MAKING AN IMPACT ON U.S. MANUFACTURING

MEP State Competition

Frequently Asked Questions 

(FAQs)

2016
1

A. MEP	PROGRAM	BACKGROUND................................................................................................................................2

B. OVERALL	COMPETITIVE	PROCESS.........................................................................................................................2

C. APPLICATION	AND	SUBMISSION	INFORMATION..........................................................................................5

D. CORE	MANAGEMENT	AND	OVERSIGHT	FUNCTIONS................................................................................. 12

E. OVERSIGHT	BOARD	AND/OR	ADVISORY	COMMITTEE	AND	GOVERNANCE................................ 14

F. BUDGET	AND	COST	SHARING	OR	MATCHING	REQUIREMENT............................................................ 17

G. EVALUATION	CRITERIA............................................................................................................................................ 26

H. REVIEW	AND	SELECTION	PROCESS.................................................................................................................... 28

I. ELIGIBILITY ..................................................................................................................................................................... 29
2

2016 MEP State Competition

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)

The	below	FAQs	are	for	informational	purposes	only	and	are	intended	solely	to	assist	potential	

MEP	Center	applicants	in	better	understanding	the	MEP	Center	program	and	the	application	

requirements	set	forth	in	the	Announcement	of	Federal	Funding	Opportunity	(FFO)	for	Round	

4 of	the	2016 MEP	State	Competition.		The	FAQs	do	not	and	are	not	intended	to	supersede,	

modify,	or	otherwise	alter	applicable	statutory	or	regulatory	MEP	Center	requirements	or	the	

specific	application	requirements	set	forth	in	the	FFO.		In	all	cases,	MEP	statutory	and	

regulatory	mandates,	and	the	requirements	set	forth	in	the	FFO,	shall	prevail	over	any	

inconsistencies	contained	in	the	below	FAQs.			Please	note	that	recently	added	questions	

have	been	identified	by	the	date	in	which	they	were	added	to	this	document.		Any	

previous	responses	that	have	been	updated	have	also	been	identified	by	an	“updated	

date”.

A. MEP	PROGRAM	BACKGROUND

1. We were encouraged to read the MEP Strategic Plan (2014-2017). Can you confirm 

that the only document available is the “MEP Strategic Plan Brochure”?

NIST MEP strongly encourages applicants to read the MEP Strategic Plan which outlines 

the programs objectives over the next few years. In addition to the MEP Strategic Plan, 

there are additional documents available on our website that may provide further 

background on the MEP Program. http://nist.gov/mep/ffo-state-competitions-03.cfm.

B. OVERALL	COMPETITIVE	PROCESS

1. What is the anticipated schedule for notification of awardees?

We anticipate the review, selection and award processing to conclude by end of summer 

2016. The anticipated start date for awards made under this opportunity is expected to be 

October 2016.

2. How often do you issue the opportunity to open a new center? Annually?

The MEP program is undergoing a multi-year effort to conduct a full and open 

competition to select operators for MEP centers. The primary objective is to optimize the 

impact of the Federal investment on U.S. manufacturing and to allocate additional funds to 

areas with higher concentrations of manufacturers. 

These competitions provide an opportunity to expand the number of small manufacturers 

served by the network and to align the program activities with the strategic goals of the 

states.
3

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 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.

The full system competition will be completed by early 2017.

3. May unsuccessful applicants request a debriefing?

Yes. Unsuccessful applicants may request a debriefing, which will provide constructive 

feedback that can assist applicants to develop improved proposals in the future. Briefings 

should take the form of advice to applicants on the strengths and weaknesses of their own 

proposals in terms of the published evaluation and review criteria.

4. Will you only be awarding one applicant per State listed?

Yes, per the language in the “Funding Opportunity Description” on the top of page 2, 

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

States.”

5. Will all the Center’s be re-competed after year 5? How will the centers know if they 

will be funded beyond year 5? What is the process? (Added 2/12/16)

Per the FFO, 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.

6. How will the competition affect Centers that are up for cooperative agreement 

renewal around the time of the publication of the FFO? (Added 2/12/16)

To ensure continuity of service delivery during the award competitions, NIST MEP will 

work with the centers on preparing an extension package covering the time period 

between the current end date and the targeted start date of a new award in that particular 
4

state. For example, if an MEP Center award ends on June 30, 2016, a package for 

continued funding would be submitted for July 1, 2016 – September 30, 2016 to ensure 

continuity of service within the subject region. The NIST MEP Regional Managers 

(RMs), Federal Program Officers (FPOs) and Grant Specialists will be coordinating this 

effort.

7. Can the applicant engage in conversation with NIST MEP after submitting their 

application? (Added 2/12/16)

No, MEP Staff cannot engage in conversations related to the competition or your 

application once the FFO has published. All questions related to the competition must be 

directed to mepffo@nist.gov. NIST MEP will review the question(s) and provide a 

response as appropriate. 

8. Have you captured lessons learned from Rounds 1 & 2? (Updated 7-22-16)

Yes. We have highlighted testimonials from previous applicants in the Regional 

Information Forum and FFO Information Webinar Presentation. To view this 

presentation, please go to http://www.nist.gov/mep/ffo-regional-forum-state-competitions04.cfm. 

9. Has MEP already conducted kick-off meetings for the previous competitions? 

(Updated 7/22/16)

Yes, MEP conducted a kick-off meeting with Round 1 winners late July 2015 and the 

Round 2 kick off was held late January 2016. The Round 3 kick-off will be held late 

October 2016. MEP is currently working on the timing of the Round 4 Kick-Off Meeting. 

It will most likely occur April/May 2017.

10. Can we see an awarded application? (Added 3/10/16)

NIST does not release the awarded applications as a result of a competition. We suggest 

that you reach out to a recently award entity directly to request specific information 

pertaining to their application. A list of MEP Centers is available on our program website, 

http://ws680.nist.gov/mepmeis/FindYourLocalCenter.aspx.

11. How can an applicant track and check their application submission in grants.gov?

(Added 4/15/16)

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 indicates only that an application was transferred to a system. It does not 
5

provide details concerning whether all attachments (or how many attachments) transferred 

successfully.

Applicants can use Grants.gov’s Download Submitted Applications feature to check that 

all of the required attachments were contained in their submission. 

After submitting the application, follow the directions found in the Grants.gov Online 

Users Guide (http://go.usa.gov/cjaEh). Click first on Applicants; then click on Applicant 

Actions; go then to the “Check My Application Status” option, and choose Download 

Submitted Applications. If any, or all, of the required attachments are absent from the 

submission, follow the attachment directions found in the Full Announcement/FFO 

document, resubmit the application, and check again for the presence of the required 

attachments. 

The Grants.gov Online Users Guide available at the Grants.gov site 

(http://go.usa.gov/cjaEh) provides important information on checking the status of 

applications. 

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.Grants.gov

C. APPLICATION	AND	SUBMISSION	INFORMATION

1. Can we use color charts in the proposal and can we use web links?

Yes, you may use color charts in the application. The applicant must provide information 

that is responsive to the FFO. The evaluation panel will not be accessing or otherwise 

researching web links that have been provided by the applicant to gain additional 

information about the applicant or proposed scope of work.

2. Any limitations on fonts or font sizes?

Please refer to Section IV.2.b. (Application Format) of the FFO for the font size 

requirement. The requirement is an “easy to read font (11-Point minimum). Small type 

may be used in figures and tables but must be clearly legible.”

3. On page 14, the FFO states that the Technical Proposal is included in the 40-page 

limit but the budget tables and budget narrative are excluded from the page limit. 

However, page 16 states that the budget and budget narrative should be included 

within the Technical Proposal and page 28 indicates review criteria associated with 

the budget and budget narrative. Should the budget and budget narrative be a 

separate file outside of the 40-page limit or not?
6

The budget and budget narrative may be submitted either as a separate document or within 

the Technical Proposal. The budget tables and budget narrative will be excluded from the 

page limit regardless.

4. Page 16 of the FFO says: “it is also inappropriate to ask Federal employees for a 

letter of support.” Are Federal legislators (e.g., Senators, Representatives) defined as 

“Federal employees” for this purpose? 

For purposes of the FFO, “Federal employees” are considered employees of the Federal 

Executive Branch and not members of the Federal Legislative Branch. Thus, letters of 

support from Federal Legislators would not be prohibited under the FFO.

5. Is a cover page required or encouraged?

A cover page is not required; however if you include one, it is counted towards the 40 

page limit.

6. For letters, who should they be addressed to? Just MEP Program/ "to whom it may 

concern"? 

Required Letters of Support must be included in the application submission 

in grants.gov. All other general letters of support must also be submitted with application 

in grants.gov as an appendix (Please refer to Section IV.2.a.7 – Letter of Commitment or 

Support)

7. When State Universities are writing for the proposal, do the Board of Regents need 

to provide a Letter of Support for the Financial Plan? (Added 2/12/16)

As provided in Section IV.2.a.(7)(b)(i) of the FFO, the applicant must submit a letter of 

commitment from an authorized representative of the applicant stating the total amount of 

cost share to be contributed by the applicant during the 5-year project period, with certain 

per year breakouts. For purposes of the cost share commitment letter and subject to 

University policy, an authorized representative may be the same person that signs the SF424, Application for Federal Assistance, or another authorized representative of the 

University.

Are they required to approve the submission?

No (unless otherwise required by University policy). Section IV2.a.(7)(a) pertains to 

Nonprofit Organizations as defined in 2 C.F.R. § 200.70 and not to Institutions of Higher 

Education as defined in 2 C.F.R. § 200.55.

8. How much detail is required to document a subrecipient plan? Do we need to have 

everything nailed down, or does a program description (including budget and plan) 

and letter of commitment suffice?
7

MEP proposals should include enough information to help NIST MEP verify that the 

subawards identified in the proposal are consistent with the purposes and goals of the 

MEP Center program, and that subrecipients identified in the proposal are able to comply

with MEP program requirements. NIST MEP encourages the submission of a full, draft 

subrecipient agreement, including a proposed budget and budget narrative, at the 

application stage; however, at a minimum, proposals should identify anticipated subaward 

amounts, the proposed subawardees (if known at the time of application) and a detailed 

description of the purpose of each subaward (see Section IV.2.a.(6)e) of the FFO). Note 

that NIST may ask successful applicants for copies of draft and fully executed 

subrecipient agreements, including budgets and budget narratives, on a post-award basis. 

Applicants should also keep in mind that letters of commitment/support from proposed 

subrecipients that are key to the success of the proposed MEP Center are useful to NIST 

for verifying the availability of resources, but are not required. Applications without 

commitment letters from all identified, proposed key subrecipients may be considered less 

favorably during the application review process. The MEP Center applicant should 

include information regarding any planned cost share contribution from a subrecipient in 

the applicant’s letter of commitment (see Section IV.2.a.(7)c) of the FFO). Please note 

that the letters of commitment/support are not considered as part of the application page 

count.

9. Is a Subrecipient agreement part of the page count of the application?

No, if the applicant provides a draft copy of a subrecipient agreement it is not counted 

towards the 40-page limit.

10. Are minutes from the board meeting acceptable commitment letters? (Added 

2/12/16)

No, per the FFO “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.” In addition, the application 

must provide a letter of cost share commitment outlining the contributions for each of the 

five years of the proposed center. 

11. The FFO states that up to five resumes can be provided for key personnel. How do 

we show the expertise of our other staff that have been with the organization for 

many years? (Added 2/12/16 – Updated 7/22/16)

Please refer to Section IV.2.a.(6)(d) for guidance on the requirements for addressing the 

Qualifications of the Applicant; Key Personnel, Organizational Structure and Oversight 
8

Board or Advisory Committee. Any pages beyond the first page will be redacted and not 

passed on to the evaluation panel.

12. Do we have to submit written approval from our board? We are a state agency, so 

we don’t have a fiduciary board. Our understanding is that we would not, but want 

to double check. (Added 2/25/16)

Per the FFO, Section IV.2.7 non-profit organizations must provide a resolution from the 

fiduciary board authorizing submission of the MEP Center application to NIST and 

supporting the activities described therein.

Per Section IV.2.7.b, The applicant is required to provide a letter of commitment from an 

authorized representative of the organization, 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. The 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.

13. Could you please confirm that we can submit TEST applications and that the last 

submission is considered final and forwarded to MEP. Do we somehow identify the 

application that we want to be accepted as FINAL? If we submit TESTs applications, 

how can we be sure which one is accepted as the FINAL and moved on to MEP?

(Added 3/9/16)

Applicants may submit multiple test application submissions into Grants.gov. The last

application received in Grants.gov by the deadline will be the application considered as 

FINAL and considered for evaluation by the MEP Program Office. Grants.gov assigns a 

unique identifier to each application submitted.

14. On the SF424 form in box 14, the fillable form will not allow a short response like it 

has in the past and now requires an attachment. What should I do? (Added 3/9/16)

This field should allow for a short response, however if it is not doing so please type the 

answers on a word document and attach it as part of the application submission.

15. It doesn’t look like there is a requirement for an SRA-TPC Table, is that accurate?

(Added 3/9/16)

An SRA-TPC Table is not required as part of the application submission. 

16. On the SF424 in box 18, should the financial information cover all 5 years? (Added 

3/9/16)
9

Yes, in box 18 of the SF424 you must reflect the federal funding being requested for 

Years 1-5 along with the minimum cost share required for all 5 years of the proposed 

center.

17. The XX MEP will individually contract with each of the 12 XX community colleges 

to provide a physical location, services, training, outreach and support on behalf of 

the MEP to the state’s manufacturers. Each college would receive funding from the 

MEP in return. We have arranged letters of commitment from each college that the 

MEP will contract with. We have also established a partnership agreement – will 

these partnership agreements need to be signed and executed by each college prior to 

application submission? (Added 4/15/16)

Please refer to the response to Question 8 in this section.

18. Are letters of commitment from each third-party service provider required or can 

we identify areas on which we will seek out third-party contracts (i.e. marketing 

services, IT support). (Added 4/15/16)

Please refer to Section IV.2.a.7 Letters of Commitment or Support for requirements. 

There are letters of commitment or support that are required and some are strongly 

encouraged.

19. The FFO asks for letters of commitment from prospective key employees. Since this 

is a new application, is it necessary that we have letters of commitment from specific 

employees or can we supply a letter outlining our staffing plan and identify key 

positions within the staffing plan and budget? (Added 4/15/16)

Per the FFO, Prospective Key Employees: Letters of commitment to join the proposing 

organization’s team are useful for verifying the availability of key employees, who are not 

yet employed at a proposing organization, to participate in the project if the project is 

funded. These letters are not required, but they can play an important role in conveying 

the qualifications of key employees, especially for projects involving small companies or 

startups. Applications without commitment letters from all prospective key employees 

may be considered less favorably during the application review process.

You need to be sure to be fully response to the FFO, specifically the Qualifications of the 

Applicant: Key Personnel, Organizational Structure, etc (see Section IV.2.a.6d and the 

Evaluation Criteria in Section V).

20. We have some questions pertaining to the Form 424. (Added 4/15/16)

Form 424 – Should we complete field #5a and 5b? If so, what are they?
10

DUNS number has only 9 digits but Field #8b has 13. It automatically adds 4 zeros 

after our DUNS number. Is this correct?

8 – The system adds the zeros. There’s nothing to worry about there.

Field #12 was automatically populated when XXX downloaded the form. Field #13 

competition identification number was also automatically populated but not the 

title. Should it be completed and if so, what should it be?

5a and 5b – leave blank;

13 – No title is necessary. Some applicants put in their name, e.g., ABC Company 

application.

21. On the Five Year Budget Table, what should we put in Cooperative Agreement 

(CA)#? Should we just leave blank? (Added 4/15/16)

Leave the Cooperative Agreement (CA)# blank.

22. How can an applicant track and check their application submission in grants.gov?

(Added 4/15/16)

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 indicates only that an application was transferred to a system. It does not 
11

provide details concerning whether all attachments (or how many attachments) transferred 

successfully.

Applicants can use Grants.gov’s Download Submitted Applications feature to check that 

all of the required attachments were contained in their submission. 

After submitting the application, follow the directions found in the Grants.gov Online 

Users Guide (http://go.usa.gov/cjaEh). Click first on Applicants; then click on Applicant 

Actions; go then to the “Check My Application Status” option, and choose Download 

Submitted Applications. If any, or all, of the required attachments are absent from the 

submission, follow the attachment directions found in the Full Announcement/FFO 

document, resubmit the application, and check again for the presence of the required 

attachments. 

The Grants.gov Online Users Guide available at the Grants.gov site 

(http://go.usa.gov/cjaEh) provides important information on checking the status of 

applications. 

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.Grants.gov

23. Please confirm that the technical narrative and other applicable application 

documents can be submitted as PDF files. (Added 4/15/16)

Yes, the technical narrative and other applicable application documents may be 

submitted as PDF files.

24. Do we have to fill out an SF424 for just Year 1 or all 5 Years? (Updated 2/12/16)

The applicant must submit one SF424 covering all 5 years.

For the SF424A, you will submit 1 SF424A covering all 5 Years. The budget should 

reflect anticipated expenses for all five (5) years of the project, considering all potential 

cost increases, including cost of living adjustments. Recipients must meet the minimum 

cost share and matching requirements set forth in this FFO. Please refer to Section III.2. 

of this FFO for the Cost Share and Matching Requirement over the life of the award. The 

budget should also include staff, travel and other costs associated with the NIST/MEP 

Kick-Off Conference and System-Wide meetings as described in Sections II.5 and II.6 of 

this FFO. 

• In accordance with Section IV 2.a of the FFO, the SF-424A budget should reflect 

anticipated expenses for all five (5) years of the project not just FY17 expenses. 
12

– Section A (page 1) of the form to include expenses for all five years in the first row 

of the form (line 1). The federal amount should be in column (e) and the nonfederal amount should be in column (f) of the first row.

• In accordance with the SF-424A instructions, Section B (page 2) of the form should 

include all non-federal and federal expenses. Column 1 should also capture expenses for 

all five years.

• Section C (page 3) of the form should include non-federal resources for all 5 years not just 

FY17. 

• Section D should reflect the federal and non-federal funding needed over the 4 quarters of 

Year 1.

• Section E should reflect the requested federal funding for Years 2-5 on the first row. The 

grant program in the first field should reflect Manufacturing Extension Partnership.

• Section F (Direct & Indirect Charges) – should reflect the amounts for ALL 5 YEARS

Please carefully follow the directions found at: 

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

out this form. 

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 on Line 1 under Column (b) should be 11.611.

D. CORE	MANAGEMENT	AND	OVERSIGHT	FUNCTIONS

1. Section III.3.a. of the FFO provides that NIST MEP will not fund an organization 

that outsources core management and oversight functions pertaining to an MEP 

award. How does this restriction apply to States and other applicants that use 

SRA’s?

As set forth in Section I.4 of the FFO (reproduced below), an MEP recipient must 

maintain direct oversight and accountability over the management and operational aspects 

of an MEP project. Accordingly, while subrecipient agreements (SRAs) are permitted 

under the MEP Program, the primary recipient of the MEP award must demonstrate to 

NIST’s satisfaction that it will maintain direct oversight and responsibility relative to core 

financial and management responsibilities under an MEP award. 

An MEP Center, as a direct recipient of Federal financial assistance funds under an 

MEP cooperative agreement, must possess and maintain, at all times during an MEP 

award period, accountability to directly manage and execute all functions material and 

inherent to the successful operation of a Center, which include, but are not limited to, 

the following: 

1. Budget execution, including the responsibility for determining and executing 

budget policy, guidance and strategy, and the determination of program priorities 

and associated budget or funding requests;
13

2. Policy implementation, including the responsibility for determining the content 

and implementation of financial and program policies and procedures impacting the 

recipient’s MEP project;

3. Human resources management, including the responsibility for selecting 

individuals for Center employment and for selecting contractors and the direction, 

control, and performance management of Center employees and oversight of 

contractors; and

4. Strategic planning and project execution and management, including the 

responsibility for:

a. Strategic planning functions such as the following: determination of project 

requirements, approval of a project implementation strategy, and the 

development and monitoring of agreements and statements of work with 

subrecipients, vendors, third-party contributors and other strategic partners; and 

b. Project execution and management functions such as submission of required 

financial and technical reports, maintenance of a functioning financial 

management system that satisfies the requirements found in 2 CFR Section 

200.302, in order to ensure that costs charged against an MEP award are 

reasonable, allocable, and allowable under applicable federal cost principles; 

and adherence to the terms and conditions of the MEP award.

In extraordinary situations, the NIST Grants Officer may allow a recipient to 

temporarily outsource certain or all of its management and oversight responsibilities 

under an MEP award. If an applicant is proposing such a structure, the applicant must 

include with its application a detailed explanation and accompanying documentation 

(e.g., copies of draft contracts or other agreements) supporting its outsourcing request.

The sufficiency of the proposed Core Management and Oversight Functions will be 

evaluated against an evaluation criterion (see Section V.1.b.i. of the corresponding

FFO).

2. We are a statutorily authorized, tax-exempt corporation that acts as the fiscal agent 

for externally-funded activities at our University. The programmatic activities 

would be conducted by a manufacturing outreach division of the University and we 

would be conducting many of the administrative components (identified in section 

III.3.a of the solicitation) in concert with the manufacturing division. Would this 

generally be an eligible arrangement to conduct the project, particularly as it relates 

to the prohibition on outsourcing of administration and oversight responsibilities?

Additionally, as it relates to section III.3.b, there is a reference to “articles of 

incorporation or charters, ratified by-laws and conflict of interest policies.” Is it 

acceptable for the Oversight Board to develop its own charter, by-laws, and other 

items within an existing organization, or is it preferable that it be conducted as a 

separately organized corporation? In other words, do these documents need to be 

registered with a state organization (e.g. a Secretary of State’s Office) or can they be 

internally maintained?
14

Per the FFO, NIST/MEP staff will not critique or provide feedback on specific 

ideas/approaches at any time before submission of a proposal to MEP. 

In general, the MEP Program accommodates a variety of approaches/structure within the 

published FFO. Applicants are advised to describe the proposed center structure in detail 

and in accordance with the FFO requirements. With regards to the MEP Oversight Board, 

NIST does not require that the Oversight Board be a separate organization (Please refer to 

Section I.3).

Please refer to Section I.4 regarding MEP Core Management and Oversight Functions.

3. The XX Community College Association, a 501 (c) 6, is completing an application 

to provide the MEP program for the state of XX. In this situation, MEP program 

funding would flow through the Community College to the MEP program. The 

director of the MEP program would report directly to the president/CEO of the 

Community College thus all MEP employees would be considered community 

college employees. The MEP advisory committee would also be under the guise of 

the community college. Is this an allowable organization for a MEP program 

according to NIST guidelines? (Added 4/15/16)

As provided in the FFO, it would be inappropriate for NIST/MEP staff to critique or to 

provide feedback on specific project structures or project activities at any time during 

the open competition period. 

E. OVERSIGHT	BOARD	AND/OR	ADVISORY	COMMITTEE	AND	

GOVERNANCE

1. Does the language in the Center Oversight Board section (Section I.3) apply to subrecipient boards such that people can’t serve on more than one sub-recipient board, 

or simultaneously serve on an MEP Center Oversight Board and the board of one of 

its sub-recipients?

The language included in the Center Oversight Board Section I.3 is intended to apply to 

the prime recipient’s (MEP Center’s) Oversight Board. However, as discussed below, 

there are conflicts of interest rules that apply to MEP cooperative agreements that 

applicants should be aware of in structuring Center Oversight Boards, and in the selection 

of organizations to serve as subrecipients. 

In accordance with 2 C.F.R. § 200.112 (“Conflicts of interest”), each non-Federal entity 

(direct recipients and subrecipients) must comply with conflicts of interest policies for 

Federal awards and must disclose in writing any potential conflicts of interest to the 

Federal award agency or pass through entity. For purposes of MEP cooperative 
15

agreements, the applicable conflicts of interest policies are set forth in the Department of 

Commerce Financial Assistance Standard Terms and Conditions (December 26, 2014) 

(DoC Standard Terms and Conditions), Section J., “CODES OF CONDUCT AND 

SUBAWARD, CONTRACT, AND SUBCONTRACT PROVISIONS” (accessible at: 

http://www.osec.doc.gov/oam/grants_management/policy/documents/DOC_Standard_Ter

ms_12_26_2014.pdf). In particular, Section J.3., “COMPETITION CODES OF 

CONDUCT FOR SUBAWRDS,” of the DoC Standard Terms and Conditions provide 

that:

a. The non-Federal entity must be alert to organizational conflicts of interest as well 

as other practices among subrecipients that may restrict or eliminate competition.

b. The non-Federal entity shall maintain written standards of conduct covering 

conflicts of interest and governing the performance of its employees engaged in the 

selection, award, and administration of subawards. No employee, officer, or agent 

shall participate in the selection, award, or administration of a subaward supported 

by Federal funds if a real or apparent conflict of interest would be involved. Such a 

conflict would arise when the employee, officer, or agent, any member of his or her 

immediate family, his or her partner, or an organization in which he/she serves as an 

officer or which employs or is about to employ any of the parties mentioned in this 

section, has a financial interest or other interest in the organization selected or to be 

selected for a subaward. The officers, employees, and agents of the non-Federal entity 

shall neither solicit nor accept anything of monetary value from subrecipients. 

However, the non-Federal entity may set standards for situations in which the 

financial interest is not substantial or the gift is an unsolicited item of nominal value. 

The standards of conduct shall provide for disciplinary actions to be applied for 

violations of such standards by officers, employees, or agents of the recipient.

c. A financial interest may include employment, stock ownership, a creditor or debtor 

relationship, or prospective employment with the organization selected or to be 

selected for a subaward. An appearance of impairment of objectivity could result from 

an organizational conflict where, because of other activities or relationships with 

other persons or entities, a person is unable or potentially unable to render impartial 

assistance or advice. It could also result from non-financial gain to the individual, 

such as benefit to reputation or prestige in a professional field.

 

A recipient of an MEP cooperative agreement is expected to apply the applicable conflicts 

of interest standards to prevent real or apparent conflicts of interest at the recipient and at 

the subrecipient levels, in general, and with regard to the two examples provided in the 

above question: (1) an individual serving on more than one subrecipient board; or (2) 
16

simultaneously on an MEP Center Oversight Board and the Board of one of its 

subrecipients. In all instances, a recipient of an MEP cooperative agreement must ensure 

that adequate policies and procedures are in place to require that any Center Oversight 

Board Member who is employed by, an officer of, or otherwise has a real or apparent 

conflict of interest with respect to a subrecipient organization (or with a vendor), recuses 

himself/herself from participation in decision-making by the Center Oversight Board that 

affects the subrecipient (or vendor) organization, or otherwise takes appropriate action to 

avoid a real or apparent conflict of interest in accordance with the recipient organization’s 

conflict of interest policy. See also 2 C.F.R. Sections 200.331for the due diligence 

requirements, flow down provisions and other information that are applicable to or that 

must be contained as part of a subaward.

2. Can vendors serve on advisory board?

Per Section I.3.a of the FFO, members of the Oversight Board and/or Advisory Committee 

may not concurrently serve on more than one MEP Center Oversight Board or serve as a 

vendor or provide contractual services to the Recipient or to a Subrecipient. 

3. NIST MEP has, on occasion, communicated directly with a Center Director and the 

Center’s Board President or other Officers of the Board for matters such as CORE 

scorecard sharing, Panel Review reports, upcoming NIST MEP events and so forth. 

If a state agency that reports to the Governor and an MEP Program Advisory Board 

is selected as an MEP Center, who would NIST MEP send such correspondence to in 

addition to the Center Director? Would NIST MEP send such correspondence to the 

Governor, the Advisory Board Chair, or some other persons or entities? (Added 

2/12/16)

In the case of state run MEP Centers the state designates a representative to head its 

fiduciary board and a center director. These are the people who receive the performance 

information on the center.

4. For the advisory committee, can we identify entities that will have seats or do we 

need to identify the specific individuals that will serve on the advisory committee? If 

so, do we need letters of commitment from each committee member? (Added 4/15/16)

Per the FFO, Section I.3.b and c –

Advisory Committee

A recipient of an MEP Center cooperative agreement that is an Institution of Higher 

Education, State, Tribal or local governmental entity, where state law or policy prohibits 

compliance with the Oversight Board requirement, may establish an Advisory Committee. 

The Advisory Committee shall be broadly representative of State service area stakeholders 
17

with a majority of its members drawn from small- and medium-sized manufacturing firms 

and provide regular strategic, policy, and programmatic input directly to the designated 

representative of the applicant. A recipient that is a nonprofit organization with multiple 

programs and MEP Center program activities are not a primary activity of the applicant 

may establish an Advisory Committee, instead of an Oversight Board, that conforms to 

membership requirements as set forth above.

In determining whether the MEP Center is a primary activity of a recipient, MEP will 

consider unique factors and circumstances such as, but not limited to, (1) the proportion of 

MEP Center funding (both federal dollars and non-federal match) relative to the 

applicant’s funding [or budget] for its other programs and activities, or (2) the duration of 

other funding sources over time.

Advisory Committee members may not concurrently serve on more than one MEP Center 

Advisory Committee or serve as a vendor or provide contractual services to the applicant 

or to a Subrecipient. Recipients shall have bylaws or equivalent governance documents 

setting forth the roles, responsibilities, and procedures of its Advisory Committee, 

including a conflict of interest policy to ensure relevant relationships are disclosed and 

appropriate recusal procedures are in place. Upon request, an applicant shall provide the 

NIST Grants Officer copies of the organizational documents for its Advisory Committee, 

including ratified by-laws and conflict of interest policies.

New/Proposed Oversight and/or Advisory Committee

If an Oversight Board or Advisory Committee meeting the requirements of this section is 

not in place at the time an application is submitted, the applicant must submit a plan for 

establishing such structure, including Oversight Board or Advisory Committee 

membership criteria. Upon request, an applicant shall provide the NIST Grants Officer 

copies of the organizational documents for its proposed Oversight or Advisory Committee 

and Governance, including draft by-laws and conflict of interest policies. An awardee will 

have up to 90 calendar days from award start date (expected to be October 1, 2016) to 

establish its Oversight Board or the Advisory Committee and Governance, as the case may 

be. The sufficiency of the proposed Oversight or Advisory Committee Board and 

Governance will be evaluated against an evaluation criterion (see Section V.1.b.ii. of this 

FFO).

Per Section IV.2.a.7 Letters of Commitment or Support - For non-profit applicants, a 

resolution from the fiduciary board authorizing submission of the MEP Center application 

to NIST and supporting the activities described therein is required.

F. BUDGET	AND	COST	SHARING	OR	MATCHING	REQUIREMENT

1. Does the budget for Federal resources need to match the annual Federal funding 

amount under Section II.2. of the FFO? Can a proposal include a request for 

Federal funding greater than that listed in the table (page 6) in any year? 
18

As set forth in Section II.2. of the FFO, applicants may propose annual Federal funding 

amounts that are different from the anticipated annual Federal funding amounts set forth in 

the funding table; provided that the total amount of Federal funding being requested by an 

applicant does not exceed the total amount of Federal funding for the five-year award 

period as is also set forth in the funding table. For example, if the anticipated annual 

Federal funding amount for an MEP Center is $500,000 and the total Federal funding 

amount for the five-year award period is $2,500,000, an Applicant may propose Federal 

funding amounts greater, less than, or equal to $500,000 for any year or years of the 

award, so long as the total amount of Federal funding being requested by the Applicant for 

the entire five-year award period does not exceed $2,500,000.

2. What are the non-Federal cost sharing requirements under the MEP Program?

As set forth in Section III.2. of the FFO, 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 an MEP 

award, with an increasing minimum non-Federal cost share contribution beginning in year 

4 of the award as follows: 

Award Year Maximum NIST Share Minimum Non-Federal 

Share

1-3 1/2 1/2

4 2/5 3/5

5 and beyond 1/3 2/3

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

Government. The 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 nonFederal cost share under an MEP award. 

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

be an allowable/eligible cost under this program and under the Federal cost principles set 

forth in 2 C.F.R. part 200, Subpart E. Non-Federal cost sharing incorporated into the 
19

budget of an approved MEP cooperative agreement is subject to audit in the same general 

manner as Federal award funds. See 2 C.F.R. part 200, Subpart F.

As set forth in Section IV.2.a.(7) of this FFO, 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. Letters of commitment 

for all other third-party sources of non-Federal cost sharing identified in a proposal are not 

required, but are strongly encouraged. 

3. Will an “overmatch” of non-Federal cost share affect the amount of the Federal 

award? What happens if a center overmatches in the budget, but for some reason 

can’t achieve the proposed overmatch in any given year? 

NIST does not require applicants to provide non-Federal cost share in an amount greater 

than the minimum requirement for each project year as set forth in the FFO (i.e., an 

overmatch of non-Federal share).

The amount of Federal funding identified in the chart in Section II.2 will not increase as a 

result of an applicant’s overmatch of cost share. If an applicant proposes cost share more 

than the minimum requirement and the application is selected for award, the proposed cost 

share structure will be the approved project budget as reflected in the official award 

documentation. In such cases, the applicant will be required to provide the entire amount 

of the proposed cost share, including any overmatch. 

Prior written approval of the NIST Grants Officer is required for any reduction to the 

amount of non-Federal cost share and may result in a corresponding reduction (based on 

the Federal/non-Federal cost sharing ratio) to the amount of Federal funds under the 

award.

4. Does NIST view overmatching as a positive or a negative? Does it enhance a center’s 

competitiveness to overmatch?

NIST evaluates the totality of an application in accordance with the evaluation criteria set 

forth in the FFO, including the applicant's ability to effectively provide MEP services in 

the subject geographical service area. NIST does not award any specific bonus points as a 

result of an applicant proposing cost share in an amount greater than the minimum 

requirements contained in the FFO (i.e., overmatch). 

5. Can unexpended program income in one year be shown as “Applicant Contribution” 

in the following budget year budget?

Yes, unexpended program income may be shown as an applicant contribution in 

subsequent budget years, subject to the requirements and limitations set forth in Section 

13 of the MEP General Terms and Conditions (February 2015).
20

6. Would part-time staff contributed by a subrecipient or by a third-party contributor 

be considered cash or in-kind cost share? (Updated 4/27/16)

Non-Federal cost share contributions by subrecipients must comply with the allowability 

and documentation requirements set forth in 2 C.F.R. Section 200.306 and with the record 

access and record retention requirements set forth in 2 C.F.R. Section 200.330(a)(6) and 

200.333. At a minimum, the following documents should be maintained by the Center and 

made available upon request of the Grants Officer or in the event of an audit:

• Subaward Agreement with detailed budget;

• Documentation to support valuation of non-Federal cost share being contributed by 

the subrecipient; and

• Subrecipient Financial Reporting to the Non-Federal Entity.

All third party non-cash contributions are considered “in-kind.” Per 2 C.F.R. Section 

200.96, Third-party in-kind contributions means the value of non-cash contributions (i.e., 

property or services) that (a) Benefit a Federally assisted project or program; and (b) Are 

contributed by non-Federal third parties, without charge, to a non- Federal entity under a 

Federal award.

Third party in-kind contributions are counted towards a Non-Federal Entity’s non-Federal 

share contribution in accordance with 2 C.F.R. Section 200.306 and to the extent that such 

third party contributions are reflected in the approved project budget. Third party 

contributions are not subject to Federal reimbursement or payment.

Third Party in-kind contributions must be evidenced by written documentation that is 

signed by the contributor and the Center that describes the contribution, its value, and 

when and for what purpose it was donated. For this purpose, a Center may provide an 

acknowledgement of the contribution and include all the information required by IRS 

Instructions for Form 8283. This form can be found at http://www.irs.gov/pub/irspdf/f8283.pdf.

Centers must have documented evidence of all third party in-kind contributions to an MEP 

project, which must be provided to the NIST Grants Officer upon request. In addition, as 

set forth below, certain information concerning the valuation of third party contributions 

must be submitted to NIST MEP as part of a Center’s Required Plans.

• A comprehensive listing of all third party in-kind contributions to the MEP project;

• The value of each third party in-kind contribution established in accordance with 2 

C.F.R. Section 200.306 and the Federal cost principles set forth in 2 C.F.R. part 

200, Subpart E.; 

• The allocation method(s) used by the Non-Federal Entity for purposes of allocating 

third party in-kind contributions to the MEP award. See 2 C.F.R. Section 200.405; 

and 
21

• For in-kind contributions of personnel, the percentage of time that such personnel 

will be dedicated to the MEP Project. If the percentage of time is 100% dedicated 

to the MEP project and personnel is classified as a full-time employee as defined 

under applicable State labor law, then the individual(s) is considered to be full time 

personnel under 15 C.F.R. Section 290.4(c)(4). Therefore, the 50% in-kind 

limitation under 15 C.F.R. Section 290.4(c)(5), would not apply.

7. What if the proposed MEP doesn’t feel they need as much funding as listed in the 

FFO or can’t meet the match required?

As set forth in Section II.2. of the FFO, applicants may propose annual Federal funding 

amounts that are different from the anticipated annual Federal funding amounts set forth in 

the funding table, provided that the total amount of Federal funding being requested by an 

applicant does not exceed the total amount of Federal funding for the five-year award 

period as is also set forth in the funding table. For example, if the anticipated annual 

Federal funding amount for an MEP Center is $500,000 and the total Federal funding 

amount for the five-year award period is $2,500,000, an Applicant may propose Federal 

funding amounts greater, less than, or equal to $500,000 for any year or years of the 

award, so long as the total amount of Federal funding being requested by the Applicant for 

the entire five-year award period does not exceed $2,500,000.

As set forth in Section III.2. of the FFO, 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 an MEP 

award, with an increasing minimum non-Federal cost share contribution beginning in year 

4 of the award as follows: 

Award Year 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

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. 

8. For years 2-5, which require lower levels of budget detail than Year 1, do we need to 

provide any detail beyond what can displayed in SF-424A?

In addition to the SF424A’s, applicants must also provide a budget summary table for 

years two (2) through five (5) of the project; however, a budget narrative for these years is 

not required as part of an application.

9. I have the Budget Table set up with a Sub-Recipient and all of the expenses that fall 

under that on the same line. Then I wondered if I should include the Budget part of 
22

the Sub-recipient agreement showing how the money is spent under that particular 

subrecipient. If so, I'm not sure where that should be included in our submission.

On the 5 Year Financial Summary, I thought I would show it the same way, (with the 

Sub-Recipient line and associated expenses) but in our Operating Plan we have 

broken the expenses out in each category when showing the Center Financial 

Summary.

Please refer to the 2016-NIST-MEP-02 FFO requirements outlined in Section IV.2.a.6.e. 

as to what is required regarding the budget table/narrative. In addition to this section, 

please refer to Section IV.2.a.7.c regarding what is required for letters of commitment 

support for Subrecipients. Applicants may, at their discretion, submit more than the 

required information and documentation as part of an MEP Center proposal.

10. Would you please send us a sample SRA and TPC Table with in-kind and cash 

matched filled out?

The SRA (Subrecipient Agreement) and TPC (Third-Party contributor) Table is not 

required as part of the submission of an MEP application. Please refer to Section IV 

Application and Submission Information for required information.

11. Was hoping that you could clarify for me whether work done by a company on a 

project they are paying an MEP to do can be counted as in-kind. The old document 

explicitly forbid this as in-kind contribution, is there somewhere in the new 

document where it is also prohibited that I just didn't see upon a first read?

For example - if I am doing a new product engineering project with Company A, 

they pay me $100K in fees that I spend on $100K worth of costs to service them 

($100K in cash cost share). Now, what if they have an engineer totally devoted to 

working with the MEP team to create this product at a documented Company A 

salary of $80K? Can we count that $80K as in-kind cost share for this project?

In response to your first question and example, the value of services performed by 

personnel of an MEP client on a project for that MEP client do not constitute a third-party, 

non-federal cost share contribution to the MEP Center since the primary beneficiary of the 

services would be the MEP client. See 2 C.F.R. § 200.306 and 2 C.F.R. part 200, Subpart 

E, Cost Principles.

12. Is it possible for 3rd party contractors to contribute match dollars towards this 

grant?

As provided in Section IV.2.a.(7)e) of the FFO, contractors may not provide non-federal 

cost share for an MEP Center project.

13. We have some questions about in kind vs cash matching and also about establishing 

an indirect rate.
23

Please provide your specific questions related to in-kind, cash and indirect cost rate in 

writing to mepffo@nist.gov. Note that MEP will respond to general inquiries, but will not 

respond to or provide feedback relative to questions about specific proposals.

14. Do each of the sub-recipients need to submit a detailed budget narrative as part of 

the State of XXX application?

Please see the response to FAQ #8 in the Application and Submission Information 

Section. 

15. Will there be an opportunity for Centers to increase their level of funding if they are 

able to gain additional cost share that is allowable, allocable and reasonable to the 

activities of the Center? (Added 2/12/16)

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.

 

16. How do we present state funding, considering it may increase or decrease depending 

on the current budget situation? (Added 2/12/16)

Per the FFO, the applicant is required to meet the minimum cost share requirement for 

each year of the award. In this respect, an applicant/recipient has a responsibility and an 

obligation to fund any deficits in anticipated State or other contributions to an MEP Center 

project. The applicant must provide a letter of cost share commitment for each year of the 

proposed award.

17. We are an existing MEP center that will become one of several subrecipients to 

another entity that will now be the awardee Center under our proposed FFO 

application. The MEP T&C 13.B. (3) says that UPI earned by a subrecipient must be 

remitted to the Center by the subrecipient, and must be accounted for and expended 

by the Center in accordance with the terms and conditions of the MEP award. Will 

the UPI need to be returned to the Center annually or can it be retained by the 

subrecipient and used to finance the non-federal share as long as it is accounted for 

and the Center obtains approval to carry the UPI forward? (Added 2/12/16)

Unexpended Program Income that is generated by the subrecipient may be retained by the 

subrecipient and used to finance the non-federal cost share. This UPI being carried 

forward will require prior written approval by the NIST Grants Officer. The UPI must 
24

also be clearly accounted for within the Center as well as the subrecipient accounting 

systems.

18. Is match from an Subrecipient automatically considered in-kind even if it is coming 

from the state and client fee? (Added 2/25/16)

No, the type of contribution from the Subrecipient depends on the nature of the 

relationship. Please refer to 2 C.F.R. Part 200, http://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/textidx?tpl=/ecfrbrowse/Title02/2cfr200_main_02.tpl for further information on subrecipients 

and cost share or matching.

19. It is true that The University of XX will often request funding for some of their 

employee’s time on a project; however, we will also cost share some of its own 

personnel time on a project: meaning XX will pay for their time on the 

grant/contract. When we do the latter, we consider it cash match, not inkind. I have 

provided examples below. Would these be considered cash match? (Added 4/15/16)

• Let me give you an example: John Smith is a 100% employee at the 

University of XX. He will be spending 25% of his time on the MEP project; 

however, the University will continue to pay for all of his wages and benefits. 

This 25% is considered cash match by the University.

• Another example would be: Mary Doe is a 100% employee at XX University; 

she will be spending 30% of her time on the MEP project. 15% will be 

requested as reimbursement by the grant; 15% will continue to be paid by the 

University and considered cash match.

• Another example would be Sally Jones, who is only a part-time employee at 

the University, but will be spending all of this time on the MEP project. Her 

time on this project may continue to be paid by the University, but will be 

spent entirely on MEP. That is considered cash match by the University. 

In the 3 scenarios you provided above, NIST agrees that the portion you are saying would 

be cash match would indeed be considered cash match.

20. On the budget revenue side, should the applicant cost share of funds provided 

through state funds be included under Applicant or under State? The funds are State 

funds but are included in Applicant ABC’s budget, and ABC is the applicant. 

(Added 4/15/16)

If the funds are identified as state funds, please reflect them on the State funds line in the 

revenue section of the budget tables.
25

21. Do applicants need to submit a personnel budget with individual names as part of the 

one-year budget narrative or is it sufficient to include position titles in the personnel 

budget narrative? (Added 4/15/16)

Per the FFO, Applicants must also provide a budget table for years two (2) through five 

(5) of the project; however, a budget narrative for these years is not required as part of an 

application. (it can be one summary table outlining Years 2-5)

In the budget narrative, the recipient should provide adequate information to support the 

costs identified in each category of the budget table. For example, providing the annual 

salary and the percentage of time dedicated to the project by personnel to demonstrate the 

total cost of that individual; providing the airfare, lodging, per diem, number of days and 

number of travelers for each proposed trip; and identifying anticipated subaward/contract 

amounts, the subawardees/contractors, if 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 MEP kick-off conference and meetings 

described in Sections II.5. and II.6. of this FFO in the budget tables and budget 

narratives. A suggested budget table and budget narrative template are available on the 

MEP website, http://nist.gov/mep/ffo-state-competitions-03.cfm.

22. In addition to the Five Year Budget Table, do we also need to include individual 

budget tables for each year 2, 3, 4, 5. I know we provide an individual budget table 

and budget narrative for year one, but unclear if you require more than the one-page 

five-year budget table for the remaining year. I understand you do not want a 

narrative for years, beyond year one, but need clarity on the budget tables. (Added 

4/15/16)

Per Section IV.2.a.2.6.e, Applicants must also provide a budget table for years two (2) 

through five (5) of the project; however, a budget narrative for these years is not required 

as part of an application. (Dana – it can be one summary table outlining Years 2-5)

In the budget narrative, the recipient should provide adequate information to support the 

costs identified in each category of the budget table. For example, providing the annual 

salary and the percentage of time dedicated to the project by personnel to demonstrate the 

total cost of that individual; providing the airfare, lodging, per diem, number of days and 

number of travelers for each proposed trip; and identifying anticipated subaward/contract 

amounts, the subawardees/contractors, if 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 MEP kick-off conference and meetings 

described in Sections II.5. and II.6. of this FFO in the budget tables and budget narratives. 

A suggested budget table and budget narrative template are available on the MEP website, 

http://nist.gov/mep/ffo-state-competitions-04.cfm.
26

23. Is a specific requirement for any MEP center staff to be full-time? I could not tell 

from the announcement itself whether a center needed a full-time director. (Added 

2/12/16)

There is no specific requirement that MEP Center staff be dedicated full-time to an MEP 

Center project. However, it is typically the case (especially for new MEP Centers) that at 

least the MEP Center Director is dedicated on a full-time basis to an MEP Center project.

G. EVALUATION	CRITERIA

1. When discussing “key personnel” in our project narrative—can we discuss key subrecipient personnel in addition to personnel of the MEP Center itself? Or should it 

be limited to those for whom we provide resumes (which I gather is only allowed for 

direct employees of the MEP Center)? I am curious because you discussed on the 

webinar that evaluators will be looking for information about personnel important to 

operations and to working directly with manufacturers. (Added 2/12/16)

Yes, subrecipient relationships and subrecipient personnel may be discussed in the 

application.

2. Please elaborate on opportunities to re-align Center activities with State economic 

development strategies. (Added 2/12/16)

The applicant must respond as appropriate as to its strategies for aligning MEP Center 

activities with State economic development agendas.

3. Does the size of the manufacturing establishment effect the dollars per 

manufacturer? Does it go by NAICS code? (Added 2/12/16)

No, the dollars/SME are based on number of manufacturing establishments not based on 

their size. We used County Business Patterns Data.

4. What is MEP’s definition of Rural, Start-Up, Emerging and Very Small 

Manufacturers? Are the terms, Very Small, Emerging and Rural considered one 

“grouping” or individual categories? (Added 2/12/16)

Rural Manufacturers: Any manufacturing establishment located in a county not defined 

as part of a metropolitan area. NIST MEP will use the 2013 Rural-Urban Continuum 

Codes maintained by the Economic Research Service of the United States Department of 

Agriculture to define a NIST MEP client manufacturing establishment as rural. Using this 

system, any county with a rurality index of 4 or higher is considered a rural county. 

Counties with codes 1, 2, and 3 are considered urban areas. 
27

Start-Up Manufacturers: A manufacturing establishment that has been in operation for 

five years or less.

Emerging Manufacturers: A term considered to be synonymous with “start-up” 

manufacturing establishment.

Very Small Manufacturers: Manufacturing establishment with fewer than 20 

employees.

The terms, Very Small, Emerging and Rural The applicant must conduct the appropriate 

market analysis and determine what make sense in regards to the MEP Center’s attention 

to these categories.

5. We are an existing MEP center that will become one of several subrecipients to 

another entity that will now be the awardee Center under our proposed FFO 

application. How do we develop the metrics for the brand new Center? Do we 

assume that the new Center will start with no activity in the pipeline for survey and 

thus will have 0 impact the first year or will the new Center be credited for activity 

that was submitted for survey by its subrecipients under their previous awards? 

(Added 2/12/16)

A proposing organization may wish to consider their past experience with measuring 

clients impacts and the extent to which that experience provides a basis for thinking about 

expected performance levels. It is up to the proposer to determine what they think is a 

reasonable level of performance as they scale up considering what information they have. 

As the FFO states, one part of the evaluation 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.

6. On page 25 of the FFO, do I understand it to mean that the reviewers will assess the 

strategy PROPOSED for the Center to define the target market? Or will assess the 

applicant’s market understanding as already demonstrated in the proposal? (Added 

4/15/16-Updated 7/22/16)

The reviewers will assess both the applicants’ strategy for defining the target market in 

addition to the applicant’s market understanding as stated in Evaluation Criterion a.i and 

a.ii (Center Strategy & Market Understanding) on pages 25-26. 

The Reviewers will assess both the applicants strategy proposed for the Center to deliver 

services that support a strong manufacturing ecosystem, meet manufacturers’ needs and 

generate impact (including the sub-bullets of “i”) and the strategy proposed for the Center 

to define the target market, understand the needs of manufacturers (especially Small and 
28

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 (including the sub-bullets of “ii”).

7. Can you define deliverables and outcomes that NIST is requiring for the MEP 

program? What is the difference? What establishes the baseline for setting the goals 

of the MEP Center? Should we identify the latest report data presented by the 

incumbent MEP and use such for our baseline?

Per Section G. Question #6 in this document:

A proposing organization may wish to consider their past experience with measuring 

clients impacts and the extent to which that experience provides a basis for thinking about 

expected performance levels. It is up to the proposer to determine what they think is a 

reasonable level of performance as they scale up considering what information they have. 

As the FFO states, one part of the evaluation 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.

In addition to the above information, you may refer to the MEP Strategic Plan, MEP 

Reporting Guidelines and the MEP Annual Report also available at the following link, 

http://nist.gov/mep/ffo-state-competitions-03.cfm

(just scroll to the bottom of that page to view FAQs and these documents).

H. REVIEW	AND	SELECTION	PROCESS

1. When the competition is complete, who makes the final selection? (Added 2/12/16)

Please refer to Section V.2.b for the overall Review and Selection Process. In regards to 

who makes the final selection, per Section V.2.b.2, the Selecting Official will generally 

select and recommend the most meritorious application for an award based on the 

adjectival rankings and/or one or more of the six (6) selection factors described in Section 

V.3. of the corresponding 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 
29

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 MEP Center 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.

I. ELIGIBILITY

1. In the Round 4 FFO, it states under eligibility that “For the purpose of this FFO, 

non-profit organizations include public or private non-profit organizations, . . .” My 

question is, can a potential host for our MEP Center be a private non-profit 501(c) 6 

organization? In researching this, it appears that a 501(c) 6 organization would be 

eligible for an MEP grant and corresponding cooperative agreement.

A 501(c)(6) is an eligible applicant. This is of course subject to the normal federal 

lobbying rules and other NIST pre-award due diligence checks. Also, it is up to the 

applicant to determine whether an MEP Center cooperative agreement would be consistent 

with the applicant's organizational documents and Section 501(c)(6) status.

As an important aside, per 2 USC § 1611 (Section 18 of the Lobbying Disclosure Act), 

Section 501(c)(4) organizations (social welfare) that engage in lobbying activities [even 

with its own funds] are per se/automatically ineligible to receive a federal award, grant, or 

loan.

2. Are potential sub-recipients prohibited from participating on more than one 

application submission? There are several educational institutions across our state 

that have expressed interest in our application, but they have also been approached 

by another applicant. As a sub-recipient partner, do they need to choose to 

participate in only one submission or may they participate in multiple applications if 

the prime applicants are different?

Sub-recipients are not prohibited from participating in multiple applications.