. See Section III.1. of this FFO for more 

information regarding program eligibility. 

• Cost Sharing Requirements: Non-federal cost share is not required for awards 

issued pursuant to this FFO. Applicants are encouraged to submit proposals with 

budgets that maximize the application of award funding to the performance of 

project tasking and other direct project costs. See Section III.2. of this FFO for 

more information regarding cost sharing requirements. 

• Webinar Information Session: NIST MEP will hold one or more webinar 

information sessions for organizations that are considering applying for or 

participating as a team member in this funding opportunity. The webinar(s) will 

provide general information regarding MEP and offer general guidance on preparing

proposals. NIST MEP staff will be available at the webinar to answer general 

questions. During the webinar(s), detailed proprietary or technical discussions about

specific project ideas will not be permitted. Also, NIST MEP staff will not critique or 

provide feedback on any specific project ideas during the webinar(s) or at any time

before submission of a proposal to MEP. However, NIST MEP staff will provide

information about potential participants, eligibility, evaluation criteria and selection

factors, the selection process, program priorities and objectives, and the general 

characteristics of a competitive proposal during this webinar. It is expected that the

webinar(s) will be held approximately within thirty (30) business days after posting of

this FFO. The exact date and time of the webinar(s) will be posted on the NIST 

MEP website at www.nist.gov/mep/embedding-mep-manufacturing-usa-institutespilot-projects-round-two. The webinar(s) will be recorded, and a link to the

recording(s) will be posted on the NIST MEP website. In addition, the webinar 

presentation(s) will be available after the webinar(s) on the NIST MEP website. 

Organizations wishing to participate in the webinar(s) must register in advance by

contacting NIST MEP by e-mail at mepffo@nist.gov. Participation in the webinar(s)

is not required in order for an organization to submit an application pursuant to this 

FFO.

• Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs). Questions from applicants pertaining to 

FFO eligibility, cost sharing requirements, evaluation criteria and selection factors, 

selection process, and the general characteristics of a competitive proposal will not

be considered on an informal basis. Applicants must submit all such questions in

writing to mepffo@nist.gov. Answers to such written questions submitted to NIST 

MEP may be made available to the public as part of an FAQ document, which will be
5

periodically updated on the MEP website at www.nist.gov/mep/embedding-mepmanufacturing-usa-institutes-pilot-projects-round-two.

Table of Contents

I. Program Description........................................................................................... 5

II. Federal Award Information................................................................................. 9

III. Eligibility Information........................................................................................ 12

IV. Application and Submission Information........................................................ 13

V. Application/Proposal Review Information....................................................... 27

VI. Federal Award Administration Information..................................................... 34

VII. Federal Awarding Agency Contacts ................................................................ 36

VIII. Other Information .............................................................................................. 37

FULL ANNOUNCEMENT TEXT

I. Program Description

The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) invites proposals from

current MEP Centers to support efforts of the MEP Program to achieve its mission of 

improving productivity and technological performance in United States manufacturing. 

Proposals accepted for funding will conduct Pilot Projects that add capabilities to the 

MEP program by solving new or emerging manufacturing problems. Funded Pilot 

Projects will develop and enhance effective collaborative relationships involving MEP 

Centers and Institutes participating in the Manufacturing USA, which was known until 

September 2016 as the National Network for Manufacturing Innovation (NNMI). 

To receive funding under this FFO, an applicant MEP Center must form a collaboration, 

teaming arrangement, or other appropriate relationship with one (1) or more of the four 

(4) Manufacturing USA Institutes identified in Section I. of this FFO. These four (4) 

Manufacturing USA Institutes are not currently hosting embedded MEP Center 

representatives in residence at their Institute locations as the result of the 2016-NISTMEP-ENNMI-01 funding opportunity, and these four (4) Manufacturing USA Institutes 

are:

o America Makes, the National Additive Manufacturing Innovation Institute,

o Lightweight Innovations for Tomorrow (LIFT),

o The Advanced Functional Fabrics of America (AFFOA) Institute, and 

o The Clean Energy Smart Manufacturing Innovation Institute
6

In addition to assisting MEP efforts related to the transfer of technology based on the 

technological needs of manufacturers and available technologies from the 

Manufacturing USA Institutes, the proposed Pilot Projects will also enhance the

Manufacturing USA Institutes’ ability to benefit the technological needs of small and 

mid-sized U.S. manufacturers (hereinafter referred to as small U.S. manufacturers).

Technology in manufacturing enables product and process innovations that lead to the

more efficient production of sophisticated products and systems. Such manufacturing 

technology, in turn, enables the efficient operation of manufacturing supply chains. All 

of this results in higher value, without which U.S. manufacturers could not be globally 

competitive.

The Manufacturing USA Institutes are working to create a competitive, effective, and 

sustainable advanced manufacturing research-to-manufacturing infrastructure. Their

goal is to enable U.S. industry and academia to solve the "scale-up" challenges that are 

relevant to industry. The Manufacturing USA consists of multiple linked Manufacturing 

Innovation Institutes. Each has a unique technological concentration, but all 

are designed to accelerate U.S. advanced manufacturing as a whole. As nodes in the 

Manufacturing USA, the Institutes complement each other’s capabilities and benefit 

from shared approaches to matters such as intellectual property, contract research, and 

performance metrics. Each provides shared facilities to local start-ups and small 

manufacturers to help them scale up new technologies, accelerate technology transfer 

to the marketplace, and facilitate the adoption of innovation workforce skills. The 

Manufacturing USA Institute is designed to foster innovation and deliver new 

capabilities that can stimulate the manufacturing sector on a large scale.

Through its nationwide network of MEP Centers operating in every U.S. state and 

Puerto Rico, MEP facilitates and accelerates the transfer of manufacturing technology in 

partnership with industry, industry and professional associations, educational institutions

including universities and community colleges, state government, and NIST and other 

federal and non-federal research laboratories and agencies. MEP Centers provide 

direct, hands-on assistance to thousands of small U.S. manufacturers each year. The 

acceleration of new and emerging technology into the hands of these small 

manufacturers is critical to the MEP mission of enhancing the productivity and 

technological performance of U.S. manufacturers.

There are potentially powerful synergies that can be achieved for the benefit of small 

U.S. manufacturers through the broadening and deepening of Manufacturing USA 

Institute – MEP Center collaborations. As the basis for proposed collaborations 

involving MEP Centers and any of the Manufacturing USA Institutes, proposals 

submitted in response to this FFO should articulate approaches to collaborations

between Manufacturing USA Institutes and MEP Centers that are based upon the 

embedding of MEP Center representatives within Manufacturing USA Institutes, and 

that build upon the collaboration framework as defined in the May 2015 Memorandum of 
7

Understanding (MOU) between NIST and the U.S. Department of Defense (DOD).4 The 

goals of that MOU are to enhance collaboration between MEP Centers and DOD-led 

Manufacturing USA Institutes and to engage small U.S. manufacturers more fully to 

optimize benefits and results from the public and private investments in these Institutes. 

While this framework was specifically intended for application to DOD-led Manufacturing 

USA Institutes, it also broadly applies to MEP involvement with all Manufacturing USA

Institutes, regardless of the lead federal agency for a particular Institute. Heretofore, 

Manufacturing USA Institutes have been established with federal funding from the DOD 

and the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE). Future Institutes have been announced that 

will receive funding from the U.S. Department of Commerce (DOC). This framework 

provides the foundation upon which MEP Centers and Manufacturing USA Institutes 

should approach their collaborations in response to this FFO. Specifically, the 

framework provides the basis to define how Institutes and MEP Centers can work 

together to facilitate engagement of small U.S. manufacturers to:

• Increase small U.S. manufacturer awareness of Manufacturing USA Institute 

focus areas and resources;

• Ensure the involvement of small U.S. manufacturers in the processes and 

activities associated with informing and developing the research agendas of the 

Manufacturing USA Institutes;

• Increase small U.S. manufacturers’ participation in Manufacturing USA Institute 

research; and 

• Ensure the transition of Manufacturing USA Institute research results to small 

U.S. manufacturers for implementation.

As part of these MEP Center – Manufacturing USA Institute Pilot Projects, 

Manufacturing USA -MEP Center collaborations will be created that leverage 

relationships with other entities and include the embedding of MEP Center 

representatives within Manufacturing USA Institutes. The Pilot Projects funded through 

this FFO will leverage the assets and resources of the national MEP Program to assist 

the Manufacturing USA Institutes as they strive to broadly and deeply enhance their 

impact on small U.S. manufacturers. The Pilot Projects also will expand MEP’s ability to 

positively impact the competitiveness and growth of U.S. manufacturers by developing 

expertise in the focus areas of the Manufacturing USA Institutes. Specifically, the Pilot 

Projects proposed by applicants should: 

• Transfer technology from the Manufacturing USA Institutes to small U.S. 

manufacturers based on the technological needs of manufacturers;

• Create approaches to engaging small manufacturers in the work of the 

Manufacturing USA Institutes through hands-on assistance mechanisms and 

 4 Memorandum of Understanding between the U.S. Department of Defense Office of the Secretary of 

Defense Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Manufacturing and Industrial Base Policy and the 

U.S. Department of Commerce National Institute of Standards and Technology Manufacturing Extension 

Partnership, May 2015: http://www.nist.gov/mep/about/upload/MOU-NIST-OSD-Signed-Executed2015.pdf.
8

services such as those that are currently, or that could be, offered by MEP 

Centers;

• Develop and test business models by which MEP Centers and Manufacturing 

USA Institutes can viably and effectively serve the needs of small U.S. 

manufacturers in the technology areas of the Manufacturing USA Institutes;

• Facilitate knowledge and best practice sharing between the Manufacturing USA

Institutes and MEP Centers; and

• Cultivate an enhanced nationwide network of partnerships among Manufacturing 

USA Institutes and MEP Centers for the benefit of small U.S. manufacturers.

Applicants are expected to propose Pilot Projects that involve different, creative, and 

new approaches to achieve the intended purpose and objectives of this FFO – but all 

proposed Pilot Projects must involve the embedding of MEP Center personnel operating 

in residence (as defined in this FFO in Section I. and IV.2.a.(6).d) at Manufacturing USA

Institutes. It is anticipated that embedded MEP Center personnel will become fully 

engaged experts in the technology focus areas for a particular Manufacturing USA

Institute. This will enable the embedded MEP personnel to serve as a national MEP 

resource to facilitate meaningful and impactful MEP engagements with small U.S. 

manufacturers in these focus areas on a national scale. The Pilot Projects should 

create and test business models and service delivery mechanisms that allow small U.S. 

manufacturers to work with and benefit from the Manufacturing USA Institutes via 

connections and assistance provided to them through the nationwide network of MEP 

Centers. The Pilot Projects will document their approaches, successes, challenges, 

and other learnings. Examples of different approaches that may be proposed include, 

but are not limited to, the following:

• Training and other workforce development efforts in Manufacturing USA Institute 

technology focus areas to be developed and deployed for small U.S. 

manufacturers and/or MEP Center practitioners; 

• Train-the-trainer programs in Manufacturing USA Institute technology focus 

areas to be developed and deployed for MEP Center practitioners; and

• Technical assistance projects to be conducted involving partnerships among 

small U.S. manufacturers, Manufacturing USA Institutes, and MEP Centers. 

The examples provided above only represent a few possible approaches for conducting 

Pilot Projects. Applicants may propose other approaches, and applicants are 

encouraged to identify creative and new ways in which the relationships established 

between the MEP Centers and Manufacturing USA Institutes through these Pilot 

Projects can achieve meaningful impact and significant benefit for U.S. manufacturers

on a broad, national scale.

Applications submitted in response to this FFO must be from a current MEP Center as 

the applicant, and with a clear identification of the Manufacturing USA Institute 

partnership(s) involved. Applicants are encouraged to forge working relationships with 

the Manufacturing USA Institutes operating in the region where they are located, as well 

as with other Institutes and MEP Centers operating around the country and with other 
9

entities with which the Centers and Institutes regularly collaborate. These partnerships 

should be based upon and commensurate with the Pilot Project approach being 

proposed by the applicant. 

Proposed approaches are required to fund the embedding of MEP Center 

representatives in residence at Manufacturing USA Institutes at a total level of effort 

and time commitment equal to or greater than 1.0 full-time equivalent (FTE) staff each

year. This 1.0 FTE requirement for embedded MEP Center personnel represents the 

minimum level of effort, and embedding MEP Center personnel at levels of effort and 

time commitment totaling more than 1.0 FTE each year are encouraged. This 1.0 FTE 

requirement may be met via the embedding of multiple MEP staff members in 

Manufacturing USA Institutes, but any single MEP Center personnel must be 

embedded at a level of effort of 0.5 FTE staff year or greater to be counted toward the 

overall annual 1.0 FTE requirement. 

It is required that the embedded MEP Center personnel must operate in residence at 

the participating Institutes. For purposes of this FFO, MEP Center personnel being 

embedded in residence at a Manufacturing USA Institute means the MEP embedded 

personnel are physically based at the Institute commensurate with the commitment 

identified in the project narrative and budget, utilizing Institute office space and 

interacting with Institute staff and members. This must be clearly stated and evidenced 

in the proposal, and the applicant must include a statement that there will be at least 

one or the equivalent of one (1) full-time FTE in residence at a specified Manufacturing 

USA institute(s) and provide salary information in their proposal that is consistent with 

this statement as full-time in the proposed budget. Being embedded in residence also 

means that the embedded personnel are wholly focused on project tasking included in 

the proposed approach during the time while they’re embedded at the Institute – versus 

being focused on customary MEP Center duties.

 

Applicants may also propose approaches that involve the participation of multiple 

Manufacturing USA Institutes, as well as multiple MEP Centers. Any proposal, 

however, must include participation from at least one of the four (4) Manufacturing USA 

Institutes identified above in Section I. and in Section III.1 of this FFO. 

The statutory authority for this program is 15 U.S.C. § 278k(f). This program is not a 

Federal research and development program.

Further information regarding the MEP Program is provided in the information packet 

that may be obtained at www.grants.gov, with additional background information 

provided at http://www.nist.gov/mep. Refer to Section VII. of this FFO, “Federal 

Awarding Agency Contacts,” “Grant Rules and Regulations”, if you seek the information

at this link or for any link in this FFO, and it is either no longer working or you need more 

information.

II. Federal Award Information
10

1. Funding Instrument. The funding instrument that will be used for awards issued 

pursuant to this FFO is a cooperative agreement. The nature of NIST’s “substantial 

involvement” will generally be considered to be constituted as collaboration between

NIST MEP and the recipient organization. This includes NIST MEP collaborating

with the recipient on evaluating its progress and making changes to the statement of

work. Additional forms of substantial involvement that may arise are described in

Final Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Guidance Implementing the Federal 

Grant and Cooperative Agreement Act, 43 Fed. Reg. 36860-65 (Aug. 18, 1978).

Examples of NIST MEP involvement in cooperative agreements awarded pursuant

to this FFO may include activities such as, but not limited to:

• Guidelines and assistance in developing scope of work;

• Approval of key personnel;

• Assistance, where possible, in accessing solutions to technical and

managerial issues; and

• Assistance to the Recipient organization to define, understand, and resolve 

issues pertaining to the successful implementation of the Pilot Project.

2. Funding Availability. NIST anticipates funding up to four (4) cooperative

agreement awards, with up to two-year (2) periods of performance, in accordance

with the multi-year funding policy described in Section II.3. of this FFO. It is 

expected that funding for these awards will be between $300,000 and $600,000 per 

year, with total federal funding for the two-year award period being between 

$600,000 and $1,200,000. NIST anticipates up to $4,800,000 in total federal 

funding being available for awards issued pursuant to this FFO. 

3. Multi-Year Funding Policy. When an application for a multi-year award is 

approved, funding in some cases will be provided initially for the first year of the

project. The recipient will be required to submit detailed budgets and budget

narratives prior to the award or release of any continued funding. Continued funding

for the remaining year(s) of the project will be awarded or released by NIST on a

non-competitive basis, and may be adjusted higher or lower from year-to-year of the

award, contingent upon satisfactory performance, continued relevance to the

mission and priorities of the program, and the availability of funds. Continuation of

an award to extend the period of performance and/or to increase or decrease

funding is at the sole discretion of NIST.

4. Award Kick-Off Meeting. Recipients will be required to attend a kick-off meeting, 

which will be held within the first 30 days of the start of the project period, to ensure 

that the recipient has a clear understanding of the program and project components. 

The kick-off meeting will take place at a location determined by NIST MEP. 
11

The kick-off meeting will last no longer than one day and must be attended by the 

project manager and appropriate key personnel who will play a significant role in

managing and/or executing the award. The kick-off meeting for each award should 

involve appropriate personnel from the lead MEP Center recipient, participating 

Institute(s), other MEP Center(s) participating in the project, and may as necessary 

include personnel from other third party collaborating entities.

Applicants must include travel and related costs for the kick-off meeting as part of

the budget for year one (1), and these costs should be reflected in the SF-424A. 

(See Section IV.2.a.(2). of this FFO.) These costs must also be reflected in the

budget table and budget narrative for year 1, which is submitted as part of the

budget tables and budget narratives section of the Technical Proposal. (See Section

IV.2.a.(6).(d). of this FFO.) 

5. MEP System-Wide Meetings. NIST MEP typically organizes MEP system-wide 

meetings approximately four times per year to share best practices, and to discuss 

new and emerging trends, and additional topics of interest. These meetings are

planned throughout the United States and typically involve 2-3 days of resource time

and associated travel costs for each meeting. One key representative from the lead 

MEP Center and one representative from each of its partner Manufacturing USA

Institute(s) should attend these meetings.

Applicants must include travel and related costs for at least two representatives to 

participate in four quarterly MEP system-wide meetings in each of one (1) or two (2)

project years (4 meetings per year; up to 8 total meetings over up to a two-year 

award period). These costs must be reflected in the SF-424A (see Section

IV.2.a.(2). of this FFO). These costs must also be reflected in the budget tables and

budget narratives for each of the project’s years, which are submitted as part of the

Technical Proposal. (See Section IV.2.a.(6).(d). of this FFO).

Pilot Projects will be expected to actively participate during these meetings and 

freely share lessons learned regarding the mechanisms of the pilot approach, and 

attributes conducive to transferring knowledge from the Manufacturing USA

Institutes to MEP Centers for the benefit of small U.S. manufacturers, as well as 

information about the Institutes’ technology focus areas. 

Recipients will be required to provide detailed analysis of the lessons learned 

through this Pilot Project under Section VI.3.a.(2) Performance (Technical) Reports. 

These analyses will include, but are not limited to: attributes, participant roles, 

planning of the intended approach, root cause for successes/failures, bases for 

selecting individual MEP Center staff for embedding in Manufacturing USA

Institutes, recommendations for how the outcomes of the Pilot Project might inform 

expansion of the intended goals, and any plans for sustainment of the effort beyond 

the period of performance.
12

6. Indirect (F&A) Costs. NIST will reimburse applicants for proposed indirect (F&A) 

costs in accordance with 2 C.F.R. § 200.414. Applicants proposing indirect (F&A) 

costs must follow the application requirements set forth in Section IV.2.a.(7). of this 

FFO.

III. Eligibility Information

1. Eligible Applicants. Eligible applicants for this program are MEP Centers 

receiving current cooperative agreement funding from NIST. An applicant MEP 

Center must form a collaboration, teaming arrangement, or other appropriate 

relationship with one (1) or more of the four (4) Manufacturing USA Institutes 

identified in Section I. of this FFO. These four (4) Manufacturing USA Institutes are 

not currently hosting embedded MEP Center representatives in residence at their 

Institute locations as the result of the 2016-NIST-MEP-ENNMI-01 funding 

opportunity.

5 These four (4) Manufacturing USA Institutes are:

o America Makes, the National Additive Manufacturing Innovation Institute,

o Lightweight Innovations for Tomorrow (LIFT),

o The Advanced Functional Fabrics of America (AFFOA) Institute, and

o The Clean Energy Smart Manufacturing Innovation Institute.

NIST encourages project proposals involving participation from multiple MEP 

Centers and multiple Manufacturing USA Institutes, as well as from other 

collaborating entities, such as local economic development organizations, 

universities, community colleges, technology incubator programs, and other 

organizations. Applications submitted in response to this FFO are required to clearly 

identify the lead MEP Center applicant, as well as the participating Manufacturing 

USA Institute (s), other MEP Centers, and other key organizations participating in 

the proposed project, including the specific teaming arrangements for each 

participating organization. 

An MEP Center may serve as the lead MEP Center/applicant on only one proposal. 

There are no restrictions on the number of applications in which MEP Centers or 

Manufacturing USA Institutes can be proposed as collaborators.

Eligibility for this program is contingent upon an applicant being a NIST MEP Center 

at the time of application, at the time of award, and for the entire period of 

performance for awards issued pursuant to this FFO. NIST reserves the right to 

take appropriate action, which may include not making an award, or terminating an 

award or a portion thereof, should an MEP Center fail to maintain its eligibility at all 

required times. NIST further reserves the right to take appropriate action, including 

terminating an award or a portion thereof, if an Institute does not maintain its 

designation as such at any time during the period of performance for awards issued 

 5 https://www.nist.gov/sites/default/files/documents/mep/MEP-Embedding-MEP-into-NNMI-Institutes-FFO-4-19-

16.pdf
13

pursuant to this FFO. 

1. Cost Sharing or Matching Requirement. Non-federal cost share is not required

for awards issued pursuant to this FFO. Applicants are encouraged to submit 

proposals with budgets that maximize the application of award funding to the 

performance of project tasking and direct project costs. 

2. No Double Charging Against other NIST/MEP or Institute Awards. Costs 

charged against awards issued pursuant to this FFO, whether paid by federal or 

non-federal funds, may not also be charged as costs against any other NIST/MEP or 

Institute award (i.e., no double-billing of costs). In addition, NIST/MEP funding 

provided by an MEP Center to an Institute or to another MEP Center may not be 

used by such Institute or MEP Center as a non-federal cost share contribution for an 

Institute or MEP Center award (i.e., federal funds may not be used as cost share for 

other federal awards).

IV. Application and Submission Information

1. Address to Request Application Package. The standard application package, 

consisting of the standard forms, i.e., SF-424, SF-424A, SF-424B, SF-LLL, and the 

CD-511, is available at www.grants.gov. Applicants may also request an application 

package by contacting the point of contact for administrative, budget, cost-sharing, 

eligibility questions and other programmatic questions listed in Section VII. of this 

FFO.

2. Content and Form of Application/Submission. Set forth below are the required 

content and form of applications submitted pursuant to this FFO. 

a. Required Forms and Documents

(1) SF-424, Application for Federal Assistance. The SF-424 must be certified

through www.grants.gov by an authorized representative of the applicant

organization. 

SF-424, Item 12, should list the FFO number as 2017-NIST-MEP-EMUSA-01.

SF-424, Item 18, should list the total budget information for the full duration of 

the project.

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 each year of the project, considering

all potential cost increases, including cost of living adjustments. The budget
14

should also include staff, travel and other costs associated with the Award 

Kick-off Meeting and the NIST/MEP System-Wide meetings as described in

Sections II.4. and II.5., respectively, of this FFO.

The applicant should reflect each year of the project, up to two (2) years, on

the SF-424A form. Please carefully follow the directions found at 

http://www.grants.gov/web/grants/form-instructions/sf-424a- instructions.html

when filling out this form.

These sections of the SF-424A should reflect funds for the first year of the 

award: Section A; Section B; Section C; and Section D. The budget estimate 

for the second year of the award should be entered in Section E, field 16, 

column (b).

The Grant Program Function or Activity on Line 1 under Column (a) should be 

entered as Manufacturing Extension Partnership. The Catalog of Federal 

Domestic Assistance Number in on Line 1 under Column (b) should be

entered as 11.611.

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

(4) CD-511, Certification Regarding Lobbying. For the Award Number, enter 

“2017-NIST-MEP-EMUSA-01”. In the Project Name filed, use the 

“Descriptive Title of Applicant’s Project” from field 15 of the SF-424, or an 

abbreviation thereof.

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

(6) Technical Proposal. The Technical Proposal, with a period of performance 

of up to two (2) years, is a word- processed document not exceeding 25

pages that is responsive to the program description (see Section I. of this 

FFO) and the evaluation criteria (see Section V.1. of this FFO). The following

is a suggested format that applicants may use for the technical proposal.

a) Table of Contents. (Does not count toward the page limit).

b) Executive Summary. The executive summary should briefly (usually 

no longer than two pages) describe the proposed project, consistent 

with the evaluation criteria (see Section V.1.a. of this FFO).

Please note, if an applicant’s proposal is selected for funding, NIST 

may use all or a portion of the Executive Summary as part of a press 

release issued by NIST, or for other public information and outreach 

purposes. Applicants are advised not to incorporate information that 

concerns business trade secrets or other confidential commercial or 

financial information as part of the Executive Summary. See also 15
15

C.F.R. § 4.9(c) concerning the designation of business information by 

the applicant. (Does not count towards page limit).

c) Project Narrative. This section should provide a description of the

proposed approach, sufficient to permit evaluation of the proposal, in

accordance with details included in the proposal Evaluation Criteria

(see Section V.1. of this FFO). The project narrative must identify

tasks, measureable milestones, and outcomes resulting from the 

proposed approach, including the role of the embedding of MEP Center 

personnel in the participating Manufacturing USA Institutes, for each 

year of the proposed period of performance. The project narrative

should clearly identify the application’s approach that will develop, test, 

and provide assistance for small U.S. manufacturers in the technology 

focus area(s) of the participating Manufacturing USA Institute(s). The 

project narrative should clearly indicate the service delivery 

mechanism(s) and business model(s) being developed and tested 

relating to MEP Centers and Manufacturing USA Institutes working 

together, and relating to MEP Centers and Manufacturing USA

Institutes working with small U.S. manufacturers to provide small U.S. 

manufacturers the assistance they need. The applicant also should 

clearly explain how the proposed approach will accomplish one or more 

of the following:

i. Increase small U.S. manufacturer awareness of Manufacturing 

USA Institute focus areas and resources;

ii. Ensure the involvement of small U.S. manufacturers in the 

processes and activities associated with informing and developing 

the research agendas of the Manufacturing USA Institutes;

iii. Increase small U.S. manufacturers’ participation in the conduct of 

Manufacturing USA I Institute research; and 

iv. Ensure the transition of Manufacturing USA Institute research 

results to small U.S. manufacturers for implementation.

The applicant should provide information that clearly indicates how the 

proposed MEP Center – Manufacturing USA Institute collaboration(s) 

and embedded personnel will result in increased impacts for small 

U.S. manufacturers, as well as the rationale for the selection and level 

of involvement of the particular Manufacturing USA Institute(s) and 

MEP Center(s) engaged in the proposal. 

The business model descriptions being proposed should clearly 

identify the revenue bases of the collaborations and service delivery

models, including organizational contributions and how MEP Centers 

and Manufacturing USA Institutes will be able to collaborate on a 

sustainable basis, including beyond the period of performance of this 

program’s funding awards. The business models should also clearly 
16

articulate the anticipated contributions from the small U.S. 

manufacturers that are the targets for proposed efforts.

Proposals should clearly identify and fully explain the elements of their 

collaborations intended to reach a broad base of small U.S. 

manufacturers, including, for example, outreach and assistance 

activities for very small, start-up, and rural manufacturers, and in areas 

such as technology acceleration and workforce training. 

The project narrative should clearly indicate how the proposed 

approach adds capabilities to the MEP Program, and the narrative 

should detail how the approach solves new or emerging manufacturing 

problems of small U.S. manufacturers relating to areas such as, but 

not limited to:

• the transfer of technology from the participating Institute(s) to 

small U.S. manufacturers for manufactured products and 

manufacturing processes;

• supply chain integration; and 

• quality management.

Applicants are encouraged to propose collaborations between 

Manufacturing USA Institutes and the MEP Center(s) serving the 

manufacturers in the region where the Manufacturing USA Institutes 

are located to facilitate regional network building, as well as 

partnerships between Manufacturing USA Institutes and other MEP 

Centers located around the nation to facilitate national network 

building. 

Proposals should clearly articulate: 

• The nature of the network structure that’s being developed or 

enhanced; 

• Who the participants are; 

• The roles, responsibilities and relationships to each other of all 

participating Manufacturing USA Institutes and MEP Centers (to 

include the lead MEP Center) and any other participating 

organizations; and 

• The geographic scale of the proposed network activities, such 

as state, regional, or national scope.

Proposals should also provide details about approaches for sharing 

lessons learned and best practices resulting from the conduct of the 

project. This should include plans for sharing with the national network 

of MEP Centers, the national network of Manufacturing USA Institutes, 

and other organizations and entities involved with U.S. manufacturing, 
17

including but not limited to NIST, the other federal agencies providing 

funding for the Manufacturing USA Institutes, U.S. manufacturers, 

manufacturing trade associations, economic development 

organizations, and others.

 

It is anticipated that embedded personnel operating in residence at the 

Manufacturing USA Institutes will become national resources for the 

Manufacturing USA Institute and MEP Center Networks, and the plan 

by which this will occur should be clearly articulated in the proposal. 

Proposals should clearly indicate how the embedding of MEP Center 

personnel in residence at the Manufacturing USA Institute(s) will 

contribute to the proposed network building activities.

The applicant should clearly articulate how the proposed approach will 

enhance the impact of the efforts of the participating MEP Center(s) 

and Manufacturing USA Institute(s) for the benefit of small U.S. 

manufacturers in terms of measures such as, but not limited to job 

creation, employee training, technology transfer and 

commercialization, and improved manufacturer and supply chain 

competitiveness. 

The specific embedding of personnel that will occur between the MEP 

Center(s) and Manufacturing USA Institute(s) should be fully set forth

in the Project Narrative section. Proposed approaches are required to 

fund the embedding of MEP Center representatives in residence at 

Manufacturing USA Institutes at a total level of effort and time 

commitment equal to or greater than 1.0 full-time equivalent (FTE) staff 

each year. This 1.0 FTE requirement for embedded MEP Center 

personnel represents the minimum level of effort, and embedding of 

MEP Center personnel at levels of effort and time commitment totaling 

more than 1.0 FTE each year are encouraged. This 1.0 FTE 

requirement may be met via the embedding of multiple MEP 

representatives in Manufacturing USA Institutes, but any single MEP 

Center personnel must be embedded at a level of effort of 0.5 FTE 

staff year or greater to be counted toward the overall annual 1.0 FTE 

requirement. 

d) Statement of Embedded FTE(s). It is required that the embedded 

MEP Center personnel must operate in residence at the participating 

Institutes. For purposes of this FFO, MEP Center personnel being 

embedded in residence at a Manufacturing USA Institute means the 

MEP embedded personnel are physically based at the Institute 

commensurate with the commitment identified in the project narrative 

and budget, utilizing Institute office space and interacting with Institute 

staff and members. This must be clearly stated and evidenced in 

the proposal, and the applicant must include a statement that 
18

there will be at least one or the equivalent of 1 full-time FTE in 

residence at a specified Manufacturing USA institute(s) and 

provide salary information in their proposal that is consistent with 

this statement in the proposed budget. Being embedded in 

residence also means that the embedded personnel are wholly 

focused on project tasking included in the proposed approach during 

the time while they’re embedded at the Institute – versus being 

focused on customary MEP Center duties.

 

Applicants may also propose approaches that involve the participation 

of multiple Manufacturing USA Institutes, as well as multiple MEP 

Centers. Any proposal, however, must include participation from at 

least one of the 4 Manufacturing USA Institutes identified in this FFO.

A proposal that fails to meet the requirements set forth in this FFO will 

be deemed as unresponsive to this FFO.

The proposals must articulate the details of the administrative, 

financial, and other business parameters associated with the 

embedding of personnel from the participating MEP Centers in the 

participating Manufacturing USA Institutes.

e) Budget Tables and Budget Narratives. In addition to the SF-424A 

form (see Section IV.2.a.(2). of this FFO), applicants must provide a 

detailed budget table and budget narrative for the proposed period of 

performance, fully explaining and justifying all proposed project funding

(both revenue and expenses) in accordance with applicable federal 

cost principles. The budget information submitted by an applicant will 

be evaluated in accordance with the Budget evaluation sub-criteria

(see Section V.1.c.i. and Section V.1.c.ii. of this FFO).

In the budget narrative, the recipient should provide adequate 

information to support the costs identified in each category of the 

budget table. At a minimum, applicants must provide: the annual 

salary and the percentage of time dedicated to the project by

personnel to demonstrate the total cost of that individual; the airfare, 

lodging, per diem, number of days and number of travelers for each 

proposed trip; and anticipated subaward/contract amounts and the

related subawardees/contractors, to the extent known at the time of 

application, and a detailed description of the purpose of each 

subaward/contract. Applicants must also include staff, travel and 

related expenses for the required Award Kick-Off and System-Wide 

meeting described in Sections II.4. and II.5. of this FFO in the budget 

tables and budget narratives. A suggested budget table and budget 

narrative template are available on the MEP website, 
19

www.nist.gov/mep/embedding-mep-manufacturing-usa-institutes-pilotprojects-round-two.

When preparing project budgets, applicants must be cognizant of the 

prohibition on double-billing costs against multiple federal awards and 

on the prohibition on using NIST MEP federal funding as non-federal 

cost share on any other federal award. See Section III.3. of this FFO. 

(7) 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. If the successful applicant includes indirect costs in the budget and

has not established an indirect cost rate with a cognizant Federal audit

agency, the applicant will be required to obtain such a rate in accordance with

the Department of Commerce Financial Assistance Standard Terms and

Conditions available at: http://go.usa.gov/hKbj. This does not count toward 

the page limit.

Alternatively, in accordance with 2 C.F.R. § 200.414(f), applicants that have

never received a negotiated indirect cost rate may elect to charge indirect

costs to an MEP award pursuant to a de minimis rate of 10 percent of

modified total direct costs (MTDC), in which case a negotiated indirect cost

rate agreement is not required. Applicants proposing a 10 percent de minimis 

rate pursuant to 2 C.F.R. § 200.414(f) should note this election as part of the

budget portion of the application.

(8) Table of Abbreviations and Acronyms. (This does not contribute to the 

total number of pages.) An alphabetical list of all abbreviations and 

acronyms, and their meaning, should be included.

(9) Table of Funded Project Participants and Unfunded Collaborators. (This 

does not contribute to the total number of pages.) Provide a table that 

identifies all organizations that will participate in and contribute to the project, 

if funded, known at the time of the application submission. The table should 

consist of an alphabetically ordered list, by organization, of all Funded Project 

Participants and all Unfunded Collaborators. The table should include the 

organization’s name, address, administrative role, scope of work (funded 

participants only) and proposed funding amount (funded participants only). 

Administrative roles are: applicant, subrecipient, or contractor for funded 

participants; and third party contributor or collaborator if they will not receive 

funding. 

(10) Bibliographic List of References. (This does not contribute to the total 

number of pages.) A complete bibliographic listing of all references used 

within the application should be included.
20

(11) Resumes of Key Personnel. (These do not contribute to the total number 

of pages). One-page resumes of no more than five key personnel from each 

participant organization may be included; these do not count toward the page

limit. Key personnel resumes should include resumes for any personnel from 

MEP Centers who will be embedded at the Manufacturing USA Institutes. Any

information beyond one page for each resume and any additional resumes 

submitted will not be considered.

(12) Required Letters of Commitment. (These do not contribute to the total 

number of pages). Letters that commit specific resources (not funding) to the 

project in the event that the application is funded are required from all of the 

following that apply: 

a) Each application must include a Letter of Commitment from an 

authorized representative of: (i) the MEP Center applicant; (ii) each 

Institute that will be participating in the project; and from (iii) other MEP 

Centers that will be participating in the project. Each letter should 

describe the submitting organization’s commitment to and activities in 

support of the proposed project. 

b) If the application includes subawards, contracts or other payments to 

known third parties, including Institutes and other MEP Centers, a draft 

copy of each subaward, contract or other funding vehicle must be 

included.

c) Letters of Commitment should not be letters submitted by nonproposing entities wishing to vouch for the applicant’s (or entities 

associated with the applicant) knowledge, skills, and abilities or entities 

to conduct the proposed work. These should be in the form of a Letter 

of Interest (see Section IV.3.a.(13) of this FFO).

(13) Letters of Interest. (These do not contribute to the total number of pages.) 

Optional letters may be included with an application that indicate willingness 

from any third party to help accelerate establishment of a new or 

strengthening of an existing industry-driven technology consortium and/or 

consortium project results. This may include letters from unfunded 

collaborators who will participate as unfunded team members, potential 

organizations involved across stages of the value chain, or strategic partners 

who can aid in any element of the plan to realize impact. Letters of Interest 

should outline the nature and importance of the collaboration or involvement 

being offered. Letters of Interest may also be from non-proposing entities 

wishing to vouch for the applicant’s knowledge, skills, and abilities or entities 

to conduct the proposed work. All letters of interest must be included with the 

application and not sent separately to NIST.
21

(14) Data Management Plan. In accordance with the Office of Science and 

Technology Memorandum for the Heads of Executive Departments and 

Agencies of February 22, 2013,

6 Increasing Access to the Results of 

Federally Funded Scientific Research, and as implemented through NIST 

Policy 5700.00,

7 Managing Public Access to Results of Federally Funded 

Research, and NIST Order 5701.00,

8 Managing Public Access to Results of

Federally Funded Research, applicants should include a Data Management

Plan (DMP).

The DMP is a supplementary document of not more than two pages that must

include, at a minimum, a summary of proposed activities that are expected to

generate data, a summary of the types of data expected to be generated by

the identified activities, a plan for storage and maintenance of the data

expected to be generated by the identified activities, and a plan describing

whether and how data generated by the identified activities will be reviewed

and made available to the public. As long as the DMP meets these NIST

requirements, it may take the form specified by the applicant’s institution or 

some other entity (e.g., the National Science Foundation9 or the National

Institutes of Health10). 

All applications for activities that will generate scientific data using NIST 

funding are required to adhere to a DMP or explain why data sharing and/or 

preservation are not within the scope of the project.

For the purposes of the DMP, NIST adopted the definition of “research data”

at 2 C.F.R. § 200.315(e)(3) (available at http://go.usa.gov/3sZvQ).

Reasonable costs for data preservation and access may be included in the

application.

The sufficiency of the DMP will be considered as part of the administrative 

review (see Section V.2.a. of this FFO); however, the DMP will not be 

evaluated against any evaluation criteria.

b. Attachment of Required Application Documents

When submitting the application 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.(14). must be completed and attached by clicking 

 6 https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/microsites/ostp/ostp_public_access_memo_2013.pdf

7 https://www.nist.gov/sites/default/files/documents/data/Final-P-5700.pdf 8 https://www.nist.gov/sites/default/files/documents/data/Final-O-5701_0.pdf 9 http://www.nsf.gov/bfa/dias/policy/dmp.jsp

10 http://grants.nih.gov/grants/policy/data_sharing/data_sharing_guidance.htm
22

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. 

Applicants 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 does not provide details concerning whether all attachments (or how

many attachments) transferred successfully. Applicants using Grants.gov will 

receive a series of e-mail messages over a period of up to two business days before 

learning whether a Federal agency’s electronic system has received its application.

Applicants are urged to use Grants.gov’s Download Submitted Applications 

feature to check that all required attachments were contained in their submission. 

Go to the Grants.gov Online Users Guide available at the Grants.gov site 

(http://go.usa.gov/cjaEh), choose Applicants, then Applicant Actions, then select 

the “Check My Application Status” option, click on the Download Submitted 

Applications feature, and follow the directions.

Applicants can track their submission in the Grants.gov system by following the 

procedures at the Grants.gov site (http://go.usa.gov/cjamz ). It can take up to two 

business days for an application to fully move through the Grants.gov system to 

NIST. 

NIST uses the Tracking Numbers assigned by Grants.gov, and does not issue Agency 

Tracking Numbers. 

c. Application Format

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

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

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

readable or viewable and may be landscape orientation.

(4) Font. Easy to read font (11-point minimum). Smaller type may be used in 

figures and tables but must be clearly legible.

(5) Line spacing. Single.

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

(7) Paper copies. Will not be accepted. All submissions must be made via 

www.grants.gov.
23

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

(see Section IV.2.c.(3)).

(9) Page Limit. Twenty-five (25) pages.

a) Page limit includes: Cover page, Technical Proposal (with the

exception of the Executive Summary), figures, graphs, tables, images,

pictures, and all other pages of an application, with the exception of the

page limit exclusions listed below.

b) Page limit excludes: Table of Contents, Executive Summary, SF424, Application for Federal Assistance; the SF-424A, Budget

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

– Non-Construction Programs; SF-LLL, Disclosure of Lobbying

Activities; CD-511, Certification Regarding Lobbying; Budget Tables 

and Budget Narratives; Indirect Cost Rate Agreement; Table of 

Abbreviations and Acronyms; Table of Funded Project Participants 

and Unfunded Informal Collaborators; Bibliographic List of References 

Resumes of Key Personnel; Required Letters of Commitment; Letters 

of Interest; and the Data Management Plan.

(10) Page numbering. Number pages sequentially.

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

(12) Application language. English.

(13) Typed document. All applications, including forms, must be typed.

d. Application Replacement Pages. Applicants may not submit replacement pages 

and/or missing documents after an application has been submitted. Any revisions 

must be made by submission of a new application that must be received by NIST by 

the submission deadline.

e. Pre-Applications. NIST is not accepting pre-applications or white papers under this

FFO.

f. Certifications Regarding Federal Felony and Federal Criminal Tax Convictions, 

Unpaid Federal Tax Assessments and Delinquent Federal Tax Returns. In 

accordance with Federal appropriations law, an authorized representative of the 

selected applicant(s) may be required to provide certain pre-award certifications 

regarding federal felony and federal criminal tax convictions, unpaid federal tax 

assessments, and delinquent federal tax returns.

3. Unique Entity Identifier and System for Award Management (SAM). Pursuant 

to 2 C.F.R. part 25, applicants and recipients (as the case may be) are required to: 
24

(i) be registered in SAM before submitting their applications; (ii) provide a valid 

unique entity identifier in their applications; and (iii) continue to maintain an active 

SAM registration with current information at all times during which they have an 

active Federal award or an application or plan under consideration by a Federal 

awarding agency, unless otherwise excepted from these requirements pursuant to 2

C.F.R. § 25.110. NIST will not make a Federal award to an applicant until the 

applicant has complied with all applicable unique entity identifier and SAM 

requirements and, if an applicant has not fully complied with the requirements by the 

time that NIST is ready to make a Federal award pursuant to this FFO, NIST may 

determine that the applicant is not qualified to receive a Federal award and use that 

determination as a basis for making a Federal award to another applicant.

4. Submission Dates and Times. Applicants must submit applications electronically 

through www.grants.gov. Electronic applications must be received no later than

11:59 p.m. Eastern Time on Thursday, December 1, 2016. The approximate start 

date for the award made under this FFO is expected to be January 1, 2017.

When developing your submission timeline, please keep in mind that (1) all 

applicants are required to have a current registration in the System for Award 

Management (SAM.gov); (2) the free annual registration process in the electronic 

System for Award Management (SAM.gov) (see Section IV.3. and Section 

IV.7.a.(1).b. of this FFO) may take between three and five business days or as long 

as more than two weeks; and (3) electronic applicants are required to have a current 

registration in Grants.gov; and (4) applicants using Grants.gov will receive a series

of e-mail messages over a period of up to two business days before learning 

whether a Federal agency’s electronic system has received its application. Please 

note that a federal assistance award cannot be issued if the designated

recipient’s registration in the System for Award Management (SAM.gov) is not 

current at the time of the award.

Applicants will find instructions on registering with SAM.gov as part of the 

Grants.gov process at: 

http://www.grants.gov/web/grants/applicants/organization-registration.html.

The date and time recorded by www.grants.gov will be considered the official time 

that the application was received by NIST. Applicants are cautioned that the 

validation process may take up to two full business days after the application is 

submitted to Grants.gov.

NIST strongly recommends that applicants do not wait until the last minute to submit 

an application. NIST will not make allowance for any late submissions. The 

responsibility for ensuring a complete application is received by NIST by the

deadline is the sole responsibility of the applicant. To avoid any potential processing 

backlogs due to last minute Grants.gov registrations, applicants are strongly 

encouraged to start their Grants.gov registration process at least four (4) weeks prior 

to the application due date.
25

NIST will not accept applications submitted by mail, facsimile, or by e-mail.

5. Intergovernmental Review. Applications under this Program are not subject to

Executive Order 12372.

6. Funding Restrictions. Construction activities are not an allowable cost under this 

program. In addition, a recipient or a subrecipient may not charge profits, fees or 

other increments above cost to an award issued pursuant to this FFO. Pre-award 

costs under this FFO are subject to the prior written approval of the NIST Grants

Officer.

7. Other Submission Requirements

a. Applications must be submitted electronically through www.grants.gov. NIST

will not accept applications submitted by mail, facsimile, or by e-mail.

(1) Electronic applications must be submitted via Grants.gov at www.grants.gov, 

under announcement 2017-NIST-MEP-EMUSA-01.

a) Submitters of electronic applications 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 an

application is received does not provide information about whether 

attachments have been received. For further information or questions 

regarding applying electronically for the 2017-NIST-MEP-EMUSA-01 

announcement, contact Christopher Hunton by phone at 301-975-5718

or by e-mail at grants@nist.gov.

b) Applicants are strongly encouraged to start early and not wait until the 

approaching due date before logging on and reviewing the instructions

for submitting an application 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. Applicants

must have a valid unique entity identifier number and must maintain a

current registration in the Federal government’s primary registrant

database, the System for Award Management (https://www.sam.gov/), 

as explained on the Grants.gov Web site. See also Section IV.3. of

this FFO. After registering, it may take several days or longer from the

initial log-on before a new Grants.gov system user can submit an

application. Only individuals authorized as organization

representatives will be able to submit the application, and the system 

may need time to process a submitted application. Applicants should

save and print the proof of submission they receive from Grants.gov. If
26

problems occur while using Grants.gov, the applicant is advised to (a) 

print any error message received and (b) call Grants.gov directly for

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.

c) To find instructions on submitting an application on Grants.gov,

Applicants should refer to the “Applicants” tab in the banner just below

the top of the www.grants.gov home page. Clicking on the “Applicants” 

tab produces two exceptionally useful sources of information, Applicant

Actions and Applicant Resources, which applicants are advised to

review.

Applicants will receive a series of e-mail messages over a period of up to two 

business days before learning whether a Federal agency’s electronic system has 

received its application. Closely following the detailed information in these 

subcategories will increase the likelihood of acceptance of the application by the 

Federal agency’s electronic system.

Applicants should pay close attention to the guidance under “Applicant FAQs,” as it 

contains information important to successful submission on Grants.gov, including 

essential details on the naming conventions for attachments to Grants.gov 

applications.

All applicants should be aware that adequate time must be factored into applicants’

schedules for delivery of their application. Applicants are advised that volume on

Grants.gov may be extremely heavy on the deadline date.

The application must be both received and validated by Grants.gov. The application 

is “received” when Grants.gov provides the applicant a confirmation of receipt and 

an application tracking number. If an applicant does not see this confirmation and 

tracking number, the application has not been received. After the application has

been received, it must still be validated. During this process, it may be “validated” or 

“rejected with errors.” To know whether the application was rejected with errors and 

the reasons why, the applicant must log in to Grants.gov, select “Applicants” from

the top navigation, and select “Track my application” from the drop-down list. If the 

status is “rejected with errors,” the applicant may still seek to correct the errors and 

resubmit your application before the deadline. If the applicant does not correct the 

errors, the application will not be forwarded to NIST by Grants.gov.
27

Refer to important information in Section IV.4. Submission Dates and Times, to help 

ensure your application is received on time.

b. Amendments. Any amendments to this FFO will be announced through

Grants.gov. Applicants may sign up on Grants.gov to receive amendments by email or may request copies from Jennifer Leon by telephone at (301) 975-4176 or by

e- mail to mepffo@nist.gov.

V. Application/Proposal Review Information

1. Evaluation Criteria. The evaluation criteria, selection factors, and review and 

selection processes for this program are set forth below. Reviewers will evaluate

how well the applicant’s proposed approach will achieve the goals and objectives of 

this competition, and support the MEP mission, as described in Section I of the FFO. 

NIST will use the following evaluation criteria in evaluating applications and 

assigning weights, with a maximum score of 100.

a. Alignment with MOU Framework for MEP – Manufacturing USA Institute

Collaboration (30 points; sub-criteria will receive equal weight)

i. Reviewers will assess the extent to which the applicant’s proposal aligns 

with the 4 elements of the NIST – DOD MOU (see Section I. of this FFO), 

which defines the framework for how Manufacturing USA Institutes and 

MEP Centers can work together to facilitate engagement of small U.S. 

manufacturers to:

 Increase small U.S. manufacturer awareness of Manufacturing 

USA Institute focus areas and resources;

 Ensure the involvement of small U.S. manufacturers in the 

processes and activities associated with informing and developing 

the research agendas of the Manufacturing USA Institutes;

 Increase small U.S. manufacturers’ participation in Manufacturing 

USA Institute research; and 

 Ensure the transition of Manufacturing USA Institute research 

results to small U.S. manufacturers for implementation.

Reviewers will evaluate how effective and thorough the proposed approach 

will be in accomplishing these framework elements. The quality and 

technical merit of the proposed approach will be evaluated, as well as the 

number of framework elements that are addressed. 

ii. Reviewers will evaluate the adequacy of the proposed business model and 

service delivery mechanisms, including the respective roles and

responsibilities of the proposed team members and their proposed 

relationships to each other, the identified tasks and measureable

milestones and assess the likelihood that and the extent to which those 
28

models and mechanisms will be developed, tested, deployed, and 

implemented so as to best leverage available resources, add capabilities to 

the MEP System, and enhance the impact of Institutes’ efforts to benefit 

the technological needs of small manufacturers. The quality and technical 

merit of the applications will also be evaluated based upon the likelihood 

that and the extent to which the proposed approach will result in positive 

impacts for small U.S. manufacturers in terms of 

• new and retained sales;

• jobs created or saved; and

• new small U.S. manufacturers’ investments in their businesses and 

small U.S. manufacturers’ cost savings. 

b. Development of a Sustainable Manufacturing USA Institute – MEP Collaboration 

to Benefit Small U.S. Manufacturers (10 points; sub-criteria will receive equal 

weight) 

i. Reviewers will assess the viability of the proposed business models being 

developed and tested. Specifically, reviewers will evaluate the extent to 

which the proposed approach will be based upon a revenue model that is 

aligned with, and can persist within, the operating parameters for 

participating MEP Center(s), Manufacturing USA Institute(s), and the small 

U.S. manufacturers to be served. Included here will be an assessment of 

the likelihood that and the extent to which the proposed model will be able 

to sustain the provision of cutting edge innovative manufacturing 

technological assistance to small U.S. manufacturers beyond the period of 

performance of its award under this announcement.

ii. Reviewers will also assess the likelihood that the proposed approach will 

attract small U.S. manufacturers on a large scale – potentially on the order 

of hundreds or more, annually, per participating Institute [or Center[?]. 

c. Manufacturing USA Institutes and MEP Network Building (20 points; sub-criteria 

will receive equal weight)

i. Reviewers will assess the extent to which the approach in the applicant’s 

proposal cultivates network building across the national network of MEP 

Centers, as well as the national network of Manufacturing USA Institutes

and other organizations and entities involved with U.S. manufacturing. 

Reviewers will assess the quality, merit, depth, and breadth of the network 

building being proposed by each applicant.

ii. Reviewers will also specifically assess the number of MEP Centers and 

Manufacturing USA Institutes involved in the proposed approach for each 

application, as well as the geographic attributes of the network building that 

occurs (whether it is local, state, regional, national, or a combination). 

Proposals that are assessed as contributing to national network building 
29

and national scale benefits for U.S. manufacturing will be evaluated higher 

than those whose impacts are assessed as lesser and more localized. 

 

d. Key Personnel and Organizational Structure. (20 points; sub-criteria will 

receive equal weight) Reviewers will assess the ability of the key personnel and 

the applicant’s proposed management structure to successfully conduct the project 

being proposed. It is the intent of NIST MEP and this program that project activities 

be true and significant collaborations between the participating MEP Centers and 

Manufacturing USA Institutes. Reviewers will assess the significance of the effort 

being proposed in terms of amount of staff time being allocated to the embedding of 

personnel from MEP Centers within Manufacturing USA Institutes, in relation to the 

overall proposed effort. Proposed approaches are required to fund the embedding 

of MEP Center personnel in residence at Manufacturing USA Institutes at a total 

level of effort and time commitment equal to or greater than 1.0 full-time equivalent 

(FTE) staff year.

It is required that the embedded MEP Center personnel must operate in residence 

at the participating Institutes. For purposes of this FFO, MEP Center personnel 

being embedded in residence at a Manufacturing USA Institute means the MEP 

embedded personnel are physically based at the Institute commensurate with the 

commitment identified in the project narrative and budget, utilizing Institute office 

space and interacting with Institute staff and members. This must be clearly 

stated and evidenced in the proposal, and the applicant must include a 

statement that there will be at least one (1) or the equivalent of one (1) fulltime FTE in residence at a specified Manufacturing USA institute(s) and 

provide salary information in their proposal that is consistent with this 

statement as full-time in the proposed budget. Being embedded in residence 

also means that the embedded personnel are wholly focused on project tasking 

included in the proposed approach during the time while they’re embedded at the 

Institute – versus being focused on customary MEP Center duties.

 

Applicants may also propose approaches that involve the participation of multiple 

Manufacturing USA Institutes, as well as multiple MEP Centers. Any proposal, 

however, must include participation from at least one of the 4 Manufacturing USA 

Institutes identified in Sections I. and III.1 of this FFO. A proposal that fails to meet 

the requirements set forth in this FFO will be deemed as unresponsive to this FFO.

Reviewers will assess the quality, merit, and extent to which the following is evident 

when evaluating the qualifications of the applicant and of program management:

i. Proposed personnel identified from the MEP Center(s) to be embedded 

within the participating Manufacturing USA Institute(s) have the appropriate 

education, technical background, and experience assisting small U.S. 

manufacturers, especially in areas relating to technology acceleration and 

working with supply chains, to appropriately represent the involved MEP 

Center(s) to the involved Manufacturing USA Institute(s);
30

ii. Key personnel are identified in the participating Manufacturing USA

Institute(s), the participating MEP Center(s), and other participating 

organizations to appropriately support the activities of the proposed Pilot 

Project, including the embedding of personnel;

iii. Proposed management structure and organizational roles are clearly 

defined and aligned to plan, direct, monitor, organize and oversee the 

implementation of the proposed approach to achieve project objectives, 

and the proposed organizational structure flows logically from the 

specified approach to the project deliverables; and

iv. Proposed organizational structures and participating personnel from the 

MEP Center(s) and Manufacturing USA Institute(s) are ready to begin 

project operations upon receipt of funding award.

e. Budget. (20 points; sub-criteria will receive equal weight) Reviewers will assess 

the suitability and focus of the applicant’s budget for each year of the proposed Pilot

Project, with a performance period of up to two (2) years. It is expected that the 

amount of project award funding that is applied to direct project activity costs, 

including salaries of embedded personnel, should be maximized. The reviewers will 

consider whether the:

i. Proposed budget projections are reasonable and appropriate for the

scale of effort to be undertaken by the applicant over each year of the 

proposed project plan; and

ii. The proposal’s narrative explains the rationale for each of the

budgeted items, including assumptions the applicant used in budgeting

for the overall project, and the proposed budget is aligned to support 

the execution of the proposed project consistent with the objectives of

the project, the objectives and expectations of this program, and to 

advance MEP system goals.

2. Review and Selection Process

Proposals, reports, documents and other information related to applications submitted 

to NIST and/or relating to financial assistance awards issued by NIST will be reviewed 

and considered by Federal employees, Federal agents and contractors, and/or by nonFederal personnel, all of which enter into appropriate nondisclosure and conflicts of 

interest agreements covering such information.

a. Initial Administrative Review of Applications. An initial review of timely received 

applications will be conducted to determine eligibility, completeness, and 

responsiveness to this FFO and the scope of the stated program objectives. 

Applications determined to be ineligible, incomplete, and/or non-responsive may be 
31

eliminated from further review. However, NIST, in its sole discretion, may continue 

the review process for an application that is missing non-substantive information 

which may easily be rectified or cured. 

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/Review and Ranking. All eligible, complete and responsive 

applications will be peer reviewed by at least three (3) independent, objective 

individuals with appropriate professional and technical expertise relating to 

the topics covered in this FFO. Reviews will be limited to technical and cost 

matters, based on the evaluation criteria (see Section V.1 of this FFO). A mix 

of Federal and non-Federal reviewers may be used. The reviewers’ scores 

will be determined on an individual basis, not as a consensus. The reviewers 

may ask questions of some or all applicants in writing. Reviewers will assign 

each application a score, based on the application’s responsiveness to the 

FFO evaluation criteria, with a maximum score of 100. 

 

Applicants whose applications receive an average score of 70 or higher out of 

100 will be deemed finalists. If deemed desirable, all finalists will be invited to 

participate with reviewers in separate conference calls and/or all finalists will 

be invited to participate in individual site visits that will be conducted by the 

same reviewers at the applicant’s location. Finalists will be reviewed and 

evaluated, and reviewers may revise their assigned numeric scores based on 

the evaluation criteria as a result of the conference call and/or site visit.

A rank order will be prepared based on the average of the reviewers’ scores 

and assigned adjectival ratings in accordance with the following scale: 

Fundable, Outstanding (90-100);

Fundable, Very Good (80-89);

Fundable (70-79); or 

Unfundable (0-69).

For decision-making purposes, applications receiving the same adjectival 

rating will maintain a rank order based on the average of the reviewers’ 

scores – both within the particular adjectival ranking, as well as overall.

The Subject Matter Expert, who will be a NIST MEP federal employee, will 

review the evaluators’ final scores, written technical comments and the final 

ranking of the proposals, and will provide a written recommendation to the

Selecting Official concerning the funding of awards under this FFO. The 

Subject Matter Expert may recommend to the Selecting Official that awards 

be made out of rank order (i.e., from a lower adjectival category) based upon 

one or more of the selection factors described in section V.3 of this FFO.
32

(2) Selection. The Selecting Official is the MEP Director or designee. The 

Selecting Official makes the final recommendation to the NIST Grants Officer 

regarding the funding of applications under this FFO. The Selecting Official 

shall be provided all applications, all the scores and technical assessments of 

the reviewers, a written funding recommendation from the Subject Matter 

Expert, and all information obtained from the applicants during the evaluation, 

review and negotiation processes.

The Selecting Official will generally select and recommend the most 

meritorious applications for awards based on the technical comments and 

adjectival rankings, recommendation from the Subject Matter Expert, and/or 

one or more of the selection factors described in Section V.3. of this FFO. 

The Selecting Official retains the discretion to select and recommend an 

application out of rank order (i.e., from a lower adjectival category) based on 

one or more of the selection factors, or to select and recommend no 

applications for funding. The Selecting Official’s recommendation to the 

Grants Officer shall set forth the bases for the selection decision.

As part of the overall review and selection process, NIST reserves the right to 

request that applicants provide pre-award clarifications and/or to enter into 

pre-award negotiations relative to programmatic, financial or other aspects of 

an application, such as but not limited to the revision or removal of proposed 

budget costs, or the modification of proposed project activities, work plans or 

program goals and objectives. In this regard, NIST may request that 

applicants provide supplemental information required by the Agency prior to 

award. NIST also reserves the right to reject an application where information 

is uncovered that raises a reasonable doubt as to the responsibility of the 

applicant. The final approval of selected applications and issuance of awards 

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

Officer are final.

c. Federal Awarding Agency Review of Risk Posed by Applicants. After 

applications are proposed for funding by the Selecting Official, the NIST Grants 

Management Division (GMD) performs pre-award risk assessments in accordance 

with 2 C.F.R. § 200.205, which may include a review of the financial stability of an 

applicant, the quality of the applicant’s management systems, the history of 

performance, reports and finding from financial assistance audits, and/or the 

applicant’s ability to effectively implement statutory, regulatory, or other

requirements imposed on non-Federal entities. 

In addition, prior to making an award where the total Federal share is expected to

exceed the simplified acquisition threshold (currently $150,000), NIST GMD will

review and consider the publicly available information about that applicant in the

Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System (FAPIIS). An

applicant may, at its option, review and comment on information about itself

previously entered into FAPIIS by a Federal awarding agency. As part of its review
33

of risk posed by applicants, NIST GMD will consider any comments made by the

applicant in FAPIIS in making its determination about the applicant’s integrity,

business ethics, and record of performance under Federal awards. Upon

completion of the pre-award risk assessment, the Grants Officer will make a

responsibility determination concerning whether the applicant is qualified to receive

the subject award and, if so, whether appropriate special conditions that correspond

to the degree of risk posed by the applicant should be applied to an award.

3. Selection Factors. The Selection Factors for this FFO are as follows:

a. The availability of Federal funds;

b. Relevance of the proposed project to the program goals and policy objectives;

c. Reviewers' evaluations, including technical comments;

d. Ensuring appropriate geographic diversity in the award of MEP funding, as well 

diversity in awarding MEP funding to multiple MEP Centers and Manufacturing 

USA Institutes;

e. Ensuring appropriate diversity in targeted industry sectors and/or supply chains;

f. The selection factors contained in 15 U.S.C. § 278(k)(f)(5); and 

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

agencies.

4. Anticipated Announcement and Award Date. Review, selection, and award 

processing is expected to be completed by December 2016. The anticipated start 

date for awards made under this FFO is expected to be January 1, 2017.

5. Additional Information

a. Notification to Unsuccessful Applicants. Unsuccessful applicants will be notified 

in writing.

b. Retention of Unsuccessful Applications. An electronic copy of each non-selected 

application will be retained for three (3) years for record keeping purposes. After 

three (3) years, it will be destroyed.

c. Protection of Proprietary Information. When an application includes trade secrets 

or information that is commercial or financial, or information that is confidential or 

privileged, it is furnished to the Government in confidence with the understanding 

that the information shall be used or disclosed only for evaluation of the application. 

Such information will be withheld from public disclosure to the extent permitted by 

law, including the Freedom of Information Act (5 U.S.C. § 552). Applicants should 

clearly mark as “proprietary” any information contained in their applications that they 

believe is a trade secret or otherwise protected proprietary business information. 

Without assuming any liability for inadvertent disclosure, NIST will seek to limit 

disclosure of such information to its employees and to outside reviewers when 

necessary for merit review of the application or as otherwise authorized by law. This 
34

restriction does not limit the Government’s right to use the information if it is obtained 

from another source.

VI. Federal Award Administration Information

1. Federal Award Notices. Successful applicants will receive an award package from 

the NIST Grants Officer. The award cover page, i.e., CD-450, Financial Assistance 

Award is available at http://go.usa.gov/SNMR.

2. Administrative and National Policy Requirements

a. Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles and Audit 

Requirements. Through 2. C.F.R. § 1327.101, the Department of Commerce 

adopted Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit 

Requirements for Federal Awards at 2 C.F.R. Part 200, which apply to awards in this 

program. Refer to http://go.usa.gov/SBYh and http://go.usa.gov/SBg4.

b. Department of Commerce Financial Assistance Standard Terms and 

Conditions. The Department of Commerce will apply the Financial Assistance 

Standard Terms and Conditions dated December 26, 2014, accessible at 

http://go.usa.gov/hKbj, to this award. Refer to Section VII. of this FFO, Federal 

Awarding Agency Contacts, Grant Rules and Regulations, if you seek the 

information at this link and it is no longer working or you need more information.

c. Pre-Award Notification Requirements. The Department of Commerce will apply 

the Pre-Award Notification Requirements for Grants and Cooperative Agreements 

dated December 30, 2014 (79 FR 78390), accessible at http://go.usa.gov/hKkR.

Refer to Section VII. of this FFO, Federal Awarding Agency Contacts, Grant Rules 

and Regulations, if you seek the information at this link and it is no longer working or 

you need more information.

d. 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 

the Department of Commerce be responsible for application 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 the Department of Commerce to 

issue any specific award or to obligate any available funds.

e. Supporting Documentation. Following the issuance of an MEP award, NIST may 

require recipients to provide copies of sub-tier agreements, including subawards and 

contracts over $150,000, as well subrecipient performance monitoring plans.

3. Reporting
35

a. Reporting Requirements. The following reporting requirements described in 

Sections A.01 Performance (Technical) Reports and B.02, Financial Reports of the 

Department of Commerce Financial Assistance Standard Terms and Conditions 

(December 26, 2014), http://go.usa.gov/hKbj apply to awards in this program (see 

Section VI.2.b. of this FFO):

(1) Financial Reports. The Recipient shall submit an SF-425, Federal Financial 

Report, into the MEP’s Enterprise Information System (MEIS) on a semi-annual 

basis after the sixth and twelfth month of each operating year, unless other 

reporting intervals and/or due dates are identified by the NIST Grants Officer 

pursuant to a Special Award Condition. Reports will be due within 30 calendar 

days after the end of each semi-annual reporting period. The Recipient shall

submit a final SF-425 within 90 days after the expiration date of the award.

(2) Performance (Technical) Reports. The Recipient shall submit a Technical 

Report (completing all required MEIS fields) on a semi-annual basis after the 

sixth and twelfth month of each operating year, unless other reporting intervals 

and/or due dates are identified by the NIST Grants Officer pursuant to a Special 

Award Condition. Reports are due in MEIS no later than 30 calendar days 

following the end of each reporting period. The Recipient shall submit a final 

Technical/Quarterly report within 90 days after the expiration date of the award, 

and publication citation information as well as links to publicly available data shall 

be submitted as soon as they become available.

If a recipient’s Data Management Plan has changed since their last submission

of a technical report, the recipient must include their revised plan in the next 

technical report following the revision to the plan. The revised plan must include 

all of the requirements described in Section IV.2.a.(9). of this FFO.

Technical/Quarterly Report details are accessible on the MEIS website 

(https://meis.nist.gov/). Technical progress reports shall contain information as 

prescribed in the NIST MEP Reporting Guidelines (OMB Control Number 0693-

0032). For further information regarding the NIST MEP Reporting Process, you 

may download a copy of the NIST MEP Reporting Guidelines at 

http://nist.gov/mep.

(3) Patent and Property Reports. From time to time, and in accordance with the 

Uniform Administrative Requirements set forth in 2 C.F.R. part 200 and in 

accordance with other terms and conditions governing the award, the recipient 

may be required to submit property and patent reports.

(4) Recipient Integrity and Performance Matters. In accordance with section 872 

of Public Law 110-417 (as amended; see 41 U.S.C. 2313), if the total value of a 

recipient’s currently active grants, cooperative agreements, and procurement 

contracts from all Federal awarding agencies exceeds $10,000,000 for any 

period of time during the period of performance of an award made under this 
36

FFO, then the recipient shall be subject to the requirements specified in 

Appendix XII to 2 C.F.R. Part 200, http://go.usa.gov/cTBwC, for maintaining the 

currency of information reported to SAM that is made available in FAPIIS about 

certain civil, criminal, or administrative proceedings involving the recipient.

b. Audit Requirements. 2 C.F.R. 200 Subpart F, adopted by the Department of 

Commerce through 2 C.F.R. § 1327.101 requires any non-Federal entity (including 

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

expends Federal awards of $750,000 or more in the recipient’s fiscal year to conduct 

a single or program-specific audit in accordance with the requirements set out in the 

Subpart. Applicants are reminded that NIST, the Department of Commerce 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. Applicants 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 available here http://go.usa.gov/hKnQ.

VII. Federal Awarding Agency Contacts

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

Phone: (301) 975-5105

Fax: (301) 963-6556

E-mail: mepffo@nist.gov

Technical Assistance with Grants.gov

Submissions

Christopher Hunton

Phone: (301) 975-5718

Fax: (301) 975-8884

E-mail: grants@nist.gov

Grants.gov

Phone: (800) 518-4726

E-mail: support@grants.gov

Grant Rules and Regulations Michael Teske
37

Subject Area Point of Contact

Phone: (301) 975-6358

Fax: (301) 975-6368

E-mail: michael.teske@nist.gov

VIII. Other Information

1. Webinar Information Sessions: NIST MEP will hold one or more webinar 

information sessions for organizations that are considering applying for this funding 

opportunity. The webinar(s) will provide general information regarding MEP and 

offer general guidance on preparing proposals. NIST MEP staff will be available

during the webinar(s) to answer general questions. During the webinars, proprietary 

technical discussions about specific project ideas will not be permitted. Also, NIST

MEP staff will not critique or provide feedback on any specific project ideas during

the webinar(s) or at any time before submission of a proposal to MEP. However, 

NIST MEP staff will provide information about the MEP eligibility, evaluation criteria

and selection factors, selection process, and the general characteristics of a

competitive MEP proposal during this webinar. The webinar(s) will be held

approximately one (1) to thirty (30) business days after posting of this FFO. The

exact dates and times of the webinar(s) will be posted on the MEP website at 

www.nist.gov/mep/embedding-mep-manufacturing-usa-institutes-pilot-projectsround-two www.nist.gov/mep/embedding-mep-manufacturing-usa-institutes-pilotprojects-round-two. The webinar(s) will be recorded, and a link to the recordings will 

be posted on the MEP website. In addition, the webinar presentation(s) will be

available after the webinar(s) on the MEP website.

Organizations wishing to participate in the webinar(s) must register in advance by

contacting MEP by e-mail at mepffo@nist.gov. Participation in the webinar(s) is not

required in order for an organization to submit an application pursuant to this FFO.

2. Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs). Questions from applicants pertaining to 

eligibility, evaluation criteria and selection factors, selection process, and the general 

characteristics of a competitive MEP proposal will not be considered on an informal 

basis. Applicants must submit all such questions in writing to mepffo@nist.gov. 

Questions submitted to NIST MEP may be posted as part of an FAQ document, 

which will be periodically updated on the MEP website at 

www.nist.gov/mep/embedding-mep-manufacturing-usa-institutes-pilot-projectsround-two.