Human review complete / candidate 01-05

2025 MEP State Competition FAQs

Publisher of the source document
NIST
Language
English
Human reviewed on
2026-08-06
Source PDF
Official source

We identified this PDF through public web research and acquired the frozen research copy only from the publisher's official URL. It was not supplied by a customer, user, or partner and was not uploaded through DocAccessible. This page is the reviewed HTML conversion of the official NIST publication, produced for the PDF-to-HTML benchmark corpus. Automated diagnostics and the completed project-owner review record are published below. This is not an independent audit, certification, or conformance claim. The publisher's PDF linked above remains the document of record.

Conversion method and notes

Method: text extraction with manual semantic markup.

  • The cover page prints the title as 'MEP State Competition Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs) 2024' while the interior heading prints '2025 MEP State Competition Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)'; the interior title is used since the competition and NOFO named throughout are the 2025 round.
  • The cover table of contents is rendered as a linked list to the five lettered sections; dot leaders and page numbers were dropped as page chrome.
  • Each numbered FAQ question is a heading with its answer as following paragraphs; the lettered section headings keep the source's all-caps styling.
  • The sample board resolution in section E is rendered as a blockquote; the printed signature underscore rules are kept as text lines.
  • The 'o' bullets in answer B.4 and the two addressee lines in answer E.1 are rendered as lists.
  • URLs printed inside questions B.1 and B.2 were rejoined across line breaks and made working links to https://www.nist.gov/mep/nist-mep-center-state-competition-fy2025.
  • Words split across PDF line breaks (for example 'SF-424A') were rejoined to their printed form.

Benchmark evidence

Automated diagnostics and human review

Automated markup

clear

No detector issue found in the committed markup.

Rendered visual coverage

69.2%

6 sampled source pages · no pass threshold

Automated text fidelity

Threshold met

95.58% fidelity · 90% threshold

Human review

Complete

Project owner / HTML-first

Text-region alignment
62.26%
Horizontal layout
86.14%
Raster structure
93.04%
Image-object pages
0%
Token F1
98.4%
Ordered five-token F1
93.71%
Source extraction
Embedded PDF text
Words
1034
Headings
17
Lists
3
Links
7
Tables
0
Form controls
0

Visual-coverage attention

  • Fewer than 70% of sampled source-page text sequences aligned to the HTML render.
  • At least one sampled PDF page with image objects has no aligned HTML visual element.
Inspect the completed human-review record
text fidelity
pass
reading order
pass
headings lists links
pass
visuals
not applicable
tables
not applicable
forms
not applicable
language direction
not applicable
Source SHA-256
5f3da569e89d2ad8d0c4ed79501df9d7b85f25807a323c01de9554cf27bd3424
Conversion SHA-256
76a7aa7e5424270afe7951a3eb82a2c958b6b06f783e348199b936c9e610e823

Project owner confirmed source-grounded manual review of this exact source and conversion revision. This record is not an independent accessibility certification or legal opinion.

Download the completed human-review record

The source score measures normalized text retention and local order. Visual coverage compares aligned rendered regions and object representation. Neither automated result independently establishes visual equivalence, semantic correctness, or accessibility conformance. Human review is a separate, exact-revision project-owner record.

Document content

The below FAQs are for informational purposes only and are intended solely to assist potential MEP Center applicants in better understanding the MEP Center program and the application requirements set forth in the Notice of Funding Opportunity (NOFO) for Round 1 of the 2025 MEP State Competition. The FAQs do not and are not intended to supersede, modify, or otherwise alter applicable statutory or regulatory MEP Center requirements or the specific application requirements set forth in the NOFO. In all cases, MEP statutory and regulatory mandates and the requirements set forth in the NOFO shall prevail over any inconsistencies contained in the below FAQs. Please note that recently added questions have been identified by the date in which they were added to this document. Any previous responses that have been updated have also been identified by an “updated date”.

A. UPLOADING FILES

1. For items to be uploaded to Field 15 of the SF-424, are these to be combined into one PDF, or are they to be uploaded separately?

Per the instructions form, “Enter a brief descriptive title of the project. Supporting documents may be attached if specified in agency instructions.” Per this NOFO there are no additional documents to upload. The NOFO has complete guidance for what documents are required.

2. If the answer to #1 is uploaded separately, should the budget files be uploaded in Excel format or converted to PDF?

Field 15 is the project's title. Regarding the budget files, per NOFO page 16 of 44, there is no set format for the budget narrative and justification; however, further explanation must be provided for the specific cost categories and line items that you identified in the SF-424A form, as well as any other information you deem necessary for NIST’s consideration.

3. Where should files be uploaded for items 5-7 and 9-12 in Form SF-424?

The files should typically be uploaded as attachments to the Grants.gov application package. Please ensure you are attaching these in the respective sections where “Attachments of Required Application Documents” are requested.

4. Should files be uploaded separately or combined?

The NOFO does not explicitly mandate combining these files, so it is advisable to upload them as separate, clearly labeled documents unless specifically instructed otherwise. This ensures clarity and adherence to standard application guidelines.

B. BUDGET

1. Page 22 of the NOFO indicates that a sample budget narrative is available under MEP resources, but we are unable to locate this. Can you provide additional guidance as to where to find this sample? https://www.nist.gov/mep/nist-mep-center-state-competition-fy2025

The sample is in the Single Year Budget workbook, which is saved in MEP Resources under the Required MEP Single-Year Budget Workbook Template. Please note the text from the intro tab, The data included in this workbook is for illustrative purposes only. Users should overwrite existing data before submitting.

2. The NOFO requires that we submit a Single-Year and Five-Year Budget using the provided MEP resource templates located here: https://www.nist.gov/mep/nist-mep-center-state-competition-fy2025 Both templates expire on 10/01/2024. Can you confirm with NIST that it is acceptable to use the provided template and that we will not be penalized for submitting an expired template?

Yes, they can use these forms without penalty due to the expiration date. We are currently working with OMB to have these forms renewed.

3. Is it acceptable to include a "TBD" Sub in the proposal with a cost share commitment of State funding for it from the Prime (UTA).

Including a "TBD" subrecipient in the proposal may be acceptable, provided the Prime (UTA) explicitly documents its commitment to cover the associated cost share from State funding in the budget narrative and justification. Clearly articulating this arrangement in the application materials will demonstrate compliance with the NOFO's requirements.

4. If we decide to do so, would it be acceptable to include estimated program income for a small portion of that cost share (i.e., We assume that in the Sub's first year, they would be able to generate a reasonable/small amount of program income)?

Based on the NOFO guidelines, the inclusion of estimated program income for a portion of the cost share appears feasible, provided that:

  • The estimation is reasonable and well-justified.
  • The program income aligns with the allowable use of funds and is documented within the budget narrative.
  • The timing and generation of the program income are explicitly outlined.

C. GRANTS.GOV

1. The assurances and budget forms on grants.gov appear to be for construction programs, not the correct forms we need to complete, including the SF424A. Will these be updated?

The correct forms are available. Since the package is for non-construction, the forms for construction programs are not needed.

D. NIST COMMON FORM

1. Other NIST applications have allowed the use of SciENcv for current and pending reports. Does this program permit the use of SciENcv in place of the NIST Common Form?

This program does NOT permit the use of SciENcv in place of the NIST Common Form. The reason for this is that despite the forms having the same OMB control number, it is not authorized for NIST use. The NIST forms are specifically cleared for our use. If SciENcv was used on a previous application that was prior to the current guidance.

E. LETTERS OF SUPPORT AND RESOLUTIONS

1. To whom should Letters of Support be addressed?

The letter would be addressed to the following individuals:

  • Acting Director; and
  • Undersecretary of Commerce for Standards and Technology

2. Under section (10)a Non-Profit applicants, it states that we need a resolution from our fiduciary board. Do you have a sample of such resolution?

Here is an example of a Letter of Resolution:

RESOLUTION FROM [MEP CENTER NAME] BOARD OF DIRECTORS

Month XX, 20XX

RE: NIST MEP Center State Competition for [NAME OF STATE] (Funding Opportunity 20XX-NIST-MEP-XX)

We, the Board of Directors of [MEP CENTER NAME] on this XXth day of [INSERT MONTH], 20XX, authorize the submission of our organization’s application for the NIST MEP Center State Competition for [NAME OF STATE] (Funding Opportunity: 20XX-NIST-MEP-XX), and fully support all the activities described therein.

_________________________

[FIRST NAME] [LAST NAME], Chair

[MEP CENTER NAME] Board of Directors

__________________

Date