Manufacturing Extension Partnership; Infrastructure Development Projects

[[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