Manufacturing	Technology	Acceleration	Center	

Pilot	Projects

Request	for	Information

Prepared	By:						John	Irion

Organization:					South	Carolina	Manufacturing	Extension Partnership																																				

Date: 						August	5,	2013
M-TAC	RFI	Comments

2

The	South	Carolina	Manufacturing	Extension	Partnership	(SCMEP)	appreciates	the	opportunity	

to	provide	comments	in	response	to	the	RFI	on	the	M-TAC	proposal	in	the	FY14.		As	one	of	the	

three	original	MEP’s	in	1988,	it	is	critical	that	we	have	the	opportunity	to	comment	on	a	

program	in	which	MEP	Centers	are	integrally	involved.

Questions	1:	What	are	the	specific	types	of	technology	transition	and	commercialization	tools	

and	services	that	should	be	provided	by	M-TACs?	Emphasis	is	on	the	alignment	of	these	tools	

and	services	with	the	most	pressing	needs	of	small	and	mid-sized	U.S.	manufacturers.

Without	knowledge	of	the	needs	of	the	specific	supply	chains	or	industries,	it	is	impossible	to	

specify	what	technology	commercialization	tools	and	services	could	be	provided.	Pressing	

needs	should	be	identified	first.		M-TACs	should	then	call	upon	industry	experts	and	research	

institutions	to	develop	tools	and	services	to	meet	these	needs	and	offer	them	as	a	suite	of	

services	to	Centers	to	implement.		M-TACs	should	focus	on	improving small	manufacturers	

performance	and	integration	within	a	supply	chain,	without	prescribing	(or	requiring)	a	method	

in	which	to	achieve	it.		

Throughout	the	history	of	the	program,	SCMEP	has learned	that	the	needs	of	its	small	

manufacturing	clients	are	as	unique	as	their	product.		Tools	and	services	must	be	tailored	to	the	

needs	of	each	unique	client.		Unless	prescribed	by	an	OEM,	technology	transition	and	

commercialization	tools	would	need	maximum	flexibly	for	small	manufacturer	implementation.		

Question	1a:	How	would	M-TAC	services	complement	the	services	currently	offered	by	MEP	

Centers?

SCMEP	currently	offers an	array	of	services	to	small	manufacturers	including	(but	not	limited	

to):	process	improvements;	quality	systems;	business	systems;	workforce	development;	

product development	and	testing;	innovation;	and	technology	implementation.		The	M-TAC	

would	be	yet	another	access	point	to	manufacturers	which	would	provide	a	specialized	

expertise	around	one	industry	cluster	or	supply	chain.		M-TACs	could	also	coordinate	the	

supplier	development	needs	of	OEMS	and	serve	as	an	intermediary	between	the	OEM	and	MEP	

Centers	for	implementation to	suppliers.		MEP	Centers	would	continue	to	be	the	local	contact	

to	all	small	and	medium-sized	suppliers	but	draw	upon	regional	or	national	resources	as	

necessary.

Question	2:	What	role	should	future	M-TACs	play	with	respect	to	supply	chain	needs?		How	

should	OEMs	participate?		How	can	industry	associations,	professional	societies,	and	other	

appropriate	national	organizations	participate?

M-TACs	should	have	a	significant	role	in	identifying	the	needs	and	challenges	of	supply	chains	

as	noted	above.		By	first	identifying	the	needs	of	the	supply	chain	and	developing	a	supplier	
M-TAC	RFI	Comments

3

standard	in	each	area,	the	M-TACs	can	then	identify	appropriate	tools	and	services	that	can	

meet	those	needs.		Doing	so	would	identify	market	demand	for	supplier	development	services	

which	would	drive	local	manufacturers	to	pay	for	those	services	through	their	local	MEP	Center.		

Market	demand	for	supplier	development	services	is	a	critical	component	to	the	M-TAC	

program	as	cost	share	for	the	MEP	Center	is	a	significant	driver	of	service	delivery.

Industry	associations,	professional	societies	and	other	appropriate	national	organizations	could	

participate	in	three	ways.		First,	these	organizations	can	serve	a	key	role	in	identifying	the	needs	

of	various	supply	chains	and	assisting	in	the	supplier	standard	in	each	of	those	areas.		Second,	

industry	associations	and	professional	societies	could	be	a	service	provider	of	the	M-TAC	to	

SCMEP	clients.		For	example,	with	significant	knowledge	of	the	supply	chain	M-TAC	experts	

could	provide	an	individual	market	analysis	of	the	supply	chain	for	perspective	suppliers.		Third,	

these	organizations	can	market	the	M-TAC	services	specific	to	the	supply	chain.

Question	3:	Is	there	a	particular	long-term	scalable	and	financially	sustainable	business	model	

that	should	be	implemented	by	future	M-TACs	that	will	enable	small	and	mid-sized	U.S.	

manufacturers	to	effectively	access	and	benefit	from	the	technology	transition	and	

commercialization	assistance	and	other	resources	they	need?

Without	authorization	as	proposed,	the	current	M-TAC	program	does	not	have	long-term	

scalable	and	financially	sustainable	business	model	without	using	the	existing	MEP	network.	By	

using	the	existing	MEP	Center	network	for	cost	share	and	reporting,	start-up	costs	are	

minimized	and	the	probability	for	success	for	the	M-TAC	program	are	increased.			If	the	M-TAC	

program	is	structured	like	a	specialized	coordination	or	service	model	for	industry	clusters	and	

supply	chains,	it	could	be	an	addition	to	a	Center’s	base	offering	and	therefore	use	the	financial	

and	reporting	mechanisms	in	place	to	be	scalable	in	the	future.		This	structure	(exempt	from	

cost	share)	could	be	immediately	effective	and	targeted	as	M-TACs	are	intended.

If	the	

Questions	3a:	Because	of	the	programmatic	connection	to	the	NIST	MEP	Program,	M-TACs	

may	require	cost	share.		Are	there	cost	share	models	for	future	M-TACs	that	promote	scale	up	

to	reach	nationally	dispersed	clusters	of	small	and	med-sized	manufacturers?		If	so,	what	are	

those	models,	and	why	might	they	be	successful?

The	M-TAC	program	should	not	require	cost	share.		If	the	Centers	are	to	be	the	conduit	to	the	

manufacturer	and	the	deliverer	of	services	using	the	M-TAC	specialist	as	third	party	providers,	

the	program	should	not	require	cost	share.		Placing	a	matching	requirement	on	M-TACs	would	

be	duplicative	to	current	Center	matching	requirements	and	could	be	detrimental	to	base	

operations	of	an	MEP	Center.		Currently,	Centers	are	strategically	partnered	with	local	research	
M-TAC	RFI	Comments

4

institutions,	federal	labs	and	others.		If	M-TACs	require	cost	share	separately,	Center	partners	

would	be	more	inclined	to	partner	with	the	M-TAC	assuming	that	the	cost	requirement	is	less	

than	the	Center.		In	addition,	these	research	institutions	would	be	more	inclined	to	partner	with	

a	regional	based	M-TAC	than	their	local	Center	for	the	prospects	of	a	broader	manufacturing	

base.		These	two	factors	alone	would	cause	Centers	to	possibly	lose	match	necessary	to	access	

federal	funds	for	the	base	MEP	Center	award	as	well	as	client	impact	needed	to	maintain	it.	

There	are	several	programmatic	connections	to	the	NIST	MEP	Program	that	do	not	require	cost	

share.		An	example	of	which	is	the	State	Relations	Rapid	Response	Team	Grant	referenced	

above.		Although	this	program	used	NIST	authority,	it	was	directly related	to	MEP	and	was	

similar	in	its	approach.		The	Rapid	Response	Team	was	funded	as	group	of	specialist	that	would	

be	deployed	to	Centers	to	improve	upon	or	establish	state	relations.		M-TACs	would	operate	in	

an	identical	manner	and	therefore	should	not	require	cost	share.

Another	example	is	the	“T-CAR”	grant	program	authorized	in	the	America	COMEPETES	Act

(PL110-69).		Funding	was	subsequently	provided	for	this	authorized	program	via	MEP’s	annual	

appropriation	without	a	special	designation	in	the	appropriations	law.		“Unless	the	underlying	

law	prohibits	it,	the	Congress	may	also	extend	the	program,	simply	by	providing	new	

appropriations.”1		Since	appropriations	for	the	T-CAR	program	was	not	specifically	included	in	

the	FY10-13	Appropriations	bills,	yet	was	funded,	existing	precedent	exists	to	use	part	of	MEP’s	

overall	appropriation	for	the	M-TAC	program	using	T-CAR	authority	as	a	basis.		Through	the	TCAR	authorization,	Centers	(or	collaboration	of	Centers)	can	apply	to	expand	existing	

operations	to	provide	such	services	using	the	existing	infrastructure,	metric	system	and	

partners	in	place.	

Question	4:	How	should	an	M-TAC’s	performance	and	impact	be	evaluated?		What	are	

appropriate	measures	of	success	for	future	M-TACs?		Please	explain	your	response	including	

the	value	of	performance	measure	to	business	growth.

M-TAC	performance	and	impact	should	be	evaluated	through	the	existing	MEP	client	survey.		

This	would	prevent	increased	administrative	burden	and	cost	to	both	NIST	and	MEP	Centers.		

M-TAC	success	is	based	on	small	manufacturers’	improved	access	and	integration	into	the	

supply	chain.		Additional	client	survey	questions	should	include	new	and	retained	access	to	

supply	chains	which	would	measure	the	success	of	a	client	served	by	the	M-TAC	and	therefore

the	M-TAC	itself.

																																																												 1 http://www.appropriations.senate.gov/about-budget-process.cfm
M-TAC	RFI	Comments

5

Question	5:	Are	there	any other	critical	issues	that	NIST	MEP	should	consider	in	its	strategic	

planning	for	future	M_TAC	investments	that	are	not	covered	by	the	first	four	questions?		Is	so,	

please	address	those	issues	here	and	explain	your	response.

M-TAC	Recipient.	 Recipients	of	an	M-TAC	award	should	be	a	MEP	Center	or	a	collaboration	of	

Centers	with	a	proven	expertise	in	an	industry	cluster	or	supply	chain.		M-TAC	recipients	should	

collaborate	with	research	consortia,	institutions	and/or	organizations	with	a	technical	expertise	

in	the	industry	cluster	or	supply	chain.		The	success	of	the	M-TAC	program	should	be	locally	

driven	as	the	needs	of	small	manufacturers	are	individualized	and	cannot	be	broadly	

implemented.