[Code of Federal Regulations]
[Title 15, Volume 1, Parts 0 to 299]
[Revised as of January 1, 2001]
From the U.S. Government Printing Office via GPO Access
[CITE: 15CFR292.4]

[Page 451-452]
 
                  TITLE 15--COMMERCE AND FOREIGN TRADE
 
 CHAPTER II--NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF STANDARDS AND TECHNOLOGY, DEPARTMENT 
                               OF COMMERCE
 
PART 292--MANUFACTURING EXTENSION PARTNERSHIP; INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS--Table of Contents
 
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

[[Page 452]]

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 outcomes of the activity, and 
``customer satisfaction'' measures of performance.

[[Page 453]]