• •

MEP Advisory Board 

Aug. 31, 2021 

FACA Board Meeting 

This is a simplified version of the presentation for website purposes. 

A full version may be requested by emailing Cheryl.Gendron@nist.gov 
 

 

 

 

• •

FACA and the Advisory Board 

• The MEP Advisory Board is authorized under Section 3003(d) of the America COMPETES 

Act (Pub. L. 110–69), as amended by the American Innovation and Competitiveness Act, 

Public Law 114–329 sec. 501 (2017), and codified at 15 U.S.C. 278k(m), in accordance with 

the provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, 5 U.S.C., App. 

2 
 

 

• •

Welcome from Board Chair 

• Matthew Newman, MEP Advisory Board, Chair 

3 
 

 

• •

Welcome (and Welcome Back) 

Two New MEP Advisory Board Members 

• Bernadine Hawes, Econsult Solutions 

• Miriam Kmetzo, Welding Technology Corp. 

4 
 

 

 

 

 

 

• •

MAB Meeting Details 

• Tuesday, August 31, 2021 

• Board Meeting Opening/Logistics 

• Welcome and Introductions 

• Opening Remarks 

• Welcome from NIST and NIST MEP Leadership 

• Board and Audience Introductions 

• NIST MEP Senior Management Update 

• Working Group Update: MEP National NetworkTM Strategic Plan 2023-2028 

• Overview of Afternoon Discussion Areas 

• Board Feedback and Discussion 

5 
• •

Welcome and Introductions

• Mojdeh Bahar, NIST, Associate Director, Innovation and Industry Services

• Rob Ivester, Acting Director, NIST MEP

6
• •

Roll Call

• MEP Advisory Board

• Meeting host will read the list of attendee organizations registered for the meeting

• Virtual and in-person

7
• •

In Memoriam

• Mark Sessumes, TMAC Center Director

8
• •

NIST MEP Senior Management Update

• MEP Program Budget Outlook / Spend Plan

• MEP National Network Update

• NIST MEP Operational Update

• MEP National Network Strategic Plan Update

9
• •

MEP Program Budget Outlook (as of Aug. 31, 2021)

FY 2022 

Appropriation Status

• President’s budget includes $275 

million appropriation for MEP; 

increase of $125 million.

• House appropriations bill also set 

at $275 million for MEP.

• House bill includes same cost 

share provisions as FY21 

appropriation. 

FY 2021 

Appropriation Status

• Base funding: $150 million; 

$4 million increase over FY20.

• Center funding not subject to 

cost share requirements; 

elective for Centers receiving 

state funds conditioned on 

federal cost share requirement. 

10
• •

.

.

Available Funding: $ Millions

Full Year Appropriation 150.0

Carryover from FY 2020 7.3

Recoveries from Deobligations (anticipated) 1.0

Funding from Other Agencies* 0.0

Total Available Funding 158.3

Planned Expenditures: $ Millions

Center Renewals 130.0

Strategic Competitions 3.4

Contracts 4.5

NIST MEP Labor 10.8

NIST and Program Overhead 9.6

Total Planned Expenditures 158.3

Projected FY 2021 Efficiency Rate = 11.48%; actual FY 2020 Efficiency Rate = 9.03%.

* Funding from DOD for Contracts and Project Support

NIST MEP FY 2021 Projected Spend Plan

11
• •

MEP Program Potential Increase in Federal 

Funding-How Might Such Funding be 

Distributed?

• Increase to Center operations base funding

• Cost share depends on appropriation

• Percentage of increase will be applied to base, not total increase

• Through the existing/modified strategic competitions structure

• Exploring an increase to the maximum award amounts under CAP NOFO

• Additional potential funding around areas of strategic focus

• Manufacturing technology/MTDFs, workforce, supply chain

12
• •

And on the Legislative Front

• Congress and the Administration has kept us very busy—And THAT’S A GOOD THING!

13
• •

Congress in a Nutshell

• To explain how Congress works is a hundred slide study in archaic and formal—both bodies, the 

Senate and the House are by design, reactive.

• Both bodies have:

• Authorization committees (with subcommittees broken out by agency or topic). This is 

where what we consider “laws” are drafted.

• Appropriation committees (with subcommittees broken out by agency or topic). This is 

where the money is put to these laws.

• Authorization bills contain dollar amounts which are not real; they simply state what the boundaries 

are for appropriations.

• Appropriations bills contain amounts of real money to be spent by the federal government, normally 

on an annual FY basis starting Oct. 1.

14

14
• •

Congress in a Nutshell

To explain how a bill is passed, this too can be an exercise in complicated parliamentary rules, 

but basically, in an ideal scenario...

• Both the Senate and House subcommittees would pass a bill which would be “marked up” 

(just like it reads) for the full committee to vote upon. 

• The full committee then votes for the bill and it goes to conference where both Senate and 

House members sit as conferees to negotiate a compromise bill.

• That bill then goes to the floor of both bodies to be passed and then it is forwarded to the 

White House for presidential signature—at which time that bill is now law.

• Of course, this ideal scenario never happens. So there is much more sausage making 

that we can go into offline. 

• Appropriations bills work basically the same way, except that we have not had the 13 

separate appropriations bills fully passed and signed by the POTUS since roughly 1996.

15
• •

On the Legislative Front in this, the 

117th Congress

1. Some Major Legislative Actions

2. Budget FY 2022 & Cares Act IG Report

3. Other Important Activities

16
• •

1. Some Major Legislative Actions

Congress is currently on recess until after Labor Day

• The U.S. Innovation and Competition Act (USICA) Senate Bill—S. 1260 

• Allows for a substantial increase in the NIST MEP budget authorization to $480 million

• Contains a new Expansion Awards program allows NIST MEP to commence to issue additional funds

*As passed by the Senate; the House has not brought the same bill up

• The House Science Committee did mark-up a bill to reauthorize the functions of NIST

• Contains a PILOT Expansion Awards program allows NIST MEP to commence to issue additional funds, including 

language about the amounts, duration, and selection criterion for such awards

• Included language to allow NIST MEP to more easily receive monies from other sources

• Clarifies throughout that NIST MEP helps U.S. based manufacturers 

17

17
• •

2. The Budget Outlook for FY 2022 and CARES Act 

The House Mark—$275 Million for NIST MEP in FY 2022

• Appropriation is the same as the President’s Budget request—or $125M more than FY 2021

• Appropriations language states that the entire proposed mark is cost-share exempt

• The Senate Mark has not been released; both the House and the POTUS being the same is a good signal of 

what’s to come

18

Cares Act Inspector General (IG) Exit Conference Briefing:

“As I noted during our call in May, we do not have any reportable findings. The final Evaluation memo summarizes the results of our 

work and is very positive in nature. Accordingly, we will not require any written response from NIST management. As you know, 

our core focus was on the implementation of the CARES Act to include the pre-award and award phases of the grant 

lifecycle; overall, we were impressed with how quickly NIST advertised the CARES Act funding, provided training/outreach to 

prospective grantees, and awarded the funds (while adhering to the DOC Grants and Cooperative Agreements Manual and the 

Uniform Guidance requirements), all while dealing with the fallout of the pandemic. Well done!”

Final Report: https://www.oig.doc.gov/Pages/NIST-Was-Effective-in-Implementing-the-Requirements-for-Awarding-Funds-Under-the-CARES-Act.aspx

18
• •

3. Other Important Activities: Congress and the Administration

• A national supply chain database remains a priority for Congress, the Administration 

and NIST MEP.

• The major Infrastructure legislation which just passed the Senate contains provisions 

for NIST MEP.

• The CHIPS Act remains front and center.

• NIST MEP is working on three additional fronts: supply chain, technology and 

workforce.

• NIST MEP anxiously awaits the final appropriation for NIST MEP, however knowing it 

could come much later than Oct. 1, 2021.

• We will continue to monitor these and other actions.

AND, The POTUS recently issued a proclamation announcing...

19

19
• •

CARES Act Update: Highlights of Funding Initiatives

• Working directly with state governments

• Linking state government policies and programs to manufacturers by participating in emergency task forces to address challenges and 

issues

• Connecting the manufacturing industry and state procurement efforts

• Managing state-level supply chain portals, linking manufacturers to demand and organizing them to deploy as needs change

• Addressing issues with manufacturing PPE, medical supplies and medical devices

• Helping manufacturers meet the country’s urgent needs for PPE and medical devices by guiding them to information and solutions about 

testing protocols, quality testing and required certifications

• Helping address issues of potential legal liabilities arising from the production of PPE and medical supplies and devices

• Serving Manufacturers

• More than 414,000 manufacturing establishments contacted

• Over 21,000 projects completed

• Project end date Sept. 30, 21 – over 80% of funds allocated by MEP Centers 20

20
• •

Strategic Competition Update

• New CAP NOFO released Dec. 28, 2020 

• 14 eligible applications in review

• FY21 funding could provide significant funds for strategic competitions

• Strategic competition NOFO format

• Increased amount available 

• Potentially increased amount per award

• Will communicate key topics that we will be expecting through NOFO(s)

• Workforce

• Supply chain

• Technology adoption

21

21
• •

Strategic Competitions and Network Learning

• Close-out meetings for concluding CAPs will be open to the Network 

• Communicate programs and materials for the benefit and use of National Network

22

• New York MEP: Capital Region Innovation Resource Center

• Georgia MEP: Food Safety Compliance and Management for Small 

Food and Beverage Processors

• Innovate Hawaii: Smart Talent

• University of South Dakota: Technology Adoption Center for 

Increased Competitiveness

• Missouri Enterprise: Food Safety in the Heartland

• Montana MEP: NW Food Safety Modernization Act 

• MMTC: Cybersecurity for Defense Manufacturing

Projects that will be highlighted in the coming months

22
• •

Network Learning: Connect, Communicate and Collaborate

• New Network Learning Corner in the Network News

• To effectively share, transfer and discuss NIST MEP’s vision, learnings, distinctive practices, meeting and 

webinar recordings, programs, success stories, and special announcements

• New Network Learning section on MEP Connect

• Knowledge sharing from NIST MEP — working groups, extension services, competitive awards projects, 

distinctive practices, helpful resources and more

• Competitive Awards Program highlights

• Funding opportunities

• Project outcomes and deliverables 23

Knowledge sharing is an essential component of the MEP National Network – solving problems, introducing 

technologies and reengineering processes require seeing the world through a new lens and taking the 

opportunity to act. 
• •

Board Support

NIST MEP Network Learning has been coordinating MEP Center Board support since 2017. 

• Offer Board member assessments using an MEP-centric assessment tool. Results are confidential

• Offer action planning sessions as a result of the assessments and workshops targeted to specific needs of 

Boards. Sessions have covered topics such as strategic planning, advocacy and Board recruitment

MEP BoardSource subscription

• A nationally recognized organization whose mission is to increase effectiveness in board governance, education 

and training; valuable for both Center Directors and Center Board members

• Subscription gives access to the various best practices, blogs, studies and various governance materials

• MEP has a dedicated link to access the site in MEP Connect in the Board Governance tab

24

25 assessments 18 action planning consulting 14 workshops 9 individual consults

34 states (and 37 SRAs) have used board development services
• •

25

• Reimagining the CLT’s voice and role to influence the MEP National Network by 

addressing the five priorities in a way that positions the National Network as the 

obvious answer to manufacturing policies and advances.

• Building new frameworks and processes that position the MEP National Network to 

impact American manufacturing while preserving the legacy operations that bring 

effective solutions to manufacturers

• Creating a new learning space that will allow the MEP National Network to learn 

about and harness leading edge thinking and practices that will place the MEP at 

the hub of the major issues facing American manufacturing.

.

Order of magnitude funding for the MEP is becoming more likely. 

With that backdrop, the CLT is:
• •

26

Mark Schmit (NIST MEP)

Kathie Mahoney (RI)

Bill Donohue (VA)

Rob Ivester (NIST MEP)

Jim Watson (CA)

Tom Bugnitz (CO)

Mike Coast (MI)

Carrie Hines (ASMC/FORME)

Ethan Karp (OH) 

MEP National Network Center Leadership Team (CLT)

Buckley Brinkman (WI)

Alyssa Rodrigues (AK)

Tiffany Stovall (KS)

Jennifer Sinsabaugh (NM)

MEP National 

Network Center 
• •

The Expanded MEP Program: Extension Services

27

Focusing on new MEP program initiatives:

• Manufacturing technology demonstration facilities

• Workforce services

• Supply chain development
• •

Current Extension Services Provide Solid Foundation for 

Program Expansion

28

Expanding the Base MEP Program

• Continue to provide traditional MEP Center services

• Increase breadth and depth of MEP service offerings 

Supply Chain Development

• Starting point: increase domestic content in, and resilience of supply chains 

determined to be critical to U.S. national/economic security and public health

• Serve top-of-supply chain entities and individual manufacturers within those supply 

chains 

• Expand MEP Supplier Scouting 

• Help SMMs increase their resilience

• Serve manufacturers in other U.S. manufacturing supply chains as appropriate

MEP 

Manufacturer/Supply 

Chain Resilience

• Resilient manufacturers are 

proactive - managing risk and 

opportunities while operating 

based upon data-driven business 

decision-making

• Improving manufacturer resilience 

at the individual company level is 

necessary to improve overall 

supply chain resilience –

representing a unique opportunity 

for the MEP program

• MEP Manufacturer Resilience 

Framework in development
• •

Current Extension Services Provide Foundation for 

Program Expansion

Manufacturing Technology Demonstration Facilities

• Build upon ongoing MEPNN work in advanced manufacturing technology, cybersecurity, 

MATTR, AMTS projects, CAP awards 

• Establish and operate manufacturing technology demonstration facilities (MTDFs) around the 

nation as part of state-based manufacturing ecosystems

• Each MTDF focused on a specific key product/technology area determined to be critical to 

U.S. national and economic security or public health

Workforce services

• Working with SMMs to help them identify new opportunities to grow their workforce and talent 

• Continue to build upon ongoing efforts to strengthen MEP program impacts on both 

manufacturers and manufacturing 

29
• •

Last Updated Nov 25, 2021

New MEP Center Directors

Tim Israel Tom Simpkins Staci Miller Kimberly Ingalls

Kathie Mahoney Steve Black Don Cuperus Dr. Ramon Vega

Beatriz Gutierrez Paul Lucy Patricia Giavara Aaron Patrick - Interim 30

Dayna Blanchard
• •

31

NIST MEP: Operational Update
NIST MEP Org Ch

•

art FY21

•

Last Updated Aug. 16, 2021 32
• •

33

MEP National Network 

Current Strategic Plan
• •

Strategic Plan Update

34

Empower 

Manufacturers

Champion 

Manufacturers

Leverage 

Partnerships

Transform

the Network
• •

35

1. Strengthening the National Supply Chain

Increase supplier connections

2. Serving the Manufacturing Workforce

Increase client engagement in workforce services 

3. Increased Visibility

Amplify and measure Network brand awareness 

4. Leading in Technology Deployment

Increase client engagement in technology services

18 Month 

Measures of 

Success
• •

Measure 1 – Strengthening the Supply Chain

• Goal: 

• Increase Supplier Scouting requests by 10% • Goal: 

• Increase successful Supplier Scouting matches by 10%

36

137

124

328

298
• •

Measure 2 – Serving the Manufacturing Workforce

Goal: Increase clients engaged with workforce projects by 10%

37

1,980

1,800
• •

*New baseline set based on progress to date for most recent quarter, April 1, 2021 – June 30, 2021

Brand Measure New Baseline for 

Next 18 Months

New Amplification Goal 

with 10% Increase

#MEPNationalNetwork Hashtag Occurrences 567 624

Brand Mentions 194 213

Manufacturing Innovation Blog Subscribers 40,130 44,143

Backlinks 186 205

Social Media Followers 18,419 20,261

Measure 3: Increased Visibility by Amplifying Network Brand Awareness by at Least 10%. 

18 Month Measures of Success — Progress to Date

38
• •

Measure 4 – Leading in Technology Deployment

Goal: 

Increase clients engaged with technology services 

projects by 10%

Goal: 

Increase MATTR requests by 10%

39

1,081

983 25

28
• •

MEP Advisory Board 

Working Group Updates

40
• •

MEPNN Strategic Plan Working Group 2023-2028

EXTENDED

• Committee Members

• Board Leadership

Kathay Rennels

• Board Members

Don Bockoven, Kevin Heller, Mary Isbister, Willie May, Matt Newman, Jim Wright

With extended Board member participation, NIST MEP support and partners from the MEP National Network 

• Deliverable

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

Strategic Plan for 2023-2028. The WG will consider feedback from Centers, stakeholders, partners, 

management and staff as the plan is developed.

41
• •

42

MEP into the Future; Focus Group Listing

Overarching Resilience

• David Stieren, LaDon Byars, Bernadine Hawes

Reshoring

• Rob Ivester, Don Bockoven, George Spottswood

National Supply Chain

• Mark Schmit, Matthew Newman, Mary Isbister

Workforce

• Mary Ann Pacelli, Kathay Rennels, Jose Anaya, Mitchell Magee
• •

Strategic Planning the Foundation to 

Support MEP Program’s Planned Expansion

43

• Technology Demonstration Measures

• Supply Chain Measures

• Network Learning

• Workforce

NIST MEP seeks ongoing Advisory Board perspectives on these MEPNN 

focus areas, approaches, challenges.
• •

Focus Groups: MEP into the Future

Overarching Resilience

44

• Advisory Board discussion led by the following:

• LaDon Byars

• Bernadine Hawes

• David Stieren
• •

Reshoring

45

• Advisory Board discussion led by the following:

• Don Bockoven

• George Spottswood

• Rob Ivester

Focus Groups: MEP into the Future
• •

National Supply Chain

46

• Advisory Board discussion led by the following:

• Matthew Newman

• Mary Isbister

• Mark Schmit

Focus Groups: MEP into the Future
• •

Workforce

47

• Advisory Board discussion led by the following:

• Jose Anaya

• Mitchell Magee

• Mary Ann Pacelli

• Kathay Rennels

Focus Groups: MEP into the Future
• •

Supply Chain Development Working Group

• Committee Members

• Board Leadership

Don Bockoven

• Board Members

Ray Aguerrevere, LaDon Byars, Mary Isbister, Matt Newman 

• NIST MEP Support

Rob Ivester, Dave Stieren, Mark Schmit

48

The WG will update the Board on relevant MEPNN efforts relating to supply chain development, 

emphasizing MEP Program strategies and plans regarding supply chains. WG emphasis is shifting to 

reflect MEP program expansion plans for supply chains including and beyond previous WG focus on 

cybersecurity and DOD.
• •

Supply Chains – What, Why and How

49

GOAL: Improve U.S. manufacturing supply chains so that:

1. U.S. supply chains will be more resilient at the overall manufacturing level and at the individual 

manufacturer level

2. Key products and critical technologies (EO 14017) will be more effectively and comprehensively 

sourced domestically

WHY

• Sharp focus NOW on U.S. dependence on 

global supply chains

• U.S. domestic manufacturing base gaps 

highlight lack of supply chain resilience, 

undermining U.S. economic, national security 

and public health

HOW

• Top-down/bottom-up approach

• Expand MEP Supplier Scouting / implement 

national supply chain database

• Deliver assistance services to SMMs to 

increase individual resilience and overall 

supply chain resilience
• •

50

Resilience

Ability to capitalize on opportunities in timely manner

Low

High 

High 

Ability to 

recover from 

negative 

perturbations

In a timely 

manner

Responsive

but not Proactive

Responsive and Proactive

“Resilient”

Fragile Proactive but Vulnerable

Low
• •

MEP Manufacturer Resilience Framework

51

Project Human Capital 

Manage... Management

Product Service & Asset 

Management Management

Sales Production 

Management Management

Customer Supply Chain 

Relationship Management

Management

Planning & Financial 

Scheduling Management

51

Integrated 

Strategies 

& Tactics

• Centers provide many resilience-relevant services that 

will be leveraged – and highlighted

• Business assessments, business planning, risk 

management is integral

• Timeliness is important

• The Framework will include:

1. Repository (assessments, tools, expertise) that 

can be shared across MEPNN

2. Approaches / playbooks for Centers to help 

companies implement integrated strategies and 

tactics to improve their resilience

• Approach can be delivered at bottom-up manufacturer 

level. Can it also apply at top-down supply chain / 

manufacturing level?
• •

52

MEP Supplier Scouting

• EO14005: MEP anticipates potential significant expansion of Supplier Scouting for federal 

agencies/procurements

• EO14017: MEP anticipates Supplier Scouting to be leveraged nationally to analyze / map 

critical supply chain needs and gaps and help address them

• Centers use a variety of approaches and tools to do scouting

• National Supply Chain Database (NSCDB)

• Assist in effective ID of new U.S. manufacturers to enter supply chains at state and 

national levels

• No specific platform to be prescribed – NSCDB implementation will need to be 

interoperable at national level with databases used by Centers at state level

• NSCDB security and data verification will be critical
• •

Executive Committee Working Group

• Committee Members

• Board Leadership

Mary Isbister

• Board Members

Mitch Magee, Pat Moulton, Matt Newman, George Spottswood

• NIST MEP Support

Rob Ivester, Cheryl Gendron, Phill Wadsworth, Wiza Lequin

• 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.

53
• •

MEP Advisory Board: Center Board 

Outreach Program

54

The goal is to create a board-to-board exchange of information and 

communication that will strengthen the MEP National Network.

• Creation of subset of working group for outreach

• Coaching and mentoring to assist with efforts

• New questions developed into the summer/fall

Center Board 

Outreach Program

Fall 2021 and Beyond
• •

2022 Meeting Schedule*

Planning is Underway: Details Coming Soon

MEP Advisory Board

• Wednesday, March 9, 2022

• Gaithersburg, Maryland & NIST Campus/prior to Hill Day

MEP Advisory Board

• Wednesday, June 8, 2022

• Tulsa, Oklahoma – Finally!!

MEP Advisory Board

• Sunday, Sept. 18, 2022

• Location TBD/Co-Located with the MEPNN Summit 

55 *Prospective dates (all subject to change)
• •

Thank You

56

For the Full Presentation, Please contact Cheryl Gendron at 

Cheryl.Gendron@nist.gov

VISIT OUR BLOG 

https://www.nist.gov/blogs/manufacturing-innovation-blog

Get the latest NISTMEP news at:

www.nist.gov/mep