Subject: M-TAC RFI Comments

American Foundry Society (AFS) response to requested information on M-TAC

Attn: diane.henderson@nist.gov 

Why M-TAC and why now?

The U.S. manufacturing base has experienced significant pressure during the last 15 years, as 

many of their customers have pursued a Low Cost Country (LCC) strategy to develop a supplier 

base abroad and reduce costs. The result of this activity was pressure on the domestic supply 

chain, reduced operating margins for those attempting to match price and often closure of 

operations and companies. But the landscape is changing. As the remaining manufacturing base 

implemented new technologies, became more efficient and pursued value added total solution 

approaches coupled with increased cost to ship product from overseas, logistic and quality issues 

it became apparent that the off-shoring strategy was not working. This has led to a surge of 

manufacturing in the U.S. and acceleration in efforts to reshore products and services back home.

But with the opportunities are still challenges, especially for the SME. How do they get access to 

resources and technologies that make them more competitive? Also, how do they identify 

opportunities to expand their market and perhaps even export? The growth and support of the 

MEP network has led to a renaissance in manufacturing in many regions, especially those served 

by a strong MEP. Many of the classic process improvement techniques (lean manufacturing and 

six-sigma), improved business practices and supply chain management have been made available 

to the SME via the MEP. These factors all create an environment where the next step for 

improved competitiveness and sustainability via incubators that can accelerate technology 

transition can thrive and flourish. 

So why a Cast-TAC – casting focused manufacturing technology acceleration center.

National Need

Metalcasting has traditionally been the most flexible, efficient and economical manufacturing 

approach for complex, high performance and tight tolerance components with more than 90% of 

all manufactured goods relying on metal castings. The metal casting manufacturing sector is a 

vital supplier of critical components used in defense, energy, automotive, aerospace, 
transportation, mining, infrastructure, agriculture and medical applications while offering 

employment to more than 200,000 individuals across the United States. Examples of engineered 

metal castings include automobile and truck engine cylinder blocks, hip and knee implants for 

the human body, turbine blades for jet engines and golf club heads for irons.

Today’s U.S. metalcasting industry faces challenges from increased foreign competition, 

escalating raw material, energy and health care costs, greater regulatory burden and a general 

decline in the scope and size of U.S. manufacturing. The result has been a reduction in the 

number of metalcasting facilities in the U.S. from more than 3,000 in the late 1990s to 2,001 

facilities today. The loss of metalcasting experience and knowledge means that if demand in a 

specific market sector dramatically increases such as with a world-wide military conflict, this 

vital manufacturing sector would need significant investment to meet the suddenly greater 

capacity needs.

The effect of the loss of metalcasting capacity has been demonstrated in current supply chain 

constraints in the U.S. automotive industry as it ramps back up from 10 million annual vehicle 

builds in 2008-2009 to 15-16 million today (more than 30% of castings produced in the U.S. go 

to the auto and truck market). At the low auto production levels, certain key cast component 

suppliers either closed or permanently exited that sector to shift to other markets like agricultural 

or mining. With every automobile containing more than 300 lb of engineered castings for the 

engine, suspension and braking systems, the auto industry is having to recalibrate its metal 

casting supply chain and, in some cases, delay its auto assembly ramp-ups to meet the new 

supply scenario.

Similar supply conditions could be on the verge for the still developing renewable energy market 

and for the U.S. Defense Department. The demand for renewable energy is one of the top 

priorities for the U.S. now and in the decades to come. Wind, solar, geothermal and even fusion 

technologies are all metal casting dependant in their generation systems (the average commercial 

wind turbine contains more than two tons of metal castings) and in the systems used to deliver 

the energy. For the U.S. military, every tank, plane, jeep and fighting system requires castings, 

and a supply base that is nimble enough to produce these components in small quantities with 

quick turnarounds. Currently, the U.S. military utilizes 10% of the castings produced by U.S. 

manufacturers. 
Recapitalization of the metalcasting industry is necessary for U.S. metalcasters to participate and 

prosper in these and other future growth markets. A barrier to their recapitalization is the low 

profit margins at which the industry has realized even in good economic cycles. The 2007 

American Foundry Society and North American Die Casting Association’s Operational Cost 

Study reported that metalcasting profits averaged only 5.7%. If the U.S. metalcasting industry is 

aided in recapitalization, metalcasters could implement cost-efficient technologies that are 

competitive in the global market and directed at expanding market segments by offering highly 

engineered, value-added products with the latest material innovations at competitive pricing. 

This would make metalcasters true partners with the developing markets that need them most, 

like renewable energy, automotive and military.

Regional Need Example 

In the U.S., metal castings are produced by 2,001 different operations, 80% of which employ less 

than 100 people. The state of Michigan has 120 metalcasting facilities and 20 supporting supplier 

companies employing more than 15,000. The state of Wisconsin has 126 metalcasting facilities 

and 25 supplier companies employing more than 19,000 at an annual payroll of $478 million 

with $2.1 billion in sales.These states contain key suppliers to the automotive, agriculture and 

defense markets, including transmissions for Allison Transmissions, piston accumulators for the

Los Angeles class submarine, forward and rear fuselages for the ATCM Brilliant Anti-armor 

Technology Missile, Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle steering deflectors, and the Guided 

Multiple Launch Rocket System payload body. These states also produce engineered cast 

components for the U.S. Department of Energy and commercial energy applications including 

conventional, renewable and alternative energy technologies. 

In 1955, the U. S. metalcasting industry had 6,150 plants. Since then, technological and 

regulatory factors, as well as the off-shoring of manufacturing, have resulted in tremendous 

changes and the reduction to 2,001 plants. Despite these challenges and the reduced profit 

margins, metalcasters are finding ways to succeed. Today’s metalcasters produce an average of 

6,000 tons of castings per plant compared to 4,900 tons in 1999.

An example of this resurgence can be seen in the second-largest metalcasting firm in the U.S. 

today—Grede. In the early 2000s, Grede was a family-owned, multi-plant firm based in 

Milwaukee, Wisconsin. But foreign competition and dramatic increases in the cost of raw 
materials in the U.S., forced the firm into bankruptcy. At the same time, Citation Corp., Novi, 

Mich., was experiencing profitability problems trying to serve the automotive industry.

During the recent recession, these firms took the opportunity to combine their capabilities to 

form a “new” Grede that is more streamlined to meet the needs of a more diverse customer base. 

Individually, the firms weren’t able to react quickly enough to market trends, technology 

innovations and customer demands. The new Grede has been able to redevelop itself as a nimble 

supplier. The result is a firm whose sales are growing along with its capabilities. The new Grede 

now has 16 metalcasting facilities and four machining plants producing more than 600,000 tons 

of casting production annually. 

Another success story in the state of Wisconsin is Eck Industries in Manitowoc. This familyowned metalcaster employing more than 200 is a force in adapting new technologies and 

assisting with developing new materials such as metal matrix composities and nano-related 

metalcasting. Eck also is leading the commercial development (along with Oshkosh Truck and 

the American Foundry Society) on the University of Wisconsin-Madison U.S. Department of 

Commerce NIST's Technology Innovations Program, “Transformational Casting Technology 

for Fabrication of Ultra-High Performance Lightweight Aluminum and Magnesium 

Nanocomposites.”

Metalcasting SWOT

With 80% of metalcasters employing less than 100 people, the industry is diverse. Following is 

a SWOT (strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats) Analysis of the U.S. metalcasting 

industry to try to encapsulate where the industry currently stands.

Strengths

• Technology Development—Despite the limitations in capital, U.S. metalcasters, their 

supply base and universities are leading the globe (along with Europe and Japan) in pushing out 

new technologies to increase global competitiveness. Examples of the new technologies include 

rapid manufacturing techniques eliminating hard tooling, automated pouring of molten metal, 

and enhanced simulation of the casting production process to test designs virtually.
• Raw Material Availability—From sand to scrap metal to cost-competitive energy, the 

U.S. has the greatest abundance of critical raw materials required for metalcasting.

• Proximity to customers—U.S. OEMs are still some of the largest consumers of metal 

castings in the globe and much of their purchasing decisions and product assembly is still done in 

the U.S. This allows U.S. metalcasters to interact with component designers, buyers and the 

manufacturing and assembly plants directly.

• Increasing productivity—As referenced previously, U.S. metalcasters are producing 

greater numbers of castings per facility every year through more advanced technology and the 

application of lean principles.

Weaknesses

• Technology Adoption—Low profit margins have not allowed metalcasters (most of 

which are small businesses) to reinvest in their facilities at the rate necessary to maintain growth 

The technology is being developed, but the expense both in captive and human resources is too 

difficult for many metalcasters to implement into their operations.

• Industry Perception—Since consumers don’t purchase metal castings on their own (they 

are part of another product), the U.S. industry isn’t recognized for how critical it is to society. It 

is also thought to be low-tech and thus 

• Next Generation Leaders—Like all manufacturing, metalcasting is working to develop 

young talent for the next generation. The industry has a unique partnership to drive this for the 

future called the Foundry Educational Foundation that partners students with universities and 

industry to help talent enter metalcasting.

Opportuntiies

• Conversion to Castings—The benefit of metalcasting compared to other metalforming 

processes is that the process of metalcasting (pouring molten metal into a mold) allows almost 

limitless geometric freedom in component design. As a result, many weldments, fabrications, 

forgings and stampings can be redesigned to metal castings at reduced costs and enhanced 

functionality. It just requires educating customers on how to do it.
• Value-Added Processes: machining/design- Those companies that are more than just 

make-to-print but assist with component design can improve the service their offer their 

customer. Also, more casting buyers want their suppliers to perform more value-added 

processes such as machining, painting and heat treating to their components. More and more 

metalcasters are offering these services to customers to come more valuable members of the 

supply chain.

• Rapid Manufacturing—Time to market is critical for OEMs. Metalcasters are working to 

integrate the latest rapid manufacturing technologies into metalcasting to produce tool-less 

castings in days rather than weeks or months.

Threats

• Alternative Materials—Plastics and powdered metals continue to market against metal 

castings, but the key is the geometric freedom offered by metalcastng in conjunction with the 

material properties offered by engineered cast metal.

• Government and Regulatory Burden—With 80% of metalcasters employing less than 100 

people, regulatory burden is a significant strain on U.S. metalcasters. These plants cant afford to 

dedicate multiple individuals to address the increasing levels of regulation, but they are often 

forced to. This impacts a plants bottom line significantly.

Challenges

With more than 80% of U.S. metalcasters as small businesses (SMEs), they often lack the capital 

to secure and/or develop the latest technologies and/or processes to competitively address U.S. 

market needs. While this is one of the greatest challenges facing this industry, following is a 

summary of others:

• Low profit margins make reinvestment difficult (only 5% of metalcasters are spending on 

new technology and/or capacity)

• Reduction in U.S.-based OEMs and their suppliers strains the supply chain, reduces new 

product innovation and lessens the availability of technical information on new technology and 

resources
• Expertise and knowledge is retiring without a strong mentoring program to train the next 

generation

• Highly fragmented industry with many metals, processes and customer markets

• Minimal excess capacity in the supply chain (industry was operating at more than 90% of 

capacity as recent as 2012)

• Less than 10% of metalcasters are fully integrated manufacturing facilities providing 

finished parts (heat treated, machined and painted) from one plant 

• Designers require greater education on metalcasting because they look first to competing 

processes and materials when cast materials would provide greater benefit’s like wear 

resistance, strength, heat resistance, corrosions resistance and weight savings

• While the level of casting imports to the U.S. has dropped the last two years, it still 

represents 23% of casting demand from U.S. buyers

The core technologies represented by metalcasting, despite being fundamental, are critical to 

U.S. economic health and industrial capability. Metalcasting processes pervade all industry 

sectors. Globally, forgings and castings production was estimated in excess of $56 billion in 

2011, according to Lucintel, and is expected to grow to over $78 billion by 2017. If the small 

and medium-sized metalforming companies in the U.S. have access to, and use, new 

technologies, tools, and processes, they will be preferred from suppliers overseas that do not 

have access to use the tools.

Approach

The core technologies represented by metalcasting, despite being fundamental, are critical to 

U.S. economic health and industrial capability. Metalcasting processes pervade all industry 

sectors. Globally, forgings and castings production was estimated in excess of $56 billion in 

2011, according to Lucintel, and is expected to grow to over $78 billion by 2017. The 

importance and need for metalcasting is in the market place and opportunities exist to implement 

new materials and technologies that can make this a growth sector. If the small and mediumsized metalforming companies in the U.S. have access to, and use, new technologies, tools, and 
processes, they will be preferred from suppliers overseas that do not have access to use the tools. 

But how do we change this landscape, especially for the SME? 

The proposed Cast-TAC program will focus on identifying, informing and implementing 

opportunities to create a sustainable manufacturing environment that will allow for more 

efficient & profitable manufacturing casting methods to produce various vital defense and 

commercial components in the shortest possible time. Much of this technology is being 

developed in the U.S. by suppliers, universities and the manufacturers, while some is from 

overseas. The AFS offers many forum and platforms to make the metalcasting industry aware of 

what are the latest developments, where it is and what it can do for them. The important focus of 

a Cast-TAC is focus on matching that technology with the appropriate situations and insuring 

that the new technology will be implemented quickly and effectively through a partnership with 

the MEP structure.

This program will help the Wisconsin and U.S. metalcasting industry improve their 

manufacturing readiness through a variety of production technologies, advancements in the metal 

alloys to enhance properties and performance, and an extension in the state of the science in net 

shape manufacturing and rapid prototype/production technology. This will create the greatest 

opportunity and benefit to U.S. metalcasters to implement these technologies to manufacture the 

best available cast components for our nation and reverse the trend of market erosion. Program 

involvement by a cross-section of manufacturing, academia and research sectors coordinated 

through the Manufacturing Enterprise Partnerships and the proposed Accelerator Center will 

ensure rapid technology transfer and the creation of highly skilled manufacturing jobs. 

For an industry that is fragmented due to the size of its firms and diversity of its demands, the 

Center will coordinate resources and funding and help ensure a continued source of American 

casting producers to supply the cast component needs for national defense, infrastructure, 

automotive, transportation, agriculture, mining, construction, energy, medical and other 

segments. The Cast-TAC will advance the technology and manufacturing processes such that 

the U.S. can remain competitive with offshore suppliers fighting for access to our commercial 

customer base. Successful implementation of this program can add new and more energy 
efficient production technologies and manufacturing lines and help us grow/and preserve these 

vital capabilities.

The establishment of a Cast-Technology Acceleration Center will enhance the speed and 

efficiency of cost-effective production practices for U.S. metalforming companies and increase 

their ability to compete on a global scale. The areas of focus for this TAC would include:

• Identification and adaption of technologies that would advance manufacturing and 

sustainable practices 

• Integrated modeling tools to simulate and design cost-effective processes and high 

performance materials for demanding applications

• Tools to ensure rapid, cost-effective, quality parts meet delivery requirements 

• Improved manufacturing processes and standards to support the U.S. supply chain and 

ensure competitive, best value sourcing

• Enhanced access to improved technical data for rapid, precise production methods

• Investment in workforce development and training along with an approach to ensure a 

supply of new, highly skilled employees 

• Collaborative partnerships including large, medium, and small businesses as well as the 

supplier and user

1. What are the specific types of technology transition and commercialization tools and services 

that should be provided by M-TACs? Emphasis is on the alignment of these tools and services 

with the most pressing needs of small and mid-sized U.S. manufacturers.

Response: As a manufacturing technology acceleration center with a focus on the SME, the MTACs first identify what key technology transition and commercialization tools and services are 

needed for that market sector. As it relates to Cast-TAC, these could be process related, material 

related or skill set related. The latest advances might not be locally developed or even in the 

same or associated manufacturing sector. The first step is identification of the technologies that 

can improve current practices and expand capabilities and markets, while also potentially 

creating game-changing opportunities. This is followed by informing the stakeholders in a 

format that is easy to understand and relevant to their operations. The commercialization tools 

must be facilitators that take down barriers to implementation and integration. This might 

include the ability to secure hands-on experience to evaluate a technology without the upfront 
investment cost and to identify funding sources and subject matter experts that can assist with the 

smooth transition to the manufacturing floor as well as serve as a resource if problems arise. The 

kinds of tools & services Cast-TAC would provide for this effort include:

• Benchmarking and data gathering trips to identify the most appropriate technologies

• Site visits to member companies, evaluations and technology/business plans

• Matching the Best Available Technology to the member's needs

• Workshops, seminars and workforce training 

• Technology implementation plans

• User groups - discussion of Best Practices and experiences with peers

a. How would M-TAC services complement the services currently offered by MEP Centers?

Response: The MEP's, like WMEP, have the structure, network and experience of interfacing 

with mid-sized U.S. manufacturers to work on similar issues, like lean manufacturing. This is an 

extension of that effort to a specific market sector. The SME's are comfortable collaborating with 

MEPs, using their services as a key resources. The M-TAC will be an enhancement of that 

offering to the focus sector. The MEP's provide the skills necessary to fully leverage technology.

2. What role should future M-TACs play with respect to supply chain needs? How should OEMs 

participate? How can industry associations, professional societies, and other appropriate 

national organizations participate?

Response: The M-TAC should be a vital resource to enhance the capabilities of the supply chain. 

Manufacturers need a customer for their product or service and customers (OEMs, etc.) need to 

have a strong and reliable supply chain to maintain their competitiveness. Therefore, the OEM's 

create the want and need and ultimately the expectations. They should also be the source revenue 

as they purchase the product and service from their supply chain. Industry associations, 

professional societies, and other appropriate national organizations participate as an independent 

and unbiased partner in the process, assisting in identifying the key technologies and promoting 

the adoption and implementation. They can also bring into the MEP network those groups that 

may not be familiar with it, thus becoming a conduit between the specific manufacturing sector 

and accelerator (M-TAC) and other resources. This will also expand the opportunities for the 

MEPs.
3. Is there a particular long-term scalable and financially sustainable business model that should 

be implemented by future M-TACs that will enable small and mid-sized U.S. manufacturers to 

effectively access and benefit from the technology transition and commercialization assistance 

and other resources they need?

Response: In Europe, the Fraunhofer Institute is a good example of a long-term scalable and 

financially sustainable business model that has enabled small and mid-sized manufacturers to 

effectively access and benefit from the technology transition and commercialization assistance. 

In the U.S., a metalcasting-related example is the ACRC (Advanced Casting Research Center)—

a consortium based effort at Worchester Polytechnic Institute that has been run for more than 20 

years with a strong effort for technology research, transition and information transfer. With each 

of these efforts, the important aspect is establishing consortium that requires some level of 

investment for participation but also value that far exceeds the cost for participation via 

leveraging your monetary and human resource. 

a. Because of the programmatic connection to the NIST MEP Program, M-TACs may require 

cost share. Are there cost share models for future M-TACs that promote scale up to reach 

nationally dispersed clusters of small and mid-sized manufacturers? If so, what are those 

models, and why might they be successful?

Response: The ACRC mentioned above is such an example. Also, the American Foundry 

Society (AFS) requires that all projects they fund via an allocation of corporate member dues are 

matched by at least 30% cost share (monetary or in-kind) for the project to be considered for 

funding. AFS also has recently conducted several successful projects that were 50/50 co-funded 

with a consortium of interested companies. It is important to have skin in the game and also a 

very strong steering committee and oversight group.

b. The generation of intellectual property is possible, and even likely as a result of M-TAC 

operations. What types of intellectual property arrangements and management constructs would 

promote active engagement of industry in these pilots, especially among small and mid-sized 

U.S. manufacturers that would be supportive of the business model? As appropriate, please 

include a set of potential options, and please explain your responses.

Response: The mechanism to handle IP is extremely important and needs to be included in the 

structure of the M-TAC. If companies utilize M-TAC facilities and resources on a pay-to-play 
basis, i.e. contract work, then they should retain any IP derived from that work. For work that is 

funded out of M-TAC general funds, which may include funding derived from membership by 

sponsoring companies to the M-TAC, then the IP rights are retained by the M-TAC and the 

members might be given a royalty free use. For unique work that might have prior art and 

conducted outside of M-TAC facility, like at a university, then arrangements could be made to 

assign the IP to that organization with some type or royalty free or reduced licensing agreement 

to M-TAC and its members, but with rights to use the technology developed. 

4. How should an M-TAC's performance and impact be evaluated? What are appropriate 

measures of success for future M-TACs? Please explain your response including the value of the 

performance measure to business growth.

Response: One measure of success is increased sales dollars, market share and/or market growth 

by companies utilizing a technology or service provided by the M-TAC. This comparison also 

could be achieved by comparing the EBIT or EBITA of the new work vs. traditional work or 

value-added sales revenue (removing the cost of materials like metal) generated per employee. 

The key is to focus on identifying and accelerating technologies should be on those that return a 

higher value, thus allowing for more investment in the business as compared to low margin 

work. Another measure is to compare the Value Added Sales revenue (removing the cost of 

materials like metal) generated per employee as compared to current product. The overriding 

metric is foundry profitability. Also, the increase in sales from product previously sourced offshore (reshored casting) will demonstrate that this effort is having a positive impact turning the 

tide back to Manufactured in America.

5. Are there any other critical issues that NIST MEP should consider in its strategic planning for 

future M-TAC investments that are not covered by the first four questions? If so, please address 

those issues here and explain your response.

Response: Future M-TAC investments must consider support for new manufacturing and 

support company start-ups. This new manufacturing will increase the supply chain and 

opportunities for the MEPs in the regions interfacing with the M-TAC. In addition, this new 

commercial work will require education, training and other work-place opportunities that will 

require collaboration with local universities, technical and community colleges and high schools.