Brookwood Sago Mine Safety Grant | Apply Online

Brookwood Sago Mine Safety Grant (FY 2010) FAQs

1) What is the Brookwood Sago Mine Safety Grant?

The Brookwood Sago Mine Safety Grant is a competitive discretionary grant program administered by the U.S. Department of Labor's Mine Safety and Health Administration (MSHA) under Section 14 of the Mine Improvement and New Emergency Response Act of 2006 (the MINER Act). It was created in response to major coal mine disasters and is intended to strengthen miner safety by funding education and training that helps miners recognize hazards early, avoid dangerous situations, and prevent unsafe working conditions in and around mines.

2) What was the required focus for the FY 2010 funding cycle?

For FY 2010, MSHA required that projects center specifically on mine emergency preparedness and mine emergency prevention for underground mines. Proposed work needed to clearly align to improving readiness for emergencies and/or reducing the likelihood of emergencies in underground mining environments.

3) What types of activities could the grant support?

Grants could support the delivery of training, the development of training materials, or a combination of both, as long as the work focused on underground mine emergency preparedness or emergency prevention.

4) How much total funding was available for FY 2010?

MSHA made a total of $500,000 available for FY 2010 and indicated it could divide that total into as many as 10 separate awards.

5) What was the minimum and maximum award request allowed?

Each award had to be at least $50,000. Proposals requesting less than $50,000 or more than the full $500,000 available would not be considered.

6) How long was the period of performance?

The standard period of performance was 12 months from the date the grant documents were executed. That single year was expected to cover startup and implementation as well as outcome follow-up activities.

7) Are no-cost extensions possible?

Yes. MSHA noted that no-cost extensions could be approved later depending on project success and other relevant considerations.

8) Who was eligible to apply?

Eligible applicants included state governments and nonprofit entities (public or private).

9) Can organizations apply as a partnership or consortium?

Yes. Organizations could apply alone or as part of a partnership, but partnerships had to designate a lead organization.

10) What nonprofit documentation was required?

Nonprofits generally had to provide evidence of nonprofit status, preferably IRS documentation.

11) Are any nonprofit types specifically excluded?

Yes. The solicitation specifically excluded 501(c)(4) organizations that engage in lobbying activities.

12) Was a cost share or match required to apply?

No. There was no cost sharing or match requirement to be eligible.

13) If match was not required, why mention leveraging other resources?

MSHA strongly encouraged applicants to leverage additional public or private resources to support sustainability. Leveraging could improve an application's score by up to 10 evaluation points.

14) Are there restrictions related to religious activities?

Yes. Grant funds could not be used for inherently religious activities such as worship, prayer, religious instruction, or proselytizing. Selection processes had to use neutral, nonreligious criteria.

15) What did MSHA expect grantees to do beyond delivering training?

MSHA anticipated grantees would: (1) develop training materials and/or provide training programs aligned to the emergency preparedness or emergency prevention priorities, (2) recruit miners and mine operators, (3) deliver the training, (4) evaluate it, and (5) perform follow-up evaluations to determine whether the training improved skills, reduced hazards, or led to better conditions in mines. Grantees also had to cooperate with MSHA's own evaluation activities.

16) Is applicant coordination required to avoid duplicating existing training?

Yes. If an applicant was not the organization running the MSHA-approved state training grant in a given state, MSHA expected the applicant to coordinate with the state grantee so the proposed program would not repeat existing training.

17) Can a proposed service area cover more than one state?

Yes. MSHA allowed applicants to propose service areas that cover more than one state.

18) How were applications required to be submitted?

Applications had to be submitted electronically through Grants.gov.

19) Was any help available if electronic submission created a hardship?

Yes. MSHA indicated that assistance was available from MSHA's Directorate of Educational Policy and Development if applying online created a hardship.

20) What was the application deadline for FY 2010?

The FY 2010 application deadline was August 18, 2010 by 11:59 p.m. EDT.

21) When did MSHA plan to make awards?

MSHA planned to make awards on or before September 30, 2010.

22) Are late applications accepted?

Late applications generally would not be reviewed unless MSHA determined it was in the government's best interest.

23) What happens if an application is missing required elements or does not follow the required format?

Noncompliant applications that were missing required elements or did not follow the required format would not be reviewed.

24) What registrations or identifiers were required before applying?

Applicants needed a DUNS number and had to register in the Central Contractor Registration (CCR), reflecting the standard federal pre-award registration steps required at the time.

25) How was the application package organized?

The required application package was structured into three main parts: (1) Section 1: Project Financial Plan and Forms, (2) Section 2: Project Summary, and (3) Section 3: Technical Proposal. Narrative sections had strict page limits.

26) What was included in Section 1 (Project Financial Plan and Forms)?

Section 1 had no page limit and included the standard federal forms (SF-424, SF-424A, SF-424B), a budget narrative, and supporting documents such as an approved indirect cost rate agreement (if indirect costs were charged). It also required addressing program income (if applicable) and providing lobbying disclosures (including SF-LLL when required). Nonprofits had to attach proof of nonprofit status.

27) Was there a cap on administrative and indirect costs?

Yes. Administrative costs (including indirect costs) could not exceed 15% of the total grant budget.

28) What is the accounting system certification requirement mentioned in the solicitation?

Smaller organizations receiving less than $1 million annually in federal grants had to submit an accounting system certification confirming they had systems in place for accurate financial reporting, internal controls, documented procedures, and source-supported accounting records.

29) What kinds of supporting attachments could be included?

Attachments such as resumes, letters of commitment, and evidence of prior grant performance could be included as supporting material.

30) What was required in Section 2 (Project Summary), and what was the page limit?

Section 2 was limited to two pages. It needed to list the applicant's legal name and address, identify the project director and the authorized certifying representative with full contact information, specify the amount of federal funding requested (and any non-federal resources if leveraged), identify the grant topic (emergency preparedness or emergency prevention) along with the training location and number of miners to be trained or the materials to be developed, and briefly describe proposed activities and expected outcomes.

31) What was required in Section 3 (Technical Proposal), and what was the page limit?

Section 3 was capped at 10 pages and was used to describe the substance of the project design, including how training/materials would be developed, delivered, evaluated, and followed up, how the work aligned to MSHA's priority, and how the project would avoid duplicating existing state training efforts.

32) What grant identifiers should applicants use to confirm they have the right opportunity?

Key identifying details included Funding Opportunity Number SGA 10-3BS and CFDA 17.603.

33) Who were the points of contact for questions?

Questions were directed to MSHA contacts listed in the solicitation, including Robert Glatter and the Grant Officer, Darrell A. Cooper, using the phone numbers and email addresses provided in the solicitation.

34) What kinds of projects did MSHA seem to be encouraging?

The program was designed to fund practical, transferable training and pilot efforts with broad applicability, with special attention encouraged for smaller mines and for training that helps miners and operators prepare for and prevent emergencies in underground mining operations.

35) What planning detail did MSHA expect applicants to include for project execution?

Applicants were expected to include a detailed timeline showing major tasks and when they would be completed, covering startup, implementation, and follow-up within the 12-month performance period.