1 

National Institute of Standards and Technology

Manufacturing Extension Partnership

Advisory Board

Minutes of the March 9, 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 1 p.m. 

to 5 p.m. on March 9, 2022, via video teleconference. The meeting had 76 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 

Bernadine Hawes, Senior Advisor, Econsult 

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

Miriam Kmetzo, Executive Vice President, Welding Technology Corp. 

Mitch Magee, Manufacturing Industry Consultant 

Patricia Moulton, President, Vermont Technical College

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

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

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

Board

Guest Speakers

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

James Olthoff, Performing the nonexclusive functions and duties of the Under Secretary of Commerce 

 for Standards and Technology and NIST Director 

Observers

Nicole Ausherman, NIST MEP

Melissa Ayala, NIST MEP

Robert Barnes, NIST MEP

Dan Berglund, State Science & Technology Institute (SSTI)

Megean Blum, NIST MEP

Rebecca Callahan, U.S. House of Representatives 
2

Steve Campbell, NIST MEP

Scott Chaiken, Michigan Manufacturing Technology Center

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

Monica Claussen, NIST MEP

Mike Coast, Michigan Manufacturing Technology Center

Jose Colucci-Rios, NIST MEP

Peter Connolly, ShockTech, Inc.

Dusty Cruise, Missouri Enterprise

Larry Danner, The Clearing

Melissa Davis, NIST MEP

Nadine DeJesus, NIST MEP

Emily Durham, Lewis-Burke Associates, LLC

Laura Graham, SSTI

Diane Henderson, NIST MEP

Autumn Hernandez, NIST MEP

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

(ASMC/FORME)

KeAnne Hoag, North Carolina MEP

Rob Ivester, NIST MEP

Elliot Johnson, The Clearing

Brian Lagas, NIST MEP

Wiza Lequin, NIST MEP

Mia Luckett, Lewis-Burke Associates, LLC

Chancy Lyford, NIST MEP

Drew Mackey, Northeastern Pennsylvania Industrial Resource Center

Anthony Mastalski, NIST MEP

G. Christopher Mathews, National Custom Hollow Metal Doors and Frames

Heather Mayton, NIST MEP

Kevin McIntyre, NIST MEP

Dimitrios Meritis, NIST MEP

Justin Mocca, NIST MEP

Mary Ann Pacelli, NIST MEP

Annette Parker, South Central College

Andrew Peterson, NIST MEP

Kim Pinckney, NIST MEP

Katie Rapp, NIST MEP

Kari Reidy, NIST Office of Congressional and Legislative Affairs

Rikki Riegner, Pennsylvania MEP

Kirsten Rieth, Research Triangle Institute

Alyssa Rodrigues, Alaska MEP

Jennifer Rosa, NIST MEP

Mark Schmit, NIST MEP

Carol Shibley, 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
3

Brian Weiss, NIST

Tom Williams, NIST MEP

Michael Wilson, NIST MEP

Welcome and Introductions

Speakers:

 

 Pravina Raghavan, MEP Director

 Matt Newman, Chair, MEP Advisory Board 

 James Olthoff, Performing the nonexclusive functions and duties of the Under Secretary of Commerce 

 for Standards and Technology and NIST Director

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

M. Newman made introductory remarks and expressed his gratitude to the NIST MEP staff, MEP Centers 

in the U.S. and Puerto Rico, and their Center boards for their response to the COVID-19 pandemic and 

supply chain resilience issues. After reviewing the agenda, he noted that Board member Kathay Rennels 

has retired and thanked her for two terms of Board service. P. Raghavan welcomed participants and noted 

that this would be her first Board meeting. She introduced J. Olthoff and M. Bahar, who each gave 

opening remarks. J. Olthoff said that NIST is awaiting Senate approval for the appointment of the next 

NIST Director. He welcomed new Board members M. Kmetzo and past Chair B. Hawes. He shared that 

the NIST MEP staff recently received the U.S. Department of Commerce Gold Medal for speed, 

efficiency and transparency in their work to issue Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security 

(CARES) Act funds to all MEP Centers. He also congratulated Dr. M. Walker, who received the George 

A. Uriano Award for leadership in the development and implementation of the MEP-Assisted Technology 

and Technical Resource (MATTR) service to connect NIST laboratory technical capabilities and 

resources with the needs of small U.S. manufacturers through MEP Centers, and D. Thatte, who received 

the Distinguished Career Award for his support of the NIST mentoring program. M. Bahar shared 

ongoing efforts to ensure the future success of the MEP National NetworkTM (MEPNN), including the 

upcoming conclusion of the MEPNN 2017-2022 Strategic Plan, development of the MEPNN 2023-2028 

Strategic Plan, and the three key MEP program themes of supply chain, workforce, and technology and 

innovation. Board members introduced themselves and their organizations and MEP Center Directors, 

NIST MEP leadership and Division Chiefs were recognized for their participation,.

MEP Director’s Update

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 Currently under continuing resolution (CR) through March 11

o President’s budget and House bill contain $275 million for MEP

o Senate mark is $175 million
4

• FY 2022 appropriation status outlook

o House passed FY 2022 Omnibus language on March 9

o Another short-term CR expected to March 15

o $158 million for MEP

o Includes cost share exemption

• NIST MEP projected spend plan through March 11, 2022

o Available funding

 CR appropriation: $66.6 million

 Carryover from FY 2021: $2 million

 Funding from other agencies: $0

 Total available funding: $68.6 million

o Planned expenditures

 Center renewals: $58 million

 Strategic competitions: $0

 Contracts: $1.2 million

 NIST MEP labor: $5.2 million

 NIST and program overhead: $4.2 million

 Total planned expenditures: $68.6 million

Plan for potential additional program funding

• What is the plan for any potential additional funding?

o Awards will occur through the Competitive Awards Program (CAP)

o No cost share requirement

o Focused on three program themes

 Supply chain

 Workforce

 Technology and innovation

• Program theme example (workforce)

o Fund Center-specific projects including

 Potential project: expand manufacturing apprenticeships and include a diverse 

workforce

• Manufacturer impact

o Upskilled workforce

• Workforce impact

o Diversity of new workforce

o Skilled workforce

• Metrics

o Number of companies participating 

o Number of new apprenticeships

o Number of underrepresented people in apprenticeship

o Number of minority-serving institutions (MSI) participating

o Number of new partners engaged to support statewide efforts

• Project pricing estimates

o $150,000 to $500,000

o This could pay for staff, trainers, materials, depending on how 

long and how many different types of apprenticeships

 Potential project: expand/develop new workforce training with local and state 

partners (e.g., industry supported boot camps)

• Manufacturer impact

o Access to unskilled workforce
5 

o Jobs filled

o Input to current and future education and training programs

• Workforce impact

o Job placement 

• Metrics

o Number of companies participating

o Number of new placements

o Number of underrepresented people trained

o Number of underrepresented people placed 

o Number of MSI participating 

o Number of new partners engaged to support statewide efforts

• Project pricing estimates

o $100,000 to $400,000

o Like apprenticeships, costs are for staff, materials, trainers. A 

smaller Center could do a lot with $100,000 for 1-2 years. 

 Potential project: promote advanced workforce practices to improve culture, 

especially through historically Black colleges and universities, with a focus on 

diversity, equity and inclusion (e.g., implement and enhance Smart Talent) 

• Manufacturer impact

o Retention of skilled workforce

o Improved recruitment success

• Workforce impact

o Job satisfaction

• Metrics

o Number of companies with projects

o Turnover rate improvement 

o Demographic data tracked (yes/no)

o What are you tracking? 

• Project pricing estimates

o $200,000 to $400,000

o Depending on project timeline, $400,000 would be for up to 

three years

• How will MEP Centers participate?

o MEP Centers will choose tactics that are most relevant to their MEP Center and state

 Pick and choose from any of the program themes 

 Pick one or multiple tactics across the program themes

 Proposed funding levels 

• Up to $1 million per MEP Center proposal

• Up to $5 million for multiple MEP Center proposals 

o Engage with other MEP Centers and states to explore potential proposal partnerships

Strategic competition update 

• FY 2022 Center State Competition 

o NOFO for group one (Kentucky, Nebraska, Rhode Island and South Dakota) posted on 

grants.gov on Jan. 26, 2022

 The NOFO is also on the MEP website: http://www.nist.gov/mep/mep-centerstate-competition-fy-2022

 Applications are due April 26, 2022 

 Awards will be announced in October 2022 for Jan. 1, 2023 start

o Award recommendations must be made to GMD no later than July 8, 2022 
6 

o NOFO for group two (Arizona and Maryland) will be posted in June 2022 

 Applications will be due in mid-September 2022 

 Awards will be announced in April 2023 for July 1, 2023 start

o A virtual information session was held on Feb. 14, 2022 and a recording of that webinar 

can be accessed at: https://bluejeans.com/s/cipYJUMNK6A

• MEP Disaster Assistance Program

o Applications must be received by NIST no later than 60 calendar days following the date 

that a major or an emergency disaster declaration is declared by the Federal Emergency 

Management Agency

o Two fundable applications (Louisiana, Texas) are on hold due to budget constraints 

• CARES Act results through FY 2021 

o 2021 Department of Commerce Organizational Gold Medal to NIST MEP 

o Additional information shared later in this presentation/minutes.

MEP National Network Updates 

• NIST MEP

o Pravina Raghavan has joined the team as the MEP Director

o Rob Ivester previously filled the roles of both Acting MEP Director and MEP Deputy 

Director

o Dave Stieren, Division Chief of the Extension Services Division, retired in December 

2021 

o Jose Colucci-Rios is now the Acting Division Chief of the Extension Services Division 

• Center Leadership Team (CLT)

o Active members include the following people: 

 Center Directors: Buckley Brinkman (Wisconsin), Mike Coast (Michigan), Bill 

Donohue (Virginia), Carrie Hines (ASMC/FORME), Ethan Karp (Ohio), Kathie 

Mahoney (Rhode Island), Alyssa Rodrigues (Alaska), Jennifer Sinsabaugh (New 

Mexico), Tiffany Stovall (Kansas), Jim Watson (California) 

 NIST MEP staff: Pravina Raghavan, Rob Ivester, Mark Schmit 

o Tom Bugnitz, Center Director for Manufacturer’s Edge (Colorado MEP Center), retired

• Recognition of New MEP Center Directors 

o Dayna Blanchard (MEP of Louisiana), Andy Carr (South Carolina MEP), Jodie Mjoen 

(Impact Dakota), Aaron Patrick (Ohio MEP), Rodney Reddic (Texas Manufacturing 

Assistance Center) 

o Plus Interim MEP Center Directors were listed:

o Carolyn Miller (Mississippi Manufacturers Association), Jennifer Hagan-Dier 

(Manufacturer’s Edge), Gregory Head (Advantage Kentucky Alliance) 

• Center board support 

o NIST MEP Network Learning has been coordinating MEP Center board support since 

2017 

 Board member assessments using an MEP-centric assessment tool

• Results are confidential

 Action planning sessions as a result of the assessments and workshops targeted 

to specific needs of boards

• Sessions have covered topics such as strategic planning, advocacy and 

board recruitment

 35 states have used some form of board development services

• 25 assessments

• 19 action planning consultations

• 15 workshops 
7

• 10 individual consultants

o MEP BoardSource subscription

 A nationally recognized organization whose mission is to increase effectiveness 

in board governance, education and training. Valuable for both Center Directors 

and Center board members.

 Subscription gives access to the various best practices, blogs, studies and various 

governance materials.

• Network learning events

o Center Director Executive Support Program

 This new program in development will offer a range of new resources to support 

Centers (will launch September 2022)

• Engaging Center Directors in the design and delivery of the program

• Will provide a range of resources to meet the varied needs of individual 

Center Directors and local circumstances

o Program includes series of workshops, facilitated panel 

discussions and peer-to-peer councils

o MEPNN New Employee Orientation

 March 29 at 2 p.m. EDT

o New MEP Center Board Member Orientation

 March 31 at 2 p.m. EDT

o New MEP Center Director Orientation and Onboarding

 Two half-days (new format) Jan. 18 and 26, 2022

• Tab Wilkins Emerging Leaders Program (TWELP)

o Current 1.13 cohort will graduate in April

o TWELP Class 1.14 open for nominations

o Center Directors who are alumni of the TWELP program

 Andy Carr (South Carolina MEP, Class 1.9), Dusty Cruise (Missouri Enterprise, 

Class 1.2), Wayne Inouye (INNOVATE Hawaii, Class 1.4), John W. Kennedy 

(New Jersey MEP, Class 1.6), Kathie Mahoney (Polaris MEP, Class 1.5), 

Carolyn Miller (Mississippi Manufacturers Association, Class 1.2), Phillip 

Mintz (North Carolina MEP, Class 1.2), Aaron Patrick (Ohio MEP, Class 1.8), 

Keith Phillips (Alabama Technology Network, Class 1.5), Dwaine Raper 

(Tennessee MEP, Class 1.9), Rikki Riegner (Pennsylvania MEP, Class 1.11), 

Jennifer Sinsabaugh (New Mexico MEP, Class 1.1), Rustyn Stoops (Delaware

MEP, Class 1.7), Tiffany Stovall (Kansas Manufacturing Solutions, Class 1.7), 

Deloit R. Wolfe, Jr. (Impact Washington, Class 1.9)

• Network learning: connect, communicate and collaborate

o Network Learnings Corner in the Network News biweekly newsletter

 To effectively share, transfer and discuss NIST MEP’s vision, learnings, 

distinctive practices, meeting and webinar recordings, programs, success stories 

and special announcements

o Network Learnings section in MEP Connect (internal platform)

 Knowledge sharing from NIST MEP – working groups, extension services,

distinctive practices, helpful resources and more

 Competitive Awards Program highlights and closeout meeting recordings

 Funding opportunities

 Project outcomes and deliverables

• NIST MEP’s National Network support – notable service areas

o Cybersecurity
8

 Continued awareness and training focused on Defense Federal Acquisition 

Regulation Supplement and ransomware

 Creating internal and external partnerships

o Advanced Manufacturing Technology Services/Industry 4.0

 Opportunity for increased small and medium-sized manufacturer (SMM)

adoption due to workforce challenges exacerbated by the pandemic

 Increased Center participation via NIST MEP special project awards and the 

Advanced Manufacturing Technology Services/Industry 4.0 Working Group

o MEP-Assisted Technology and Technical Resource (MATTR)

 Continuing to operationalize at Centers and increase awareness, participation of 

NIST laboratories – focus on MATTR value for manufacturers, Centers, NIST

 Three active cooperative research and development agreements involving NIST 

laboratories, MEP Center clients and NIST MEP

o Food Industry Services/Food Safety

 Active partnerships with the Food and Drug Administration and Food Safety 

Preventive Controls Alliance focused on food safety

 All 51 Centers participating in Food Industry Services Working Group

o MEPNN Supplier Scouting

 Supply chain need identified

• MEPNN Supplier Scouting opportunity synopsis is created with 

assistance from NIST MEP

 NIST MEP distributes

• MEP Centers conduct a nationwide search for U.S. manufacturers

 Aggregate results

• NIST MEP gathers, analyzes and aggregates MEP Center submissions

 NIST MEP prepares report

• Prepares scouting results report and requests submitter to follow up with 

NIST MEP

Discussion 

• M. Newman said that he would like to see a focus on controlling intellectual property (IP), 

especially as there are many new high-tech industries developing. The U.S. has a history of 

offshoring manufacturing of critical parts and pieces to unfriendly countries. P. Raghavan said 

that while they are focusing on immediate needs, the goal of supplier scouting is also to think 

long-term about creating technology and supply chains in America.

• M. Magee praised the NIST MEP team’s flexibility with the budgeting process and said that he

has learned over the years to plan for both expansion and contraction of operations. He noted the 

importance of having programs in mind that can be implemented if funding is increased.

• L. Byars said that as a manufacturer she gets concerned when she receives requests for quotes 

from people who claim that there is a lack of competitiveness just so that they can receive 

exemptions. 

• M. Isbister noted that she chairs the Manufacturing USA Manufacturing x Digital (MxD) institute 

and they also focus on the key program themes of supply chain, workforce, and digital and 

advanced manufacturing technology. It feels like there are many opportunities to work together in 

those areas and yet little progress is made. She asked what they can do to work together more 

closely to achieve mutual benefit. P. Raghavan agreed and said that this topic of leveraging 

partnerships would be addressed later in the meeting.
9

• L. Taito said that one of the biggest challenges with near-sourcing in supply chains is redundant 

tooling and access to that tooling, and this could be a focus area for the MEPNN to provide 

assistance and information through peripheral support services. There could also be opportunities 

to provide training to organizations that spent the last two years leading their organizations away 

from lean principles to accommodate for COVID-19. 

• J. Wright echoed L. Taito’s comments about lean principles and asked about SMMs’ need for IP 

development and what services MEP offers in that area. P. Raghavan said that she did not have a 

specific answer, but there is a partnership with the NIST Technology Partnerships Office and that 

IP development was an important area to focus on. In the chat, M. Magee asked what percentage 

of MEP Centers’ business comes from new technology and startups versus more traditional 

business models. P. Raghavan said that about 10% of MEP clients over the last five years are 

startups. Those companies are more likely to receive technology services from MEP, at 10% 

versus 1%.

• P. Moulton said that many states are currently engaged in workforce development conversations, 

and it is critical for the MEP Centers to coordinate with state workforce development boards and 

educational institutions in order to take advantage of existing workforce networks and avoid 

reinventing the wheel. 

• B. Hawes said that the MEPNN has taken root but there does not seem to be a strong connection 

with USA Manufacturing institutes. She echoed M. Newman’s comments about IP and added that 

they need to provide a pathway to bring IP into the MEPNN.

• M. Bahar said that Manufacturing USA and MEP do coordinate on workforce events and have 

staff members attend each other’s meetings. Technology transfer is one of the mandates of the 

MEP program; if the transfer happens outside a federal laboratory, the IP is already spelled out, 

and if it happens at the MEP Center, then they identify IP regimes that work for that particular 

Center. She cautioned against a one-size-fits-all approach for technologies that are not owned by 

a university or a federal laboratory. M. Newman said that he was thinking about the supplier 

portal and how to facilitate connections between IP owners and manufacturers in the U.S. 

• In the chat, M. Isbister added that they needed to define the MEP unique contribution to 

workforce and then make the links to other entities.

MEP National Network Current Strategic Plan Update

Speaker: Pravina Raghavan, MEP Director

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 
10 

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 current 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 scouting matches and 

clients served in critical areas

o Goal: increase supplier scouting requests by 10% 

 Baseline: 124 

 Update through 2021 quarter 4 (6 months): 58

 Goal: 137

o Goal: increase successful supplier scouting matches by 10% 

 Baseline: 298 

 Update through 2021 quarter 4 (6 months): 80

 Goal: 328

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

services

o Goal: increase clients engaged with workforce projects by 10%

 Baseline: 1,800 

 Update through 2021 quarter 4 (6 months): 996

 Goal: 1,980

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

o Goal: amplifying Network brand awareness by at least 10%

 #MEPNationalNetwork hashtag occurrences 

• Baseline for current 18 months: 567 

• Progress to date: 608 

• New goal for current 18 months: 624

• Change: +7% 

 Brand mentions

• Baseline for current 18 months: 194 

• Progress to date: 202 

• New goal for current 18 months: 213

• Change: +4% 

 Manufacturing Innovation blog subscribers 

• Baseline for current 18 months: 40,130 

• Progress to date: 44,809 

• New goal for current 18 months: 44,143

• Change: +12% 
11

 Backlinks

• Baseline for current 18 months: 186

• Progress to date: 204

• New goal for current 18 months: 205

• Change: +10%

 Social media followers

• Baseline for current 18 months: 18,419

• Progress to date: 18,742

• New goal for current 18 months: 20,261

• Change: +2%

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

services and implementation

o Goal: increase clients engaged with technology services projects by 10%

 Baseline: 983

 Update through 2021 quarter 4 (6 months): 763

 Goal: 1,081

o Goal: increase MATTR requests/inquiries by 10%

 Baseline: 25

 Update through 2021 quarter 4 (6 months): 7

 Goal: 28

Discussion

• B. Hawes asked if there were barriers to the MEP Centers pushing MATTR to their clients. P. 

Raghavan said that they have not done a formal assessment, but the relaunch will focus on 

breaking MATTR down into more digestible segments.

• M. Magee said that NIST cutting edge technology may not be relevant for all SMMs, but doing 

small projects is a good start for those who are interested. P. Raghavan agreed and said that they 

need to work on messaging correctly to the MEPNN so that they can use tools appropriately for 

their clients. 

MEP Program Performance Overview

Speaker: Pravina Raghavan, MEP Director

Looking back: FY 2021 client impact survey results

• 125,746 jobs created or retained

• $14.4 billion in new and retained sales

• $5.2 billion in total investment in U.S. manufacturing

• $1.5 billion in cost savings

MEP CARES Act results

• CARES Act results through January 2022

o MEP Centers served 5,300 companies with 7,300 CARES Act-funded projects

o 2,287 companies received MEP services for the first time as a result

o 5,300 unique clients served with over 7,300 projects

• Impacts directly attributable to the CARES Act

o 17,385 jobs created or retained

o $1.5 billion in new and retained sales

o $482 million in new investment in U.S. manufacturing
12 

o $175 million in cost savings 

MEP National Network rising to the challenge 

• Assessed the pandemic’s impact on manufacturing 

• Forged partnerships and created connections

• Helped manufacturers pivot

• Evolved operations in a new normal 

Success stories were referenced in the following areas and can be reviewed on the NIST MEP site here: 

https://www.nist.gov/mep/successstories 

• Pivot to produce personal protective equipment, medical supplies and medical devices

o MEP Centers in Connecticut, Iowa, Michigan and North Carolina 

• Supplier scouting

o MEP Centers in Maryland, New Jersey and South Carolina

• Workforce 

o MEP Center in Rhode Island

Key takeaways

• Manufacturers adapted

• Manufacturing thrived

• New partnerships developed 

Discussion

• M. Newman said that it would be good to see some of the success stories highlighted on 

LinkedIn. 

Looking at Partnerships Through the Lens of Economic Development

Speaker: Pravina Raghavan, MEP Director 

MEP National Network strategic partnerships 

• The MEP program

o Serves as a bridge to other organizations and federal research labs that share a passion for 

enhancing the manufacturing community

o Fosters, develops and leverages these relationships

o Permits MEP Centers to expand the reach and value of the program to the manufacturing 

industry 

Value of partnerships for manufacturers

• Enhanced operational performance, finance growth, better manage risks while innovating, 

products to market faster

• Public-private partnerships can bring to manufacturers capabilities that they cannot access alone

• Our understanding of and ability to align state, regional, and local policy goals and objectives 

with national policy goals leverages the strength of each entity 

MEP Centers connect manufacturing ecosystems

• MEP Centers partner with federal government, state/local government, associations, higher 

education, regional economic development organizations, nonprofit organizations, for-profit 

consultants and others 
13

Existing partnerships

• Federal government partners

o Economic Development Administration (EDA) economic development district

 EDA trade adjustment assistance center

 EDA university center

o Federal laboratory

o Department of Energy industrial assessment center

o Procurement technical assistance center

o Small business development center

o International Trade Administration U.S. export assistance center

• State/local government partners

o Local government (e.g., mayor or council)

o State commerce/economic development agency

o State energy/environment protection agency

o State science or technology agency

o State workforce/labor agency

• Local/regional economic development organizations

o Workforce investment board

• Nonprofit organizations

o Foundations

o Manufacturing alliances

• Associations

o Chamber of commerce

o Industry/trade association

• Higher education

o Community colleges

o Technical college

o University

• Other partners

o Other MEP Centers

o Power/utility

o Manufacturers

The MEP National Network’s partners are vast

• Centers with diverse partnership portfolios tend to be higher performing

• Partnerships allow them to provide more services to their clients; therefore, Centers with more 

partners perform more highly and have more impact

Department of Defense (DOD) partnerships benefit manufacturers

• Successful partnerships with the Office of Local Defense Community Cooperation (OLDCC), 

formerly the Office of Economic Adjustment, provide additional Center funding

• Since 2016, over 30 MEP Centers have received awards from OLDCC’s Industry Resilience and 

Defense Manufacturing Community Support Programs

• MEP identifies manufacturers in the DOD supply chain and works with them to adapt to new 

economic realities (including responsiveness to cybersecurity initiatives and threats), retain 

employees, preserve key defense critical capabilities and grow profitably

Potential new partners to consider

• Minority service institutions

o Historically Black colleges and universities
14

o Professional associations

o Minority business development centers

• Community development financial institutions

• State small business credit initiative program

Partnerships: future strategy

• Who do we need to fill the gaps?

o Are there individual state gaps?

• Do we prioritize certain partnerships?

o Is there a national or state value to certain ones?

o Top down and bottom up

• Do we pilot a few?

• Challenges or barriers? 

Discussion

• R. Aguerrevere said that in Florida they conducted a poll of 16,000 people working in 

manufacturing and the majority identified workforce as the preeminent issue. The enrollment and 

graduation rates for engineering schools in the U.S. are not sufficient to meet the projected 

demand for engineers by 2030. He said that while there has been a good focus on education 

delivery methods and programs, it is equally important to create demand for manufacturing jobs. 

He asked whether there were partnerships or best practices to engage young people in elementary 

and middle school to highlight the opportunities inherent in manufacturing. P. Raghavan agreed 

and said that Manufacturing Day was a good example of an initiative to have people visit to see 

what it’s like to work in manufacturing. Some Centers have youth apprenticeships and these 

could be expanded to all 51 Centers. 

• G. Spottswood noted that Alabama’s Center is very connected with manufacturing entities in the 

state as well as with other states’ Centers and this networking has allowed them to be very 

successful.

• D. Bockoven suggested getting Centers together to talk about best practices that can then be 

shared and leveraged with other Centers. The U.S. education system emphasizes four-year 

degrees, but that is not what is needed or appropriate for every student. He echoed comments 

about the importance of reaching students and parents in elementary schools to make them aware 

of the opportunities in manufacturing. 

• M. Newman challenged NIST MEP and Center Directors to think about which Center Directors 

have issues with building partnerships and how Board members can help to bridge those gaps.

• M. Magee said that one challenge in leveraging best practices is the fact that many partnerships 

are driven by the nature of the particular MEP Center, which varies widely. He said that there 

could be opportunities partnering with the National Association of Manufacturers. MEP has the 

trust of SMMs, which can be helpful when leveraging existing programs. 

• J. Wright suggested that small business loans could be tied to automation. P. Raghavan said that 

she would like MEP to think about how to make connections between local lenders and clients.

• B. Hawes suggested a pilot program that would embed historically Black colleges and 

universities with the university-based MEP Centers. She added that the Pennsylvania MEP has a 

program called What’s So Cool About Manufacturing? This program is tailored to middle school 

students and involves visiting manufacturing firms and creating video presentations. M. Newman 

added that Native American tribes should also be involved in collaborations.

• M. Isbister suggested that NIST MEP should define their unique contributions so that MEP

Centers and potential partners see those partnerships as collaborations, not competitions.

• J. Anaya said that in the last two years they have successfully impacted the talent/education 

pipeline and the impacts that COVID-19 had on SMMs were also felt in education. He added that 
15

they should also consider alternative sectors of workers outside of the education system, such as 

immigrants or unemployed individuals.

• M. Kmetzo asked for three key factors that Centers should prioritize, given the large amount of 

available information. P. Raghavan said that it depends on a Center’s focus and where they have

ongoing projects. She would challenge Centers to think about what they are good at, how they 

can expand and what kinds of partnerships they need.

• L. Taito said that it is important to sustain programs that have been built over time so that the 

focus remains on manufacturing even when administrations change and resources shift to 

different industries.

MEP Advisory Board Working Group Updates

Supply Chain Development Working Group

Speaker: Don Bockoven, MEP Advisory Board

Committee members

• Board leadership: Don Bockoven

• Board members: Ray Aguerrevere, LaDon Byars, Mary Isbister, Matt Newman

• NIST MEP support: Rob Ivester

Working group deliverable

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

chains, with an emphasis on how coordination and execution of MEP services can improve 

supply chain resilience and improve global competitiveness for key products and critical 

technologies

MEPNN Strategic Plan 2023-2028 Working Group

Speakers

 Jim Wright, MEP Advisory Board

 Larry Danner, The Clearing

Committee members

• Board leadership: Bernadine Hawes, Jim Wright

• Board members: Don Bockoven, Mary Isbister, Miriam Kmetzo, Mitch Magee, Matt Newman

• Past board member: Kathay Rennels

• NIST MEP support: Cheryl Gendron, Wiza Lequin, Mary Ann Pacelli

Working group deliverable

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

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

stakeholders, partners, management and staff as the plan is developed

Overview of the strategic planning process

• The strategic plan will build on the four pillars of the previous plan: empower manufacturers, 

champion manufacturing, leverage partnerships and transform the Network

o This will be a Network plan, not an organizational plan

o This is a strategic plan, not an implementation or execution plan
16 

• Preparation

o Buy-in from stakeholders

o Strategic Planning Committee (SPC) consisting of three subcommittees/research teams

 American manufacturing ecosystem subcommittee

 National Network subcommittee

 State and legislative subcommittee

• Situational analysis research (conducted by three subcommittees)

o Mine available data and prior work 

 Prior strategic plan, MEP Advisory Board Strategic Plan Working Group, Center 

Leadership Team strategy group, MEP strategy group, ASMC strategy work, 

MEP resources

o Gather data from identified sources

 Interviews with MEP Advisory Board members, Center Directors, Center boards, 

MEP staff and others, as identified

 Research domains and fields as identified by subcommittees and other sources 

• Formulation and dissemination 

o Interactive process of drafting and revising the strategic plan

 This will involve the working group, the MEP Advisory Board and the SPC

o The MEP Director will review the strategic plan and make sure it aligns with the

governing authorities, NIST and the Department of Commerce 

o The strategic plan will then be submitted to NIST and the Department of Commerce for 

final approval 

National Network Strategic Planning Roadmap 2021/2022 

• November 2021: SPC kickoff, regular SPC meetings

• December 2021-March 2022: regular SPC meetings, situational analysis of the American 

manufacturing ecosystem, situational analysis of the National Network and its stakeholders, 

situational analysis of the state and national political environments 

• April 2022: regular SPC meetings, presentation of the subcommittee recommendations to the 

MEP Advisory Board for review and input 

• May-June 2022: regular SPC meetings, drafting of the strategic plan by the SPC with MEP 

Advisory Board input 

• July 2022: regular SPC meetings, drafting of the strategic plan by the SPC with MEP Advisory 

Board input, approval of the strategic plan by MEP Director 

• August 2022: regular SPC meetings, submission of the strategic plan to NIST and Department of 

Commerce for approval, presentation and socialization of strategic plan

Discussion

• M. Newman clarified that Advisory Board members, Center Directors, Center Boards and NIST 

MEP staff could volunteer to join any of the three subcommittees. 

• M. Magee said that it was valuable to have a third party come in and make sure that the strategic 

plan is focused. A key is that it’s data driven, and while you may use different terminology, what 

you are doing is lean. 

• B. Hawes said that there will be a crosswalk between what is provided to the Department of 

Commerce and NIST and that crosswalk will also include the authorizing legislation for the MEP 

Centers. 
17

Executive Committee Working Group

Speakers

 Mary Isbister, Vice Chair, MEP Advisory Board

 Mitch Magee, MEP Advisory Board

 Matthew Newman, Chair, MEP Advisory Board

 Donald Bockoven, MEP Advisory Board

 George Spottswood, MEP Advisory Board

Committee members

• Board leadership: Mary Isbister

• Board members: Mitch Magee, Pat Moulton, Matt Newman, George Spottswood

• NIST MEP support: Pravina Raghavan, Cheryl Gendron, Wiza Lequin, Phill Wadsworth

Working group deliverable

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

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

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

MEP Advisory Board: other discussion topics

• Succession planning into the future

o Goals: diverse membership matching the statutory requirements

o Appointed by the NIST Director

o Three proposed candidates currently being vetted through DOC and NIST

o Seats open on a rolling basis

 Recommendations from Center Directors

 Federal Register Notice: call for nominations

• 2021 MEP Advisory Board Annual Report coming soon

o Will be submitted to the DOC in the coming weeks

o DOC will approve and distribute to Congress

o Once the report is with congressional representatives, members may share it and the 

report will be published on the NIST MEP website

MEP Advisory Board: local Center board outreach

• Center Board Outreach Program goal

o Enhance strength of relationships between national and local boards

• Opportunities to create connection with volunteers across the Network

o Contact with 51 Center board directors by the MEP Advisory Board outreach team 

(email, phone calls)

o Connections made over the last year continue; include informal conversations and 

attendance at Board meetings; continuing into 2022

• Discussions around

o Source of feedback to MEP Advisory Board in its advisory role

o Communication of and feedback on key National Network initiatives

o Help leverage Network resources

 Quarterly orientations for Center board members

 BoardSource memberships

 Board development programs (governance, leadership, advocacy, strategic 

thinking and more)

o Showing appreciation to the state board chairs for their time and commitment
18

Discussion

• M. Newman noted that many of the current Board members had served on their state Centers’ 

boards which helps build camaraderie and provides a venue to have peers to talk to.

• D. Bockoven noted that they get good feedback from Center boards and this can inform the 

strategic plan.

• G. Spottswood agreed that this leads to engaging conversations and is another form of networking 

that continues to pay off.

Public Comments/Wrap Up

There were no public comments.

Concluding comments

• R. Aguerrevere said that in his 20 years of experience, between labor shortages, supply chain 

problems and COVID-19, there has never been a harder time to run a manufacturing business. It 

has been encouraging to see that NIST MEP is continuing to do great work to support SMMs, 

who greatly need the help. He noted that the demand side of the manufacturing workforce 

equation concerns him and the long game needs to be engaging elementary and middle school 

children.

• J. Anaya volunteered to give advice on workforce development and share best practices that his 

organization is using.

• D. Bockoven said that he appreciated the discussions around partnerships and the explanation of 

the strategic plan. He remarked on the recent loss of Chuck Spangler from South Carolina MEP, 

who first introduced him to his local MEP Center board.

• L. Byars said that navigating the pandemic, the ensuing economic and political distress, and its 

effects on manufacturing would have been overwhelming for SMMs like hers without the support 

of NIST MEP and the National Network. 

• B. Hawes said that her word for the meeting was horizon. As the nation comes out of the 

pandemic, a new strategic plan is on the horizon for the MEP National Network and a new order 

is emerging for manufacturers and manufacturing.

• M. Isbister said that MEP’s time is now. Supply chain and workforce challenges are not new, but 

they were exacerbated by the pandemic and MEP is more valuable than ever. The country is 

watching and this is MEP’s opportunity to make a meaningful difference for manufacturers and 

manufacturing. 

• M. Kmetzo thanked her fellow Board members and NIST MEP staff for their patience and 

guidance during her first months on the Board.

• M. Magee said that two years ago most people did not know what the words supply chain meant, 

but now is a different time and a good time to be part of manufacturing. 

• G. Spottswood said that MEP’s success has never been more important because SMMs are the 

backbone of American manufacturing and American manufacturing is the key to the country’s 

continued freedom.

• L. Taito said that in her 30-year career she has never seen such complicated issues in 

manufacturing and there has never been a stronger need for MEP and the work of MEP Centers 

with their boots on the ground in the states. 

• J. Wright commended the NIST MEP staff for the seamless transition in leadership. MEP has a 

handle on what SMMs are struggling with and though there are no easy answers, the opportunity 

is there for MEP to make a difference. 
19

• M. Bahar thanked the Board members for their comments throughout the meeting and said that at 

every meeting she is awed by the passion and collective knowledge of the Board. She could not 

wish for a better organization or a better Advisory Board.

• P. Raghavan thanked the Board members for their service, and the Center Directors and staff for 

their work throughout the pandemic. She echoed previous comments that the horizon is bright 

and the time is now and said she looked forward to working with the Board on the path forward.

• M. Newman thanked the NIST MEP staff, Center executives and Center boards, and said that his 

word for the meeting was agility. Over the past two years, the MEP program figured out how to 

be resilient and thrive under difficult situations and if they maximize and leverage their agility 

they can bolster supply chain resilience and continue to grow the economy in the future. 

Next Meeting

The next MEP Advisory Board meeting is set for June 8, 2022 in Tulsa, Oklahoma. The subsequent

meeting will take place in Chicago, Illinois, on Sept. 20, 2022 and will be co-located with the MEP 

National Network Update meeting and the FORME Center Best Practice Conference.

Adjournment

With no further business, M. Newman adjourned the meeting at 5:05 p.m.