LANSING – The Strategic Economic Investment and Commercialization Board received 117 applications, in the final count, for the current year round of 21st Century Jobs Fund investments that will divvy up $30 million. But at least two and as many as 26 of those proposals will not be reviewed because they did not meet the application criteria.
The board on Tuesday also approved hiring a second peer review company to address conflicts of interest with some of the applicants.
The final number of applicants had fluctuated some from earlier reports because some applicants had difficulty submitting, and having reported as paid, the $500 application fee the SEIC Board required for this round of funding.
The applications included 52 in life sciences, 30 in advanced materials, automotive and manufacturing, 19 in homeland security and defense and 16 in alternative energy.
But of that 117 applicants, the National Center for Manufacturing Sciences in Ann Arbor, which is reviewing the applications, had recommended that only two be rejected as not fitting into one of the four approved technology categories. Another two it had recommended be allowed to resubmit their proposals because the files could not be opened.
The board agreed with NCMC’s recommendations on those four applications, but disagreed that another 24 applications should be reviewed despite errors.
Michigan State University President Marylou Simon, a member of the SEIC Board, noted that the request for proposals specifically excluded applications longer than 25 pages or that did not include a third party source of funding to match the state money.
Manish Metha with NCMC argued that many of the 16 applications that did not include a specific letter did have information in their business plans indicating they were working with other sources of financing, but the board found that was not sufficient given the language in the RFP.
Metha had also recommended, for the proposals that were too long, that the reviewers read only the first 25 pages, but board members argued that would not give a sufficient or accurate picture of the proposal. The board did, however, find that a title page would not be counted as part of the 25 pages.
The decision narrowed the number of proposals to be reviewed, but did not leave the board with an exact number of eligible applicants because most of the applications had at least one fault as identified by NCMC and the information provided Tuesday did not indicate whether any of the applications both excluded the financing letter and were too long.
SEIC members also agreed that the 2009 round of funding would have a more specific RFP that would make it easier to decide which applications would be rejected for errors.
Among the other errors NCMC found but the board allowed were fonts that were too small, no bios of company principals included and no indication in the submission that the applicant had read the RFP.
The decision will require some reshuffling by NCMC, which had already assigned the 107 it expected would be approved (all but the two not meeting the required technology sectors, the two illegible applications and the six NCMC members) to review panels.
The board also approved hiring Business Engines to review six of the applicants that are also NCMC members. MEDC officials said the second company will use the same review process and in some cases the same reviewers, but avoids any conflict of interest.
That contract must be approved by the Strategic Fund Board, likely at its meeting Wednesday.
Recommendations are due to the SEIC Board at its August 20 meeting on which of the applicants to interview and final funding recommendations are due October 8.
This story was provided by Gongwer News Service. To subscribe, click on Gongwer.Com
a>>
