Page 1

National Institute of Standards and Technology

Manufacturing Extension Partnership

Advisory Board

Minutes of the September 15, 2019 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 8:30 

a.m. to 3:30 p.m. on Sept. 15, 2019 at the Atlanta Marriott Marquis in Atlanta, Georgia. The meeting 

included about 56 attendees including Board members, NIST and NIST MEP staff, participants from 

MEP Centers, guest speakers and observers. Carroll Thomas, Director of MEP, is the Designated Federal 

Officer for the MEP Advisory Board.

Attendees

Board Members

Jose Anaya, Dean of Community Advancement, El Camino College

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

Bernadine Hawes, Chair, MEP Advisory Board and Senior Research Analyst, Community Marketing 

Concepts

Mary Isbister, President, GenMet Corporation

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

Matthew Newman, Vice 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 

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

Chris Weiser, Owner and President, J.V. Manufacturing, Inc.

Jim Wright, Vice-President of Operations, Proof Research

NIST and NIST MEP Participants

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

Cheryl Gendron, Advisory Board Liaison, NIST MEP

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

David Stieren, Division Chief, Extension Services Division, NIST MEP

Carroll Thomas, Director of MEP and Designated Federal Officer, MEP Advisory Board

Phillip Wadsworth, Resource Manager, NIST MEP

Guest Speakers

Jim Watson, CEO and President, California Manufacturing Technology Consulting (CMTC) and Chair of 

the MEP National NetworkTM Center Leadership Team (CLT)

Observers

Don Bockoven, Fiber Industries LLC

David Boulay, Illinois Manufacturing Excellence Center (IMEC)

Mickele Bragg, Geotech Environmental Equipment and Manufacturer’s Edge Board of Directors

Buckley Brinkman, Wisconsin Center for Manufacturing & Productivity (WCMP)
Page 2

Tom Bugnitz, Manufacturer’s Edge

Monica Claussen, NIST MEP

Mike Coast, Michigan Manufacturing Technology Center (MMTC) 

Jose Colucci-Rios, NIST MEP

Dusty Cruise, Missouri Enterprise

Nadine DeJesus, NIST MEP

Bonnie Del Conte, Connecticut State Technology Extension Partnership (CONNSTEP)

Bill Donohue, GENEDGE

Jennifer Hagan-Dier, Manufacturers’ Edge

Joe Heim, Impact Washington

Carrie Hines, American Small Manufacturers Coalition (ASMC)

Sekou Johnson, NIST MEP

Anna Kan, Citizens Business Bank and Board of Directors CMTC

John Kennedy, New Jersey Manufacturing Extension Program (NJMEP)

Ik Kwon, St. Louis University and Board of Directors Missouri Enterprise

Wiza Lequin, NIST MEP

Willie May, Morgan State University

Craig Mayberry, PESCO, Inc. and Board of Directors New Mexico Manufacturing Extension Partnership

(NM MEP)

Kevin McIntyre, NIST MEP

Petra Mitchell, Catalyst Connection

Aneesa Muthana, Pioneer Service Inc. and Board of Directors IMEC 

Keith Phillips, Alabama Technology Network (ATN)

Ben Rand, Insyte Consulting

Katie Rapp, NIST MEP

Stephen Ritchie, The Doe Run Resources Corporation and Board of Directors Missouri Enterprise 

Cheryl Rybka, Texas Manufacturing Assistance Center (TMAC)

Jennifer Sinsabaugh, NM MEP

Chuck Spangler, South Carolina Manufacturing Extension Partnership (SCMEP)

Lise Stewart, EisnerAmper

Mike Stone, Stone & Associates

Dileep Thatte, NIST MEP

Ben Vickery, NIST MEP

Thomas Williams, NIST MEP

Charles Yancey, Retired (formerly NIST MEP)

Bob Zider, Vermont Manufacturing Extension Center (VMEC)

Welcome and Introductions

Speakers:

 Bernadine Hawes, Chair, NIST MEP Advisory Board

 Carroll Thomas, Director, MEP

 Walter Copan, Director, NIST MEP

B. Hawes made introductory remarks. W. Copan thanked Board members for their time and dedication 

and emphasized the value that MEP adds to the nation, which was recognized by the Government 

Accountability Office (GAO) in their recent report. Board members and attendees introduced themselves.
Page 3

MEP Director’s Update

Speaker: Carroll Thomas, Director, MEP

MEP Program Budget Outlook (as of Aug. 21, 2019)

• Fiscal Year (FY) 2019 Appropriation Status:

o The appropriation was signed into law on Feb. 15, 2019.

• FY 2020 Appropriation Status:

o Proposed for elimination of federal funding in the President’s Budget.

o The House mark came back at $154 million.

o The Senate mark is proposed for completion by the end of September, date TBD.

NIST MEP FY 2019 Projected Spend Plan

• Available Funding:

o Full year appropriation: $140 million.

o Carryover from FY 2018: $6.5 million.

o Funding from other agencies: $2.8 million.

▪ Total available funding: $149.3 million.

• Planned Expenditures:

o Center renewals: $117 million.

o Strategic competitions: $10 million.

o Contracts: $4.8 million.

o NIST MEP Labor: $8.7 million.

o NIST and Program Overhead: $7.8 million.

▪ Total planned expenditures: $149.3 million.

Special Reports – Requirements of the American Innovation & Competitiveness Act (AICA)

• Government Accountability Office (GAO) Report Part 1: Report Completed.

o From AICA due two years after enactment Jan. 6, 2017 in consultation with this Board, 

the GAO conducted a report on the cost share impact due to the legislative change.

o The report was made public on March 7, 2019. It can be found at: 

https://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-19-219

• NIST Report on MEP Center Recompetition: Report Completed. 

o The NIST Director shall submit to Congress a report on the first and second years of 

operations for Centers from the recompetition. The report provides details on the 

engagement in services provided by Centers, the characteristics of services provided and 

the volume and type of services.

o The report has been completed and submitted to Congress and it is available on MEP 

Connect.

• GAO Report Part 2: Report Forthcoming.

o A final report on cost share is required after three years of the date of the above GAO 

study, March 7, 2022. The NIST Director is required to contract with an independent 

organization to revisit the initial GAO report and again may consult with this Board. 

o NIST MEP is in the process of identifying a third party contractor.
Page 4

MEP National Network: Center Leadership Team (CLT)

• The CLT is part of the National Network, which also includes the Advisory Board, NIST MEP, 

the MEP Centers, the Center Boards, the Foundation for Manufacturing Excellence (FORME)

and the ASMC.

• At least 31 out of 51 MEP Centers are actively involved.

• Working Committees with MEP Center leaders:

o Outreach Initiative (Tom Bugnitz).

o Multi-state Engagement (Bill Donohue).

o Learning (Buckley Brinkman).

o Network Evolution (Bonnie Del Conte).

o Manufacturing Technology Solutions (Mike Coast).

o Communications (Jim Shillenn).

Industry 4.0 Activity and Practices Across the Network

• The CLT Committee on advanced manufacturing (AM) technology solutions is addressing MEP 

Center practices and small and medium-sized manufacturer (SMM) needs.

• MEP Centers are partnering with Manufacturing USA Institutes. A Notice of Funding 

Opportunity (NOFO) is forthcoming from NIST as a follow-on to embedding projects and

Empire State Development Corporation (ESD) is seeking to hire an Industry 4.0 expert.

• Cybersecurity practice is maturing across the Network.

• MEP Centers are utilizing user/demonstration facilities.

• Smart Manufacturing connections are occurring between MEP Centers and NIST.

• MEP Centers are featured at Industry 4.0-related conferences and events. 

NIST MEP Extension Services Division

• Connecting MEP Center Clients with NIST Labs – MEP-Assisted Technology and Technical 

Resource (MATTR).

o Expanded to provide NIST MEP compensation to NIST Labs to deepen NIST Lab 

assistance to small manufacturer clients of MEP Centers.

o An MEP National Network working group has formed to broaden MEP Centers’ leverage 

of NIST Labs – expansion of the current MATTR Steering Team.

o A NIST Council of Lab Liaisons is forming to provide a MATTR point of contact (POC) 

at each NIST Lab.

• Food Industry Services.

o The MEP National Network Steering Team is leading national capabilities development, 

which is evolving into an MEP National Network Working Group.

o A national Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) was signed and executed with the 

Food and Drug Administration (FDA) on Aug. 1, 2019.

o A new special project award was made from NIST MEP to the NJMEP to further develop 

MEP National Network service capabilities across the U.S.

NIST MEP on the M.O.V.E.: “MEP on Virtual Engagement”

• In November 2018, 55 NIST MEP staff members were sharing a temporary space; heavy 

telework was required.

• As of August 2019, all NIST MEP staff members have temporary work space locations in three 

buildings throughout the campus.

• NIST MEP staff could be back into Building 301 by December 2020.
Page 5

MEP Organization Chart

• The MEP Deputy Director has retired and Chancy Lyford has taken over as the Acting Associate 

Director. Duties of the Deputy Director are spread among the other four Division Chiefs as well.

• Mary Ann Pacelli is now the Acting Division Chief for the Network Learning & Strategic 

Competitions Division.

• Kevin McIntyre is now the Division Chief for the Finance Management & Center Operations 

Division.

• Mark Schmit is now the Division Chief for the Regional and State Partnerships Division.

• All five Division Chiefs currently report to Carroll Thomas.

NIST MEP Policy Academy Overview

Speaker: Mark Schmit, Division Chief, Regional and State Partnerships Division, NIST MEP

Manufacturing Extension Partnership

• Partnerships are essential to the MEP National Network and key partners include:

o Economic Development Organizations.

o Technology Resources.

o Primes and Original Equipment Manufacturers (OEMs).

o Professional Societies.

o Trade Associations.

o Federal Partners.

o State Partners.

Why States?

• States have resources, both financial and non-financial.

o They leverage federal investments to deliver value-added services to manufacturers to help 

them grow and prosper.

• States have connections through their investments in places like universities, community colleges, 

technical schools, economic development organizations and public schools.

o They nurture the ecosystem that supports manufacturing directly and indirectly.

• The MEP Program is premised on a partnership model that includes state, regional and local 

stakeholders along with private industry as co-investors. 

• Investing resources in MEP Centers allows states to leverage federal investments and expand their 

ability to work with more manufacturers for a larger economic impact.

• The MEP Program is not political, but it exists in a political world.

Why Do the Policy Academy?

• For states, it is an opportunity to identify issues and opportunities requiring attention in the state 

and propose approaches (levers, policies, practices, initiatives) for further investigation and 

possible investment.

• For the MEP National Network it is a chance to be part of the conversation and bring groups 

together while embedding MEP Centers into what’s happening.

At the Table

• States submit applications and choose their teams.

• The team can involve:

o State economic development agencies.

o Key legislators or staff members.
Page 6

o Governors’ economic development advisors.

o Manufacturers.

o State MEP Directors.

o The financial community.

o Key regional partners such as universities, chambers and economic development 

organizations (EDOs).

o Relevant state agencies (e.g. workforce). 

• Teams consist of seven to ten people in pivotal roles in the design, execution and evaluation of a 

state’s improved manufacturing policy.

• Team members participate as appropriate in the in-state site visits and strategic planning meetings 

as well as webinars, conference calls and in-state groundwork for developing the strategy.

Focus Areas

• Addressing talent gaps.

• Accelerating business start-ups and scale-ups.

• Promoting exports and diversified customer bases.

• Enhancing supply chain linkages for both big and small companies.

• Improving economic development ecosystem efficiency.

Potential Outcomes

• Invigorated state leadership.

• New programs and initiatives.

• Revised program design and delivery.

• Legislation supporting manufacturing priorities.

• Executive orders and other actions.

• Improved economic development ecosystem efficiency.

Right Now

• Ten states are currently participating in a Policy Academy: Arizona, Colorado, Illinois, Maine, 

Maryland, Missouri, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, Vermont and Wisconsin.

Discussion

• C. Thomas asked M. Schmit to address the history of the Policy Academy and what is different 

about the current version. M. Schmit said that the current cohort is their third cohort and with this 

version they are doing a better job of embedding the MEP Centers into the process and the program 

discussions.

• J. Kennedy spoke about his experience in the second cohort of the Policy Academy and said that 

there were many good elements as well as many things that needed to be changed. He agreed with 

M. Schmit that they forgot the MEP National Network element and said that his state contacts in 

New Jersey were left without a clear idea of what MEP National Network does. Since that time the 

Policy Academy team has worked hard to change that and have seen many of the changes being 

implemented.

• T. Bugnitz said that many states have trouble working with their state economic development 

organizations and spoke about his experience with the Colorado MEP (Manufacturer’s Edge). They 

were able to incorporate the state governor’s economic development priorities into the Policy 

Academy proposal, establishing the MEP Program as a resource for the state economic 

development group and demonstrating that the MEP Program is focused on helping the states 

achieve their goals.

• C. Thomas pointed out that the Policy Academy is helpful for leveraging partnerships, championing 

manufacturing and empowering manufacturers, all of which are important to the MEP National 
Page 7

Network strategic plan. It is also tied into the strategic plan that NIST MEP is developing to funnel 

more NIST resources through the MEP Centers to the manufacturers that need them. 

• M. Magee asked whether changes in administration affect the Policy Academy and how Center 

Directors balance the responsibilities of the Academy with their other tasks. M. Schmit said that 

the MEP Program exists in a political world and it is in their interest to maintain evolving 

relationships with state leadership. Center Directors help with that in many ways in the course of 

their daily jobs, including through the Policy Academy.

• B. Hawes asked whether, at the NIST MEP level, they look at the relationships between MEP 

Centers and the state and the Centers’ performance. M. Schmit said that they do and NIST MEP 

tries to line up their goals with what they see happening in states so that everyone can do well and 

take credit for it. J. Watson spoke about the CMTC and the data they relayed to the State of 

California with help from NIST MEP, demonstrating the impact of manufacturing on California’s 

economy and the public good. The state responded well and CMTC received state money for the 

first time in fourteen years.

• M. Newman asked if there was a mechanism to use advocates from the states that fund and support 

their manufacturers to network and open doors in states that are not as supportive. M. Schmit said 

that was an ever-evolving, ever-present part of what NIST MEP needs to do. 

NIST Cyber Competitive Awards Program (CAP) Award Update

Speaker: David Stieren, Division Chief, Extension Services Division, NIST MEP

D. Stieren reviewed the Authorizing Legislation for the NIST MEP Competitive Awards Program:

• 15 USC 278 k-1: Competitive Awards Program.

o Establishment: The Director shall establish within the Hollings Manufacturing Extension 

Partnership under section 278k of this title and section 278l of this title a program of 

competitive awards among participants described in subsection (b) of this section for the 

purposes described in subsection (c).

o Participants: Participants receiving awards under this section shall be Centers, or a 

consortium of Centers.

o Purpose, themes and reimbursement:

▪ The purpose of the program established under subsection (a) is to add capabilities 

to the Hollings Manufacturing Extension Partnership, including the development 

of projects to solve new emerging manufacturing problems as determined by the 

Director, in consultation with the Director of the Hollings Manufacturing 

Extension Partnership, the MEP Advisory Board, other Federal agencies and

SMMs.

NIST MEP CAP Award Summary

• From 2017-2019, NIST MEP has made 22 special CAP funding awards to MEP Centers totaling 

$19.278 million.

o 2017: 7 awards totaling $5.139 million.

o 2018: 8 awards totaling $7.041 million.

o 2019: 7 awards totaling $7.098 million.

• The awards addressed a broad array of topics, including:

o Go-to Centers for cybersecurity assistance.

o Industry 4.0 technology acceleration.

o Multiple workforce topics.

o Food Safety, Toyota Kata, Additive Manufacturing.
Page 8

o Medical device supply chains.

• Program authority is also used for Special Competitions such as Embedding, Manufacturing 

Disaster Assistance and Cybersecurity for Defense Manufacturing.

CAP Award Highlight 1 – Quality Safe Efficient Food Industry Network

• Lead MEP Center: NJMEP.

• Participating MEP Centers:

o Georgia MEP.

o Montana Manufacturing Extension Center.

o Nebraska MEP.

o Ohio MEP.

o Plus, potentially all MEP Centers around the National Network.

• Project terms:

o $992 thousand over a two-year period of performance.

o Aug. 1, 2019 start date.

• The project builds on previous NIST MEP CAP awards to MEP Centers relating to Food Safety 

Training and the Food Safety Modernization Act (FSMA).

• It creates a platform for MEP Centers to deliver FSMA, other core MEP products, services (e.g. 

cybersecurity, supply chain) to food manufacturing (FM) companies.

• Project deliverables:

o Compilation, development and digital warehousing of FM Project Engagement Tools.

o Access to more robust FM market intelligence.

o National branding and marketing strategy.

o Coordination of MEP Center training and support via regional hubs.

o Protocols for MEP Centers to coordinate service delivery for projects that involve FM 

supply chains across multiple states.

o MEP National Network information sharing. 

CAP Award Highlight 2 – Cybersecurity for Defense Manufacturing

• Lead MEP Center: MMTC.

• Participating MEP Centers:

o Commitments to participate from 44 MEP Centers at the time of proposal preparation, 

including: Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Connecticut, 

Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maryland, 

Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nevada, New 

Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, North Dakota, 

Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Puerto Rico, Rhode Island, South Carolina, South 

Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Vermont, Virginia, Washington and Wisconsin.

o More Center commitments after proposal submission and award – essentially the entire 

MEP National Network is now on board.

• Project Terms:

o $1.074 million over a 17-month period of performance.

o An Aug. 1, 2019 start date.

• The project is conducted in conjunction with a NIST MEP – Department of Defense (DoD) 

Interagency Agreement funded by DoD.

• It provides guidance and hands-on assistance to small and medium-sized defense contractors in 

understanding and implementing Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS)

cybersecurity requirements.

o The MEP Centers will not be ensuring compliance with DFARS; they will work with 

companies to help them understand what they need to do to become compliant.
Page 9

• The target is to reach over 1,000 defense contractors.

• Cybersecurity priorities addressed by this project include:

o Identification of geographic areas in the U.S. with a high concentration of defense 

contractors and means to serve these contractors via the MEP National Network.

o Awareness/educational outreach events, both in person and online.

o Hands-on technical assistance activities.

o Use case development and implementation for manufacturing operational technology 

protection.

o Enhancement of MEP National Network cybersecurity assistance services.

CAP Award Highlight 3 – Industry 4.0 Technology Acceleration Program

• Lead MEP Center: Oregon.

• Participating MEP Centers: Illinois, Michigan, New Mexico, Ohio, Pennsylvania, South Carolina 

and potentially all MEP Centers around the National Network.

• Project Terms: $1 million over a one-year period of performance and an Aug. 1, 2019 start date.

• The project connects viable Industry 4.0 resources (I4.0) to small U.S. manufacturing companies 

via MEP Centers.

• Technical assistance providers that can work with typical MEP Center clients are generally not 

well-known or vetted for performance.

• The project will:

o Identify and vet appropriate I4.0 vendors that can serve the MEP Center client profile.

o Adopt new technologies from among the list of nine distinct I4.0 technologies.

o Identify MEP National Network-approved “Go-To MEP Center leads” to provide 

consistency of product delivery, train-the-trainer material to MEP Center staff nationally

and continuing research and development (R&D) of manufacturing applications that 

touch I4.0 nodes.

o Provide a clear path for SMMs to connect with experts in the MEP National Network 

through MEP Center leads and/or approved providers.

Discussion

• M. Coast spoke about the process for CAP Award Highlight 2 and said that he views the CLT’s

efforts with Industry 4.0 as product development for the MEP National Network. This initiative 

uses a train-the-trainer approach to avoid having to reinvent the same solutions multiple times. 

MEP National Network 2017-2022 Strategic Plan Update

Speaker: Carroll Thomas, Director, MEP

MEP National Network 2017-2022 Strategic Plan Goals

• Empower Manufacturers.

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

manufacturing technologies; navigate advanced technology solutions; recruit and retain a 

skilled and diverse workforce.

• Champion Manufacturing.

o Objective: To 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; maximize market awareness of the 

MEP National Network.
Page 10

• Leverage Partnerships.

o Objective: To leverage national, regional, state and local partnerships to gain a 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 advance.

• Transform the Network.

o Objective: To maximize MEP National Network knowledge and experience so that it

operates 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 resilient and adaptive U.S. manufacturing.

Discussion

• C. Thomas shared her recent research and ideas about data analytics and the Strategic Plan to 

prepare NIST for the future of manufacturing. She said that on her recent visits to manufacturers 

she noticed that those who have embraced advanced manufacturing techniques understand that 

those techniques are heavily dependent on data. NIST MEP and the MEP National Network will 

focus on capturing this data to help achieve their strategic goals. She also spoke about the 

importance of stakeholders and a middle-out system of shared ecosystems rather than a top-down 

approach. This includes building trust and managing for the mission, not for metrics. 

Strategic Plan Mapped to National Network

• Empower Manufacturers:

o Primary: 51 Centers and the CLT.

o Collaborative Support: Extension Services.

o Important Support: NIST MEP Leadership; Regional and State Partnerships

Division (R&S); Network Learning & Strategic Competitions Division (Network 

Learning & Comp); Marketing & Communications Group (M&C); Program 

Evaluation & Economic Research Group (PEER); Finance Management & 

Center Operations Division (FM/Center Ops); Administrative; IT/Security.

• Champion Manufacturing: 

o Primary: 51 Centers and the CLT; NIST MEP (Extension Services, M&C, R&S 

Partnerships, NIST MEP Leadership); Advisory Board; Center Boards; ASMC 

and FORME.

o Collaborative Support: Network Learning and Comp; PEER.

o Important Support: FM/Center Ops; Administrative; IT/Security; Staff Resource 

Management.

• Leverage Partnerships:

o Primary: 51 Centers and the CLT; NIST MEP (Extension Services, M&C, NIST 

MEP Leadership, R&S Partnerships); Center Boards.

o Collaborative Support: Advisory Board; ASMC/FORME; PEER.

o Important Support: Admin; FM/Center Ops; IT/Security; Staff Resource 

Management.

• Transform the Network:

o Primary: 51 Centers and the CLT; NIST MEP (All).

o Collaborative Support: Advisory Board; Center Boards; ASMC/FORME.

Eighteen-Month Network Priorities

• Create an Integrated MEP National Network Service Delivery System.

• Updated National-level Partnerships and Performance Support Services.

• Define Areas of Focus for Manufacturing Technology Advances.
Page 11

• Develop Supply Chain National Services and Information and Technology Access.

• Build Infrastructure for MEP National Network Learning Organization.

Measures of Success: Baselines

• Integrated National Network:

o The number of MEP Centers in multi-Center delivery projects.

• Efficiency in Small/Rural Engagements:

o The number of engagements through third party partnerships and increased longer-term 

impactful projects.

• Center and Program Office Operational Excellence:

o The number of MEP Centers participating and number of implementation projects in the 

Program Office.

• Increased Visibility:

o MEP National Network brand awareness.

Progress on Eighteen-Month Measures of Success to Goals

• Integrated MEP National Network – Percent of Goal as of Quarter Two 2019:

o 88% of MEP Centers engage in Multi-Center Delivery.

o 230% of SMMs served via third party.

o 168% of rural manufacturers served via third party.

• Integrated MEP National Network – Percent of Goal as of Quarter One 2019:

o Number of Transformational Clients: 154%.

o Job Impact: 193%.

o Sales Impact: 228%.

o Investment Impact: 163%.

o Cost Savings Impact: 119%.

• Quarter Two MEP National Network Progress:

o 370 instances of branded searches vs. baseline of 350.

o 763 page views on the webpage vs. baseline of 695.

o 88 backlinks vs. baseline of 14.

• MEP Centers:

o Nine MEP Centers (Arizona, Arkansas, Kentucky, Maine, Puerto Rico, South Dakota, 

Vermont, West Virginia and Wyoming) have 100% of their clients responding to the 

NIST MEP client impact survey this most recent quarter.

o 11 Centers maintained consistent performance from FY 2018, Quarter One to FY 2019, 

Quarter One. Centers that achieved 100 on the IMPACT metrics in both periods include

Arkansas, Hawaii, Indiana, Maine, Michigan, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Puerto Rico, 

South Carolina, South Dakota and Vermont.

o 31 Centers exceeded the unique client served metric in FY 2019, Quarter One. The client 

served metric standard is 73 clients per $1 million of federal investment.

• NIST MEP:

o Expanded MEP Center financial best-practices reviews to include all 51 MEP Centers.

o The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) published the 2019 MEP Uniform 

Guidance Single Audit Compliance Supplement.

o Improved communications and collaboration between Resource Managers (RMs) and 

Federal Program Officers (FPOs).

o All MEP Center renewals were processed on time to the Grants Management Division 

(GMD).
Page 12

Eighteen-Month Goals Moving Forward

• Consensus Within the Integrated MEP National Network:

o Reach MEP National Network consensus on the definition of Project and client 

manufacturing establishment (CME) interaction.

• Center and Program Office Operational Excellence:

o Operationally improve reporting via measurement of on-time and accurate reporting.

• Increase Projects and New Clients:

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

• Increased Visibility:

o Amplify and measure MEP National Network brand awareness by at least 10%.

Baselines Moving Forward: Eighteen-Month Measures of Success

• The current baseline for projects is 14,109 projects and the goal is to increase that by 

10%.

• The current baseline for new clients is 4,101 new clients and the goal is to increase that by 5%.

• Increased awareness of the MEP National Network brand by 10% over base brand recognition 

measurement. 

• The baseline will be established using data collected in FY 2020, Quarter One and will be 

measured quarterly moving forward.

• Measures of brand awareness to include: 

o Backlinks.

o Online occurrences of key MEP National Network terms such as “MEP National 

Network.”

o MEP National Network social media reach and engagement.

o NIST MEP social media followers/new followers.

o Manufacturing Innovation blog subscribers/new subscribers.

• The Dashboard will indicate aggregated quarterly progress with featured highlights.

Operational Excellence: Eighteen-Month Measures of Success to Goals

• Operationally improve reporting via measurement of on-time reporting and accurate reporting.

• Show the baseline measurement of on-time reporting and accurate reporting to measure progress 

against the goal.

Discussion

• L. Byars commented that the multi-MEP Center engagement goal might show more improvement 

with increased metric/mission alignment. C. Thomas said that that goal has to do with how 

projects are reported and there are some multi-Center projects that are not necessarily reported 

accurately as involving multiple MEP Centers. 

• M. Magee asked how the baseline compared to percentage increases in the last couple of years

and C. Thomas said that there has been a 12.9% increase in the past four years and that is what is 

required to meet their ten-year goal of tripling the number of clients and quadrupling the number 

of impacts.

• B. Ziger said that it was important to have engagement and buy-in from the MEP Centers in the 

process of developing goals and asked if there was an internal process to take into account the 

MEP Centers’ feedback. C. Thomas said that they would focus resources on MEP Centers that 

can still improve and that the goal is not for each MEP Center to increase projects by 10%, but for 

the network of MEP Centers to increase their projects by 10%. 

• B. Brinkman said that the Centers are uniquely positioned to help SMMs with upcoming threats 

like cybersecurity, but it is difficult to take advantage of those opportunities when they do not 
Page 13

have enough people. Centers will need to combine resources and organize them in a way that 

benefits the entire Network.

Board Engagement with the MEP National Network

Speakers:

 Bernadine Hawes, Chair, NIST MEP Advisory Board

 Phillip Wadsworth, Resource Manager, NIST MEP

 Jim Watson, CEO and President, CMTC and the Chair of the MEP National Network CLT

About the MEP Advisory Board

• The statutory purpose of the Board is to provide advice and recommendations to the NIST 

Director on the following items:

o The activities, plans and policies of MEP.

o The soundness of MEP’s plans and strategies.

o Current performance in relation to the MEP Program.

• The Board is made up of representatives from areas such as economic development, state and 

municipal affairs, manufacturing industry and community colleges.

MEP National Network CLT is Focused on Engaging Centers

• Infrastructure:

o MEP National Network CLT Governance.

o Multi-State Engagement Process.

▪ Developing protocols to simplify the process for staff members.

▪ An MOU has been signed by 45 MEP Centers.

o Committee participation.

▪ The committees are inclusive, with 25-30 MEP Center Directors participating.

• Communications: 

o Integration with NIST MEP and FORME.

o Developing Content.

• Expand Industry 4.0 Capabilities.

o Establishing “Go To” MEP Center Collaboratives and Satellites:

▪ These MEP Centers have resident expertise in certain technologies and have 

successfully deployed that expertise in their states and they have the ability to 

train other MEP Centers.

o Repository for MEP Center Expertise and Best Practices.

o Regular structured Learning Sessions.

Discussion

• M. Magee asked if they could compile a list of the MEP Centers of Excellence. M. Newman 

suggested that it would be helpful to have a dynamic web-based application, like an MEP 

LinkedIn, where people could search for resources. C. Hines said that FORME’s MEP University 

(MEPU) has the capability to share the MEP Center and staff expertise and in the coming months 

MEP Centers will be able to access those resources.

Combined MEP Advisory Board and Center Board Leaders: Roundtable Discussions

• Each table was assigned a specific question or topic.

• Local MEP Center Board Chairs were matched with MEP Advisory Board Members and NIST 

MEP Resource Managers.
Page 14

• Three roundtable discussion questions:

o Moving Forward: Eighteen-month goals of increasing reported projects and new clients –

how can MEP Center Boards support their MEP Centers in reaching those goals?

o If you could write a letter to the Department of Commerce (DOC) or to Congress, what 

would you identify as your state’s biggest manufacturing challenges and what help, 

resources or information would you like to see?

o The MEP National Network: How do we learn from one another, stay connected and take 

full advantage of the MEP National Network’s resources?

Discussion

• A. Muthana’s group emphasized the importance of manufacturing facilities’ testimonials in 

support of the MEP Program, as well as sponsorships and branding. 

• M. Bragg said that her group would like to see more ways of defining impact in a way that is not 

just related to projects. Holding lunch and learn sessions and sponsoring award ceremonies, 

among other efforts, could expand influence and help bring in new clients. They also

recommended conducting more research around user interface and a branding campaign aimed at 

the American public to emphasize the importance of manufacturing for the U.S. economy.

• M. Magee shared his group’s discussion about expansion and educating MEP Center Boards 

about who their stakeholders are. They talked about growing the talent pool, cybersecurity and a 

recommendation to share case studies from manufacturers who have benefitted from the MEP

Program’s services.

• G. Spottswood’s group talked about the importance of understanding and communicating the 

needs of local state manufacturers. They suggested that the MEP Center Boards adopt some 

responsibility in taking on new clients and that the MEP Center Boards and MEP Centers 

maintain an emphasis on metrics. 

• J. Wright said that his group agreed on the importance of value added to the MEP National 

Network and making sure that database resources are user-friendly. They commended the 

connection between the MEP Advisory Board and the Center Board Chairs and suggested a 

continued focus on networking.

• L. Stewart spoke about the Board initiative of the past few years involving the MEP Center 

Boards in strategic planning. New challenges are emerging for the MEP National Network’s 

clients as well as for the MEP Centers themselves and this requires a shift from strategic planning 

to strategic thinking. 

MEP Advisory Board Working Group Updates

Supply Chain Development Working Group

Speakers:

Matt Newman, Vice Chair, MEP Advisory Board

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

Committee Members

• Board Leadership:

o Matthew Newman.

• Board Participants:

o LaDon Byars, Bernadine Hawes, Mary Isbister, Chris Weiser.

• NIST MEP Support:

o Dave Stieren, Phil Singerman, Mark Schmit.
Page 15

Working Group Deliverable 

• Guidance and perspectives on the MEP National Network 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 MEP National Network supports DoD supply chains in many areas, highlighted by:

o Cybersecurity assistance.

o Working with the DoD-sponsored Manufacturing USA Institutes.

• NIST MEP seeks ongoing Advisory Board perspectives on these MEP National Network focus 

areas, approaches and challenges.

Manufacturing USA Institutes

• There are 14 operating Manufacturing USA Institutes.

o Eight of the 14 institutes are sponsored by the DoD, five by the Department of Energy

(DOE) and one by NIST.

• The Embedding Pilot Projects awards are either complete or nearing completion in 2020.

o MEP Center staff members are embedded in all 14 Manufacturing USA Institutes.

• Initial results and learnings are summarized in the March 2019 report:

o SMMs tend to explore opportunities before making decisions to commit or implement.

o SMMs are interested in demonstration sites and interactive experiences that help them

understand technologies.

o SMMs are interested in state-of-the-art technologies that can be leveraged in the very 

near term, as opposed to R&D-based intellectual property (IP).

▪ SMM needs must match Manufacturing USA Institute outputs.

o Local resources (less than a two-hour drive) are particularly helpful for engagement.

Additional Updates

• NIST MEP is developing a NOFO for MEP Centers for release in 2020 as a follow-on to the 

Embedding Pilot Projects.

o This will focus on Advanced Manufacturing Technology Services from MEP Centers to 

SMMs in the broad area of Industry/Manufacturing 4.0.

o It will emphasize connectivity of physical and cyber systems in manufacturing factories 

and supply chains.

o It will target market-ready, cross-cutting infrastructural technologies that can be applied 

across multiple industries, including:

▪ Additive manufacturing, robotics, digital manufacturing, cybersecurity, smart 

manufacturing and others;

▪ Automotive, aerospace, biomanufacturing, chemical, communications, defense, 

food, instrumentation, medical equipment and others.

o Collaborations with technical resource entities at the national, state and local level are 

encouraged.

Discussion

• C. Thomas asked about a timeline and D. Stieren said that they have a draft form of the NOFO. 

They expect it to be posted by the end of 2019 or the beginning of 2020.

• M. Magee said that the Manufacturing USA Institutes were a great experiment, but this NOFO 

made sense because it is hard for SMMs to get into the R&D space. D. Stieren said that the 
Page 16

NOFO will encourage operation in this space for the MEP National Network and if it makes 

sense to partner with the Manufacturing USA Institutes, then they will.

Cybersecurity as of September 2019

• Development of the MEP National Network cybersecurity assistance for small manufacturers is 

progressing to a level of nationwide capability.

• Cybersecurity work continues to be spurred by strong partnerships with the DoD.

o Office of the Undersecretary of Defense for Research and Engineering (OUSDR&E).

o Office of the Undersecretary of Defense for Acquisition and Sustainment (OUSDA&S).

o Office of the Chief Information Officer (OCIO).

o Office of Economic Adjustment (OEA).

o Defense Acquisition University (DAU).

o Procurement Technical Assistance Centers (PTACs).

• Cybersecurity work remains mainly driven by DFARS requirements for the defense sector.

NIST Cybersecurity and Small Manufacturers Supplying to DoD

• National Defense Authorization Act 2019, HR 5515 (January 2018):

o Section 1644, Assistance for Small Manufacturers in the Defense Industrial Supply Chain 

and Universities on Matters Relating to Cybersecurity.

▪ “The Secretary of Defense, in consultation with the Director of the National 

Institute of Standards and Technology, shall take such actions as may be 

necessary to enhance awareness of cybersecurity threats among small 

manufacturers and universities working on Department of Defense programs and 

activities.”

• National Defense Authorization Act 2020, HR 2500 (July 2019):

o Section 853, Revised Authorities to Defeat Adversary Efforts to Compromise United 

States Defense Capabilities.

▪ “The Secretary of Defense shall consult with the Director of the Hollings 

Manufacturing Extension Partnership (established under Section 25 of the 

National Institute of Standards and Technology Act (15 U.S.C. 278k)) to provide 

education, guidance and technical assistance to strengthen the cybersecurity of 

SMMs that provide goods or services in the supply chain for the Department of 

Defense.” 

Highlights: MEP Cybersecurity and the DoD

• The Interagency Agreement (IAA) between NIST MEP and OUSDR&E provides $1.074 million

in special project award funding from NIST MEP to MEP Centers to serve cyber needs of small 

defense manufacturing suppliers between Aug. 1, 2019 and Dec. 31, 2020.

• The IAA is led by the MEP Center in Michigan; the target is serving 1,000+ small defense 

contractors.

• It will provide nationwide cybersecurity awareness, hands-on technical assistance and pilot 

operational technology (OT) protections.

o This includes collaboration with NIST Labs.

o It also includes collaboration with Manufacturing times Digital (MxD) Manufacturing 

USA Institute in Chicago.

• MEP Center participation is likely to occur in more than 20 states in addition to Michigan:

o Alabama, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Illinois, Kentucky, Louisiana, 

Massachusetts, Mississippi, Missouri, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, 

Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Texas, Washington and Wisconsin.
Page 17

Highlights: MEP Cybersecurity and NIST Laboratories

• NIST MEP and MEP Centers are working with NIST Labs to develop new NIST Implementation 

Guidance for the NIST Cybersecurity Framework Manufacturing Profile.

• MEP Centers are providing Use Cases from two representative small U.S. manufacturers that will 

be used by NIST Labs in the next iteration of the Manufacturing Profile Implementation 

Guidance.

• Activities funded by NIST MEP under NIST MEP – OUSDR&E IAA.

• Implementation Guidance from NIST Labs will:

o Address OT vulnerabilities specific to manufacturing operations that are not covered by 

DFARS cybersecurity requirements.

o Be pilot implemented at two participating manufacturers. 

MEP National Network Cybersecurity Summary

• The U.S. manufacturing sector is still not showing much action for cybersecurity implementation 

in non-defense manufacturing industries.

o Small manufacturer cyber protections are low relative to larger companies.

• MEP National Network is monitoring non-defense supply chains such as automotive and food 

processing.

• MEP Centers’ provision of cybersecurity assistance to small manufacturers is demonstrating 

operation of the MEP National Network in the conduct of multi-Center assistance.

o Cyber-in-a-Box is available to MEP Centers providing necessary information for MEP 

Centers to begin and operate cybersecurity assistance practice.

NIST MEP Cybersecurity Resources

• NIST Cybersecurity Framework:

o Identify, Protect, Detect, Respond, Recover.

• NIST Small Business Cybersecurity Corner.

• NIST Special Publication 800-171: Protecting Controlled Unclassified Information in Nonfederal 

Information Systems and Organizations.

• NIST MEP Cybersecurity Self-Assessment Handbook for Assessing NIST SP 800-171 Security 

Requirements in Response to DFARS Cybersecurity Requirements.

• NIST Interagency/Internal Report (NISTIR) 7621 Revision 1: Small Business Information 

Security: The Fundamentals.

MEP National Network Progress: Cybersecurity Assistance Practice.

• As of September 2019, more than 3,200 SMMs served.

• More than 220 awareness and training events conducted by MEP Centers nationwide.

• More than 496 cybersecurity projects conducted for U.S. manufacturers by the MEP National 

Network since 2014.

• NISTIR 7621, Small Business Information Security: The Fundamentals has been downloaded 

over 132,000 times since it was published by Pat Toth of NIST MEP in November 2016.

• 19 MEP Centers have received around $9 million in OEA funding, focused on working with 

state-based organizations.

o These awards are focused on cyber workforce training and education.

• NIST Handbook 162 has been downloaded about 60,000 times since it was published by Pat Toth 

in November 2017.

• The MEP National Network Cybersecurity Working Group (WG) holds meetings every 6 weeks.

o A WG workshop was held in Orlando in May 2019.

o A WG workshop was planned for September 2019 in Atlanta.
Page 18

MEP National Network Cybersecurity Progress Summary as of September 2019

• Defense contractor cybersecurity implementation is still low.

• 46 MEP Centers in Cybersecurity Working Group.

• 45 out of 51 MEP Centers offer a cybersecurity practice.

• The MEP National Network has made significant progress and continues to move forward 

addressing important needs.

Additional Updates

• NIST MEP is engaging a Shared Assist collaboration of defense and aerospace primes on behalf 

of the MEP National Network.

o They are collaborating to develop common approaches and trusted resources for supply 

chain implementation of cyber protection. The collaboration includes Lockheed, 

Northrop Grumman, Boeing, Raytheon and BAE Systems.

o The collaboration resulted from spring 2019 executive level engagement between 

Lockheed leaders and the NIST Associate Director for Innovation and Industry Services,

as well as NIST MEP leadership.

o Leveraging MEP Centers to raise supply chain awareness and provide technical 

assistance based upon OEM common cyber approaches and trusted resources.

o Exploring OEM participation in DFARS cyber awareness events around the country in 

2019 and 2020.

• A new Cybersecurity Maturity Model Certification (CMMC) Program is being developed.

o Every contract will be required to have a certification according to the maturity model

and contractors will have to have the equivalent level of cybersecurity certification.

o Planned implementation by early 2021.

o NIST MEP is working with DoD to learn evolving details of this future new policy, 

including implications of its implementation.

▪ An OUSDR&E representative participated in the WG Meeting in Atlanta.

o NIST MEP is providing ongoing guidance to MEP Centers’ approach.

▪ The CMMC does not currently impact Centers’ engagements with small defense 

contractors.

▪ The CMMC does not currently negate or supersede DFARS requirements.

Discussion

• M. Isbister asked if there was an opportunity for the five defense contractors to form a consortium 

to help MEP Centers get their supply chains up and running. D. Stieren said that the Shared 

Assist includes recognition from the five contractors that they need to take a common approach to 

implementation and the contractors are very interested in working with the MEP National 

Network.

• W. Copan asked whether and how the MEP National Network will be a partner in delivering 

certification services. D. Stieren said that NIST MEP’s guidance to MEP Centers is to stay the 

course and continue to serve as advisors for SMMs to help them understand certification and 

prepare to be certified. It is not clear who the certifying bodies will be and what they will require

and this is another issue that DoD will need to face.

• B. Hawes said that they are on track to create a Manufacturing Commons with resources that can 

be distributed to anyone who needs it in the literary field. The Shared Assist is an opportunity to 

consider other parts of the supply chain that the Manufacturing Commons can incorporate and 

push out to SMMs through the MEP Centers.

• J. Wright asked if the special awards process includes learning about what new customers need 

and proliferating that out to more suppliers. D. Stieren said that it does and network sharing is a 

required element of the competitive awards program.
Page 19

• W. Copan said that as work product is delivered to the manufacturing community that care should 

be taken because reports are seen translated into Chinese nearly immediately after they are 

released on the open internet. In this era of information-sharing, it is important to think about how 

to disseminate information for the greatest possible impact and benefit to the U.S. manufacturing 

economy.

Executive Committee Working Group

Speakers:

Cheryl Gendron, Advisory Board Liaison NIST MEP

Phillip Wadsworth, Resource Manager, NIST MEP

Committee Members

• Board Leadership:

o Bernadine Hawes, Chair of MEP Advisory Board.

o Matt Newman, Vice-Chair of MEP Advisory Board.

• Board Participants:

o Mitch Magee.

o George Spottswood.

o Pat Moulton.

• NIST MEP Support:

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

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.

Center Board Outreach Program

• Aims to enhance the strength of relationships between national and local boards.

• Learn about your assigned Centers.

• MAB Outreach Toolkit:

o A list of your connections: States and MEP Centers.

o Detailed MEP Center one pager for each.

o Contact names and info, with names highlighted if they attended the Summit.

Discussion

• B. Hawes asked what a good next step would be for outreach and P. Wadsworth said that the first 

step would be to contact Center Board Chairs and set up a time to have a conversation with them.

• L. Byars said that the roundtable activity earlier in the day was a great springboard to facilitate 

this type of conversation and collaboration.

Board Activities in 2020

• Supporting and mentoring new members.

o There are three new members on the horizon: Don Bockoven, Willie May and Kevin 

Heller.

o Discussed role of mentors for the new members.

▪ Participating in orientation webinar, accepting phone calls with questions.

• MEP Advisory Board succession in 2020:

o Two members were recently renewed for a second term.
Page 20

o Most other members will be entering their second terms in 2020.

o Bernadine Hawes’ second term will end in May 2020.

• New Working Group discussion:

o Strategic Plan for the next five years.

• Next face-to-face meeting.

o Tuesday, March 3, 2020 on the NIST Campus in Gaithersburg, Maryland.

▪ There will be a Board Dinner and tour on Monday, March 2, 2020.

o Middle of June 2020, location TBD.

o Middle of September 2020, in conjunction with the MEP National Network Update 

Meeting and the FORME Best Practice Conference.

Wrap-Up/Public Comments

Public Comments

• There were no public comments.

Concluding Comments

• G. Spottswood said that the meeting was well organized as usual and he was especially excited 

about the Center Board Outreach Program.

• C. Weiser agreed that the Outreach Program was very promising and said that he was inspired to 

go back to Arkansas and become more involved with his local MEP Center.

• K. Rennels said that she was able to meet one of her MEP Center Board contacts during this 

meeting and could reach out to him very soon. She said that she was looking forward to the 

Policy Academy and that her new position in the Colorado state university system puts her right 

in the governor’s plan for rural manufacturing and rural ownership.

• J. Anaya said that he had one word for this meeting and it was cybersecurity. In California, MEP 

is putting many programs in place including Industry 4.0 and smart manufacturing, but that 

causes vulnerability. Cybersecurity needs to be their next focus.

• M. Magee said that he looked forward to becoming more actively involved with the MEP Centers 

and mentioned that he was also able to meet one of his contacts at the meeting. He praised NIST 

MEP’s focus on networking, collaboration and problem-solving. 

• L. Byars thanked the NIST MEP team for the opportunity to participate and serve as a voice for 

manufacturing. She said that she was encouraged to hear that others have a vested interest in the 

future of manufacturing in America and she looked forward to communicating that to the people 

she works with.

• J. Wright thanked Carroll Thomas for her recent visit to his region and the energy that she brings 

to the manufacturing groups that she visits. 

• M. Isbister said that the MEP Program in Wisconsin saved her business at a critical time and she 

continues to benefit from her association with the passionate people at NIST MEP. She said that 

Carroll Thomas’ legacy will be that of a united MEP Network and anticipated that in the future, 

MEP will bring resources and create the scale that is necessary to maintain America’s 

preeminence in manufacturing and to regain what we have lost.

• C. Thomas thanked Board members for hosting her during her recent visits to their local 

manufacturers.

• W. Copan said that NIST MEP is trying to engage the whole organization to create the greatest 

possible synergy and that intelligent use of a resource is to create it once and then share it widely. 

He thanked Board members and Ms. Thomas for their efforts and invited them to share further 

ideas with him at any time.

• M. Newman said he liked the idea that manufacturing that is engaged with the MEP National 

Network is a better investment than those that are not engaged with the MEP National Network.
Page 21

He said that the sum of the MEP Program is much more valuable than a single MEP Center and 

he was glad to be a part of that.

• B. Hawes said that her word for this meeting was embed because the meeting highlighted the 

different ways that all parts of the MEP National Network are embedded in each other. She 

thanked the Board members and the NIST MEP staff for all of their hard work.

Next Meeting 

The next Advisory Board Meeting is set for March 3, 2020 in Gaithersburg, Maryland.

Adjournment

With no further business, B. Hawes adjourned the meeting at 3:25 p.m.