[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 167 (Tuesday, August 29, 1995)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 44749-44755]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-21253]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 44750]]
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Institute of Standards and Technology
15 CFR Part 292
[Docket No. 950330085-5164-02]
RIN 0694-AB36
Manufacturing Extension Partnership; Infrastructure Development
Projects
AGENCY: National Institute of Standards and Technology, Commerce.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The purpose of this rule is to provide for the introduction of
effective training, tools, practices, techniques and analyses, and
information systems into the national manufacturing extension system
and to codify the process by which NIST will solicit and select
applications for cooperative agreements and financial assistance on
projects for providing improved training, tools, practices, techniques
and analyses, and information systems to the national manufacturing
extension system. The intended effect is to increase the effectiveness
of the extension system by providing improved infrastructure capability
to promote the competitiveness of smaller U.S. manufacturers.
EFFECTIVE DATE: August 29, 1995.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Kathryn Leedy, Manufacturing Extension Partnership Infrastructure
Development Projects Manager, National Institute of Standards and
Technology, Gaithersburg, MD 20899, telephone: 301-975-5020.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: A proposed rule was published on May 15,
1995 (60FR25872) with a 30 day comment period. One respondent submitted
three suggestions. The first comment proposed changing the proposed
rule so that it could be used as a Broad Agency Announcement in
addition to serving as a basis for solicitations in order to further
accelerate the process of infrastructure development by providing a
mechanism for inviting creative proposals. This idea was not accepted
because structured solicitations are considered to be a better way to
develop projects that meet program needs. Further, it is anticipated
that frequent solicitations will be issued so that new directions can
be taken and new needs met.
The second comment suggested that the selection criteria be removed
from the rule or that they be designated the default criteria to be
used unless other criteria are given in the solicitation. In response
to this suggestion, Section 292.1(b) was modified to add the words ``as
well as any further definition of the selection criteria'' to the
information required in the announcements of solicitations.
The third comment proposed the use of a database of addresses for
the distribution of draft rules and other materials. This comment was
not accepted since it is an administrative suggestion and outside the
scope of the rule.
The purpose of the National Institute of Standards and Technology
Manufacturing Extension Partnership is to promote the competitiveness
of smaller U.S. manufacturers. This is done primarily through technical
assistance provided by a network of nonprofit manufacturing extension
centers. The purpose of this rule is to provide for the development of
infrastructure capability to effectively support the national
manufacturing extension system and to codify the process by which NIST
will solicit and select applications for financial assistance,
typically for cooperative agreements, on projects which have the
benefit of enhancing the ability of the extension system to promote the
competitiveness of smaller U.S. manufacturers. Proposals from qualified
organizations will periodically be solicited for projects which
accomplish any one of the following objectives:
Development and Deployment of Training: To support the delivery of
effective technical assistance to smaller manufacturers by trained
service delivery personnel at the manufacturing extension centers.
Specific categories of training and mechanisms of deployment may be
specified in solicitations.
Development of Technical Assistance Tools, Practices, Techniques,
and Analyses: To support the initial development, implementation, and
analysis of tools, techniques, or practices which will aid
manufacturing extension organizations in providing effective services
to smaller manufacturers. Specific categories of tools, techniques,
practices, or types of analysis may be specified in solicitations.
Information Infrastructure: To support and act as a catalyst for
the development and implementation of information infrastructure
services and pilots which will aid manufacturing extension
organizations and smaller manufacturers in accessing the technical
information they need or will accelerate the rate of adoption of
electronic commerce. Specific industry sectors or subcategories of
information infrastructure projects may be specified in solicitations.
In general, eligible applicants for these projects include all for-
profit and nonprofit organizations including private companies,
universities, community colleges, state governments, state technology
programs, and independent nonprofit organizations. However, specific
limitations on eligibility may be specified in solicitations.
Announcements of solicitations will be made in the Commerce
Business Daily.
In accordance with the provisions of the National Institute of
Standards and Technology Act (15 U.S.C. 272 (b)(1) and (c)(3) and
2781), as amended, NIST will provide assistance to the national
manufacturing extension system. Under the NIST Manufacturing Extension
Partnership (MEP), NIST will periodically make merit-based awards to
develop and deploy infrastructure improvements into extension centers
and to other organizations for the development and deployment of
training, tools and techniques, and information infrastructure. MEP
assumes a broad definition of manufacturing, and recognizes a wide
range of technology and concepts, including durable goods production;
chemical, biotechnology, and other materials processing; electronic
component and system fabrication; and engineering services associated
with manufacturing, as lying with the definition of manufacturing.
Classification
This rule relating to public property, loans, grants, benefits, or
contracts is exempt from all requirements of section 553 of the
Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. 553(a)(2)) including notice and
opportunity for comment and delayed effective date. Therefore, a
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis is not required and was not prepared
for this rule for purposes of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C.
603 and 604). The program is not a major Federal action requiring an
environmental assessment under the National Environmental Policy Act.
This rule does not contain policies with Federalism implications
sufficient to warrant preparation of a Federalism assessment under
Executive Order 12612. This rule contains collection of information
requirements subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act which have been
approved by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB Control Numbers
0693-0005, 0348-0043 and 0348-0044). Public reporting burden for this
collection of information is estimated to average 40 hours per
[[Page 44751]]
response, including the time for reviewing instructions, searching
existing data sources, gathering the data needed, and completing and
reviewing the collection of information. Send comments regarding this
burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of information,
including suggestions for reducing this burden, to the address shown
above; and to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office
of Management and Budget, Washington, DC 20503.
It has been determined that this rule is not significant for
purposes of EO 12866.
List of Subjects in 15 CFR Part 292
Grant programs--science and technology, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Science and technology, Technical assistance.
Dated: August 22, 1995.
Samuel Kramer,
Associate Director.
For the reasons set out in the preamble, 15 CFR Part 292 is added
to read as follows:
PART 292--MANUFACTURING EXTENSION PARTNERSHIP; INFRASTRUCTURE
DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS
Sec.
292.1 Program description.
292.2 Training development and deployment projects.
292.3 Technical tools, techniques, practices, and analyses
projects.
292.4 Information infrastructure projects.
292.5 Proposal selection process.
292.6 Additional requirements.
Authority: 15 U.S.C. 272 (b)(1) and (c)(3) and 278l.
Sec. 292.1 Program description.
(a) Purpose. In accordance with the provisions of the National
Institute of Standards and Technology Act (15 U.S.C. 272 (b)(1) and
(c)(3) and 278l), as amended, NIST will provide financial assistance to
develop the infrastructure of the national manufacturing extension
system. Under the NIST Manufacturing Extension Partnership (MEP), NIST
will periodically make merit-based awards to develop and deploy
training capability and technical tools, techniques, practices, and
analyses. In addition, NIST will develop and implement information
infrastructure services and pilots. MEP assumes a broad definition of
manufacturing, and recognizes a wide range of technology and concepts,
including durable goods production; chemical, biotechnology, and other
materials processing; electronic component and system fabrication; and
engineering services associated with manufacturing, as lying within the
definition of manufacturing.
(b) Announcements of solicitations. Announcements of solicitations
will be made in the Commerce Business Daily. Specific information on
the level of funding available and the deadline for proposals will be
contained in that announcement. In addition, any specific industry
sectors or types of tools and techniques to be focused on will be
specified in the announcement, as well as any further definition of the
selection criteria.
(c) Proposal workshops. Prior to an announcement of solicitation,
NIST may announce opportunities for potential applicants to learn about
these projects through workshops. The time and place of the workshop(s)
will be contained in a Commerce Business Daily announcement.
(d) Indirect costs. The total dollar amount of the indirect costs
proposed in an application under this program must not exceed the
indirect cost rate negotiated and approved by a cognizant Federal
agency prior to the proposed effective date of the award or 100 percent
of the total proposed direct costs dollar amount in the application,
whichever is less.
(e) Proposal format. The proposal must contain both technical and
cost information. The proposal page count shall include every page,
including pages that contain words, table of contents, executive
summary, management information and qualifications, resumes, figures,
tables, and pictures. All proposals shall be printed such that pages
are single-sided, with no more than fifty-five (55) lines per page. Use
21.6 x 27.9 cm (8\1/2\'' x 11'') paper or A4 metric paper. Use an easy-
to-read font of not more than about 5 characters per cm (fixed pitch
font of 12 or fewer characters per inch or proportional font of point
size 10 or larger). Smaller type may be used in figures and tables, but
must be clearly legible. Margins on all sides (top, bottom, left and
right) must be at lease 2.5 cm. (1''). Length limitations for proposals
will be specified in solicitations. The applicant may submit a
separately bound document of appendices, containing letters of support
for the proposal. The proposal should be self-contained and not rely on
the appendices for meeting criteria. Excess pages in the proposal will
not be considered in the evaluation. Applicants must submit one signed
original plus six copies of the proposal and Standard Form 424, 424A,
and 424B (Rev 4/92), Standard Form LLL, and Form CD-511. Applicants for
whom the submission of six copies presents financial hardship may
submit one original and two copies of the application.
(f) Content of proposal. (1) The proposal must, at a minimum,
include the following:
(i) An executive summary summarizing the planned project consistent
with the Evaluation Criteria stated in this part.
(ii) A description of the planned project sufficient to permit
evaluation of the proposal in accordance with the proposal Evaluation
Criteria stated in this part.
(iii) A budget for the project which identifies all sources of
funds and which breaks out planned expenditures by both activity and
object class (e.g., personnel, travel, etc.).
(iv) A description of the qualifications of key personnel who will
be assigned to work on the proposed project.
(v) A statement of work that discusses the specific tasks to be
carried out, including a schedule of measurable events and milestones.
(vi) A completed Standard Form 424, 424A, and 424B (Rev 4-92)
prescribed by the applicable OMB circular, Standard Form LLL, and Form
CD-511, Certification Regarding Debarment, Suspension and Other
Responsibility Matters; Drug-Free Workplace Requirements and Lobbying.
SF-424, 424A, 424B (Rev 4-92), SF-LLL, and Form CD-511 will not be
considered part of the page count of the proposal.
(2) The application requirements and the standard form requirements
have been approved by OMB (OMB Control Number 0693-0005, 0348-0043 and
0348-0044).
(g) Applicable federal and departmental guidance. The
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audits are dependent
upon type of Recipient organization as follows:
(1) Nonprofit organizations. (i) OMB Circular A-110--Uniform
Administrative Requirements for Grants and Agreements with Institutions
of Higher Education, Hospitals, and Other Nonprofit Organizations.
(ii) OMB Circular A-122--Cost Principles for Nonprofit
Organizations.
(iii) 15 CFR Part 29b--Audit Requirements for Institutions of
Higher Education and Other Nonprofit Organizations (implements OMB
Circular A-133--Audits for Institutions of Higher Education and Other
Nonprofit Organizations).
(2) State/local governments. (i) 15 CFR Part 24--Uniform
Administrative Requirements for Grants and Cooperative Agreements to
State and Local Governments.
[[Page 44752]]
(ii) OMB Circular A-87--Cost Principles for State and Local
Governments.
(iii) 15 CFR Part 29a--Audit Requirements for State and Local
Governments (implements OMB Circular A-128--Audit of State and Local
Governments).
(3) Educational institutions. (i) OMB Circular A-110--
Administrative Requirements for Grants and Agreements with Institutions
of Higher Education, Hospitals, and Other Nonprofit Organizations.
(ii) OMB Circular A-21--Cost Principles for Educational
Institutions.
(iii) 15 CFR Part 29b--Audit Requirements for Institutions of
Higher Education and Other Nonprofit Organizations (implements OMB
Circular A-133--Audits for Institutions of Higher Education and Other
Nonprofit Organizations).
(4) For-profit organizations. (i) OMB Circular A-110--
Administrative Requirements for Grants and Agreements with Institutions
of Higher Education, Hospitals, and Other Nonprofit Organizations.
(ii) 48 CFR Part 31--Federal Acquisition Regulation, Contract Cost
Principles and Procedures.
(iii) 15 CFR Part 29b--Audit Requirements for Institutions of
Higher Education and Other Nonprofit Organizations (implements OMB
Circular A-133).
(h) Availability of forms and circulars. (1) Copies of forms
referenced in this part may be obtained from the Manufacturing
Extension Partnership, National Institute of Standards and Technology,
Room C121, Building 301, Gaithersburg, MD 20899.
(2) Copies of OMB Circulars may be obtained from the Office of
Administration, Publications Office, 725 17th St., NW, Room 2200, New
Executive Office Building, Washington, DC 20503.
Sec. 292.2 Training development and deployment projects.
(a) Eligibility criteria. In general, eligible applicants for these
projects include all for-profit and nonprofit organizations including
universities, community colleges, state governments, state technology
programs and independent nonprofit organizations. However, specific
limitations on eligibility may be specified in solicitations.
Organizations may submit multiple proposals under this category in each
solicitation for unique projects.
(b) Project objective. The purpose of these projects is to support
the development and deployment of training programs which will aid
manufacturing extension organizations in providing services to smaller
manufacturers. While primarily directed toward the field agents/
engineers of the extension organizations, the training may also be of
direct use by the smaller manufacturers themselves. Specific industry
sectors to be addressed and sub-categories of training may be specified
in solicitations. Examples of training topic areas include, but are not
limited to, manufacturing assessment functions, business systems
management, quality assurance assistance, and financial management
activities. Examples of training program deployment include, but are
not limited to, organization and conduct of training courses,
development and conduct of train-the-trainer courses, preparations and
delivery of distance learning activities, and preparation of self-
learning and technical-guideline materials. Projects must be completed
within the scope of the effort proposed and should not require on-going
federal support.
(c) Award period. Projects initiated under this category may be
carried out over a period of up to three years. If an application is
selected for funding, DOC has no obligation to provide any additional
future funding in connection with that award. Renewal of an award to
increase funding or extend the period of performance is at the total
discretion of DOC.
(d) Matching requirements. Matching fund requirements for these
proposals will be specified in solicitations including the breakdown of
cash and in-kind requirements. For those projects not requiring
matching funds, the presence of match will be considered in the
evaluation under the Financial Plan criteria.
(e) Training development and deployment projects evaluation
criteria. Proposals will be evaluated and rated on the basis of the
following criteria listed in descending order of importance:
(1) Demonstration that the proposed project will meet the training
needs of technical assistance providers and manufacturers in the target
population. The target population must be clearly defined and the
proposal must demonstrate that it understands the population's training
needs within the proposed project area. The proposal should show that
the efforts being proposed meet the needs identified. Factors that may
be considered include: A clear definition of the target population,
size and demographic distribution; demonstrated understanding of the
target population's training needs; and appropriateness of the size of
the target population and the anticipated impact for the proposed
expenditure.
(2) Development/deployment methodology and use of appropriate
technology and information sources. The proposal must describe the
technical plan for the development or deployment of the training,
including the project activities to be used in the training
development/deployment and the sources of technology and/or information
which will be used to create or deploy the training activity. Sources
may include those internal to the proposer or from other organizations.
Factors that may be considered include: Adequacy of the proposed
technical plan; strength of core competency in the proposed area of
activity; and demonstrated access to relevant technical or information
sources external to the organization.
(3) Delivery and implementation mechanisms. The proposal must set
forth clearly defined, effective mechanisms for delivery and/or
implementation of proposed services to the target population. The
proposal also must demonstrate that training activities will be
integrated into and will be of service to the NIST Manufacturing
Extension Centers. Factors that may be considered include: Ease of
access to the training activity especially for MEP extension centers;
methodology for disseminating or promoting involvement in the training
especially within the MEP system; and demonstrated interest in the
training activity especially by MEP extension centers.
(4) Coordination with other relevant organizations. Wherever
possible the project should be coordinated with and leverage other
organizations which are developing or have expertise with similar
training. If no such organizations exist, the proposal should show that
this is the case. Applicants will need to describe how they will
coordinate to allow for increased economies of scale and to avoid
duplication. Factors that may be considered include: Demonstrated
understanding of existing organizations and resources relevant to the
proposed project; adequate linkages and partnerships with existing
organizations and clear definition of those organizations' roles in the
proposed activities; and that the proposed activity does not duplicate
existing services or resources.
(5) Program evaluation. The applicant should specify plans for
evaluation of the effectiveness of the proposed training activity and
for ensuring continuous improvement of the training. Factors that may
be considered include: Thoroughness of evaluation plans,
[[Page 44753]]
including internal evaluation for management control, external
evaluation for assessing outcomes of the activity, and ``customer
satisfaction'' measures of performance.
(6) Management and organizational experience and plans. Applicants
should specify plans for proper organization, staffing, and management
of the implementation process. Factors that may be considered include:
Appropriateness and authority of the governing or managing organization
to conduct the proposed activities; qualifications of the project team
and its leadership to conduct the proposed activity; soundness of any
staffing plans, including recruitment, selection, training, and
continuing professional development; and appropriateness of the
organizational approach for carrying out the proposed activity.
(7) Financial plan. Applicants should show the relevance and cost
effectiveness of the financial plan for meeting the objectives of the
project; the firmness and level of the applicant's total financial
support for the project; and a plan to maintain the program after the
cooperative agreement has expired. Factors that may be considered
include: Reasonableness of the budget, both in income and expenses;
strength of commitment and amount of the proposer's cost share, if any;
effectiveness of management plans for control of budget;
appropriateness of matching contributions; and plan for maintaining the
program after the cooperative agreement has expired.
Sec. 292.3 Technical tools, techniques, practices, and analyses
projects.
(a) Eligibility criteria. In general, eligible applicants for these
projects include all for profit and nonprofit organizations including
universities, community colleges, state governments, state technology
programs and independent nonprofit organizations. However, specific
limitations on eligibility may be specified in solicitations.
Organizations may submit multiple proposals under this category in each
solicitation for unique projects.
(b) Project objective. The purpose of these projects is to support
the initial development, implementation, and analysis of tools,
techniques, and practices which will aid manufacturing extension
organizations in providing services to smaller manufacturers and which
may also be of direct use by the smaller manufacturers themselves.
Specific industry sectors to be addressed and sub-categories of tools,
techniques, practices, and analyses may be specified in solicitations.
Examples of tools, techniques, and practices include, but are not
limited to, manufacturing assessment tools, benchmarking tools,
business systems management tools, quality assurance assistance tools,
financial management tools, software tools, practices for partnering,
techniques for urban or rural firms, and comparative analysis of
assessment methods. Projects must be completed within the scope of the
effort proposed and should not require on-going federal support.
(c) Award period. Projects initiated under this category may be
carried out over a period of up to three years. If an application is
selected for funding, DOC has no obligation to provide any additional
future funding in connection with that award. Renewal of an award to
increase funding or extend the period of performance is at the total
discretion of DOC.
(d) Matching requirements. Matching fund requirements for these
proposals will be specified in solicitations including the breakdown of
cash and in-kind requirements. For those projects not requiring
matching funds, the presence of match will be considered in the
evaluation under the Financial Plan criteria.
(e) Tools, techniques, practices, and analyses projects evaluation
criteria. Proposals from applicants will be evaluated and rated on the
basis of the following criteria listed in descending order of
importance:
(1) Demonstration that the proposed project will meet the technical
assistance needs of technical assistance providers and manufacturers in
the target population. Target population must be clearly defined. The
proposal must demonstrate that it understands the population's tool or
technique needs within the proposed project area. The proposal should
show that the efforts being proposed meet the needs identified. Factors
that may be considered include: A clear definition of the target
population, size and demographic distribution; demonstrated
understanding of the target population's tools or technique needs; and
appropriateness of the size of the target population and the
anticipated impact for the proposed expenditure.
(2) Development methodology and use of appropriate technology and
information sources. The proposal must describe the technical plan for
the development of the tool or resource, including the project
activities to be used in the tool/resource development and the sources
of technology and/or information which will be used to create the tool
or resource. Sources may include those internal to the proposer or from
other organizations. Factors that may be considered include: Adequacy
of the proposed technical plan; strength of core competency in the
proposed area of activity; and demonstrated access to relevant
technical or information sources external to the organization.
(3) Degree of integration with the manufacturing extension
partnership. The proposal must demonstrate that the tool or resource
will be integrated into and will be of service to the NIST
Manufacturing Extension Centers. Factors that may be considered
include: Ability to access the tool or resource especially for MEP
extension centers; methodology for disseminating or promoting use of
the tool or technique especially within the MEP system; and
demonstrated interest in using the tool or technique especially by MEP
extension centers.
(4) Coordination with other relevant organizations. Wherever
possible the project should be coordinated with and leverage other
organizations which are developing or have expertise on similar tools,
techniques, practices, or analyses. If no such organizations exist, the
proposal should show that this is the case. Applicants will need to
describe how they will coordinate to allow for increased economies of
scale and to avoid duplication. Factors that may be considered include:
Demonstrated understanding of existing organizations and resources
relevant to the proposed project; adequate linkages and partnerships
with existing organizations and clear definition of those
organizations' roles in the proposed activities; and that the proposed
activity does not duplicate existing services or resources.
(5) Program evaluation. The applicant should specify plans for
evaluation of the effectiveness of the proposed tool or technique and
for ensuring continuous improvement of the tool. Factors that may be
considered include: Thoroughness of evaluation plans, including
internal evaluation for management control, external evaluation for
assessing outcomes of the activity, and ``customer satisfaction''
measures of performance.
(6) Management experience and plans. Applicants should specify
plans for proper organization, staffing, and management of the
implementation process. Factors that may be considered include:
Appropriateness and authority of the governing or managing organization
to conduct the proposed activities; qualifications of the project team
and its leadership to conduct the proposed activity; soundness of any
staffing plans, including recruitment, selection, training, and
continuing professional development; and
[[Page 44754]]
appropriateness of the organizational approach for carrying out the
proposed activity.
(7) Financial plan. Applicants should show the relevance and cost
effectiveness of the financial plan for meeting the objectives of the
project; the firmness and level of the applicant's total financial
support for the project; and a plan to maintain the program after the
cooperative agreement has expired. Factors that may be considered
include: Reasonableness of the budget, both in income and expenses;
strength of commitment and amount of the proposer's cost share, if any;
effectiveness of management plans for control of budget;
appropriateness of matching contributions; and plan for maintaining the
program after the cooperative agreement has expired.
Sec. 292.4 Information infrastructure projects.
(a) Eligibility criteria. In general, eligible applicants for these
projects include all for profit and nonprofit organizations including
universities, community colleges, state governments, state technology
programs and independent nonprofit organizations. However, specific
limitations on eligibility may be specified in solicitations.
Organizations may submit multiple proposals under this category in each
solicitation for unique projects.
(b) Project objective. The purpose of these projects is to support
and act as a catalyst for the development and implementation of
information infrastructure services and pilots. These projects will aid
manufacturing extension organizations and smaller manufacturers in
accessing the technical information they need or will accelerate the
rate of adoption of electronic commerce. Specific industry sectors to
be addressed or subcategories of information infrastructure projects
include, but are not limited to, pilot demonstration of electronic data
interchange in a supplier chain, implementation of an electronic
information service for field engineers at MEP extension centers, and
industry specific electronic information services for MEP centers and
smaller manufacturers.
(c) Award period. Projects initiated under this category may be
carried out over a period of up to three years. If an application is
selected for funding, DOC has no obligation to provide any additional
future funding in connection with that award. Renewal of an award to
increase funding or extend the period of performance is at the total
discretion of DOC.
(d) Matching requirements. Matching fund requirements for these
proposals will be specified in solicitations including the breakdown of
cash and in-kind requirements. For those projects not requiring
matching funds, the presence of match will be considered in the
evaluation under the Financial Plan criteria.
(e) Information infrastructure projects evaluation criteria.
Proposals from applicants will be evaluated and rated on the basis of
the following criteria listed in descending order of importance:
(1) Demonstration that the proposed project will meet the need of
the target customer base. The target customer base must be clearly
defined and, in general, will be technical assistance providers and/or
smaller manufacturers. The proposal should demonstrate a clear
understanding of the customer base's needs within the proposed project
area. The proposal should also show that the efforts being proposed
meet the needs identified. Factors that may be considered include: A
clear definition of the customer base, size and demographic
distribution; demonstrated understanding of the customer base's needs
within the project area; and appropriateness of the size of the
customer base and the anticipated impact for the proposed expenditure.
(2) Development plans and delivery/implementation mechanisms. The
proposal must set forth clearly defined, effective plans for the
development, delivery and/or implementation of proposed services to the
customer base. The proposal must delineate the sources of information
which will be used to implement the project. Sources may include those
internal to the center (including staff expertise) or from other
organizations. Factors that may be considered include: Adequacy of
plans; potential effectiveness and efficiency of proposed delivery and
implementation systems; demonstrated capacity to form effective
linkages; partnerships necessary for success of the proposed activity;
strength of core competency in the proposed area of activity; and
demonstrated access to relevant technical or information sources
external to the organization.
(3) Coordination with other relevant organizations. Wherever
possible the project should be coordinated with and leverage other
organizations which are developing or have expertise within the project
area. In addition, the project should demonstrate that it does not
duplicate efforts which already are being performed by the private
sector without government support. Applicants will need to describe how
they will coordinate to allow for increased economies of scale and to
avoid duplication. If the proposer will not be partnering with any
other organizations, then the proposal should clearly explain why the
project will be more successful if implemented as proposed. A proposal
which makes a credible case for why there are no, or very limited,
partnerships will not be penalized in evaluation. Factors that may be
considered include: Demonstrated understanding of existing
organizations and resources relevant to the proposed project; Adequate
linkages and partnerships with relevant existing organizations; clear
definition of the roles of partnering organizations in the proposed
activities; and that the proposed activity does not duplicate existing
services or resources.
(4) Management and organizational experience and plans. Applicants
should specify plans for proper organization, staffing, and management
of the project. Factors that may be considered include: Appropriateness
and authority of the governing or managing organization to conduct the
proposed activities; qualifications of the project team and its
leadership to conduct the proposed activity; soundness of any staffing
plans, including recruitment, selection, training, and continuing
professional development; and appropriateness of the organizational
approach for carrying out the proposed activity.
(5) Financial plan. Applicants should show the relevance and cost
effectiveness of the financial plan for meeting the objectives of the
project; the firmness and level of the applicant's total financial
support for the project; and the ability of the project to continue
after the cooperative agreement has expired without federal support.
While projects that appear to require on-going public support will be
considered, in general, they will be evaluated lower than those which
show a strong ability to become self-sufficient. Factors that may be
considered include: Reasonableness of the budget, both in income and
expenses; strength of commitment and amount of the proposer's cost
share, if any; effectiveness of management plans for control of budget;
appropriateness of matching contributions; and plan for maintaining the
program after the cooperative agreement has expired.
(6) Evaluation. The applicant should specify plans for evaluation
of the effectiveness of the proposed project and for ensuring
continuous improvement. Factors that may be considered include:
Thoroughness of evaluation plans, including internal evaluation for
management control, external evaluation for assessing
[[Page 44755]]
outcomes of the activity, and ``customer satisfaction'' measures of
performance.
Sec. 292.5 Proposal selection process.
The proposal evaluation and selection process will consist of three
principal phases: Proposal qualifications; proposal review and
selection of finalists; and award determination as follows:
(a) Proposal qualification. All proposals will be reviewed by NIST
to assure compliance with the proposal content and other basic
provisions of this part. Proposals which satisfy these requirements
will be designated qualified proposals; all others will be disqualified
at this phase of the evaluation and selection process.
(b) Proposal review and selection of finalists. NIST will appoint
an evaluation panel to review and evaluate all qualified proposals in
accordance with the evaluation criteria and values set forth in this
part. Evaluation panels will consist of NIST employees and in some
cases other federal employees or non-federal experts who sign non-
disclosure agreements. A site visit may be required to make full
evaluation of a proposal. From the qualified proposals, a group of
finalists will be numerically ranked and recommended for award based on
this review.
(c) Award determination. The Director of the NIST, or her/his
designee, shall select awardees based on total evaluation scores,
geographic distribution, and the availability of funds. All three
factors will be considered in making an award. Upon the final award
decision, a notification will be made to each of the proposing
organizations.
Sec. 292.6 Additional requirements.
Federal policies and procedures. Recipients and subrecipients are
subject to all Federal laws and Federal and Department of Commerce
policies, regulations, and procedures applicable to Federal financial
assistance awards.
[FR Doc. 95-21253 Filed 8-28-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-13-M
