ADVANCED 

MANUFACTURING

Commerce Could

Strengthen 

Collaboration with 

Other Agencies on 

Innovation Institutes

Report to Congressional Committees

April 2017

GAO-17-320

United States Government Accountability Office
United States Government Accountability Office

Highlights of GAO-17-320, a report to 

congressional committees

April 2017

ADVANCED MANUFACTURING

Commerce Could Strengthen Collaboration with 

Other Agencies on Innovation Institutes

What GAO Found

As of December 2016, the Departments of Defense (DOD), Energy (DOE), and 

Commerce (Commerce) collectively had signed agreements to establish 11

manufacturing innovation institutes. Four of these institutes were established 

prior to enactment of the Revitalize American Manufacturing and Innovation Act 

of 2014 (RAMI Act), which requires Commerce to establish a network of 

institutes for manufacturing innovation. Since 2014, the network—called the 

Manufacturing USA network—has grown as DOD, DOE, and Commerce have 

established seven more institutes, and Commerce, DOD, and DOE plan to 

sponsor up to four more institutes. Each institute is a public-private partnership 

between the sponsoring federal agency and a nonfederal entity in charge of 

operations, with the nonfederal entity matching or exceeding the federal financial 

assistance. GAO’s analysis of institute membership from May through 

September 2016 shows that about 780 members had joined the seven institutes 

that were operating during GAO’s review (i.e., supporting research projects in 

their technology focus areas). Members receive a variety of benefits, such as

access to intellectual property and networking opportunities.

Commerce, DOD, and DOE worked together to develop initial performance 

measures to track progress toward the Manufacturing USA program’s statutory 

purposes. Additionally, DOD, working with Commerce and DOE, hired a 

consultant to review the Manufacturing USA program. The consultant’s January 

2017 report included recommendations on revised measures to track program 

progress. After considering the results of this review, Commerce plans to work 

with DOD and DOE to reach agreement on a revised set of measures. While

Commerce may face challenges with assessing the program, such as the 

timeframe over which results may need to be measured, it has taken steps or 

has identified options to address these challenges.

Commerce has used a variety of mechanisms to coordinate the Manufacturing 

USA program. These mechanisms incorporate several key practices GAO has 

identified for enhancing and sustaining interagency collaboration. However, GAO 

found that the process used to develop a governance system that outlines 

agencies’ responsibilities for contributing to the program did not include all 

relevant non-sponsoring agencies (agencies that do not sponsor institutes), or 

ensure that their roles and responsibilities for contributing to the program are 

fully identified. Specifically, non-sponsoring agencies, such as the Department of 

Labor (DOL)—which administers discretionary grant programs that can help 

increase the number of skilled workers in advanced manufacturing—were not 

actively involved in developing the governance system. Additionally, the 

governance system does not specify any responsibility for non-sponsoring 

agencies to provide information or expertise related to their activities to the 

program. A Commerce official told GAO that the governance system is subject to 

revision, but participation in the program is up to each agency. However, 

including all relevant agencies in the process of revising the system and fully 

identifying non-sponsoring agencies’ roles and responsibilities could strengthen 

Commerce’s efforts to leverage and coordinate agencies’ contributions to the 

program, consistent with key practices for interagency collaboration.

View GAO-17-320. For more information, 

contact John Neumann at (202) 512-3841 or 

neumannj@gao.gov, or Andrew Sherrill at 

(202) 512-7215 or sherrilla@gao.gov.

Why GAO Did This Study

Since 2012, DOD and DOE have been

establishing innovation institutes to 

promote the research, development, 

and commercialization of advanced 

manufacturing technologies. The RAMI 

Act of 2014 requires the Secretary of 

Commerce to establish a program, with 

eight specified purposes, that includes 

a network of manufacturing innovation 

institutes. Commerce, through a 

program office, is to coordinate this 

program—called Manufacturing USA.

The RAMI Act includes a provision for

GAO to assess the program every two

years, with a final assessment in 2024.

This is GAO’s first report in response 

to the statutory provision. Among other 

objectives, GAO examined (1) the 

status of the network and use of the 

institutes, (2) the extent to which 

performance measures are in place to 

assess progress toward achieving the 

statutory program purposes, and (3) 

the extent to which Commerce has 

taken steps to coordinate agencies 

contributing to the program.

GAO reviewed documentation and 

interviewed officials from Commerce, 

DOD, DOE, DOL, the Department of 

Education, and Manufacturing USA

institutes; and held discussion groups 

with a nongeneralizable sample of 

institute member representatives.

What GAO Recommends

GAO recommends that Commerce 

work with all relevant federal agencies

to fully identify roles and 

responsibilities for how agencies that 

do not sponsor institutes could

contribute to the Manufacturing USA

program. Commerce agreed, but 

suggested an alternative 

recommendation. GAO modified the 

recommendation to clarify its intent.
Page i GAO-17-320 Advanced Manufacturing

Letter 1

Background 6

In 2016, the Manufacturing USA Network Included Eleven 

Established Institutes, and up to Four Additional Institutes Are 

Planned 10

DOD and DOE’s Operating Institutes Are Primarily Managed 

through Cooperative Agreements, and Institute Officials and 

their Members Identified Several Operating Challenges 20

Commerce, DOD, and DOE Have Developed Performance 

Measures and Commerce Is Taking Steps to Address Potential 

Challenges in Assessing Program Progress 24

Commerce Used Various Mechanisms to Help Coordinate the 

Manufacturing USA Program, but It Has Not Included All 

Relevant Agencies in Fully Identifying Roles and 

Responsibilities 28

Conclusions 35

Recommendation for Executive Action 35

Agency Comments and Our Evaluation 36

Appendix I Information on Operating Manufacturing USA Institutes as of 

December 2016 42

Appendix II Comments from the Department of Commerce 62

Appendix III Comments from the Department of Defense 66

Appendix IV GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments 70

Tables

Table 1: Department of Defense Manufacturing USA Institutes 

Established as of December 2016 12

Table 2: Department of Energy Manufacturing USA Institutes 

Established as of December 2016 13

Table 3: Department of Commerce Manufacturing USA Institute 

Established as of December 2016 14

Contents
Page ii GAO-17-320 Advanced Manufacturing

Table 4: Department of Defense (DOD) and Energy (DOE) 

Manufacturing USA Institutes Being Established as of 

December 2016 15

Table 5: Summary of National Additive Manufacturing Innovation 

Institute (America Makes) Membership Benefits and 

Rights 43

Table 6: Summary of Digital Manufacturing and Design Innovation 

Institute (DMDII) Industry Membership Benefits and 

Rights 46

Table 7: Summary of Digital Manufacturing and Design Innovation 

Institute (DMDII) Academic and Nonprofit Membership 

Benefits and Rights 46

Table 8: Summary of Digital Manufacturing and Design Innovation 

Institute (DMDII) Government Membership Benefits and 

Rights 47

Table 9: Summary of Lightweight Innovations for Tomorrow (LIFT) 

Membership Benefits and Rights 49

Table 10: Summary of The Next Generation Power Electronics 

Manufacturing Innovation Institute (PowerAmerica) 

Membership Benefits and Rights 51

Table 11: Summary of Institute for Advanced Composites 

Manufacturing Innovation (IACMI) Membership Benefits 

and Rights 54

Table 12: Summary of American Institute for Manufacturing 

Integrated Photonics (AIM Photonics) Industry 

Membership Benefits and Rights 57

Table 13: Summary of American Institute for Manufacturing 

Integrated Photonics (AIM Photonics) Academic and 

Nonprofit Membership Benefits and Rights 58

Table 14: Summary of America’s Flexible Hybrid Electronics 

Manufacturing Institute (NextFlex) Industry Membership 

Benefits and Rights 60

Table 15: Summary of America’s Flexible Hybrid Electronics 

Manufacturing Institute (NextFlex) Academic and 

Nonprofit Membership Benefits and Rights 61

Table 16: Summary of America’s Flexible Hybrid Electronics 

Manufacturing Institute (NextFlex) Federal Government 

Membership Benefits and Rights 61
Page iii GAO-17-320 Advanced Manufacturing

Figures

Figure 1: Participation by Manufacturers and Other Entities at the 

Highest Three Manufacturing USA Institute Membership 

Levels between May 2016 and September 2016 17

Figure 2: Participation by Large and Small Manufacturers at the 

Highest Three Manufacturing USA Institute Membership 

Levels between May 2016 and September 2016 18

Figure 3: Relationship between the Manufacturing USA Program’s 

Statutory Purposes, Program Goals, and Initial Institute 

Performance Measures 25

Abbreviations

3D Three-dimensional

AFFOA Advanced Functional Fabrics of America

AIM Photonics American Institute for Manufacturing Integrated 

Photonics

America Makes National Additive Manufacturing Innovation Institute

AMNPO Advanced Manufacturing National Program Office

ARMI Advanced Regenerative Manufacturing Institute

ATB-MII Advanced Tissue Biofabrication Manufacturing 

Innovation Institute

CESMII Clean Energy Smart Manufacturing Innovation 

Institute

Commerce Department of Commerce
Page iv GAO-17-320 Advanced Manufacturing

DMDII Digital Manufacturing and Design Innovation 

Institute

DOD Department of Defense

DOE Department of Energy

DOL Department of Labor

Education Department of Education

IACMI Institute for Advanced Composites Manufacturing 

Innovation

LIFT Lightweight Innovations for Tomorrow

MEP Hollings Manufacturing Extension Partnership

NextFlex America’s Flexible Hybrid Electronics 

Manufacturing Institute

NIIMBL National Institute for Innovation in Manufacturing 

Biopharmaceuticals

NIST National Institute of Standards and Technology

PCAST President’s Council of Advisors on Science and

Technology

PowerAmerica The Next Generation Power Electronics 

Manufacturing Innovation Institute

RAMI Act Revitalize American Manufacturing and Innovation 

Act of 2014

RAPID Rapid Advancement in Process Intensification 

Deployment

REMADE Reducing Embodied-energy and Decreasing 

Emissions

RIME-MII Robots in Manufacturing Environments 

Manufacturing Innovation Institute

WIOA Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act

This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright protection in the 

United States. The published product may be reproduced and distributed in its entirety 

without further permission from GAO. However, because this work may contain 

copyrighted images or other material, permission from the copyright holder may be 

necessary if you wish to reproduce this material separately.
Page 1 GAO-17-320 Advanced Manufacturing

441 G St. N.W.

Washington, DC 20548

April 6, 2017

Congressional Committees

The manufacturing sector encompasses businesses across a variety of 

industries and plays a critical role in the U.S. economy and national 

defense. However, according to a June 2011 report from the President’s 

Council of Advisors on Science and Technology (PCAST), the share of 

U.S. economic activity from the manufacturing sector has declined over 

several decades, and the U.S. trade balance in advanced technology 

products, which was long a relative strength of the United States, shifted 

from a surplus to a deficit starting in 2001.1 The report also stated that the 

United States has been steadily losing the research and development 

activities linked to manufacturing—along with associated high-skilled 

jobs—to other nations, as well as losing the competitiveness to 

manufacture products invented in the United States.

Beginning with its 2011 report, PCAST issued a series of reports that 

recommended a number of steps to increase U.S. competitiveness in 

advanced manufacturing—that is, manufacturing that uses innovative 

technology to improve products or processes. PCAST’s 

recommendations included that the federal government establish a 

national network of manufacturing innovation institutes as public-private 

partnerships to create a manufacturing research infrastructure to help 

bridge the gap between research and development activities and 

domestic production. In 2012, at the request of the President and using 

existing statutory authorities, the Department of Defense (DOD) 

established a pilot manufacturing innovation institute with co-funding and 

participation from the Department of Energy (DOE) and other agencies. 

This pilot institute focused on additive manufacturing technology.2 In 

 1

Executive Office of the President, President’s Council of Advisors on Science and 

Technology, Report to the President on Ensuring American Leadership in Advanced 

Manufacturing (Washington, D.C.: June 2011). PCAST is an advisory group of the nation’s 

leading scientists and engineers appointed by the President.

2

Additive manufacturing (also called three-dimensional, or 3D, printing) refers to a layerby-layer approach for producing 3D objects from a digital model using materials such as 

metal powders, plastic, and foundry sand. Also, see GAO, 3D Printing: Opportunities, 

Challenges, and Policy Implications of Additive Manufacturing, GAO-15-505SP 

(Washington, D.C.: June 24, 2015); and Defense Additive Manufacturing: DOD Needs to 

Systematically Track Department-wide 3D Printing Efforts, GAO-16-56 (Washington, D.C.: 

Oct. 14, 2015).

Letter
Page 2 GAO-17-320 Advanced Manufacturing

2012, the President set forth a goal of establishing a network of up to 15 

institutes. Also, in 2013, the National Science and Technology Council 

released a report outlining a preliminary design for the national network, 

citing the pilot manufacturing innovation institute as a benchmark for other 

institutes.3 Subsequently, using their existing statutory authorities, DOD 

and DOE established additional institutes, each with its own technological 

focus.

In December 2014, Congress passed, and the President signed into law, 

the Revitalize American Manufacturing and Innovation Act of 2014 (RAMI 

Act). Among other things, the RAMI Act requires the Secretary of 

Commerce to establish a program within the Department of Commerce’s 

(Commerce) National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST); the 

act refers to this program as the Network for Manufacturing Innovation 

program. In September 2016, the Secretary of Commerce announced a 

new public name for the program, Manufacturing USA; we use this name 

for the program in this report.4 According to the RAMI Act, the purposes 

of the program include stimulating U.S. leadership in advanced 

manufacturing research, innovation, and technology; accelerating 

development of an advanced manufacturing workforce; and creating and 

preserving jobs. The RAMI Act requires the Secretary of Commerce to 

establish, within NIST, a national program office to oversee and carry out 

the program; this office is known as the Advanced Manufacturing National 

Program Office (AMNPO).5 The RAMI Act specifies a number of functions 

for the national program office, such as establishing procedures, 

processes, and criteria as may be necessary and appropriate to maximize 

 3

Executive Office of the President, National Science and Technology Council, Advanced 

Manufacturing National Program Office, National Network for Manufacturing Innovation: A 

Preliminary Design (Washington, D.C.: January 2013). The National Science and 

Technology Council was established by executive order on November 23, 1993. Exec. 

Order No. 12,881, 58 Fed. Reg. 62491 (Nov. 26, 1993). The principal functions of this 

cabinet-level council include coordinating the science and technology policy-making 

process and ensuring science and technology policy decisions and programs are

consistent with the President’s goals.

4

The official name of the program remains the National Network for Manufacturing 

Innovation.

5

In addition to serving as the national office for the Manufacturing USA program, AMNPO 

also operates under the National Science and Technology Council on cross-agency 

initiatives related to advanced manufacturing and hosts an interagency team with 

participation from federal agencies involved in advanced manufacturing, such as the 

Department of Defense, National Science Foundation, and National Aeronautics and 

Space Administration.
Page 3 GAO-17-320 Advanced Manufacturing

cooperation and to coordinate the activities of the program with programs 

and activities of other federal agencies whose missions contribute to or 

are affected by advanced manufacturing.6

As part of the program, the RAMI Act requires the Secretary of 

Commerce to establish a network of centers for manufacturing innovation 

(which we refer to as the Manufacturing USA network). There are two 

types of centers (which we refer to as Manufacturing USA institutes): 

those that receive financial assistance from Commerce under the RAMI 

Act and those that do not. Institutes that do not receive financial 

assistance from Commerce pursuant to the RAMI Act either (1) are 

considered institutes by the act because they were in existence and 

formally recognized pursuant to law or executive action as manufacturing 

innovation centers before the law’s enactment or (2) are recognized by 

the Secretary of Commerce, at the institute’s request, as an institute for 

manufacturing innovation for purposes of participating in the network and 

are substantially similar to those established by Commerce under the act. 

For example, under the RAMI Act the National Additive Manufacturing 

Innovation Institute is considered an institute and the Secretary of 

Commerce has recognized institutes established by DOD and DOE 

pursuant to their statutory authority as part of the network. Each institute

is a public-private partnership between the sponsoring federal agency 

and a nonfederal entity (generally a nonprofit organization or university) in 

charge of the institute’s operations. The institutes have members that 

include companies, nonprofit organizations, and academic institutions, 

among others.

The RAMI Act also contains a provision for GAO to assess not less 

frequently than once every 2 years the operation of the Manufacturing 

USA program and to provide a final assessment not later than December 

31, 2024. The act requires that each assessment include, among other 

things, a review of the management, coordination, and industry utility of 

the program and an assessment of the extent to which the program has 

furthered the purposes described in the RAMI Act. This is our first report 

on this program in response to the statutory provision. This report 

examines (1) the status of establishing the Manufacturing USA network 

and the extent to which manufacturers and other entities have used the 

institutes; (2) how federal agencies manage the Manufacturing USA 

institutes and what challenges, if any, have been encountered to date; (3) 

 6

15 U.S.C. § 278s(f)(2).
Page 4 GAO-17-320 Advanced Manufacturing

the extent to which performance measures are in place to help 

Commerce assess progress toward achieving the statutory purposes of 

the program; and (4) the extent to which Commerce has taken steps to 

coordinate the efforts of agencies that contribute to the Manufacturing 

USA program.

To obtain information on Manufacturing USA institute status, use, 

management, performance measures, and coordination, we reviewed 

Manufacturing USA program and institute documentation, including the 

cooperative agreements establishing the institutes; these agreements 

include amounts of federal and nonfederal financial assistance. We also 

interviewed Commerce, DOD, and DOE officials to obtain information 

about the institutes their agencies sponsor.7 In addition, we asked 

Manufacturing USA institute officials to respond to a structured set of 

questions related to their institute’s (1) structure and funding; (2) industry 

use and data collection; (3) management, coordination, and challenges; 

and (4) program assessment; among other questions.8 We analyzed 

membership data provided by institute officials to obtain information on 

membership participation by manufacturers and other entities. We relied 

on institute officials to determine which of their members were from small 

or large manufacturers because there is no agreed-upon definition for 

manufacturers in each of these categories. We obtained information on 

membership levels, benefits, and rights from institute documentation and 

websites and verified its accuracy with institute officials.

We also held three discussion groups with 19 representatives of institute 

members to obtain their perspectives on various issues, such as how 

their organizations benefited from membership in a Manufacturing USA 

institute, and challenges related to institute operations. We held one 

group for small manufacturers comprised of four institute member 

 7

Sponsoring agencies are those agencies that provide financial assistance to establish 

Manufacturing USA institutes. We collected information from Commerce, DOD, and DOE 

officials related to all of the institutes these agencies have sponsored or are in the process 

of sponsoring.

8

Some institutes were operating (i.e., supporting research projects in their technology 

focus areas), while others were not yet operating as of the time of our review. As a result, 

we focused our detailed data collection from institute officials on the institutes that were 

operating as of the time of our review. We generally collected this information during site 

visits in which we examined the institutes’ facilities and conducted interviews. However, 

for two institutes that another GAO team had recently visited, we obtained information 

collected by the other GAO team and written responses to our questions from institute 

officials.
Page 5 GAO-17-320 Advanced Manufacturing

representatives; one group for large manufacturers comprised of eight 

representatives; and one group for academic and nonprofit organizations 

comprised of seven representatives.9 We selected institute members for 

the discussion groups based on Manufacturing USA institute officials’

recommendations, to provide a nongeneralizable sample of perspectives. 

Our selection is not representative of the full population of institute 

members and does not include entities that have not yet signed a 

membership agreement with an institute.

To obtain additional information on coordination of the efforts of agencies 

that contribute to the Manufacturing USA program, we interviewed 

Commerce, DOD, and DOE officials as well as officials from the 

Departments of Education (Education) and Labor (DOL). We included 

Education and DOL in the scope of our work because the RAMI Act 

includes as purposes of the program accelerating the development of an 

advanced manufacturing workforce and creating and preserving jobs. To 

evaluate Commerce’s coordination of the agencies that contribute to the 

Manufacturing USA program, we compared Commerce’s efforts against 

selected key practices for interagency collaboration that we have 

previously identified.10 We selected the key practices that were most 

relevant to Commerce’s efforts to coordinate contributing agencies.

We conducted this performance audit from February 2016 to April 2017 in 

accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. 

Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain 

sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our 

findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe that 

the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings and 

conclusions based on our audit objectives.

 9

Due to scheduling, one of the eight member representatives in the discussion group for 

large manufacturers was from a nonprofit. However, for purposes of analysis, we included 

the perspectives of this representative with those of the representatives of academic and 

nonprofit organizations.

10GAO, Results-Oriented Government: Practices That Can Help Enhance and Sustain 

Collaboration among Federal Agencies, GAO-06-15 (Washington, D.C.: Oct. 21, 2005), 

and Managing for Results: Key Considerations for Implementing Interagency Collaborative 

Mechanisms, GAO-12-1022 (Washington, D.C.: Sept. 27, 2012). Experts have defined an 

interagency mechanism for collaboration as any arrangement or application that can 

facilitate collaboration between agencies.
Page 6 GAO-17-320 Advanced Manufacturing

This section provides information on the history of the Manufacturing USA 

program, the provisions of the RAMI Act, and the awards process and 

membership of the institutes.

The June 2011 PCAST report was followed in July 2012 by another 

report, prepared by the Advanced Manufacturing Partnership Steering 

Committee;11 this report contained 16 recommendations to improve the 

manufacturing competitiveness of the United States.12 One of the 

recommendations was to establish a national network of manufacturing 

innovation institutes as public-private partnerships. After DOD established 

the first such institute as a pilot institute in 2012, the National Science and 

Technology Council released its January 2013 report proposing a 

preliminary design for the network.13 This report envisioned a network of 

public-private partnerships to be supported with a co-investment of 

federal obligations ranging from $70 million to $120 million for each 

institute and equal or greater amounts in nonfederal pledges (also known 

as cost-share). The amount of investment would depend on such factors 

as the magnitude of the opportunity and maturity of the technology and 

would be distributed across 5 to 7 years. Total capitalization of an institute 

across this time period was envisioned to be $140 million to $240 million. 

The report also envisioned that an institute would become sustainable 

within 7 years of the public announcement of an award of financial 

resources to start up and operate the institute, and that the institute would 

provide long-term economic impact in its region and nationwide. Building 

on the July 2012 Advanced Manufacturing Partnership report, an October 

2014 PCAST report provided 12 recommendations with further guidance 

 11Led by its Steering Committee, the Advanced Manufacturing Partnership brings together 

the federal government, industry, universities, and other stakeholders to identify emerging 

technologies with the potential to create high-quality domestic manufacturing jobs and 

enhance U.S. global competitiveness.

12Executive Office of the President, President’s Council of Advisors on Science and 

Technology, Report to the President on Capturing Domestic Competitive Advantage in 

Advanced Manufacturing (Washington, D.C.: July 2012). The report states that each 

institute should receive support via a mixed funding model from industry, academia, and 

government, with government (federal or state) funding guaranteed for a minimum of 5 

years with the potential of renewal for a total of 10 years.

13Advanced Manufacturing National Program Office, National Network for Manufacturing 

Innovation: A Preliminary Design.

Background

Manufacturing USA 

Program History
Page 7 GAO-17-320 Advanced Manufacturing

on how the United States could sustain its lead in innovation.14 For 

example, one of the recommendations was to create—through the 

National Economic Council, the Office of Science and Technology Policy, 

and the implementing agencies and departments—a shared 

Manufacturing USA governance structure that includes input from various 

agencies as well as from private sector experts, organized labor, and 

academia.

Under the RAMI Act, the purposes of the Manufacturing USA program are 

to

• improve the country’s manufacturing competitiveness and increase 

production of goods manufactured predominantly within the United 

States;

• stimulate U.S. leadership in advanced manufacturing research, 

innovation, and technology;

• facilitate transition of innovative technologies into scalable, costeffective, and high-performing manufacturing capabilities;

• facilitate access by manufacturing enterprises to capital-intensive 

infrastructure;

• accelerate development of an advanced manufacturing workforce;

• facilitate peer exchange of and documentation of best practices in 

addressing advanced manufacturing challenges;

• leverage nonfederal sources of support to promote a stable and 

sustainable business model without the need for long-term federal 

funding; and

• create and preserve jobs.

The RAMI Act requires the Secretary of Commerce to report annually to

Congress, until December 31, 2024, on the program’s performance, 

including an assessment of Commerce’s institutes and an assessment of 

the participation in, and contributions to, the network by institutes 

 14Executive Office of the President, President’s Council of Advisors on Science and 

Technology, Report to the President: Accelerating U.S. Advanced Manufacturing 

(Washington, D.C.: October 2014).

RAMI Act Provisions
Page 8 GAO-17-320 Advanced Manufacturing

established by other agencies.15 Annual reports are also to include an 

assessment of how well the program is meeting its statutory purposes.

The RAMI Act also contains a number of provisions related to 

collaboration between Commerce and other agencies. For example, in 

awarding financial assistance to establish institutes, the RAMI Act 

requires that the Secretary of Commerce, through AMNPO, collaborate 

with federal departments and agencies whose missions contribute to or 

are affected by advanced manufacturing. In addition, several of the 

functions of the AMNPO under the RAMI Act also pertain to collaboration. 

The functions that the RAMI Act identifies for the national office include:

• Overseeing the planning, management, and coordination of the 

program;

• Entering into memorandums of understanding with federal 

departments and agencies whose missions contribute to or are 

affected by advanced manufacturing, to carry out the program’s 

statutory purposes;

• Developing, not later than 1 year after the date of enactment of the 

RAMI Act, and updating not less frequently than once every 3 years 

thereafter, a strategic plan to guide the program;

• Establishing such procedures, processes, and criteria as may be 

necessary and appropriate to maximize cooperation and coordinate 

the activities of the program with programs and activities of other 

federal departments and agencies whose missions contribute to or 

are affected by advanced manufacturing;

• Establishing a clearinghouse of public information related to the 

activities of the program; and

• Acting as a convener of the network.

Additionally, the RAMI Act requires that, when developing and updating 

the strategic plan, the Secretary of Commerce solicit recommendations 

and advice from a wide range of stakeholders, including industry, small 

 15In February 2016, the AMNPO published its first annual report, which covered activities 

and accomplishments through fiscal year 2015. See also Executive Office of the 

President, National Science and Technology Council, Advanced Manufacturing National 

Program Office, National Network for Manufacturing Innovation Program: Annual Report

(Washington, D.C.: February 2016), accessed March 2017, 

https://www.manufacturingusa.com/sites/prod/files/docs/resource/2015-NNMI-AnnualReport.pdf.
Page 9 GAO-17-320 Advanced Manufacturing

and medium-sized manufacturing enterprises, research universities, 

community colleges, and other relevant organizations and institutions on 

an ongoing basis. The RAMI Act also requires the Secretary of 

Commerce to ensure that the AMNPO incorporates NIST’s Hollings 

Manufacturing Extension Partnership into Manufacturing USA program 

planning to ensure that the results of the program reach small and 

medium-sized entities.16

DOD, DOE, and Commerce have provided competitive financial 

assistance for institutes using similar processes for soliciting applications 

and making awards.17 DOD and DOE have identified prospective 

technology focus areas through requests for information from nonfederal 

organizations and meetings with industry officials and other stakeholders. 

For Commerce institutes, the RAMI Act requires that the Secretary of 

Commerce ensure an open process that allows for consideration of all 

applications relevant to advanced manufacturing regardless of technology 

focus area. Subsequently, each of the sponsoring agencies released 

notices of intent announcing a competition for their new institutes and 

then released federal funding opportunity announcements. The federal 

funding announcements included goals and objectives for the institutes 

that were related to the Manufacturing USA program and to the agency 

mission. Potential applicants generally have had opportunities to ask 

clarifying questions via mechanisms such as webinars and e-mail. 

Applicants submitted pre-application concept papers, which were 

evaluated by subject matter experts in the government to determine, for 

example, the potential to fulfill a recognized national need. Based on 

these subject matter experts’ review, the sponsoring agencies invited 

selected applicants to submit full proposals.18 Full proposals included 

detailed information—such as a business strategy, leadership and 

sustainment plan, and technology investment plan—and were evaluated

by multi-agency source selection team. Ultimately, an official from the 

 16Under the NIST Hollings Manufacturing Extension Partnership (MEP) program, NIST 

partners with 51 nonfederal organizations called MEP centers, which are located in each 

of the 50 states and Puerto Rico. MEP centers provide services aimed at helping small 

and medium-sized U.S.-based firms grow and enhance their competitiveness. NIST 

MEP’s goals are to enhance U.S. productivity and technological performance, as well as 

to strengthen the global competitiveness of manufacturing firms.

17DOE officials said the agency is required by Section 989 of the Energy Policy Act of 

2005 to select institutes to fund through a competitive merit review process.

18DOE officials told us that applicants with a discouraged concept paper were still able to 

submit a full proposal.

Manufacturing USA 

Institute Awards Process 

and Membership
Page 10 GAO-17-320 Advanced Manufacturing

sponsoring federal agency selected the winning applicant, after which the 

agency and the applicant negotiated an agreement, such as a 

cooperative agreement, to establish and manage the institute.19 These 

awards provided financial resources to start up and operate an institute 

focusing on the specific technology area.

The institutes provide members with access to shared facilities and 

equipment. Members can take advantage of these resources in a variety 

of ways, such as by collaborating on research related to the technology 

focus area of the institute. Membership is open to all U.S. industrial 

organizations, academic institutions, nonprofit organizations, and 

government agencies that want to further technology and education in a 

certain focus area.20 Each institute has its own membership terms—

including a range of costs, rights, and benefits—and required time 

commitment. Specific terms and conditions are detailed in formal 

membership agreements.

As of December 2016, DOD, DOE, and Commerce collectively had 

established a total of eleven innovation institutes, which have become 

part of the Manufacturing USA network. Seven of these eleven institutes 

were operating (i.e., supporting research projects in their technology 

focus areas) as of December 2016. In addition, one DOD institute, two 

DOE institutes, and potentially one additional Commerce institute were in 

the process of being established through a competitive solicitation. Our 

analysis of institute membership between May 2016 and September 2016 

shows that about 780 manufacturers and other entities, such as academic 

institutions and nonprofit organizations, have become members of the 

operating institutes. Institute members receive a variety of benefits and 

rights, such as networking opportunities.

 19DOD entered into a Technology Investment Agreement with the entity responsible for 

managing one institute. Eleven federal agencies, including DOD and DOE, have statutory 

authority to use other transaction agreements. See also, GAO, Federal Acquisitions: Use 

of ‘Other Transaction’ Agreements Limited and Mostly for Research and Development 

Activities, GAO-16-209 (Washington, D.C.: Jan. 7, 2016).

20Under some cooperative agreements, foreign members are allowed if the agency 

approves such members and certain conditions are met.

In 2016, the 

Manufacturing USA 

Network Included 

Eleven Established 

Institutes, and up to 

Four Additional 

Institutes Are Planned
Page 11 GAO-17-320 Advanced Manufacturing

As of December 2016, DOD, DOE, and Commerce collectively had 

established a total of eleven institutes that have become part of the 

Manufacturing USA network.21 Four institutes—three DOD institutes and 

one DOE institute—were established prior to the enactment of the RAMI 

Act in 2014. The remaining seven institutes were established after the 

enactment of the RAMI Act. Four of these institutes—Advanced 

Functional Fabrics of America, the Advanced Tissue Biofabrication 

Manufacturing Innovation Institute, the Clean Energy Smart 

Manufacturing Innovation Institute, and the National Institute for 

Innovation in Manufacturing Biopharmaceuticals—were established in 

2016 and were not yet operating as of December 2016.

22 However, all 

eleven institutes are part of the network. Appendix I provides additional 

information on the DOD and DOE institutes that were operating as of 

December 2016.

The institutes, which are located across the United States, focus on a 

wide variety of areas of advanced manufacturing, including additive 

manufacturing (three-dimensional, or 3D, printing), lightweight metals, 

integrated photonics circuits, novel fiber and textiles, and 

biopharmaceuticals. DOD, DOE, and Commerce plan to provide over 

$800 million in financial assistance, generally through cooperative 

agreements, for the eleven established institutes they sponsor. According 

to DOD, DOE, and NIST officials, the agencies plan to distribute this 

assistance over a 5 to 7 year period, at the end of which they expect the 

institutes to be sustainable without guaranteed federal financial 

assistance. Award recipients have pledged about $1.9 billion in 

nonfederal funds over the same 5 to 7 year period. However, the officials 

also said they expect the institutes will be eligible to receive additional 

federal financial assistance, such as competitively awarded grants for 

research.

According to the February 2016 Manufacturing USA program annual 

report, the seven institutes established by DOD are designed to 

overcome the challenge DOD faces when the existing industrial 

 21For the purposes of our analysis, we consider an institute to be established when the 

sponsoring federal agency signs an agreement, such as a cooperative agreement, with an 

award recipient to establish and manage the institute. Institute sponsoring agencies may 

use a different definition of established.

22For the purposes of our analysis, we consider an institute to be operating when it is 

supporting research projects in its technology focus area. Institute sponsoring agencies 

may use a different definition of operating.

Seven of Eleven

Established Institutes in 

the Network Were

Operating in 2016
Page 12 GAO-17-320 Advanced Manufacturing

infrastructure is insufficient to develop and produce new and emerging 

technologies that hold strategic promise.23 DOD considers its institutes to 

represent a key investment strategy for the department and its 

Manufacturing Technology program.24 Table 1 provides an overview of 

the seven institutes DOD had established as of December 2016.

Table 1: Department of Defense Manufacturing USA Institutes Established as of December 2016

Institute Location

Technology 

focus area Date established

Federal 

obligations 

planned (dollars 

in millions)a

Nonfederal 

pledges 

(dollars in 

millions)a,b

National Additive 

Manufacturing Innovation 

Institute (America Makes)

Youngstown, 

OH

Additive manufacturing 

(3D printing) technologies

8/15/2012 55 55

Digital Manufacturing and 

Design Innovation Institute 

(DMDII)

Chicago, IL Digital design and 

manufacturing

2/21/2014 70 106

Lightweight Innovations for 

Tomorrow (LIFT)

Detroit, MI Lightweight metals 

manufacturing technology

2/21/2014 70 78

American Institute for 

Manufacturing Integrated 

Photonics (AIM Photonics)

Albany, NY Integrated photonic circuit 

manufacturing

7/9/2015 110 503

America’s Flexible Hybrid 

Electronics Manufacturing 

Institute (NextFlex)

San Jose, CA Manufacturing advanced 

flexible electronics

8/28/2015 75 96

Advanced Functional 

Fabrics of America

(AFFOA)

Cambridge, MA Manufacturing novel fibers 

and textiles

3/26/2016c 75 240

Advanced Tissue 

Biofabrication 

Manufacturing Innovation 

Institute (ATB-MII)d

Manchester, NH Manufacturing and testing 

technologies in support of 

making human tissue and 

tissue-related products

12/19/2016 80 241

Source: GAO analysis of information provided in the February 2016 Manufacturing USA program annual report, and Department of Defense cooperative agreements and institutes.  | GAO-17-320

Note: For the purposes of our analysis, we consider an institute to be established when the 

sponsoring federal agency signs an agreement, such as a cooperative agreement, with an award 

recipient to establish and manage the institute. Institute sponsoring agencies may use a different 

definition of established.

 23Advanced Manufacturing National Program Office, National Network for Manufacturing 

Innovation Program: Annual Report (2016).

24Areas of Manufacturing Technology program investment include (1) advancing the 

maturity of manufacturing processes to bridge the gap from research and development 

advances to full-scale production and (2) sustaining and enhancing the skills and 

capabilities of the manufacturing workforce and promoting high levels of worker education 

and training.
Page 13 GAO-17-320 Advanced Manufacturing

a

Planned federal and nonfederal financial assistance will generally be distributed over 5 to 7 years.

b

Institutes may allow in-kind contributions as part of nonfederal pledges at certain membership levels.

c

AFFOA was not yet operating (i.e., supporting research projects in its technology focus area) as of 

December 2016 as its first call for projects was issued in late November 2016.

d

ATB-MII is also called the Advanced Regenerative Manufacturing Institute (ARMI). The institute was 

not yet operating (i.e., supporting research projects in its technology focus area) as of December 

2016.

DOE’s mission is to ensure America’s security and prosperity by 

addressing its energy, environmental, and nuclear challenges through 

transformative science and technology solutions. DOE officials told us 

that the three institutes established by DOE support this mission by 

focusing support on innovative, advanced manufacturing technologies 

that will enhance domestic advanced manufacturing competitiveness and 

create jobs for American workers by maintaining U.S. global 

competitiveness in clean energy manufacturing.25 Table 2 provides an 

overview of the three institutes DOE had established as of December 

2016.

Table 2: Department of Energy Manufacturing USA Institutes Established as of December 2016

Institute Location

Technology 

focus area Date established 

Federal 

obligations 

planned (dollars 

in millions)a

Nonfederal 

pledges 

(dollars in 

millions)a,b

The Next Generation 

Power Electronics 

Manufacturing Innovation 

Institute (PowerAmerica)

Raleigh, NC Wide bandgap 

semiconductor 

manufacturing

12/1/2014 70 76

Institute for Advanced 

Composites 

Manufacturing Innovation 

(IACMI)

Knoxville, TN Advanced polymer 

composites 

manufacturing and 

recycling

6/1/2015 70 178

Clean Energy Smart 

Manufacturing Innovation 

Institute (CESMII) 

Los Angeles, CA Smart sensors and 

digital process controls 

manufacturing

12/20/2016c 70 171

Source: GAO analysis of information provided in the February 2016 Manufacturing USA program annual report, and Department of Energy cooperative agreements and institutes.  | GAO-17-320

Note: For the purposes of our analysis, we consider an institute to be established when the 

sponsoring federal agency signs an agreement, such as a cooperative agreement, with an award 

 25DOE uses manufacturing innovation institutes to support the Clean Energy 

Manufacturing Initiative—a DOE initiative to strengthen U.S. clean energy manufacturing 

competitiveness and to increase U.S. manufacturing competitiveness across the board by 

boosting energy productivity and leveraging low-cost domestic energy resources. Within 

DOE, the institutes are managed by the Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable 

Energy’s Advanced Manufacturing Office.
Page 14 GAO-17-320 Advanced Manufacturing

recipient to establish and manage the institute. Institute sponsoring agencies may use a different 

definition of established.

a

Planned federal and nonfederal financial assistance is provided on an annual basis and will be 

distributed over 5 years.

b

Institutes may allow in-kind contributions as part of nonfederal pledges at certain membership levels.

c

CESMII was not yet operating (i.e., supporting research projects in its technology focus area) as of 

December 2016.

In December 2016, the Secretary of Commerce announced the selection 

of an award recipient for the first institute sponsored by Commerce, the 

National Institute for Innovation in Manufacturing Biopharmaceuticals. 

According to Commerce, this institute is expected to help advance U.S. 

leadership in the biopharmaceutical industry, foster economic 

development, improve medical treatments, and ensure a qualified 

workforce. Table 3 provides an overview of the institute Commerce had 

established as of December 2016.

Table 3: Department of Commerce Manufacturing USA Institute Established as of December 2016

Institute Location

Technology 

focus area Date established 

Federal 

obligations 

planned (dollars 

in millions)a

Nonfederal 

pledges 

(dollars in 

millions)a,b

National Institute for 

Innovation in 

Manufacturing 

Biopharmaceuticals 

(NIIMBL)

Newark, DE Biopharmaceutical 

manufacturing 

innovation, as well as the 

development of 

standards to enable 

more efficient and rapid 

manufacturing 

capabilities

12/15/2016c 70 129

Source: GAO analysis of Department of Commerce cooperative agreement and institute information.  | GAO-17-320

Note: For the purposes of our analysis, we consider an institute to be established when the 

sponsoring federal agency signs an agreement, such as a cooperative agreement, with an award 

recipient to establish and manage the institute. Institute sponsoring agencies may use a different 

definition of established.

a

Planned federal and nonfederal financial assistance is provided on an annual basis and will be 

distributed over 5 years.

b

Institutes may allow in-kind contributions as part of nonfederal pledges at certain membership levels. 

However, based on NIIMBL’s website as of March 2017, it is unclear what its membership levels are 

and the extent that the membership levels allow in-kind contributions.

c

NIIMBL was not yet operating (i.e., supporting research projects in its technology focus area) as of 

December 2016.
Page 15 GAO-17-320 Advanced Manufacturing

DOD, DOE, and Commerce were in the process of evaluating 

applications, selecting award recipients, and negotiating agreements to 

establish up to four additional institutes as of December 2016. The DODsponsored institute, the Robots in Manufacturing Environments

Manufacturing Innovation Institute, will focus on robotic technologies in 

manufacturing, such as human robot interaction, learning, and mobility.

The two DOE institutes, Rapid Advancement in Process Intensification 

Deployment and Reducing Embodied-energy and Decreasing Emissions, 

will have the following technology focus areas: (1) developing 

breakthrough technologies to boost domestic energy productivity and 

energy efficiency of manufacturing processes, and (2) reuse, recycling, 

and remanufacturing of materials. In addition, Commerce officials were 

considering whether to establish a second institute, subject to the 

availability of funds. This second Commerce-sponsored institute could 

address any area of advanced manufacturing as long as it does not 

duplicate the technology focus areas and programs of existing or 

announced federally-funded institutes. Table 4 provides an overview of 

the institutes that DOD and DOE were in the process of establishing as of 

December 2016.

Table 4: Department of Defense (DOD) and Energy (DOE) Manufacturing USA Institutes Being Established as of December 

2016

Institute Federal sponsor Technology focus area Status

Federal 

obligations 

planned 

(dollars in 

millions)a

Robots in Manufacturing 

Environments 

Manufacturing Innovation 

Institute (RIME-MII)

DOD State-of-the-art application of 

collaborative robotic technologies in 

manufacturing

Application evaluation and 

award recipient selection

80

Rapid Advancement in 

Process Intensification 

Deployment (RAPID)

DOE Technologies to increase the energy 

efficiency of manufacturing processes 

in industries such as oil, paper, and 

chemicals

Agreement negotiation 70

Reducing Embodiedenergy and Decreasing 

Emissions (REMADE)

DOE Technologies for reuse, recycling, and 

remanufacturing of materials such as 

metals, fibers, polymers, and electronic 

waste

Agreement negotiation 70

Source: GAO analysis of information provided by DOD and DOE. | GAO-17-320

Note: For the purposes of our analysis, we consider an institute to be established when the 

sponsoring federal agency signs an agreement, such as a cooperative agreement, with an award 

recipient to establish and manage the institute. Institute sponsoring agencies may use a different 

definition of established.

a

Planned federal financial assistance will generally be distributed over 5 to 7 years.

DOD, DOE, and 

Commerce Were in the 

Process of Sponsoring up 

to Four New Institutes as 

of December 2016
Page 16 GAO-17-320 Advanced Manufacturing

Our analysis of institutes’ membership data showed that about 520 

manufacturers (mostly small manufacturers according to a Commerce 

official) were members of the seven DOD and DOE institutes that were 

operating as of December 2016.26 In addition, about 260 other entities, 

including academic institutions, state government agencies, nonprofit 

organizations, and NIST’s Hollings Manufacturing Extension Partnership 

centers were members of these institutes.27 Some institute officials told us

that additional members were pending. For example, America Makes 

officials told us that as of July 2016, they were processing 14 new 

member requests.

Manufacturers and other entities obtain a variety of benefits and rights, 

such as networking opportunities and intellectual property access, based 

on membership level. Each institute has developed a membership 

structure that provides different costs, benefits, and rights at each level. 

The number of membership levels ranges from 3 levels at one institute to 

10 levels at another institute. For manufacturers, membership structures 

generally consist of 3 to 4 levels. For other entities, membership 

structures and the number of membership levels vary. At the highest 

membership levels, members have the greatest influence on the 

governance of the institute and the direction of research and 

development. Benefits and rights at those levels could include 

participation in technology roadmap development, greater access to 

intellectual property, and participation in determining the order in which 

projects are executed. Benefits and rights at lower membership levels 

could include assistance with navigating government contracts, 

collaboration with other members, access to member-only data, and 

participation in research and development projects. See appendix I for 

additional information on membership benefits and rights for DOD and 

DOE institutes that were operating as of December 2016.

 26We analyzed membership data between May 2016 and September 2016. For the 

purposes of this report, we refer to manufacturers and other private companies who are 

institute members as manufacturers.

27Two pilot federal funding opportunities to provide technology acceleration assistance to 

small and medium-sized U.S. manufacturers resulted in awards to embed Hollings 

Manufacturing Extension Partnership center representatives in each established institute. 

NIST provided awards of approximately $1 million each to five institutes to conduct 

projects that will run from October 1, 2016, through September 30, 2018. NIST anticipates 

providing awards of approximately $300,000 to $600,000 each to four additional institutes 

per year beginning in January 2017 and with a performance period of up to 2 years.

About 780 Manufacturers 

and Other Entities Were 

Members of the Operating 

Institutes in 2016
Page 17 GAO-17-320 Advanced Manufacturing

Figure 1 illustrates participation by manufacturers and other entities at the 

highest 3 levels of membership. At the highest 2 membership levels, 

which we denote as Tier 1 and Tier 2, participation by manufacturers and 

other entities is fairly evenly divided. At the membership level which we 

denote as Tier 3, manufacturers represent a larger proportion of 

participating members.

Figure 1: Participation by Manufacturers and Other Entities at the Highest Three Manufacturing USA Institute Membership 

Levels between May 2016 and September 2016a

a

Membership data were provided for a particular point of time between May 2016 and September 

2016 by program officials for each institute. About 650 manufacturers and other entities (of a total of 

about 780) are represented in the top three institute membership tiers. Manufacturers and other 

entities not included in the figure are in lower membership tiers.

b

The highest level of membership is denoted as Tier 1.

c

Other entities include academic institutions, nonprofit organizations, government entities, and 

National Institute of Standards Technology Hollings Manufacturing Extension Partnership centers. For 

some institutes, other entities have lower membership fees than manufacturers.
Page 18 GAO-17-320 Advanced Manufacturing

Figure 2 illustrates participation by large and small manufacturers at the 

highest 3 levels of membership, which we denote as Tier 1, Tier 2, and 

Tier 3. Manufacturers who join Manufacturing USA institutes at a higher 

membership level are typically larger manufacturers.

Figure 2: Participation by Large and Small Manufacturers at the Highest Three Manufacturing USA Institute Membership 

Levels between May 2016 and September 2016a

Note: Each institute has its own definition of a large or small manufacturer. Institute officials generally 

said that large manufacturers have more than 500 employees. However, one institute considers large 

manufacturers to have more than 1,000 employees, and another institute does not base its definition 

on number of employees and instead considers large manufacturers as having annual revenue 

greater than $1 billion.

a

Membership data were provided for a particular point of time between May 2016 and September 

2016 by program officials for each institute.

b

The highest level of membership is denoted as Tier 1. One institute has a separate tier for small and 

start-up manufacturers. Another institute has a separate tier for start-up manufacturers. These small 

and start-up manufacturers are not included in the figure. Also, their benefits and rights are less than 

those of the tiers shown in the figure.

Membership costs vary depending on the institute and type of entity. 

Some institutes allow membership costs to be provided by members as 

in-kind contributions. In-kind contributions can consist of items such as 

equipment, software, or facility space. Our analysis of institutes’

membership data showed that for manufacturers, costs for the highest 
Page 19 GAO-17-320 Advanced Manufacturing

membership level range from $200,000 cash or in-kind annually, with at 

least a 3-year commitment, to $5 million provided over a period of up to 5 

years. Costs for the lowest membership level range from no fee, but with 

a 3-year commitment, to $15,000 cash or in-kind annually, with at least a 

3-year commitment. For other entities—institutes that delineate between 

manufacturers and other types of members—membership costs generally 

range from no fee, with a 1-year commitment, to $5 million in 

expenditures, with a 5-year commitment. According to an institute official, 

in-kind contributions can attract more small manufacturers and other 

organizations to become members, and to become members at higher 

levels, than if membership costs were restricted to cash membership 

fees. See appendix I for additional information on membership costs for 

each institute.

During discussion groups with representatives of institute members, 19 

representatives of manufacturers and other entities that are members of 

Manufacturing USA institutes provided their perspectives on how their 

organizations have benefited from institute membership. Representatives 

of institute members in each of the discussion groups identified some 

examples of benefits, including the following:

• Small manufacturers. All four representatives of small manufacturers 

identified networking opportunities as a benefit of institute 

membership. They told us they have established working relationships 

with other large and small manufacturers, and with suppliers, and that 

they obtained contracts they otherwise might not have been able to 

secure. One small manufacturer representative also said that, through 

networking, he had gained a more comprehensive understanding of 

his company’s technology. Another small manufacturer representative 

said that, through networking, he has kept up with market trends and 

what other manufacturers are trying to achieve.

• Large manufacturers. Four of seven large manufacturer 

representatives cited acceleration of technology development as a 

benefit of institute membership. For example, three large 

manufacturer representatives stated that networking has helped 

accelerate the development of their technology by between 2 and 5 

years, thereby shortening the time needed to get their products ready 

for commercial release.

• Academic and Nonprofit. Five of eight other entities’ representatives 

said they have been able to strengthen their educational programs in 

ways that help prepare students to enter a certain manufacturing 

industry—for example, by adding material relevant to a particular 
Page 20 GAO-17-320 Advanced Manufacturing

technology, such as semiconductors. One academic entity 

representative also said that some students work on institute projects 

that make the students more marketable upon graduation.

DOD and DOE primarily use cooperative agreements to manage their 

Manufacturing USA institutes that were operating as of December 2016. 

These agreements include terms and conditions for the institutes, and the 

agencies seek to ensure these terms and conditions are met through 

meetings, reports, and other mechanisms. Manufacturing USA institute 

officials and institute member representatives identified various 

challenges related to institute operations.

DOD and DOE manage the Manufacturing USA institutes that were 

operating as of December 2016 primarily through cooperative 

agreements that define the terms and conditions that govern the 

relationships between the agencies and the institutes. For example, the 

cooperative agreements identify the amount of federal financial 

assistance agencies provide to each institute and the period of 

performance for the institute to carry out work under the agreement. 

According to AMNPO officials, the sponsoring federal agency determines 

the federal financial assistance provided through these cooperative 

agreements, and this amount can be up to $120 million, which is matched 

or exceeded by funding from private industry and other nonfederal 

sources over a 5- to 7-year period. Cooperative agreements may also 

address other aspects of the relationships, including how facilities and 

infrastructure will be established, how research projects will be 

determined, and how projects will be managed. In addition, the 

cooperative agreements may require Manufacturing USA institutes to 

develop governance plans that define types of membership, establish 

sustainability goals, and help manage intellectual property.

According to institute and agency officials, DOD and DOE have 

established mechanisms to ensure that their Manufacturing USA 

DOD and DOE’s 

Operating Institutes 

Are Primarily 

Managed through 

Cooperative 

Agreements, and 

Institute Officials and 

their Members 

Identified Several 

Operating Challenges

DOD and DOE Primarily 

Rely on Cooperative 

Agreements to Manage 

Institutes and Use a 

Variety of Mechanisms to 

Ensure Terms and 

Conditions Are Met
Page 21 GAO-17-320 Advanced Manufacturing

institutes meet the terms and conditions specified in the cooperative 

agreements. Institute officials told us that DOD and DOE may conduct 

weekly, monthly, and quarterly meetings with each of their institutes. For 

example, officials from one DOD institute said that DOD officials perform 

program management functions through weekly teleconferences with the 

institute’s executive director, executive staff, and finance staff. Similarly, 

officials from one DOE institute said that a DOE Technology Manager 

conducts weekly teleconferences with the institute’s management staff.28

Institute officials said that DOD’s program managers may conduct 

monthly visits to their institutes, and DOE officials conduct monthly 

meetings with their institutes to assess progress toward achieving key 

goals specified in the cooperative agreements. DOD and DOE also host 

quarterly meetings for the institute directors and program managers of 

their respective institutes, at which they discuss a variety of topics. For 

example, DOD officials said the focus of their quarterly meetings is to 

ensure their institutes are on track to being sustainable. Finally, DOD and 

DOE have reporting requirements for the institutes they have sponsored. 

The cooperative agreements all contain requirements for reports to be 

submitted to the sponsoring agency, such as expenditure reports, 

progress reports, technical roadmaps, and presentations from program 

reviews. For example, DOD officials said their Manufacturing USA 

institutes are required to report semi-annually on their progress toward 

becoming sustainable. DOD uses semi-annual program management 

review presentations to assess its Manufacturing USA institutes’

sustainability plans and progress toward implementing these plans. In 

addition, DOE officials said that they require their institutes to report on 

sustainability along with other program milestones through quarterly 

technical reviews.

Manufacturing USA institute officials and the institute member 

representatives we spoke with identified several operating challenges 

faced by the institutes. These included:

• Negotiating agreements and approving projects. Officials from 

three DOD institutes and one DOE institute described challenges 

related to negotiating and approving membership and project 

 28DOE technology managers work with contracting officers to help oversee the agency’s 

institutes. DOE technology managers’ responsibilities may include attending meetings, 

participating in on-site program reviews, and providing input on documents submitted by 

institute officials for DOE approval.

Institute Officials and 

Member Representatives 

Identified Several 

Operating Challenges
Page 22 GAO-17-320 Advanced Manufacturing

agreements.29 For membership agreements, there are challenges in 

negotiating rights to any intellectual property created; for example, 

potential members may be hesitant to share these rights with the 

institute. These negotiation challenges can cause schedule delays for 

institute operations. For project agreements, there are challenges in 

negotiating the terms and conditions of the agreements and with the 

amount of time it takes for sub-recipients and sponsoring agencies to 

review and approve the agreements. Some institutes have taken 

steps to address these challenges. For example, one DOD institute 

used language from another DOD institute’s membership agreement 

to avoid schedule delays that could result from developing its own. In 

addition, one DOD institute has increased the amount of time 

allocated for the development of project agreements.

• Meeting cost-share requirements. Representatives of two academic 

institutions and two small manufacturers expressed concerns about 

cost-share requirements for institute participation. For example, one 

representative said universities are not capable of providing the 

amount of cash some institutes require under their membership 

agreements, and another representative said it is a challenge for 

small manufacturers to participate in some institutes because of the 

cost-share requirements. However, according to an institute official, 

the possibility of providing in-kind contributions could help some small 

manufacturers and other organizations address these concerns.

• Ensuring institute sustainability. Going forward, as institutes reach 

the end of the period of performance for their agreements, officials 

from all DOD institutes identified the sustainability of the institutes as 

a challenge, although they told us several different reasons for their 

concerns:

• Amount of federal financial assistance. Officials from all DOD 

institutes said the amount of federal financial assistance provided 

under their cooperative agreements may not be enough for the 

institutes to become sustainable over the 5- to 7-year period of 

performance.

• Length of federal financial assistance. Officials from three DOD 

institutes said the 5- to 7-year period of performance for their 

cooperative agreements may not be sufficient to become 

sustainable.

 29A project agreement defines the relationship between the Manufacturing USA institute 

and the member responsible for implementing a project.
Page 23 GAO-17-320 Advanced Manufacturing

• Collaborating with foreign-owned organizations. Officials from two 

DOD institutes expressed concerns about constraints on 

collaborating with foreign-owned organizations because these 

constraints affect their sustainability plans. For example, officials 

from one DOD institute said that the institute’s cooperative 

agreement requires DOD approval for foreign-owned 

organizations’ participation and that DOD may not provide 

approval, limiting potential sources of institute funding.

• Type of activities funded. Some DOD institute officials said that 

the cooperative agreements require them to carry out activities 

that do not contribute to sustainability. For example, a senior 

official from one DOD institute said that education and workforce 

development activities are required as a project component under 

the institute’s cooperative agreement, but these activities make 

only a minor contribution to the institute’s sustainability.

Institute officials identified several options for how they might address 

sustainability challenges. For example, officials from one DOD institute 

said they will base their decision about which type of activities to fund, 

after federal financial assistance ends, on which ones help make the 

institute sustainable as well as on the availability of funds from nonfederal 

sources. Similarly, another DOD institute official said that the institute 

may stop funding education and workforce development activities after 

federal financial assistance under the cooperative agreement ends. 

Further, officials from one DOD institute said they may not require the 

same level of scrutiny on collaborating with foreign-owned organizations 

after federal financial assistance under their cooperative agreement ends.
Page 24 GAO-17-320 Advanced Manufacturing

AMNPO led a collaboration with DOE and DOD to develop an initial set of

performance measures to assess the Manufacturing USA program’s 

progress toward furthering its eight statutory purposes. AMNPO, DOE, 

and DOD continue to work together to improve agreed upon performance 

measures for the institutes. Commerce also has taken steps or has 

identified options to address challenges in measuring program 

performance.

AMNPO led a collaboration with DOE and DOD to develop guidance for 

Manufacturing USA institutes and sponsoring agencies that included 

initial performance measures that could be used to track progress toward 

achieving the eight statutory purposes of the Manufacturing USA 

program.30 The performance measures outlined in this guidance relate to 

the four program goals for Manufacturing USA that were established in 

the program’s first strategic plan, published in February 2016.31 In 

developing the strategic plan, AMNPO officials said they worked with 

other agency officials, including DOD and DOE officials, to develop 

Manufacturing USA program goals that aligned with the initial measures 

 30Common Principles and Practices Series, Advanced Manufacturing National Program 

Office, Guidance on Institute Performance Metrics (Washington, D.C.: August 2015). 

According to Commerce, this 2015 guidance culminated two years of discussions 

involving staff, office directors, and department leadership. For the institutes that receive 

financial assistance from Commerce pursuant to the RAMI Act, the law requires the 

Secretary of Commerce to develop and implement metrics-based performance measures 

to assess the effectiveness of the activities funded by the award. 15 U.S.C. § 

278s(d)(4)(C)(ii). However, the RAMI Act does not require the Secretary to establish 

performance measures for institutes funded by other federal agencies that participate in 

the network.

31Executive Office of the President, National Science and Technology Council, Advanced 

Manufacturing National Program Office, National Network for Manufacturing Innovation 

Program: Strategic Plan (Washington, D.C.: February 2016), accessed March 2017, 

https://www.manufacturingusa.com/sites/prod/files/docs/resource/2015-NNMI-StrategicPlan.pdf.

Commerce, DOD, 

and DOE Have

Developed 

Performance 

Measures and 

Commerce Is Taking 

Steps to Address 

Potential Challenges 

in Assessing Program 

Progress

Commerce, DOD, and 

DOE Developed an Initial

Set of Performance 

Measures for the Program
Page 25 GAO-17-320 Advanced Manufacturing

as well as with the program’s statutory purposes. Figure 3 describes the 

relationship between the program’s statutory purposes, program goals, 

and initial institute performance measures.

Figure 3: Relationship between the Manufacturing USA Program’s Statutory Purposes, Program Goals, and Initial Institute 

Performance Measures
Page 26 GAO-17-320 Advanced Manufacturing

Institutes are only required to report on measures that have been agreed 

upon with their sponsoring agencies. According to AMNPO officials, 

reporting on institute performance is the responsibility of the respective 

“funding agency” (i.e., the sponsoring agency). Also, the RAMI Act does 

not include reporting requirements for institutes sponsored by DOD and 

DOE.32 However, as noted previously, the RAMI Act requires the 

Secretary of Commerce to report annually to Congress on the 

performance of the program, including an assessment of how well the 

program is meeting the purposes identified in the RAMI Act.

AMNPO, DOD, and DOE told us that they are working together to 

consider whether any revisions may be warranted to these initial 

performance measures. Specifically, in coordination with AMNPO and 

DOE, DOD hired an external consultant to conduct an assessment of the 

Manufacturing USA program design and progress made toward achieving 

program objectives, and recommend areas where Manufacturing USA 

and its institutes could enhance programs. In January 2017, the external

consultant reported on the results of its review.33 Among other 

recommendations, the report recommended developing measures to 

evaluate Manufacturing USA program performance using a phased 

approach. For example, the report recommended developing measures at 

the program level for two phases:

1. start-up support and shared services provision (i.e., the phase in 

which the program provides support to individual institutes in their 

establishment and delivers services applicable to all the institutes); 

and

2. long-term outcomes (i.e., the phase in which the program tracks the 

achievement of program goals on a manufacturing sector-wide and 

national basis).

AMNPO officials told us that they plan to incorporate the results of this 

review into a set of revised performance measures. They also told us 

that, subsequently, they plan to work with DOD and DOE to reach 

 32The RAMI Act requires recipients of financial assistance from Commerce under the act 

to submit annual reports to the Secretary of Commerce that, among other things, describe 

the institute’s performance consistent with the metrics-based performance measures the 

Secretary is required to develop and implement to assess the effectiveness of the 

activities funded by the financial assistance agreement.

33Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu Limited, Manufacturing USA: A Third-Party Evaluation of 

Program Design and Progress (January 2017).
Page 27 GAO-17-320 Advanced Manufacturing

agreement on these revised measures to allow the Secretary of 

Commerce to report the data collected on the revised measures in the 

Manufacturing USA annual report to Congress for fiscal year 2017. This 

annual report is expected to be issued in May 2017.

Institute officials identified challenges related to measuring progress 

toward achieving the Manufacturing USA program’s statutory purposes, 

including measuring outcomes within a short timeframe, and Commerce 

has taken steps to address these challenges. First, institute officials told 

us that some of the program’s statutory purposes are difficult to measure. 

In particular, some institute officials told us that measuring the number of 

jobs created or preserved may not be feasible because, for example, 

there are challenges with associating the number of jobs created and 

preserved directly to an institute’s activities. Second, several institute 

officials also said that the timeline associated with measuring progress 

toward achieving the program’s statutory purposes may be too short. For 

example, institutes are relatively new and generally still in the process of 

establishing mechanisms to collect meaningful data related to many of 

the program purposes. Further, measuring economic impact and job 

creation, for example, requires performance measures with lagging 

indicators that will not be measurable until years into the future, according 

to institute officials. AMNPO officials told us that they tried to address 

these challenges in the first Manufacturing USA program annual report by 

including information on some leading indicators of success among 

institutes that had available data, such as the level of involvement by 

industry and academia and amount of cost-share. Also, as mentioned 

above, AMNPO officials plan to incorporate the results of the recent 

external consultant review, which recommended developing measures 

that assess progress during the program’s initial start-up phase in 

addition to long-term outcome measures. For example, the consultant’s 

report suggested developing long-term outcome measures that relate to 

achievement of program goals on a manufacturing sector-wide and 

nationwide basis, such as increased economic competitiveness, 

macroeconomic results, and workforce results.

Agencies may also face challenges collecting performance information 

from institutes after their cooperative agreements end, and Commerce 

has identified options to continue collecting this information. Institutes 

currently track and report information required by their sponsoring agency 

and cooperative agreements. Under the DOE cooperative agreements we 

reviewed, financial assistance recipients are to continue to report annually 

for five years beyond the project period on the utilization and impact of 

Commerce Has Taken 

Steps or Has Identified 

Options to Address 

Challenges in Measuring 

Program Performance
Page 28 GAO-17-320 Advanced Manufacturing

the institute and technical progress in implementing and deploying the 

technologies on the institute’s roadmap.34 Conversely, DOD officials told

us the cooperative agreements the agency entered into before December 

2016 do not require their institutes to continue to report on performance 

after the agreements’ period of performance ends. According to AMNPO 

officials, one way to continue collecting this information is for institutes to 

voluntarily continue providing performance information to federal 

agencies, including Commerce. However, in the absence of ongoing 

federal financial support from their funding agencies for the efforts and 

expense of collecting and providing data, the officials said that institutes 

may be reluctant to continue reporting on performance. AMNPO officials 

told us of another option to ensure continued performance reporting but 

said that they did not have plans in place to use it. Specifically, the 

officials said the Secretary of Commerce could establish a requirement 

for institutes funded by other agencies to submit performance reports to 

Commerce after their cooperative agreements end as a condition of their 

continued network participation because the Secretary has the statutory 

authority to recognize those institutes for the purpose of participating in 

the network. AMNPO officials said they anticipate that institutes will 

choose to remain in the network and continue to voluntarily report to 

AMNPO because the institutes value the services and other benefits they 

receive from participating.

AMNPO uses a variety of collaborative mechanisms to coordinate the 

efforts of the agencies that contribute to the Manufacturing USA program, 

including a network governance system that defines some roles and 

responsibilities for agencies that sponsor institutes as well as for agencies 

that do not sponsor institutes (non-sponsoring agencies). However, the 

process for developing the governance system did not include all relevant 

non-sponsoring agencies or ensure that their roles and responsibilities 

are fully identified.

 34The project period is defined as the time period during which an institute project is being 

conducted. We reviewed the cooperative agreements for the DOE sponsored institutes 

that were operating as of December 2016—PowerAmerica and IACMI.

Commerce Used 

Various Mechanisms 

to Help Coordinate 

the Manufacturing 

USA Program, but It 

Has Not Included All 

Relevant Agencies in 

Fully Identifying Roles 

and Responsibilities
Page 29 GAO-17-320 Advanced Manufacturing

AMNPO has used a variety of mechanisms to enhance coordination 

among the institutes and agencies that contribute to the Manufacturing 

USA program. These mechanisms incorporate several key practices for 

enhancing and sustaining interagency collaboration. As our prior work 

has found, an interagency mechanism for collaboration is any 

arrangement or application that can facilitate collaboration between 

agencies.35 One of these mechanisms is the December 2016 

Manufacturing USA network charter.36 The charter says that AMNPO is 

responsible for supporting network functions, which include establishing 

the network; facilitating intra-network collaboration; fostering robust 

communication between the network and external stakeholders; and 

sustaining, strengthening, and growing the network. The charter also 

identifies several subfunctions for each of these functions. For example, 

the facilitating intra-network collaboration function includes, among other 

subfunctions, establishing forums for network collaboration, information 

exchange, and knowledge management; facilitating the organization and 

sharing of lessons learned and best practices across the network; and 

facilitating network-level discussions among institutes regarding 

management of technology interfaces and technology gaps.

Another mechanism that AMNPO has developed is the Manufacturing 

USA strategic plan. AMNPO collaborated with federal agencies that 

contribute to the Manufacturing USA program to develop the strategic 

plan; these agencies included the Department of Agriculture, Commerce, 

DOD, Education, DOE, the National Aeronautics and Space 

Administration, and the National Science Foundation. According to the 

strategic plan, agencies and institutes participating in the Manufacturing 

USA program collectively work toward achieving program goals. For 

example, to work toward the program goal of accelerating the 

development of an advanced manufacturing workforce, the strategic plan 

states that the network can help institutes navigate opportunities for 

federal financial assistance that could support their efforts, including 

workforce development programs such as those authorized by the 

 35GAO-12-1022.

36According to Commerce and DOE, the Manufacturing USA network charter was 

commissioned by the National Science and Technology Council Subcommittee on 

Advanced Manufacturing, developed by an interagency team consisting of agencies with 

institute and network sponsorship roles, and approved by the Manufacturing USA 

Deputies—leaders of the National Science and Technology Council’s Subcommittee on 

Advanced Manufacturing.

Various Mechanisms 

Support Coordination of 

the Manufacturing USA 

Program
Page 30 GAO-17-320 Advanced Manufacturing

Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act, as amended.37 AMNPO 

officials told us that AMNPO has an ongoing effort to help institutes 

navigate such opportunities. The strategic plan also identified other 

opportunities for the network to enhance coordination across agencies 

that contribute to the Manufacturing USA program, such as by serving as 

a clearinghouse for information about workforce support.

AMNPO also uses mechanisms such as hosting teleconferences, 

convening in-person meetings, and using technologies that allow it to 

collaborate with representatives of different agencies and institutes. For 

example, according to AMNPO officials, AMNPO hosts monthly 

teleconferences with directors from DOD and DOE institutes and senior 

deputies from DOD and DOE and convenes in-person, semi-annual 

Manufacturing USA network meetings that include institute and agency 

staff. For instance, an August 2016 Manufacturing USA network meeting 

included discussions on a public name for the program, communications, 

and establishing a Directors Council. According to AMNPO officials, the 

Manufacturing USA Directors Council will further facilitate cooperation 

and collaboration among the institutes. The officials said AMNPO has 

hosted other meetings, such as a workforce development workshop that 

included workforce leaders from all institutes; subject matter experts; 

Hollings Manufacturing Extension Partnership center officials; and agency 

officials from Education, the National Science Foundation, Commerce, 

DOD, and DOE. AMNPO also recently launched a web-based shared 

services platform that allows institutes to share best practices and that 

allows agencies that participate in the Manufacturing USA network to 

share information with the institutes. AMNPO officials told us they are 

working with the institutes to provide content for this system and expect to 

continue working with them to ensure information is current and useful.

A further coordination mechanism is a governance system that defines

roles and responsibilities for agencies contributing to the Manufacturing 

USA program. According to Commerce, the process for developing the 

October 2015 governance system document for the Manufacturing USA 

network was initiated by the National Science and Technology Council’s 

Subcommittee on Advanced Manufacturing, and represented a joint effort 

 37Pub. L. No. 113-128, 128 Stat. 1425 (2014) (codified as amended in scattered sections 

of the U.S. Code). Enacted in 2014, the Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act (WIOA) 

brought numerous changes to existing federal employment and training programs, 

including establishing performance accountability measures that apply across six WIOAdesignated core programs.
Page 31 GAO-17-320 Advanced Manufacturing

between Commerce, DOD, and DOE.

38 The governance system identifies

the Manufacturing USA network functions and subfunctions for which 

agencies that sponsor Manufacturing USA institutes, as well as those that 

do not sponsor institutes (non-sponsoring agencies), are responsible, 

accountable, informed, and consulted.39 For example, under the 

governance system, as part of the facilitating intra-network collaboration 

function, AMNPO and the agencies that sponsor institutes are 

responsible for providing situational awareness to individual institutes 

regarding key contextual landscape issues, such as industrial 

developments. Alternatively, as part of the function to sustain, strengthen, 

and grow the network, AMNPO and the agencies that sponsor institutes 

are responsible for identifying and helping to establish long-term 

nonfinancial support mechanisms for the program, which the governance 

document notes should provide valuable nonfinancial support to help 

institutes succeed and thrive. Non-sponsoring agencies are responsible 

for one general function: promoting advanced manufacturing to a variety 

of external stakeholders such as Congress to raise awareness about the 

Manufacturing USA institutes.

 38The Subcommittee on Advanced Manufacturing serves as a forum for informationsharing, coordination, and consensus-building among agencies regarding federal policy, 

programs, and budget guidance for advanced manufacturing. It was re-established on 

March 2, 2015, to fulfill a statutory requirement for the Director of the Office of Science 

and Technology Policy to establish or designate a committee responsible for planning and 

coordinating federal programs and activities in advanced manufacturing research and 

development. According to the subcommittee’s charter, the following departments and 

agencies are represented: Department of Agriculture, Commerce, DOD, Education, DOE, 

Department of Health and Human Services, Department of Homeland Security, DOL, 

National Aeronautics and Space Administration, National Science Foundation, and Small 

Business Administration. The charter for the Subcommittee on Advanced Manufacturing 

expired as of March 1, 2017.

39In addition to sponsoring and non-sponsoring agencies, the governance system defines 

roles and responsibilities for Executive Office of the President entities, including the 

National Economic Council, Office of Management and Budget, and Office of Science and 

Technology Policy. The functions identified in the governance system generally align with 

those identified in the December 2016 network charter.
Page 32 GAO-17-320 Advanced Manufacturing

Although the governance system was developed by an interagency team, 

the process used to develop the governance system did not ensure that 

all relevant non-sponsoring agencies were included or that their roles and 

responsibilities for contributing to the Manufacturing USA program were 

fully identified.

Specifically, the process used to develop the governance system did not 

include working with all relevant agencies that could contribute to the 

Manufacturing USA program. As described above, agencies that 

contributed to the development of the governance system included 

Commerce, DOD, and DOE. An AMNPO official told us that nonsponsoring agencies had an opportunity to comment on the governance 

system but were not involved in its development. According to 

Commerce, only the institute-sponsoring agencies were involved in 

developing the governance system because the governance document 

was chartered by the National Science and Technology Council as a 

reference for how Manufacturing USA institutes are to be involved in the 

network. Thus, non-sponsoring agencies, such as DOL the National 

Science Foundation, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, 

and the Department of Homeland Security, among others, were not 

involved in developing the governance system despite having missions 

that contribute to or are affected by advanced manufacturing.40 For 

example, DOL’s mission is to foster, promote, and develop the welfare of 

the wage earners, job seekers, and retirees of the United States; improve 

working conditions; advance opportunities for profitable employment; and 

assure work-related benefits and rights. In support of this mission, DOL is 

a member of the National Science and Technology Council’s 

Subcommittee on Advanced Manufacturing, according to the 

subcommittee’s charter, and DOL has created resources to assist with 

the development of programs that support secondary to post-secondary 

career pathways related to advanced manufacturing. The governance 

system itself does not specify which non-sponsoring agencies are 

responsible for contributing to the Manufacturing USA program; rather, it 

broadly identifies non-sponsoring agencies as agencies not acting in a 

lead funding role and that are providing other types of support to an 

institute in the network.

 40According to Commerce, all agencies were invited to be a part of Manufacturing USA, 

and from the origin in 2012, DOD, DOE, Commerce, Education, the National Science 

Foundation, and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration were principal 

members of the interagency team. Commerce noted that while there were efforts made to 

outreach and engage DOL, DOL was not a principal agency involved in the program.

The Process for 

Developing the 

Governance System Did 

Not Include All Relevant 

Non-sponsoring Agencies 

or Ensure That Their 

Roles and Responsibilities 

Are Fully Identified
Page 33 GAO-17-320 Advanced Manufacturing

Furthermore, in developing the governance system, the process 

Commerce, DOD, and DOE used did not include fully identifying how 

non-sponsoring agencies could contribute to the Manufacturing USA 

program. For example, the governance system does not specify any 

responsibility for non-sponsoring agencies to provide information or 

expertise related to their activities to the program. Rather, where the 

governance system indicates a role for non-sponsoring agencies, it 

generally indicates that such agencies are to be informed and 

consulted.41 However, some non-sponsoring agencies may be 

implementing programs or other activities that could contribute to the 

Manufacturing USA program. For example, DOL administers workforce 

development programs that are carried out by state agencies and local 

workforce development boards.42 According to DOL officials, state 

workforce development boards could work with Manufacturing USA 

institutes to develop sector partnership strategies, which help employers 

in an industry address shared goals and hiring needs. In addition, DOL 

administers discretionary grant programs, which can help increase the 

number of skilled workers in advanced manufacturing. Financial 

assistance provided under these discretionary grant programs is being 

used to support some Manufacturing USA institutes’ education and 

workforce development activities, including:

• The Trade Adjustment Assistance Community College and Career 

Training grant program, which provided nearly $2 billion to strengthen 

manufacturing programs at community colleges;43 and

 41The governance system indicates that non-sponsoring agencies are responsible for 

certain subfunctions under the general function of promoting advanced manufacturing to a 

variety of external stakeholders. However, the governance system does not identify a role 

for non-sponsoring agencies for the function of facilitating value-added, intra-network 

collaboration and related subfunctions, as well as certain other subfunctions.

42For more information on Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act core programs and 

requirements for state plans, see GAO, Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act: 

Selected States’ Planning Approaches for Serving Job Seekers and Employers, 

GAO-17-31 (Washington, D.C.: Nov. 15, 2016).

43In April 2014, DOL announced the availability of $450 million in grants under the Trade 

Adjustment Assistance Community College and Career Training program. These grants 

were the final installment of a $2 billion, 4-year initiative. In addition, the program has 

created a free and open online library called SkillsCommons, which includes free 

materials for job-driven workforce development. These materials were produced by 

community colleges across the nation and are available at http://www.skillscommons.org/.
Page 34 GAO-17-320 Advanced Manufacturing

• The American Apprenticeship Initiative grant program, which will 

provide $175 million to train and hire 34,000 new apprentices in 

advanced manufacturing over the next five years.

Information or expertise related to other agencies’ programs, such as 

these, if provided to AMNPO, could help it support the institutes with 

navigating opportunities for federal financial assistance.44

Our work has shown that collaborative mechanisms, such as the 

Manufacturing USA program’s governance system, benefit from certain 

key features, including the clarity of roles and responsibilities and 

ensuring that the relevant participants are included in the collaborative 

effort.45 Specifically, key collaboration practices call for clarifying the roles 

and responsibilities of all participating agencies and determining whether 

all relevant participants have been included. By agreeing on and clearly 

defining the roles and responsibilities of their members as well as 

documenting decisions, such as in a memorandum of understanding, 

collaborating agencies can clarify which agency will do what, organize 

their joint and individual efforts, and facilitate decision making. Moreover, 

the RAMI Act identifies several AMNPO functions pertaining to 

coordination, such as establishing procedures, processes, and criteria as 

may be necessary and appropriate to maximize cooperation and 

coordinate the activities of the Manufacturing USA program with the 

programs and activities of other federal departments and agencies whose 

missions contribute to or are affected by advanced manufacturing.46

An AMNPO official acknowledged that the governance system will require 

revision as the network evolves. The official said that in revising the 

system, AMNPO will work with sponsoring agencies to further define roles 

and responsibilities. However, the official said that other agencies 

participate in the program as it aligns with their respective missions and 

 44In commenting on a draft of this report, Commerce, DOD, and DOE noted efforts to 

collaborate with DOL outside of the Manufacturing USA network governance system. For 

example, Commerce stated that information about DOL programs and activities has been 

broadly shared with the Manufacturing USA institutes. DOD noted that DOL 

representatives have been active in the education and workforce development component 

of Manufacturing USA. DOE commented that DOE manufacturing programs routinely 

interface with DOL representatives regarding workforce issues in energy and 

manufacturing.

45GAO-12-1022 and GAO-06-15.

46The RAMI Act does not specifically identify which agencies have such missions or how 

they should contribute to the program.
Page 35 GAO-17-320 Advanced Manufacturing

AMNPO cannot prescribe functions and subfunctions for other federal 

agencies participating in the Manufacturing USA network. However, 

without ensuring that all relevant agencies have been included in the 

process of developing the governance system and that non-sponsoring 

agencies’ roles and responsibilities have been fully identified, AMNPO 

may miss opportunities to leverage and coordinate the efforts of nonsponsoring agencies in contributing to the Manufacturing USA program 

consistent with key practices for interagency collaboration and effective 

implementation of AMNPO’s functions under the RAMI Act.

In an effort to revitalize the U.S. manufacturing sector and increase U.S. 

competitiveness in advanced manufacturing, Congress passed and the 

President signed into law the RAMI Act, which requires the Secretary of 

Commerce to establish a network of institutes for manufacturing 

innovation, among other things. In establishing this Manufacturing USA 

network, AMNPO, in collaboration with DOD and DOE, has taken steps to 

establish institutes and measure progress toward the statutory purposes 

of the program. AMNPO has also worked with other sponsoring and nonsponsoring agencies to coordinate agencies’ contributions to the network 

through efforts that incorporate a number of the key practices we have 

identified to enhance and sustain interagency collaboration.

However, while Commerce, DOD, and DOE worked together to develop a 

governance system that outlines agencies’ roles and responsibilities, the 

process for developing the system did not ensure that all relevant nonsponsoring agencies were included or that their roles and responsibilities 

for contributing to the Manufacturing USA program were fully identified. 

Working with other agencies to revise the governance system, including 

ensuring that all relevant agencies are involved in the process to fully 

identify non-sponsoring agencies’ roles and responsibilities, would 

strengthen AMNPO’s efforts to leverage and coordinate agencies’

contributions to the Manufacturing USA program, consistent with key 

practices for interagency collaboration, and would improve 

implementation of its function to coordinate the program.

To enhance interagency collaboration in the Manufacturing USA program, 

the Secretary of Commerce should direct the Director of NIST to work 

with all non-sponsoring agencies whose missions contribute to or are 

affected by advanced manufacturing to revise the Manufacturing USA 

governance system to ensure the roles and responsibilities for how these 

agencies could contribute to the Manufacturing USA program are fully 

identified.

Conclusions

Recommendation for 

Executive Action
Page 36 GAO-17-320 Advanced Manufacturing

We provided a draft of this report for review and comment to Commerce, 

DOD, Education, DOE, and DOL. We received the following comments:

• Commerce provided written comments, which are reproduced in 

appendix II. Commerce stated it agreed with the intent of our 

recommendation and that it will convene an extended team for 

revising the governance model. Commerce provided other comments 

related to the role and responsibility of the Department, interagency 

engagement, performance metrics, as well as other comments on the 

recommendation which are described below.

• DOD provided written comments, which are reproduced in appendix 

III. DOD also stated that it agreed with the intent of our 

recommendation and expanding the network governance model to 

better define roles and responsibilities of non-sponsoring agencies. 

DOD provided other comments in areas similar to Commerce’s 

comments, as described below.

• In an email from an audit analyst in its Office of the Chief Financial 

Officer, DOE provided general comments, which we discuss below.

• Commerce, DOD, and DOE provided technical comments, which we 

incorporated as appropriate.

• Officials from Education and DOL stated via email that they had no 

comments on the report.

Commerce, DOD, and DOE provided several comments related to our 

recommendation.

• Commerce agreed with the intent of our recommendation but 

requested revisions to the wording of the recommendation because

NIST has no authority to compel participation by DOL and Education 

in the Manufacturing USA program or to define roles and 

responsibilities for these agencies. Relatedly, Commerce and DOD 

said that Commerce has no authority to coordinate other agencies in 

their programs or any management responsibilities for institutes 

sponsored by other agencies. We recognize that Commerce has no 

authority to coordinate other agencies’ programs, to manage the 

institutes that they sponsor, or to compel agency participation in the 

program. We believe that our report correctly characterizes improved 

coordination as a collaborative effort between Commerce and other 

agencies. The focus of the recommendation in our draft report was 

not for NIST to compel agency participation or unilaterally define their 

roles and responsibilities but rather for NIST to work with nonsponsoring agencies in an interagency collaborative effort to identify 

Agency Comments

and Our Evaluation
Page 37 GAO-17-320 Advanced Manufacturing

their roles and responsibilities. As our report noted, one of the 

functions of AMNPO specified in the RAMI Act is to establish 

procedures, processes and criteria as may be necessary and 

appropriate to maximize cooperation and coordinate the program’s 

activities with programs and activities of the other federal agencies 

whose missions contribute to or are affected by advanced 

manufacturing. In response to Commerce’s comments, we clarified 

our recommendation to make clear that NIST should engage nonsponsoring agencies in an interagency collaboration to fully identify 

their roles and responsibilities for contributing to the program.

• Commerce also proposed an alternative recommendation, 

commenting that it would be constructive for GAO to recommend that 

the Secretary of Commerce connect with counterparts at DOL and 

Education. While our report provides more detailed information on 

several DOL programs and activities that could potentially contribute 

to the Manufacturing USA program (relative to other non-sponsoring 

agencies), we provide this information as illustrative examples. 

Because we believe collaboration on Manufacturing USA network 

governance roles and responsibilities should include all relevant nonsponsoring agencies, we did not adjust our recommendation to 

specifically focus on DOL or Education.

• Commerce also noted that the first generation of the Manufacturing 

USA governance system was focused on how institutes would work 

with the network and program, so the responsible entities that 

developed it were limited to Commerce, DOD, and DOE. Commerce 

further stated that our recommendation speaks to a next generation of

the Manufacturing USA governance with a broader scope. We 

modified our report to more clearly reflect that Commerce, DOD, and 

DOE were the agencies initially involved in developing the 

governance system as chartered by the National Science and 

Technology Council. However, we do not believe the scope of the 

governance system as evidenced by documentation provided to us 

during our review is substantially different than that envisioned by our 

recommendation. For example, as we noted in our report, the 

governance system assigns responsibility for certain subfunctions to 

non-sponsoring agencies.

• Finally, DOD stated it would work with the interagency team to assist 

in reaching out to all agencies whose missions contribute to or are 

affected by advanced manufacturing, and that it supports expanding 

the network governance model. In its general comments, DOE agreed 

that additional coordination with other governmental agencies would 
Page 38 GAO-17-320 Advanced Manufacturing

be useful, and would further serve to reduce potential inefficiencies 

and redundancies in federal investments.

Commerce and DOD also provided general comments in three areas (1) 

roles and responsibilities of the Department of Commerce, (2) 

interagency engagement, and (3) performance metrics.

• Roles and responsibilities. Commerce and DOD provided 

comments regarding the roles and responsibilities of Commerce that 

were also related to the comments on our recommendation and are 

discussed above. Commerce and DOD also emphasized the nature of 

(1) the AMNPO as an interagency team hosted at NIST, and (2) the 

Manufacturing USA institutes as public-private partnerships, owned 

and managed by an industry-led consortium, with the sponsoring 

federal agency providing a minority of funding. We made several edits 

to reflect these points. Commerce and DOD also commented that 

present non-federal funding is over a 2 to 1 match to federal financial 

assistance. We believe we accurately present information on these 

relative contributions in our report.

• Interagency engagement. Commerce and DOD stated that all 

agencies were invited to be part of the Manufacturing USA program, 

and noted that a number of agencies, including some non-sponsoring 

agencies, have been members of the interagency team. Commerce 

and DOD also stated that GAO correctly stated that DOL was not a 

principal agency involved with the program; although, Commerce

noted attempts had been made to reach out to DOL and both 

agencies discussed providing information on DOL initiatives to the 

Manufacturing USA institutes. We added information to our report to 

acknowledge these efforts. Other comments Commerce provided 

regarding interagency engagement through the Manufacturing USA 

governance system are discussed above.

• Performance metrics. Commerce and DOD stated that there is 

agreement on the initial set of performance measures for the 

Manufacturing USA program and that information on each of these 

measures will be provided in the upcoming Manufacturing USA 

annual report (for fiscal year 2016). In the draft report, we included 

information on the extent to which all DOD and DOE institutes 

planned to provide information on all of the initial performance 

measures for the Manufacturing USA program. This information was 

based on documentation provided to us during the course of our 

review, which showed that not all DOD institutes planned to report 

data on all of the initial performance measures. In response to the 

comments received from Commerce and DOD, we followed up with 
Page 39 GAO-17-320 Advanced Manufacturing

DOD. A DOD official responsible for overseeing DOD’s Manufacturing 

USA institutes said via email that DOD recently tasked the institutes to 

provide data in support of these measures for aggregation in the fiscal 

year 2016 report. Therefore, we revised our report to remove 

information related to a difference in the extent to which DOD and 

DOE planned to have all their institutes report on all the initial 

measures. In its comments on our draft report DOD also provided 

information on other information DOD collects from its institutes 

consistent with its mission, and emphasized that performance 

measures included in our report are only initial metrics which could 

evolve over time. We did not make any additional changes based on 

these comments as we believe these concepts are already reflected 

in our report.

Finally, Commerce and DOD commented on the title of our draft report, 

which was Advanced Manufacturing: Commerce Needs to Strengthen 

Collaboration with Other Agencies on Innovation Institutes, indicating a 

preference for a more descriptive report title. In its general comments, 

DOE stated that the draft title overstated the severity of the issue. We 

believe that Commerce as well as other institute-sponsoring and nonsponsoring agencies have worked collaboratively in implementing the 

Manufacturing USA program; however, our report identified an 

opportunity to further strengthen this collaboration. We adjusted our 

report title and believe that it appropriately highlights this area where 

collaboration could be strengthened.
Page 40 GAO-17-320 Advanced Manufacturing

We are sending copies of this report to the appropriate congressional 

committees; the Secretaries of Commerce, Defense, Education, Energy, 

and Labor; and other interested parties. In addition, the report is available 

at no charge on the GAO website at http://www.gao.gov.

If you or your staff members have any questions about this report, please 

contact John Neumann at (202) 512-3841 or neumannj@gao.gov, or 

Andrew Sherrill at (202) 512-7215 or sherrilla@gao.gov. Contact points 

for our Offices of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be 

found on the last page of this report. GAO staff who made key 

contributions to this report are listed in appendix IV.

John Neumann

Director, Natural Resources and Environment

Andrew Sherrill

Director, Education, Workforce, and Income Security Issues
Page 41 GAO-17-320 Advanced Manufacturing

List of Committees

The Honorable Richard Shelby

Chairman

The Honorable Jeanne Shaheen

Ranking Member

Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related Agencies

Committee on Appropriations

United States Senate

The Honorable John Thune

Chairman

The Honorable Bill Nelson

Ranking Member

Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation

United States Senate

The Honorable John Culberson

Chairman

The Honorable José Serrano

Ranking Member

Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related Agencies

Committee on Appropriations

House of Representatives

The Honorable Lamar Smith

Chairman

The Honorable Eddie Bernice Johnson

Ranking Member

Committee on Science, Space, and Technology

House of Representatives
Appendix I: Information on Operating 

Manufacturing USA Institutes as of December 

2016

Page 42 GAO-17-320 Advanced Manufacturing

This appendix provides additional information on each of the five 

Department of Defense (DOD) and two Department of Energy (DOE)

Manufacturing USA institutes that were operating as of December 2016. 

This information includes, among other things, background information on 

the institute, such as its budget and technology focus, as well as data on 

the number of members and membership benefits, rights, and fees. The 

institutes are listed in chronological order based on the date of the 

cooperative agreement with their sponsoring agency.

About: America Makes is the flagship Manufacturing USA institute. Its 

mission is to accelerate the adoption of additive manufacturing 

technologies, also known as three-dimensional, or 3D, printing, in the 

U.S. manufacturing sector.

Location: Youngstown, Ohio, facility opened in October 2012. A satellite 

center is located at the University of Texas, El Paso.

First cooperative agreement: Signed August 2012. America Makes is 

operated by the National Center for Defense Manufacturing and 

Machining, a 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization that has a cooperative 

agreement with the Air Force Research Laboratory.

Budget: America Makes was established as a pilot institute in August 

2012 for the Manufacturing USA program with $30 million in planned 

federal obligations and $40 million in pledged nonfederal cost-share. This 

amount was later increased to a combined $110 million in planned federal 

obligations ($55 million) and pledged nonfederal cost-share ($55 million).

Second cooperative agreement: Signed February 2016 between the 

National Center for Defense Manufacturing and Machining and the Air 

Force Research Laboratory for up to approximately a combined additional 

$76 million in planned federal obligations ($50 million) and pledged 

nonfederal cost-share ($26 million). As of June 2016, the second 

cooperative agreement consists of one $9 million project.

Technology portfolio: About 60 projects, such as a project to streamline 

the design and improve the materials for the production of customized 

ankle-foot orthoses, and another project to accelerate the U.S. metalAppendix I: Information on Operating 

Manufacturing USA Institutes as of 

December 2016

National Additive 

Manufacturing 

Innovation Institute 

(America Makes)
Appendix I: Information on Operating 

Manufacturing USA Institutes as of December 

2016

Page 43 GAO-17-320 Advanced Manufacturing

casting industry with the adoption of America Makes technologies into 

their operations.1

Membership: About 175 members from industry, academia, government, 

nonprofit organizations, and Hollings Manufacturing Extension 

Partnership centers.2

Summary of membership fees, benefits, and rights: America Makes 

provides three membership levels with different fees, benefits, and rights 

associated with each level. The three membership levels and their 

associated fees are as follows:

• Platinum (lead): $200,000 cash or in-kind annually, with the intention 

of at least a 3-year commitment

• Gold (full): $50,000 cash or in-kind annually, with the intention of at 

least a 3-year commitment

• Silver (supporting): $15,000 cash or in-kind annually, with the 

intention of at least a 3-year commitment

Table 5 provides an overview of America Makes membership benefits 

and rights. Specific terms and conditions are further detailed in the formal 

membership agreement.

Table 5: Summary of National Additive Manufacturing Innovation Institute (America Makes) Membership Benefits and Rights

Benefits and rights Platinum (lead) Gold (full) Silver (supporting)

Incubator acceleration package √ X X

Complimentary silver membership for gifting √ Discounted fee X

Embed employee at America Makes √ Fee-based X

Use of America Makes facilities for research and development √ √ X

Governance board seat √ √ X

Technology roadmap participation √ √ X

Deployment and strategy consultation √ Discounted fee Fee for service

Sponsor an internship √ √ √

Attend semi-annual members-only program management reviews √ √ √

Serve on America Makes’ advisory committees, working groups √ √ √

 1

As of July 2016.

2

As of June 2016.
Appendix I: Information on Operating 

Manufacturing USA Institutes as of December 

2016

Page 44 GAO-17-320 Advanced Manufacturing

Benefits and rights Platinum (lead) Gold (full) Silver (supporting)

Platform to socialize research results √ √ √

Poster session participation √ √ √

Technical presentations and workshops √ √ √

Training discount √ √ √

Government contract navigation assistance √ √ √

Copies of the Wohler’s Report (state of the industry progress 

report) √ √ √

Coordinated access to the additive manufacturing supply chain √ √ √

Participate in America Makes directed project calls √ √ √

Lead project teams in America Makes project calls √ √ √

Access to America Makes intellectual property √ √ √

Access to member-only data √ √ √

Platform to collaborate with industry and peers √ √ √

Access to new research and development funding through 

networking and resources √ √ √

Legend: √ indicates benefit or right and X indicates no benefit or right.

Source: GAO analysis of information provided by America Makes. | GAO-17-320

About: DMDII’s mission is to digitize American manufacturing. By 

capturing data at every stage of the production process—and by 

deploying specially designed software and other digital tools—

manufacturers can efficiently share and revise their digital designs.

Location: Chicago, Illinois, facility opened in May 2015. Two chapters 

were opened in Quad Cities and Rockford, Illinois.

Cooperative agreement: Signed February 2014. DMDII is managed by 

UI LABS, a 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization that has a cooperative 

agreement with the Army Contracting Command Redstone.

Budget: $176 million from federal and nonfederal financial assistance

• $70 million in planned federal obligations

• $106 million pledged nonfederal cost-share

Technology portfolio: About 50 projects, such as a project to use 3D 

models to enhance product quality, reduce communication errors, and 

reduce development times throughout the supply chain, and another 

Digital Manufacturing 

and Design 

Innovation Institute 

(DMDII)
Appendix I: Information on Operating 

Manufacturing USA Institutes as of December 

2016

Page 45 GAO-17-320 Advanced Manufacturing

project to fill the gap between design and manufacturing with the 

information necessary to enable services for machine motion control.3

Membership: About 260 members from industry, academia, government, 

nonprofit organizations, and Hollings Manufacturing Extension 

Partnership centers.4

Summary of membership fees, benefits, and rights: DMDII provides 

three membership levels for industry, four membership levels for 

academic and nonprofit organizations, and two government membership 

levels with different fees, benefits, and rights associated with each level. 

The industry, academic and nonprofit, and government membership 

levels and their associated fees are as follows:

• Industry:

• Tier 1: $400,000 cash annually and at least $3 million in 

expenditures for additional projects with a 5-year commitment

• Tier 2: $200,000 cash annually with a 5-year commitment

• Tier 3: $500 cash annually with a 5-year commitment

• Academic and nonprofit:

• Tier 1: $5 million in expenditures with a 5-year commitment

• Tier 2: $2 million in expenditures with a 5-year commitment

• Tier 3: $1 million in expenditures with a 5-year commitment

• Tier 4: $500 cash annually with a 5-year commitment

• Government:

• U.S. government: Obligations as specified in the cooperative 

agreement

• State and local government: At least $5 million in expenditures 

with a 5-year commitment

Tables 6, 7, and 8 provide an overview of DMDII membership benefits 

and rights for industry, academic and nonprofit, and government 

members, respectively. Specific terms and conditions are further detailed 

in the formal membership agreement.

 3

As of July 2016.

4

As of September 2016.
Appendix I: Information on Operating 

Manufacturing USA Institutes as of December 

2016

Page 46 GAO-17-320 Advanced Manufacturing

Table 6: Summary of Digital Manufacturing and Design Innovation Institute (DMDII) Industry Membership Benefits and Rights

Benefits and rights Tier 1 Tier 2 Tier 3

Seat on executive committee √ 2 seats to represent all 

Tier 2 industry 

partners

1 seat to represent all 

Tier 3 industry 

partners

Seat on technical advisory committee √ √ X

Help steer the institute’s agenda √ √ X

Royalty-free use of intellectual property from all enterprise 

projects for internal research and development and internal 

operations worldwide

√ Not including internal 

operations worldwide X

Participation in research and development projects √ √ √

Networking opportunities √ √ √

Legend: √ indicates benefit or right and X indicates no benefit or right.

Source: GAO analysis of information provided by DMDII. | GAO-17-320

Table 7: Summary of Digital Manufacturing and Design Innovation Institute (DMDII) Academic and Nonprofit Membership 

Benefits and Rights

Benefits and rights Tier 1 Tier 2 Tier 3 Tier 4

Seat on executive committee

All academic 

members cannot 

exceed one-third 

of total 

committee 

membership

2 seats to represent 

all Tier 2 academic 

partners, but all 

academic members 

cannot exceed onethird of total 

committee 

membership

1 seat to represent 

all Tier 3 academic 

partners, but all 

academic members 

cannot exceed onethird of total 

committee 

membership

X

Seat on technical advisory committee √ √ 1 seat to represent 

all Tier 3 academic 

partners

1 seat to represent 

all Tier 4 academic 

partners

Help steer the institute’s agenda √ √ √ X

Royalty-free use of intellectual property from 

all enterprise projects for internal research 

and development and internal operations 

worldwide

√ √ X X

Participation in research and development 

projects √ √ √ X

Networking opportunities √ √ √ √

Legend: √ indicates benefit or right and X indicates no benefit or right.

Source: GAO analysis of information provided by DMDII. | GAO-17-320
Appendix I: Information on Operating 

Manufacturing USA Institutes as of December 

2016

Page 47 GAO-17-320 Advanced Manufacturing

Table 8: Summary of Digital Manufacturing and Design Innovation Institute (DMDII) 

Government Membership Benefits and Rights

Benefits and rights U.S. Government

State and Local 

Government

Seat on executive committee 4 seats 1 seat

Seat on technical advisory committee Up to 6 seats X

Help steer the institute’s agenda √ √

Networking opportunities √ √

Legend: √ indicates benefit or right and X indicates no benefit or right.

Source: GAO analysis of information provided by DMDII. | GAO-17-320

About: LIFT’s mission is to accelerate the development of new 

manufacturing processes for products using lightweight metals, including 

aluminum, magnesium, titanium, and advanced high-strength steel alloys.

Location: Detroit, Michigan, facility opened in January 2015. Satellite 

locations are in Columbus, Ohio; Ann Arbor, Michigan; Worchester, 

Massachusetts; and Golden, Colorado.

Cooperative agreement: Signed February 2014. LIFT is managed by the 

American Lightweight Materials Manufacturing Innovation Institute, a 

501(c)(3) nonprofit organization that has a cooperative agreement with 

the Office of Naval Research.

Budget: $148 million from federal and nonfederal financial assistance

• $70 million in planned federal obligations

• $78 million in pledged nonfederal cost-share

Technology portfolio: About 30 projects, either initiated or under 

development, in the areas of melt and powder processing, 

thermomechanical processing, joining and assembly, coatings, and agile 

tooling, such as developing and deploying thin wall ductile iron castings 

for high-volume production.5 LIFT also sponsored a Purdue-designed 

Indy 500 Grand Prix for high school students to engineer, build, test, and 

market vehicles using lightweight metals.

 5

As of June 2016.

Lightweight 

Innovations for 

Tomorrow (LIFT)
Appendix I: Information on Operating 

Manufacturing USA Institutes as of December 

2016

Page 48 GAO-17-320 Advanced Manufacturing

Membership: About 90 members from industry, academia, government, 

nonprofit organizations, and a Hollings Manufacturing Extension 

Partnership center.6

Summary of membership fees, benefits, and rights: LIFT provides 

nine membership levels with different fees, benefits, and rights associated 

with each level. The nine membership levels and their associated fees 

are as follows:

• Gold: $350,000 annually, of which at least $100,000 is provided in 

cash, with the intention of at least a 5-year commitment

• Silver: $150,000 annually, of which at least $50,000 is provided in 

cash, with the intention of at least a 5-year commitment

• Bronze: $25,000 cash annually, with the intention of at least a 5-year 

commitment

• In-Kind members (e.g., equipment, software, or engineering service 

providers): $150,000 in-kind annually, with the intention of at least a 5-

year commitment

• Small manufacturers and start-ups: For small manufacturers with 251 

to 500 employees, the fee is $5,000 cash annually, with the intention 

of at least a 5-year commitment; for small manufacturers with 1 to 250 

employees, the fee is $2,500 cash annually, with the intention of at 

least a 5-year commitment; and for start-ups with fewer than 50 

employees and less than 5 years in business, the fee is $1,000 cash 

annually, with the intention of at least a 5-year commitment

• Research partners: $10,000 cash annually, with the intention of at 

least a 5-year commitment. The annual in-kind fee varies based on 

the level of participation.

• Trade association: Annual cash and in-kind fees vary based on the 

level of participation, with the intention of at least a 5-year 

commitment

• Professional society: $50,000 in-kind annually, with the intention of at 

least a 5-year commitment

• Education and workforce: Annual cash and in-kind fees vary based on 

the level of participation, with the intention of at least a 5-year 

commitment

 6

As of June 2016.
Appendix I: Information on Operating 

Manufacturing USA Institutes as of December 

2016

Page 49 GAO-17-320 Advanced Manufacturing

Table 9 provides an overview of LIFT membership benefits and rights 

across the nine membership levels. Specific terms and conditions are 

further detailed in the formal membership agreement.

Table 9: Summary of Lightweight Innovations for Tomorrow (LIFT) Membership Benefits and Rights

Benefits and rights Gold Silver Bronze

In-kind 

member

Small 

manufacturer

and start-up

Research

partner

Trade 

association

Professional

society

Education 

and 

workforce

Submit project ideas √ √ √ √ √ √ √ X X

Participation in 

project prioritization √ √ X X X X √ X X

Ability to lead a 

project √ √ X √ X X √ X X

Access to all 

technical information

and reports

√ √ √ √ √ √ √ X X

Non-exclusive 

royalty-free license 

to intellectual 

propertya

√ √ X X X X X X X

Member on the Lift 

Executive Advisory 

Council

1 from each 

Gold tier 

manufacturer

3 on a 

rotational 

basis

1 on a 

rotational

basis

X

1 on a 

rotational 

basis

X X X X

25 percent fee 

reduction on 

proprietary 

company-sponsored

projects

√ X X X X X X X X

Access to graduates 

of university-funded

programs

√ √ √ √ √ √ √ X X

Access to workforce

development 

network

√ √ √ √ √ √ √ √ √

Legend: √ indicates benefit or right and X indicates no benefit or right.

Source: GAO analysis of information provided by LIFT. | GAO-17-320

a

This benefit and right pertains to two types of intellectual property: shared pre-competitive research 

intellectual property, which is conceived or authored solely or jointly by a party during the 

performance of shared pre-competitive research, and American Lightweight Materials Manufacturing 

Innovation Institute-pooled intellectual property, which is conceived or authored solely by the institute 

during the performance of the institute’s internal research.
Appendix I: Information on Operating 

Manufacturing USA Institutes as of December 

2016

Page 50 GAO-17-320 Advanced Manufacturing

About: PowerAmerica’s mission is to develop advanced manufacturing 

processes that will enable large-scale production of wide bandgap 

semiconductors, which allow power electronic components to be smaller, 

faster, and more efficient than silicon-based devices.

Location: Raleigh, North Carolina, facility opened in January 2015.

Cooperative agreement: Signed December 2014. PowerAmerica is led 

by North Carolina State University, which has a cooperative agreement 

with DOE’s Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy.

Budget: $140 million from federal and nonfederal financial assistance

• $70 million in planned federal obligations

• $70 million in pledged nonfederal cost-share

Technology portfolio: About 30 projects, such as a project developing a 

medium voltage fast charger for electric vehicles.7 Another project 

involves working with an existing silicon wafer fabrication facility to update 

its capabilities to allow for the production of wide bandgap semiconductor 

devices—specifically silicon carbide wafers. This affords PowerAmerica 

members an opportunity to accelerate their research by producing and 

testing wide bandgap devices at the facility.

Membership: About 30 members from industry, academia, government, 

and a Hollings Manufacturing Extension Partnership center.8

Summary of membership fees, benefits, and rights: PowerAmerica 

provides seven membership levels with different fees, benefits, and rights 

associated with each level.9 The seven membership levels and their 

associated fees are as follows:

• Full sustaining: $500,000 annually ($250,000 of which may be met by 

in-kind contributions), with a 3-year commitment.10 In general, the in-

 7

As of July 2016.

8

As of July 2016.

9

PowerAmerica allows some small companies, who may not be able to afford a cash 

commitment, to become members by providing only in-kind contributions.

10Voting rights are determined by the first $250,000 made in cash.

The Next Generation 

Power Electronics 

Manufacturing 

Innovation Institute 

(PowerAmerica)
Appendix I: Information on Operating 

Manufacturing USA Institutes as of December 

2016

Page 51 GAO-17-320 Advanced Manufacturing

kind contribution should be made within the membership year; 

however, the member may defer 25 percent of the in-kind contribution 

for up to 6 months into the following membership year.

• Full member: $100,000 cash annually with a 3-year commitment

• Affiliate member: $50,000 cash annually with a 3-year commitment

• Startup member: $10,000 cash annually with a 3-year commitment

• Academic member: $10,000 cash annually with a 3-year commitment

• Federal lab: No fee, but involves a 3-year commitment

• Associate member: No fee, but involves a 3-year commitment

Table 10 provides an overview of PowerAmerica membership benefits 

and rights across the seven membership levels. Specific terms and 

conditions are further detailed in the formal membership agreement.

Table 10: Summary of The Next Generation Power Electronics Manufacturing Innovation Institute (PowerAmerica) 

Membership Benefits and Rights

Benefits and 

rights 

Full 

sustaining

Full 

member

Affiliate 

member

Startup 

member

Academic 

member

Federal 

lab

Associate 

member

Access to 

member-only data 

and research

√ √ √ √ √ √ X

Access to new 

research and 

development 

funding through 

the institute

√ √ √ √ √ √ X

Eligible to receive 

funding from open 

innovation fund

√ √ √ √ √ √ X

Open platform to 

connect with 

industry and 

academics

√ √ √ √ √ √ √

Access to students 

for internships √ √ √ √ √ X X

Member advisory 

committee seats 1 seat 1 seat 1 seat 1 seat 1 seat X X

Executive 

committee seats

1 seat 

guaranteed

Must be 

appointed 

by member 

advisory 

committee

Must be 

appointed 

by member 

advisory 

committee

Must be 

appointed 

by member 

advisory 

committee

Must be 

appointed 

by member 

advisory 

committee

X X

Voting pointsa 25 10 5 1 1 1 X
Appendix I: Information on Operating 

Manufacturing USA Institutes as of December 

2016

Page 52 GAO-17-320 Advanced Manufacturing

Benefits and 

rights 

Full 

sustaining

Full 

member

Affiliate 

member

Startup 

member

Academic 

member

Federal 

lab

Associate 

member

Technology 

roadmap 

participation

√ √ √ √ √ X X

Use of institute 

facilities √ √ √ √ √ √ X

Favorable terms 

for licensing 

intellectual 

property

First option 

for 

exclusive 

commercial

license

Second 

option for 

exclusive 

commercial 

license

Third 

option for 

exclusive 

commercial 

license

Third 

option for 

exclusive 

commercial 

license

Third 

option for 

exclusive 

commercial 

license

X X

Fund an 

enhancement 

projectb √ √ √ √ √ X X

Advertisement on 

website √ √ √ √ √ √ √

Legend: √ indicates benefit or right and X indicates no benefit or right.

Source: GAO analysis of information provided by PowerAmerica. | GAO-17-320

a

Members vote on projects that have gone through the PowerAmerica call for projects process and 

that can be funded by industry membership fees.

b

Enhancement projects are projects funded by industry that are beyond the core funding of the grant. 

They are nonproprietary so that all of the members can benefit from the research (as opposed to 

other industry-funded projects performed using standard research agreements that have full 

overhead and in which the company would own intellectual property generated).

About: IACMI’s mission is to accelerate the development and adoption of 

cutting-edge manufacturing technologies for low-cost, energy-efficient 

manufacturing of advanced polymer composites for vehicles, wind 

turbines, compressed gas storage, and other applications.

Location: Oak Ridge, Tennessee, facility opened in June 2015. 

Geographic extensions are located in Dayton, Ohio (compressed gas 

storage); Golden, Colorado (wind turbines); West Lafayette, Indiana 

(design and simulation); and Detroit, Michigan (vehicles). IACMI has also 

signed memorandums of understanding with the Carbon Recycling 

Technology Center in Port Angeles, Washington, and the Composite 

Prototyping Center in Plainview, New York.

Cooperative agreement: Signed June 2015. IACMI is managed by the 

Collaborative Composite Solutions Corporation, a 501(c)(3) nonprofit 

organization that has a cooperative agreement with DOE’s Office of 

Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy.

Budget: $250 million from federal and nonfederal financial assistance

Institute for Advanced 

Composites 

Manufacturing 

Innovation (IACMI)
Appendix I: Information on Operating 

Manufacturing USA Institutes as of December 

2016

Page 53 GAO-17-320 Advanced Manufacturing

• $70 million in planned federal financial obligations

• $180 million in pledged nonfederal cost-share

Technology portfolio: About three projects, such as a project optimizing 

carbon fiber production to enable high-volume manufacturing of 

lightweight automotive components, and another project developing 

thermoplastic material to lower production costs and improve recyclability 

of wind turbine blades.11

Membership: About 140 members from industry, academia, government, 

nonprofit organizations, and a Hollings Manufacturing Extension 

Partnership center.12

Summary of membership fees, benefits, and rights: IACMI provides 

four membership levels with different fees, benefits, and rights associated 

with each level. The four membership levels and their associated fees are 

as follows:

• Charter: $5 million provided over a period of up to 5 years (at least 50 

percent cash and $100,000 overhead annually)

• Premium: $1 million provided over a period of up to 5 years (at least 

50 percent cash and $20,000 overhead annually)

• Resource: $5,000 cash annually for industry members with 500 or 

fewer employees, government agencies, and educational institutions; 

$10,000 cash annually for industry members with over 500 

employees; as well as a resource contribution and a 1-year 

commitment

• Consortium: $5,000 cash annually for industry members with 500 or 

fewer employees, government agencies, and educational institutions; 

and $10,000 cash annually for industry members with over 500 

employees; involves a 1-year commitment

Table 11 provides an overview of IACMI membership benefits and rights. 

Specific terms and conditions are further detailed in the formal 

membership agreement.

 11As of July 2016.

12As of June 2016.
Appendix I: Information on Operating 

Manufacturing USA Institutes as of December 

2016

Page 54 GAO-17-320 Advanced Manufacturing

Table 11: Summary of Institute for Advanced Composites Manufacturing Innovation (IACMI) Membership Benefits and Rights

Benefits and rights Charter Premium Resource Consortium

Cash contribution eligible for 

match subject to available funds √ √ X X

Leverage significant intellectual 

and resources capabilities √ √ X X

Influence in creation and 

direction of IACMI √ X X X

Participation in governance All charters have 1 seat 

on the board and elect 

1 representative for the 

technical advisory 

board

1 representative for the 

board and 1 

representative for the 

technical advisory 

board

X

1 small manufacturer for 

the board and 1 small and 

1 large company 

representative for the 

technical advisory board

Additional benefits for 

Premium, Resource, and 

Consortium members

Enterprise-wide proprietary 

projects X √ X X

Right to use unique modification 

to their technology X X √ X

Exposure to potential customers X X √ X

Participate in projects to improve 

their products X X √ X

Opportunities to engage and 

build key relationships to fuel 

company’s growth within the 

composites ecosystem

X X X √

Participate in workshops, road 

mapping, and members meetings X X X √

Legend: √ indicates benefit or right and X indicates no benefit or right.

Source: GAO analysis of information provided by IACMI. | GAO-17-320
Appendix I: Information on Operating 

Manufacturing USA Institutes as of December 

2016

Page 55 GAO-17-320 Advanced Manufacturing

About: AIM Photonics’ mission is to advance integrated photonic circuit 

manufacturing technology development while simultaneously providing 

access to state-of-the-art fabrication, packaging, and testing capabilities 

for small-to-medium enterprises, academia, and the government.

Location: Albany, New York, facility operations began in July 2015. 

Institute officials said the Rochester, New York, facility will be the location 

for the test, assembly, and packaging operations. Also, AIM Photonics 

has satellite hubs at the University of Rochester, Rochester Institute of 

Technology, State University of New York Polytechnic Institute, 

Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Columbia University, University of 

Arizona, and University of California Santa Barbara.

Cooperative agreement: Signed July 2015. AIM Photonics is managed 

by the Research Foundation of the State University of New York, a 

501(c)(3) nonprofit organization that has a cooperative agreement with 

the Air Force Research Laboratory.

Budget: $612 million federal and nonfederal financial assistance

• $110 million in planned federal obligations

• $503 million in pledged nonfederal cost-share

Technology portfolio: Institute officials said that the portfolio contains 

about 10 projects, such as a project pertaining to 3D displays, and 

another project through AIM Photonics’ AIM Academy to study industry 

skills gap and employment needs.13

Membership: About 30 members from industry, academia, and 

government.14

Summary of membership fees, benefits, and rights: AIM Photonics 

provides four membership levels for industry and three membership 

levels for academic and nonprofit organizations with different fees, 

benefits, and rights associated with each level. The industry and 

academic and nonprofit membership levels and their associated fees are 

as follows:

 13As of May 2016.

14As of June 2016.

American Institute for 

Manufacturing 

Integrated Photonics 

(AIM Photonics)
Appendix I: Information on Operating 

Manufacturing USA Institutes as of December 

2016

Page 56 GAO-17-320 Advanced Manufacturing

• Industry:

• Tier 1: $1 million cash annually (may include cash and in-kind with 

a minimum of $100,000 cash through 2020), increasing to full 

cash by 2021

• Tier 2: $500,000 cash annually (may include cash and in-kind with 

a minimum of $100,000 cash through 2020), increasing to full 

cash by 2021

• Tier 3: $100,000 or greater amount cash annually (may include inkind through 2020)

• Industry observer: $2,500 cash annually, with a 1-year 

commitment

• Academic and nonprofit:

• Tier 1: In-kind and tangible and intangible contributions as 

provided in the membership agreement (such as software 

licenses, hardware, services, and expertise)

• Tier 2: In-kind as provided in the membership agreement (such as 

software licenses, hardware, or services and overhead costs)

• Academic observer: No fee, with 1-year commitment

Tables 12 and 13 provide an overview of AIM Photonics’ membership 

benefits and rights for industry and academic and nonprofit, respectively. 

Specific terms and conditions are further detailed in the formal 

membership agreements.
Appendix I: Information on Operating 

Manufacturing USA Institutes as of December 

2016

Page 57 GAO-17-320 Advanced Manufacturing

Table 12: Summary of American Institute for Manufacturing Integrated Photonics (AIM Photonics) Industry Membership 

Benefits and Rights

Benefits and rights Tier 1 Tier 2 Tier 3 Industry Observer

Leadership Council Right to designate 1 

candidate to serve 

on the council, 

which provides the 

member the 

opportunity to 

provide input on the 

institute direction 

and strategy

Representation with 

an opportunity to 

serve on the council 

based on the total 

number of Tier 2 

industry members 

and a selection 

process

Representation with 

an opportunity to 

serve on the council 

based on the total 

number of Tier 3 

industry members 

and a selection 

process

X

Right to receive results and licenses to 

intellectual property from certain projects 

and project segment(s) in which a 

member is a participant 

√ √ √ X

Right to propose certain institute, 

industry, government interest, and 

service projects

√ √ √ X

Right to participate in workforce 

development and road mapping activities √ √ √

Right to 

participate in road 

mapping activities 

only

Technology working groups Right to participate 

in all technology 

working groups

Right to participate 

for certain project 

segments

Right to participate 

for a certain project 

segment

X

Right to send reimbursed assignees to 

AIM Photonics shared facilities Up to 3 Up to 1 X X

Right to send nonreimbursed assignees 

to AIM Photonics shared facilities √ √ √ X

Participation in annual meeting and 

access to quarterly newsletter √ √ √ √

Legend: √ indicates benefit or right and X indicates no benefit or right.

Source: GAO analysis of information provided by AIM Photonics. | GAO-17-320
Appendix I: Information on Operating 

Manufacturing USA Institutes as of December 

2016

Page 58 GAO-17-320 Advanced Manufacturing

Table 13: Summary of American Institute for Manufacturing Integrated Photonics (AIM Photonics) Academic and Nonprofit 

Membership Benefits and Rights

Benefits and rights Tier 1 Tier 2

Academic 

Observer

Leadership Council Representation with 

an opportunity to 

serve on the council 

based on the total 

number of academic 

members and a 

selection process

Representation 

with an 

opportunity to 

serve on the 

council based on 

the total number 

of academic 

members and a 

selection process

X

Right to receive results and licenses to intellectual property from 

certain projects and/or project segment(s) in which a member is a 

participant √ √

No right to 

participate in 

projects other than 

educational support

Right to propose certain institute, industry, government interest, and 

service projects √ √ X

Right to participate in workforce development and road mapping 

activities √ √ Right to participate in road mapping 

activities only

Technology working groups Right to participate in 

all technology working 

groups

Right to 

participate for 

certain project 

segments

X

Participation in annual meeting and access to quarterly newsletter √ √ √

Legend: √ indicates benefit or right and X indicates no benefit or right.

Source: GAO analysis of information provided by AIM Photonics. | GAO-17-320

About: NextFlex’s mission is to pioneer a new era of advanced flexible 

hybrid electronics manufacturing in the United States. Flexible hybrid 

electronics combine the ability to add electronics to materials that are part 

of our everyday lives, to create lightweight, low-cost, flexible, 

conformable, and stretchable smart products.

Location: San Jose, California, facility opened in August 2016.

Cooperative agreement: Signed August 2015. NextFlex is managed by 

FlexTech Alliance, Inc., a 501(c)(6) nonprofit organization that has a 

cooperative agreement with the Air Force Research Laboratory.

America’s Flexible 

Hybrid Electronics 

Manufacturing 

Institute (NextFlex)
Appendix I: Information on Operating 

Manufacturing USA Institutes as of December 

2016

Page 59 GAO-17-320 Advanced Manufacturing

Budget: $171 million in federal and nonfederal financial assistance

• $75 million in planned federal obligations

• $96 million in pledged nonfederal cost-share

Technology portfolio: About 13 projects, such as a project to develop a 

flexible smart wound dressing with oxygen release and sensing capability, 

and a project to develop a flexible and stretchable monitoring sensor 

network to improve aerospace fuel efficiency and flight safety.15

Membership: About 45 members from industry, academia, government, 

and nonprofit organizations.16

Summary of membership fees, benefits, and rights: NextFlex provides 

four membership levels for industry, three membership levels for 

academic and nonprofit organizations, and a government membership 

level with different fees, benefits, and rights associated with each level. 

The industry, academic and nonprofit, and government membership 

levels and their associated fees are as follows:17

• Industry:

• Tier 1: $150,000 cash and $250,000 in-kind annually, with the 

intention of at least a 3-year commitment

• Tier 2: $50,000 cash and $50,000 in-kind annually, with the 

intention of at least a 3-year commitment

• Tier 3: $10,000 cash annually and in-kind encouraged, with the 

intention of at least a 3-year commitment

• Observer: $2,500 cash annually and in-kind encouraged, with the 

intention of at least a 3-year commitment

• Academic and nonprofit:

• Tier 1: $15,000 cash and $600,000 in-kind annually, with the 

intention of at least a 3-year commitment

• Tier 2: $7,500 cash and $300,000 in-kind annually, with the 

intention of at least a 3-year commitment

 15As of September 2016.

16As of September 2016.

17At most membership levels, funds can be partially in-kind.
Appendix I: Information on Operating 

Manufacturing USA Institutes as of December 

2016

Page 60 GAO-17-320 Advanced Manufacturing

• Tier 3: $2,500 cash annually and in-kind encouraged, with the 

intention of at least a 3-year commitment

• Federal Government:

• No annual membership fee

• In-kind contributions, which are not required, can be cash in 

support of the institute

Tables 14, 15, and 16 provide an overview of NextFlex membership 

benefits and rights for industry, academic and nonprofit, and government 

members, respectively. Specific terms and conditions are further detailed 

in the formal membership agreement.

Table 14: Summary of America’s Flexible Hybrid Electronics Manufacturing Institute (NextFlex) Industry Membership Benefits 

and Rights

Benefits and rights Tier 1 Tier 2 Tier 3 Observera

Technical working groups √ √ √ By invitation

Online member portal √ √ √ Limited

Networking √ √ √ Limited

Project funding √ √ √ X

Intellectual property evaluation license √ √ √ X

Education/workforce development program √ √ √ Limited

Member discounts √ √ √ Limited

Governing Council seats

1 vote each

1 vote for every 3 

Tier members, up to 

3 votes

1 vote for Tier when 

15 Tier members is 

reached

X

Technical Council seatsb 1 vote each 1 vote each X X

Legend: √ indicates benefit or right and X indicates no benefit or right.

Source: GAO analysis of information provided by NextFlex. | GAO-17-320

a

Reserved for start-ups with less than $5 million in gross annual revenue, fewer than 20 employees, 

and unaffiliated with nonqualifying entity; 3 years maximum.

b

Participants each have a primary representative on the NextFlex Technical Council, plus other 

representatives to be involved in sub-committees or working groups.
Appendix I: Information on Operating 

Manufacturing USA Institutes as of December 

2016

Page 61 GAO-17-320 Advanced Manufacturing

Table 15: Summary of America’s Flexible Hybrid Electronics Manufacturing Institute 

(NextFlex) Academic and Nonprofit Membership Benefits and Rights

Benefits and rights Tier 1 Tier 2 Tier 3

Technical working groups √ √ By invitation

Online member portal √ √ Limited

Networking √ √ Limited

Project funding √ √ √

Intellectual property evaluation 

license √ √ X

Education/workforce development 

program √ √ √

Member discounts √ √ Limited

Governing Council seats 1 vote for every 

3 Tier members, 

up to 3 votes

1 vote for Tier 

when 15 Tier 

members is 

reached

X

Technical Council seatsa 1 vote each 1 vote each X

Legend: √ indicates benefit or right and X indicates no benefit or right.

Source: GAO analysis of information provided by NextFlex. | GAO-17-320

a

Participants each have a primary representative on the NextFlex Technical Council, plus other 

representatives to be involved in sub-committees or working groups.

Table 16: Summary of America’s Flexible Hybrid Electronics Manufacturing Institute 

(NextFlex) Federal Government Membership Benefits and Rights

Benefits and rights 

Federal 

Government

Technical working groups √

Online member portal √

Networking √

Project funding X

Intellectual property evaluation license √

Education/workforce development program √

Member discounts √

Governing Council seats Up to 25 

percent

Technical Council seatsa Up to 25 

percent

Legend: √ indicates benefit or right and X indicates no benefit or right.

Source: GAO analysis of information provided by NextFlex. | GAO-17-320

a

Participants each have a primary representative on the NextFlex Technical Council, plus other 

representatives to be involved in sub-committees or working groups.
Appendix II: Comments from the Department 

of Commerce

Page 62 GAO-17-320 Advanced Manufacturing

Appendix II: Comments from the Department 

of Commerce
Appendix II: Comments from the Department 

of Commerce

Page 63 GAO-17-320 Advanced Manufacturing
Appendix II: Comments from the Department 

of Commerce

Page 64 GAO-17-320 Advanced Manufacturing
Appendix II: Comments from the Department 

of Commerce

Page 65 GAO-17-320 Advanced Manufacturing
Appendix III: Comments from the Department 

of Defense

Page 66 GAO-17-320 Advanced Manufacturing

Appendix III: Comments from the 

Department of Defense
Appendix III: Comments from the Department 

of Defense

Page 67 GAO-17-320 Advanced Manufacturing
Appendix III: Comments from the Department 

of Defense

Page 68 GAO-17-320 Advanced Manufacturing
Appendix III: Comments from the Department 

of Defense

Page 69 GAO-17-320 Advanced Manufacturing
Appendix IV: GAO Contact and Staff 

Acknowledgments

Page 70 GAO-17-320 Advanced Manufacturing

John Neumann, (202) 512-3841 or neumannj@gao.gov

Andrew Sherrill, (202) 512-7215 or sherrilla@gao.gov

In addition to the contacts named above, key contributors to this report 

were William MacBlane, Assistant Director; Christopher Murray, Assistant 

Director; Erin Barry; Candace Carpenter; David Dornisch; Brian Egger; 

Ellen Fried; Paige Gilbreath; Ruben Gzirian; Jamila Kennedy; Jonathan 

Ludwigson; Rachel Pittenger; Dan C. Royer; Kathryn Smith; and Jeanette 

Soares.

Appendix IV: GAO Contact and Staff 

Acknowledgments

GAO Contacts

Staff 

Acknowledgments

(100627)
The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation, and investigative 

arm of Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting its constitutional 

responsibilities and to help improve the performance and accountability of the 

federal government for the American people. GAO examines the use of public 

funds; evaluates federal programs and policies; and provides analyses, 

recommendations, and other assistance to help Congress make informed 

oversight, policy, and funding decisions. GAO’s commitment to good government 

is reflected in its core values of accountability, integrity, and reliability.

The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no cost is 

through GAO’s website (http://www.gao.gov). Each weekday afternoon, GAO 

posts on its website newly released reports, testimony, and correspondence. To 

have GAO e-mail you a list of newly posted products, go to http://www.gao.gov

and select “E-mail Updates.”

The price of each GAO publication reflects GAO’s actual cost of production and 

distribution and depends on the number of pages in the publication and whether 

the publication is printed in color or black and white. Pricing and ordering 

information is posted on GAO’s website, http://www.gao.gov/ordering.htm. 

Place orders by calling (202) 512-6000, toll free (866) 801-7077, or 

TDD (202) 512-2537.

Orders may be paid for using American Express, Discover Card, MasterCard, 

Visa, check, or money order. Call for additional information.

Connect with GAO on Facebook, Flickr, LinkedIn, Twitter, and YouTube.

Subscribe to our RSS Feeds or E-mail Updates. Listen to our Podcasts.

Visit GAO on the web at www.gao.gov and read The Watchblog.

Contact:

Website: http://www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm

E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov

Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470

Katherine Siggerud, Managing Director, siggerudk@gao.gov, (202) 512-4400, 

U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7125, 

Washington, DC 20548

Chuck Young, Managing Director, youngc1@gao.gov, (202) 512-4800

U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149 

Washington, DC 20548

James-Christian Blockwood, Managing Director, spel@gao.gov, (202) 512-4707

U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7814, 

Washington, DC 20548

GAO’s Mission

Obtaining Copies of 

GAO Reports and 

Testimony

Order by Phone

Connect with GAO

To Report Fraud, 

Waste, and Abuse in 

Federal Programs

Congressional 

Relations

Public Affairs

Strategic Planning and 

External Liaison

Please Print on Recycled Paper.