WELCOME The NIST MEP Webinar will Begin at 2:00 PM EST

1
WELCOME The NIST MEP Webinar will Begin at
200 PM EST
Informational Webinar March 2, 2012Federal
Funding Opportunity 2012-BCTEP-01 National
Institute of Standards and Technology
(NIST) Manufacturing Extension Partnership (MEP)
Dave Cranmer, NIST MEP
2
Informational Webinar March 2, 2012Federal
Funding Opportunity 2012-BCTEP-01National
Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST)
Manufacturing Extension Partnership (MEP) Dave
Cranmer, NIST MEP
3
Information Webinar and Communication Protocols

• Webinar serves as a communication vehicle to
  provide an overview of the funding opportunity.
• No questions will be taken as part of this
  webinar.
• All questions should be presented in writing and
  submitted to Diane Henderson at NIST MEP,
  Diane.Henderson_at_nist.gov
• Provides for transparency and ensures all answers
  are documented.
• Assures questions and answers are handled
  consistently.
• Questions and Answers will be posted regularly on
  the NIST MEP Public Site, www.nist.gov/mep

4
Information Webinar Agenda

• Funding Opportunity Overview
• Eligibility and Cost Share
• Application/Proposal Submission
• Application Package Details
• Review Criteria
• Selection Factors
• Review and Selection Process
• Award Administration Information
• Reporting Requirements
• NIST MEP Points of Contact

5
Funding Opportunity Overview (1)

• Funding Opportunity Title Building Construction
  Technology Extension Program (BCTEP) Pilot
  Projects
• Funding Opportunity Description NIST invites
  proposals from eligible proposers to fund pilot
  projects under a new Building Construction
  Technology Extension Program (BCTEP). This pilot
  program will address increasing energy efficiency
  in commercial and industrial building operations.
  This pilot program will focus on re-tuning,
  which is a systematic semi-automated process of
  identifying operational problems in commercial
  and industrial buildings.

6
Funding Opportunity Overview (2)

• Proposals should
• Include relevant community college, technical
  college or university programs and faculty with
  building operations curricula.
• Include reference to Pacific Northwest National
  Laboratorys re-tuning curriculum or its
  equivalent
• Include letters of commitment from subawardees
  and contractors regarding faculty, facilities
  and/or curriculum/materials

7
Funding Opportunity Overview (3)

• Federal Funding Opportunity Number
  2012-BCTEP-01
• Authority
• The statutory authorities for the BCTEP pilot
  projects are 15 U.S.C. 278k(g) and 42 U.S.C
  7256 et. seq.
• Funding Instrument Cooperative Agreement
• The funding instrument that will be used for each
  award is a cooperative agreement. The nature of
  NISTs substantial involvement will generally
  be collaboration between MEP and the recipient
  organizations. This includes MEP collaboration
  with a recipient with respect to the scope of
  work, organizational structure, staffing, mode of
  operations, and other management processes,
  coupled with close monitoring and/or operational
  involvement during performance.

8
Funding Opportunity Overview (4)

• Cost Share No cost share required for this
  funding opportunity per the NIST Organic Act , 15
  U.S.C. 278k(g)
• Funding Available
• NIST anticipates funding one (1) to five (5)
  pilot projects in the range of approximately
  250,000 - 1,330,000, for a period of up to two
  (2) years.
• Eligible Applicants Existing MEP Centers
• Eligible proposers are existing MEP Centers,
  which are expected to form an appropriate
  contractual relationship (subaward or
  procurement) with community/technical colleges or
  universities with existing commercial building
  automation/technology systems curricula and/or
  trade associations with existing commercial
  building automation/technology systems curricula.
  Other MEP Centers may be included as
  subrecipients as appropriate to the proposers
  defined geographic region. Letters of commitment
  from subawardees and contractors regarding
  faculty, facilities and/or curriculum/materials
  should be included.Period of Performance
• Annual award that is renewable for a period not
  to exceed two (2) years total
• Based on availability of future year funding and
  performance
• Expected Start Date of Project is within 30 days
  of award notice

9
Funding Opportunity Overview (5)

• The projects planned for award under this funding
  opportunity will be focused on the re-tuning of
  commercial and industrial buildings.
• Consistent with Office of Management and Budget
  Guidance Implementing the Federal Grant and
  Cooperative Agreement Act, 43 Fed. Reg. 36860-65
  (Aug. 18, 1978), NIST will have substantial
  involvement to include but not limited to
• Authority to halt immediately an activity if
  detailed performance specifications are not met.
• Requiring that the Recipient meet or adhere to
  specific procedural requirements before
  subsequent stages of a NIST-funded project may
  continue.
• Approving substantive provisions of proposed
  subawards, participating in the selection of
  subawards, approving "Requests for Proposals" or
  "Invitations for Bids" to be issued by the
  Recipient or subrecipients, and approving a
  subrecipient before a subaward may be awarded.

10
Funding Opportunity Overview (6)

1. Participating in selection of key personnel.  The
   Recipient has final authority over its own
   personnel.
2. Collaborating with the Recipient by working
   jointly with Recipient representatives in
   carrying out the scope of work, training
   recipient personnel, or detailing Federal
   personnel to work on the project effort.
3. Specifying direction or redirection of the scope
   of work due to inter-relationships with other
   projects such as requiring the Recipient to
   achieve a specific level of cooperation with
   other projects that may or may not be funded by
   NIST.

11
Application/Proposal Submission

• Dates
• All applications must be received or postmarked
  on March 30, 2012 NLT 500 pm EST.
• Late proposals will not be reviewed.
• No exceptions allowed.
• Proposal Submission
• Electronic submission Applicants should follow
  application instructions
• provided at www.grants.gov
• Paper submission NIST requires an original and
  two (2) copies be sent to
• National Institute of Standards and Technology
• Manufacturing Extension Partnership
• c/o Diane Henderson
• 100 Bureau Drive, MS 4800
• Gaithersburg, MD 20899-4800

12
Application Package Details (1)

• Complete applications/proposals must, at a
  minimum, include the following forms and
  documents and meet the following requirements
  identified in the FFO which are
• Required Forms
• SF-424, Application for Federal Assistance
• SF-424A Budget Information Non-Constructions
• SF-424B Assurances Non-construction
• CD-511 Certification Regarding Lobbying
• SF-LLL Disclosure of Lobbying Activities (if
  applicable)
• Technical Proposal
• The Technical Proposal is a word-processed
  document of no more than twenty-five (25) pages
  responsive to the program description (see
  Section I. of the FFO) and the evaluation
  criteria (see Section V.1. of this FFO). It
  should contain the following information
• Forms are available as part of the Grants.gov
  application kit

13
Application Package Details (2)

• Proposal Requirements
• In addition to the required forms the proposal
  must include
• Executive Summary
• Briefly describe the proposed project in no more
  than two (2) page(s), consistent with the
  evaluation criteria (see Section V.1 of the FFO).
• Project Narrative/Statement of Work
• Describe the proposed project, sufficient to
  permit evaluation of the proposal in accordance
  with each of the evaluation criteria in section
  V.1.a. through V.1.h. of the FFO.
• Qualifications
• Identify the key personnel and their
  qualifications, who will be assigned to work on
  the proposed project.

14
Application Package Details (2)

• Budget Narrative
• There is no set format for the Budget Narrative
  however, it should provide a detailed breakdown
  of each of the object class categories as
  reflected on the SF-424A
• 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.
  Successful proposers will be required to obtain
  such a rate.

15
Application Package Details (3)

• Proposal Format
• The proposal must not exceed 25 typewritten pages
  (double-sided/counts as 2 pages) in length for
  the basic proposal document
• The proposal must be responsive to the criteria
  outlined in the FFO.
• The proposal must contain both technical and cost
  information.
• The proposal page count includes
• Table of contents (if included), Technical
  Proposal with all required sections, resumes,
  figures, graphs, tables, images, and pictures
• The proposal page count does not include
• SF-424, Application for Federal Assistance
  SF-424A, Budget Information Non-Construction
  Programs SF-424B, Assurances Non-Construction
  Programs SF-LLL, Disclosure of Lobbying
  Activities CD-511, Certification Regarding
  Lobbying Budget Narrative and Indirect Cost
  Rate Agreement.

16
Review Criteria

• The proposals will be evaluated based on the
  evaluation criteria described below, which are
  assigned equal weighting
• Quality of proposed approach and demonstrated
  ability to deliver on proposed activities
• Development methodology and leverage of existing
  resources
• Relevant faculty and program
• Degree of integration with the Manufacturing
  Extension Partnership
• Coordination with other relevant organizations
• Program evaluation
• Management experience and plans
• Financial plan
• NOTE Proposers may not submit replacement pages
  and/or missing documents once a proposal has been
  submitted. Any revisions must be made by
  submission of a new proposal that must be
  received by NIST by the submission deadline.

17
Evaluation Criteria and Factors Considered (1)

• Quality of proposed approach
• Articulation of tools, training, methodologies to
  be developed
• Articulation of re-tuning needs of buildings
• Demonstration of training program and how it will
  be tested/deployed
• Inclusion of ISO 50001energy management standard
  in curriculum and deployment

18
Evaluation Criteria and Factors Considered (2)

• Development methodology
• Adequacy of proposed technical plan
• Strength of core competency
• Demonstrated access to relevant subject matter
  expertise external to the organization
• Relevant to region. If multiple regions, describe
  differences and similarities in climate and
  approach to re-tuning across the different
  climates

19
Evaluation Criteria and Factors Considered (3)

• Relevant faculty and program
• Number and depth of faculty with appropriate
  building operations experience and expertise
• Building commissioning, re-tuning, retro
  commissioning, building controls and automation
  systems
• Quality of existing materials and course
  curriculum
• Willingness to modify materials/curriculum to
  include PNNL or other relevant content
• Willingness to share existing and final
  materials/curriculum with other proposers
• Willingness to work with national trade and
  professional organizations

20
Evaluation Criteria and Factors Considered (4)

• Degree of integration with MEP
• Ability to access tool or resource by MEP Centers
• Adequacy of methodology for dissemination,
  promoting use
• Demonstrated interest by manufacturers to use the
  workers trained under the program
• Coordination with other relevant organizations
• Demonstrated understanding of existing
  organizations and resources relevant to the
  project
• Adequate linkages and partnerships including
  clear definition of roles/responsibilities
• Proposed activity does not duplicate existing
  services/resources

21
Evaluation Criteria and Factors Considered (5)

• Program evaluation
• Thoroughness of plan
• Use of case studies
• Customer satisfaction
• Management experience and plans
• Appropriateness and authority to conduct the
  activities
• Qualifications of project team
• Qualifications of team leadership
• Appropriateness of approach
• Quarterly sharing

22
Evaluation Criteria and Factors Considered (6)

• Financial plan
• Reasonableness of budget
• Strength of commitment
• Effectiveness of management plan for control of
  budget
• Demonstration of past success on similar projects
• Letters of commitment from proposed subawardees
  or contractors should be included
• Faculty, facilities, curriculum, materials
• Geographic partners

23
Selection Factors

• The Selecting Official shall select proposals for
  award based upon the rank order of the proposals,
  and may select a proposal out of rank based on
  one or more of the following selection factors
• Availability of Federal funds.
• Appropriate consideration for number of
  commercial and industrial buildings available for
  re-tuning within a region. 
• Geographic diversity to reflect the differences
  in climate and possible re-tuning specifics as a
  result.
• Whether the project duplicates other projects
  funded by DoC or other Federal agencies  

24
Review and Selection Process 3 Phases

• Initial Administrative Review of Proposals. An
  initial review of timely received proposals will
  be conducted to determine eligibility,
  completeness, and responsiveness to the FFO and
  the scope of the stated program objectives.
  Proposals determined to be ineligible,
  incomplete, and/or non-responsive may be
  eliminated from further review.
• Full Review of Eligible, Complete, and Responsive
  Proposals. Proposals that are determined to be
  eligible, complete, and responsive will proceed
  for full reviews in accordance with the review
  and selection processes below
• Evaluation/Review and Ranking. NIST will appoint
  an evaluation panel, consisting of at least three
  technically qualified reviewers, to conduct
  independent and objective reviews and evaluations
  of each proposal based on the evaluation criteria
  (see Section V.1. of the FFO) and assign a
  numeric score for each proposal. If more than one
  non-Federal employee reviewer is used on the
  panel, the panel member reviewers may discuss the
  proposals with each other, but scores will be
  determined on an individual basis, not as a
  consensus. Based on the average of the panel
  member reviewers scores, a rank order will be
  prepared and provided to the Selecting Official
  for further consideration.

25
Review and Selection Process 3 Phases

• Selection. The Selecting Official, who is the
  Director of the NIST MEP Program, will then
  select funding recipients based upon the rank
  order and the selection factors (see Section V.2.
  of the FFO).

26
Award Administration Information

• Anticipated announcement and Award date
• Review, selection, and award processing is
  expected to be completed in June 2012. The
  earliest anticipated start date for awards made
  under this FFO is expected to be July 1, 2012
• Award Notices - Each successful finalist will
  receive a cooperative agreement award document
  from the NIST Grants Officer
• Administrative and National Policy Requirements -
  The DoC Pre-Award Notification Requirements for
  Grants and Cooperative Agreements, which are
  contained in the Federal Register notice of
  February 11, 2008 (73 FR 7696), are applicable to
  this FFO and are available at http//edocket.acces
  s.gpo.gov/2008/pdf/E8-2482.pdf.
• Funding Availability and Limitation of Liability
  - The funding periods and funding amounts
  reference in this notice and request for
  proposals are subject to the availability of
  funds and DOC and NIST priorities at the time of
  award

27
Reporting Requirements

• In lieu of the reporting requirements described
  in sections A.01 Financial Reports and B.01
  Performance (Technical) Reports of the DoC
  Financial Assistance Standard Terms and
  Conditions dated March 2008 (http//www.osec.doc.g
  ov/oam/archive/docs/GRANTS/DOC20STCsMAR08Rev.pdf)
  , the following reporting requirements shall
  apply
• SF-425 Federal Financial Report - Each award
  recipient will be required to submit an SF-425,
  Federal Financial Report in triplicate (an
  original and two (2) copies), on a quarterly
  basis for the periods ending March 31, June 30,
  September 30, and December 31 of each year.
  Reports will be due within 30 days after the end
  of the reporting period
• Performance (Technical ) Reports- Each award
  recipient will be required to submit a technical
  progress report in triplicate (an original and
  two (2) copies), on a quarterly basis for the
  periods ending March 31, June 30, September 30,
  and December 31 of each year. (Please refer to 15
  C.F.R. 14.51 for further information)
• Post client Project Follow-up - For demonstration
  activities, as applicable, the recipient shall
  provide client and project data in the specified
  format to the organization identified by NIST/MEP
  in order for post-project follow-up data to be
  obtained.

28
Reporting Requirements

• Automated Standardized Application for Payment
  System (ASAP) (For those awarded) In order to
  receive payments for services, recipients will be
  required to register to the Dept of Treasury.
  More information regarding ASAP can be found
  on-line at www.fms.treas.gov/asap/index.html.

29
NIST MEP Points of Contacts Regarding this
Funding Opportunity

• David Cranmer- Senior Researcher, NIST MEP
• 301-975-5753, david.cranmer_at_nist.gov
• Diane Henderson Federal Program Officer, NIST
  MEP
• 301-975-5105, diane.henderson_at_nist.gov
• All questions should be submitted in writing to
  Diane
• Henderson diane.henderson_at_nist.gov
• All questions and answers will be posted to the
  NIST
• MEP public website on an ongoing basis
  www.nist.gov/mep

30
Thank You!