National Institute of Standards and Technology

Manufacturing Extension Partnership

Advisory Board

Minutes of the September 22, 2020 Meeting

_________________________________________

Background

The Department of Commerce (DOC), National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), 

Manufacturing Extension Partnership (MEP) Advisory Board (Board) met in an open session from 1 p.m. 

to 5 p.m. on September 22, 2020, via video teleconference. The meeting had 100 attendees including 

Board members, NIST and NIST MEP staff, participants from MEP Centers, guest speakers and 

observers. Cheryl Gendron is the Designated Federal Officer for the MEP Advisory Board.

Attendees

Board Members

Jose Anaya, Dean of Community Advancement, El Camino College

Donald Bockoven, CEO, Fiber Industries LLC

E. LaDon Byars, President and CEO, Colonial Diversified Polymer Products, LLC

Kevin Heller, CEO and CFO, Ziegenfelder Company

Mary Isbister, Vice Chair, MEP Advisory Board and President, GenMet Corporation

Mitch Magee, Director, Global Advanced Manufacturing Team, PPG Aerospace Business Unit

Patricia Moulton, President, Vermont Technical College

Matthew Newman, Chair, MEP Advisory Board and Director of Sustainability Advocacy and

 Development, ONEOK, Inc.

Kathay Rennels, Special Advisor to the Chancellor for Rural-Urban Initiatives, Colorado State University

System

George Spottswood, Owner and CEO, Quality Filters, Inc.

Leslie Taito, Chief of Staff, Neighborhood Health Plan of Rhode Island

Jim Wright, Vice President of Operations, Proof Research

NIST MEP Participants

Cheryl Gendron, NIST MEP Advisory Board Liaison and Designated Federal Officer, MEP Advisory

 Board

Rob Ivester, Ph.D., MEP Deputy Director

David Stieren, NIST MEP Division Chief for Extension Services

Carroll Thomas, MEP Director

Guest Speakers

Mojdeh Bahar, NIST Associate Director for Innovation and Industry Services

Dan Berglund, SSTI

Walter Copan, Under Secretary of Commerce for Standards and Technology and NIST Director

Observers

Ray Aguerrevere, Custom Metal Fabricators

Nicole Ausherman, NIST MEP

Mellissa Ayala, NIST MEP
Anita Balachandra, NIST MEP

Robert Barnes, NIST MEP

Steve Black, Utah MEP

Dayna Blanchard, MEP of Louisiana (MEPOL)

Megean Blum, NIST MEP

Buckley Brinkman, Wisconsin Center for Manufacturing & Productivity

Monica Claussen, NIST MEP

Mike Coast, Michigan Manufacturing Technology Center

Jose Colucci-Rios, NIST MEP

Dusty Cruise, Missouri Enterprise

Anthony Diaz, NIST MEP

Xavier Escoto, NIST Fellow

Kristy Grignon, Massachusetts MEP (MassMEP)

Jennifer Hagan-Dier, NIST MEP/Manufacturer’s Edge

Diane Henderson, NIST MEP

Jessica Herbert, Empire State Development

Carrie Hines, American Small Manufacturers Coalition/Foundation for Manufacturing Excellence

KeAnne Hoag, North Carolina MEP (NC MEP)

Kimberly Ingalls, MassMEP

John Kennedy, New Jersey MEP (NJMEP) 

Brian Lagas, NIST MEP

Wiza Lequin, NIST MEP

Paul Lucy, Impact Dakota

Chancy Lyford, NIST MEP

Kathie Mahoney, MassMEP

Heather Mayton, NIST MEP

Kevin McIntyre, NIST MEP

Alex Melnikow, LEXNIKO, LLC

Dimitrios Meritus, NIST MEP

Phil Mintz, NC MEP

Petra Mitchell, Catalyst Connection

Justin Mocca, NIST MEP

K.C. Morris, NIST

Andrew Nobleman, NIST MEP

Mike O’Donnell, Center for Industrial Research and Service

Mary Ann Pacelli, NIST MEP

Srinivas Palanki, TMAC

Sanju Patro, TMAC

Andrew Peterson, NIST MEP

Kim Pinckney, NIST MEP

Ken Poole, Center for Regional Economic Competitiveness

Katie Rapp, NIST MEP

Kari Reidy, NIST

Kathy Rich, Montana Manufacturing Extension Center

Rikki Riegner, Pennsylvania MEP

Chris Rooney, Empire State Development

Jennifer Rosa, NIST MEP

Scott Ryan, Ohio Development Services Agency

Cheryl Rybka, TMAC

Gerson Santos-Leon, NIST MEP

Mark Schmit, NIST MEP
Carol Shibley, NIST MEP

Nelli Sichwart, Bossier Parish Community College

Mike Simpson, NIST MEP

Phil Singerman, NIST Associate

Megan Spangler, NIST MEP

Michael Stone, Stone and Associates

Rustyn Stoops, Delaware MEP

Tiffany Stovall, Kansas Manufacturing Solutions

Daniel Stumper, MEPOL

Michael Taylor, NIST MEP

Dileep Thatte, NIST MEP

Nico Thomas, NIST MEP

Paula Trimble, Lewis-Burke Associates LLC

Mark Troppe, Center for Regional Economic Competitiveness

Mike Vanier, Oregon MEP

Tim Vickers, Advantage Kentucky Alliance

Ben Vickery, NIST MEP

Kayla Viveiros, Polaris MEP

Ken Voytek, NIST MEP

Phillip Wadsworth, NIST MEP

Marlon Walker, NIST MEP

James Watson, California Manufacturing Technology Consulting (CMTC)

Matt Watson, Empire State Development

Samm Webb, NIST MEP

Jenni West, Montana Manufacturing Extension Center

Michael Wilson, NIST MEP

Bob Zider, Vermont Manufacturing Extension Center

Welcome and Introductions

Speakers:

 Matt Newman, NIST MEP Advisory Board Chair

 Carroll Thomas, MEP Director

 Walter Copan, NIST Director

 Mojdeh Bahar, NIST Associate Director for Innovation and Industry Services

M. Newman reviewed the agenda and made introductory remarks. C. Thomas welcomed everyone to the 

meeting and introduced W. Copan. He thanked the MEP Advisory Board (MAB) members for their 

service and also thanked all of the NIST MEP staff. He congratulated C. Thomas and her team for helping

to get CARES Act funding distributed quickly and effectively to each of the Centers across the nation. 

NIST is looking to the future for America’s manufacturers and its supply chains, and there is a focus on 

reshoring which means more capacity in the country. More workforce needs to be prepared to take the 

mantle of American manufacturing. As they look to the future, more companies need to adopt Industry 

4.0, digital manufacturing, industrial internet of things solutions and automation approaches. The MEP

National NetworkTM (MEPNN) has a lot on its plate. He thanked C. Thomas for the leadership and support

she has provided in contributing to NIST MEP’s success during her tenure as Director. He then 

introduced M. Bahar. She thanked Board members for bringing their expertise and passion to NIST and 

the MEPNN to help them better serve small and medium-sized manufacturers (SMMs). NIST Leadership

hopes, with help of the MAB, to identify more ways in which NIST can help strengthen manufacturing in 
the U.S. The pandemic has underscored in many ways the importance of manufacturing in America. 

Board members and attendees were introduced.

NIST MEP Senior Management Update

Speakers:

 Carroll Thomas, MEP Director

 Rob Ivester, MEP Deputy Director

MEP Program Budget Outlook (as of September 22, 2020)

• Fiscal Year (FY) 2020 appropriation status:

o Base funding: $146 million.

▪ $6 million increase over FY 2019.

▪ No cost share requirement.

o Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (CARES) Act.

▪ MEP received $50 million to provide funding to all MEP Centers to assist 

manufacturers.

• FY 2021 appropriation status:

o House mark: $153 million.

o Awaiting Senate mark and subsequent congressional conference committee report or a 

continuing resolution so as not to have a lapse in appropriations.

NIST MEP FY 2020 Projected Spend Plan

• Available Funding:

o Full year appropriation: $146 million.

o Carryover from FY 2019: $4.7 million.

o Funding from other agencies: $0.3 million.

o CARES Act supplemental funding: $50 million.

▪ Total available funding: $201 million.

• Planned Expenditures:

o Center renewals: $111.7 million.

o Center supplemental funding (CARES Act): $49.1 million.

o Strategic competitions: $17.5 million.

o Contracts: $3.8 million.

o NIST MEP labor: $10 million.

o NIST and program overhead: $8.9 million.

▪ Total planned expenditures: $201 million.

Legislative Update

• The $50 million appropriated in the CARES Act for MEP Centers was sent out in record time. 

While another stimulus bill is being discussed, no agreements have yet been reached.

• The National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for FY 2021 currently is in conference and 

could pass with two important amendments impacting the MEPNN.

o Allows the Department of Defense (DOD) to provide funds to MEP Centers for 

cybersecurity assistance of SMMs.

o Would establish a database housed at NIST MEP:

▪ Connect MEP Centers to minimize vulnerability to supply chain disruptions.

▪ Enhance the ability of U.S. manufacturers to communicate and coordinate.

▪ Ensure that the U.S. responds quickly and effectively during national disasters, 

including retooling for such items as personal protective equipment (PPE).
CARES Act Update

• All 51 awards were made by June 30, 2020.

• 85 days from posting the request for applications.

• MEP Centers executing awards to provide critical assistance to manufacturers.

• First quarterly reports will be received at the end of October 2020.

Competitive Awards Program (CAP) Funding Update

• Advanced Manufacturing Technology Services – deploys advanced manufacturing technology 

services, emphasizing technology-based needs of small U.S. manufacturers.

o In June 2020, we reported four projects had been awarded.

o In early July 2020, a fifth award was made:

▪ NJMEP for Industry 4.0 technical assistance to supply chains for 

biopharmaceuticals and biofabrication, targeting the supply chains associated 

with focus areas of the National Institute for Innovation in Manufacturing 

Biopharmaceuticals and BioFabUSA Manufacturing USA institutes.

• (Rolling) Competitive Awards – 12 awards issued to date for mix of cybersecurity, workforce and 

advanced manufacturing projects.

o Awards made to MEP Centers in California, Connecticut, Florida, Georgia, Michigan, 

Missouri, New York, Ohio, Oregon, Tennessee and Virginia.

MEPNN Center Leadership Team (CLT)

• Continuing to convene virtually to operationalize communication and collaboration norms.

• Working on Network structure and governance.

• Regional communication nodes created and currently being implemented. Need to create more 

efficient and effective ways of connecting Centers around the country to build relationships, 

provide support, exchange ideas and information, catalyze learning and improve communications. 

Better connections form the basis for a faster and more flexible National Network.

o The urgency of times over the past few months exacerbated the need to communicate 

more among the Network.

o Objectives:

▪ Establish one-to-one connections between Center Directors and a Center Director 

on the National Network CLT;

▪ Create Regional National Network nodes to facilitate regular group conversations 

and create learning opportunities;

▪ Build closer and deeper relationships between and among Centers.

o Information about CLT priorities, business issues and strategy is quickly disseminated

throughout the MEPNN.

o As each CLT member works with their Regional National Network Node, they bring 

information back to the CLT, keeping everyone in touch with all of the Centers and 

abreast of what is happening across the Network.

o The structure improves access directly to CLT members and ensures that everyone in the 

MEPNN has a voice.

o All regions have met and several have met multiple times.

NIST MEP: National Network Support

• MEPNN Food Industry Services/Food Safety.

o 2017-2020.

▪ 4,087 Center projects.

▪ 2,649 food manufacturing clients addressing many technical assistance areas, 

including food safety.
o MEPNN working group facilitated by NIST MEP.

▪ 51 MEP Centers participate.

o MEPNN staff with food safety credentials.

▪ Approximately two dozen preventive controls qualified individuals.

▪ More than one dozen lead instructors.

o Strong ongoing MEPNN partnership with Food and Drug Administration relating to food 

safety.

• MEP-Assisted Technology and Technical Resource (MATTR).

o Connecting MEPNN, MEP Center clients with NIST laboratory expertise and resources.

▪ 70 MATTR requests submitted by 22 Centers; 6 NIST laboratories/offices 

engaged in these requests.

▪ 23 offers of assistance to MEPNN made by five NIST laboratories in 2020.

▪ NIST laboratory staff providing webcasts to MEPNN addressing various 

technical topics.

o 15 MEP Centers participating in MEPNN MATTR Working Group.

o NIST MEP facilitating cooperative research and development agreements between MEP 

Center clients and NIST laboratories; also compensating NIST laboratories, as warranted,

by MATTR opportunities.

• Advanced Manufacturing Technology Services.

o Funding awards made in May and July 2020 for multi-Center projects led by Centers in 

California, Indiana, Michigan, New Jersey and Texas to accelerate MEP Center Industry 

4.0 service delivery; additional projects among recent CAP awards.

• CAP project led by Oregon MEP.

o Involves multiple Centers sharing useful foundational Industry 4.0 information across 

MEPNN.

o Also working closely with the CLT.

o Concluding in December 2020.

• MEPNN Industry 4.0 Working Group sharing best practices and highlighting Center work.

o Facilitated by NIST MEP.

o Dozens of Centers participating.

o Introducing emerging topics to Centers.

• MEP Centers utilizing user/demonstration facilities and continuing to collaborate with 

Manufacturing USA Institutes.

• Cybersecurity practice developing across the Network.

o MEPNN Cyber Working Group sharing best practices among all 51 Centers.

o Cyber for Defense Manufacturing Special Award from NIST MEP to Michigan MEP 

Center providing awareness and assistance for over 1,000 defense contractors.

▪ Participation from over 30 MEP Centers and two NIST laboratories.

▪ Health crisis tasking delays ongoing.

o NIST MEP issuing program guidance to MEP Centers relating to DOD Cybersecurity 

Maturity Model Certification (CMMC).

o Approximately 228 awareness/training events.

o Approximately 1,000 projects conducted since 2015.

o Over 3,400 SMMs served.

o Approximately 95,000 NIST Handbook 162 downloads since 2017 publication.

o Approximately 185,000 NISTIR 7621 downloads since 2016 publication.

• Center reviews: 2020.

o Annual reviews of all 51 Centers.

o Panel reviews (at the third and eighth-year).

▪ Currently processing three eighth-year reviews.
o Secretarial reviews (one time, at the fifth-year mark).

▪ Currently processing secretarial reviews of eight Centers.

NIST MEP and MEP Centers: National Network Collaboration

• NIST MEP and the MEPNN are hosting roundtable-style conversations with manufacturing 

executives from across the country.

o This series began on July 30, 2020 with six panelists and over 70 observers. Ten sessions 

have been scheduled.

o Discussions focus on the current state of manufacturing during these unprecedented 

economic times, predictions for the future state of U.S. manufacturing and 

recommendations to the MEPNN.

o The program will continue through early October 2020.

o Results will be aggregated and reported.

MEP National Network 2017-2022 Strategic Plan Update

• 18 month measures of success (September 2019-March 2021) – progress to date.

o Measure 1: Consensus within integrated National Network on definition of Project and 

client manufacturing establishment interaction.

▪ Define client and project.

▪ Define client manufacturing establishment interaction.

▪ Working group of Center Directors established.

• Center working group is identified and is on hold. They will reconvene 

in fall 2020.

o Measure 2: Center and program office operational excellence reporting via measurement 

of on-time and accurate reporting.

▪ Four elements measured.

• Progress plan.

• Progress data.

• Success story.

• Survey confirmation.

▪ Baseline (Quarter 2 2019).

• 40 Centers reported on time with the first three elements.

• 24 Centers reported on time across all four elements.

▪ Progress to date (Quarter 2 2020).

• 45 Centers reported on time with first three elements.

• 23 Centers reported on time across all four elements.

o Measure 3: Increased visibility by amplifying Network brand awareness by at least 10%

(progress to date for April 1, 2020-June 30, 2020).

▪ Backlinks.

• Baseline: 104.

• Goal: 114.

• Progress to date: 112.

▪ Brand mentions.

• Baseline: 125.

• Goal: 138.

• Progress to date: 247.

▪ Manufacturing Innovation blog subscribers.

• Baseline: 24,920.

• Goal: 27,412.
• Progress to date: 32,026.

▪ Social media followers.

• Baseline: 16,240.

• Goal: 17,864.

• Progress to date: 16,640.

▪ #MEPNationalNetwork hashtag occurrences.

• Baseline: 334.

• Goal: 367.

• Progress to date: 391.

o Measure 4: Increase reported projects by 10% and reported new clients by 5%.

▪ FY 2020 surveys and response.

• Over 5,200 clients surveyed (combined Quarter 1 and Quarter 2).

• 77% final survey response rate for the MEPNN.

▪ Combined clients Quarter 1 and Quarter 2.

• In July 2020, MEP Centers surveyed a combination of clients from the 

postponed Quarter 1 survey with those up for survey in Quarter 2.

• Outstanding response given the number of clients surveyed was doubled, 

which increased Center workload.

▪ Survey changes through 2021.

• Survey response rate will be removed from the ten metrics used to 

measure Center performance until late 2021.

• NIST MEP will give more weight to the two measures of market 

penetration in evaluating Center performance.

• This is done to accommodate the expected increase in clients served 

from the CARES Act funding.

NIST MEP Operational Update

• NIST Campus Locations Status

o All NIST staff, including NIST MEP staff, were on mandatory telework from mid-March 

until early July 2020 and are now on maximum telework.

o NIST phased reopening emphasizes employee safety and focuses on laboratory staff 

having access to laboratories.

o NIST staff remain on maximum telework; 90% of all staff for an extended period 

returning in later phases.

o NIST MEP’s Move Back In Committee has met twice and Building 301 office 

construction has resumed.

• NIST MEP Organizational Update

o Andrew Nobleman joined the Center Operations Group.

o Anita Balachandra joined the Regional and State Partnerships Division.

o Michael Taylor joined the Extension Services Division.

o Mike Simpson has returned from being on detail.

o Mary Ann Pacelli is now the Chief for the Network Learning and Strategic Competitions 

Division.

Discussion

• M. Newman said he participated in one of the roundtable discussions with manufacturing 

executives and recommended that the Board members listen in on future roundtables. He 

requested that NIST MEP staff notify members of when they will occur. 
• M. Isbister asked if there were opportunities for NIST MEP to leverage content they and the 

Centers have developed to bring in funding from other federal agencies. C. Thomas said it is 

important to understand how important those products are to a particular agency. Some of the 

content they have developed is critical to DOD, but most agencies would prefer to work with 

NIST MEP and the Centers as partners or on piecemeal arrangements with smaller amounts of 

money. C. Thomas pointed to the Department of Energy (DOE) as a potentially valuable partner. 

MEP Centers have worked with them over the years without receiving any funds. R. Ivester said 

there is a large chunk of money that is in the process of moving from DOD to MEP Centers 

through outside competitive agreements without going through NIST MEP. Getting money to the 

Centers so they can provide help to manufacturers is the priority. In some instances, it may make 

sense for other agencies to offer competitive awards without involving NIST MEP at all. 

• K. Rennels said that an important part of the strategic planning process is ensuring they are 

highlighting the programs that have been built that have formed fruitful partnerships.

• L. Taito emphasized the value of the CLT’s work to strengthen the MEPNN, particularly their 

work on governance structure and communications. Their collaborations will greatly improve the 

quality and delivery of much-needed services, and it is an excellent forum for sharing lessons 

learned and best practices.

National and State Economic Challenges and Opportunities, Data Trends

Speaker: Dan Berglund, Executive Director, SSTI

Uncertain Economic Future

• Unknown whether the U.S. will experience a V, W or K-shaped recovery.

• Unemployment by the end of 2021:

o 6.5% per June 2020 Federal Reserve forecast.

o 5.5% per September 2020 Federal Reserve forecast.

• Unknown whether a vaccine will be effective or distributed rapidly.

• Difficult to get clear measurements.

o Questions about unemployment measures.

o How many businesses going out of business and how do they break down by 

sector/geography?

State and Local Government Importance

• State and local governments amount to approximately 13% of the labor force, one of the largest 

employers.

• Budget shortfalls of $555 billion for FY 2020-2022, according to the Center on Budget Policy 

and Priorities.

• Decreased tax revenue.

o Income and sales tax.

o Oil/natural gas royalties or taxes.

o Fuel taxes as a result of less traffic.

• Increase in Medicaid enrollment.

o More than 10% increase in Kentucky, Minnesota and Nevada.

o Represented 19.7% of state general fund spending in FY 2019.

• Depletion of rainy day funds.

• Difficulties in talking about state budgets.
o Year-to-year comparisons out the window as tax day moved from April 15 to July 15 in 

2020.

o Extra $600 per week federal unemployment helped keep spending and sales tax from 

cratering.

o Press reports better than expected revenues, but revenue expectations were developed in 

April/May at bottom of trough.

o Some states holding off doing updated revenue estimates.

o Some states built budgets assuming Congress would provide funds to states.

• States reliant on funds from natural resources or tourism to fund their budgets will experience 

significant budget holes.

Higher Education

• Typically a first target of state budget cuts.

• Refunds from spring semester for housing costs.

• Medical systems hit with revenue loss due to cancelled surgical procedures.

• Extra expenses in preparing for in-person instruction.

• Unclear enrollment picture as students take gap years or enroll in cheaper alternatives.

Opportunities for MEP

• Pandemic exposed U.S. dependence on foreign manufacturing in starkest manner possible.

• Pandemic provided opportunities for new dialogue between MEP Centers and policymakers on 

PPE supply chain.

• Both presidential campaigns have talked about importance of U.S. manufacturing.

• Shift in public attitude toward manufacturing.

Results of Focus Group Word Association for Manufacturing

• In 2015, primarily negative associations with the word manufacturing.

o China and overseas were common associations.

o Some mentioned negatives, such as lay-offs, waning and pollution.

• In 2020, virtually all negatives went away, replaced with positives.

o No reference to China or overseas.

o Some mentioned jobs or stability.

o Three negatives remained: obsolete, job outsourcing and monopolies.

• Manufacturing was the 11th most favorable word that people had positive connotations for in a list 

that included terms such as scientific research, renewable energy and economic development.

Discussion

• M. Newman was pleased to see the positive associations with manufacturing and wanted to 

explore ways to leverage this change in attitude.

• C. Thomas said that she has received calls from Centers that are connected to universities 

expressing how nervous they are about these trends. 17 Centers are based in colleges or 

universities, and nearly all Centers are connected to higher education in some manner.

• M. Magee asked for granular information on industry trends. D. Berglund said he did not have 

granular information but some early data forecast 10-20% of manufacturers could go out of 

business. More work is needed to assess whether that will actually happen. The Census Bureau is

expected to rerun its pulse survey to collect data from households and businesses which should 

provide a better understanding of the current situation.
• J. Anaya said a recent briefing relayed that over 90% of the businesses that closed in the Los 

Angeles area were in the food service, hospitality and entertainment industries. D. Berglund said 

the data definitely indicates that these are the businesses being impacted the most. He views the 

“things will never be the same” sentiment with great skepticism, but it is a question of how long 

the recovery will take. We do not yet have a complete picture of what the impact on the 

manufacturing sector has been.

Exploring Future Themes – NIST MEP Competitive Awards Program’s Notice of 

Funding Opportunity (NOFO) Discussion

Speaker: Michael Wilson, NIST MEP Strategic Competitions Group Competition Manager

Background

• Established under statutory authority (15 U.S.C. Section 278k-1).

• Provides MEP Centers additional resources to add capabilities to the MEP Program.

• Established in consultation with the MEP Director, the MEP Advisory Board, other federal 

agencies and SMMs.

• Published NOFO April 17, 2017.

• Themes for the NOFO derived from SMMs’ input.

o New manufacturing technologies/Industry 4.0.

o Supply chain management technologies/practices.

o Workforce intermediary and business services.

• 29 awards made to date (FY 2017 through FY 2020), with themes including:

o Medical device accreditation.

o Industry 4.0.

o Food manufacturing.

o Digital manufacturing.

o Workforce planning.

o Toyota Kata.

o Apprenticeship.

o Cybersecurity.

o Integration of SMMs into local and regional innovation ecosystems.

FY 2021 CAP NOFO

• Goal: To publish a new CAP NOFO no later than the end of the first quarter of FY 2021.

• Will incorporate new themes.

• Will include input from MEP Advisory Board, other federal agencies, client survey data from FY 

2017-2019, independent surveys conducted by Centers and information obtained from recent 

manufacturing roundtables. 

FY 2021 CAP NOFO Themes

• Things to consider:

o Relevance of previous themes.

o Activities supported through previous awards.

o Challenges to manufacturers.

o Technologies and/or business models.

• Board input to date:

o Supply chain resiliency beta test program.

o Artificial intelligence application to continuous process/chemical process industry.

o Onshoring/supply chain efforts.
o Workforce development (capturing knowledge from people exiting workforce, reskilling 

of displaced/unemployed workers).

Discussion

• J. Wright asked about recent trends in the last year for awards and how the COVID-19 

environment affected the program. C. Thomas said the program and manufacturers had to pivot to 

doing things virtually. This caused some delays, but the interruptions were not as bad as expected.

• M. Isbister asked about the response rate from the national institutes’ NOFOs and what the 

process was for determining which were successful. M. Pacelli said the NOFO for the national 

institutes was separate from NIST MEP’s. The CAP projects M. Wilson was presenting on were 

the ones run specifically for the MEP Centers. NIST MEP recently awarded 12 new projects out 

of about 15 applications. It was a competitive process, initially scored by non-MEP reviewers.

NIST MEP typically awards around 75% of the applications they receive each year. M. Isbister 

said that the three leading subject areas (Industry 4.0, supply chain management and workforce)

are even more relevant today than they were in 2017.

• M. Newman said DOE is investing $18 billion a year in research and development and discussed 

their work on improving efficiency and lowering costs for solar panels. After tax dollars were 

spent to develop these technologies, the intellectual property was then offshored. There is 

increased interest in reshoring the manufacturing of the new technology coming out of DOE and 

DOD investment, and it behooves NIST MEP to have those discussions and even beta test it. 

Driving down costs of manufacturing a particular item in the U.S. will take time, but it can be 

done.

• P. Moulton commented on workforce development. Many people in the food/hospitality sector 

may be looking to move into a new field and training and will be coming from a sector that may 

not have transferable foundational knowledge, increasing some of the workforce challenges to 

reskill workers. The challenge becomes more acute as you climb the ladder of skills and 

knowledge needed. This is a huge opportunity for NIST MEP, and she appreciates the topic

staying on the forefront of their consideration.

• L. Byars said that, as an SMM, workforce development is a major challenge right now, 

particularly capturing the knowledge of people exiting the workforce. Failing to capture this 

knowledge leads to an increased strain on the people that remain. NOFOs will be important in 

these areas. There are many ways to take advantage of the programs, but manufacturers need help 

getting them in place.

• M. Newman suggested combining the two bullets on the supply chain resiliency beta test program 

and onshoring/supply chain efforts. He requested that NIST MEP frame up what a NOFO would

look like for each of the items.

• M. Magee commented on the importance of maintaining consistency and not letting disturbances 

change NIST MEP’s direction. The themes presented were megatrends before COVID and will 

continue to be after the pandemic is over. There are a large number of manufacturers who just 

need to pull through and for whom financing will be key. There may be an opportunity for a 

NOFO to address financing opportunities that could help these manufacturers get through to the 

other side of the pandemic.

MEP Advisory Board Working Group Updates

Supply Chain Development Working Group

Speakers:

Don Bockoven, MEP Advisory Board

Dave Stieren, NIST MEP Division Chief for Extension Services
Committee Members

• Board Leader:

o Don Bockoven

• Board Members:

o LaDon Byars, Mary Isbister, Matt Newman, Chris Weiser

• NIST MEP Support:

o Rob Ivester, Mark Schmit, Dave Stieren

Working Group Deliverable 

• Guidance and perspectives on the MEPNN support and development of manufacturing supply 

chains with an emphasis on defense suppliers regarding defense industrial base gaps, and

expertise on who should be brought into the discussion to provide insight on defense supplier 

gaps.

Discussion Topics for the Board

• The MEPNN supports DOD supply chains in many areas, highlighted by:

o Cybersecurity awareness and assistance.

o Working in defense manufacturing supply chain technology transfer/transition and supply 

chain development.

• NIST MEP seeks ongoing Board perspectives on these MEPNN focus areas, approaches and 

challenges – and their alignment with the MEPNN strategic plan. These efforts primarily focus on 

the MEPNN strategic plan pillar: empowering manufacturers across the nation.

MEP National Network Cybersecurity as of September 2020

• MEPNN cybersecurity assistance for small manufacturers continues to develop strong 

nationwide capabilities.

o MEP Centers nationwide providing cybersecurity services, participating in MEPNN 

Cybersecurity Working Group

o Continues to be spurred by strong DOD partnerships.

o Continued MEP role with Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement 

(DFARS) requirements for defense sector.

o Emerging MEP Center role with DOD CMMC Program.

o Continued emphasis on risk management for all manufacturing industries served by 

MEP Centers.

MEPNN Cybersecurity Progress Summary (as of September 2020)

• Defense contractor cybersecurity implementation still low, but improving.

• 51 MEP Centers active in MEPNN Cybersecurity Working Group.

• 48 out of 51 MEP Centers with cyber practice – all have access to cyber assistance for clients.

• The MEPNN has made significant progress and continues to move forward addressing important 

needs.

2021 NDAA

• Specifies DOD budget, expenditures, policies for FY 2021.

• House and Senate NDAA bills have passed; final 2021 NDAA in conference.

• MEP mentioned in the Senate bill:

o Subject to the availability of appropriations, the Secretary of Defense, in consultation 

with the NIST Director, may award financial assistance to an MEP Center for the 

purpose of providing cybersecurity services to small manufacturers.
o Financial assistance can be used by a Center to provide small manufacturers with 

cybersecurity services related to compliance with the DFARS cybersecurity 

requirements and with the CMMC framework.

DOD CMMC

• CMMC overview.

o Future DOD acquisitions will include required certification levels for contractors; full 

implementation planned in 2026.

o CMMC does not negate DFARS.

▪ Centers continuing to provide awareness, assistance to small defense 

contractors.

• NIST MEP providing guidance to MEP Center approach to serving CMMC needs of clients.

o Centers serve as trusted advisors to clients to assist with CMMC without providing 

formal audit or certification functions, as with DFARS.

o Ongoing relationship with DOD, CMMC accreditation body for policy alignment.

o Ongoing NIST laboratory interactions for alignment with NIST cybersecurity 

approaches and policies.

Additional MEP-DOD Tech Transition/Transfer Supply Chain Development

• NavalX/Tech Bridges.

o Established in February 2019 as innovation acceleration systems for DOD.

o MEP Centers operating in Tech Bridge states are working with Tech Bridges to engage 

small U.S. manufacturers.

o NIST MEP and Office of Naval Research national relationship.

• NIST MEP-Naval Sea Systems Command Interagency Agreement.

o Funding MEP Centers to identify/insert leading-edge manufacturing technology into 

Navy shipbuilding.

o Initial efforts led by the Virginia MEP Center, working on Ford Class aircraft carrier 

production at Newport News shipbuilding; discussions underway to expand.

• Defense Manufacturing Communities Support Program.

o Runs through Office of Economic Adjustment; supports long-term community 

investments to strengthen national security innovation and expand defense industrial 

ecosystem capabilities.

o All six consortia designated by DOD’s Office of the Secretary of Defense in 2020

involve active MEP Center participation. MEP Centers involved include Alabama, 

California, Connecticut, Ohio, Pennsylvania and Utah.

Discussion

• J. Wright asked if the CMMC certification process would be similar to ISO certification, where a 

third party does certifications. D. Stieren said ISO is a great analogy. Centers help companies 

understand ISO requirements and implement them within their organizations, and then a third 

party provides the certification. This is the plan that is being rolled out by CMMC now. Full 

implementation of CMMC is expected to be in the 2025 timeframe. J. Wright asked why

implementation is so far out, given the importance of cybersecurity, and if they will rely on 

DFARS in the interim. D. Stieren said they will rely on DFARS in the interim. They expect to 

achieve full implementation by 2025, but pilot projects are ongoing. 2025 is a reasonable amount 

of time for DOD to put in place the needed infrastructure across their entire acquisition space.

• J. Anaya commended NIST MEP for doing this. He has been watching what CMTC is doing in 

California in helping smaller DOD suppliers get ready for CMMC, and this is sorely needed. D. 

Stieren said the Centers are very on top of this topic and its latest developments.
MEP National Network Strategic Plan 2023-2028 Working Group

Speakers: 

Kathay Rennels, MEP Advisory Board

Rob Ivester, MEP Deputy Director

Committee Members

• Board Leader:

o Kathay Rennels

• Board Members:

o Don Bockoven, Kevin Heller, Mary Isbister, Willie May, Matt Newman, Chris Weiser, 

Jim Wright

• Ex-officio Support:

o Bernadine Hawes

• NIST MEP Support:

o Cheryl Gendron, Rob Ivester, Wiza Lequin 

Working Group Deliverable 

• To provide long-term program direction, guidance and perspectives for the MEP National 

Network Strategic Plan for 2023-2028. The working group will consider feedback from Centers, 

stakeholder partners, management and staff as the plan is developed.

MEPNN 2017-2022 Strategic Plan Goals

• Empower manufacturers.

• Champion manufacturing.

• Leverage partnerships.

• Transform the Network.

MEPNN Strategic Plan Relationship to MEP Headquarters Operational Plan

• Every member of the MEP headquarters team has a performance plan with embedded 

deliverables and accountabilities.

• NIST MEP is working hard to update and clarify how the things they are doing drive progress 

and flow up into the four strategic plan goals.

• The MEP headquarters operational plan will encapsulate what they are doing as a collection of 

divisions and employees and how it contributes to overall progress to ensure they are investing 

their time in a way that maximizes our impact for the MEPNN strategy.

• A draft operational plan is expected to be delivered in FY 2021.

• As they build out the MEP headquarters operational plan it will be critical to connect with key 

stakeholders and stitch together a broader operational plan. 

Discussion Topics for the Board

• Where are we?

o Metrics used to measure progress drive behavior throughout the MEPNN.

• Where are we going?

o The 2017-2022 strategic plan serves to guide our current direction, and the 2023-2028 

strategic plan will guide us moving forward.

• The four pillars.

o Empower Manufacturers, Champion Manufacturing, Leverage Partnerships and 

Transform the Network – provide structure for the current plan.
• The plan guides primary and supporting roles and specific actions within the NIST MEP office, 

within the Centers and with key stakeholders, including the MEP Advisory Board and local 

Center boards.

• For each of these, where are our opportunities to improve?

Discussion

• M. Isbister said that not enough manufacturers know that there are MEP Centers available to 

assist them, not just in their state but that the entire National Network is available to SMMs. One 

area for improvement would be to become better known and leveraged by manufacturers.

• L. Taito said the work that has been done since the last MAB meeting has been very systematic

and tied to the strategic plan goals. Focusing on what is working well in specific areas and 

spreading those lessons across the country will enhance the ability to get more recognition. 

Special project funding is very important in allowing two or three smaller Centers to beta test 

projects and try out new approaches. She strongly encouraged work in finding out how to roll out 

and deploy more pilot projects.

Executive Committee Working Group

Speakers:

Mary Isbister, MEP Advisory Board Vice Chair

Cheryl Gendron, NIST MEP Advisory Board Liaison and Designated Federal Officer, MEP Advisory

 Board

Committee Members

• Board Leadership:

o Mary Isbister

• Board Members:

o Mitch Magee, Pat Moulton, Matt Newman, George Spottswood

• NIST MEP Support:

o Cheryl Gendron, Wiza Lequin, Carroll Thomas, Phill Wadsworth

Working Group Deliverable

• Provide guidance on future MEP Advisory Board leadership and membership recruitment, 

provide insights into cultivating strong Board governance as well as explore ways to expand the 

MEP Advisory Board’s role in regard to the local MEP Center boards.

Discussion Topics for the Board

• Center board outreach program.

o Are there ways to encourage MAB members to be more disciplined and more proactive 

in their outreach?

o The working group has explored having a way to track Center contacts to ensure they are 

happening and as a guide for others to reach out.

o Center boards really appreciate MAB members’ attendance and show of interest in their 

discussions.

• Succession planning for membership.

o Many MAB members’ terms will expire in 2023.

o Need to be thinking proactively about who to start recruiting in order to achieve a good 

mix of perspectives (industries, geographies, etc.).

o This is closely tied to Center outreach efforts, there is a whole group of people who have 

expressed an interest in MEP that may be potential MAB members.
• NIST MEP staff are available to support the MAB; are there things we can do to better support 

the Board?

Discussion

• K. Rennels said there is an opportunity as they move forward with the strategic plan, in building 

the visibility of the MEPNN with a whole new group of people coming in either restructuring or 

rebuilding their business. Colorado’s MEP Center is working with the state on how to structure

employee-owned businesses. This will be coming up more and more and will provide enormous 

opportunities to talk about the MEPNN and their leadership.

• M. Newman encouraged members to send additional ideas on the discussion topics to the MAB 

Chair and Vice Chair, as well as C. Thomas, R. Ivester and C. Gendron. 

Wrap-Up/Public Comments

Public Comments

• B. Zider said Centers have had to pivot internally to deliver services virtually and it is important 

to capture some of the knowledge gained in the last few months so that the Centers are building a 

learning management system to help onboard people more efficiently.

Concluding Comments

• K. Rennels said her word for the meeting and for the Board is “intentionality.”

• L. Taito applauded the efforts of the Centers and how they have continued to find new ways to 

serve manufacturers.

• G. Spottswood said MEP has helped sustain and grow millions of much-needed manufacturing 

jobs and has pushed manufacturers to be the best they can be, which plays a major role in moving 

the country forward.

• J. Wright gave kudos to C. Thomas, W. Copan and the leadership team for managing in these 

unprecedented times.

• L. Byars thanked everyone on behalf of small manufacturers for the critical assistance NIST MEP 

and the Centers provide.

• M. Magee said the pandemic has provided an opportunity to measure what is truly important. It is 

an opportunity for manufacturing to emerge better, stronger and faster.

• J. Anaya said he is grateful for being part of MEP and for all the work they do in helping 

manufacturers recover from recent economic hardships.

• M. Isbister congratulated C. Thomas on her leadership in making the MEP something to be proud 

of today.

• M. Newman said his work on the MAB is always humbling and he is honored to serve alongside 

such knowledgeable and talented Board members and NIST MEP staff.

• M. Bahar said that it is apparent that manufacturing is a calling for the MAB members and she 

could not thank them enough for their contributions and their passion.

• R. Ivester said he is looking at the opportunities ahead as highly inspirational. These times are 

challenging, but a tremendous opportunity for America to do better for manufacturing.

• C. Thomas described how much the MAB has meant to her and the tremendous difference the 

MAB has made in the past five years working with NIST MEP, the Centers and the Center 

boards. Everyone has their own leadership style, but what is more important is the passion that 

they bring to improving manufacturing. If the MAB is open to new styles of leadership in the 

coming years, they will continue to see good things happen.
Next Meeting 

The next Advisory Board Meeting is planned for late February or early March 2021, either held virtually

or in-person in Gaithersburg, Maryland.

Adjournment

With no further business, M. Newman adjourned the meeting at 5 p.m.