Advanced Manufacturing: Commerce Could Strengthen Collaboration with Other Agencies on Innovation Institutes
Released: 2017-04-06T00:00:00

Letter

Background

This section provides information on the history of the Manufacturing USA program, the provisions of the RAMI Act, and the awards process and membership of the institutes.

Manufacturing USA Program History

The June 2011 PCAST report was followed in July 2012 by another report, prepared by the Advanced Manufacturing Partnership Steering Committee; this report contained 16 recommendations to improve the manufacturing competitiveness of the United States. One of the recommendations was to establish a national network of manufacturing innovation institutes as public-private partnerships. After DOD established the first such institute as a pilot institute in 2012, the National Science and Technology Council released its January 2013 report proposing a preliminary design for the network. This report envisioned a network of public-private partnerships to be supported with a co-investment of federal obligations ranging from $70 million to $120 million for each institute and equal or greater amounts in nonfederal pledges (also known as cost-share). The amount of investment would depend on such factors as the magnitude of the opportunity and maturity of the technology and would be distributed across 5 to 7 years. Total capitalization of an institute across this time period was envisioned to be $140 million to $240 million. The report also envisioned that an institute would become sustainable within 7 years of the public announcement of an award of financial resources to start up and operate the institute, and that the institute would provide long-term economic impact in its region and nationwide. Building on the July 2012 Advanced Manufacturing Partnership report, an October 2014 PCAST report provided 12 recommendations with further guidance on how the United States could sustain its lead in innovation. For example, one of the recommendations was to create—through the National Economic Council, the Office of Science and Technology Policy, and the implementing agencies and departments—a shared Manufacturing USA governance structure that includes input from various agencies as well as from private sector experts, organized labor, and academia.

RAMI Act Provisions

Under the RAMI Act, the purposes of the Manufacturing USA program are to improve the country’s manufacturing competitiveness and increase production of goods manufactured predominantly within the United States; stimulate U.S. leadership in advanced manufacturing research, innovation, and technology; facilitate transition of innovative technologies into scalable, cost- effective, and high-performing manufacturing capabilities; facilitate access by manufacturing enterprises to capital-intensive infrastructure; accelerate development of an advanced manufacturing workforce; facilitate peer exchange of and documentation of best practices in addressing advanced manufacturing challenges; leverage nonfederal sources of support to promote a stable and sustainable business model without the need for long-term federal funding; and create and preserve jobs.

The RAMI Act requires the Secretary of Commerce to report annually to Congress, until December 31, 2024, on the program’s performance, including an assessment of Commerce’s institutes and an assessment of the participation in, and contributions to, the network by institutes established by other agencies. Annual reports are also to include an assessment of how well the program is meeting its statutory purposes.

The RAMI Act also contains a number of provisions related to collaboration between Commerce and other agencies. For example, in awarding financial assistance to establish institutes, the RAMI Act requires that the Secretary of Commerce, through AMNPO, collaborate with federal departments and agencies whose missions contribute to or are affected by advanced manufacturing. In addition, several of the functions of the AMNPO under the RAMI Act also pertain to collaboration. The functions that the RAMI Act identifies for the national office include:

Overseeing the planning, management, and coordination of the

Entering into memorandums of understanding with federal departments and agencies whose missions contribute to or are affected by advanced manufacturing, to carry out the program’s statutory purposes;

Developing, not later than 1 year after the date of enactment of the RAMI Act, and updating not less frequently than once every 3 years thereafter, a strategic plan to guide the program;

Establishing such procedures, processes, and criteria as may be necessary and appropriate to maximize cooperation and coordinate the activities of the program with programs and activities of other federal departments and agencies whose missions contribute to or are affected by advanced manufacturing;

Establishing a clearinghouse of public information related to the activities of the program; and

Acting as a convener of the network.

Additionally, the RAMI Act requires that, when developing and updating the strategic plan, the Secretary of Commerce solicit recommendations and advice from a wide range of stakeholders, including industry, small and medium-sized manufacturing enterprises, research universities, community colleges, and other relevant organizations and institutions on an ongoing basis. The RAMI Act also requires the Secretary of Commerce to ensure that the AMNPO incorporates NIST’s Hollings Manufacturing Extension Partnership into Manufacturing USA program planning to ensure that the results of the program reach small and medium-sized entities.

Manufacturing USA Institute Awards Process and Membership

DOD, DOE, and Commerce have provided competitive financial assistance for institutes using similar processes for soliciting applications and making awards. DOD and DOE have identified prospective technology focus areas through requests for information from nonfederal organizations and meetings with industry officials and other stakeholders. For Commerce institutes, the RAMI Act requires that the Secretary of Commerce ensure an open process that allows for consideration of all applications relevant to advanced manufacturing regardless of technology focus area. Subsequently, each of the sponsoring agencies released notices of intent announcing a competition for their new institutes and then released federal funding opportunity announcements. The federal funding announcements included goals and objectives for the institutes that were related to the Manufacturing USA program and to the agency mission. Potential applicants generally have had opportunities to ask clarifying questions via mechanisms such as webinars and e-mail. Applicants submitted pre-application concept papers, which were evaluated by subject matter experts in the government to determine, for example, the potential to fulfill a recognized national need. Based on these subject matter experts’ review, the sponsoring agencies invited selected applicants to submit full proposals. Full proposals included detailed information—such as a business strategy, leadership and sustainment plan, and technology investment plan—and were evaluated by multi-agency source selection team. Ultimately, an official from the sponsoring federal agency selected the winning applicant, after which the agency and the applicant negotiated an agreement, such as a cooperative agreement, to establish and manage the institute. These awards provided financial resources to start up and operate an institute focusing on the specific technology area.

The institutes provide members with access to shared facilities and equipment. Members can take advantage of these resources in a variety of ways, such as by collaborating on research related to the technology focus area of the institute. Membership is open to all U.S. industrial organizations, academic institutions, nonprofit organizations, and government agencies that want to further technology and education in a certain focus area. Each institute has its own membership terms— including a range of costs, rights, and benefits—and required time commitment. Specific terms and conditions are detailed in formal membership agreements.

In 2016, the Manufacturing USA Network Included Eleven Established Institutes, and up to Four Additional Institutes Are Planned

As of December 2016, DOD, DOE, and Commerce collectively had established a total of eleven innovation institutes, which have become part of the Manufacturing USA network. Seven of these eleven institutes were operating (i.e., supporting research projects in their technology focus areas) as of December 2016. In addition, one DOD institute, two DOE institutes, and potentially one additional Commerce institute were in the process of being established through a competitive solicitation. Our analysis of institute membership between May 2016 and September 2016 shows that about 780 manufacturers and other entities, such as academic institutions and nonprofit organizations, have become members of the operating institutes. Institute members receive a variety of benefits and rights, such as networking opportunities.

Seven of Eleven Established Institutes in the Network Were Operating in 2016

As of December 2016, DOD, DOE, and Commerce collectively had established a total of eleven institutes that have become part of the Manufacturing USA network. Four institutes—three DOD institutes and one DOE institute—were established prior to the enactment of the RAMI Act in 2014. The remaining seven institutes were established after the enactment of the RAMI Act. Four of these institutes—Advanced Functional Fabrics of America, the Advanced Tissue Biofabrication Manufacturing Innovation Institute, the Clean Energy Smart Manufacturing Innovation Institute, and the National Institute for Innovation in Manufacturing Biopharmaceuticals—were established in 2016 and were not yet operating as of December 2016. However, all eleven institutes are part of the network. Appendix I provides additional information on the DOD and DOE institutes that were operating as of December 2016.

The institutes, which are located across the United States, focus on a wide variety of areas of advanced manufacturing, including additive manufacturing (three-dimensional, or 3D, printing), lightweight metals, integrated photonics circuits, novel fiber and textiles, and biopharmaceuticals. DOD, DOE, and Commerce plan to provide over $800 million in financial assistance, generally through cooperative agreements, for the eleven established institutes they sponsor. According to DOD, DOE, and NIST officials, the agencies plan to distribute this assistance over a 5 to 7 year period, at the end of which they expect the institutes to be sustainable without guaranteed federal financial assistance. Award recipients have pledged about $1.9 billion in nonfederal funds over the same 5 to 7 year period. However, the officials also said they expect the institutes will be eligible to receive additional federal financial assistance, such as competitively awarded grants for research.

According to the February 2016 Manufacturing USA program annual report, the seven institutes established by DOD are designed to overcome the challenge DOD faces when the existing industrial infrastructure is insufficient to develop and produce new and emerging technologies that hold strategic promise. DOD considers its institutes to represent a key investment strategy for the department and its Manufacturing Technology program. Table 1 provides an overview of the seven institutes DOD had established as of December 2016.

DOE’s mission is to ensure America’s security and prosperity by addressing its energy, environmental, and nuclear challenges through transformative science and technology solutions. DOE officials told us that the three institutes established by DOE support this mission by focusing support on innovative, advanced manufacturing technologies that will enhance domestic advanced manufacturing competitiveness and create jobs for American workers by maintaining U.S. global competitiveness in clean energy manufacturing. Table 2 provides an overview of the three institutes DOE had established as of December 2016.

In December 2016, the Secretary of Commerce announced the selection of an award recipient for the first institute sponsored by Commerce, the National Institute for Innovation in Manufacturing Biopharmaceuticals. According to Commerce, this institute is expected to help advance U.S. leadership in the biopharmaceutical industry, foster economic development, improve medical treatments, and ensure a qualified workforce. Table 3 provides an overview of the institute Commerce had established as of December 2016.

DOD, DOE, and Commerce Were in the Process of Sponsoring up to Four New Institutes as of December 2016

DOD, DOE, and Commerce were in the process of evaluating applications, selecting award recipients, and negotiating agreements to establish up to four additional institutes as of December 2016. The DOD- sponsored institute, the Robots in Manufacturing Environments Manufacturing Innovation Institute, will focus on robotic technologies in manufacturing, such as human robot interaction, learning, and mobility. The two DOE institutes, Rapid Advancement in Process Intensification Deployment and Reducing Embodied-energy and Decreasing Emissions, will have the following technology focus areas: (1) developing breakthrough technologies to boost domestic energy productivity and energy efficiency of manufacturing processes, and (2) reuse, recycling, and remanufacturing of materials. In addition, Commerce officials were considering whether to establish a second institute, subject to the availability of funds. This second Commerce-sponsored institute could address any area of advanced manufacturing as long as it does not duplicate the technology focus areas and programs of existing or announced federally-funded institutes. Table 4 provides an overview of the institutes that DOD and DOE were in the process of establishing as of December 2016.

About 780 Manufacturers and Other Entities Were Members of the Operating Institutes in 2016

Our analysis of institutes’ membership data showed that about 520 manufacturers (mostly small manufacturers according to a Commerce official) were members of the seven DOD and DOE institutes that were operating as of December 2016. In addition, about 260 other entities, including academic institutions, state government agencies, nonprofit organizations, and NIST’s Hollings Manufacturing Extension Partnership centers were members of these institutes. Some institute officials told us that additional members were pending. For example, America Makes officials told us that as of July 2016, they were processing 14 new member requests.

Manufacturers and other entities obtain a variety of benefits and rights, such as networking opportunities and intellectual property access, based on membership level. Each institute has developed a membership structure that provides different costs, benefits, and rights at each level. The number of membership levels ranges from 3 levels at one institute to 10 levels at another institute. For manufacturers, membership structures generally consist of 3 to 4 levels. For other entities, membership structures and the number of membership levels vary. At the highest membership levels, members have the greatest influence on the governance of the institute and the direction of research and development. Benefits and rights at those levels could include participation in technology roadmap development, greater access to intellectual property, and participation in determining the order in which projects are executed. Benefits and rights at lower membership levels could include assistance with navigating government contracts, collaboration with other members, access to member-only data, and participation in research and development projects. See appendix I for additional information on membership benefits and rights for DOD and DOE institutes that were operating as of December 2016.

Figure 1 illustrates participation by manufacturers and other entities at the highest 3 levels of membership. At the highest 2 membership levels, which we denote as Tier 1 and Tier 2, participation by manufacturers and other entities is fairly evenly divided. At the membership level which we denote as Tier 3, manufacturers represent a larger proportion of participating members.

Figure 2 illustrates participation by large and small manufacturers at the highest 3 levels of membership, which we denote as Tier 1, Tier 2, and Tier 3. Manufacturers who join Manufacturing USA institutes at a higher membership level are typically larger manufacturers.

Membership costs vary depending on the institute and type of entity. Some institutes allow membership costs to be provided by members as in-kind contributions. In-kind contributions can consist of items such as equipment, software, or facility space. Our analysis of institutes’ membership data showed that for manufacturers, costs for the highest membership level range from $200,000 cash or in-kind annually, with at least a 3-year commitment, to $5 million provided over a period of up to 5 years. Costs for the lowest membership level range from no fee, but with a 3-year commitment, to $15,000 cash or in-kind annually, with at least a 3-year commitment. For other entities—institutes that delineate between manufacturers and other types of members—membership costs generally range from no fee, with a 1-year commitment, to $5 million in expenditures, with a 5-year commitment. According to an institute official, in-kind contributions can attract more small manufacturers and other organizations to become members, and to become members at higher levels, than if membership costs were restricted to cash membership fees. See appendix I for additional information on membership costs for each institute.

During discussion groups with representatives of institute members, 19 representatives of manufacturers and other entities that are members of Manufacturing USA institutes provided their perspectives on how their organizations have benefited from institute membership. Representatives of institute members in each of the discussion groups identified some examples of benefits, including the following:

Small manufacturers. All four representatives of small manufacturers identified networking opportunities as a benefit of institute membership. They told us they have established working relationships with other large and small manufacturers, and with suppliers, and that they obtained contracts they otherwise might not have been able to secure. One small manufacturer representative also said that, through networking, he had gained a more comprehensive understanding of his company’s technology. Another small manufacturer representative said that, through networking, he has kept up with market trends and what other manufacturers are trying to achieve.

Large manufacturers. Four of seven large manufacturer representatives cited acceleration of technology development as a benefit of institute membership. For example, three large manufacturer representatives stated that networking has helped accelerate the development of their technology by between 2 and 5 years, thereby shortening the time needed to get their products ready for commercial release.

Academic and Nonprofit. Five of eight other entities’ representatives said they have been able to strengthen their educational programs in ways that help prepare students to enter a certain manufacturing industry—for example, by adding material relevant to a particular technology, such as semiconductors. One academic entity representative also said that some students work on institute projects that make the students more marketable upon graduation.

DOD and DOE’s Operating Institutes Are Primarily Managed through Cooperative Agreements, and Institute Officials and their Members Identified Several Operating Challenges

DOD and DOE primarily use cooperative agreements to manage their Manufacturing USA institutes that were operating as of December 2016. These agreements include terms and conditions for the institutes, and the agencies seek to ensure these terms and conditions are met through meetings, reports, and other mechanisms. Manufacturing USA institute officials and institute member representatives identified various challenges related to institute operations.

DOD and DOE Primarily Rely on Cooperative Agreements to Manage Institutes and Use a Variety of Mechanisms to Ensure Terms and Conditions Are Met

DOD and DOE manage the Manufacturing USA institutes that were operating as of December 2016 primarily through cooperative agreements that define the terms and conditions that govern the relationships between the agencies and the institutes. For example, the cooperative agreements identify the amount of federal financial assistance agencies provide to each institute and the period of performance for the institute to carry out work under the agreement. According to AMNPO officials, the sponsoring federal agency determines the federal financial assistance provided through these cooperative agreements, and this amount can be up to $120 million, which is matched or exceeded by funding from private industry and other nonfederal sources over a 5- to 7-year period. Cooperative agreements may also address other aspects of the relationships, including how facilities and infrastructure will be established, how research projects will be determined, and how projects will be managed. In addition, the cooperative agreements may require Manufacturing USA institutes to develop governance plans that define types of membership, establish sustainability goals, and help manage intellectual property.

According to institute and agency officials, DOD and DOE have established mechanisms to ensure that their Manufacturing USA institutes meet the terms and conditions specified in the cooperative agreements. Institute officials told us that DOD and DOE may conduct weekly, monthly, and quarterly meetings with each of their institutes. For example, officials from one DOD institute said that DOD officials perform program management functions through weekly teleconferences with the institute’s executive director, executive staff, and finance staff. Similarly, officials from one DOE institute said that a DOE Technology Manager conducts weekly teleconferences with the institute’s management staff. Institute officials said that DOD’s program managers may conduct monthly visits to their institutes, and DOE officials conduct monthly meetings with their institutes to assess progress toward achieving key goals specified in the cooperative agreements. DOD and DOE also host quarterly meetings for the institute directors and program managers of their respective institutes, at which they discuss a variety of topics. For example, DOD officials said the focus of their quarterly meetings is to ensure their institutes are on track to being sustainable. Finally, DOD and DOE have reporting requirements for the institutes they have sponsored. The cooperative agreements all contain requirements for reports to be submitted to the sponsoring agency, such as expenditure reports, progress reports, technical roadmaps, and presentations from program reviews. For example, DOD officials said their Manufacturing USA institutes are required to report semi-annually on their progress toward becoming sustainable. DOD uses semi-annual program management review presentations to assess its Manufacturing USA institutes’ sustainability plans and progress toward implementing these plans. In addition, DOE officials said that they require their institutes to report on sustainability along with other program milestones through quarterly technical reviews.

Institute Officials and Member Representatives Identified Several Operating Challenges

Manufacturing USA institute officials and the institute member representatives we spoke with identified several operating challenges faced by the institutes. These included:

Negotiating agreements and approving projects. Officials from three DOD institutes and one DOE institute described challenges related to negotiating and approving membership and project agreements. For membership agreements, there are challenges in negotiating rights to any intellectual property created; for example, potential members may be hesitant to share these rights with the institute. These negotiation challenges can cause schedule delays for institute operations. For project agreements, there are challenges in negotiating the terms and conditions of the agreements and with the amount of time it takes for sub-recipients and sponsoring agencies to review and approve the agreements. Some institutes have taken steps to address these challenges. For example, one DOD institute used language from another DOD institute’s membership agreement to avoid schedule delays that could result from developing its own. In addition, one DOD institute has increased the amount of time allocated for the development of project agreements.

Meeting cost-share requirements. Representatives of two academic institutions and two small manufacturers expressed concerns about cost-share requirements for institute participation. For example, one representative said universities are not capable of providing the amount of cash some institutes require under their membership agreements, and another representative said it is a challenge for small manufacturers to participate in some institutes because of the cost-share requirements. However, according to an institute official, the possibility of providing in-kind contributions could help some small manufacturers and other organizations address these concerns.

Ensuring institute sustainability. Going forward, as institutes reach the end of the period of performance for their agreements, officials from all DOD institutes identified the sustainability of the institutes as a challenge, although they told us several different reasons for their concerns:

Amount of federal financial assistance. Officials from all DOD institutes said the amount of federal financial assistance provided under their cooperative agreements may not be enough for the institutes to become sustainable over the 5- to 7-year period of performance.

Length of federal financial assistance. Officials from three DOD institutes said the 5- to 7-year period of performance for their cooperative agreements may not be sufficient to become sustainable.

Collaborating with foreign-owned organizations. Officials from two DOD institutes expressed concerns about constraints on collaborating with foreign-owned organizations because these constraints affect their sustainability plans. For example, officials from one DOD institute said that the institute’s cooperative agreement requires DOD approval for foreign-owned organizations’ participation and that DOD may not provide approval, limiting potential sources of institute funding.

Type of activities funded. Some DOD institute officials said that the cooperative agreements require them to carry out activities that do not contribute to sustainability. For example, a senior official from one DOD institute said that education and workforce development activities are required as a project component under the institute’s cooperative agreement, but these activities make only a minor contribution to the institute’s sustainability.

Institute officials identified several options for how they might address sustainability challenges. For example, officials from one DOD institute said they will base their decision about which type of activities to fund, after federal financial assistance ends, on which ones help make the institute sustainable as well as on the availability of funds from nonfederal sources. Similarly, another DOD institute official said that the institute may stop funding education and workforce development activities after federal financial assistance under the cooperative agreement ends. Further, officials from one DOD institute said they may not require the same level of scrutiny on collaborating with foreign-owned organizations after federal financial assistance under their cooperative agreement ends.

Commerce, DOD, and DOE Have Developed Performance Measures and Commerce Is Taking Steps to Address Potential Challenges in Assessing Program Progress

AMNPO led a collaboration with DOE and DOD to develop an initial set of performance measures to assess the Manufacturing USA program’s progress toward furthering its eight statutory purposes. AMNPO, DOE, and DOD continue to work together to improve agreed upon performance measures for the institutes. Commerce also has taken steps or has identified options to address challenges in measuring program performance.

Commerce, DOD, and DOE Developed an Initial Set of Performance Measures for the Program

AMNPO led a collaboration with DOE and DOD to develop guidance for Manufacturing USA institutes and sponsoring agencies that included initial performance measures that could be used to track progress toward achieving the eight statutory purposes of the Manufacturing USA program. The performance measures outlined in this guidance relate to the four program goals for Manufacturing USA that were established in the program’s first strategic plan, published in February 2016. In developing the strategic plan, AMNPO officials said they worked with other agency officials, including DOD and DOE officials, to develop Manufacturing USA program goals that aligned with the initial measures as well as with the program’s statutory purposes. Figure 3 describes the relationship between the program’s statutory purposes, program goals, and initial institute performance measures.

Institutes are only required to report on measures that have been agreed upon with their sponsoring agencies. According to AMNPO officials, reporting on institute performance is the responsibility of the respective “funding agency” (i.e., the sponsoring agency). Also, the RAMI Act does not include reporting requirements for institutes sponsored by DOD and DOE. However, as noted previously, the RAMI Act requires the Secretary of Commerce to report annually to Congress on the performance of the program, including an assessment of how well the program is meeting the purposes identified in the RAMI Act.

AMNPO, DOD, and DOE told us that they are working together to consider whether any revisions may be warranted to these initial performance measures. Specifically, in coordination with AMNPO and DOE, DOD hired an external consultant to conduct an assessment of the Manufacturing USA program design and progress made toward achieving program objectives, and recommend areas where Manufacturing USA and its institutes could enhance programs. In January 2017, the external consultant reported on the results of its review. Among other recommendations, the report recommended developing measures to evaluate Manufacturing USA program performance using a phased approach. For example, the report recommended developing measures at the program level for two phases: 1. start-up support and shared services provision (i.e., the phase in which the program provides support to individual institutes in their establishment and delivers services applicable to all the institutes); and 2. long-term outcomes (i.e., the phase in which the program tracks the achievement of program goals on a manufacturing sector-wide and national basis).

AMNPO officials told us that they plan to incorporate the results of this review into a set of revised performance measures. They also told us that, subsequently, they plan to work with DOD and DOE to reach agreement on these revised measures to allow the Secretary of Commerce to report the data collected on the revised measures in the Manufacturing USA annual report to Congress for fiscal year 2017. This annual report is expected to be issued in May 2017.

Commerce Has Taken Steps or Has Identified Options to Address Challenges in Measuring Program Performance

Institute officials identified challenges related to measuring progress toward achieving the Manufacturing USA program’s statutory purposes, including measuring outcomes within a short timeframe, and Commerce has taken steps to address these challenges. First, institute officials told us that some of the program’s statutory purposes are difficult to measure. In particular, some institute officials told us that measuring the number of jobs created or preserved may not be feasible because, for example, there are challenges with associating the number of jobs created and preserved directly to an institute’s activities. Second, several institute officials also said that the timeline associated with measuring progress toward achieving the program’s statutory purposes may be too short. For example, institutes are relatively new and generally still in the process of establishing mechanisms to collect meaningful data related to many of the program purposes. Further, measuring economic impact and job creation, for example, requires performance measures with lagging indicators that will not be measurable until years into the future, according to institute officials. AMNPO officials told us that they tried to address these challenges in the first Manufacturing USA program annual report by including information on some leading indicators of success among institutes that had available data, such as the level of involvement by industry and academia and amount of cost-share. Also, as mentioned above, AMNPO officials plan to incorporate the results of the recent external consultant review, which recommended developing measures that assess progress during the program’s initial start-up phase in addition to long-term outcome measures. For example, the consultant’s report suggested developing long-term outcome measures that relate to achievement of program goals on a manufacturing sector-wide and nationwide basis, such as increased economic competitiveness, macroeconomic results, and workforce results.

Agencies may also face challenges collecting performance information from institutes after their cooperative agreements end, and Commerce has identified options to continue collecting this information. Institutes currently track and report information required by their sponsoring agency and cooperative agreements. Under the DOE cooperative agreements we reviewed, financial assistance recipients are to continue to report annually for five years beyond the project period on the utilization and impact of the institute and technical progress in implementing and deploying the technologies on the institute’s roadmap. Conversely, DOD officials told us the cooperative agreements the agency entered into before December 2016 do not require their institutes to continue to report on performance after the agreements’ period of performance ends. According to AMNPO officials, one way to continue collecting this information is for institutes to voluntarily continue providing performance information to federal agencies, including Commerce. However, in the absence of ongoing federal financial support from their funding agencies for the efforts and expense of collecting and providing data, the officials said that institutes may be reluctant to continue reporting on performance. AMNPO officials told us of another option to ensure continued performance reporting but said that they did not have plans in place to use it. Specifically, the officials said the Secretary of Commerce could establish a requirement for institutes funded by other agencies to submit performance reports to Commerce after their cooperative agreements end as a condition of their continued network participation because the Secretary has the statutory authority to recognize those institutes for the purpose of participating in the network. AMNPO officials said they anticipate that institutes will choose to remain in the network and continue to voluntarily report to AMNPO because the institutes value the services and other benefits they receive from participating.

Commerce Used Various Mechanisms to Help Coordinate the Manufacturing USA Program, but It Has Not Included All Relevant Agencies in Fully Identifying Roles and Responsibilities

AMNPO uses a variety of collaborative mechanisms to coordinate the efforts of the agencies that contribute to the Manufacturing USA program, including a network governance system that defines some roles and responsibilities for agencies that sponsor institutes as well as for agencies that do not sponsor institutes (non-sponsoring agencies). However, the process for developing the governance system did not include all relevant non-sponsoring agencies or ensure that their roles and responsibilities are fully identified.

Various Mechanisms Support Coordination of the Manufacturing USA Program

AMNPO has used a variety of mechanisms to enhance coordination among the institutes and agencies that contribute to the Manufacturing USA program. These mechanisms incorporate several key practices for enhancing and sustaining interagency collaboration. As our prior work has found, an interagency mechanism for collaboration is any arrangement or application that can facilitate collaboration between agencies. One of these mechanisms is the December 2016 Manufacturing USA network charter. The charter says that AMNPO is responsible for supporting network functions, which include establishing the network; facilitating intra-network collaboration; fostering robust communication between the network and external stakeholders; and sustaining, strengthening, and growing the network. The charter also identifies several subfunctions for each of these functions. For example, the facilitating intra-network collaboration function includes, among other subfunctions, establishing forums for network collaboration, information exchange, and knowledge management; facilitating the organization and sharing of lessons learned and best practices across the network; and facilitating network-level discussions among institutes regarding management of technology interfaces and technology gaps.

Another mechanism that AMNPO has developed is the Manufacturing USA strategic plan. AMNPO collaborated with federal agencies that contribute to the Manufacturing USA program to develop the strategic plan; these agencies included the Department of Agriculture, Commerce, DOD, Education, DOE, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, and the National Science Foundation. According to the strategic plan, agencies and institutes participating in the Manufacturing USA program collectively work toward achieving program goals. For example, to work toward the program goal of accelerating the development of an advanced manufacturing workforce, the strategic plan states that the network can help institutes navigate opportunities for federal financial assistance that could support their efforts, including workforce development programs such as those authorized by the Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act, as amended. AMNPO officials told us that AMNPO has an ongoing effort to help institutes navigate such opportunities. The strategic plan also identified other opportunities for the network to enhance coordination across agencies that contribute to the Manufacturing USA program, such as by serving as a clearinghouse for information about workforce support.

AMNPO also uses mechanisms such as hosting teleconferences, convening in-person meetings, and using technologies that allow it to collaborate with representatives of different agencies and institutes. For example, according to AMNPO officials, AMNPO hosts monthly teleconferences with directors from DOD and DOE institutes and senior deputies from DOD and DOE and convenes in-person, semi-annual Manufacturing USA network meetings that include institute and agency staff. For instance, an August 2016 Manufacturing USA network meeting included discussions on a public name for the program, communications, and establishing a Directors Council. According to AMNPO officials, the Manufacturing USA Directors Council will further facilitate cooperation and collaboration among the institutes. The officials said AMNPO has hosted other meetings, such as a workforce development workshop that included workforce leaders from all institutes; subject matter experts; Hollings Manufacturing Extension Partnership center officials; and agency officials from Education, the National Science Foundation, Commerce, DOD, and DOE. AMNPO also recently launched a web-based shared services platform that allows institutes to share best practices and that allows agencies that participate in the Manufacturing USA network to share information with the institutes. AMNPO officials told us they are working with the institutes to provide content for this system and expect to continue working with them to ensure information is current and useful.

A further coordination mechanism is a governance system that defines roles and responsibilities for agencies contributing to the Manufacturing USA program. According to Commerce, the process for developing the October 2015 governance system document for the Manufacturing USA network was initiated by the National Science and Technology Council’s Subcommittee on Advanced Manufacturing, and represented a joint effort between Commerce, DOD, and DOE. The governance system identifies the Manufacturing USA network functions and subfunctions for which agencies that sponsor Manufacturing USA institutes, as well as those that do not sponsor institutes (non-sponsoring agencies), are responsible, accountable, informed, and consulted. For example, under the governance system, as part of the facilitating intra-network collaboration function, AMNPO and the agencies that sponsor institutes are responsible for providing situational awareness to individual institutes regarding key contextual landscape issues, such as industrial developments. Alternatively, as part of the function to sustain, strengthen, and grow the network, AMNPO and the agencies that sponsor institutes are responsible for identifying and helping to establish long-term nonfinancial support mechanisms for the program, which the governance document notes should provide valuable nonfinancial support to help institutes succeed and thrive. Non-sponsoring agencies are responsible for one general function: promoting advanced manufacturing to a variety of external stakeholders such as Congress to raise awareness about the Manufacturing USA institutes.

The Process for Developing the Governance System Did Not Include All Relevant Non-sponsoring Agencies or Ensure That Their Roles and Responsibilities Are Fully Identified

Although the governance system was developed by an interagency team, the process used to develop the governance system did not ensure that all relevant non-sponsoring agencies were included or that their roles and responsibilities for contributing to the Manufacturing USA program were fully identified.

Specifically, the process used to develop the governance system did not include working with all relevant agencies that could contribute to the Manufacturing USA program. As described above, agencies that contributed to the development of the governance system included Commerce, DOD, and DOE. An AMNPO official told us that non- sponsoring agencies had an opportunity to comment on the governance system but were not involved in its development. According to Commerce, only the institute-sponsoring agencies were involved in developing the governance system because the governance document was chartered by the National Science and Technology Council as a reference for how Manufacturing USA institutes are to be involved in the network. Thus, non-sponsoring agencies, such as DOL the National Science Foundation, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, and the Department of Homeland Security, among others, were not involved in developing the governance system despite having missions that contribute to or are affected by advanced manufacturing. For example, DOL’s mission is to foster, promote, and develop the welfare of the wage earners, job seekers, and retirees of the United States; improve working conditions; advance opportunities for profitable employment; and assure work-related benefits and rights. In support of this mission, DOL is a member of the National Science and Technology Council’s Subcommittee on Advanced Manufacturing, according to the subcommittee’s charter, and DOL has created resources to assist with the development of programs that support secondary to post-secondary career pathways related to advanced manufacturing. The governance system itself does not specify which non-sponsoring agencies are responsible for contributing to the Manufacturing USA program; rather, it broadly identifies non-sponsoring agencies as agencies not acting in a lead funding role and that are providing other types of support to an institute in the network.

Furthermore, in developing the governance system, the process Commerce, DOD, and DOE used did not include fully identifying how non-sponsoring agencies could contribute to the Manufacturing USA program. For example, the governance system does not specify any responsibility for non-sponsoring agencies to provide information or expertise related to their activities to the program. Rather, where the governance system indicates a role for non-sponsoring agencies, it generally indicates that such agencies are to be informed and consulted. However, some non-sponsoring agencies may be implementing programs or other activities that could contribute to the Manufacturing USA program. For example, DOL administers workforce development programs that are carried out by state agencies and local workforce development boards. According to DOL officials, state workforce development boards could work with Manufacturing USA institutes to develop sector partnership strategies, which help employers in an industry address shared goals and hiring needs. In addition, DOL administers discretionary grant programs, which can help increase the number of skilled workers in advanced manufacturing. Financial assistance provided under these discretionary grant programs is being used to support some Manufacturing USA institutes’ education and workforce development activities, including:

The Trade Adjustment Assistance Community College and Career Training grant program, which provided nearly $2 billion to strengthen manufacturing programs at community colleges; and

The American Apprenticeship Initiative grant program, which will provide $175 million to train and hire 34,000 new apprentices in advanced manufacturing over the next five years.

Information or expertise related to other agencies’ programs, such as these, if provided to AMNPO, could help it support the institutes with navigating opportunities for federal financial assistance.

Our work has shown that collaborative mechanisms, such as the Manufacturing USA program’s governance system, benefit from certain key features, including the clarity of roles and responsibilities and ensuring that the relevant participants are included in the collaborative effort. Specifically, key collaboration practices call for clarifying the roles and responsibilities of all participating agencies and determining whether all relevant participants have been included. By agreeing on and clearly defining the roles and responsibilities of their members as well as documenting decisions, such as in a memorandum of understanding, collaborating agencies can clarify which agency will do what, organize their joint and individual efforts, and facilitate decision making. Moreover, the RAMI Act identifies several AMNPO functions pertaining to coordination, such as establishing procedures, processes, and criteria as may be necessary and appropriate to maximize cooperation and coordinate the activities of the Manufacturing USA program with the programs and activities of other federal departments and agencies whose missions contribute to or are affected by advanced manufacturing.

An AMNPO official acknowledged that the governance system will require revision as the network evolves. The official said that in revising the system, AMNPO will work with sponsoring agencies to further define roles and responsibilities. However, the official said that other agencies participate in the program as it aligns with their respective missions and AMNPO cannot prescribe functions and subfunctions for other federal agencies participating in the Manufacturing USA network. However, without ensuring that all relevant agencies have been included in the process of developing the governance system and that non-sponsoring agencies’ roles and responsibilities have been fully identified, AMNPO may miss opportunities to leverage and coordinate the efforts of non- sponsoring agencies in contributing to the Manufacturing USA program consistent with key practices for interagency collaboration and effective implementation of AMNPO’s functions under the RAMI Act.

Conclusions

In an effort to revitalize the U.S. manufacturing sector and increase U.S. competitiveness in advanced manufacturing, Congress passed and the President signed into law the RAMI Act, which requires the Secretary of Commerce to establish a network of institutes for manufacturing innovation, among other things. In establishing this Manufacturing USA network, AMNPO, in collaboration with DOD and DOE, has taken steps to establish institutes and measure progress toward the statutory purposes of the program. AMNPO has also worked with other sponsoring and non- sponsoring agencies to coordinate agencies’ contributions to the network through efforts that incorporate a number of the key practices we have identified to enhance and sustain interagency collaboration.

However, while Commerce, DOD, and DOE worked together to develop a governance system that outlines agencies’ roles and responsibilities, the process for developing the system did not ensure that all relevant non- sponsoring agencies were included or that their roles and responsibilities for contributing to the Manufacturing USA program were fully identified. Working with other agencies to revise the governance system, including ensuring that all relevant agencies are involved in the process to fully identify non-sponsoring agencies’ roles and responsibilities, would strengthen AMNPO’s efforts to leverage and coordinate agencies’ contributions to the Manufacturing USA program, consistent with key practices for interagency collaboration, and would improve implementation of its function to coordinate the program.

Recommendation for Executive Action

To enhance interagency collaboration in the Manufacturing USA program, the Secretary of Commerce should direct the Director of NIST to work with all non-sponsoring agencies whose missions contribute to or are affected by advanced manufacturing to revise the Manufacturing USA governance system to ensure the roles and responsibilities for how these agencies could contribute to the Manufacturing USA program are fully identified.

Agency Comments and Our Evaluation

We provided a draft of this report for review and comment to Commerce, DOD, Education, DOE, and DOL. We received the following comments:

Commerce provided written comments, which are reproduced in appendix II. Commerce stated it agreed with the intent of our recommendation and that it will convene an extended team for revising the governance model. Commerce provided other comments related to the role and responsibility of the Department, interagency engagement, performance metrics, as well as other comments on the recommendation which are described below.

DOD provided written comments, which are reproduced in appendix III. DOD also stated that it agreed with the intent of our recommendation and expanding the network governance model to better define roles and responsibilities of non-sponsoring agencies. DOD provided other comments in areas similar to Commerce’s comments, as described below.

In an email from an audit analyst in its Office of the Chief Financial Officer, DOE provided general comments, which we discuss below.

Commerce, DOD, and DOE provided technical comments, which we incorporated as appropriate.

Officials from Education and DOL stated via email that they had no comments on the report.

Commerce, DOD, and DOE provided several comments related to our recommendation.

Commerce agreed with the intent of our recommendation but requested revisions to the wording of the recommendation because NIST has no authority to compel participation by DOL and Education in the Manufacturing USA program or to define roles and responsibilities for these agencies. Relatedly, Commerce and DOD said that Commerce has no authority to coordinate other agencies in their programs or any management responsibilities for institutes sponsored by other agencies. We recognize that Commerce has no authority to coordinate other agencies’ programs, to manage the institutes that they sponsor, or to compel agency participation in the program. We believe that our report correctly characterizes improved coordination as a collaborative effort between Commerce and other agencies. The focus of the recommendation in our draft report was not for NIST to compel agency participation or unilaterally define their roles and responsibilities but rather for NIST to work with non- sponsoring agencies in an interagency collaborative effort to identify their roles and responsibilities. As our report noted, one of the functions of AMNPO specified in the RAMI Act is to establish procedures, processes and criteria as may be necessary and appropriate to maximize cooperation and coordinate the program’s activities with programs and activities of the other federal agencies whose missions contribute to or are affected by advanced manufacturing. In response to Commerce’s comments, we clarified our recommendation to make clear that NIST should engage non- sponsoring agencies in an interagency collaboration to fully identify their roles and responsibilities for contributing to the program.

Commerce also proposed an alternative recommendation, commenting that it would be constructive for GAO to recommend that the Secretary of Commerce connect with counterparts at DOL and Education. While our report provides more detailed information on several DOL programs and activities that could potentially contribute to the Manufacturing USA program (relative to other non-sponsoring agencies), we provide this information as illustrative examples. Because we believe collaboration on Manufacturing USA network governance roles and responsibilities should include all relevant non- sponsoring agencies, we did not adjust our recommendation to specifically focus on DOL or Education.

Commerce also noted that the first generation of the Manufacturing USA governance system was focused on how institutes would work with the network and program, so the responsible entities that developed it were limited to Commerce, DOD, and DOE. Commerce further stated that our recommendation speaks to a next generation of the Manufacturing USA governance with a broader scope. We modified our report to more clearly reflect that Commerce, DOD, and DOE were the agencies initially involved in developing the governance system as chartered by the National Science and Technology Council. However, we do not believe the scope of the governance system as evidenced by documentation provided to us during our review is substantially different than that envisioned by our recommendation. For example, as we noted in our report, the governance system assigns responsibility for certain subfunctions to non-sponsoring agencies.

Finally, DOD stated it would work with the interagency team to assist in reaching out to all agencies whose missions contribute to or are affected by advanced manufacturing, and that it supports expanding the network governance model. In its general comments, DOE agreed that additional coordination with other governmental agencies would be useful, and would further serve to reduce potential inefficiencies and redundancies in federal investments.

Commerce and DOD also provided general comments in three areas (1) roles and responsibilities of the Department of Commerce, (2) interagency engagement, and (3) performance metrics.

Roles and responsibilities. Commerce and DOD provided comments regarding the roles and responsibilities of Commerce that were also related to the comments on our recommendation and are discussed above. Commerce and DOD also emphasized the nature of (1) the AMNPO as an interagency team hosted at NIST, and (2) the Manufacturing USA institutes as public-private partnerships, owned and managed by an industry-led consortium, with the sponsoring federal agency providing a minority of funding. We made several edits to reflect these points. Commerce and DOD also commented that present non-federal funding is over a 2 to 1 match to federal financial assistance. We believe we accurately present information on these relative contributions in our report.

Interagency engagement. Commerce and DOD stated that all agencies were invited to be part of the Manufacturing USA program, and noted that a number of agencies, including some non-sponsoring agencies, have been members of the interagency team. Commerce and DOD also stated that GAO correctly stated that DOL was not a principal agency involved with the program; although, Commerce noted attempts had been made to reach out to DOL and both agencies discussed providing information on DOL initiatives to the Manufacturing USA institutes. We added information to our report to acknowledge these efforts. Other comments Commerce provided regarding interagency engagement through the Manufacturing USA governance system are discussed above.

Performance metrics. Commerce and DOD stated that there is agreement on the initial set of performance measures for the Manufacturing USA program and that information on each of these measures will be provided in the upcoming Manufacturing USA annual report (for fiscal year 2016). In the draft report, we included information on the extent to which all DOD and DOE institutes planned to provide information on all of the initial performance measures for the Manufacturing USA program. This information was based on documentation provided to us during the course of our review, which showed that not all DOD institutes planned to report data on all of the initial performance measures. In response to the comments received from Commerce and DOD, we followed up with DOD. A DOD official responsible for overseeing DOD’s Manufacturing USA institutes said via email that DOD recently tasked the institutes to provide data in support of these measures for aggregation in the fiscal year 2016 report. Therefore, we revised our report to remove information related to a difference in the extent to which DOD and DOE planned to have all their institutes report on all the initial measures. In its comments on our draft report DOD also provided information on other information DOD collects from its institutes consistent with its mission, and emphasized that performance measures included in our report are only initial metrics which could evolve over time. We did not make any additional changes based on these comments as we believe these concepts are already reflected in our report.

Finally, Commerce and DOD commented on the title of our draft report, which was Advanced Manufacturing: Commerce Needs to Strengthen Collaboration with Other Agencies on Innovation Institutes, indicating a preference for a more descriptive report title. In its general comments, DOE stated that the draft title overstated the severity of the issue. We believe that Commerce as well as other institute-sponsoring and non- sponsoring agencies have worked collaboratively in implementing the Manufacturing USA program; however, our report identified an opportunity to further strengthen this collaboration. We adjusted our report title and believe that it appropriately highlights this area where collaboration could be strengthened.

We are sending copies of this report to the appropriate congressional committees; the Secretaries of Commerce, Defense, Education, Energy, and Labor; and other interested parties. In addition, the report is available at no charge on the GAO website at http://www.gao.gov.

If you or your staff members have any questions about this report, please contact John Neumann at (202) 512-3841 or neumannj@gao.gov, or Andrew Sherrill at (202) 512-7215 or sherrilla@gao.gov. Contact points for our Offices of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on the last page of this report. GAO staff who made key contributions to this report are listed in appendix IV.

Appendix I: Information on Operating Manufacturing USA Institutes as of December 2016

This appendix provides additional information on each of the five Department of Defense (DOD) and two Department of Energy (DOE) Manufacturing USA institutes that were operating as of December 2016. This information includes, among other things, background information on the institute, such as its budget and technology focus, as well as data on the number of members and membership benefits, rights, and fees. The institutes are listed in chronological order based on the date of the cooperative agreement with their sponsoring agency.

National Additive Manufacturing Innovation Institute (America Makes)

About: America Makes is the flagship Manufacturing USA institute. Its mission is to accelerate the adoption of additive manufacturing technologies, also known as three-dimensional, or 3D, printing, in the U.S. manufacturing sector.

Location: Youngstown, Ohio, facility opened in October 2012. A satellite center is located at the University of Texas, El Paso.

First cooperative agreement: Signed August 2012. America Makes is operated by the National Center for Defense Manufacturing and Machining, a 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization that has a cooperative agreement with the Air Force Research Laboratory.

Budget: America Makes was established as a pilot institute in August 2012 for the Manufacturing USA program with $30 million in planned federal obligations and $40 million in pledged nonfederal cost-share. This amount was later increased to a combined $110 million in planned federal obligations ($55 million) and pledged nonfederal cost-share ($55 million).

Second cooperative agreement: Signed February 2016 between the National Center for Defense Manufacturing and Machining and the Air Force Research Laboratory for up to approximately a combined additional $76 million in planned federal obligations ($50 million) and pledged nonfederal cost-share ($26 million). As of June 2016, the second cooperative agreement consists of one $9 million project.

Technology portfolio: About 60 projects, such as a project to streamline the design and improve the materials for the production of customized ankle-foot orthoses, and another project to accelerate the U.S. metal- casting industry with the adoption of America Makes technologies into their operations.

Membership: About 175 members from industry, academia, government, nonprofit organizations, and Hollings Manufacturing Extension Partnership centers.

Summary of membership fees, benefits, and rights: America Makes provides three membership levels with different fees, benefits, and rights associated with each level. The three membership levels and their associated fees are as follows:

Platinum (lead): $200,000 cash or in-kind annually, with the intention of at least a 3-year commitment

Gold (full): $50,000 cash or in-kind annually, with the intention of at

Silver (supporting): $15,000 cash or in-kind annually, with the intention of at least a 3-year commitment Table 5 provides an overview of America Makes membership benefits and rights. Specific terms and conditions are further detailed in the formal membership agreement.

Digital Manufacturing and Design Innovation Institute (DMDII)

About: DMDII’s mission is to digitize American manufacturing. By capturing data at every stage of the production process—and by deploying specially designed software and other digital tools— manufacturers can efficiently share and revise their digital designs.

Location: Chicago, Illinois, facility opened in May 2015. Two chapters were opened in Quad Cities and Rockford, Illinois.

Cooperative agreement: Signed February 2014. DMDII is managed by UI LABS, a 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization that has a cooperative agreement with the Army Contracting Command Redstone.

Budget: $176 million from federal and nonfederal financial assistance $70 million in planned federal obligations $106 million pledged nonfederal cost-share Technology portfolio: About 50 projects, such as a project to use 3D models to enhance product quality, reduce communication errors, and reduce development times throughout the supply chain, and another project to fill the gap between design and manufacturing with the information necessary to enable services for machine motion control.

Membership: About 260 members from industry, academia, government, nonprofit organizations, and Hollings Manufacturing Extension Partnership centers.

Summary of membership fees, benefits, and rights: DMDII provides three membership levels for industry, four membership levels for academic and nonprofit organizations, and two government membership levels with different fees, benefits, and rights associated with each level. The industry, academic and nonprofit, and government membership levels and their associated fees are as follows:

Tier 1: $400,000 cash annually and at least $3 million in expenditures for additional projects with a 5-year commitment

Tier 2: $200,000 cash annually with a 5-year commitment

Tier 3: $500 cash annually with a 5-year commitment

Academic and nonprofit:

Tier 1: $5 million in expenditures with a 5-year commitment

Tier 2: $2 million in expenditures with a 5-year commitment

Tier 3: $1 million in expenditures with a 5-year commitment

Tier 4: $500 cash annually with a 5-year commitment

U.S. government: Obligations as specified in the cooperative

State and local government: At least $5 million in expenditures Tables 6, 7, and 8 provide an overview of DMDII membership benefits and rights for industry, academic and nonprofit, and government members, respectively. Specific terms and conditions are further detailed in the formal membership agreement.

Lightweight Innovations for Tomorrow (LIFT)

About: LIFT’s mission is to accelerate the development of new manufacturing processes for products using lightweight metals, including aluminum, magnesium, titanium, and advanced high-strength steel alloys.

Location: Detroit, Michigan, facility opened in January 2015. Satellite locations are in Columbus, Ohio; Ann Arbor, Michigan; Worchester, Massachusetts; and Golden, Colorado.

Cooperative agreement: Signed February 2014. LIFT is managed by the American Lightweight Materials Manufacturing Innovation Institute, a 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization that has a cooperative agreement with the Office of Naval Research.

Budget: $148 million from federal and nonfederal financial assistance $70 million in planned federal obligations $78 million in pledged nonfederal cost-share Technology portfolio: About 30 projects, either initiated or under development, in the areas of melt and powder processing, thermomechanical processing, joining and assembly, coatings, and agile tooling, such as developing and deploying thin wall ductile iron castings for high-volume production. LIFT also sponsored a Purdue-designed Indy 500 Grand Prix for high school students to engineer, build, test, and market vehicles using lightweight metals.

Membership: About 90 members from industry, academia, government, nonprofit organizations, and a Hollings Manufacturing Extension Partnership center.

Summary of membership fees, benefits, and rights: LIFT provides nine membership levels with different fees, benefits, and rights associated with each level. The nine membership levels and their associated fees are as follows:

Gold: $350,000 annually, of which at least $100,000 is provided in cash, with the intention of at least a 5-year commitment

Silver: $150,000 annually, of which at least $50,000 is provided in cash, with the intention of at least a 5-year commitment

Bronze: $25,000 cash annually, with the intention of at least a 5-year In-Kind members (e.g., equipment, software, or engineering service providers): $150,000 in-kind annually, with the intention of at least a 5- year commitment

Small manufacturers and start-ups: For small manufacturers with 251 to 500 employees, the fee is $5,000 cash annually, with the intention of at least a 5-year commitment; for small manufacturers with 1 to 250 employees, the fee is $2,500 cash annually, with the intention of at least a 5-year commitment; and for start-ups with fewer than 50 employees and less than 5 years in business, the fee is $1,000 cash annually, with the intention of at least a 5-year commitment

Research partners: $10,000 cash annually, with the intention of at least a 5-year commitment. The annual in-kind fee varies based on the level of participation.

Trade association: Annual cash and in-kind fees vary based on the level of participation, with the intention of at least a 5-year commitment

Professional society: $50,000 in-kind annually, with the intention of at

Education and workforce: Annual cash and in-kind fees vary based on the level of participation, with the intention of at least a 5-year commitment Table 9 provides an overview of LIFT membership benefits and rights across the nine membership levels. Specific terms and conditions are further detailed in the formal membership agreement.

The Next Generation Power Electronics Manufacturing Innovation Institute (PowerAmerica)

About: PowerAmerica’s mission is to develop advanced manufacturing processes that will enable large-scale production of wide bandgap semiconductors, which allow power electronic components to be smaller, faster, and more efficient than silicon-based devices.

Location: Raleigh, North Carolina, facility opened in January 2015.

Cooperative agreement: Signed December 2014. PowerAmerica is led by North Carolina State University, which has a cooperative agreement with DOE’s Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy.

Budget: $140 million from federal and nonfederal financial assistance $70 million in planned federal obligations $70 million in pledged nonfederal cost-share Technology portfolio: About 30 projects, such as a project developing a medium voltage fast charger for electric vehicles. Another project involves working with an existing silicon wafer fabrication facility to update its capabilities to allow for the production of wide bandgap semiconductor devices—specifically silicon carbide wafers. This affords PowerAmerica members an opportunity to accelerate their research by producing and testing wide bandgap devices at the facility.

Membership: About 30 members from industry, academia, government, and a Hollings Manufacturing Extension Partnership center.

Summary of membership fees, benefits, and rights: PowerAmerica provides seven membership levels with different fees, benefits, and rights associated with each level. The seven membership levels and their associated fees are as follows:

Full sustaining: $500,000 annually ($250,000 of which may be met by in-kind contributions), with a 3-year commitment. In general, the in- kind contribution should be made within the membership year; however, the member may defer 25 percent of the in-kind contribution for up to 6 months into the following membership year.

Full member: $100,000 cash annually with a 3-year commitment

Affiliate member: $50,000 cash annually with a 3-year commitment

Startup member: $10,000 cash annually with a 3-year commitment

Academic member: $10,000 cash annually with a 3-year commitment

Federal lab: No fee, but involves a 3-year commitment

Associate member: No fee, but involves a 3-year commitment Table 10 provides an overview of PowerAmerica membership benefits and rights across the seven membership levels. Specific terms and conditions are further detailed in the formal membership agreement.

Full sustaining

Third option for exclusive commercial license Members vote on projects that have gone through the PowerAmerica call for projects process and that can be funded by industry membership fees. Enhancement projects are projects funded by industry that are beyond the core funding of the grant. They are nonproprietary so that all of the members can benefit from the research (as opposed to other industry-funded projects performed using standard research agreements that have full overhead and in which the company would own intellectual property generated).

Institute for Advanced Composites Manufacturing Innovation (IACMI)

About: IACMI’s mission is to accelerate the development and adoption of cutting-edge manufacturing technologies for low-cost, energy-efficient manufacturing of advanced polymer composites for vehicles, wind turbines, compressed gas storage, and other applications.

Location: Oak Ridge, Tennessee, facility opened in June 2015. Geographic extensions are located in Dayton, Ohio (compressed gas storage); Golden, Colorado (wind turbines); West Lafayette, Indiana (design and simulation); and Detroit, Michigan (vehicles). IACMI has also signed memorandums of understanding with the Carbon Recycling Technology Center in Port Angeles, Washington, and the Composite Prototyping Center in Plainview, New York.

Cooperative agreement: Signed June 2015. IACMI is managed by the Collaborative Composite Solutions Corporation, a 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization that has a cooperative agreement with DOE’s Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy.

Budget: $250 million from federal and nonfederal financial assistance $70 million in planned federal financial obligations $180 million in pledged nonfederal cost-share Technology portfolio: About three projects, such as a project optimizing carbon fiber production to enable high-volume manufacturing of lightweight automotive components, and another project developing thermoplastic material to lower production costs and improve recyclability of wind turbine blades.

Membership: About 140 members from industry, academia, government, nonprofit organizations, and a Hollings Manufacturing Extension Partnership center.

Summary of membership fees, benefits, and rights: IACMI provides four membership levels with different fees, benefits, and rights associated with each level. The four membership levels and their associated fees are as follows:

Charter: $5 million provided over a period of up to 5 years (at least 50 percent cash and $100,000 overhead annually)

Premium: $1 million provided over a period of up to 5 years (at least 50 percent cash and $20,000 overhead annually)

Resource: $5,000 cash annually for industry members with 500 or fewer employees, government agencies, and educational institutions; $10,000 cash annually for industry members with over 500 employees; as well as a resource contribution and a 1-year commitment

Consortium: $5,000 cash annually for industry members with 500 or fewer employees, government agencies, and educational institutions; and $10,000 cash annually for industry members with over 500 employees; involves a 1-year commitment Table 11 provides an overview of IACMI membership benefits and rights. Specific terms and conditions are further detailed in the formal membership agreement.

Additional benefits for Premium, Resource, and Consortium members Enterprise-wide proprietary projects

American Institute for Manufacturing Integrated Photonics (AIM Photonics)

About: AIM Photonics’ mission is to advance integrated photonic circuit manufacturing technology development while simultaneously providing access to state-of-the-art fabrication, packaging, and testing capabilities for small-to-medium enterprises, academia, and the government.

Location: Albany, New York, facility operations began in July 2015. Institute officials said the Rochester, New York, facility will be the location for the test, assembly, and packaging operations. Also, AIM Photonics has satellite hubs at the University of Rochester, Rochester Institute of Technology, State University of New York Polytechnic Institute, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Columbia University, University of Arizona, and University of California Santa Barbara.

Cooperative agreement: Signed July 2015. AIM Photonics is managed by the Research Foundation of the State University of New York, a 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization that has a cooperative agreement with the Air Force Research Laboratory.

Budget: $612 million federal and nonfederal financial assistance $110 million in planned federal obligations $503 million in pledged nonfederal cost-share Technology portfolio: Institute officials said that the portfolio contains about 10 projects, such as a project pertaining to 3D displays, and another project through AIM Photonics’ AIM Academy to study industry skills gap and employment needs.

Membership: About 30 members from industry, academia, and government.

Summary of membership fees, benefits, and rights: AIM Photonics provides four membership levels for industry and three membership levels for academic and nonprofit organizations with different fees, benefits, and rights associated with each level. The industry and academic and nonprofit membership levels and their associated fees are as follows:

Tier 1: $1 million cash annually (may include cash and in-kind with a minimum of $100,000 cash through 2020), increasing to full cash by 2021

Tier 2: $500,000 cash annually (may include cash and in-kind with a minimum of $100,000 cash through 2020), increasing to full cash by 2021

Tier 3: $100,000 or greater amount cash annually (may include in- kind through 2020)

Industry observer: $2,500 cash annually, with a 1-year commitment

Academic and nonprofit:

Tier 1: In-kind and tangible and intangible contributions as provided in the membership agreement (such as software licenses, hardware, services, and expertise)

Tier 2: In-kind as provided in the membership agreement (such as software licenses, hardware, or services and overhead costs)

Academic observer: No fee, with 1-year commitment Tables 12 and 13 provide an overview of AIM Photonics’ membership benefits and rights for industry and academic and nonprofit, respectively. Specific terms and conditions are further detailed in the formal membership agreements.

America’s Flexible Hybrid Electronics Manufacturing Institute (NextFlex)

About: NextFlex’s mission is to pioneer a new era of advanced flexible hybrid electronics manufacturing in the United States. Flexible hybrid electronics combine the ability to add electronics to materials that are part of our everyday lives, to create lightweight, low-cost, flexible, conformable, and stretchable smart products.

Location: San Jose, California, facility opened in August 2016.

Cooperative agreement: Signed August 2015. NextFlex is managed by FlexTech Alliance, Inc., a 501(c)(6) nonprofit organization that has a cooperative agreement with the Air Force Research Laboratory.

Budget: $171 million in federal and nonfederal financial assistance $75 million in planned federal obligations $96 million in pledged nonfederal cost-share Technology portfolio: About 13 projects, such as a project to develop a flexible smart wound dressing with oxygen release and sensing capability, and a project to develop a flexible and stretchable monitoring sensor network to improve aerospace fuel efficiency and flight safety.

Membership: About 45 members from industry, academia, government, and nonprofit organizations.

Summary of membership fees, benefits, and rights: NextFlex provides four membership levels for industry, three membership levels for academic and nonprofit organizations, and a government membership level with different fees, benefits, and rights associated with each level. The industry, academic and nonprofit, and government membership levels and their associated fees are as follows:

Tier 1: $150,000 cash and $250,000 in-kind annually, with the intention of at least a 3-year commitment

Tier 2: $50,000 cash and $50,000 in-kind annually, with the intention of at least a 3-year commitment

Tier 3: $10,000 cash annually and in-kind encouraged, with the intention of at least a 3-year commitment

Observer: $2,500 cash annually and in-kind encouraged, with the intention of at least a 3-year commitment

Academic and nonprofit:

Tier 1: $15,000 cash and $600,000 in-kind annually, with the intention of at least a 3-year commitment

Tier 2: $7,500 cash and $300,000 in-kind annually, with the intention of at least a 3-year commitment

Tier 3: $2,500 cash annually and in-kind encouraged, with the intention of at least a 3-year commitment

No annual membership fee In-kind contributions, which are not required, can be cash in support of the institute Tables 14, 15, and 16 provide an overview of NextFlex membership benefits and rights for industry, academic and nonprofit, and government members, respectively. Specific terms and conditions are further detailed in the formal membership agreement.

Appendix II: Comments from the Department of Commerce

Appendix III: Comments from the Department of Defense

Appendix IV: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments

GAO Contacts

Staff Acknowledgments

In addition to the contacts named above, key contributors to this report were William MacBlane, Assistant Director; Christopher Murray, Assistant Director; Erin Barry; Candace Carpenter; David Dornisch; Brian Egger; Ellen Fried; Paige Gilbreath; Ruben Gzirian; Jamila Kennedy; Jonathan Ludwigson; Rachel Pittenger; Dan C. Royer; Kathryn Smith; and Jeanette Soares.