2005 California Government Code Sections 8450.5 (CHAPTER 5.8. ECONOMIC CONVERSION)

8450.5.  (a) The Legislature finds and declares all of the
following:
   (1) In the 1993-94 fiscal year, only nine California Technology
Reinvestment Project (TRP) proposals that were selected to receive
state matching grants were awarded federal grants.
   (2) As a result, only about two million three hundred thousand
dollars ($2,300,000) or 4 percent of the sixty-one million seven
hundred thousand dollars ($61,700,000) in state matching grants
available in the 1993-94 fiscal year for winning California TRP
proposals were encumbered.
   (3) The small number of proposals that received both state
matching grants and federal TRP grants raises serious questions about
the compatibility of state and federal award criteria.
   (4) To keep California proposals competitive with the rest of the
nation, state matching grant criteria should be at least as stringent
as federal award criteria.
   (b) For purposes of this section"state matching grant criteria"
means those criteria in Section 5474 of Title 10 of the California
Code of Regulations.
   (c) The Trade and Commerce Agency shall adopt state matching grant
criteria that are at least as stringent as federal award criteria.
   (d) State matching grant criteria shall, where federal criteria
warrant, favor proposals that do all of the following:
   (1) Advance defense conversion objectives.
   (2) Address needs of defense suppliers and their subtier
suppliers.
   (3) Increase competitiveness, number of jobs, and quality of jobs.
   (e) The agency shall, where federal criteria warrant, adopt state
matching grant criteria relevant to product line and market that are
at least as stringent as federal award criteria.  State matching
grant criteria shall favor proposals with evidence of all of the
following:
   (1) The proposed activity will be commercially sustained within
five years without federal funding.
   (2) The participants are effective in similar kinds of activities.
   (3) Multidisciplinary planning is adequate.
   (4) The participants possess all necessary skills for achieving a
product line and market.
   (f) The agency shall, where federal criteria warrant, adopt state
matching grant criteria relevant to a management plan that are at
least as stringent as federal award criteria.  State matching grant
criteria shall favor proposals with all of the following:
   (1) An appropriate organizational approach to carry out
activities.
   (2) Quality and experienced leadership.
   (3) Sound staffing plans.
   (4) Thorough evaluation plans.
   (5) Clear entity responsible for performance.
   (6) Evidence of significant private industry involvement and
support.
   (g) The agency shall, where federal criteria warrant, adopt state
matching grant criteria relevant to an education plan that are at
least as stringent as federal award criteria.  State matching grant
criteria shall favor proposals with both of the following:
   (1) Commitment to providing high quality, accessible manufacturing
education.
   (2) Innovative, high quality, useful, and effective approaches for
improving engineering education in manufacturing.
   (h) The agency shall, where federal criteria warrant, adopt state
matching grant criteria relevant to target populations that are at
least as stringent as federal award criteria.  State matching grant
criteria shall favor proposals involving both of the following:
   (1) Defense firms and defense work force.
   (2) Significant numbers of women, members of underrepresented
minority groups, and individuals with disabilities through active
recruitment.
   (i) The agency shall, where federal criteria warrant, adopt state
matching grant criteria relevant to a networking plan that are at
least as stringent as federal award criteria.  State matching grant
criteria shall favor proposals involving defense industry involvement
and commitment, and quality industrial funding commitment.
   (j) The agency shall, where federal criteria warrant, adopt state
matching grant criteria relevant to resources that are at least as
stringent as federal award criteria.  State matching grant criteria
shall favor proposals with all of the following:
   (1) Fully qualified faculty and industry participants, experienced
in research and education in manufacturing engineering.
   (2) Adequate committed resources.
   (3) Likelihood to attract nonfederal funding sources.