[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 41 (Thursday, March 1, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 12563-12566]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-4959]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Institute of Standards and Technology

[Docket Number 120221142-2118-01]


Manufacturing Extension Partnership (MEP) Centers for South 
Dakota and Kentucky; Availability of Funds

AGENCY: National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), United 
States Department of Commerce (DoC).

[[Page 12564]]


ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: NIST invites proposals from eligible proposers for funding 
projects to provide manufacturing extension services to primarily 
small- and medium-sized manufacturers in the United States. These 
projects will establish MEP centers in South Dakota and Kentucky.

DATES: All proposals, paper and electronic, must be received no later 
than 5 p.m. Eastern Time on April 30, 2012.

ADDRESSES: The standard application package may be obtained by 
contacting Diane Henderson, National Institute of Standards and 
Technology, Manufacturing Extension Partnership, 100 Bureau Drive, Stop 
4800, Gaithersburg, MD 20899-4800, phone 301-975-5105, or by 
downloading the application package through Grants.gov. Paper 
submissions should be sent to: Diane Henderson, National Institute of 
Standards and Technology, Manufacturing Extension Partnership, 100 
Bureau Drive, Stop 4800, Gaithersburg, MD 20899-4800. Electronic 
submissions should be submitted to www.grants.gov.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Administrative, budget, cost-sharing, 
and eligibility questions and other programmatic questions should be 
directed to Diane Henderson at Tel: (301) 975-5105; Email: 
[email protected]; Fax: (301) 963-6556. Grants Administration 
questions should be addressed to: Melinda Chukran, Grants and 
Agreements Management Division, National Institute of Standards and 
Technology, 100 Bureau Drive, Stop 1650, Gaithersburg, MD 20899-1650; 
Tel: (301) 975-5266. For assistance with using Grants.gov contact 
Christopher Hunton at Tel: (301) 975-5718; Email: 
[email protected]; Fax: (301) 840-5976. All questions and 
responses will be posted on the MEP Web site, www.nist.gov/mep.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 
    Electronic access: Proposers are strongly encouraged to read the 
Federal Funding Opportunity (FFO) announcement available at 
www.grants.gov for complete information about this program, including 
all program requirements and instructions for applying by paper or 
electronically. The FFO may be found by searching under the Catalog of 
Federal Domestic Assistance Name and Number provided below.
    Authority: 15 U.S.C. 278k, as implemented in 15 CFR part 290.
    Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Name and Number: 
Manufacturing Extension Partnership--11.611.
    Information Session: NIST MEP will hold an information session for 
organizations considering applying to this opportunity. An information 
session in the form of a webinar will be held approximately 14 business 
days after publication of this notice in the Federal Register. The 
exact date and time of the webinar will be posted on the MEP Web site 
at www.nist.gov/mep. Organizations wishing to participate in the 
webinar must sign up by contacting Diane Henderson at 
[email protected].
    Program Description: NIST invites proposals from eligible proposers 
for funding two (2) separate MEP centers to provide manufacturing 
extension services to primarily small- and medium-sized manufacturers 
in two separate locations, South Dakota and/or Kentucky. These MEP 
centers will become part of the MEP national system of extension 
service providers, currently comprised of more than 400 centers and 
field offices located throughout the United States and Puerto Rico.
    The objective of an MEP center is to provide manufacturing 
extension services that enhance productivity, innovative capacity, and 
technological performance, and strengthen the global competitiveness of 
primarily small- and medium-sized U.S.-based manufacturing firms in its 
service region. Manufacturing extension services are provided by 
utilizing the most cost effective, local, leveraged resources for those 
services through the coordinated efforts of a regionally-based MEP 
center and local technology resources. The management and operational 
structure of an MEP center is not prescribed, but should be based upon 
the characteristics of the manufacturers in the region and locally 
available resources with demonstrated experience working with 
manufacturers.
    It is not the intent of this program that the centers perform 
research and development.
    Information regarding MEP and these centers is available at 
www.nist.gov/mep.
    Funding Availability: Approximately $1,000,000 for new awards. NIST 
anticipates funding one (1) proposal at the level of up to $400,000 for 
an MEP Center in the state of South Dakota and one (1) proposal at the 
level of up to $600,000 for an MEP Center in the state of Kentucky. The 
projects awarded under this notice will have a budget and performance 
period of one (1) year. Each award may be renewed on an annual basis 
subject to the review requirements described in 15 CFR 290.8. Renewal 
of each project shall be at the sole discretion of NIST and shall be 
based upon satisfactory performance, priority of the need for the 
service, existing legislative authority, and availability of funds.
    Cost Share Requirements: This Program requires a non-Federal cost 
share of at least 50 percent of the total project cost for the first 
year of operation. Any renewal funding of an award will require non-
Federal cost sharing as follows:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                           Maximum NIST    Minimum non-
        Year of center  operation              share       federal share
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1-3.....................................           \1/2\           \1/2\
4.......................................           \2/5\           \3/5\
5 and beyond............................           \1/3\           \2/3\
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Non-Federal cost sharing is that portion of the project costs not 
borne by the Federal Government. The proposer's share of the MEP center 
expenses may include cash, services, and third party in-kind 
contributions, as described at 15 CFR 14.23 or 24.24, as applicable, 
and the MEP program rule, 15 CFR 290.4(c). No more than 50% of the 
proposer's total non-Federal cost share may be third party in-kind 
contributions of part-time personnel, equipment, software, rental value 
of centrally located space, and related contributions, per 15 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 submitted with the proposal and will 
be considered as part of the evaluation review.
    All non-Federal cost share contributions require a letter of 
commitment signed by an authorized official from each source.
    Any cost sharing must be in accordance with the ``cost sharing or 
matching'' provisions of 15 CFR part 14, Uniform Administrative 
Requirements for Grants and Cooperative Agreements with Institutions of 
Higher Education, Hospitals, Other Non-Profit, and Commercial 
Organizations and 15 CFR part 24, Uniform Administrative Requirements 
for Grants and Cooperative Agreements to State and Local Governments.
    As with the Federal share, any proposed costs included as non-
Federal cost sharing must be an allowable/eligible cost under this 
Program and the following applicable Federal cost principles: (1) 
Institutions of Higher Education: 2 CFR part 220 (OMB Circular A-21); 
(2) Nonprofit

[[Page 12565]]

Organizations: 2 CFR part 230 (OMB Circular A-122); and (3) State, 
Local and Indian Tribal Governments: 2 CFR part 225.
    As with the Federal share, any proposed non-Federal cost sharing 
will be made a part of the cooperative agreement award and will be 
subject to audit if the project receives MEP funding.
    Eligibility: The eligibility requirements given in this section 
will be used in lieu of those published in the MEP regulations found at 
15 CFR part 290, specifically 15 CFR 290.5(a)(1). Each award recipient 
must be a U.S.-based nonprofit institution or organization. For the 
purpose of this notice, nonprofit organizations include, but are not 
limited to, universities and state and local governments. An eligible 
organization may work individually or include proposed subawards or 
contracts with others in a project proposal, effectively forming a 
team. Existing MEP centers are eligible.
    Proposal Requirements: Proposals must be submitted in accordance 
with the requirements set forth in the corresponding FFO announcement.
    Evaluation Criteria: The evaluation criteria provided in this 
section will be used for this competition in lieu of that provided in 
the MEP regulations found at 15 CFR part 290, specifically 15 CFR 290.6 
(http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/cgi/t/text/text-idx?c=ecfr&sid=8652afebd3b81ef821cdaba9a0b5197c&rgn=div5&view=text&node=15:1.2.2.10.13&idno=15).
    The proposals will be evaluated based on the evaluation criteria 
described below, which are set in the context of the proposer's ability 
to align the proposal for accomplishing the objectives of NIST MEP's 
Next Generation Strategy: Continuous Improvement, Technology 
Acceleration, Supplier Development, Sustainability and Workforce. The 
NIST MEP Next Generation Strategy can be found at www.nist.gov/mep.
    The evaluation criteria that will be used in evaluating proposals 
are as follows:
    1. Identification of Target Firms in Proposed Region. Does the 
proposal clearly address the entire service region, providing for a 
large enough population of target firms of small- and medium-sized 
manufacturers that the proposer understands and can serve, and which is 
not presently served by an existing Center?
    a. Market Analysis. Demonstrated understanding of the service 
region's manufacturing base, including business size, industry types, 
product mix, and technology requirements.
    b. Geographical Location. Physical size, concentration of industry, 
and economic significance of the service region's manufacturing base. 
Geographical diversity of the Center as compared to existing Centers 
will be a factor in evaluation of proposals.
    2. Technology Resources. Does the proposal assure strength in 
technical personnel and programmatic resources, full-time staff, 
facilities, equipment, and linkages to external sources of technology 
to develop and transfer technologies related to NIST research results 
and expertise in the technical areas noted in the MEP regulations found 
at 15 CFR Part 290 as well as from other sources of technology research 
and development?
    3. Technology Delivery Mechanisms. Does the proposal clearly and 
sharply define an effective methodology for delivering advanced 
manufacturing technology to small- and medium-sized manufacturers and 
mechanism(s) for accelerating the adoption of technologies for both 
process improvement and new product adoption?
    a. Linkages. Development of effective partnerships or linkages to 
third parties such as industry, universities, nonprofit economic 
organizations, and state governments who will amplify the Center's 
technology delivery to reach a large number of clients in its service 
region.
    b. Program Leverage. Provision of an effective strategy to amplify 
the Center's technology delivery approaches to achieve the proposed 
objectives as described in 15 CFR 290.3(e).
    4. Management and Financial Plan. Does the proposal define a 
management structure and assure management personnel to carry out 
development and operation of an effective Center?
    a. Organizational Structure. Completeness and appropriateness of 
the organizational structure, and its focus on the mission of the 
Center. Assurance of local full-time top management of the Center. This 
includes a clearly presented Oversight Board structure with a 
membership representing small- and medium- sized manufacturers in the 
region. MEP has determined that centers clearly benefit when a majority 
or more of its Board members/Trustees compose a membership representing 
principally small and medium manufacturing as well as committed 
partners and do not have dual obligations to more than one Center. Two-
thirds of the members of the Center's oversight board must not be 
members of any other MEP Center boards.
    b. Program Management. Effectiveness of the planned methodology of 
program management. This includes committed local partners and 
demonstrated experience of the leadership team in manufacturing, 
outreach and partnership development.
    c. Internal Evaluation. Effectiveness of the planned continuous 
internal evaluation of program activities. The proposal must provide 
the methodology for continuous internal evaluation of the program 
activities and demonstrate the effectiveness of defined methodology.
    d. Plans for Financial Cost Share. Demonstrated stability and 
duration of the proposer's funding commitments. Identification of the 
sources of cost share and the general terms of funding commitments. The 
total level of cost share and detailed rationale of the cost share, 
including cash and in-kind, must be documented in the budget submitted 
with the proposal.
    e. Budget. Suitability and focus of the proposer's detailed one-
year budget and budget outline for years two (2) through five (5).
    Each of these criteria will be given equal weight in the evaluation 
process.
    Review and Selection Process: The review and selection process and 
selection factors provided in this section will be used for this 
competition in lieu of that provided in the MEP regulations found at 15 
CFR part 290, specifically 15 CFR 290.6 and 290.7.
    1. Initial Administrative Review of Proposals. An initial review of 
timely received proposals will be conducted to determine eligibility, 
completeness, and responsiveness to this notice and the scope of the 
stated program objectives. Proposals determined to be ineligible, 
incomplete, and/or non-responsive may be eliminated from further 
review.
    2. Full Review of Eligible, Complete, and Responsive Proposals. 
Proposals that are determined to be eligible, complete, and responsive 
will proceed for full reviews in accordance with the review and 
selection processes below:
    a. Evaluation and Review. NIST will appoint an evaluation panel, 
consisting of at least three technically qualified reviewers to 
evaluate each proposal based on the evaluation criteria listed above 
and assign a numeric score for each proposal. If more than one non-
Federal employee reviewer is used on the panel, the panel member 
reviewers may discuss the proposals with each other, but scores will be 
determined on an individual basis, not as a consensus. Proposals with 
an average score of 70 or higher out of 100 will be deemed finalists.
    b. Site Visits. Site visits may be required to make full evaluation 
of a

[[Page 12566]]

proposal that has been determined to be a finalist. If site visits are 
deemed necessary, all finalists will receive site visits conducted by 
the same evaluation panel reviewers referenced in the preceding 
paragraph. NIST may enter into negotiations with the finalists 
concerning any aspect of their proposal. Finalists will be reviewed, 
evaluated, and assigned numeric scores based on the evaluation criteria 
listed above.
    c. Ranking and Selection. Based on the average of the panel member 
reviewers' scores, a rank order will be prepared and provided to the 
Selecting Official for further consideration. The Selecting Official, 
who is the Director of the NIST MEP Program, will then select funding 
recipients based upon the rank order and the following selection 
factors.
    (1) The availability of Federal funds.
    (2) The need to assure appropriate regional distribution.
    (3) Whether the project duplicates other projects funded by DoC or 
by other Federal agencies.
    (4) Proposer's performance under current or previous Federal 
financial assistance awards. Note: Proposals from existing or previous 
MEP centers or partners must contain specific information that 
addresses whether the proposer's past performance with the program is 
indicative of expected performance under a possible new award and 
describing how and why performance is expected to be the same or 
different.
    NIST reserves the right to negotiate the budget costs with the 
proposers that have been selected to receive awards, which may include 
requesting that the proposer remove certain costs. Additionally, NIST 
may request that the proposer modify objectives or work plans and 
provide supplemental information required by the agency prior to award. 
NIST also reserves the right to reject a proposal where information is 
uncovered that raises a reasonable doubt as to the responsibility of 
the proposer. NIST may select part, some, all, or none of the 
proposals. The final approval of selected proposals and issuance of 
awards will be by the NIST Grants Officer. The award decisions of the 
NIST Grants Officer are final.
    Unsuccessful proposers will be notified in writing. The Program 
will retain one copy of each unsuccessful proposal for three (3) years 
for record keeping purposes. The remaining copies will be destroyed. 
After three (3) years the remaining copy will be destroyed.

Administrative and National Policy Requirements

    The Department of Commerce Pre-Award Notification Requirements: The 
Department of Commerce Pre-Award Notification Requirements for Grants 
and Cooperative Agreements, which are contained in the Federal Register 
Notice of February 11, 2008 (73 FR 7696), are applicable to this 
notice. Please refer to http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2008-02-11/pdf/E8-2482.pdf.
    Employer/Taxpayer Identification Number (EIN/TIN), Dun and 
Bradstreet Data Universal Numbering System (DUNS), and Central 
Contractor Registration (CCR): All proposers for Federal financial 
assistance are required to obtain a universal identifier in the form of 
DUNS number and maintain a current registration in the CCR database. On 
the form SF-424 items 8.b. and 8.c., the proposer's 9-digit EIN/TIN and 
9-digit DUNS number must be consistent with the information on the CCR 
(www.ccr.gov) and Automated Standard Application for Payment System 
(ASAP). For complex organizations with multiple EIN/TIN and DUNS 
numbers, the EIN/TIN and DUNS number MUST be the numbers for the 
applying organization. Organizations that provide incorrect/
inconsistent EIN/TIN and DUNS numbers may experience significant delays 
in receiving funds if their proposal is selected for funding. Confirm 
that the EIN/TIN and DUNS numbers are consistent with the information 
on the CCR and ASAP.
    Per the requirements of 2 CFR part 25, each proposer must:
    1. Be registered in the CCR before submitting a proposal;
    2. Maintain an active CCR registration with current information at 
all times during which it has an active Federal award or a proposal 
under consideration by an agency; and
    3. Provide its DUNS number in each application or proposal it 
submits to the agency.
    See also the Federal Register notice published on September 14, 
2010, at 75 FR 55671.
    Paperwork Reduction Act: The standard forms in the application kit 
involve a collection of information subject to the Paperwork Reduction 
Act. The use of Standard Forms 424, 424A, 424B, SF-LLL, and CD-346 have 
been approved by OMB under the respective Control Numbers 0348-0043, 
0348-0044, 0348-0040, 0348-0046, and 0605-0001. MEP program-specific 
application requirements have been approved by OMB under Control Number 
0693-0056.
    Notwithstanding any other provision of the law, no person is 
required to respond to, nor shall any person be subject to a penalty 
for failure to comply with, a collection of information subject to the 
requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act, unless that collection of 
information displays a currently valid OMB Control Number.
    Funding Availability and Limitation of Liability: Funding for the 
program listed in this notice is contingent upon the availability of 
appropriations. In no event with NIST or the Department of Commerce be 
responsible for proposal preparation costs if this program fails to 
receive funding or is cancelled because of agency priorities. 
Publication of this notice does not oblige NIST or the Department of 
Commerce to award any specific project or to obligate any available 
funds.
    Executive Order 12866: This funding notice was determined to be not 
significant for purposes of Executive Order 12866.
    Executive Order 13132 (Federalism): It has been determined that 
this notice does not contain policies with federalism implications as 
that term is defined in Executive Order 13132.
    Executive Order 12372: Proposals under this program are not subject 
to Executive Order 12372, ``Intergovernmental Review of Federal 
Programs.''
    Administrative Procedure Act/Regulatory Flexibility Act: Notice and 
comment are not required under the Administrative Procedure Act (5 
U.S.C. 553) or any other law, for rules relating to public property, 
loans, grants, benefits or contracts (5 U.S.C. 553(a)). Because notice 
and comment are not required under 5 U.S.C. 553, or any other law, for 
rules relating to public property, loans, grants, benefits or contracts 
(5 U.S.C. 553(a)), a Regulatory Flexibility Analysis is not required 
and has not been prepared for this notice, 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.

    Dated: February 24, 2012.
Phillip Singerman,
Associate Director for Innovation & Industry Services.
[FR Doc. 2012-4959 Filed 2-29-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-13-P