2022-NIST-MEP-02 NOFO.pdf

NIST MEP Center State Competition for

Arizona and Maryland Notice of Funding Opportunity

August 1, 2022

NOTICE OF FUNDING OPPORTUNITY (NOFO)

Arizona and Maryland

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

• Federal Agency Name: National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), United States Department of Commerce (DoC)

• Funding Opportunity Title: Award Competition for Hollings Manufacturing Extension Partnership (MEP) Centers in the States of Arizona and Maryland with District of Columbia

• Announcement Type: Initial

• Funding Opportunity Number: 2022-NIST-MEP-02

• Assistance Listing (CFDA Number): 11.611, Manufacturing Extension Partnership

• Dates: Full Applications must be received at Grants.gov no later than 11:59 p.m.

Eastern Time, October 30, 2022. Applications received after this deadline will not be reviewed or considered.

Applicants should be aware, and factor in their application submission planning, that the Grants.gov system closes periodically for routine maintenance.

Applicants should visit Grants.gov for information on any scheduled closures.

NIST expects to complete its review, selection of successful applicants, and award processing by April 1, 2023. NIST expects the earliest start date for awards under this NOFO to be July 1, 2023.

• Application Submission Address: Applications must be submitted using Grants.gov. NIST will not accept applications submitted by mail, facsimile, or by e-mail.

• Funding Opportunity Description: The NIST Hollings Manufacturing Extension Partnership (MEP), authorized by 15 U.S.C. § 278k, is seeking applications from eligible applicants to enter into cooperative agreements to operate MEP Centers in the States of Arizona and Maryland with the District of Columbia. These MEP Centers will provide manufacturing extension services to small and medium-sized manufacturers (SMMs) in the States outlined above. These new MEP https://beta.sam.gov/fal/b61d2a2fbaab4ccc90d7393fb7d0db9a/view?keywords=11.611&sort=-relevance&index=cfda&is_active=true&page=1 https://beta.sam.gov/fal/b61d2a2fbaab4ccc90d7393fb7d0db9a/view?keywords=11.611&sort=-relevance&index=cfda&is_active=true&page=1 https://www.grants.gov/ https://www.grants.gov/ http://www.grants.gov/

Arizona and Maryland

Centers will become part of the MEP National Network™1, which consists of 51 MEP Centers2 located in each State and in Puerto Rico, and over 1,400 trusted advisors and experts at approximately 450 MEP service locations. By statute, when an MEP Center has operated for a period of 10 consecutive years, a competition must be conducted to select an eligible entity to operate the Center.

The MEP Centers in the States of Arizona and Maryland are each nearing 10 consecutive years of operation. See Section I. of this NOFO for additional information regarding the MEP Center program.

• Anticipated Amounts: NIST anticipates funding one (1) MEP Center cooperative agreement in each of the following States: Arizona and Maryland to include the District of Columbia based on the availability of appropriations. Each award will have an initial project performance period of up to five (5) years and may be funded at the following anticipated levels:

MEP Center Location and Assigned

Geographical Service Area (by State)

Anticipated Federal Funding for

Each Year of the Award

Total Anticipated Federal Funding for

5-Year Award Period

Arizona $1,501,200 $7,506,000 Maryland to include the

District of Columbia $1,375,686 $6,878,430

Awards issued pursuant to this NOFO may be renewed by NIST on a non-competitive basis for an additional period of five (5) years at the end of the initial project performance period. Renewal funding for MEP Centers is contingent upon successful annual reviews, panel and Secretarial evaluations in accordance with 15 U.S.C. § 278k(g) and 15 C.F.R. § 290.8 and the availability of appropriations. In accordance with the multi-year funding policy described in this NOFO, obligated funding amounts may be adjusted higher or lower from year-to-year of an award. See Section II.2. of this NOFO for additional information pertaining to the anticipated funding levels for this program.

• Funding Instrument: Cooperative Agreement. See Section II.1. of this NOFO for additional information concerning the funding instrument for this award.

• Eligibility: Per 15 U.S.C. § 278k(a)(5), eligibility is limited to United States-based nonprofit institutions, or consortium thereof, institutions of higher education, or State, United States territory, local, or tribal governments. As discussed in Section I.3. of this NOFO, NIST generally will not fund applications that propose an organizational or operational structure that, in whole or in part, delegates or

1 https://www.nist.gov/mep- 2 https://www.nist.gov/mep/centers https://www.law.cornell.edu/definitions/uscode.php?width=840&height=800&iframe=true&def_id=15-USC-2014820469-131522324&term_occur=999&term_src= https://www.law.cornell.edu/definitions/uscode.php?width=840&height=800&iframe=true&def_id=15-USC-392077900-131522322&term_occur=999&term_src=title:15:chapter:7:section:278k https://www.law.cornell.edu/definitions/uscode.php?width=840&height=800&iframe=true&def_id=15-USC-2014820469-131522324&term_occur=999&term_src= https://www.law.cornell.edu/definitions/uscode.php?width=840&height=800&iframe=true&def_id=15-USC-2014820469-131522324&term_occur=999&term_src= https://www.law.cornell.edu/definitions/uscode.php?width=840&height=800&iframe=true&def_id=15-USC-2014820469-131522324&term_occur=999&term_src= https://www.nist.gov/mep-

Arizona and Maryland 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 structure or plan for establishing a board structure within 90 days from the award start date (Refer to Section I.2. of this NOFO). Per 15 U.S.C. § 278k(h)(2), incumbent MEP Centers that have received financial assistance for ten (10) consecutive years and that the Secretary determines are in good standing are eligible to apply under this NOFO. See Section III.1. of this NOFO for additional information regarding the eligibility requirements for the MEP Center program.

• Cost Sharing Requirements: The MEP Center program requires non-Federal cost share of at least 50 percent of the total annual allowable project costs, unless otherwise directed by Congress. See Section III.2. of this NOFO for more information on the non-federal cost sharing requirements under the MEP Center program.

• Informational Forum: NIST MEP conducted and recorded a virtual information forum on November 22, 2021, 1:00 p.m. EST, which is available via https://www.nist.gov/news-events/news/2021/11/nist-mep-fy-2022-virtual-state-center-competition-information-forum.

During the informational forum, NIST MEP provided general information regarding MEP and offered guidance on preparing proposals. Additional information provided during these forums included: MEP eligibility and cost share requirements, evaluation criteria, selection factors, and application and selection timeline.

• Public Website, Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs): Questions from applicants pertaining to MEP eligibility, cost sharing requirements, evaluation criteria and selection factors, the selection process, and the general characteristics of a competitive MEP proposal must be submitted in writing to mepnofo@nist.gov. Questions submitted to NIST MEP may be made available to the public as part of an FAQ document, which will be periodically updated on the NIST MEP website at https://www.nist.gov/mep/mep-center-state-competition-fy-2022.

• Webinar Information Session: NIST will host a virtual webinar to provide general information regarding this NOFO, offer general guidance on preparing applications, and answer questions. The exact date and time of this webinar will be posted on the NIST MEP website at https://www.nist.gov/mep/mep-center-state-competition-fy-2022.During the webinar, proprietary technical discussions about specific project ideas will not be permitted. Also, NIST MEP staff will not https://www.nist.gov/news-events/news/2021/11/nist-mep-fy-2022-virtual-state-center-competition-information-forum.

https://www.nist.gov/news-events/news/2021/11/nist-mep-fy-2022-virtual-state-center-competition-information-forum.

mailto:mepnofo@nist.gov https://www.nist.gov/mep/mep-center-state-competition-fy-2022

Arizona and Maryland critique or provide feedback on any specific project ideas during the webinars or at any time before submission of a proposal to MEP. There is no cost to attend the webinar. Participant registration is not needed. Participation in the webinar is not required and will not be considered in the review and selection process.

Table of Contents

I. Program Description II. Federal Award Information III. Eligibility Information IV. Application and Submission Information V. Application Review Information VI. Federal Award Administration Information VII. Federal Awarding Agency Contacts VIII. Other Information

FULL ANNOUNCEMENT TEXT

I. Program Description

The statutory authority for the NIST Hollings Manufacturing Extension Partnership is 15 U.S.C. § 278k.

1) Background Information

The National Institute of Standards and Technology’s (NIST’s) Hollings Manufacturing Extension Partnership (MEP) Program is a nationwide network of Centers (referred to hereinafter as the MEP National Network™). MEP Centers are located in all 50 States and Puerto Rico and serve as trusted business advisors focused on transforming U.S. manufacturers’ ability to compete globally, supporting supply chain integration, providing access to technology for improved productivity, and supporting a strong manufacturing workforce. The MEP National Network™ is a diverse network of state, non-profit organizations, and public colleges and universities, comprising more than 1,400 manufacturing experts offering hands-on technical expertise and assistance services that address the critical needs of their local manufacturers that will impact U.S.

Manufacturing.

MEP Centers work directly with area manufacturers in each state to provide expertise and services tailored to manufacturers’ most critical needs, ranging from process improvement and workforce development to business practices and technology transfer and implementation. Additionally, MEP Centers connect manufacturers with government and trade associations, universities and research laboratories, and a host of other public and private resources to help

Arizona and Maryland manufacturers realize individual business goals. To learn more about the MEP Program, please go to http://www.nist.gov/mep/.

The MEP National Network™ is a unique public-private partnership that delivers comprehensive, proven solutions to U.S. manufacturers. Through 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. MEP Centers are connected to the National Network to learn and share distinctive practices.

NIST encourages applicants to review the resources available through the MEP National Network™, particularly for connecting applicants with potential subrecipients, contractors, or other collaborators.

2) Oversight Board or Advisory Committee

In accordance with 15 U.S.C. § 278k(k), MEP Centers are required to establish either an Oversight Board or an Advisory Committee.

a. Oversight Board

Except as provided in Section I.2.b. immediately below, recipients will be required to establish and maintain an Oversight Board, which has fiduciary responsibility for the governance and operation of the recipient organization.

The Oversight Board must be broadly representative of state service area and/or other service area as defined by the Program Office stakeholders with a majority of the Oversight Board members drawn from small and medium-sized manufacturing firms. Members of the Oversight Board 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. Additionally, recipients shall adopt bylaws or equivalent governance documents setting forth the roles, responsibilities, and procedures of their Oversight Boards, 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 with copies of its organizational documents, including articles of incorporation or charters, ratified bylaws, and conflict of interest policies. The sufficiency of the proposed Oversight or Advisory Committee Board will be evaluated against the applicable evaluation criteria.

(See Section V.1.b.ii. of this NOFO).

b. Advisory Committee http://www.nist.gov/mep/

Arizona and Maryland

A recipient of an MEP Center cooperative agreement that is an institution of higher education, State, local or Tribal governmental entity, where state or Tribal law or policy prohibits compliance with the Oversight Board requirement, may establish an Advisory Committee. The Advisory Committee must be broadly representative of state service area stakeholders with the 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 recipient.

A recipient that is a nonprofit organization with multiple programs and MEP Center program activities which 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 recipient 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 bylaws and conflict-of-interest policies. The sufficiency of the proposed Oversight Board or Advisory Committee will be evaluated against the applicable evaluation criteria. (See Section V.1.b.ii. of this NOFO).

c. 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 Board or Advisory Committee including draft bylaws and conflict of interest policies. An awardee will have up to 90 calendar days from the award start date to establish its

Arizona and Maryland

Oversight Board or Advisory Committee, as the case may be. The sufficiency of the proposed Oversight Board or Advisory Committee will be evaluated against the applicable evaluation criteria. (See Section V.1.b.ii. of this

NOFO).

No Federal award funds will be released to an awardee until the NIST Grants Officer, in consultation with the MEP program Office, determines that its Oversight Board or Advisory Committee is in conformance with the requirements set forth in this section.

3) MEP Core Management and Oversight Functions

An MEP Center operating under an MEP cooperative agreement must possess and always maintain during the award performance period accountability to directly manage and execute all functions, both material and inherent, to the successful operation of a MEP Center, which include, but are not limited to, the following:

i. 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;

ii. Policy implementation, including the responsibility for determining the content and implementation of financial and program policies and procedures impacting the recipient’s MEP project;

iii. 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

iv. Strategic planning and project execution and management, including the responsibility for:

• 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

• 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 C.F.R. § 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 management and oversight responsibilities under

Arizona and Maryland 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.ii. of this NOFO).

4) MEP Resources

The following competition-related resources are currently available on the MEP website at: https://www.nist.gov/mep/mep-center-state-competition-fy-2022.

• NIST MEP Strategic Plan

• Hollings Manufacturing Extension Partnership Operating Outcome Plan Guidance(See Appendix 1, page 12)

• Hollings Manufacturing Extension Partnership General Terms and Conditions

• NIST MEP Reporting Guidelines

• Required NIST MEP Single Year Budget Workbook Template

• Required Five-Year NIST MEP Budget Summary Table Template

• NIST MEP Cost Share Memo

• Most recent NIST MEP Annual Report

• FY 2021 Oversight Board Standards

The NIST MEP program is an economic development program not a federal research and development program. It is not the intent of this program that awardees will perform systematic research.

II. Federal Award Information

1. Funding Instrument

The funding instrument that will be used is a Cooperative Agreement. Where cooperative agreements are used, the nature of NIST’s “substantial involvement” will generally include collaboration with the recipient organization in developing and implementing the approved scope of work, consistent with the definition of cooperative agreement in 2 C.F.R. § 200.1.

Arizona and Maryland

2. Funding Availability

NIST anticipates funding one (1) award in each of the following states: Arizona and Maryland to include the District of Columbia. Each award will have a project performance period of up to five (5) years and will be funded, based on the availability of appropriations, at the following anticipated levels:

MEP Center Location and Assigned

Geographical Service Area (by State)

Anticipated Federal Funding for

Each Year of the Award

Total Anticipated Federal Funding for

5-Year Award Period

Arizona $1,501,200 $7,506,000 Maryland to include with the District of Columbia

$1,375,686 $6,878,430

Applicants may propose annual federal funding amounts that are different from the amounts in the table above, provided that the total amount of federal funds requested by an applicant does not exceed the total amount of funds for the five-year award period set forth in the above table.

3. Multi-Year Funding Policy. When a proposal for a multi-year award is approved, funding will usually be provided for only the first year of the program.

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 of the project to the mission and priorities of the program, and the availability of funds, including increases or decreases to amounts of appropriated funding for NIST MEP. Continuation of an award to extend the period of performance and/or to increase or decrease funding is at the sole discretion of NIST.

4. Potential for Additional Years. Initial awards issued pursuant to this 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 up to an additional 5-year period at the end of the initial award period. Renewal funding for MEP Centers is contingent upon both successful annual reviews, and Panel and Secretarial evaluations in accordance with 15 U.S.C. § 278k(g), as well as the project’s continued relevance to the mission and priorities of the program, and the availability of funds.

5. Kick-off Conference. A recipient will be required to attend a kickoff conference, which will generally be held within 30 calendar days after the date of the award. The purpose of this kickoff conference is to help ensure that the MEP Center operator has a clear understanding of the program and its components.

Arizona and Maryland

The kickoff conference may take place at either NIST MEP headquarters in Gaithersburg, MD or virtually. The kickoff conference will take approximately three

(3) days and must be attended by the MEP Center Director and up to two (2) additional MEP Center employees. Applicants must include travel and related expenses for the attending the kickoff as part of the budget for year one (1).

These costs should be reflected in the SF-424A form. These costs must also be reflected in the budget table and budget narrative for year one (1), which is submitted as part of the budget summary tables and budget narrative section of the Technical Proposal. Representatives from key subrecipients and other key strategic partners may attend the kickoff conference with the prior written approval of the Grants Officer. Applicants proposing to have key subrecipients and/or other key strategy partners attend the kickoff conference should clearly indicate that fact as part of the budget narrative for year one of the project.

6. 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 5-year award period). These costs must be reflected in the MEP Single Year Budget Workbook and MEP Five- Year Budget Summary Table (See Section IV.2.a.(8) of this NOFO).

7. Indirect (F&A) Costs. NIST will reimburse applicants for proposed indirect (F&A) costs in accordance with 2 C.F.R. § 200.414. Applicants proposing indirect (F&A) costs must follow the application requirements set forth in Section IV.2.a.(9).

of this NOFO.

III. Eligibility Information

1. Eligible Applicants Per 15 U.S.C. § 278k(a)(5), eligibility is limited to United States-based nonprofit institutions, or consortium thereof, institutions of higher education, or State, United States territory, local, or tribal governments. Per 15 U.S.C. § 278k(h)(2), incumbent MEP Centers that have received financial assistance for ten (10) consecutive years and that the Secretary determines are in good standing are eligible to apply under this NOFO. The eligibility requirements set forth in this NOFO will be used in lieu of, and to the extent they are inconsistent with will supersede, those given in the MEP regulations found at 15 C.F.R. part 290, specifically 15 C.F.R. § 290.5(a)(1).

As discussed in Section I.3) of this NOFO, NIST generally will not fund applications that propose an organizational or operational structure that, in

Arizona and Maryland 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 structure or plan for establishing such a structure within 90 days from the award performance start date (Refer to Section I.2.) of this NOFO).

2. Cost Sharing or Matching

The NIST MEP program requires non-Federal cost share of at least 50 percent of the total annual allowable project costs, unless otherwise directed by Congress. See Sec.1(4) of this NOFO for updated cost share information. The NIST MEP statute requires Centers to meet this minimum cost share requirement annually. See 15 U.S.C.278k(e)(2). There can be no carry over in excess cost share from one year to the next. Program income, as defined in 2 C.F.R. § 200.1, generated by an MEP Center may be used by the recipient to meet the cost share requirement.

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 in 2 C.F.R. § 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. of this NOFO.

As with the federal share, any proposed costs included as non-federal cost sharing must be allowable/eligible cost under this program and under the federal cost principles set forth under 2 C.F.R. Part 200, Subpart E. Non-federal cost sharing incorporated into the budget is subject to audit in the same manner as federal award funds. See 2 C.F.R. Part 200, Subpart F, for more information on audits.

IV. Application and Submission Information

1. Address to Request Application Package

The application package is available at Grants.gov under Funding Opportunity Number 2022-NIST-MEP-02.

2. Content and Form of Application Submission. The requirements given in this section of the NOFO shall supersede those given in the MEP regulations found at 15 C.F.R. Part 290, specifically 15 C.F.R. § 290.5.

Arizona and Maryland

a. Required Forms and Documents. The Application must contain the following:

(1) SF-424, Application for Federal Assistance. The SF-424 must be signed by an authorized representative of the applicant organization.

For SF-424, Item 4, must indicate in which state the applicant is seeking to establish an MEP Center.

For SF-424, Item 8.d. Zip/Postal Code field, should reflect the Zip code + 4 (#####-####) format.

For SF-424, Item 12, should list the NOFO number 2022-NIST-MEP- 02.

For SF-424, Item 18, should list the total budget information for the duration of the project.

For SF-424, Item 19, mark either line 19a. or 19b. on the SF-424 regarding state review of the application by the Intergovernmental Review State Single Point of Contact (SPOC) established pursuant to Executive Order (E.O.) 12372. See Section IV.5. of this NOFO for information regarding the applicability of E.O. 12372 to this program.

For SF-424, Item 21, the list of certifications and assurances is contained in the Federal Financial Assistance Certifications and Representations (Certs and Reps) as part of the SAM.gov entity registration.

(2) SF-424A, Budget Information for Non-Construction Programs.

The budget should reflect anticipated expenses for the entire project, considering all potential cost increases, including cost of living adjustments.

a) The applicant should reflect each year of the project, up to the first four (4) years, on the SF-424A form that appears as part of the mandatory forms in the Grants.gov application package. The second SF-424A form must be submitted to cover year five (5) of the project, and its submission details are found in in Section IV.2.a.(9). of this NOFO.

b) In Section A, the Grant Program Function or Activity on Line 1 under Column (a) should be entered as Manufacturing Extension Partnership or an abbreviation thereof. The Catalog of Federal

Arizona and Maryland

Domestic Assistance Number on Line 1 under Column (b) should be entered as “11.611”. The total Federal and non-Federal budget amount for the term of the award should be listed in Section A, Line 1, Column (e) and Column (f).

c) Section B, Column (1) of the SF-424A should reflect the costs (Federal share plus non-Federal share) for each object class category, for the first year of the award. Section B, Column (2) of the SF-424A should reflect the costs (Federal share plus non- Federal share) for each object class category, for the second year of the award. Section B, Column (3) of the SF-424A should reflect the costs (Federal share plus non-Federal share) for each object class category, for the third year of the award. Section B, Column

(4) of the SF-424A should reflect the costs (Federal share plus non-Federal share) for each object class category, for the fourth year of the award.

d) Section C must account for all non-Federal Resources / Match for the entire project. For Column (b) enter resources provided by the applicant. If not applicable, leave blank. For Column (c), enter resources provided by one or more states. If not applicable, leave blank. For Column (d) enter resources provided by the other sources (e.g., in-kind contribution, program income). If not applicable, leave blank.

e) Section D requires a breakdown of the first year’s Federal and

Non-Federal share of the budget by quarter.

f) Section E requires the budget estimate of federal funds needed for each year of the project. The budget estimate for the first year of the award should be entered in Section E, Line 16, Column (b).

The budget estimate for the second year of the award should be entered in Section E, Line 16, Column (c). The budget estimate for the third year of the award should be entered in Section E, Line 16, Column (d). And the budget estimate for the fourth year of the award should be entered in Section E, Line 16, Column (e).

(3) SF-424A, Budget Information for Non-Construction Programs (for year five of the project). Applications are for five-year projects. The SF-424A form that appears as part of the mandatory forms in the Grants.gov application package covers the first four (4) years of the project. The second SF-424A form should be submitted to cover year five (5) of the project. A fillable SF-424A form can be found at https://www.grants.gov/web/grants/forms/sf-424-family.html near the https://www.grants.gov/web/grants/forms/sf-424-family.html

Arizona and Maryland top of the screen and labeled “Budget Information – Non-Construction Program SF-424A”. Applicants should download the fillable SF-424A form, complete the information for year five (5) of the project and submit the completed form as an attachment, using the procedure described in Section IV.2.b., Attachment of Required Application Documents.

(4) CD-511, Certification Regarding Lobbying. Enter “2022-NIST-MEP-

02” in the Award Number field. Enter the title of the application, or an abbreviation of that title, in the Project Name field.

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

(6) Technical Proposal. The Technical Proposal is a word-processed document of no more than 25 pages that is responsive to the program description and the evaluation criteria. The following is a suggested format that applicants may use:

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

b) Executive Summary. (Does not count toward the page limit). This section should be no longer than two pages, describing the proposed project, consistent with the evaluation criteria in Section V.1. of this NOFO. Applicants should name the state in which they are seeking to establish an MEP Center in the first sentence of the Executive Summary. A project description, as described below, should follow.

The first paragraph of the Executive Summary should be a project description in the following format:

1. Purpose: State the specific purpose of the proposed project in one to two sentences.

2. Activities: Describe the major activities to be performed in one to three sentences.

3. Outcomes: State the specific expected outcomes of the proposed project in one to three sentences.

4. Beneficiaries: Name or describe the intended beneficiaries of the expected outcomes in one to two sentences.

5. Subrecipients: If applicable, describe the major activities to be performed by subrecipients in one to three sentences.

Any acronyms or abbreviations used in this project description must be defined.

Arizona and Maryland

Please note that if an applicant’s proposal is selected for funding, NIST may use all or a portion of the Executive Summary as part of a press release issued by NIST, or for other public information and outreach purposes. Applicants are advised not to incorporate information that concerns business trade secrets or other confidential commercial or financial information as part of the Executive Summary. See 15 C.F.R. § 4.9(c) concerning the designation of business information by the applicant.

c) Project Narrative. A description of the proposed approach to establish and to operate an MEP Center. The project narrative must also identify tasks, measurable milestones, and outcomes in providing manufacturing extension services to primarily small and medium-sized manufacturers separately for each of the five years in the designated state, sufficient to permit evaluation of the application, in accordance with the Project Narrative evaluation sub-criteria (See Section V.1.a. of this NOFO). If relevant, an applicant should provide information that helps the reviewers understand the experience of the applicant in serving small and mid-sized manufacturers.

d) Qualifications of the Applicant; Key Personnel, Organizational

Structure and Oversight Board or Advisory Committee.

A description of the qualifications and proposed Center operational or management activities of key personnel who will be assigned to work on the proposed project, and a description of program management plans, sufficient to permit evaluation of the application, in accordance with the Qualifications of the Applicant sub-criteria (See Sections V.1.b.i. and ii. of this NOFO). The applicant should include a description of its proposed organizational structure for executing the MEP Center Core Management and Oversight Functions. The applicant must provide enough information for NIST to determine whether the proposed structure meets the requirements of Section I.2. of this NOFO. The applicant should also provide a description of its established or proposed MEP Center Oversight Board or Advisory Committee, including a listing of the members and their organizational affiliation or intended members and a discussion of the governing documents (i.e.., bylaws, policies or procedures, and conflict-of-interest policies) with enough information for NIST to determine whether the proposed Oversight Board or Advisory Committee meets the requirements of Section I.2.

of this NOFO. If an applicant’s Oversight Board or Advisory Committee does not currently meet the requirements set forth in Section I.2. of this NOFO or is not expected to meet these

Arizona and Maryland requirements at the time of the MEP award, the applicant must provide a feasible plan to bring its Oversight Board or Advisory Committee into compliance with Section I.2. of the NOFO within 90 days of award start date.

(7) Resumes of Key Personnel (Does not count toward the page limit).

Resumes for all key personnel assigned to the project must be provided.

Resumes must be a maximum of two pages each. Additional pages beyond the two pages per resume will not be considered during the evaluation of the application.

(8) Budget, Narrative and Justification. (Does not count toward the page limit). In addition to the SF-424A, the MEP Single Year Budget Workbook must be provided for year one (1) of the award and the MEP Five-Year Budget Summary Table must be provided for years one (1) through five (5) of the award. The MEP Single Year Budget Workbook includes templates for a detailed budget (revenue and expenses), budget narrative, and budget justification. The MEP Five-Year Budget Summary Table includes a template for a budget summary for years one (1) through five (5), in accordance with applicable Federal cost principles. The MEP Single Year Budget Workbook and MEP Five-Year Budget Summary Table template (OMB Control Number 0693-0032) are available on the MEP website at:

https://www.nist.gov/mep/mep-center-state-competition-fy-2022.

Sample budget summary tables and a sample budget narrative are available on the MEP website under “MEP Resources.” See Section I.4 of this NOFO.

The detailed budget should reflect anticipated expenses with corresponding narratives, and justifications that support all costs identified in the Single Year Budget Workbook. For example, the personnel category includes position title, employee name, annual salary and percentage of time dedicated to the project, travel includes but is not limited to airfare, lodging, per diem, number of travelers and days for each proposed trip, and any anticipated sub-recipients, contractors, or third-party contributor costs/contributions with a detailed description of the purpose and how it relates to the overall project. The proposed costs must be consistent with the project scope. The budget must include the required minimum 50 percent non-Federal cost share described in Section III.2 of this NOFO. The budget must also include expenses to attend the required MEP kick-off conference and meetings described in Sections II.5. and II.6. of this NOFO.

The Budget, Narrative, and Justification must clearly identify whether the applicant or any of its subrecipients anticipate generating program income

Arizona and Maryland pursuant to the proposed activities (e.g., client service fees). If program income is anticipated under the proposal (including at the subrecipient level), the applicant must identify the anticipated amount of program income, disclose how program income will be expended in the Form SF- 424A and in the Budget Narrative and Justification, and will be required to properly report all program income generated pursuant to the project in the Form SF-425.

This section of the application will be evaluated in accordance with the Budget, Narrative, and Justification evaluation criteria in Section V.1.c. of this NOFO. It will also be reviewed to determine if all costs are reasonable, allocable, and allowable under 2 C.F.R. Part 200 Subpart E, Cost Principles. Information on cost allowability is available in the Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards at 2 C.F.R. Part 200 (https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title- 2/subtitle-A/chapter-II/part-200/subpart-E), which apply to awards in this program. If the applicant is successful, additional MEP Single Year Budget Workbooks must be submitted for future years.

Information needed for each budget category is as follows:

a) Personnel- At a minimum, the budget justification for all personnel should include the following: job title, commitment of effort on the proposed project in terms of average number of hours per week or percentage of time, salary rate, total personnel charges for each identified position on the proposed project, description of the role of the individual on the proposed project and the work to be performed.

b) Fringe Benefits– Fringe benefits for each position should be identified separately from salaries and wages and based on rates determined by organizational policy. The items included in the fringe benefit rate (e.g., health insurance, FICA, etc.) should not be charged under another cost category.

c) Travel- For all travel costs, the budget justification for travel should include the following: destination; names or number of people traveling; dates and/or duration; mode of transportation, lodging and subsistence rates; and description of how the travel is directly related to the proposed project. For travel that is yet to be determined, please provide best estimates based on prior experience. If a destination is not known, an approximate amount may be used with the assumptions given for the location of the meeting.

d) Equipment- Equipment is defined as an item of property that has an acquisition cost of $5,000 or more (unless the organization has established lower levels) and an expected service life of more than one year. The budget https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-2/subtitle-A/chapter-II/part-200/subpart-E https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-2/subtitle-A/chapter-II/part-200/subpart-E

Arizona and Maryland justification should list each piece of equipment, the cost, and a description of how it will be used and why it is necessary to the successful completion of the proposed project. Please note that any general use equipment (computers, etc.) charged directly to the award should be allocated to the award according to expected usage on the project.

e) Supplies– Supplies are defined as all tangible personal property other than that described as equipment. Provide a list of each supply, and the breakdown of the total costs by quantity or unit of cost. Include the necessity of the cost for the completion of the proposed project.

f) Contractual (i.e., Contracts) – Each contract should be treated as a separate item. Identify the cost and describe the services to be provided and the necessity contract to the successful performance of the proposed project.

Contracts are for obtaining goods and services for the Non-Federal Entity’s own use and creates a procurement relationship with the contractor.

g) Construction– Not an allowable cost under this NOFO.

h) Other Direct Costs– For costs that do not easily fit into the other cost categories, please list the cost, and the breakdown of the total costs by quantity or unit of cost. Include the necessity of the cost for the completion of the proposed project. Only allowable costs can be charged to the award.

Applicants should identify any subawards costs in this category and provide the necessity of the subaward to the successful performance of the proposed project.

i) Indirect Costs- Commonly referred to as Facilities & Administrative Costs, Indirect Costs are defined as costs incurred by the applicant organization that cannot otherwise be directly assigned or attributed to a specific project. The justification should include a cost calculation that reflects the applicable indirect cost rate. For more details, see Section IV.2.a.(9) of this NOFO.

(9) Indirect Cost Rate Agreement. If indirect costs are included in the proposed budget, provide a copy of the approved negotiated agreement if this rate was negotiated with a cognizant Federal audit agency. If the rate was not established by a cognizant Federal audit agency, provide a statement to this effect. If the successful applicant includes indirect costs in the budget and has not established an indirect cost rate with a cognizant Federal audit agency, the applicant will be required to obtain such a rate in accordance with Section B.06 of the Department of Commerce Financial Assistance Standard Terms and Conditions, dated November 12, 2020.

https://www.commerce.gov/sites/default/files/2020-11/DOC%20Standard%20Terms%20and%20Conditions%20-%2012%20November%202020%20PDF_0.pdf https://www.commerce.gov/sites/default/files/2020-11/DOC%20Standard%20Terms%20and%20Conditions%20-%2012%20November%202020%20PDF_0.pdf

Arizona and Maryland

Alternatively, in accordance with 2 C.F.R. § 200.414(f), applicants that do not have a current negotiated (including provisional) indirect cost rate, except for those non-Federal entities described in appendix VII, paragraph D.1.b. of 2 C.F.R. Part 200, may elect to charge a de minimis rate of 10 percent of modified total direct costs (MTDC). Applicants proposing a 10 percent de minimis rate pursuant to 2 C.F.R. § 200.414(f) should note this election as part of the budget portion of the application.

(10) Letters of Commitment: (Do not count toward page limit). In obtaining letters of commitment, please note that it is inappropriate for federal employees to critique or provide feedback on project ideas, etc., and it is also inappropriate for federal employees to provide letters of support.

a) Non-profit applicants: A resolution from the fiduciary board authorizing submission of the MEP Center application to NIST supporting the activities described therein is required.

b) Applicant and Third-Party Non-Federal Cost Sharing: With the exception of a commitment letter from the applicant, 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.

Applications without commitment letters for each item of third-party, non-Federal cost sharing may be considered less favorably during the application review process. Applicants may submit a summary listing of non-Federal cost share, which will not be counted toward the page limit.

(i) Applicant Non-Federal Cost Sharing (Cash and In-kind): A letter of commitment is required from an authorized representative of the applicant, stating the total amount of cost share to be contributed by the applicant towards the proposed MEP Center project separate and apart from the submission of the proposal. This stand-alone letter must cover all five (5) years of the proposed MEP Center project and include a per year break-out of the applicant’s contribution of non-Federal cost share, as well as a per year break-out of cash cost share (including anticipated program income) and in-kind (non-cash) contributions.

(ii) Third Party Cost Sharing (Cash and In-kind): The applicant is strongly encouraged to include in its application a letter of commitment from an authorized representative of each third-party organization providing cash or in-kind contributions that are to be used as cost share under the proposed MEP Center project. Any such letter(s) should https://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?SID=dd7e460e397e25e8c7f2d685f71d953c&mc=true&node=ap2.1.200_1521.vii&rgn=div9 https://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?SID=dd7e460e397e25e8c7f2d685f71d953c&mc=true&node=ap2.1.200_1521.vii&rgn=div9

Arizona and Maryland clearly state: whether the third-party contribution will consist of cash contributions, in-kind contributions, or a combination thereof; the total amount of the contribution, including a break-out of cash versus in-kind contributions (as applicable); the time period over which the third-party contribution will be made; and any interim performance requirements for phased contributions.

c) Subrecipients: Letters of commitment from subrecipients who are key to the technical plan’s success are useful 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 applicant should include information regarding any planned cost share contribution from a subrecipient in their letter of commitment. If an award is issued, the recipient is ultimately the entity that is committing to the cost share being obtained from the subrecipient. If a subrecipient fails to meet the cost share expectations, the award recipient is required to meet the shortfall. In addition, applicants planning to use subawards are responsible for evaluating the financial viability of subrecipients to meet proposed cost share levels.

d) 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.

e) Contractors: Letters of commitment from contractors who are key to the technical plan’s success are useful for verifying the availability of resources but are not required. Applications without commitment letters from all identified, proposed key contractors may be considered less favorably during the application review process. Contractors may not contribute cost share towards the project.

(11)Current and Pending Support Form. Any application that includes investigators, researchers, and key personnel must identify all sources of current and…