1

National Institute of Standards and Technology

Manufacturing Extension Partnership

Advisory Board

Minutes of the June 8, 2022 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 10 

a.m. to 1:43 p.m. on June 8, 2022, at the Hyatt Regency Tulsa Downtown and via video teleconference. 

The meeting had 57 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

Ray Aguerrevere, Vice President and General Manager, Custom Metal Designs

Jose Anaya, Dean of Community Advancement, El Camino Community College

Donald Bockoven, CEO, Fiber Industries LLC

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

Peter Connolly, Owner, Connolly Consulting

Bernadine Hawes, Senior Advisor, Econsult 

Mary Isbister, President of GenMet Corporation

Miriam Kmetzo, Executive Vice President, Welding Technology Corp.

Mitch Magee, Manufacturing Industry Consultant 

G. Christopher Mathews, Chairman, National Custom Hollow Metal Doors and Maple Leaf Awning and 

Canvas

Patricia Moulton, President, Vermont Technical College

Matthew Newman, Chair, MEP Advisory Board and Managing Partner of New Era Advisors

Annette Parker, President, South Central College

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

Leslie Taito, Executive Vice President of Business Operations, Taco Comfort Solutions

Jim Wright, Vice President of Operations, Proof Research

NIST MEP Participants

Pravina Raghavan, MEP Director

Mark Schmit, NIST MEP, Division Chief for Regional and State Partnerships

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

 Board

Guest Speakers

Laurie Locascio, Under Secretary of Commerce for Standards and Technology and Director, NIST 

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

Daniel Goldstein, CEO and President/Employee Owner, Folience

Geoff Hager, Big Elk Energy

Dave Rowland, Oklahoma Manufacturing Alliance
2

Observers

Mellissa Ayala, NIST MEP

Allegra Chilstrom, Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Monica Claussen, NIST MEP

Jose Colucci-Rios, NIST MEP

Larry Danner, The Clearing

Nadine DeJesus, NIST MEP

Doug Devereaux, NIST MEP

Diane Henderson, NIST MEP

Autumn Hernandez, NIST MEP

Eliot Johnson, The Clearing

Theresa Kerrigan, Sustainable Tulsa, Inc.

Brian Lagas, NIST MEP

Heather Mayton, NIST MEP

Kevin McIntyre, NIST MEP

Dimitrios Meritis, NIST MEP

Andrew Nobleman, NIST MEP

Mary Ann Pacelli, NIST MEP

Kim Pinckney, NIST MEP

Katie Rapp, NIST MEP

Craig Reid, NIST MEP

Kari Reidy, NIST Office of Congressional and Legislative Affairs

Carol Shibley, NIST MEP

Julia Shriner, NIST MEP

Hope Snowden, NIST MEP

Megan Spangler, NIST MEP

Michael Taylor, NIST MEP

Carroll Thomas, NIST MEP

Nico Thomas, NIST MEP

Ben Vickery, NIST MEP

Phill Wadsworth, NIST MEP

Marlon Walker, NIST MEP

Samm Webb, NIST MEP

Corey Williams, Sustainable Tulsa, Inc.

Welcome and Introductions

Speakers:

 

 Pravina Raghavan, MEP Director

 Matt Newman, Chair, MEP Advisory Board

 David Rowland, Executive Director, Oklahoma Manufacturing Alliance (OK MEP)

 Geoff Hager, Big Elk Energy

 Laurie Locascio, Under Secretary of Commerce for Standards and Technology and Director, NIST

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

P. Raghavan welcomed participants and expressed her regret that she could not attend the in-person 

meeting in Tulsa, Oklahoma. She thanked M. Newman and D. Rowland for hosting the Board and the 

NIST MEP staff for their work to facilitate the hybrid meeting. She reviewed the agenda and introduced 

the three new Advisory Board members: Peter Connolly, who serves as the current Chair of the New 
3

Jersey MEP advisory board; G. Christopher Mathews, the Chairman of National Custom Hollow Metal 

Doors and Maple Leaf Awning and Canvas; and Dr. Annette Parker, President of South Central College. 

M. Newman welcomed the attendees to Tulsa and introduced Dave Rowland, President and CEO of the 

Oklahoma Manufacturing Alliance (OMA, the Oklahoma MEP Center), for his opening remarks. D. 

Rowland gave an overview of manufacturing in Oklahoma. Of the approximately 4,000 manufacturers in 

Oklahoma, 97% are small and medium-sized businesses. The state’s main manufacturing industries are 

energy, aviation and aerospace, and biosciences, as well as drones and electric vehicles. G. Hager, CEO 

of Big Elk Energy Systems and Chair of OMA’s board, spoke about his company’s work manufacturing 

energy equipment. Like many in the energy industry, Big Elk is looking to pivot toward emerging 

technologies and energy sources. They placed their first hydrogen-related bid a year ago and produce 

biomethane skids. They also work in the carbon capture space, incorporating existing hydrogen blending 

technology into their equipment and using it as an injection point into traditional pipelines. 

MEP Advisory Board members introduced themselves and their organizations. P. Raghavan introduced 

Dr. Laurie Locascio, the fourth Under Secretary of Commerce for Standards and Technology and 17th 

NIST Director. L. Locascio noted that NIST MEP was a consistent topic of conversation with senators 

during her confirmation process, which is a testament to MEP’s impressive work. L. Locascio said that 

she was excited for opportunities to expand technology and innovation efforts to drive development and 

adoption of proven advanced manufacturing technology among small and medium-sized manufacturers 

(SMMs). Manufacturing is only as strong as the supply chain that supports it, and the past three years 

have exposed vulnerabilities in the supply chains. The MEP program is uniquely positioned to address 

known vulnerabilities and proactively strengthen domestic manufacturing capabilities. In recent years,

President Biden has called on NIST and MEP through multiple executive orders to help strengthen U.S. 

supply chains and enhance competitiveness and national security. The National Defense Authorization 

Act and the President’s proposed Bipartisan Innovation Act also cite the MEP program’s role with respect 

to U.S. supply chains. The MEP program supports manufacturers’ workforce needs and addresses worker 

shortages with new approaches to recruitment, training and retention in an effort to close the workforce 

gap. L. Locascio emphasized her commitment to supporting the MEP program’s critical efforts and 

thanked Board members for their service. 

P. Raghavan introduced Mojdeh Bahar, Associate Director for Innovation and Industry Services at NIST. 

M. Bahar noted that this was her first in-person Board meeting since joining NIST. She thanked the hosts 

in Oklahoma and said that she was looking forward to the tour of McElroy Manufacturing later that day. 

In the course of the COVID-19 pandemic, words formerly associated with manufacturing, such as supply 

chains, have become part of the daily lexicon. Since the last Board meeting in March, President Biden 

signed into law the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2022, under which the MEP program received 

$158 million. NIST continues to plan for an expansion of the MEP program and a focus on its themes of 

supply chain, workforce, and technology and innovation. Development of the MEP National NetworkTM 

(MEPNN) 2023-2028 Strategic Plan has continued. The new plan will build on and extend what we’re 

doing, and address gaps. An expansion of the MEP-Assisted Technology and Technical Resource 

(MATTR) program has also recently been launched. MATTR+ will expand the existing MATTR 

program, providing the connection between NIST laboratories and MEP Centers, and through that 

connection provide SMMs with efficient and rapid technology support access via a consolidated 

approach. M. Bahar thanked Board members for their leadership and dedication.
4

MEP Director’s Update, part one

Speaker: Pravina Raghavan, MEP Director

MEP program budget outlook

• Fiscal year (FY) 2021 appropriation status

o Base funding: $150 million

o $4 million increase over FY 2020

o Funding not subject to cost share requirements (elective for Centers receiving state funds 

conditioned on federal cost share requirement)

• FY 2022 appropriation status

o $158 million for MEP

o Funding not subject to cost share requirements (elective for Centers receiving state funds 

conditioned on federal cost share requirement)

• FY 2023 appropriation status outlook

o President's budget calls for $275 million for MEP

o No expectation of cost share exemption

• NIST MEP projected spend plan through March 11, 2022

o Available funding

▪ Appropriation: $158 million

▪ Carryover from FY 2021: $2 million

▪ Anticipated prior-year recoveries: $3.2 million

▪ Funding from other agencies (from Department of Defense for contracts and 

project support): $1.6 million

▪ Total available funding: $164.8 million

o Planned expenditures

▪ Center renewals: $134.1 million

▪ Strategic competitions: $0.7 million

▪ Contracts: $6.5 million

▪ NIST MEP labor: $11.5 million

▪ NIST and program overhead: $12 million

▪ Total planned expenditures: $164.8 million

o Projected FY 2022 efficiency rate: 11.84%; actual FY 2021 efficiency rate: 11.94%

Manufacturing legislation

• The past few years have been a flurry of executive and legislative action regarding manufacturing

• Executive order (EO) 14005, EO 14017 and other actions have heightened manufacturing 

visibility nationwide

• FY 2022 appropriations require MEP to start work on the supply chain database

• Appropriations coming for a new Bipartisan Innovation Act?

Uniqueness value MEP to build U.S. manufacturing

• MEP Centers partner with organizations including: federal government, state/local government, 

associations, higher education, regional economic development organizations, nonprofit 

organizations, for-profit consultants and others

• MEP Centers act as the lynchpin in boosting communities and ecosystems across the country

• MEP National Network can support the Administration’s priorities focused on:

o Ensuring operational domestic supply chains

o Improving and increasing the available workforce at a living wage

o Supporting growth of advanced manufacturing technology
5

• MEP Centers serve SMMs, a unique client base, that will need additional support to be able to 

increase their reach and penetration while also increasing their economic impact in their 

communities

• NIST MEP can partner with other bureaus in the Department of Commerce and other federal 

agencies to increase U.S. manufacturing by broadening the services available through the MEP 

National Network

MEP client demographics

• U.S. manufacturers statistics

o Over 98.9% of U.S. manufacturers are small (<500 employees)

o Over 90% have <100 employees

o According to the Economic Census, SMMs historically account for 73% of paid 

employees, 62% of value added, and 67% of payroll in U.S. manufacturing

• MEP clients

o Over 79% of MEP clients have <100 employees

o 42% of MEP clients have <20 employees

o 18% of MEP clients are in rural areas

o 12% of MEP clients are women owned

o 10% of MEP clients are startups

o 6% of MEP clients are minority owned

• SMMs are critical to rebuilding U.S. manufacturing competitiveness, as they represent pathways 

to increase domestic supply chains for critical industries

MEP program themes

• NIST MEP has designed three new program themes: 

o Supply chain

o Workforce

o Technology and innovation

• Theme objectives:

o Supply chain: To connect MEP’s on-the-ground knowledge with macro-level monitoring 

and analysis in order to enable broad visibility across supply chains, identify trends and 

vulnerabilities and respond accordingly

o Workforce: To support manufacturers’ skilled and diverse workforce needs, and to 

address worker shortages with new approaches to recruitment, retraining and retention

o Technology and innovation: To drive development and adoption of proven advanced 

manufacturing technology, integrating cybersecurity which will enable innovation

• NIST MEP has published a guide for MEP Centers that provides more information on each 

program theme, including:

o Challenge/need

o Strategy

o Manufacturer and manufacturing impacts

o Desired outcomes/metrics

o Expectations

Supply chain – MEP program support

• Supply chain resilience and security is integral to U.S. manufacturers’ competitive advantage

• MEP has extensive experience with and expertise in building supplier networks

• The Senate’s United States Innovation and Competition Act of 2021 and House of 

Representatives’ America COMPETES Act of 2022 both specify an MEP program role for a 

national supply chain database
6

• Supplier Scouting is the foundation of how MEP Centers can work with manufacturers to map 

their supply chains and populate supplier databases, which will enable us to identify required 

capabilities and potential vulnerabilities

Supply chain – Network support

• Supplier scouting success stories:

o Edge Cycling Technologies, located in Dayton, Ohio, is the manufacturer of a bicycle 

saddle that reduces the pressure points created by conventional seats. FASTLANE (part 

of Ohio MEP) introduced the owners of Edge Cycling to additive manufacturing 

assistance, and helped vet suppliers with FASTLANE’s supplier scouting capabilities and 

network of manufacturers across the greater Dayton region.

o Vac-Tron Equipment, LLC in Okahumpka, Florida, produces industrial vacuums, 

potholing, day-lighting, hydro-excavation and air excavation equipment. Vac-Tron was 

purchasing fabricated items from out of state, causing long lead times and challenges 

with quality control. FloridaMakes (Florida MEP) compiled a high-level assessment of 

the fabricated items purchased out of state, then matched the parameters to the 

capabilities of a local fabricator within the same county.

o NIST MEP received a scouting request from Catalyst Connection (part of Pennsylvania 

MEP) seeking a domestic quick turn printable circuit board assembly. Innovative 

Manufacturers’ Center (part of Pennsylvania MEP) submitted a company as an exact 

match. Contact with matches was identified and the supply contract awarded.

Discussion

• L. Byars noted that in the supplier scouting success stories, instead of a report, the Centers put 

things into action, which is of the utmost importance for expanding all three program themes.

• L. Taito said that in the area of price competitive quotes, SMMs do not always realize that they 

need to price out and include overseas freight and transportation to state the return on investment. 

It would be useful for Centers to assist SMMs to competitively position themselves and to 

understand their own capacity. 

• M. Magee added that the ability to do risk and vulnerability analysis is important. He said that 

through the Board's outreach efforts he has heard many Center board chairs express excitement 

about the supplier scouting program. He thinks there’s an opportunity to make it more than just a 

database, make it more robust.

• P. Moulton said that the mapping aspect of supplier scouting was important to understand the 

capabilities in each state and to serve as an introduction to SMMs who are not yet connected with 

MEP Centers.

• D. Bockoven said that MEP is serving a small percentage of manufacturers and they need to think 

about how to get a broader perspective and increase the knowledge of MEP across the country. 

They also need to make sure that when people pivot their manufacturing they are protected from 

risk on the downside, such as manufacturers who switched to making personal protective 

equipment during the pandemic.

• R. Aguerrevere said that in addition to the macro level, on the micro level it was important to 

support smaller manufacturers through visibility toward pipelines, businesses and supply chains. 

Materials are going to bigger players. He has also heard concerns about access to and cost of 

capital for smaller manufacturers.

• J. Wright suggested working with the federal government to improve the transportation problems 

that have become more common in the last two years, which are preventing manufacturers from 

getting materials on time. 

• B. Hawes said that MEP Centers should be expanding opportunities for startups, women, and 

minority-owned businesses, and guiding them toward the supply chain issues. She agreed with P. 
7

Moulton’s comments about asset mapping and added that they needed to ensure collaboration 

across the MEPNN. Some companies that pivoted during the pandemic are returning to their core 

businesses while others are not, and this will have effects on the supply chain. 

• M. Kmetzo said that as a small business her company is excited about the supplier sourcing 

efforts, but they probably will not experience the impact for a year or two. She suggested that 

MEP Centers could collaborate and help source components to meet the immediate needs of 

SMMs. 

• L. Taito said that in the past few months her company has experienced five manufacturers 

shutting down their businesses because they could not continue under current conditions. MEP 

could be invaluable in helping these SMMs to either transfer or sell their business. 

• M. Newman said that these challenges were very complex and predicted that his takeaways from 

the meeting would be the importance of increasing MEP’s circle of collaboration, camaraderie 

and advising. MEP should use its Network and act as the connector and resource across the U.S. 

between different stakeholders.

• M. Bahar added that each stakeholder group was a network itself. At the macro level it is 

important for MEP to think about how to ensure that every node in every network has the 

opportunity to connect.

• P. Raghavan noted that MEP is working with the Treasury Department to connect MEP Centers 

to state organizations to receive loans from the State Small Business Credit Initiative.

Workforce – MEP program support

• MEP helps SMMs with an extensive range of workforce needs that address all stages of the 

employee lifecycle 

• Customized training for entry-level workers

• Recruitment and talent acquisition

• Strategic talent planning

• Leadership coaching and development

• Organizational culture and employee engagement

• Succession planning

Workforce – Network support

• NIST MEP Competitive Awards Program (CAP) project: America Works

o The main award is to Enterprise Minnesota (Minnesota MEP) but it is coordinated by a 

project manager at Manufacturing Advocacy and Growth Network (MAGNET, part of 

Ohio MEP)

o The project will increase the efficiency and effectiveness of workforce development 

efforts at all levels through improving communication, collaboration and cooperation 

across the MEPNN

o Second year of workforce services survey of MEP Centers (60 responses)

o Working group developing a diversity, equity and inclusion best practice resource guide 

(expected July 1, 2022)

o Workforce conference for MEP Centers taking place June 23-24, with over 40 

registrations. This will focus on best practices in workforce at MEP Centers that are 

making an impact with SMMs, including how MEP Centers are helping fill open 

manufacturing jobs and retain workers for clients.

o America Works has funded 13 minigrants so far and will fund 6-7 more this fall. Projects 

include:

▪ In-prison manufacturing training and placement (2)

▪ Pilot manufacturing training for individuals with autism

▪ New apprenticeships, with materials translated into Spanish
8

▪ Using virtual reality for manufacturing awareness training in high schools

▪ Robotics boot camp for displaced/underemployed adults

• CAP project: A Vision to Increase the Diversity of Manufacturing and Engineering Talent among 

the MEP National Network and Manufacturers

o Lead: Iowa State University Center for Industrial Research and Service (Iowa MEP 

Center)

o Collaborating partners:

▪ Illinois Manufacturing Extension Center (Illinois MEP)

▪ Kansas Manufacturing Solutions (Kansas MEP)

▪ MAGNET

o The project focuses on enhancing diversity in manufacturing by building a pipeline of 

diverse manufacturing leadership talent through deployment of an MEP internship 

program focused on under-represented minorities

o The project will develop a minority internship program within the partner Centers; the 

pilot will expand to 10 other Centers in year two

o Each Center will host two interns per year and supplement the technical experience of the 

internship with professional development, community building and networking

o The Centers will collaborate to design a program that fits local needs while defining and 

maintaining standards and best practices that work across various Center models

• CAP project: Smart Talent Solutions (STS), three-year CAP ended August 2021

o Lead: Innovate Hawaii (Hawaii MEP)

o Collaborating partners:

▪ Oregon MEP (OMEP) 

▪ Montana Manufacturing Extension Center (MMEC, Montana MEP) 

▪ Tennessee MEP (TMEP)

o Smart Talent was initially developed by OMEP to help companies overcome the skills 

and talent shortage through in-house training development programming, reducing the 

learning hurdle for new employees

o The objectives of the STS project were for OMEP to provide training on STS basics to 

Innovate Hawaii, MMEC and Tennessee MEP to deliver the STS program to companies 

in their respective states

o STS will continue to be offered by all participating Centers

o The funded MEP Centers surpassed the goal of engaging 24 companies

o Non-funded Center Puerto Rico Manufacturing Extension Inc. (Puerto Rico MEP)

created a Spanish language set of STS materials, thus increasing the reach of the STS 

program

o Going forward, OMEP also expanded STS training to six additional states and territories: 

Arizona, Nevada, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Puerto Rico, and South Carolina 

Discussion

• M. Isbister said that one thing MEP can do is help companies access and deploy what is already 

there. The challenge for states is to identify existing programs that are effective and will work for 

manufacturers, as well as each company’s most significant pain points. MEP could help 

companies identify strategies and connect them to the programs that already exist. 

• R. Aguerrevere said that the demand side was there, but there is a supply issue. It’s a messaging 

problem. MEP needs to get the message out that manufacturing provides good, viable, long-term 

careers. If the workforce is there, recruiting and retention become less of a problem.

• P. Moulton said that MEP Centers need to know what the existing resources are in order to 

connect with them. It is not cost effective to train one or two people from an SMM, but MEP 

could assist with gathering multiple SMMs to participate in training. In addition to devoting 
9

energy and time to recruiting a new labor force, it is important for companies to commit to 

upskilling their incumbent workers.

• G. Spottswood agreed that many great local and regional workforce entities can assist and that 

MEP can explore best practices

• D. Bockoven said that MEP’s uniqueness comes from driving productivity and competitiveness, 

which also helps the supply problem. There is a cultural problem in the U.S. because it is widely 

believed that a four-year degree is necessary to get a good job, but manufacturing provides good 

jobs to people who have just graduated from high school.

• A. Parker agreed that MEP should not reinvent the wheel. Federal and state agencies need to be 

part of the collaboration, and MEP needs to figure out how to connect to programs like the 

Department of Education’s Second Chance Pell pilot, which offered financial aid to people in 

correctional facilities. Uniquely Abled is a project with a 98% success rate with high-functioning 

autistic people working in machine shops. Bring those people into the workforce with good 

paying jobs. Collaboration between multiple partners will be necessary to change the public 

perception of manufacturing, which has been a problem for a long time.

• P. Connolly said that they had a people issue, not a supply chain issue. Many people, not just in 

manufacturing, retired early or walked away from their jobs because of COVID-19. 

• L. Taito said that if they do not help manufacturers figure out how to innovate and automate, the 

problem of finite workforce resources will not go away, and MEP can play a critical role in this 

area.

• J. Wright said that he is personally involved in his company’s recruitment and training efforts, 

and while it is necessary to spend time on these areas it takes away from other aspects of 

business. He said that he had spent time in manufacturing in Europe, and the U.S. could learn 

from their education system and their early emphasis on the importance of trade schools. That’s a 

very long-term program, but it’s important and something we should look at.

• P. Moulton emphasized the importance of public relations advocacy to help people understand 

what manufacturing is. She said that MEP Centers could play a role in each state, highlighting 

what manufacturing looks like in the current age, though this will not necessarily generate 

measurable impact.

• M. Isbister said that manufacturers also have a responsibility to make inroads with communities 

through hosting teacher externs and holding events like Manufacturing Day. For example, her 

husband spends at least three days a week going to local high schools and middle schools to

present on the positive elements of manufacturing these days.

• J. Anaya said that El Camino College had many effective community outreach programs before 

the pandemic, and they are currently trying to rebuild that ecosystem. It’s harder to work with 

nontraditional students because you have to give them foundational skills before teaching them 

technical skills.

• B. Hawes noted that the supply of labor is localized, and MEP could have a role with something 

like supplier scouting on the labor side. MEP can help create industry-specific standards for 

workforce and manufacturing so students have that pathway.

• C. Mathews said that there was a need for better certificate training programs, where people can 

gain measurable skill sets and adhere to industry standards. We also have to help people with 

social skills. Immigrants are dedicated, hard-working people that come here for a dream – we 

should train them.

• L. Taito suggested that provider partners like trade associations could assist MEP in bridging the 

gap between the perception and the reality of manufacturing. 

• P. Moulton said that many SMMs, especially in rural areas, do not have the time to do extensive 

outreach, and MEP can play a critical mass function in promoting the message about the future of 

manufacturing.
10

The Director’s Update was paused to allow for the presentation on the Silver Tsunami and Succession 

Planning to commence.

Presentation: Silver Tsunami and Succession Planning

Speakers:

 Pravina Raghavan, MEP Director

 Daniel Goldstein, CEO and President, Folience

P. Raghavan explored the direct impact of the silver tsunami on U.S. manufacturing and how the MEP 

National Network is striving to make a difference.

• Manufacturing is a key contributor to U.S. economy

o Employs over 12 million Americans

o Contributes over $2.7 trillion to gross domestic product

• Both aging ownership and workforce threaten the productivity and competitiveness of 

manufacturers

• Nearly 99% of U.S. manufacturers have <500 employees

o Many are family-owned

• The impact of aging ownership is significant for U.S. manufacturers in particular

o Manufacturer owners are typically older than for other industries

U.S. manufacturer owners are older compared to all industries

• Manufacturing

o 4.5% of owners are 34 and under

o 34% of owners are 35 to 54

o 61.4% of owners are 55 and older

• All industries

o 5.7% of owners are 34 and under

o 43.4% of owners are 35 to 54

o 51% of owners are 55 and older

U.S. manufacturing has largest share of owners aged 55 and older among U.S. industry supersectors

• Manufacturing stands out as the industry with the highest share (61.4%) of business owners that 

are 55 and older

• The next closest supersector is financial activities, where 57.1% of business owners are 55 and 

older

MEP succession planning work

• Since 2016, MEP Centers have completed 190 succession planning related projects with 167 

different manufacturers

• This work resulted in 113 completed client surveys, which had the following economic impact:

o $97.9 million in new and retained sales

o $7.4 million in total cost savings

o $33.2 million in total new client investments

o 914 jobs created and retained
11

Succession planning leads to restructuring for growth

• Client name: Greaves Corporation

• How CONNSTEP (Connecticut MEP Center) helped:

o Created an infrastructure for growth, addressed employees’ changing responsibilities and 

provided a greater understanding of management roles

o Production floor capacity increased and a clear roadmap was established for transitioning 

of leadership roles

o Greaves Corporation considers itself better positioned to become a leader in the electrical 

connector industry

• Client results:

o $600,000 in increased or retained sales

o 5 new or retained jobs

o $1.1 million in new investment

o $40,000 in cost savings

The small business closure crisis in the United States

• Baby boomers own half of all privately held firms in the U.S.

• As most of these owners retire, the local business landscape is shifting dramatically. In the U.S., 

this silver tsunami affects:

o 2.9 million firms 

o 32.1 million employees 

o $6.5 trillion in revenue

• The industries in the United States with the most businesses owned by baby boomers are 

(sources: Census 2018 Annual Business Survey and U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics 2017 

Quarterly Census of Employment and Wages):

o Professional services: 755,460

o Construction: 358,390

o Retail trade: 330,129

o Health care and social assistance: 301,227

o Accommodation and food services: 269,318

o Administration and waste management: 175,305

o Wholesale trade: 154,013

o Manufacturing: 124,767

o Transportation and warehousing: 96,309

• Small businesses are the lifeblood of our economy

o They make up 99.9% of all firms and provide 47.1% of all jobs in the U.S.

o They circulate three times more money back into local communities than absentee-owned 

businesses and corporate chains

• By selling to their employees, business owners make a more enduring impact on their 

communities and help stabilize local economies through job preservation

The small business closure crisis in Oklahoma

• Baby boomers own half of all privately held firms in Oklahoma

• In Oklahoma, the silver tsunami affects:

o 33,400 firms

o 355,000 employees

o $66 billion in revenue

• The industries in Oklahoma with the most businesses owned by baby boomers are (sources: 

Census 2018 Annual Business Survey and U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics 2017 Quarterly Census 

of Employment and Wages):
12

o Professional services: 8,842

o Construction: 4,269

o Retail trade: 3,989

o Health care and social assistance: 3,762

o Accommodation and food services: 2,831

o Administration and waste management: 1,938

o Wholesale trade: 1,595

o Manufacturing: 1,387

o Transportation and warehousing: 1,094

• Small businesses are the lifeblood of our economy

• Small businesses make up 99.4% of all firms and provide 52.2% of all jobs in Oklahoma

• They circulate three times more money back into local communities than absentee-owned 

businesses and corporate chains

• By selling to their employees, business owners make a more enduring impact on their 

communities and help stabilize local economies through job preservation

The go-to experts for advancing U.S. manufacturing

• NIST MEP’s mission is to enhance the productivity and technological performance of U.S. 

manufacturing

• MEP Centers and partners have developed a wide range of services and initiatives to enable 

manufacturers to identify opportunities that will accelerate and strengthen growth and 

competitiveness in the global marketplace

D. Goldstein explained how employee ownership works along with the systems and tools in place that 

MEP Centers may provide the education and resources for their manufacturing clients.

The employee ownership solution

• Employee ownership, including employee stock ownership plans (ESOPs) and worker 

cooperatives, addresses the silver tsunami by providing viable succession plans that lead to job 

retention and dollars staying local

• Over the last 12 years, ESOP companies were 235% better at keeping jobs rooted when compared 

to conventionally owned companies

• Benefits to communities

o Jobs retained

o Increased local spending

o Heightened civic engagement

o Community wealth building

• Benefits to workers

o Better pay and benefits

o Assets and business ownership

o Voice in key decisions

• Benefits to businesses

o Higher productivity and growth

o Lower employee turnover

o Improved longevity, lasting legacy

• Learn how government leaders, business advisors and others can advance employee ownership: 

https://esopassociation.org/advocacy/esop-advocacy-issues

• ESOPs are investments in locally owned, locally based companies, that offer economic inclusion 

for all eligible employees to become employee owners regardless of gender, ethnicity, age, 

education and job title/level
13

o Address known vulnerabilities

o Bolster manufacturing

o Keep manufacturing in U.S.

o Strengthen U.S. supply chain

o Employee recruitment, retention, training

What will happen to those 2.9 million businesses that need to transition ownership?

• Family businesses may not have children to take over or their children are not interested in taking 

over the business

• Private equity

o In a private equity transaction, there is almost a certainty of entering the resale cycle

▪ Raise capital

▪ Evaluate market segments

▪ Generate deal flow

▪ Select investment candidates

▪ Negotiate and structure investments

▪ Nurture portfolio companies

▪ Liquidate/sell portfolio companies

o Every 3-5 years the company will probably be for sale or in another transition

▪ Management and employees leave

▪ Culture and long-term focus erode

▪ Competitors take advantage 

• Strategic buyers – seeking strategic operations alignment

• Financial buyers – seeking financial gain from acquisition

o Value is where the two kinds of buyers overlap

• Where is the employee or community?

o Employees and community are often not taken into consideration

o Businesses often end up closing

What is an ESOP?

• Employee Stock Ownership Plan – a trust that allows employees to accrue beneficial ownership 

without contributing capital

• Employees invest their labor to earn equity

• ESOP companies have a competitive advantage over non-ESOP companies

• Most importantly, ESOP companies have strong alignment between employees’ interests and the 

success of the company

The economic power of employee ownership

• Employee ownership keeps businesses and jobs in state

o ESOP companies are 25% more likely to stay in business

o Employee-owners were four times less likely to be laid off during the recent recession

• Employee ownership improves business performance

o Productivity improves by 4%-5% on average in the year an ESOP is adopted

o Over a 10-year period, ESOP companies have 25% higher job growth than comparable 

companies without an ESOP

o ESOP companies see average yearly post-ESOP improvement in return on assets of 

+2.7%

o ESOP companies increase sales by about 2.3%-2.4% per year
14

• A recent study conducted by Rutgers University and SSRS, funded by the Employee Ownership 

Foundation, compares employee-owned businesses to other firms during the COVID-19 

pandemic and reports that employee-owned businesses are:

o 3-4 times more likely to retain non-manager and manager employees

o 3.2 times more likely to retain staff – even when other businesses received funding 

through the Paycheck Protection Program and the employee-owned firms did not

o Significantly less likely to reduce employees’ hours or pay

o More likely to send employees home to work during the pandemic – and did so earlier

o More likely to provide employees with personal protective equipment, such as gloves and 

masks

Discussion

• L. Byars said that this was what she had in mind with her earlier comment about MEP Centers 

providing boots on the ground support. In addition to reports of succession plans, Centers will 

need to provide suggestions so that businesses are aware of and understand viable options. D. 

Goldstein said that this was not just an experimental solution. There are around 6,700 ESOP 

companies across the U.S. in almost every sector and it is a viable path for many businesses 

looking to transition.

• L. Taito asked whether the increase in productivity and value for companies that transferred over 

could be attributed to employees feeling that they have ownership in the company, and whether it 

was sustainable long term. D. Goldstein said that it was and showed a picture of the license-sized 

plastic card that lists the rights and responsibilities of employees at Folience to engage in their 

ownership. This creates greater engagement, productivity and innovation. Because of this, over 

the past six years Folience has changed from a company with a very unprofitable financial 

statement and toxic culture to a company that won the 2022 Employee Owned Company of the 

Year award.

• P. Moulton said that she thought employee-owned companies are a great opportunity, but they 

need time and a good management team to succeed. D. Goldstein noted that employee ownership 

will not fix a broken company and that it should not be promoted to companies that are in trouble. 

He added that employee ownership is such a bipartisan issue that it is a nonpartisan issue.

• J. Wright asked for clarification about the 401(k) comparison to employee ownership. D. 

Goldstein said that when a business enters into the ESOP employees get an allocation, which is a 

percentage of eligible wages. Everyone in the company gets the same percentage allocation, and 

the absolute number is determined by the employee’s level of compensation. The longer an 

employee stays at the company, the more they build up their bucket of ownership in the company. 

Most companies have a six-year vesting schedule, but as they build tenure it becomes quite 

meaningful. Folience also offers a 401(k) with matching stock and has 92% of employees 

contributing to it.

MEP Director’s Update, part two

P. Raghavan returned to the discussion of the MEP program themes, picking up with Technology and 

Innovation. She shared a recent video resulting from the collaboration between NIST MEP, the NIST 

Engineering Lab and the NIST Public Affairs Office. 

Video: Technology Transfer Acceleration by the MEP National Network

• The video is available online: https://youtu.be/EEHJ_5sMUuI
15

• The video features a collaboration between New York MEP’s FuzeHub, Insyte Consulting and

the NIST Engineering Laboratory. The project uses NIST Engineering Laboratory’s sensor for 

robotic health in manufacturing and the small business integrator Buffalo Manufacturing Works 

to explore this technology for use on the manufacturing floor.

• This story features:

o NIST expertise used in collaboration with MEP Centers

o NIST technology (now patent pending) tested though MEP Centers with the industry 

integrator

• MEP Centers can use the video as a tool to showcase how to collaborate with NIST experts

• Within NIST, the video can show NIST researchers how to get technology out of their labs and 

into the commercial space though the MEP National Network.

Technology and innovation – MEP program support

• Robotic manufacturing sensor collaboration with NIST laboratories, NIST MEP and New York 

MEP

• MEP-Assisted Technology and Technical Resource Program (MATTR)/MATTR+

o MATTR is expanding via MATTR+

o MATTR+ will provide SMMs efficient and rapid technology consultation from worldclass researchers

o NIST MEP funding will provide dedicated consulting support with NIST laboratories for 

MATTR+

• Food Industry Services

o Program with U.S. multinational supermarket chain serves to reach SMMs within their 

supply chain and establish direct prime/original equipment manufacturer relationship

o Leverages U.S. Food and Drug Administration partnership to help SMMs meet Food 

Safety Modernization Act requirements

Technology and innovation – Network support

• A CAP technology project was funded in 2021 with Tennessee MEP as the lead

o This CAP develops a one-stop resource for MEP Centers to help apply technology to 

process and product challenges at SMMs

o The team has direct contact or connections to the 16 Manufacturing USA institutes, the 

350 federally funded laboratories, as well as the larger MEPNN

o Current outcomes:

▪ 26 meetings/calls with SMMs

▪ 19 business/project development meetings with Center staff across the Network

▪ 16 meetings with potential industry partners

▪ 6 meetings with Manufacturing USA institutes: Advanced Robotics for 

Manufacturing (ARM), CESMII, Institute for Advanced Composites 

Manufacturing Innovation (IACMI), LIFT, Rapid Advancement in Process 

Intensification Deployment Institute (RAPID), and Reducing EMbodied-energy 

And Decreasing Emissions (REMADE)

▪ Center Director informational webinar: 45 participants from 25 Centers

▪ 11 Centers volunteered to receive targeted support as pilots to evaluate and 

improve the delivery framework for advanced technology projects

• Developed and delivered one MEP client proposal

• Current pipeline of 14 client projects

▪ The team developed a one-page document for distribution to Centers explaining 

the CAP deliverables and providing contact information
16

Strategic competition update

• FY 2022 Center State Competition

o Notice of funding opportunity (NOFO) One: awards announced Oct. 1, 2022 for Jan. 1, 

2023 start

▪ Kentucky, Nebraska, Rhode Island and South Dakota

▪ Applications received April 26. Review process ongoing. Award 

recommendations will be sent to NIST Grants Management Division by July 9.

o NOFO Two: awards announced April 2023 for July 1, 2023 start

▪ Arizona and Maryland

▪ NOFO will be posted Aug. 1, 2022. Applications will be due Oct. 28, 2022.

MEP National Network 2017-2022 Strategic Goals

• Empower manufacturers

o Objective: assist U.S. manufacturers in embracing productivity-enhancing innovative 

manufacturing technologies, navigate advanced technology solutions and recruit and 

retain a skilled and diverse workforce

• Champion manufacturing

o Objective: actively promote the importance of a strong manufacturing base as key to a 

robust U.S. economy and for the protection of national security interests; create 

awareness of innovations in manufacturing; create workforce development partnerships 

to build a stronger and diverse workforce pipeline; and maximize market awareness of 

the MEP National Network

• Leverage partnerships

o Objective: leverage national, regional, state and local partnerships to gain substantial 

increase in market penetration; identify mission-complementary advocates to help MEP 

become a recognized manufacturing resource brand; build an expanded service delivery 

model to support manufacturing technology advances

• Transform the Network

o Objective: maximize National Network knowledge and experience to operate as an 

integrated national network; increase efficiency and effectiveness by employing a 

Learning Organization platform; and create a resilient and adaptive MEP National 

Network to support a resilient and adaptive U.S. manufacturing base

Measures for the 2017-2022 Strategic Plan

• Strengthening the national supply chain

• Increased awareness

• Serving the manufacturing workforce

• Leading in technology deployment

18-month measures of success

• Measure 1: Strengthening the national supply chain – increase supplier matches and clients 

served in critical areas

o Supplier scouting requests

o Successful scouts – matching buyers and sellers

▪ Goal: Increase supplier scouting requests by 10%

• Baseline: 124

• Update through 2022 Quarter 1 (9 months): 122

• Goal: 137

▪ Goal: Increase successful supplier scouting matches by 10%

• Baseline: 298
17

• Update through 2022 Quarter 1 (9 months): 411

• Goal: 328

• Measure 2: Serving the manufacturing workforce – increase client engagement in workforce 

services

o Clients and/or projects in workforce-related services

▪ Goal: Increase clients engaged with workforce projects by 10%

• Baseline: 1,800

• Update through 2022 Quarter 1 (9 months): 1,357

• Goal: 1,980

• Measure 3: Increasing awareness – amplify and measure Network brand awareness

o Count occurrences of the hashtag #MEPNationalNetwork

o Count of online mentions of brand terms “MEP National Network” and “NIST MEP”

o Total subscribers to the NIST MEP blog

o Aggregate count of backlinks

o Number of followers on NIST MEP’s Facebook, Twitter and LinkedIn pages

▪ Goal: Amplifying Network brand awareness by at least 10% (progress to date 

based on data from Jan. 1-March 31, 2022)

• #MEPNationalNetwork hashtag occurrences 

o Baseline for current 18 months: 567

o Progress to date: 636

o New goal for current 18 months: 624

o Change: +12%

• Brand mentions

o Baseline for current 18 months: 194

o Progress to date: 142

o New goal for current 18 months: 213

o Change: -27%

• Manufacturing Innovation blog subscribers

o Baseline for current 18 months: 40,130

o Progress to date: 47,451

o New goal for current 18 months: 44,143

o Change: +18%

• Backlinks

o Baseline for current 18 months: 186

o Progress to date: 258

o New goal for current 18 months: 205

o Change: +39%

• Social media followers

o Baseline for current 18 months: 18,419

o Progress to date: 19,035

o New goal for current 18 months: 20,261

o Change: +3%

• Measure 4: Leading in technology deployment – increase client engagement in technology 

services and implementation

o Clients and/or projects in technology services

o MATTR engagements

▪ Goal: Increase clients engaged with technology services projects by 10%

• Baseline: 983

• Update through 2022 Quarter 1 (9 months): 1,065

• Goal: 1,081
18

▪ Goal: Increase MATTR requests/inquiries by 10%

• Baseline: 25

• Update through 2022 Quarter 1 (9 months): 10

• Goal: 28

Current Advisory Board working groups

• Supply Chain Development Working Group

o Board leadership: 

▪ Don Bockoven, Lead

▪ LaDon Byars, Co-Lead

o Focus: MEP National Network program support and development of manufacturing 

supply chains

• Executive Committee Working Group

o Board leadership:

▪ Mary Isbister, Lead

▪ George Spottswood, Co-Lead

o Focus: Support Board governance and connection with local Center boards

• Strategic Plan, 2023-2028 Working Group

o Board leadership:

▪ Bernadine Hawes, Co-Lead

▪ Jim Wright, Co-Lead

o Focus: Support development of the MEP National Network 2023-2028 Strategic Plan

Discussion

• P. Raghavan asked whether the current working groups were relevant to the challenges the Board 

will face in the coming months, or whether the groups should be reorganized or changed. 

• M. Isbister said that that was the right question to be asking, especially in light of the new 

strategic plan. The work that each group does is still relevant and important, but it could take a 

different form if groups are changed or added. 

• M. Kmetzo asked if the measures of success were broken down by Center or represented 

combined results for all Centers. P. Raghavan said that the results that they showed were 

aggregate data, but they also have the data broken down by Center.

• M. Magee agreed that the new strategic plan would inform new working groups. P. Raghavan 

added that they are forming a working group with the Centers to discuss whether they are looking 

at the right measures. 

Public Comments/Open Meeting Wrap Up

Public comments

• C. Williams, Executive Director of Sustainable Tulsa, thanked the Board for their commitment to 

supporting SMMs. She asked whether sustainability and the triple bottom line of people, profit 

and planet informed the Board’s conversations about workforce, supply chain, and innovation and 

technology. M. Newman agreed that the triple bottom line is very important. The Board often 

talks about sustainability and environmental, social and governance (ESG), and the primes and 

the Securities and Exchange Commission are pushing those directives down through the supply 

chain. B. Hawes thanked C. Williams for her comment and said that it was time for the Board to 

fine-tune their discussion and to look at ESG for companies so that manufacturers can have an 

additional metric to measure competitiveness. P. Raghavan added that they are looking at how 

MEP Centers can help businesses focus on environmental and sustainable impacts.
19

Concluding comments

• P. Raghavan noted that this was J. Anaya’s last meeting as a Board member and thanked him for 

his years of service. M. Newman thanked J. Anaya for his invaluable insight and for hosting one 

of the past Board meetings. J. Anaya said that he had greatly enjoyed the Board meetings and 

thanked the MEP National Network for their work to keep manufacturing strong.

Next Meeting 

The next MEP Advisory Board meeting is set for Tuesday, Sept. 20, 2022 in Chicago, Illinois. It will be 

co-located with the MEP National Network Update meeting and the Foundation for Manufacturing 

Excellence Center Best Practice Conference.

Adjournment

With no further business, M. Newman adjourned the open session of the meeting at 1:43 p.m.