[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 165 (Friday, August 24, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Pages 42868-42874]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2018-18386]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Institute of Standards and Technology

[Docket Number: 180703606-8606-01]


Award Competition for Hollings Manufacturing Extension 
Partnership (MEP) Center in the State of Alaska

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

ACTION: Notice of Funding Opportunity (NOFO).

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

SUMMARY: NIST invites applications from eligible organizations in 
connection with NIST's funding of an MEP cooperative agreement for the 
operation of an MEP Center in the State of Alaska in the amount 
identified in the Funding Availability section of this notice. NIST 
anticipates awarding one (1) cooperative agreement for the State of 
Alaska. The objective of this announcement by the MEP Program is to 
provide manufacturing extension services to primarily small and medium-
sized manufacturers within the State of Alaska. The selected 
organization will become part of the MEP National NetworkTM 
of extension service providers, currently located in all 50 states and 
Puerto Rico.

DATES: Electronic applications must be received no later than 11:59 
p.m. Eastern Time on Oct. 23, 2018. Paper applications will not be 
accepted. Applications received after the deadline will not be reviewed 
or considered. The approximate start date for awards under this notice 
and the corresponding NOFO is expected to be January 1, 2019.

ADDRESSES: Applications must be submitted electronically through 
www.grants.gov. NIST will not accept applications submitted by mail, 
facsimile, or by email.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Administrative, budget, cost-sharing, 
and eligibility questions and other programmatic questions should be 
directed to Mike Simpson at Tel: (301) 975-6147 or Wiza Lequin at Tel: 
(301) 975-4395; Email: [email protected]; Fax: (301) 963-6556. Grants 
Rules and Regulation questions should be addressed to: Leon Sampson, 
Grants Management Division, National Institute of Standards and 
Technology, 100 Bureau Drive, Stop 1650, Gaithersburg, MD 20899-1650; 
Tel: (301) 975-3086; Email: [email protected]; Fax: (301) 975-6368. 
For technical assistance with Grants.gov submissions contact Leon 
Sampson at Tel: (301) 975-3086; Email: [email protected]; Fax: (301) 975-
6368. Questions submitted to the National Institute of Standards and 
Technology's Manufacturing Extension Partnership (NIST MEP) may be 
posted as part of an FAQ document, which will be periodically updated 
on the MEP website at https://www.nist.gov/mep/manufacturing-extension-partnership-center-alaska.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 
    Electronic access: Applicants are strongly encouraged to read the 
corresponding NOFO announcement available at www.grants.gov for 
complete information about this program, including all program 
requirements and instructions for applying electronically. Paper 
applications or electronic applications submitted other than through 
www.grants.gov will not be accepted.
    System for Award Management registration required: When developing 
your submission timeline, please keep in mind that (1) all applicants 
are required to have a current registration in the System for Award 
Management (SAM.gov); (2) the free annual registration process in the 
electronic System for Award Management (SAM.gov) may take between three 
and five business days, and may take as long as two weeks; (3) 
applicants submitting

[[Page 42869]]

electronic applications are required to have a current registration in 
Grants.gov; and (4) applicants will receive a series of email messages 
from Grants.gov over a period of up to two business days before 
learning whether a Federal agency's electronic system has received its 
application. Please note that a federal assistance award cannot be 
issued if the designated recipient's registration in the SAM.gov is not 
current at the time of the award.
    Authority: 15 U.S.C. 278k, as implemented in 15 CFR part 290.
    Assistance Listing (CFDA Number): Manufacturing Extension 
Partnership--11.611.
    Webinar Information Session: NIST MEP will hold a webinar 
information session for organizations that are considering applying to 
this funding opportunity. This webinar will provide general information 
regarding MEP and offer general guidance on preparing proposals. NIST 
MEP staff will be available on the webinar to answer general questions. 
Also, NIST MEP staff will not critique or provide feedback on any 
specific project ideas during the webinar or at any time before 
submission of a proposal to MEP. However, NIST MEP staff will provide 
information about the MEP eligibility and cost sharing requirements, 
evaluation criteria and selection factors, selection process, and the 
general characteristics of a competitive MEP proposal during this 
webinar. The webinar will be held approximately fifteen (15) to thirty 
(30) business days after posting of the corresponding NOFO. The exact 
date and time of the webinar will be posted on the MEP website at 
https://www.nist.gov/mep/manufacturing-extension-partnership-center-alaska. The webinar will be recorded, and a link to the recording will 
be posted on the MEP website. In addition, the webinar presentation 
will be available on the MEP website. Organizations wishing to 
participate in the webinar must sign up by emailing [email protected]. 
Participation in the webinar is not required in order for an 
organization to submit an application pursuant to this notice and the 
corresponding NOFO.
    Program Description: NIST invites applications from eligible 
applicants for a NIST cooperative agreement funding for one (1) MEP 
center to provide manufacturing extension services to primarily small 
and medium-sized manufacturers in the State of Alaska. The Hollings 
Manufacturing Extension Partnership (MEP) is based at the National 
Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST). The National Program 
Office (aka NIST MEP), which provides the Federal Government funding 
for the MEP National Network, is located in Gaithersburg, MD.
    The MEP National Network is a unique public-private partnership 
that delivers comprehensive, proven solutions to U.S. manufacturers, 
fueling growth and advancing U.S. manufacturing.
    Focused on helping small and medium-sized manufacturers generate 
business results and thrive in today's technology-driven economy, the 
MEP National Network comprises the NIST MEP, the 51 MEP Centers located 
in all 50 states and Puerto Rico, and over 1,300 trusted advisors and 
experts at more than 400 MEP service locations, providing any U.S. 
manufacturer with access to resources they need to succeed.
    The MEP National Network's strength is in its partnerships. Through 
its collaborations at the federal, state and local level, MEP Centers 
work with manufacturers to develop new products and customers, expand 
and diversify markets, adopt new technology, and enhance value within 
supply chains. The MEP Program serves as a bridge to other 
organizations and federal research labs that share the mission of 
enhancing the manufacturing community.
    In 2017, the MEP National Network connected with 26,313 
manufacturers, leading to $12.6 billion in sales, $1.7 billion in cost 
savings, $3.5 billion in new client investments, and helping to create 
and retain more than 100,000 U.S. manufacturing jobs.
    The MEP program is not a Federal research and development program. 
It is not the intent of the program that awardees will perform 
systematic research.
    To learn more about the MEP program, please go to http://www.nist.gov/mep/.
    Funding Availability: NIST anticipates funding one (1) Center award 
for the State of Alaska with an initial five-year period of performance 
in accordance with the multi-year funding policy described in Section 
II.3. of the corresponding NOFO. Funding for the award listed below is 
contingent upon the availability of appropriated funds. The table below 
lists the state identified for funding as part of the corresponding 
NOFO and the estimated amount of funding available:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                 Anticipated annual
 MEP center location and assigned geographical service area   Federal funding for each    Total Federal funding
                         (by state)                               year of the award      for 5 year award period
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alaska......................................................                 $500,000                $2,500,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Applicants may propose annual Federal funding amounts that are 
different from the anticipated annual Federal funding amount set forth 
in the above 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 set forth in the 
above 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.
    Multi-Year Funding Policy. When an application for a multi-year 
award is approved, funding will usually be provided for only the first 
year of the project. Recipients will be required to submit detailed 
budgets and budget narratives prior to the award of any continued 
funding. Continued funding for the remaining years of the project will 
be awarded by NIST on a non-competitive basis, and may be adjusted 
higher or lower from year-to-year of the award, contingent upon 
satisfactory performance, continued relevance to the mission and 
priorities of the program, and the availability of Federal funds. 
Continuation of an award to extend the period of performance and/or to 
increase or decrease funding is at the sole discretion of NIST.
    Potential for Additional 2 Years. Initial awards issued pursuant to 
the corresponding NOFO 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 two (2) year period at the end of the initial 
award period (i.e., up to a total of seven (7) years). As discussed in

[[Page 42870]]

Section VI.3.d. of the corresponding NOFO, renewal funding for MEP 
Centers is contingent, in part, upon successful annual and panel 
reviews, and Secretarial evaluations in accordance with 15 U.S.C. 
278k(g) and 15 CFR 290.8.

Kick-Off Conference

    A recipient will be required to attend a kick-off conference, which 
will be held within 30 days post start date of award, to help ensure 
that the MEP Center operator has a clear understanding of the program 
and its components. The kick-off conference will take place at NIST MEP 
headquarters in Gaithersburg, MD, during which time NIST will: (1) 
Orient MEP Center key personnel to the MEP program; (2) explain program 
and financial reporting requirements and procedures; (3) identify 
available resources that can enhance the capabilities of the MEP 
Center; and (4) negotiate and develop a detailed three-year operating 
plan with the recipient. NIST MEP anticipates an additional set of site 
visits at the MEP Center and/or telephonic meetings with the recipient 
to finalize the three-year operating plan.
    The kick-off conference will take up to approximately three days 
and must be attended by the MEP Center Director, along with up to two 
additional MEP Center employees. Applicants must include travel and 
related costs for the kick-off conference as part of the budget for 
year one (1), and these costs should be reflected in the SF-424A form. 
(See Section IV.2.a.(2). of the corresponding NOFO). These costs must 
also be reflected in the budget table and budget narrative for Year 1, 
which is submitted as part of the budget summary tables and budget 
narratives section of the Technical Proposal. (See Section 
IV.2.a.(6).(e). of the corresponding NOFO). Representatives from key 
subrecipients and other key strategic partners may attend the kick-off 
conference with the prior written approval of the Grants Officer. 
Applicants proposing to have key subrecipients and/or other key 
strategic partners attend the kick-off conference should clearly 
indicate that fact as part of the budget narrative for year one of the 
project.

MEP Network-Wide Meetings

    NIST MEP typically organizes network-wide meetings several times a 
year to share best practices, new and emerging trends, and additional 
topics of interest. These meetings are rotated throughout the United 
States and typically involve 3-4 days of resource time and associated 
travel costs for each meeting.
    Applicants must include travel and related costs for approximately 
two (2) MEP network-wide meetings in each of the five (5) project years 
(2 meetings per year; 10 total meetings over five-year award period). 
These costs must be reflected in the MEP Budget Summary form (see 
Section IV.2.a.(2). of the corresponding NOFO). These costs must be 
reflected in the budget summary tables and budget narratives for each 
of the project's five (5) years, which are submitted in the budget 
summary tables and budget narratives section of the Technical Proposal. 
(See Section IV.2.a.(6).(e). of the corresponding NOFO). A budget 
summary table and narrative template for Year 1 and budget summary 
table for Years 2-5 is available on the MEP website, https://www.nist.gov/mep/manufacturing-extension-partnership-center-alaska.
    Cost Share or Matching Requirement: In accordance with 15 U.S.C. 
278k(e)(2), the minimum non-Federal cost share for MEP Center 
cooperative agreements is 50 percent of the total approved project 
budget, which is determined on an annual basis. The MEP statute 
requires that minimum cost share requirements must be met annually; 
there can be no carryover of excess cost share from one year to the 
next.
    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 CFR 200.306. 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 the corresponding NOFO.
    Recipients must meet the minimum non-Federal cost share 
requirements for each year of the award, with each such year being 
distinct and unique for cost-share purposes. Cost-share cannot be 
``carried'' forward from one year to the next under this program. For 
purposes of the MEP program, ``program income'' (as defined in 2 CFR 
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.
    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 CFR part 
200, subpart E. Non-Federal cost sharing incorporated into the budget 
of an approved MEP cooperative agreement is subject to audit in the 
same general manner as Federal award funds. See 2 CFR part 200, subpart 
F.
    As set forth in Section IV.2.a.(7) of the corresponding NOFO, 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.
    Eligibility: The eligibility requirements set forth in 15 U.S.C. 
278k(a)(5) and in Section III.1. of the corresponding NOFO will be used 
in lieu of and to the extent they are inconsistent with will supersede 
the eligibility requirements provided in the MEP regulations found at 
15 CFR part 290, specifically 15 CFR 290.5(a)(1). Each applicant for 
and recipient of an MEP award must be a United States-based nonprofit 
institution, or consortium thereof, an institution of higher education, 
or a State, United States territory, local, or tribal government. 
Existing MEP awardees and new applicants that meet the eligibility 
criteria set forth in Section III.1. of the corresponding NOFO may 
apply. An eligible organization may work individually or may include 
proposed subawards to eligible organizations or proposed contracts with 
any other organization as part of the applicant's proposal, effectively 
forming a team. However, as discussed in Section I.4. of the 
corresponding NOFO, NIST generally will not fund applications that 
propose an organizational or operational structure that, in whole or in 
part, delegates or transfers to another person, institution, or 
organization the applicant's responsibility for core MEP Center 
management and Oversight functions. In addition, the applicant must 
have or propose an Oversight Board or Advisory Committee and Governance 
structure or plan for establishing a board structure within 90 calendar 
days from the award start date (Refer to Section I.3. of the 
corresponding NOFO). In accordance with 15 U.S.C. 278k(e)(2), the 
minimum non-Federal cost share for MEP Center cooperative agreements is 
50 percent of the total approved project budget, which is determined on 
an annual basis. The MEP statute requires that minimum cost share 
requirements must be met annually; there can be no carryover of

[[Page 42871]]

excess cost share from one year to the next. See Section III.2. of the 
corresponding NOFO for more information on the non-Federal cost sharing 
requirements under MEP awards.
    Application Requirements: Applications must be submitted in 
accordance with the requirements set forth in Section IV. of the 
corresponding NOFO announcement, which are in lieu of and to the extent 
they are inconsistent with will supersede any application requirements 
set forth in 15 CFR 290.5. See specifically Sections IV.2.a.(1)., 
IV.2.a.(2)., and IV.2.a.(7). in the Full Announcement Text of the 
corresponding NOFO.
    Application/Review Information: The evaluation criteria, selection 
factors, and the review and selection process provided in this section 
will be used for this competition and are consistent with the 
evaluation requirements set forth in 15 U.S.C. 278k(f)(5)(B). To the 
extent that the evaluation criteria, selection factors or the review 
and selection process contained in the corresponding NOFO are 
inconsistent with the MEP regulations found at 15 CFR part 290, 
specifically 15 CFR 290.6 and 290.7, the evaluation criteria, selection 
factors and the review and selection process contained in the 
corresponding NOFO will control.
    Evaluation Criteria: The evaluation criteria that will be used in 
evaluating applications and assigned weights, with a maximum score of 
100, are listed below.
    a. Project Narrative. (40 points; Sub-criteria i through iv will be 
weighted equally). NIST/MEP will evaluate the extent to which the 
applicant's Project Narrative demonstrates how the applicant's 
methodology will efficiently and effectively establish an MEP Center 
and provide manufacturing extension services to primarily small and 
medium-sized manufacturers in the applicable State-wide geographical 
service area identified in Section II.2. of the corresponding NOFO. 
Reviewers will consider the following topics when evaluating the 
Project Narrative:
    i. Center Strategy. Reviewers will assess the applicant's strategy 
proposed for the Center to deliver services that meet manufacturers' 
needs, generate client impacts (e.g., cost savings, increased sales, 
etc.), and support a strong manufacturing ecosystem. Reviewers will 
assess the quality with which the applicant:
     Incorporates the market analysis described in the 
criterion set forth in paragraph a.ii.(1) below and Section 
V.1.a.ii.(1). of the corresponding NOFO to inform strategies, products 
and services;
     defines a strategy for delivering services that balances 
market penetration with impact and revenue generation, addressing the 
needs of manufacturers, with an emphasis on the small and medium-sized 
manufacturers;
     defines the Center's existing and/or proposed roles and 
relationships with other entities in the State's manufacturing 
ecosystem, including State, regional, and local agencies, economic 
development organizations and educational institutions such as 
universities and community or technical colleges, industry 
associations, and other appropriate entities;
     plans to engage with other entities in Statewide and/or 
regional advanced manufacturing initiatives; and
     supports achievements of the MEP mission and objectives 
while also satisfying the interests of other stakeholders, investors, 
and partners.
    ii. Market Understanding. Reviewers will assess the strategy 
proposed for the Center to define the target market, understand the 
needs of manufacturers (especially Small and Medium Enterprises 
(SMEs)), and to define appropriate services to meet identified needs. 
Reviewers will evaluate the proposed approach for regularly updating 
this understanding through the five years. The following sub-topics 
will be evaluated and given equal weight:
    (1) Market Segmentation. Reviewers will assess the quality and 
extent of the applicant's market segmentation strategy including:
     Segmentation of company size, geography, and industry 
priorities including some consideration of rural, start-up (a 
manufacturing establishment that has been in operation for five years 
or less) and/or very small manufacturers as appropriate to the state;
     alignment with state and/or regional initiatives; and
     other important factors identified by the applicant.
    (2) Needs Identification and Product/Service Offerings. Reviewers 
will assess the quality and extent of the applicant's proposed needs 
identification and proposed products and services for both sales growth 
and operational improvement in response to the applicant's market 
segmentation and understanding assessed by reviewers under paragraph 
a.ii.(1) above and Section V.1.a.ii.(1) of the corresponding NOFO. Of 
particular interest, is the applicant's ability to:
     Leverage new manufacturing technologies, techniques and 
processes usable by small and medium-sized manufacturers through 
technology diffusion and transfer; and,
     support a stronger training and education ecosystem in 
support of manufacturing workforce needs in the state.
    iii. Business Model. Reviewers will assess the quality, feasibility 
and potential efficacy and efficiency of the applicant's proposed 
business model for the Center as provided in the Project Narrative, 
Qualifications of the Applicant; Key Personnel, Organizational 
Structure and Management, and the Budget Tables and Budget Narratives 
sections of its Technical Proposal, submitted under section IV.2.a.(6). 
of the corresponding NOFO, and the likelihood that the proposed 
business model will result in the Center's ability to successfully 
execute the strategy evaluated under criterion set forth in paragraph 
a.1. above and Section V.1.a.i. of the corresponding NOFO, based on the 
market understanding evaluated under criterion set forth in paragraph 
a.ii. above and Section V.1.a.ii. of the corresponding NOFO. The 
following sub-topics will be evaluated and given equal weight:
    (1) Outreach and Service Delivery to the Market. Reviewers will 
assess the extent to which the proposed Center is organized to:
     Identify, reach and provide proposed services to key 
market segments and individual manufacturers described above;
     work with a manufacturer's leadership in strategic 
discussions related to new technologies, new products and new markets; 
and
     leverage the applicant's past experience in working with 
small and medium-sized manufacturers as a basis for future programmatic 
success.
    (2) Partnership Leverage and Linkages. Reviewers will assess the 
extent to which the proposed Center will make effective use of 
resources or partnerships with third parties such as industry, 
universities, community/technical colleges, nonprofit economic 
development organizations, and Federal, State and Local Government 
Agencies in the Center's business model.
    iv. Performance Measurement and Management. Reviewers will assess 
the extent to which the applicant will use a systematic approach to 
measuring and managing performance including the:
     Quality and extent of the applicant's stated goals, 
milestones and outcomes described by operating year (year 1, year 2, 
etc.);
     applicant's utilization of client-based business results 
important to

[[Page 42872]]

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.
    b. Qualifications of the Applicant; Key Personnel, Organizational 
Structure and Management; and Oversight Board or Advisory Committee and 
Governance (30 points; Sub-criteria i and ii will be weighted equally). 
Reviewers will assess the ability of the key personnel, the applicant's 
management structure and Oversight Board or Advisory Committee and 
Governance to deliver the program and services envisioned for the 
Center. Reviewers will consider the following topics when evaluating 
the qualifications of the applicant and of program management:
    i. Key Personnel, Organizational Structure and Management. 
Reviewers will assess the extent to which the:
     Proposed key personnel have the appropriate experience and 
education in manufacturing, outreach, program management and 
partnership development to support achievements of the MEP mission and 
objectives;
     proposed management structure and organizational roles are 
aligned to plan, direct, monitor, organize and control the monetary 
resources of the proposed center to achieve its business objectives 
(Refer to Section I.4. of the corresponding NOFO);
     proposed organizational structure flows logically from the 
specified approach to the market and products and service offerings; 
and
     proposed field staff structure sufficiently supports the 
geographic concentrations and industry targets for the region.
    ii. Oversight Board or Advisory Committee and Governance. Reviewers 
will assess the extent to which the:
     Proposed Oversight Board or Advisory Committee and its 
operations are complete, appropriate and will meet the program's 
objectives at the time of award, or, if such an Oversight Board or 
Advisory Committee does not exist at the time of application or is not 
expected to meet these requirements at the time of award, the extent to 
which the proposed plan for developing and implementing such an 
Oversight Board or Advisory Committee within 90 days of award start 
date (expected to be January 1, 2019) is feasible. (Refer to Section 
I.3. of the corresponding NOFO).
     Oversight Board or Advisory Committee and Governance is 
engaged with overseeing and guiding the Center and supports its own 
development through a schedule of regular meetings, and processes 
ensuring Oversight Board or Advisory Committee involvement in strategic 
planning, recruitment, selection and retention of board members, board 
assessment practices and board development initiatives (Refer to 
Section I.3. of the corresponding NOFO).
    c. Budget and Financial Plan. (30 points; Sub-criteria i and ii 
will be weighted equally). Reviewers will assess the suitability and 
focus of the applicant's five (5) year budget. The application will be 
assessed in the following areas:
    i. Budget. Reviewers will assess the extent to which:
     The proposed financial plan is aligned to support the 
execution of the proposed Center's strategy and business model over the 
five (5) year project plan;
     the proposed projections for income and expenditures are 
appropriate for the scale of services that are to be delivered by the 
proposed Center and the service delivery model envisioned within the 
context of the overall financial model over the five (5) year project 
plan;
     a reasonable ramp-up or scale-up scope and budget has the 
Center fully operational by the 4th year of the project; and
     the proposal's narrative for each of the budgeted items 
explains the rationale for each of the budgeted items, including 
assumptions the applicant used in budgeting for the Center.
    ii. Quality of the Financial Plan for Meeting the Award's Non-
Federal Cost Share Requirements Over 5 Years. Reviewers will assess the 
quality of and extent to which the:
     Applicant clearly describes the total level of cost share 
and detailed rationale of the cost share, including cash and in-kind, 
in their proposed budget.
     applicant's funding commitments for cost share are 
documented by letters of support from the applicant, proposed sub-
recipients and any other partners identified and meet the basic 
matching requirements of the program;
     applicant's cost share meets basic requirements of 
allowability, allocability and reasonableness under applicable federal 
costs principles set forth in 2 CFR 200, subpart E; and
     the overall proposed financial plan is sufficiently robust 
and diversified so as to support the long-term sustainability of the 
Center throughout the five (5) years of the project plan.
    Selection Factors: The Selection Factors for this notice as set 
forth here and in Section V.3. of the corresponding NOFO are as 
follows:
    a. The availability of Federal funds;
    b. The type and percentage of funding and in-kind commitment from 
other sources, such as 3rd party In-Kind.
    c. Relevance of the proposed project to MEP program goals and 
policy objectives;
    d. Reviewers' evaluations, including technical comments;
    e. The geographical diversity and extent of the service area;
    f. Whether the project duplicates other projects funded by DoC or 
by other Federal agencies; and
    g. Whether the application complements or supports other 
Administration priorities, or projects supported by DoC or other 
Federal agencies, such as but not limited to the Manufacturing USA.

Review and Selection Process

    Proposals, reports, documents and other information related to 
applications submitted to NIST and/or relating to financial assistance 
awards issued by NIST will be reviewed and considered by Federal 
employees, Federal agents and contractors, and/or by non-Federal 
personnel who enter into or are subject to appropriate confidentiality 
and nondisclosure agreements covering such information.
    (1) Initial Administrative Review of Applications. An initial 
review of timely received applications will be conducted to determine 
eligibility, completeness, and responsiveness to this notice and the 
corresponding NOFO and the scope of the stated program objectives. 
Applications determined to be ineligible, incomplete, and/or non-
responsive may be eliminated from further review. However, NIST, in its 
sole discretion, may continue the review process for an application 
that is missing non-substantive information that can easily be 
rectified or cured.
    (2) Full Review of Eligible, Complete, and Responsive Applications. 
Applications that are determined to be eligible, complete, and 
responsive will proceed for full reviews in accordance with the review 
and selection processes below.
    (3) Evaluation and Review. Each application will be reviewed by at 
least three technically qualified individual reviewers who will 
evaluate each application based on the evaluation criteria (see 
Evaluation Criteria section of this notice and Section V.1. of the 
corresponding NOFO). Applicants may receive written follow-up questions 
in order for the reviewers to gain a better understanding of the 
applicant's proposal. Each reviewer will provide a written technical 
assessment against the evaluation criteria and based on that assessment 
will assign each application

[[Page 42873]]

a numeric score, with a maximum score of 100. If a non-Federal reviewer 
is used, the reviewers may discuss the applications with each other, 
but scores will be determined on an individual basis, not as a 
consensus.
    Applicants whose applications receive an average score of 70 or 
higher out of 100 will be deemed finalists. If deemed necessary, 
finalists will be invited to participate with reviewers in a conference 
call and/or a video conference, and/or finalists will be invited to 
participate in a site visit that will be conducted by the same 
reviewers at the applicant's location. In any event, if there are two 
(2) or more finalists within a state, conference calls, video 
conferences or site visits will be conducted with each finalist. 
Finalists will be reviewed and evaluated, and reviewers may revise 
their assigned numeric scores based on the evaluation criteria (see 
Evaluation Criteria section of this notice and Section V.1. of the 
corresponding NOFO) as a result of the conference call, video 
conference, and/or site visit.
    (4) Ranking and Selection. Based upon an average of the technical 
reviewers' final scores, an adjectival rating will be assigned to each 
application in accordance with the following scale:
    Fundable, Outstanding (91-100 points);
    Fundable, Very Good (81-90 points);
    Fundable (70-80 points); or
    Unfundable (0-69 points).
    For decision-making purposes, applications receiving the same 
adjectival rating will be considered to have an equivalent ranking, 
although their technical review scores, while comparable, may not 
necessarily be the same.
    The Selecting Official is the Director of NIST MEP or her designee. 
The Selecting Official makes the final recommendation to the NIST 
Grants Officer regarding the funding of applications under this notice 
and the corresponding NOFO. The Selecting Official shall be provided 
all applications, all the scores and technical assessments of the 
reviewers, and all information obtained from the applicants during the 
evaluation, review and negotiation processes.
    The Selecting Official will generally select and recommend the most 
meritorious application for an award based on the adjectival rankings 
and/or one or more of the seven (7) selection factors described in the 
Selection Factors section of this notice and Section V.3. of the 
corresponding NOFO. 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 with applicants 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.
    Federal Awarding Agency Review of Risk Posed by Applicants. After 
applications are proposed for funding by the Selecting Official, the 
NIST Grants Management Division (GMD) performs pre-award risk 
assessments in accordance with 2 CFR 200.205, which may include a 
review of the financial stability of an applicant, the quality of the 
applicant's management systems, the history of performance, and/or the 
applicant's ability to effectively implement statutory, regulatory, or 
other requirements imposed on non-Federal entities. In addition, prior 
to making an award where the total Federal share is expected to exceed 
the simplified acquisition threshold (currently $150,000), NIST GMD 
will review and consider the publicly available information about that 
applicant in the Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information 
System (FAPIIS). An applicant may, at its option, review and comment on 
information about itself previously entered into FAPIIS by a Federal 
awarding agency. As part of its review of risk posed by applicants, 
NIST GMD will consider any comments made by the applicant in FAPIIS in 
making its determination about the applicant's integrity, business 
ethics, and record of performance under Federal awards. Upon completion 
of the pre-award risk assessment, the Grants Officer will make a 
responsibility determination concerning whether the applicant is 
qualified to receive the subject award and, if so, whether appropriate 
specific conditions that correspond to the degree of risk posed by the 
applicant should be applied to an award.
    Anticipated Announcement and Award Date. Review, selection, and 
award processing is expected to be completed in late calendar year 
2018. The anticipated start date for awards made under this notice and 
the corresponding NOFO is expected to be January 1, 2019.

Additional Information

    a. Application Replacement Pages. Applicants may not submit 
replacement pages and/or missing documents once an application has been 
submitted. Any revisions must be made by submission of a new 
application that must be received by NIST by the submission deadline.
    b. Notification to Unsuccessful Applicants. Unsuccessful applicants 
will be notified in writing.
    c. Retention of Unsuccessful Applications. Unsuccessful 
applications will be retained in accordance with the General Record 
Schedule 1.2/021, found at https://www.archives.gov/files/records-mgmt/grs/grs01-2.pdf.

Administrative and National Policy Requirements

    Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles and Audit 
Requirements: Through 2 CFR 1327.101, the Department of Commerce 
adopted the Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and 
Audit Requirements for Federal Awards at 2 CFR part 200, which apply to 
awards made pursuant to this notice and the corresponding NOFO. Refer 
to http://go.usa.gov/SBYh and http://go.usa.gov/SBg4.
    The Department of Commerce Pre-Award Notification Requirements: The 
Department of Commerce will apply the Pre-Award Notification 
Requirements for Grants and Cooperative Agreements dated December 30, 
2014 (79 FR 78390). If the Department of Commerce publishes revised 
Pre-Award Notification Requirements prior to issuance of awards under 
this notice and the corresponding NOFO, the revised Pre-Award 
Notification Requirements will apply. Refer to Section VII. of the 
corresponding NOFO, Federal Awarding Agency Contacts, Grant Rules and 
Regulations for more information.
    Unique Entity Identifier and System for Award Management (SAM): 
Pursuant to 2 CFR part 25, applicants and recipients (as the case may 
be) are

[[Page 42874]]

required to: (i) Be registered in SAM before submitting its 
application; (ii) provide a valid unique entity identifier in its 
application; and (iii) continue to maintain an active SAM registration 
with current information at all times during which it has an active 
Federal award or an application or plan under consideration by a 
Federal awarding agency, unless otherwise excepted from these 
requirements pursuant to 2 CFR 25.110. NIST will not make a Federal 
award to an applicant until the applicant has complied with all 
applicable unique entity identifier and SAM requirements. If an 
applicant has not fully complied with the requirements by the time that 
NIST is ready to make a Federal award pursuant to this notice and the 
corresponding NOFO, NIST may determine that the applicant is not 
qualified to receive a Federal award and use that determination as a 
basis for making a Federal award to another applicant.
    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, and SF-LLL have been 
approved by OMB under the respective Control Numbers 4040-0004, 4040-
0006, 4040-0007, and 0348-0046.
    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.
    Certifications Regarding Federal Felony and Federal Criminal Tax 
Convictions, Unpaid Federal Tax Assessments and Delinquent Federal Tax 
Returns. In accordance with Federal appropriations law, an authorized 
representative of the selected applicant(s) may be required to provide 
certain pre-award certifications regarding federal felony and federal 
criminal tax convictions, unpaid federal tax assessments, and 
delinquent federal tax returns.

Kevin A. Kimball,
Chief of Staff.
[FR Doc. 2018-18386 Filed 8-23-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 3510-13-P