Informa(on	Webinar	

Federal Funding Opportunity: 2015-NIST-MEP-01

Conference	Call	#	Toll	Free	Dial	In		

Toll	Free	Dial	In	-	1-866-218-2764		

Par(cipant	Passcode	-	875	903	8127	

You	will	be	muted	on	entry	to	webinar	–	please	use	chat	

feature	
WELCOME 

Informational Webinar – March 30, 2015 

2 p.m. (EDT) 

Federal Funding Opportunity: 2015-NIST-MEP-01

National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) 

Manufacturing Extension Partnership (MEP) 

Mark Troppe, Manager of Partnership & Program Development, NIST MEP 

Tab Wilkins, Regional Manager for Strategic Transition, NIST MEP 

Diane Henderson, Manager, Competitions NIST MEP
3 

Information Webinar and Communication Protocols 

• Webinar serves as a communication vehicle to provide an overview of 

the funding opportunity. 

• During the webinar, proprietary technical discussions about specific 

project ideas will not be permitted. 

• NIST/MEP staff will not critique or provide feedback on any project ideas 

during the webinar or at any time before submission of a proposal to 

MEP. 

– We will consider questions of a clarifying nature that are not specific to an individual 

proposal. 

– If you want to submit questions following the webinar, please email them to MEP at 

mepffo@nist.gov. 
Information Webinar Agenda 

• NIST MEP Program Overview 

• Funding Opportunity Overview 

• Evaluation Criteria 

• Review and Selection Process 

• Selection Factors 

• Administration Requirements for Applications 

• Reporting Requirements 

• MEP Resources 

• Agency Contacts 

• FAQs 

• Staying in touch 

4 
MEP Overview 

MISSION 

To enhance the productivity and technological 

performance of U.S. Manufacturing. “

“

ROLE 

MEP’s state and regional centers facilitate and accelerate the transfer 

of manufacturing technology in partnership with industry, universities 

and educational institutions, state governments, and NIST and other 

federal and research laboratories and agencies. 

 

www.nist.gov/mep mfg@nist.gov (301)975-5020 5 

MEP Overview 
MEP Overview 

MEP Program in Short 

www.nist.gov/mep mfg@nist.gov (301)975-5020 6 

MEP System Budget 

$130 Million Federal Budget 

with Cost Share 

Requirements for Centers 

Global Competitiveness 

Program was created by the 

1988 Omnibus Trade And 

Competitive Act 

Evolving Role 

Program continues to evolve in 

order to support manufacturers 

during changing economic 

situations. 

Program Started in 1988 

At least one center in all 50 

states by 1996 

National Network 

60 Centers with over 550 Field Locations. System 

wide, Non-Federal Staff is over 1,200. Contracting 

over 3,200 third party service providers. 

Partnership Model 

Federal, State 

and Industry 
MEP Overview 

www.nist.gov/mep mfg@nist.gov (301)975-5020 7 

MEP Strategic Plan (2014-2017) 

Strategic Goals 

ENHANCE COMPETITIVENESS

Enhance the competitiveness of U.S. 

manufacturers, with particular focus 

on small and medium-sized 

companies.

CHAMPION MANUFACTURING

Serve as a voice to and a voice for 

manufacturing and manufacturers 

in engaging policy makers, 

stakeholders, and clients.

SUPPORT PARTNERSHIPS

Support national, state, and regional 

manufacturing eco-systems and 

partnerships.

DEVELOP CAPABILITIES

Develop MEP’s capabilities as a 

learning organization and high 

performance system.
MEP Overview 

Partnering to Drive a National Program 

www.nist.gov/mep mfg@nist.gov (301)975-5020 8 

The MEP network focuses on 

solving manufacturers’ biggest 

challenges and identifying 

opportunities for growth. 

Nearly 300,000 Manufacturers 

Over 3,200 Affiliated Service 

Providers 

Over 1,200 Center Staff 

559 Service 

Locations 

National 

Network 

Customers 

Small and Medium Size 

Manufacturers 

MEP Program 

Integration, Knowledge 

Sharing, and Evaluation 
MEP Overview 

National Network 

www.nist.gov/mep mfg@nist.gov (301)975-5020 9 
MEP Overview 

Center Structure Diversity 

www.nist.gov/mep mfg@nist.gov (301)975-5020 10 

Partnerships 

• Single location 

• Principal organization with independent partner organizations 

• Central office with regional offices 

• Headquarters operation with multiple field offices 

Utilizes existing local resources to 

provide manufacturing extension 

services relies heavily on 

partnerships 

Public & Private 

Sector 

Staff are employees of the 

Center and its partners – 

not the Federal 

Government 

Geography 

Urban and Rural Areas. 

Centers are never more than 2 

hours away of a manufacturer. 

Organization Type 

Nonprofit 

University 

State Government 

Organizational Structure Nonprofit	 University	 State	Gov't	

33	

18	

7	
MEP Overview 

How Centers work with Manufacturers 

www.nist.gov/mep mfg@nist.gov (301)975-5020 11 

Initial Contact 

Group sessions, referral

Assessment 

Informal walk-through, 

detailed company 

analysis 

Identify 

Find potential issues, 

define proposed 

project and approach 

for solving it 

Negotiate 

Consult with company 

and sign project 

contract with fee paid 

to center

1 2 3 4 5

Project Execution 

Center staff, partner 

organization, and/or third 

party consultants

After completion, project follow-up by center to 

assure customer satisfaction and explore 

further project opportunities 

Project impact data collected by contractor 

for NIST approximately 6 months after 

project completion 
MEP Overview 

What MEP Does 

www.nist.gov/mep mfg@nist.gov (301)975-5020 12 

Work with small and medium size manufacturers to help 

them create and retain jobs, increase profits and save 

time and money 

Focus on meeting manufacturer’s short term needs, but 

in context of overall company strategy. 

Reach over 30,000 manufacturing firms and complete 

over 10,000 projects per year. 

Provides companies with a consistent set of services 

including: 

Technology 

Acceleration 

Supply Chain 

Development 

Workforce 

Development 

Innovation 

and Growth 

Lean 

Process Sustainability 
MEP Overview 

Client Impacts 

www.nist.gov/mep mfg@nist.gov (301)975-5020 13 

= 1,000 manufacturers

30,056

Manufacturers

served in FY20141

$2.7

Billion

NEW CLIENT 

INVESTMENTS

$1.1

Billion

COST SAVINGS

$4.2 

Billion

$2.5 

Billion

NEW SALES

46,069 17,883

JOBS RETAINED JOBS CREATED RETAINED SALES
MEP Overview 

Client Challenges 

www.nist.gov/mep mfg@nist.gov (301)975-5020 14 

69% 

53% 

48% 

41% 

21% 

14% 14% 12% 

8% 

0% 

10% 

20% 

30% 

40% 

50% 

60% 

70% 

80% 

MEP Overview 
MEP Overview 

MEP Program Initiatives & Services 

MEP’s Program Initiatives & Services 

are aimed to help manufacturers identify opportunities that will accelerate and strengthen their 

growth and competitiveness in the global marketplace

www.nist.gov/mep mfg@nist.gov (301)975-5020 15 

Growth and Innovation Sustainability Supply Chain 

Technology Acceleration Workforce Make it in America 

Export 

Continuous Improvement 
MEP Overview 

The MEP Organization 

www.nist.gov/mep mfg@nist.gov (301)975-5020 16 

Carroll A. Thomas 

Director, MEP 

William Kinser, Chief 

Partnerships and Program 

Development 

Mark Troppe, Chief 

System Operations 

Office 

Mike Simpson, Chief 

Center Operations 

Effective April 2015 

Oversees the use of federal 

funds awarded through MEP 

centers cooperative 

agreements 

Identifies new service 

offerings for implementation 

by MEP Center system. And 

works with MEP Centers to 

foster partnerships with 

federal, state, and local 

partners. 

Helps MEP Centers identify 

opportunities for serving 

manufacturers. Regional 

managers serve as primary 

points of contact with MEP 

Centers 
MEP Overview 

The MEP Organization 

www.nist.gov/mep mfg@nist.gov (301)975-5020 17 

Manufacturing 

Policy & Research 

Ken Voytek, Acting Manager 

Communications 

Kari Reidy, Acting 

Manager 

Administration & 

Finance 

Ron Gan, Chief of Staff 

and CFO 

Conducts performance 

evaluations for the MEP 

Center system and facilitates 

reporting of MEP performance 

data. 

Manages public outreach and 

internal and external 

communications. 

Develops and maintains 

information technology tools 

for NIST and the MEP center 

system. Manages financial 

and budgetary processes. 
Information Webinar Agenda 

• NIST MEP Program Overview 

• Funding Opportunity Overview 

• Evaluation Criteria 

• Review and Selection Process 

• Selection Factors 

• Administration Requirements for Applications 

• Reporting Requirements 

• MEP Resources 

• Agency Contacts 

• FAQs 

• Staying in touch 

18 
Funding Opportunity Overview (1) 

• Funding Opportunity Title: Award Competitions for Hollings Manufacturing Extension 

Partnership (MEP) Centers in the States of Alaska, Idaho, Illinois, Minnesota, New 

Jersey, New York, Ohio, Oklahoma, Utah, Washington, West Virginia and Wisconsin 

• Funding Opportunity Description: 

– NIST invites applications from eligible organizations in connection with NIST’s funding up to 

twelve (12) separate MEP cooperative agreements for the operation of an MEP Center in the 

designated States’ service areas and in the funding amounts identified in Section II.2. of the 

FFO. NIST anticipates awarding one (1) cooperative agreement for each of the identified 

States. 

– Objective of the MEP Center Program is to provide manufacturing extension services to 

primarily small and medium-sized manufacturers within the whole State designated in the 

applications. 

19 
Funding Opportunity Overview (2) 

• Authority: The statutory authority for this program is 15 U.S.C. §278k, as implemented in 15 C.F.R part 290 

• Funding Instrument: Cooperative Agreement 

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

recipient organization(s). 

20 
Funding Opportunity Overview (3) 

• Funding Available: 

– NIST anticipates funding twelve (12) MEP Center awards with an initial five-year period of performance in 

accordance with the multi-year funding policy described in Section II.3. of the FFO. Initial funding for the 

projects listed in this FFO is contingent upon the availability of appropriated funds. 

– Below are the twelve (12) States identified for funding as part of this FFO: 

21 

MEP	Center	Loca(on	and	

Assigned	Geographical	

Service	Area	(by	State)

An(cipated	Annual	Federal	

Funding	for	Each	Year	of	

the	Award

Total	Federal	Funding	for	

5	Year	Award	Period

Alaska $500,000 $2,500,000

Idaho $640,236 $3,201,180

Illinois $5,029,910 $25,149,550

Minnesota $2,653,649 $13,268,245

New	Jersey $2,814,432 $14,072,160

New	York $5,985,194 $29,925,970

Ohio $5,246,822 $26,234,110

Oklahoma $1,309,080 $6,545,400

Utah $1,147,573 $5,737,865

Washington $2,534,872 $12,674,360

West	Virginia $500,000 $2,500,000

Wisconsin $3,250,792 $16,253,960
Funding Opportunity Overview (4) 

• Multi-Year Funding Policy. 

– When an application for a multi-year award is approved, funding will usually be provided for only the first year of the 

project. 

– Recipients will be required to submit detailed budgets and budget narratives prior to the award of any continued 

funding. 

– Continued funding for the remaining years of the project will be awarded 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. 

• Potential for Additional 5 Years. 

– Initial awards issued pursuant to this FFO are expected to be for up to five (5) years with the possibility for NIST to 

renew the award, on a non-competitive basis, for an additional 5 years at the end of the initial award period. 

– The review processes in 15 C.F.R. § 290.8 will be used as part of the overall assessment of the recipient, consistent 

with the potential long-term nature and purpose of the program. 

– In considering renewal for a second five-year, multi-year award term, NIST will evaluate the results of the annual 

reviews and the results of the 3rd Year peer-based Panel Review findings and recommendations as set forth in 15 

C.F.R. § 290.8, as well as the Center’s progress in addressing findings and recommendations made during the 

various reviews. 

– The full process is expected to include programmatic, policy, financial, administrative, and responsibility 

assessments, and the availability of funds, consistent with Department of Commerce and NIST policies and 

procedures in effect at that time. 

22 
Funding Opportunity Overview (5) 

• Cost Share or Matching Requirements: 

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

year of the award, with an increasing minimum non-federal cost share contribution beginning in year 4 of the award as 

follows: 

• Non-Federal cost sharing is that portion of the project costs not borne by the Federal Government. The applicant’s share 

of the MEP Center expenses may include cash, services, and third party in-kind contributions, as described at 2 C.F.R. § 

200.306, as applicable, and in the MEP program regulations at 15 CFR § 290.4(c). No more than 50% of the applicant’s 

total non-Federal cost share for any year of the award may be from third party in-kind contributions of part-time 

personnel, equipment, software, rental value of centrally located space, and related contributions, per 15 CFR § 

290.4(c)(5). The source and detailed rationale of the cost share, including cash, full- and part-time personnel, and in-kind 

donations, must be documented in the budget tables and budget narratives submitted with the application and will be 

considered as part of the review under the evaluation criterion found in Section V.1.c.ii. of this FFO. 

• Recipients must meet the minimum non-federal cost share requirements for each year of the award as identified in 

the chart above. For purposes of the MEP Program, “program income” (as defined in 2 C.F.R. § 200.80, as applicable) 

generated by an MEP Center may be used by a recipient towards the required non-federal cost share under an MEP 

award. 

23 

Year	of	Center	Opera(on Maximum	NIST	Share 	Minimum	Non-Federal	Share

1-3 1/2 1/2

4 2/5 3/5

5	and	beyond 1/3 2/3
Funding Opportunity Overview (6) 

• Eligible Applicants. 

– The eligibility requirements given in this section of the FFO will be used in lieu of those given in the MEP regulations 

found at 15 CFR part 290, specifically 15 CFR § 290.5(a)(1). 

– Each applicant for and recipient of an MEP award must be a U.S.-based nonprofit institution or organization. For 

the purpose of this FFO, nonprofit institutions include public or private nonprofit organizations, nonprofit or State 

colleges and universities, public or nonprofit community and technical colleges, and State, local or Tribal 

governments. Existing MEP awardees and new applicants who meet the eligibility criteria set forth in this section 

may apply. 

– An eligible organization may work individually or may include proposed subawards to eligible organizations or 

proposed contracts with any other organization as part of the applicant’s proposal, effectively forming a team. 

– However, as discussed in Section III.3.a. of the FFO, NIST generally will not fund applications that propose an 

organizational or operational structure that, in whole or in part, delegates or transfers to another person, institution, 

or organization the applicant’s responsibility for core MEP Center management and oversight functions. See also 

Section IV.6. of the FFO for funding restrictions under the MEP Program. 

24 
Funding Opportunity Overview (7) 

Kick-Off Conferences

• Each recipient will be required to attend a kick-off conference, which will be held at the beginning of the project period, to 

help ensure that the MEP Center operator has a clear understanding of the program and its components. 

 

• The kick-off conference will take place at NIST/MEP headquarters in Gaithersburg, MD, during which time NIST will: 

– (1) orient MEP Center key personnel to the MEP program; 

– (2) explain program and financial reporting requirements and procedures; 

– (3) identify available resources that can enhance the capabilities of the MEP Center; and 

– (4) negotiate and develop a detailed three-year operating plan with the recipient. NIST/MEP anticipates an additional set 

of site visits at the MEP Center and/or telephonic meetings with the recipient to finalize the three-year operating plan. 

• The kick-off conference will take up to approximately 5 days and must be attended by the MEP Center Director, along with up to 

two additional MEP Center employees. 

• Applicants must include travel and related costs for the kick-off conference as part of the budget for year one (1), and these 

costs should be reflected in the SF-424A covering the first four (4) years of the project. (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).(e). of this FFO.) 

• Representatives from key subrecipients and other key strategic partners may attend the kick-off conference with the prior written 

approval of the Grants Officer. Applicants proposing to have key subrecipients and/or other key strategic partners attend the 

kick-off conference should clearly indicate so as part of the budget narrative for year one of the project. 

25 
Funding Opportunity Overview (8) 

MEP System-Wide Meetings

• NIST/MEP typically organizes system-wide meetings approximately four times a year in an effort to share best practices, new 

and emerging trends, and additional topics of interest. 

• These meetings are rotated throughout the United States and typically involve 3-4 days of resource time and associated travel 

costs for each meeting. 

• The MEP Center Director must attend these meetings, along with up to two additional MEP Center employees. 

• Applicants must include travel and related costs for four quarterly MEP system-wide meetings in each of the five (5) project 

years (4 meetings per year; 20 total meetings over five-year award period). 

• These costs must be reflected in the SF-424A covering the first four (4) years of the project (see Section IV.2.a.(2). of this FFO) 

and in the SF-424A covering year five (5) of the project (see Section IV.2.a.(10). of this FFO). 

• These costs must also be reflected in the budget tables and budget narratives for each of the project’s five (5) years, which are 

submitted in the budget tables and budget narratives section of the Technical Proposal. (See Section IV.2.a.(6).(e). of this FFO). 

26 
Funding Opportunity Overview (9) 

MEP CENTER OVERSIGHT BOARD 

• Each Center shall establish and maintain an oversight board that is broadly representative of local stakeholders with a majority 

of board members drawn from local small- and medium-sized manufacturing firms. 

• Members of a Center’s oversight board may not concurrently serve on more than one Center’s oversight board. 

• If a Center’s oversight board does not meet the requirements of this paragraph at any time during the term of an MEP award, the 

Center must disclose the deficiencies to the FPO and must submit a detailed plan to the FPO for bringing its oversight board into 

compliance with this term within 12 months. 

• Additionally, each Center oversight board shall adopt bylaws governing the operation of the board, including a conflict of interest 

policy to ensure relevant relationships are disclosed and proper recusal procedures are in place. 

• Upon request, a Center shall provide the FPO and/or NIST Grants Officer with copies of its organizational documents, including 

articles of incorporation or charters, ratified by-laws and conflict of interest policies. 

• Please refer to Section 7 of the Hollings Manufacturing Extension Partnership General Terms and Conditions for further 

information http://nist.gov/mep/ffo-state-competitions-02.cfm

27 
Funding Opportunity Overview (10) 

Letters of Commitment or Support 

• For non-profit applicants with a fiduciary board of directors, a resolution from such board authorizing 

submission of the MEP Center application to NIST and supporting the activities described therein is required. 

• Applicant Non-Federal Cost Sharing (Cash and In-kind): A letter of commitment is required from an authorized 

representative of the applicant, stating the total amount of cost share to be contributed by the applicant towards the 

proposed MEP Center project separate and apart from the submission of the proposal. 

– This stand-alone letter must cover all five (5) years of the proposed MEP Center project and include a per year 

break-out of the applicant’s contribution of non-federal cost share, as well as a per year break-out of cash cost 

share (including anticipated program income) and in-kind (non-cash) contributions. 

• Please make sure to review Section IV.2.a.7, Letters of Commitment or Support 

28 
Information Webinar Agenda 

• NIST MEP Program Overview 

• Funding Opportunity Overview 

• Evaluation Criteria 

• Review and Selection Process 

• Selection Factors 

• Administration Requirements for Applications 

• Reporting Requirements 

• MEP Resources 

• Agency Contacts 

• FAQs 

• Staying in touch 

29 
Evaluation Review Criteria: 

The applications will be evaluated based on the evaluation criteria described below. 

a. Executive Summary and Project Narrative (40 – Sub-criteria I through iv will be weighted equally) 

i. Center Strategy 

ii. Market Understanding 

1. Market Segmentation 

2. Needs Identification and Product/Service Offerings 

iii. Business Model 

1. Outreach and Service Delivery to the Market 

2. Partnership Leverage and Linkages 

iv. Performance Measurement and Management 

b. Qualifications of the Applicant; Key Personnel and Organizational Structure (30 – Sub-criteria i and ii will be 

weighted equally) 

i. Key Personnel 

ii. Organizational Structure 

c. Budget and Financial Plan (30 – Sub-criteria will be weighted equally)) 

i. Budget 

ii. Quality of the Financial Plan for Meeting the Award’s Non-Federal Cost Share Requirements over 5 years. 

30 
Review Criteria #1- Executive Summary and Project Narrative (Center Strategy, Market 

Understanding, Business Model and Performance Measurement and Management) 

a. Executive Summary and Project Narrative. (40 points; Sub-criteria i through iv will be weighted equally) NIST/MEP will 

evaluate the extent to which the applicant’s Executive Summary and Project Narrative demonstrates how the applicant’s 

methodology will efficiently and effectively establish an MEP Center and provide manufacturing extension services to primarily 

small and medium-sized manufacturers in the applicable State-wide geographical service area identified in Section II.2. of this 

FFO. Applicants should name the state to be covered in the first sentence of the Executive Summary and Project Narrative. 

Reviewers will consider the following topics when evaluating the Executive Summary and Project Narrative: 

i. Center Strategy. Reviewers will assess the applicant’s strategy proposed for the Center to deliver services that 

support a strong manufacturing ecosystem, meet manufacturers’ needs and generate impact. Reviewers will assess 

the quality with which the applicant: 

• incorporates the market analysis described in the criterion V.1.a.ii.(1). below to inform strategies, products 

and services; 

• defines a strategy for delivering services that balances market penetration with impact and revenue 

generation, addressing the needs of manufacturers, with an emphasis on the small and medium-sized 

manufacturers; 

• Defines the Center’s existing and/or proposed roles and relationships with other entities in the State’s 

manufacturing ecosystem, including State, regional, and local agencies, economic development 

organizations and educational institutions such as universities and community or technical colleges, industry 

associations, and other appropriate entities; 

• plans to engage with other entities in Statewide and/or regional advanced manufacturing initiatives; and 

• supports achievements of the MEP mission and objectives while also satisfying the interests of other 

stakeholders, investors, and partners.

 

31 
Review Criteria #1 – continued

ii. Market Understanding. Reviewers will assess the strategy proposed for the Center to define the target market, 

understand the needs of manufacturers (especially Small Medium Enterprises (SMEs)), and to define appropriate services 

to meet identified needs. Reviewers will evaluate the proposed approach for regularly updating this understanding through 

the five years. The following sub-topics will be evaluated and given equal weight: 

 

1) Market Segmentation. Reviewers will assess the quality and extent of the applicant’s market segmentation 

including: 

• company size, geography, industry including a segmentation of rural, emerging, start-up and very small 

manufacturers as appropriate to the state; 

• alignment with state and/or regional initiatives; and 

• other important factors identified by the applicant. 

 

2) Needs Identification and Product/Service Offerings. Reviewers will assess the quality and extent of the 

applicant’s proposed needs identification and proposed products and services for both sales growth and operational 

improvement in response to the applicant’s market segmentation and understanding assessed by reviewers under 

the preceding Section V.1.a.ii.1. Of particular interest is how the applicant would leverage new manufacturing 

technologies, techniques and processes usable by small and medium-sized manufacturers. Reviewers will also 

consider how an applicant’s proposed approach will support a job-driven training agenda with manufacturing clients. 

32 
Review Criteria #1 – continued

iii. Business Model. Reviewers will assess the applicant’s proposed business model for the Center as the applicant provides in 

its Project Narrative, Qualifications of the Applicant; Key Personnel, Organizational Structure and Budget Tables and Budget 

Narratives sections of its Technical Proposal, submitted under section IV.2.a.(6) of this FFO, and the proposed business 

model’s ability to execute the strategy evaluated under criterion V.1.a.i. above, based on the market understanding evaluated 

under criterion V.1.a.ii. above. The following sub-topics will be evaluated and given equal weight: 

 

1) Outreach and Service Delivery to the Market. Reviewers will assess the extent to which the proposed Center is 

organized to: 

• identify, reach and provide proposed services to key market segments and individual manufacturers described 

above; 

• work with a manufacturer’s leadership in strategic discussions related to new technologies, new products and 

new markets; and 

• leverage the applicant’s past experience in working with small and medium-sized manufacturers as a basis for 

future programmatic success. 

 

2) Partnership Leverage and Linkages. Reviewers will assess the extent to which the proposed Center will make effective 

use of resources or partnerships with third parties such as industry, universities, community/technical colleges, nonprofit 

economic development organizations, and Federal, State and Local Government Agencies in the Center’s business 

model. 

• quality and extent of the applicant’s stated goals, milestones and outcomes described by operating year (year 1, 

year 2, etc.); 

• applicant’s utilization of client-based business results important to stakeholders in understanding program 

impact; and 

• depth of the proposed methodology for program management and internal evaluation likely to ensure effective 

operations and oversight for meeting program and service delivery objectives. 

33 
Review Criteria #1 continued: 

iv. Performance Measurement and Management. Reviewers will assess the extent to which the 

applicant will use a systematic approach to measuring and managing performance including the: 

• quality and extent of the applicant’s stated goals, milestones and outcomes described by operating 

year (year 1, year 2, etc.); 

• applicant’s utilization of client-based business results important to stakeholders in understanding 

program impact; and 

• depth of the proposed methodology for program management and internal evaluation likely to 

ensure effective operations and oversight for meeting program and service delivery objectives. 

. 

34 
Review Criteria #2 Qualifications of the Applicant; Key Personnel and Organizational 

Structure 

b. Qualifications of the Applicant; Key Personnel and Organizational Structure (30 points; Sub-criteria i and ii 

will be weighted equally). Reviewers will assess the ability of the key personnel and the applicant’s management 

structure to deliver the program and services envisioned for the Center. Reviewers will consider the following topics 

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

i. Key Personnel. Reviewers will assess the extent to which the: 

• proposed key personnel have the appropriate experience and education in manufacturing, outreach and partnership 

development to support achievements of the MEP mission and objectives; 

• proposed key personnel have the appropriate experience and education to plan, direct, monitor, organize and control the 

monetary resources of the proposed Center to achieve its business objectives and maximize its value; 

• proposed staffing plan flows logically from the specified approach to the market and products and service offerings; and 

• proposed field staff structure sufficiently supports the geographic concentrations and industry targets for the region. 

ii. Organizational Structure. Reviewers will assess the extent to which the: 

• proposed management structure (leadership and governance) is aligned to support the execution of the strategy, 

products and services; 

• organizational roles and responsibilities of key personnel and staff are clearly delineated; and 

• degree to which the Center’s proposed oversight board meets the requirements of Section III.3.b. of this FFO or, if such 

a structure is not currently in place or is not expected to continue meet these requirements at the time of the MEP 

award, a feasible plan is proposed for developing such an oversight board within 12 months of issuance of an MEP 

award (expected to be January 2016). 

35 
Review Criteria #3 – Budget and Financial Plan 

c. Budget and Financial Plan. (30 points; Sub-criterion i and ii will be weighted equally) Reviewers will assess the suitability 

and focus of the applicant’s five (5) year budget. The application will be assessed in the following areas: 

i. Budget. Reviewers will assess the extent to which: 

• the proposed financial plan is aligned to support the execution of the proposed Center’s strategy and business model over the five 

(5) year project plan; 

• the proposed projections for income and expenditures are appropriate for the scale of services that are to be delivered by the 

proposed Center and the service delivery model envisioned within the context of the overall financial model over the five (5) year 

project plan; 

• a reasonable ramp-up or scale-up scope and budget that has the Center fully operational by the 4th year of the project; and 

• the proposal’s narrative for each of the budgeted items explains the rationale for each of the budgeted items, including 

assumptions the applicant used in budgeting for the Center. 

 

ii. Quality of the Financial Plan for Meeting the Award’s Non-Federal Cost Share Requirements over 5 Years. Reviewers will 

assess the quality of and extent to which the: 

• applicant clearly describes the total level of cost share and detailed rationale of the cost share, including cash and in-kind, in their 

proposed budget. 

• applicant’s funding commitments for cost share are documented by letters of support from the applicant, proposed sub-recipients 

and any other partners identified and meet the basic matching requirements of the program; 

• applicant’s cost share meets basic requirements of allowability, allocability and reasonableness under applicable federal costs 

principles set for in 2 C.F.R. 200, Subpart E; 

• applicant’s underlying accounting system is established or will be established to meet applicable federal costs principles set for in 2 

C.F.R. 200, Subpart E; and 

• the overall proposed financial plan is sufficiently robust and diversified so as to support the long term sustainability of the Center 

throughout the five (5) years of the project plan. 

36 
Information Webinar Agenda 

• NIST MEP Program Overview 

• Funding Opportunity Overview 

• Evaluation Criteria 

• Review and Selection Process 

• Selection Factors 

• Administration Requirements for Applications 

• Reporting Requirements 

• MEP Resources 

• Agency Contacts 

• FAQs 

• Staying in touch 

37 
Review and Selection Process (1)

• 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 eliminated from further review. However, 

NIST, in its sole discretion, may continue the review process for an application that is missing non-substantive information 

that can easily be rectified or cured. 

• Full Review of Eligible, Complete, and Responsive Applications. Applications that are determined to be eligible, 

complete, and responsive will proceed for full reviews in accordance with the review and selection processes below. Eligible, 

complete and responsive applications will be grouped by the State in which the proposed MEP Center is to be established. 

The applications in each group will be reviewed by the same reviewers and will be evaluated, reviewed, and selected as 

described below in separate groups. 

• Evaluation and Review. Each application will be reviewed by at least three technically qualified individual reviewers who 

will evaluate each application based on the evaluation criteria (see Section V.1. of this FFO). Applicants may receive 

written follow-up questions in order for the reviewers to gain a better understanding of the applicant’s proposal. Each 

reviewer will assign each application a numeric score, with a maximum score of 100. If a non-Federal reviewer is used, 

the reviewers may discuss the applications with each other, but scores will be determined on an individual basis, not as a 

consensus. 

• Applicants whose applications receive an average score of 70 or higher out of 100 will be deemed finalists. If deemed 

necessary, all finalists will be invited to participate with reviewers in a conference call and/or all finalists will be invited to 

participate in a site visit 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 (see

Section V.1. of this FFO) as a result of the conference call and/or site visit. 

38 
Review and Selection Process (2)

– Ranking and Selection. The reviewers’ final numeric scores for all finalists will be converted to ordinal rankings 

(i.e., a reviewer’s highest score will be ranked “1”, second highest score will be ranked “2”, etc.). The ordinal 

rankings for an applicant will be summed and rank order will be established based on the lowest total for the 

ordinal rankings, and provided to the Selecting Official for further consideration. 

• The Selecting Official is the NIST Associate Director of Innovation and Industry Services or designee. The 

Selecting Official makes the final recommendation to the NIST Grants Officer regarding the funding of 

applications under this FFO. NIST/MEP expects to recommend funding for the highest ranked applicant for 

each of the twelve (12) States being competed under this FFO. However, the Selecting Official may decide to 

select an applicant out of rank order based upon one or more of the Selection Factors identified in Section V.

3. of this FFO. The Selecting Official may also decide not to recommend funding for a particular State to any 

of the applicants. 

• NIST reserves the right to negotiate the budget costs with any applicant selected to receive an award, which 

may include requesting that the applicant remove certain costs. Additionally, NIST may request that the 

successful applicant modify objectives or work plans and 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.. 

39 
Information Webinar Agenda 

• NIST MEP Program Overview 

• Funding Opportunity Overview 

• Evaluation Criteria 

• Review and Selection Process 

• Selection Factors 

• Administration Requirements for Applications 

• Reporting Requirements 

• MEP Resources 

• Agency Contacts 

• FAQs 

• Staying in touch 

40 
Selection Factors 

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

 

a. The availability of Federal funds; 

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

c. Reviewers' evaluations, including technical comments; 

d. The need to assure appropriate distribution of MEP services within the designated State; 

e. Whether the project duplicates other projects funded by DoC or by other Federal agencies; and 

f. Whether the application complements or supports other Administration priorities, or projects supported by DoC or 

other Federal agencies, such as but not limited to the National Network for Manufacturing Innovation and the 

Investing in Manufacturing Communities Partnership. 

41 
Information Webinar Agenda 

• NIST MEP Program Overview 

• Funding Opportunity Overview 

• Evaluation Criteria 

• Review and Selection Process 

• Selection Factors 

• Administration Requirements for Applications 

• Reporting Requirements 

• MEP Resources 

• Agency Contacts 

• FAQs 

• Staying in touch 

42 
Administrative Requirements of Application (1) 

• Complete applications/proposals must, at a minimum, include the following forms and documents and meet the 

following requirements identified in the FFO which are: 

• Required Forms*: 

• SF-424 Application for Federal Assistance 

• SF-424A’s Budget Information Non-Constructions (Years 1-4) and separate SF424a 

 for Year 5 

• SF-424B Assurances Non-construction 

• CD-511 Certification Regarding Lobbying 

• SF-LLL Disclosure of Lobbying Activities (if applicable) 

• Technical Proposal (please be sure to read Section IV.2.a.6 of FFO) 

*Forms are available as part of the Grants.gov application kit 

43 
Administrative Requirements of Application (2) 

Proposal Requirements (Section IV.2(a)(6)): 

• Technical Proposal. The five (5) year Technical Proposal is a word-processed document not exceeding 40 pages 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. 

– Table of Contents (Does not count towards page limit) 

– Executive Summary - The executive summary should briefly (usually no longer than two pages) describe the proposed 

project, consistent with the evaluation sub-criteria (see Section V.1.a. of this FFO). Applicants should name the State in 

which they are seeking to establish an MEP Center in the first sentence of the Executive Summary. 

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

business information by the applicant. (Does not count towards page limit). 

– Project Narrative 

– Qualifications of the Applicant and Program Management 

– Budget Tables and Budget Narratives 

• A suggested format is provided on the MEP website - http://nist.gov/mep/ffo-state-competitions-02.cfm

• Letters of Commitment or Support – DOES NOT COUNT TOWARDS PAGE LIMIT 

• For non-profit applicants with a fiduciary board of directors, a resolution from such board authorizing submission of the 

MEP Center application to NIST and supporting the activities described therein is required. 

• Applicant Non-Federal Cost Sharing (Cash and In-Kind) is required from an authorized representative 

44 
Administrative Requirements of Application (3) 

• 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 DoC Financial Assistance Standard Terms 

and Conditions. 

• Resumes 

– One-page resumes of no more than five key personnel may be included; these do not count toward the page limit. 

– Any information beyond one page for each resume and any additional resumes submitted will not be considered. 

• SF-424A, Budget Information - Non-Construction Programs for year five (5)

45 
Administrative Requirements of Application (4)

• Application Format (Section IV 2(b)): 

– Page Limit. The Technical Proposals are limited to forty (40) pages. Information on pages 

beyond the page limit will not be considered. 

– 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. 

– Page limit excludes: Table of Contents, Executive Summary, SF-424, Application for Federal 

Assistance; both copies of 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; Table of Contents, budget tables and budget narratives; 

Letters of Commitment and/or Support; Indirect Cost Rate Agreement, and Resumes. 

46 
Administrative Requirements of Application (5) 

• Dates: 

– Electronic applications must be received no later than 11:59 p.m via www.Grants.gov. 

Eastern Time on Monday, June 1, 2015. Paper applications will not be accepted. 

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, 2016. 

– NIST will not accept applications submitted by mail, facsimile, or by email. 

– Applications received after the respective deadline will not be reviewed or considered. 

47 
Administrative Requirements of Application (6) 

. 

• 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: 

• (i) be registered in SAM before submitting its application; 

• (ii) provide a valid unique entity identifier in its application; and 

• (iii) continue to maintain an active SAM registration with current information at all times during which it has 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. 

– When developing your submission timeline, keep in mind that (1) a free annual registration process in the electronic 

System for Award Management (SAM) (see Section IV.3) may take between three and five business days or as long as 

more than two weeks, and (2) applicants using Grants.gov will receive a series of receipts over a period of up to two 

business days before learning via a validation or rejection 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.

48 
Information Webinar Agenda 

• NIST MEP Program Overview 

• Funding Opportunity Overview 

• Evaluation Criteria 

• Review and Selection Process 

• Selection Factors 

• Administration Requirements for Applications 

• Reporting Requirements 

• MEP Resources 

• Agency Contacts 

• FAQs 

• Staying in touch 

49 
Reporting Requirements (1) 

• In lieu of the 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), the 

following reporting requirements shall apply: 

– 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 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. 

– 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 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. 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/ffo-state-competitions-02.cfm. 

– Post Client Project Follow-Up. The recipient will be required to provide client and project data on a quarterly 

basis (unless otherwise directed by the NIST Grants Officer) and in a specified format to the organization identified 

by NIST/MEP in order for post-project follow-up data to be obtained (OMB Control Number 0693-0021). 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/ffo-state-competitions-02.cfm.

50 
Information Webinar Agenda 

• NIST MEP Program Overview 

• Funding Opportunity Overview 

• Evaluation Criteria 

• Review and Selection Process 

• Selection Factors 

• Administration Requirements for Applications 

• Reporting Requirements 

• MEP Resources 

• Agency Contacts 

• FAQs 

• Staying in touch 

51 
MEP Resources 

The following resources outlined in the FFO are currently available on the MEP website at: 

http://www.nist.gov/mep/ffo-state-competitions-02.cfm: 

• NIST MEP System Strategic Plan; 

• Hollings Manufacturing Extension Partnership Operating Plan Guidelines (February 

2015); 

• Hollings Manufacturing Extension Partnership General Terms and Conditions 

(February 2015); 

• 2013 Annual Report; (2014 coming in April) 

• Sample Budget Table (for all 5 years) and Budget Chart and Narrative (for Year 1); and 

• NIST MEP Reporting Guidelines 

52 
MEP Resources continued... 

• Manufacturing Technology Acceleration Center (M-TAC) Pilot Projects – Report on Initial Progress and Learning (February 2015) 

http://www.nist.gov/mep/services/supplychain/upload/MTAC_Report-print.pdf

 

• Promising Practices in Overall Performance – Featuring MEP Centers of Indiana, Ohio, and Oklahoma (January 2013) This 

document appears to be available on MEIS only! 

https://meis.nist.gov/_layouts/MEIS/GetMeisDocument.ashx?AttachmentID=7165&MeisDocType=SubmissionAttachment

 

• National Governors Association – “Making” Our Future – What States Are Doing to Encourage Growth in Manufacturing through 

Innovation, Entrepreneurship, and Investment (January 2013) 

http://www.nga.org/cms/home/nga-center-for-best-practices/center-publications/page-ehsw-publications/col2-content/main-content-list/

making-our-future.html

 

• Re-examining the MEP Business Model: Alternatives for Increasing the Program’s Impact on US Manufacturing Sector 

Performance (October 2010) 

http://www.nist.gov/mep/upload/MEP_Bus_Model_Report_Summary_July2010.pdf

http://stone-assoc.com/uploads/MEP_Bus_Model_Rpt_.pdf

 

 

• Hollings MEP Advisory Board Innovation and Product Development in the 21st Century (February 2010) 

http://nist.gov/mep/upload/MEP_advisory_report_4_24l.pdf

 

 

• National Academy of Public Administration – The NIST MEP Program – Report 2: Alternative Business Models (May 2004) 

http://www.napawash.org/2004/1541-manufacturing-extension-partnership-program-report-2-alternative-business-models.html

 

• National Academy of Public Administration – The NIST MEP Program – Report 1: Re-examining the Core Premise of the MEP 

Program (September 2003) 

http://patapsco.nist.gov/mep/documents/pdf/about-mep/reports-studies/napa_1.pdf

53 
MEP Resources continued... 

• National Academies. 21st Century Manufacturing: The role of the Manufacturing-Extension-Partnership 

http://www.nap.edu/catalog/18448/21st-century-manufacturing-the-role-of-the-manufacturing-extension-partnership

 

• Manufacturing Extension Partnership: Most Federal Spending Directly Supports Work with Manufacturers, but Distribution 

Could Be Improved

http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-14-317

 

• Factors for Evaluating the Cost Share of Manufacturing Extension Partnership Program to Assist Small and Medium-Sized 

Manufacturers

http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-11-437R

 

 

• MPI and ASMC. 2013. Next Generation Manufacturing Study 

http://www.wmep.org/sites/default/files/NGM-StudySummaryReport.pdf

54 
Information Webinar Agenda 

• NIST MEP Program Overview 

• Funding Opportunity Overview 

• Evaluation Criteria 

• Review and Selection Process 

• Selection Factors 

• Administration Requirements for Applications 

• Reporting Requirements 

• MEP Resources 

• Agency Contacts 

• FAQs 

• Staying in touch 

55 
Agency Contacts 

56 

Subject Area Point of Contact

Administrative, budget, cost-sharing, 

eligibility questions and other programmatic 

questions.

Diane Henderson

Manufacturing Extension Partnership

NIST

Phone: 301-975-5105

Fax: 301-963-6556

E-mail: mepffo@nist.gov

Technical Assistance with Grants.gov 

Submissions

Christopher Hunton

Administrative Support & Document Control 

Office

NIST

Phone: 301-975-5718

Fax: 301-975-8884

E-mail: christopher.hunton@nist.gov

Grant Rules and Regulations Jannet Cancino

Grants Management Division

NIST

Phone: 301-975-6544

Fax: 301-975-6368

E-mail: jannet.cancino@nist.gov 
Information Webinar Agenda 

• NIST MEP Program Overview 

• Funding Opportunity Overview 

• Evaluation Criteria 

• Review and Selection Process 

• Selection Factors 

• Administration Requirements for Applications 

• Reporting Requirements 

• MEP Resources 

• Agency Contacts 

• FAQs 

• Staying in touch 

57 
Have additional questions..... 

Please submit all questions in writing to NIST MEP, mepffo@nist.gov

Questions and Answers will be posted regularly on the NIST MEP Public Site, 

http://www.nist.gov/mep/ffo-state-competitions-02.cfm

58 
Information Webinar Agenda 

• NIST MEP Program Overview 

• Funding Opportunity Overview 

• Evaluation Criteria 

• Review and Selection Process 

• Selection Factors 

• Administration Requirements for Applications 

• Reporting Requirements 

• MEP Resources 

• Agency Contacts 

• FAQs 

• Staying in touch 

59 
Stay Connected 

Search NISTMEP or NIST_MEP

VISIT OUR BLOG! 

http://nistmep.blogs.govdelivery.com

Get the latest NISTMEP news at: 

www.nist.gov/mep