Download MEP Program Review Roger Kilmer Director PowerPoint Presentation


Login   OR  Register

Iframe embed code :

Presentation url :


Description :

Download MEP Program Review Roger Kilmer Director PowerPoint Presentation Slides

Tags :

MEP Program Review Roger Kilmer Director

Home / General & Others / General & Others Presentations / MEP Program Review Roger Kilmer Director PowerPoint Presentation

MEP Program Review Roger Kilmer Director PowerPoint Presentation

Ppt Presentation Embed Code   Zoom Ppt Presentation

PowerPoint is the world's most popular presentation software which can let you create professional MEP Program Review Roger Kilmer Director powerpoint presentation easily and in no time. This helps you give your presentation on MEP Program Review Roger Kilmer Director in a conference, a school lecture, a business proposal, in a webinar and business and professional representations.

The uploader spent his/her valuable time to create this MEP Program Review Roger Kilmer Director powerpoint presentation slides, to share his/her useful content with the world. This ppt presentation uploaded by worldwideweb in General & Others ppt presentation category is available for free download,and can be used according to your industries like finance, marketing, education, health and many more.

About This Presentation

Slide 1 - WELCOME Informational Webinar – March 19, 2012 Federal Funding Opportunity: 2012-NIST-MEP-SD-AND-KY-01 National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) Manufacturing Extension Partnership (MEP) Aimee Dobrzeniecki, Deputy Director, NIST MEP Bill Kinser, Director, Center Operations, NIST MEP Diane Henderson, Federal Program Officer, NIST MEP
Slide 2 - 2 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@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
Slide 3 - 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 3
Slide 4 - Funding Opportunity Overview (1) Funding Opportunity Title: Manufacturing Extension Partnership (MEP) Centers for South Dakota and Kentucky Funding Opportunity Description: NIST invites proposals from eligible proposers for funding two (2) separate MEP centers to provide manufacturing extension services to primarily small- and medium-sized manufacturers in two separate locations, South Dakota and/or Kentucky. The objective of an MEP center is to provide manufacturing extension services that enhance productivity, innovative capacity, and technological performance, and strengthen the global competitiveness of primarily small- and medium-sized U.S.-based manufacturing firms in its service region. 4
Slide 5 - Next Generation MEP Strategy Increasing manufacturers’ capacity for innovation resulting in profitable sales growth is the overarching strategy for the MEP. The approach is to provide a framework for manufacturers that: Reduces bottom line expenses through lean, quality, & other programs targeting plant efficiencies – which frees up capacity for business growth. Adds to top line sales through business growth services focused on the development of new sales, new markets, and new products. Next Generation Strategies (NGS) – 5 key areas: Continuous Improvement Technology Acceleration Supply Chain Sustainability Workforce 5
Slide 6 - MEP Program Evolution Pre-Minimally Acceptable Impact Metrics Minimally Acceptable Impact Metrics Center Operations Reporting and Evaluation 6
Slide 7 - FY 2012 Focus: Making the MEP Innovation System a Reality • Make the technology acceleration framework a reality • Engage at the CEO level to transform Firms • Partner with community leaders in regional innovation initiatives to encourage new business models/services/products, and to commercialize technology 7
Slide 8 - 8 Developing an Innovation Plan that will then be translated into your Center’s future Annual Operating Plans Integrating Services that Address Next Generation Strategies into Your Innovation Plan Developing Sales and Executive Level Coaching Capabilities within your Center to Reach Decision Makers within Manufacturing Firms Developing Transformation Plans for your Manufacturing Clients How to move a company from point “A” to “B” resulting in new business opportunities, for example: Opening new domestic or international markets Managing ownership changes Adopting environmentally sustainable practices What does this mean for your center?
Slide 9 - Strategic Plan 1-Year Operating Plan Innovation Plan Innovation Plan is a hybrid of your strategic & operating plans Focused on the transition to an innovation practice in your center Temporary plan to encourage the transition to innovation services 9 How the Plans Fit Together
Slide 10 - Five Components of the Center Innovation Plan 10
Slide 11 - MEP Innovation Approach Innovation Engineering Leadership Institute (IELI): www.nist.gov/mep/innovation.cfm Innovation Engineering Management System accelerates a company’s continuous flow of innovations - big and small to address your Very Important Problems & Opportunities. Major innovation projects impact sales and profits. Minor projects help transform the culture. Itʼs a four-stage process of Define, Discover, Develop and Deliver. It integrates painlessly with classic project management systems such as Compression Planning, Stage-Gate, Design for 6 Sigma or Hoshin Planning. 11
Slide 12 - 12 http://innovationengineeringlabs.com/blog/
Slide 13 - M A N U F A C T U R I N G E X T E N S I O N P A R T N E R S H I P 13
Slide 14 - National Innovation Marketplace (NIM) Connect manufacturers to requests for innovation Translates emerging technologies into (1) business applications, (2) market opportunities, and (3) possible new products. Uses open innovation approach which includes partnering, licensing, and co-developing innovations with partners outside of a company instead of the traditional, internal research and development. Connects innovation research, technology experts with buying opportunities and manufacturers. www.usainnovation.org 14
Slide 15 - Funding Opportunity Overview (2) Authority: The statutory authority for the MEP Program is 15 U.S.C. 278k, as implemented in 15 C.F.R. part 290. Funding Instrument: Cooperative Agreement The funding instrument that will be used for each award is a cooperative agreement. The nature of NIST’s “substantial involvement” will generally be collaboration between MEP and the recipient organizations. This includes MEP collaboration with a recipient on its progress and approving changes in the statement of work. (Reference: http://www.osec.doc.gov/oam/grants_management/policy/doc_grants_manual/default.htm) 15
Slide 16 - Funding Opportunity Overview (3) Cost Share: Non-Federal cost sharing of at least 50 percent of the total project costs is required for the first year of operation. The proposer’s share of the MEP center expenses may include cash, services, and third party in-kind contributions, as described at 15 C.F.R. Sec. 14.23 or 24.24, as applicable, and the MEP program rule, 15 C.F.R. Sec. 290.4(c). (See FFO for further information) Funding Available: NIST anticipates funding one (1) proposal at the level of up to $400,000 for an MEP Center in the state of South Dakota and one (1) proposal at the level of up to $600,000 for an MEP Center in the state of Kentucky. Eligible Applicants: Existing MEP Centers The eligibility requirements given in this section will be used in lieu of those published in the MEP regulations found at 15 C.F.R. part 290, specifically 15 C.F.R. § 290.5(a)(1). Each award recipient must be a U.S.-based nonprofit institution or organization. For the purpose of this FFO, nonprofit organizations include, but are not limited to, universities and state and local governments. An eligible organization may work individually or include proposed subawards or contracts with others in a project proposal, effectively forming a team. Existing MEP centers are eligible. 16
Slide 17 - Funding Opportunity Overview (4) Period of Performance: The projects awarded under this FFO will have a budget and performance period of one (1) year. Each award may be renewed on an annual basis subject to the review requirements described in 15 C.F.R. 290.8. Renewal of each project shall be at the sole discretion of NIST and shall be based upon satisfactory performance, priority of the need for the service, existing legislative authority, and availability of funds. 17
Slide 18 - Application/Proposal Submission Dates: All applications must be received or postmarked on April 30, 2012 NLT 5:00 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 18
Slide 19 - 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) *Forms are available as part of the Grants.gov application kit 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 the FFO). It should contain the following information: 19
Slide 20 - Application Package Details (2): Proposal Requirements: In addition to the required forms the proposal must include: Executive Summary The executive summary should briefly describe the proposed project, consistent with the evaluation criteria (see Section V.1. of the FFO). Project Narrative/Statement of Work A description of the proposed project, sufficient to permit evaluation of the proposal, in accordance with the evaluation criteria (see Section V.1. of this FFO). Qualifications A description of the qualifications and proposed center operational or management activities of key personnel who will be assigned to work on the proposed project. 20
Slide 21 - Application Package Details (3): Statement of Work The statement of work should discuss the specific tasks to be carried out, including a schedule of measurable events and milestones. Integration Plans Include plans for integration into the MEP national system and linkages to appropriate national resources. Past Performance (for existing or previous MEP center proposers only) Proposals from existing or previous MEP centers or partners must provide specific information that addresses whether the proposer’s past performance with the program is indicative of expected performance under a possible new award and describing how and why performance is expected to be the same or different. 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. It should include: (a) All expenses for year one (1) of operation and identify all sources of funds to pay these expenses. (b) A budget outline for annual costs and sources of funds for potential years two (2) through five (5) at no more than $400,000 per year in NIST support for an MEP center in South Dakota and at no more than $600,000 per year in NIST support for an MEP center in Kentucky. 21
Slide 22 - Letters of Commitment for Non-Federal Cost Sharing Letters of commitment from all sources of the non-Federal cost sharing are required. Letters of commitment do not count toward the page limit. General “letters of support” are not required and will be counted toward the page limit for the Technical Proposal if included in the proposal. 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. 22 Application Package Details (4):
Slide 23 - Application Package Details (5): 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. 23
Slide 24 - Review Criteria: The proposals will be evaluated based on the evaluation criteria described below, which are assigned equal weighting: Identification of Target Firms in Proposed Region. Market Analysis Geographical Location Technology Resources Technology Delivery Mechanisms Linkages Program Leverage Management and Financial Plan Organizational Structure Program Management Internal Evaluation Plans for Financial Cost Share Budget 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. 24
Slide 25 - 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. The need to assure appropriate regional distribution. Whether the project duplicates other projects funded by DoC or by other Federal agencies. Proposer’s performance under current or previous Federal financial assistance awards. Note: Proposals from existing or previous MEP centers or partners must contain specific information that addresses whether the proposer’s past performance with the program is indicative of expected performance under a possible new award and describing how and why performance is expected to be the same or different. 25
Slide 26 - Review and Selection Process 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. 26
Slide 27 - Review and Selection Process Site Visits Site visits may be required to make full evaluation of a proposal that has been determined to be a finalist. If site visits are deemed necessary, all finalists will receive site visits conducted by the same evaluation panel reviewers referenced in the preceding paragraph. Ranking and 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). 27
Slide 28 - 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 Employer/Taxpayer Identification Number (EIN/TIN), Dun and Bradstreet Data Universal Numbering System (DUNS), and Central Contractor Registration (CCR) All proposers for Federal financial assistance are required to obtain a universal identifier in the form of DUNS number and maintain a current registration in the CCR database. 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 28
Slide 29 - Award Administration Information (2) Award Implementation Given the partnership nature of MEP Centers, and to clarify and support the project activities and budget, including cost sharing, NIST may ask recipients to provide copies of sub-tier agreements, including subawards and contracts over $100,000. In addition, to better understand and implement the national manufacturing extension network and partnership, NIST may ask recipients to provide an Operating Plan and Budget showing manufacturing extension service activity and costs in which the Center is engaged outside the Federal share and cost share for the project. 29
Slide 30 - 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.gov/oam/archive/docs/GRANTS/DOC%20STCsMAR08Rev.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. 30
Slide 31 - Reporting Requirements (2) 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. 31
Slide 32 - NIST MEP Points of Contacts Regarding this Funding Opportunity 32