The Hollings Manufacturing Extension
Partnership Program
Updated January 4, 2021
Congressional Research Service
https://crsreports.congress.gov
R44308

The Hollings Manufacturing Extension Partnership Program

Summary
The Hollings Manufacturing Extension Partnership (MEP) program is a national network of
centers established by the Omnibus Trade and Competitiveness Act (P.L. 100-418). MEP centers
provide custom services to small and medium-sized manufacturers (SMMs) to improve
production processes, upgrade technological capabilities, and facilitate product innovation.
Operating under the auspices of the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), the
MEP system includes centers in all 50 states and Puerto Rico.
NIST provides funding to support MEP center operations, with matching funds provided by
nonfederal sources (e.g., state governments, fees for services). Initially established with a goal of
transferring technology developed in federal laboratories to SMMs, MEP shifted its focus in the
early 1990s to responding to needs identified by SMMs, including off-the-shelf technologies and
business advice. As MEP evolved, its focus shifted to reducing manufacturing costs through lean
production, quality, and other programs targeting plant efficiencies and to increasing profitability
through growth. Current MEP efforts focus on innovation and growth strategies, cybersecurity,
commercialization, lean production, process improvements, workforce training, supply chain
optimization, and exporting.
In 2017, NIST completed a system-wide revamp of MEP to better align center funding levels with
the national distribution of manufacturing activity and to result in a single center in each state and
Puerto Rico. Other objectives included aligning center activities to the NIST MEP strategic plan;
aligning center activities with state and local strategies; providing opportunities for new
partnering arrangements; and restructuring and reinvigorating the boards of local centers.
As originally conceived, the centers were intended to become self-supporting after six years. The
original legislation provided for a 50% federal cost-share for the first three years of operation,
followed by declining levels of federal support for the final three years; federal funding after a
center’s sixth year of operation was prohibited. In 1998, Congress eliminated the prohibition on
federal funding after year six. In 2017, Congress authorized NIST to provide up to 50% of the
capital and annual operating and maintenance funds required to establish and support a center.
Previously, the federal cost-share was limited to 50% for a center’s first three years of operation,
40% in year four, and one-third in fifth and subsequent years.
The MEP program has been, at times, included in discussions surrounding termination of federal
programs that provide direct support for industry. Invoking the intent of the original legislation,
President George W. Bush proposed in his FY2009 budget to eliminate federal funding for MEP
and to provide for “the orderly change of MEP centers to a self-supporting basis.” Nevertheless,
Congress appropriated $110 million for the program. Proponents assert that SMMs play a central
role in the U.S. economy and that the MEP system provides assistance not otherwise available to
SMMs. Some opponents have asserted that such services are available from other sources and
that MEP inappropriately shifts a portion of the costs of these services to taxpayers.
Continued federal support for MEP centers remains a point of contention. In his FY2018,
FY2019, FY2020, and FY2021 budgets, President Trump sought to eliminate federal support for
the MEP program. Congress appropriated $140.0 million for MEP for FY2018 and FY2019,
$146.0 million for FY2020, and $150 million for FY2021.
As Congress conducts oversight, it may continue to discuss support for MEP in the context of the
federal government’s role in bolstering innovation and competitiveness, and in the context of the
appropriate federal role in such activities.
Congressional Research Service

The Hollings Manufacturing Extension Partnership Program

Overview
The Hollings Manufacturing Extension Partnership (MEP), a program of the National Institute of
Standards and Technology (NIST),1 is a national network of centers that provide custom services
to small and medium-sized manufacturers (SMMs, manufacturing firms with 500 or fewer
employees)2 to improve production processes, upgrade technological capabilities, and facilitate
product innovation.
The MEP mission is “to enhance the productivity and technological performance of U.S.
manufacturing.” The MEP program executes this mission through state and regional centers that
facilitate and accelerate the transfer of manufacturing technology in partnership with industry,
universities and educational institutions, state governments, and NIST and other federal research
laboratories and agencies. Funding for the MEP centers is provided on a cost-shared basis
between the federal government and nonfederal sources, including state and local governments,
and fees charged to SMMs for center services.3
Though President Trump sought to eliminate funding for the MEP in each year of his presidency,
Congress has continued to fund the MEP program, providing $140.0 million in both FY2018 and
FY2019, $146.0 million in FY2020, and $150.0 million in FY2021.
The MEP employed approximately 55 full time equivalent federal staff at NIST in FY2020 and
the centers have just over 1,400 field staff with technical and business expertise.4 In FY2017,
MEP completed a system-wide competition that awarded one center to each state and Puerto
Rico; previously some states had more than one MEP center.
For FY 2020, NIST reported 27,574 interactions with 9,741 unique manufacturers.5 In a survey
performed by an independent third-party for NIST MEP covering FY2019, the companies served
by MEP Centers reported $15.7 billion in new and retained sales, $1.5 billion in cost savings and
investment savings, $4.5 billion in investments (including products and process, plant and
equipment, information systems, workforce, and others), and creation and retention of more than
114,650 jobs (28,132 new jobs and 86,518 retained jobs).6
Background
In the mid-1980s, congressional debates on trade focused attention on the critical role of
technological advance in the competitiveness of individual firms and long-term national
economic growth and productivity. Reflecting these ideas, the Omnibus Trade and

1 NIST is an agency of the U.S. Department of Commerce.
2 NIST defines SMMs as manufacturers with 500 or fewer employees.
3 NIST, FY2020 Congressional Budget Justification, p. NIST-80, https://www.commerce.gov/sites/default/files/2019-
03/fy2020_nist_congressional_budget_justification.pdf.
4 Email from NIST to CRS, December 18, 2020. OMB Circular A-11 (Preparation, Submission, and Execution of the
Budget), the Office of Management and Budget defines full-time equivalent (FTE) employment as “the basic measure
of the levels of employment used in the budget. It is the total number of hours worked (or to be worked) divided by the
number of compensable hours applicable to each fiscal year.” (Source: https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/
uploads/2018/06/a11.pdf.) A number of NIST employees who are not on the MEP staff provide support services for the
MEP program. The work performed by MEP staff as well as by the NIST support staff are used in calculating the FTEs
supported by MEP appropriations.
5 Email from NIST to CRS, December 18, 2020.
6 W.E. Upjohn Institute for Employment Research, The National-Level Economic Impact of the Manufacturing
Extension Partnership (MEP): Estimates for Fiscal Year 2019, May 4, 2020, https://research.upjohn.org/cgi/
viewcontent.cgi?article=1248&context=reports.
Congressional Research Service

1

The Hollings Manufacturing Extension Partnership Program

Competitiveness Act (P.L. 100-418) established a public-private program, now known as the
Hollings Manufacturing Extension Partnership, to assist U.S.-based SMMs in identifying and
adopting new technologies. The focus on SMMs derived from policymakers’ perceptions of their
contribution to job creation, innovation, and manufacturing.
Research at that time indicated that SMMs
MEP-Like Programs of Other Countries
produce 2.5 times more innovations per
Several other countries also have national networks of
employee than large firms.7 Program
centers that provide technical and business support to
advocates noted the efforts of other nations
small and medium-sized manufacturers. For example:
to provide technical and business

Germany’s Fraunhofer Institutes received
assistance to their manufacturing
approximately €802.6 mil ion (approximately $900
mil ion) in funding from German federal and state
communities through the establishment of
governments in 2019 for contract research (€2.3
manufacturing extension centers (see text
bil ion), defense research (€145 mil ion), and
box, “MEP-Like Programs of Other
infrastructure (€306 mil ion). Additional public funds
Countries”).
are provided for publicly financed research projects.
Fraunhofer has 74 institutes and research units and
In 2017, there were 244,098 SMMs in the
more than 28,000 staff.
United States. These firms accounted for

Japan’s Kohsetsushi network received $2.140 bil ion in
98.4% of the nation’s manufacturing
2012 and has 182 centers and 6,000 technical staff.
enterprises and employed approximately

Canada’s Industrial Research Assistance Program
5.0 million people in 2017, 43.0% of total
(IRAP) provides over $300 mil ion (Canadian,
U.S. manufacturing employment.8
approximately $237 mil ion (U.S.)) to more than

3,000 technology development projects annually. IRAP
The improved use of technology by SMMs
has more than 130 offices and more than 250 field
is seen by policymakers and business
staff.
analysts as important to the
Like the MEP, the Fraunhofer Institutes and at least some
competitiveness of American
of the Kohsetsushi centers charge clients fees for their
services; IRAP does not charge clients.
manufacturing firms. How a product is
Sources: U.S. Government Accountability Office, Global
designed and produced often determines
Manufacturing: Foreign Government Programs Differ in Some
costs, quality, and reliability. Lack of
Key Respects From Those in the United States, GAO-13-365,
attention to process technologies and
July 2013; Fraunhofer, Annual Report 2019: Our Future
techniques may be the result of various
Mission: Research for Sustainable Value Creation; National
factors, including company finances,
Research Council of Canada, “Industrial Research
Assistance Program,” accessed August 20, 2019. CRS
insufficient information, equipment
requested more current information on the Kohsetsushi
shortages, and undervaluation of the
network from the Embassy of Japan, but the embassy was
benefits of technology. A key purpose of
unable to provide comparable data.
the MEP program is to address these issues
through outreach and the application of expertise, technologies, and knowledge.
NIST requires regular reporting by the centers, including the number and types of projects
completed. According to NIST, from MEP’s inception through FY2020, the program has worked
with 121,084 manufacturers, leading to $134.9 billion in sales and $24.7 billion in cost savings,
and has helped create and retain more than 1.3 million jobs.9

7 John Bulloch, “Accommodating the Future,” Journal of Small Business and Entrepreneurship, vol. 5, no. 2 (Fall
1987), p. 8.
8 Latest available data. Department of Commerce, Census Bureau, 2017 SUSB Annual Data Tables by Establishment
Industry, accessed December 15, 2020, https://www2.census.gov/programs-surveys/susb/tables/2017/
us_6digitnaics_2017.xlsx.
9 Email from NIST to CRS, December 18, 2020.
Congressional Research Service

2

The Hollings Manufacturing Extension Partnership Program

According to the NIST MEP Advisory Board, for every dollar of federal investment in FY2019,
the MEP generated nearly $32.20 in new client investment and $33.80 in new sales growth for
SMMs. The board also asserts that MEP created or retained one manufacturing job for every
$1,221 in federal investment in FY2019.10
A 2019 study performed by the W.E. Upjohn Institute for Employment Research using a
constrained model (which assumes competition or displacement between firms), estimated that
the services and activities of the MEP centers have added approximately 218,000 jobs to the U.S.
economy and $22.9 billion to GDP, producing a return of investment of 13.4:1, based on survey
data provided by MEP clients.11
Evolution of the Program
The MEP program was originally established in 1988 as the “Regional Centers for the Transfer of
Manufacturing Technology.”12 Over time, the program was referred to by a number of different
names, including the Manufacturing Technology Centers program and the Manufacturing
Extension Partnership program. The America COMPETES Reauthorization of 2010 codified the
name of the program as the “Hollings Manufacturing Extension Partnership” and the centers as
the “Hollings Manufacturing Extension Centers.”13
From its inception through the mid-1990s, the MEP’s principal emphasis was on
establishing the national network—making sure there was a center within reach of all the
nation’s manufacturers and linking those centers to one another so they could learn from
and teach each other about how best to work with manufacturers.14
The first three centers were established in 1989. Four more were added in 1991 and 1992. In
1994, the number of MEP centers expanded substantially when NIST took over support of
extension centers originally funded by the Department of Defense’s Technology Reinvestment
Project. This brought the number of centers to 44. NIST awarded additional centers in 1995-1996,
increasing the total to 70 centers.15 Subsequent consolidation of centers in New York and Ohio
brought the number of centers down to 60, including centers in each state and Puerto Rico.
While the focus on helping SMMs has remained constant, the methods and tools used by MEP
have evolved since its creation. An intent of the legislation that created the manufacturing
extension effort was to provide cutting-edge technology developed by NIST and other federal
laboratories to SMMs. Royalties and licensing fees paid to the centers by the SMMs for the use of

10 NIST, MEP Advisory Board, 2019 Annual Report, https://www.nist.gov/mep/about-nist-mep/advisory-board/annual-
advisory-board-reports.
11 Jim Robey, Randall W. Eberts, Brian Pittelko, and Claudette Robey, The National-Level Economic Impact of the
Manufacturing Extension Partnership (MEP): Estimates for Fiscal Year 2019, W.E. Upjohn Institute for Employment
Research, Kalamazoo,, MI, May 1, 2020, https://research.upjohn.org/reports/244/. Estimation for FY2019 based on all
responses using firm variables. Data based on the results of the author’s use of a constrained approach that “assumes
that competition among firms mitigates the overall effects of the estimated increase in sales and employment since
firms that do not benefit from the services rendered by MEP may lose market share to those that do, and thus grow less
quickly than they would have otherwise and perhaps even lose sales and jobs.”
12 P.L. 100-418.
13 P.L. 111-358.
14 Dave Cranmer, Reflections—Part 2, Manufacturing Innovation blog, http://nistmep.blogs.govdelivery.com/
reflections-part-2/.
15 Dave Cranmer, Reflections—Part 1, Manufacturing Innovation blog, http://nistmep.blogs.govdelivery.com/25-year-
reflections/.
Congressional Research Service

3

The Hollings Manufacturing Extension Partnership Program

these technologies were expected to make the centers self-sufficient after the initial six years of
operation. Advanced, federally funded technology, however, did not prove to be what most
SMMs needed. Rather, their needs proved to be much more basic, including off-the-shelf
technologies and business advice on topics such as management information technology, financial
management systems, and business processes. A 1991 assessment of the program by the General
Accounting Office (GAO, now the Government Accountability Office) concluded that
While legislation establishing the Manufacturing Technology Centers Program
emphasized the transfer of advanced technologies being developed at federal laboratories,
the centers have found that their clients primarily need proven technologies. Thus, a key
mandate of this program is not realistically aligned with the basic needs of most small
manufacturers [emphasis added]... [A]ccording to officials from professional and trade
associations representing small manufacturers and the results of key studies on U.S.
manufacturing competitiveness, such advanced, laboratory-based technologies are not
practical for most small manufacturers because these technologies generally are expensive,
untested, and too complex.16
In recognition of this situation, the program was reoriented to offer more basic technologies that
helped SMMs to improve their productivity and competitive position. By the mid-1990s, MEP
was providing “a wide range of business services, including helping companies (1) solve
individual manufacturing problems, (2) obtain training for their workers, (3) create marketing
plans, and (4) upgrade their equipment and computers.”17 As articulated in the NIST
Manufacturing Innovation blog,
The initial services were focused on solving immediate and short-term problems—point
solutions. The philosophy was an engineering one: ‘You have a problem. We can fix it.’18
Over time, the MEP’s focus moved from point solutions to more strategic, integrated services. In
2010, the “overarching strategy” for the MEP program was to reduce manufacturing costs
through “lean, quality, and other programs targeting plant efficiencies” and to increase
profitability “through business growth services resulting in new sales, new markets, and new
products.”19
Current MEP efforts focus on innovation strategies, commercialization, lean production, process
improvements, workforce training, supply chain optimization, and exporting. One of the key
areas of the MEP strategy is technology acceleration.20 MEP defines technology acceleration as
integrating technology into the products, processes, services and business models of
manufacturers to solve manufacturing problems or pursue opportunities and facilitate
competitiveness and enhance manufacturing growth. Technology acceleration spans the
innovation continuum and can include aspects of technology transfer, technology
transition,
technology
diffusion,
technology
deployment
and
manufacturing
implementation.21

16 General Accounting Office, Technology Transfer, Federal Efforts to Enhance the Competitiveness of Small
Manufacturers, GAO/RCED-92-30, November 1991, p. 3.
17 General Accounting Office, Manufacturing Extension Program, Manufacturers’ Views About Delivery and Impact of
Services, GAO/GGD-96-75, March 1996, 2.
18 Dave Cranmer, Reflections—Part 2, Manufacturing Innovation blog, http://nistmep.blogs.govdelivery.com/
reflections-part-2/.
19 Slides provided by Roger D. Kilmer, Director, Hollings Manufacturing Extension Partnership, NIST, May 19, 2010.
20 Personal communication with MEP staff, October 8, 2015.
21 National Institute of Standards and Technology, presentation, “Advisory Board Committee on Technology
Congressional Research Service

4

The Hollings Manufacturing Extension Partnership Program

Technology acceleration encompasses MEP efforts to assist SMMs in the improvement of
existing products, the development of new products, and the development and improvement of
manufacturing processes. MEP assists SMMs in this regard through a variety of approaches
including technology scouting and transfer; supplier scouting; business-to-business network
pilots; lean product development; technology-driven market intelligence; access to capital;
cooperative research and development activities with NIST laboratories; and use of other federal
programs such as the Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR) program,22 the Advanced
Manufacturing Technology (AmTech) Consortia program, and the Manufacturing USA Program
(formerly the National Network for Manufacturing Innovation).23
While continuing to offer its services to all SMMs, MEP is emphasizing targeted outreach toward
growth-oriented SMMs and small entrepreneurial startups.24
Statutory Mission and Activities
The statutory objective of the MEP centers is to enhance productivity and technological
performance in U.S. manufacturing through the following:
 the transfer of manufacturing technology and techniques developed at NIST to
centers and, through them, to manufacturing companies throughout the United
States;
 the participation of individuals from industry, universities, state governments,
other federal agencies, and, when appropriate, NIST in cooperative technology
transfer activities;
 efforts to make new manufacturing technology and processes usable by U.S.-
based small- and medium-sized companies;
 the active dissemination of scientific, engineering, technical, and management
information about manufacturing to industrial firms, including small- and
medium-sized manufacturing companies;
 the utilization, when appropriate, of the expertise and capability that exists in
federal agencies and federally sponsored laboratories;
 the provision to community colleges and area career and technical education
schools of information about the job skills needed in manufacturing companies,
including small and medium-sized manufacturing businesses in the regions they
serve;
 promoting and expanding certification systems offered through industry,
associations, and local colleges when appropriate, including efforts such as
facilitating training, supporting new or existing apprenticeships, and providing
access to information and experts, to address workforce needs and skills gaps in
order to assist small- and medium-sized manufacturing businesses; and

Acceleration (ABCTA) Report to the MEP Advisory Board,” September 24, 2014.
22 For more information on the SBIR program, see CRS Report R43695, Small Business Research Programs: SBIR and
STTR, by Marcy E. Gallo
23 For more information on the NNMI, see CRS Report R43857, The Network for Manufacturing Innovation, by John
F. Sargent Jr.
24 Email from NIST to CRS, December 18, 2020.
Congressional Research Service

5

link to page 12 link to page 5 The Hollings Manufacturing Extension Partnership Program

 the growth in employment and wages at United States-based small and medium-
sized companies.25
No direct financial support is available for companies through the centers. The centers offers only
technical and managerial assistance, and the cost of that is dependent on an MEP center’s
expenses.26
The statutorily authorized activities of centers include the following:
 the establishment of automated manufacturing systems and other advanced
production technologies, based on NIST-supported research, for the purpose of
demonstrations and technology transfer;
 the active transfer and dissemination of research findings and center expertise to
a wide range of companies and enterprises, particularly small and medium-sized
manufacturers; and
 the facilitation of collaborations and partnerships between small and medium-
sized manufacturing companies, community colleges, and area career and
technical education schools, to help those entities better understand the specific
needs of manufacturers and to help manufacturers better understand the skill sets
that students learn in the programs offered by such colleges and schools.27
MEP Organization and Structure
The MEP program includes an MEP program office located at NIST (NIST MEP), an MEP
Advisory Board, and the 51 MEP centers and their Oversight Boards. In FY2020, NIST MEP had
58 employees and received appropriations to support 80 FTE.28 The NIST FY2021 budget
justification, which seeks to end federal support for MEP, requested authorization for no FTE for
MEP.29
NIST MEP
A Director and Deputy Director lead the NIST MEP program office. The office is composed of
five divisions (see Figure 1), some with one or more groups. Here are the some of the activities
and areas of responsibility for each:
 The Director’s Office works to provide a strong nationwide network of
Manufacturing Extension Partnership centers and supports partnerships across
the federal government and within industry that respond to the needs of state- and
local-based extension services and supports their integration as a nationwide

25 15 USC 278k(c).
26 According to NIST, the reimbursement structure for services varies among MEP centers. NIST MEP provides
centers with flexibility in programmatic approaches and financial models, while requiring adherence to strict
compliance with accounting systems, board governance, and reporting. NIST MEP does not provide MEP centers with
guidance on charging clients. Sources: Email from NIST to CRS on November 22, 2015; email from NIST to CRS on
July 25, 2018.
27 15 USC 278k(d).
28 Email from NIST to CRS, December 18, 2020. See footnote 5 for the definition of an FTE.
29 National Institute of Standards and Technology, FY2021 Congressional Budget Justification, p. NIST-75
https://www.commerce.gov/sites/default/files/2020-02/fy2021_nist_ntis_congressional_budget_justification.pdf.
Congressional Research Service

6

The Hollings Manufacturing Extension Partnership Program

delivery system to strengthen the global competitiveness of small and medium-
sized U.S. manufacturers.
 The External Affairs Performance and Support Division is responsible for
executing the mission and vision of the organization for short-term and long-term
strategic planning, communication, and program performance.
 The Marketing and Communications Group is responsible for promoting
awareness of the MEP National Network to small and medium-sized
manufacturers as well as external and internal MEP stakeholders; is
responsible for all meetings and summits; and handles communications and
programmatic planning related to the MEP National Advisory Board.
 The Program Evaluation and Economic Research Group carries out
performance evaluations of the MEP centers and the overall network;
monitors performance progress; manages center data reporting and client
survey processes; and coordinates among the centers and NIST MEP on
reporting, performance, and evaluation policy and issues.
 The Finance Management and Center Operations Division prepares annual
budgets and operating outcome plans; tracks program expenditures against
multiple fiscal year plans; and manages all aspects of budget and finance.
 The Center Operations Group conducts oversight of all MEP cooperative
agreements; executes division business plans related to cooperative
agreements; coordinates efforts among MEP and grants and procurement
offices; monitors centers regarding all financial and compliance aspects; and
takes corrective action with respect to centers that are inefficiently or
ineffectively providing services to manufacturing firms.
 The Regional and State Partnerships Division engages in partnership
development with internal (i.e., NIST and other Department of Commerce offices
and agencies) and external organizations to identify, develop, and assign
resources; establishes and maintains strategic alliances with state and local
government agencies and legislatures, other federal agencies, and manufacturing-
related research organizations; and develops strategic alliances and partnerships
with original equipment manufacturers and trade associations. The division also
coaches and mentors new centers’ directors.
 The Extension Services Division provides guidance and leadership to the MEP
National Network regarding the extension services offered by MEP centers;
identifies and develops new focus areas, approaches, tools, and techniques for
transforming SMMs into high performing enterprises; and establishes and
maintains national-level, strategic manufacturing technology alliances with NIST
laboratories, other federal agencies, manufacturing research organizations,
industry associations, and professional associations that support U.S. SMMs.
 The Network Learning and Strategic Competitions Division manages
communities of practice and working groups; identifies manufacturing trends
related to SME needs and barriers to adoption; is responsible for the competition
processes used for MEP cooperative agreements; and conducts industry analyses
and analyzes emerging markets and supply chain technologies to identify
products and services to help SMMs be competitive in the global market.30

30 Emails from NIST to CRS, September 4, 2019 and December 18, 2020.
Congressional Research Service

7

The Hollings Manufacturing Extension Partnership Program

Figure 1. MEP Organizational Chart

Source: CRS, based on information provided by NIST on December 18, 2020.
MEP Advisory Board
Congress established an MEP Advisory Board to provide the NIST Director with advice on MEP
activities, plans, and policies; assessments of the soundness of MEP plans and strategies; and
assessments of current performance against MEP program plans.31 By statute, the MEP Advisory
Board is to consist of at least 10 members broadly representative of stakeholders appointed by the
NIST Director. The board is to include at least two members employed by or on an advisory
board for a center, at least five members from U.S. small businesses in the manufacturing sector,
and at least one member representing a community college. Federal employees may not serve as
advisory board members. Members serve staggered terms of three years. A member may serve
two consecutive terms. One year from the end of the second term, a member may be reappointed
to the board.
The MEP Advisory Board is to act solely in an advisory capacity in accordance with the Federal
Advisory Committee Act.32 The board is required to meet at least twice a year and to report
annually to Congress, through the Secretary of Commerce, on the status of the MEP program and
programmatic planning. Copies of the MEP Advisory Board annual reports are available online at
https://www.nist.gov/mep/about-mep/advisory-board/annual-advisory-board-reports.
MEP Centers
The MEP program is administered by NIST through partnerships with 51 centers in all 50 states
and Puerto Rico, including 387 service locations33 and more than 1,400 field staff with technical

31 15 USC 278k(e).
32 The Advisory Board is exempted from the provisions of Section 14 of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, which
addresses questions related to termination, renewal, and continuation of advisory committees.
33 According to NIST, “The definition of a service location is broad in that it encompasses locations for which an MEP
practitioner can operate out of in order to provide support for the manufacturing community. Service locations range
from one-person offices to fully staffed regional offices with all service locations intended to provide adequate
coverage for manufacturers. This includes partner locations that can be used to provide services to the manufacturers
across the states.” Source: Email between NIST and CRS, November 22, 2015.
Congressional Research Service

8

link to page 36 The Hollings Manufacturing Extension Partnership Program

and business expertise.34 MEP seeks to have a center or other service location not more than two
hours away from any potential client. Appendix A provides a list of MEP centers.
Each center is operated by a state government, university, or other nonprofit organization. Center
staff are employees of the center and its partners, not the federal government.
Center Selection
The following sections provide an overview of the criteria used by NIST MEP in awarding
centers during the center recompetitions.
Criteria
MEP centers were selected in response to open and competitive solicitations issued by NIST.
Federal statute requires that center selections be based on merit using, at a minimum, the
following criteria:
 merits of the application, particularly those portions of the application regarding
technology transfer, training and education, and adaptation of manufacturing
technologies to the needs of particular industrial sectors;
 quality of service to be provided;
 geographical diversity and extent of service area; and
 percentage of funding and amount of in-kind commitment from other sources.35
Following the first MEP center awards in 1989, the number of centers grew to 70, including at
least one center in each state and Puerto Rico. Later consolidation reduced the number to 60, and
under the recompetition to 51 (one in each state and Puerto Rico).
System-Wide Center Recompetition
In 2017, NIST completed a recompetition of all its centers. At the time the recompetition began in
2014, many of the existing centers had not been competed for more than 20 years. According to
NIST, the system-wide competition sought to align center funding levels with the national
distribution of manufacturing activity and result in a single center in each state and Puerto Rico.
Other objectives included aligning center activities to the NIST MEP strategic plan; aligning
center activities with state and local strategies; providing opportunities for new partnering
arrangements; and restructuring and reinvigorating local center boards.
Review Prior to Continued Center Funding
Center awards are made as cooperative agreements with an initial performance period of five
years. NIST may extend an award for an additional five years following an overall assessment of
the center, including “programmatic, policy, financial, administrative, and responsibility
assessments.”36 According to NIST, when an application for a multiyear award is approved,
funding is usually provided for only the first year of the project; for subsequent years, recipients

34 Email from NIST to CRS, December 18, 2020.
35 15 U.S.C. 278k(c)(4).
36 National Institute of Standards and Technology, “Award Competitions for Hollings Manufacturing Extension
Partnership (MEP),” 79 Federal Register 44746-44752, August 1, 2014, https://federalregister.gov/a/2014-18264.
Congressional Research Service

9

link to page 40 The Hollings Manufacturing Extension Partnership Program

are required to submit detailed budgets and budget narratives prior to the award of any continued
funding. The amount of funds awarded after the first year is provided on a noncompetitive basis
and may be adjusted upward or downward. Center funding after the first year is contingent upon
satisfactory performance, continued relevance to the mission and priorities of the program, and
the availability of funds. Continuation of an award to extend the period of performance or to
increase or decrease funding is at the sole discretion of NIST.37
Center Cost-Share and Term of Eligibility
The following sections provide current and historical information on center cost-sharing and term
of eligibility for funding.
Current Status of Cost-Sharing and Term of Eligibility
Funding for the MEP centers is provided on a cost-share basis by the federal government and
nonfederal sources. The federal government may provide up to 50% of the funds required to
establish and support a center regardless of the year of operation of the center. A center must meet
the required nonfederal cost-share to be eligible to receive federal funding.
Institutions eligible to compete for a center include nonprofit institutions, or consortia thereof;
institutions of higher education; or states, United States territories, local governments, or tribal
governments. There is no limit to the number of years a center may receive federal funding.
As discussed above, the recompetition sought to better align center funding levels with the
number of SMMs and the cost of providing services to these firms in each center’s service area.
In this regard, NIST MEP set federal funding levels for each state center. These amounts are the
maximum available for the federal cost-share, and a center must meet the required nonfederal
cost-share to be eligible to receive full funding. (Appendix B provides FY2020 funding levels for
centers in each state.)
Historical Background on Cost-Sharing and Term of Eligibility
Cost-Sharing
The financial support system created for MEP by Congress in the original legislation was based
on matching financing between the federal government and state, local, and/or private nonprofit
entities. The Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation report to accompany
the Technology Competitiveness Act of 1987 (S. 907, 100th Congress) directed that “the
percentage of funding offered by particular applicants be considered in deciding which
applications be selected.”38 Cost-sharing strengthens the ties between the organizations involved
in the cooperative arrangement and as such, the committee stated that “special attention will be
given to innovative ways in which Federal laboratories, State agencies, and business and
professional groups can work together.”39 The matching provisions were seen as a means to
ensure that the centers reflect the needs of the manufacturing companies in the area they serve.
The act establishing the Regional Centers for the Transfer of Manufacturing Technology (later the
Manufacturing Extension Partnership program) required applicants to provide more than 50% of

37 Email from NIST to CRS, slide presentation, October 30, 2015.
38 S.Rept. 100-80, p. 15.
39 Ibid., p. 17.
Congressional Research Service

10

link to page 30 The Hollings Manufacturing Extension Partnership Program

the capital and annual operating and maintenance costs in years three through six, but did not
specify the share to be paid. Instead, the act directed the Secretary of Commerce to determine the
maximum cost share and to publish it in the Federal Register.
Following the economic downturn of 2007-2009, there were calls for Congress to raise the
federal cost-share to 50% from one-third for centers in their fourth or subsequent year of
operation. At that time, some commentators argued that during the difficult economic situation,
state and local financial support for the program may be curtailed. At the same time, client fees
for service decreased 13.4% between FY2008 and FY2009, the first significant decline since
FY1996.40 Advocates of increasing the federal share noted that such action would permit
continued outreach to small manufacturers without pricing the services out of reach for the very
small manufacturers. Opponents of this approach argued that the one-third federal contribution
was sufficient and that the successful operation of the program was dependent on the financial
participation of state and local government as well as the companies utilizing the centers.
The America COMPETES Reauthorization Act of 2010 (P.L. 111-358) mandated that the GAO
explore and report on the cost-share provisions of the MEP program. In response, GAO issued a
report on April 4, 2011, that noted the following:
We were unable to provide recommendations on how best to structure the cost-share
requirement to provide for the long-term sustainability of the program because we could
not identify criteria or a basis for determining the optimal cost-share structure for this
program. Instead, we have identified a number of factors that could be taken into account
in considering modifications to the current cost-share structure. Among other things, past
GAO work has found that cost-share structures should promote equity by assigning costs
to those who both use and benefit from the services. As it applies to the MEP program,
manufacturers, state and local governments, and the nation may all benefit from the
program to varying degrees, requiring an evaluation of the relative benefits and aligning
cost-shares to reflect who receives the benefits.41
In this regard, GAO noted that NIST’s study of the cost-share provision of the MEP program
recommended that the cost-share requirements should be consistent with those of other
economic development programs—which it noted, in Commerce, had 1:1 or lower cost-
sharing—and should provide flexibility to alter the cost-share requirement in response to
economic conditions.42
However, GAO also noted that the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) had identified the MEP
program for potential elimination from discretionary spending, stating that the program’s
enhancement of U.S. productivity is questionable. According to CBO, the legislative agency
“regularly issues a compendium of budget options to help inform federal lawmakers about the
implications of possible policy choices.”43 Elimination of MEP was one more than 100 options
CBO proposed in 2011 for changes to federal spending and revenues.

40 Slides provided by Roger D. Kilmer, Director, Hollings Manufacturing Extension Partnership, NIST, May 19, 2010.
41 Government Accountability Office, Factors for Evaluating the Cost Share of Manufacturing Extension Partnership
Program to Assist Small and Medium-Sized Manufacturers, GAO-11-437R, April 4, 2011, p. 4, http://www.gao.gov/
assets/100/97395.pdf.
42 Ibid., p. 4.

43 CBO, Reducing the Deficit: Spending and Revenue Options, March 10, 2011, https://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/
112th-congress-2011-2012/reports/03-10-reducingthedeficit.pdf. This issue is discussed in more detail later in the
report. See “Congressional Budget Office,” pp. 17-18.
Congressional Research Service

11

The Hollings Manufacturing Extension Partnership Program

In 2014, two bills were introduced with provisions that would have allowed federal support for
MEP centers of up to 50% of annual costs incurred, without regard to how long the cooperative
agreement has been in effect.44 The NIST Reauthorization Act of 2014 (H.R. 5035, 113th
Congress) passed the House but did not advance in the Senate. The America COMPETES
Reauthorization Act of 2014 (S. 2757, 113th Congress) was introduced in the Senate but did not
advance out of committee.
Also in 2014, the MEP Advisory Board recommended that MEP readjust the cost-share structure
in order to optimize the federal investment and provide for the long-term sustainability of the
program. Specifically, the board recommended requiring to a 1:1 match (50% federal cost share)
and allowing the nonfederal cost-share to include in-kind contributions of up to one-half of the
center’s portion of the cost-share.45
In 2015, the Senate Committee on Appropriations expressed concerns about the federal cost-share
structure (as it existed prior to the recent system-wide competition) and directed NIST to provide
a report to the committee and to the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation “detailing quantifiable metrics on total MEP center funding, including a
breakdown of the type of contribution source across centers that have transitioned from the 50
percent Federal, 50 percent non-Federal cost-share to a lower cost-share held by the Federal
Government.”46
In 2017, Congress enacted the American Innovation and Competitiveness Act (P.L. 114-329),
which, among other things, allowed the Secretary of Commerce to provide up to 50% of center
costs regardless of the year of operation of a center.47
Term of Eligibility for Funding
The legislation that established the MEP program initially prohibited centers from receiving
federal financing beyond their sixth year of operation.48 However, federal support beyond the
sixth year later became considered necessary in lieu of increasing service charges paid by SMMs.
While analysts considered service charges to the SMMs to be important to the effectiveness of the
MEP program,49 some also expressed concerns that an increase in charges commensurate with
making the centers self-supporting might make the services too expensive for many SMMs. This
perspective was articulated in a 1998 NIST-sponsored study:
Analysis indicates that to offset lost public revenue centers would need to take on much
larger projects at much higher billing rates and focus on repeat business. As a result, many
small manufacturers would not be able to afford these services. Given this conclusion, the
best way to ensure high-caliber nationwide assistance to smaller manufacturers is to

44 Both H.R. 5035 (113th Congress ) and S. 2757 (113th Congress) defined “costs incurred” as costs incurred in
connection with the activities undertaken to improve the competitiveness, management, productivity, and technological
performance of small and medium-sized manufacturing companies.
45 MEP Advisory Board, 2014 Annual Report, http://www.nist.gov/mep/about/upload/Advisory-Board-Annual-Report-
2014.pdf.
46 S.Rept. 114-66.
47 NIST, “Award Competitions for Hollings Manufacturing Extension Partnership (MEP),” 79 Federal Register 44746-
44752, August 1, 2014, https://federalregister.gov/a/2014-18264.
48 15 U.S.C. 278k(c)(5), subsequently amended by P.L. 105-309.
49 In a 1995 study, the U.S. General Accounting Office found that firms that used internal funding to implement
recommendations offered by extension programs were the most likely to find an overall positive impact on their
manufacturing position. Source: U.S. General Accounting Office, Manufacturing Extension Programs, Manufactures’
Views of Service, GAO/GGD-95-216BR, August 1995.
Congressional Research Service

12

The Hollings Manufacturing Extension Partnership Program

commit to a stable amount of renewable federal funding for those centers which receive
successful evaluations.50
The prohibition on funding after the sixth year was temporarily suspended by provisions in the
FY1997 and FY1998 appropriations acts,51 then eliminated by the Technology Administration Act
of 1998 (Section 2, P.L. 105-309). Under the provisions of the act, centers were eligible to receive
federal funding of up to one-third of center costs after their sixth year of operation, subject to
positive, independent evaluations to be conducted at least every two years. As discussed above, in
2017, the American Innovation and Competitiveness Act (P.L. 114-329) allows the Secretary to
provide up to 50% of center funding, regardless of its year of operation.
Other MEP-Related Activities
The MEP program has provided additional funding opportunities for a number of activities that
support the program’s overarching mission. The Competitive Awards Program (CAP),
Manufacturing Disaster Assessment Program (MDAP), Advanced Manufacturing Technology
Services (AMTS), and Measurement Science and Engineering (MSE) awards are examples of
such activities. A number of other efforts have been completed. These activities, current and
completed, are discussed below.
Current MEP-Related Activities
Competitive Awards Program
In 2017, Congress established the CAP program for “the development of projects to solve new or
emerging manufacturing problems.”52 Awards are to be made on a peer-reviewed and competitive
basis53 and may span a period of up to three years.54 No matching funds are required under CAP.55
NIST has used a rolling Notice of Funding Opportunity (NOFO) to solicit funding applications
for cooperative awards of $50,000 to $1.0 million each.56 Only NIST-funded MEP centers with
specified performance ratings are eligible to apply. Centers can apply individually or in
partnership with other centers and collaborating entities such as local economic development
organizations, universities, community colleges, and other organizations.57
Proposals are evaluated on their likelihood of achieving one or more of the following objectives:
 improving the competitiveness of industries in the region in which the center or
centers are located;

50 E.S. Oldsman, G.M. Ugiansky, and R. Jamin, Review of Mission and Operations of Regional Centers, National
Institute of Standards and Technology, February 1, 1998, available at http://www.nist.gov/cgi-bin/view_pub.cgi?
pub_id=200288&divison=260.
51 P.L. 104-208 and P.L. 105-277, respectively.
52 15 U.S.C. 278k-1(c)(1).
53 15 U.S.C. 278k-1(e)(1).
54 15 U.S.C. 278k-1(h).
55 15 U.S.C. 278k-1(f).
56 See for example, “Notice of Funding Opportunity (NOFO), NIST MEP Competitive Awards Program,” 2017-NIST-
MEP-CAP-01, April 17, 2017, https://www.nist.gov/document/
20170417cap01meprollingcompetitiveawardsprogramnofofinalpdf.
57 Ibid., p.3.
Congressional Research Service

13

The Hollings Manufacturing Extension Partnership Program

 creating jobs or train newly hired employees;
 promoting the transfer and commercialization of research and technology from
institutions of higher education, national laboratories or other federally funded
research programs, and nonprofit research institutes;
 recruiting a diverse manufacturing workforce, including through outreach to
underrepresented populations;
 producing other results the NIST director determines will advance the CAP
objective.58
The statute also encourages the NIST director to seek “broad geographic diversity among selected
proposals”59 and to consider “significant potential for enhancing the competitiveness of small and
medium-sized United States manufacturers in the global marketplace.”60
Further, the statute provides for the NIST director to “identify [one] or more themes for a
competition carried out under this section, which may vary from year to year, as the Director
considers appropriate after assessing the needs of manufacturers and the success of previous
competitions.” Themes identified by the NIST director—developed in consultation with the MEP
Advisory Board and other federal agencies, and specified in the NOFO—are new manufacturing
technologies of relevance to small and mid-size manufacturers, particularly those related to
Industry/Manufacturing 4.0;61 supply chain management technologies and practices; and
workforce intermediary and business services.62 Service area thrusts for CAP awards under these
themes include Food Industry Services/Food Manufacturing, Toyota Kata, and Cybersecurity for
Manufacturing.
In FY2020, NIST MEP made 12 awards under the CAP program.
 California Manufacturing Technology Consulting (CMTC). NIST made a
one-year, $925,000 award to the California MEP center to foster a regional
approach to establishing MEP Centers of Excellence (COEs) focused on
cybersecurity competency and expertise. The network is to focus on meeting
evolving Department of Defense (DOD) cybersecurity requirements, particularly
preparation for Cybersecurity Maturity Model Certification (CMMC). Regional
partners include the Washington and Colorado MEP centers. The COEs will
provide services to the Northwest, Southwest, and Mountain State MEP centers,
as well as Hawaii and Alaska.
 GENEDGE. NIST made a one-year, $1.0 million award to the Virginia MEP
center a to foster a regional approach to establishing MEP COEs focused on
cybersecurity competency and expertise. The network is to focus on meet
evolving DOD cybersecurity requirements, particularly preparation for CMMC.
Regional partners include the Maryland and Connecticut MEP centers. The COEs
will provide services to New England, as well as the Middle Atlantic and
Southeast regions.

58 15 U.S.C. 278k-1(e)(3).
59 15 U.S.C. 278k-1(e)(2).
60 15 U.S.C. 278k-1(g).
61 NIST, “Notice of Funding Opportunity (NOFO), NIST MEP Competitive Awards Program,” 2017-NIST-MEP-CAP-
01, April 17, 2017, https://www.nist.gov/document/20170417cap01meprollingcompetitiveawardsprogramnofofinalpdf.
62 Ibid., pp. 4-5.
Congressional Research Service

14

The Hollings Manufacturing Extension Partnership Program

 Michigan Manufacturing Technology Center (MMTC). NIST made a one-
year, $1.0 million award to the Michigan MEP center to foster a regional
approach to establishing MEP COEs that create cybersecurity competency and
expertise. The network is to focus on meet evolving DOD cybersecurity
requirements, particularly preparation for CMMC. Regional partners include the
Texas and Missouri MEP centers. The COEs will provide services to the Midwest
MEP Centers.
 Georgia MEP (GaMEP). NIST made a one-year, $457,663 award to the Georgia
MEP center to develop and deliver a training program for SMMs for the CMMC
standard published in January 2020, with a focus on DOD suppliers. The training
will be piloted with GaMEP clients and MEP Centers in Iowa, Missouri, and
North Carolina.
 CONNSTEP. NIST made a one-year, $1.0 million award to the Connecticut
MEP center which is to lead Manufacturing Skills for Connecticut, a project to
produce an accessible database that describes, maps, and analyzes the design,
impact, and efficacy of manufacturing-related programs across school districts.
The project seeks to expand the availability and quality of K-12 programs aimed
at preparing students for manufacturing careers at all skill levels; to increase and
diversify the highly qualified manufacturing labor pool; and to accelerate the
growth of the manufacturing sectors New England, and eventually nationwide.
 FloridaMakes. NIST made an 18-month, $1.0 million award to the Florida MEP
center to develop and implement a new, manufacturing-specific, Baldrige
Performance Excellence Program-derived assessment tool incorporating Industry
4.0 principles.63 Partners include the NIST Baldrige Performance Excellence
Program, the Illinois MEP center, Johnson & Johnson Vision, Florida Sterling
Council, and Florida’s Regional Manufacturers Associations.
 GENEDGE. NIST made a one-year, $600,000 award to the Virginia MEP center
to expand the Medical Manufacturers MedAccred® Accreditation Pathway
(MedMMAP) to aid U.S. medical device manufacturing facilities to efficiently
and effectively prepare for accreditation. MedAccred is an industry-managed
critical process accreditation program that aims to improve quality, lower costs,
and improve patient safety. The project will train and certify subject matter
experts in nine MEP centers, build relationships with MedAccred companies, and
expand marketing to promote the MedMMAP program to the MEP National
Network. Partners include the California, Georgia, Illinois, Massachusetts,
Michigan, New Jersey, North Carolina, Texas, and Puerto Rico MEP centers.
 Missouri Enterprise. NIST made a three-year, $1.0 million award to the
Missouri MEP center to develop America Works, a database of MEP National
Network workforce efforts. America Works will offer a shared, centralized space
for MEP center staff to congregate, discuss, innovate and create new solutions.
Missouri Enterprise will partner with MAGNET, part of the Ohio MEP center;
the Iowa, Indiana, and New Jersey MEP centers; and the Foundation for
Manufacturing Excellence (FORME).

63 According to NIST, “Industry 4.0 ‘refers to the fourth industrial revolution, which connects machines, people, and
physical assets into an integrated digital ecosystem that seamlessly generates, analyzes and communicates data, and
sometimes takes action based on that data without the need for human intervention.’” (NIST, “Why You Know More
About Industry 4.0 Than You Think,” December 2, 2019, https://www.nist.gov/blogs/manufacturing-innovation-blog/
why-you-know-more-about-industry-40-you-think).
Congressional Research Service

15

link to page 19 The Hollings Manufacturing Extension Partnership Program

 New York MEP. NIST made a three-year, $999,000 award to the New York MEP
center to coordinate the Manufacturing Readiness Program (MRP). The funded
partners are NextCorps, Inc. (part of the NY MEP), which serves the Finger
Lakes regions, and Catalyst Connection (part of Pennsylvania MEP), which
serves Southwestern Pennsylvania. The project will provide training, education,
and operational and programming support to decrease the time it takes to move
from prototype to commercial product.
 Ohio MEP. NIST made a three-year, $1.0 million award to the Ohio MEP to
develop and deploy a strategically focused approach to implementing advanced
technology services for SMMs. The program will focus on engaging and
supporting SMMs in underserved communities in Ohio. Project partners include
the Ohio State University’s Ohio Manufacturing Institute and the MPI Group,
and will engage the Ohio MEP’s regional affiliate service organizations for
statewide assistance.
 Oregon MEP (OMEP). NIST made a three-year, $1.0 million award to the
Oregon MEP center to develop a regional strategy in five western states focused
on the development and delivery of Industry 4.0-related projects.64 The project is
focused on the Internet of Things (IoT), cloud computing, and related
technologies; automation, augmented reality/virtual reality (AR/VR), and
robotics; and cybersecurity. Regional partners include the Montana, Idaho,
Hawaii, and Nevada MEP centers.
 University of Tennessee Center for Industrial Services (UT CIS). NIST made
a two-year, $1.0 million award to the Tennessee MEP center to establish an MEP
National Advanced Tech Team. The project is focused on developing capabilities
for the transfer of technology based on the needs of SMMs and the available
technologies of higher education, laboratories, and other technology-producing
entities. The Tech Team experts will be responsible for understanding readiness
and applicability of technologies and finding similar technological expertise at
local universities, national laboratories, and Manufacturing USA institutes. The
Tennessee MEP will partner with the New York MEP and coordinate with the
Washington MEP center.65
Other FY2020 Competitive Awards
In addition to the CAP awards, in FY2020 NIST MEP issued a Manufacturing Disaster
Assessment Program (MDAP) award of $1.0 million, five Advanced Manufacturing Technology
Services (AMTS) awards totaling $5.0 million, and a Measurement Science and Engineering
(MSE) award of approximately $0.5 million.
Manufacturing Disaster Assessment Program
NIST made an 18-month, $1.0 million award to PRIMEX, the Puerto Rico MEP center, to assist
manufacturers in preparing for and recovering from major business interruptions and operation
challenges due to disasters. Project activities include assessments; workshops and events;

64 See footnote 63 for information on Industry 4.0.
65 NIST, “NIST Awards $11 Million to MEP Centers in 10 States,” September 21, 2020, https://www.nist.gov/news-
events/news/2020/09/nist-awards-11-million-mep-centers-10-states.
Congressional Research Service

16

link to page 19 The Hollings Manufacturing Extension Partnership Program

technical assistance, such as risks mitigation, crisis management plans, and disaster recovery;
infrastructure assessments; and referral assistance.66
Advanced Manufacturing Technology Services (AMTS)
Michigan Manufacturing Technology Center. NIST made a one-year, $1.0 million award to the
Michigan MEP center to conduct a project, D3+ Bringing Digital Technologies to Three Essential
Manufacturing Functions. The project is focused on automation and robotics, Big Data, and the
Internet of Things. The Michigan MEP center will collaborate with MEP centers in Illinois and
Ohio.
Purdue University, Indiana MEP. NIST made a one-year, $1.0 million award to the Indiana
MEP center to conduct a project, Implementing Small Manufacturer Assistance with Robotic
Technologies (I-SMART), to provide technical assistance services to small U.S. manufacturers
via project-level engagements to increase the adoption of robotics, flexible automation, and
related Industry 4.0 technologies to help address the skilled manufacturing needs.67 The Indiana
MEP center will collaborate with MEP centers in Iowa, Ohio, Illinois, and Pennsylvania.
University of Texas in Arlington (TMAC). NIST made a two-year, $1.0 million award to
TMAC, the Texas MEP center, to conduct a project, Applied Advanced Manufacturing
Technologies, a collaborative effort to advance the awareness, deployment, and sustenance of
Industry 4.0 technologies.68 Areas of focus include industrial automation, robotics and
sensorization, data analytics and business intelligence, additive manufacturing, cyber security,
and industrial 3D simulation AR/VR applications. The Texas MEP center will collaborate with
MEP centers in New Mexico and Oklahoma.
The California Manufacturing Technology Center (CMTC). NIST made a two-year, $1.0
million award to the California MEP center to conduct a project, MEP Network Deployment of
Industry 4.0 Technology Assistance Services, for small manufacturers to support the adoption of
additive, robotics, and smart manufacturing.69 The California MEP center will collaborate with
MEP centers in Ohio and Pennsylvania.
New Jersey MEP. NIST made a one-year, $994,929 award to the New Jersey MEP to conduct a
project with two Manufacturing USA institutes—the National Institute for Innovation in
Manufacturing Biopharmaceuticals (NIIMBL) and BioFabUSA—focused on technology
assistance in six areas: process automation; smart manufacturing, including artificial intelligence,
sensors, and data analytics; additive manufacturing; robotics; digital manufacturing; and cyber
security. The New Jersey MEP center will collaborate with MEP centers in Massachusetts and
Puerto Rico.70
Measurement Science and Engineering (MSE) Award
Association of Public and Land-grant Universities (APLU). NIST made a one-year, $498,421
award to the Association of Public and Land-grant Universities to identify and promulgate

66 NIST, “Federal Funding Opportunity Awards,” https://www.nist.gov/mep/about-nist-mep/notice-funding-
opportunities/federal-funding-opportunity-awards.
67 See footnote 63 for information on Industry 4.0.
68 Ibid.
69 Ibid.
70 NIST, “Federal Funding Opportunity Awards,” https://www.nist.gov/mep/about-nist-mep/notice-funding-
opportunities/federal-funding-opportunity-awards.
Congressional Research Service

17

The Hollings Manufacturing Extension Partnership Program

innovative strategies to advance technology through partnerships between SMMs and MEP
centers; determine and share factors that lead to successful partnerships; and apply the results of
that research to build tools and resources helping scale university-SMM-MEP effective
practices.71
MEP-Assisted Technology and Technical Resource (MATTR) Program
The NIST MATTR program provides MEP SMM clients access to the laboratory’s core scientific
and engineering capabilities, in advanced manufacturing technology, collaborative robotics,
additive manufacturing, materials design and characterization, nanotechnology, information and
communications technology, quantum information, biosciences, industrial standards,
cybersecurity, and other fields.
The MATTR program provides a mechanism for manufacturers with specific needs or
questions concerning products or processes to be connected through the MEP centers to
the technical expertise, laboratory facilities, and other resources of the NIST laboratories.
It also allows NIST lab staff to inquire of the MEP National Network if there are needs in
the manufacturing arena that NIST should address.72
NIST offers many kinds of technical assistance through the MATTR program at no cost.
However, NIST may charge fees for certain services such as instrument calibrations and special
measurements. NIST has rendered technical assistance to SMMs under MATTR on a number of
issues, including nanotechnology and thin film measurement technology. NIST is also using
MATTR to increase awareness among SMMs of the NIST library of patents and products
available for licensing.73
According to NIST, in FY2020:
 6 NIST laboratories and offices responded to 70 MATTR requests submitted by
22 MEP centers;
 5 NIST laboratories made 23 offers of assistance to the MEP National Network;
 NIST laboratory staff provided webcasts to the MEP National Network
addressing various technical topics; and
 NIST MEP facilitated CRADAs between MEP center clients and NIST labs.74
Value and Utility of Skill Credentials to Manufacturers and Workers
The manufacturing workforce is a significant concern for SMMs, including the number of
workers available with the knowledge and skills required for unfilled jobs. Some assert a
mismatch between open positions in manufacturing firms and the skills of potential employees.
One mechanism for addressing this mismatch is the use of skills credentials. In coordination with
the NIST Standards Coordination Office (SCO), MEP awarded a competitive contract to
Workcred, an affiliate of the American National Standards Institute, to examine the quality,

71 Email from NIST to CRS, December 18, 2020; and APLU, APLU Receives NIST Grant to Advance Innovation in
Manufacturing, November 2, 2020, https://www.aplu.org/news-and-media/News/aplu-receives-nist-grant-to-advance-
innovation-in-manufacturing.
72 NIST, “Connecting Manufacturers to NIST Laboratories,” website, article written by FuzeHub, November 30, 2017,
https://www.nist.gov/blogs/manufacturing-innovation-blog/connecting-manufacturers-nist-laboratories.
73 Ibid.
74 Email from NIST to CRS, December 18, 2020.
Congressional Research Service

18

The Hollings Manufacturing Extension Partnership Program

market value, and effectiveness of manufacturing credentials, and the need for new or improved
manufacturing credentials.75
In April 2018, Workcred published the results of its study in the report, Examining the Quality,
Market Value, and Effectiveness of Manufacturing Credentials in the United States.76 According
to NIST, 945 manufacturers participated in the study’s surveys and in-depth focus groups. The
report cites the following key findings:
 credentials have uneven use in the manufacturing industry and are not routinely
required or used as a major factor in hiring or promotion decisions;
 many manufacturers do not know what credentials are available or how they are
relevant to their workplace;
 facility size appears to influence credential use, with large manufacturing
facilities more likely to prefer credentials than smaller facilities;
 many manufacturers do not view credentials as the most relevant tools to identify
new skilled personnel or as incentives to improve the quality of their existing
workforce;
 manufacturers often feel they need to train new employees regardless of whether
or not they held a credential, and could not quantify whether credentials added
value in terms of reduced cost or reduced training time; and
 manufacturers believe that credentials could serve as a critical resource if they
were better understood and made more in line with skills needed in their
facilities.77
In addition, the report recommended
 improving understanding about the content, use, and value of credentials;
 expanding the use of quality standards for credentials;
 strengthening relationships between employers, education and training providers,
and credentialing organizations;
 adding an employability skills component to existing and new credentials;
 creating credentials that focus on performance and address new roles; and
 increasing the number of apprentices and expanding apprenticeships to more
occupations.78
As a result of the initial findings, NIST MEP and Workcred hosted a discussion roundtable with
certification and credential organizations. Roundtable participants identified a need to gather
more quantified information on the return on investment for companies and individuals that
obtain manufacturing related credentials. In FY2020, NIST MEP funded a new Workcred project,
Research Examining the Return on Investment (ROI) of Manufacturing Credentials. The project

75 NIST financial assistance award 70NANB16H239, made under an Announcement of Federal Funding Opportunity
(FFO, 2016-NIST-MSE-01) by the NIST Material Measurement Laboratory (MML) Grant Program. The NIST FFO
can be accessed at https://www.nist.gov/sites/default/files/documents/2017/06/20/fy16-mse-ffo_1.pdf.
76 Workcred, Examining the Quality, Market Value, and Effectiveness of Manufacturing Credentials in the United
States, April 2018, https://workcred.org/Documents/NIST-MEP-Report.pdf.
77 Ibid.
78 Ibid.
Congressional Research Service

19

The Hollings Manufacturing Extension Partnership Program

is underway, with data collection at 10 manufacturing organization across the country, identified
by the MEP Centers. NIST expects a final report in Fall 2021.79
Completed MEP-Related Activities
Embedding of MEP Staff in Manufacturing USA Institutes
In 2016 and 2017, NIST made 14 awards of approximately $1.2 million each in three rounds of
competitions to establish partnerships between MEP and the 14 operating Manufacturing USA
institutes (also known as the National Network for Manufacturing Innovation or NNMI).80 The
awards required no cost-share and had a two-year period of performance; most projects were
granted no-cost extensions by NIST to continue working up to an additional year. This effort is
sometimes referred to as the Embedding Project. Some projects have ended; others will operate
into 2020.81
The purpose of these awards, according to NIST, was to further transition of technologies
developed at the NNMI institutes to small and medium-size manufacturers.82 Specifically,
embedded staff were to
develop innovate approaches for transferring technology from the Manufacturing USA
institutes to small U.S. manufacturers; create approaches for engaging small manufacturers
in the work of the institutes through hands-on assistance and services; develop and test
business models by which MEP centers and institutes may effectively serve the needs of
small U.S. manufacturers in the technology areas of the institutes, and facilitate knowledge
and best practice sharing; and cultivate an enhanced nationwide network of partnerships
among the institutes and MEP centers.83
The awards were made to the following centers:
 California MEP center, to partner with the Clean Energy Smart Manufacturing
Innovation Institute.
 California MEP center, to partner with NextFlex, the Flexible Hybrid Electronics
Manufacturing Innovation Institute.
 Delaware MEP center, to partner with the National Institute for Innovation in
Manufacturing Biopharmaceuticals (NIIMBL).
 Illinois MEP center, to partner with the Digital Manufacturing and Design
Innovation Institute (DMDII).
 Massachusetts MEP center, to partner with the Advanced Functional Fabrics of
America (AFFOA) Institute.
 Massachusetts MEP center, to partner with the Advanced Regenerative
Manufacturing Institute (ARMI).

79 Email from NIST to CRS, December 18, 2020.
80 For more information on the Manufacturing USA/NNMI institutes, see CRS Report R44371, The National Network
for Manufacturing Innovation, by John F. Sargent Jr.
81 Email from NIST to CRS, August 21, 2019.
82 Email from NIST to CRS, September 13, 2017.
83 NIST, “NIST Awards $12 Million to MEP Centers in 11 States,” press release, January 13, 2017,
https://www.nist.gov/news-events/news/2017/01/nist-awards-12-million-mep-centers-11-states.
Congressional Research Service

20

The Hollings Manufacturing Extension Partnership Program

 Michigan MEP center, to partner with Lightweight Innovations for Tomorrow
(LIFT).
 New York MEP center, to partner with the Reducing Embodied-energy and
Decreasing Emissions (REMADE) Institute.
 New York MEP center, to partner with the American Institute for Manufacturing
Integrated Photonics (AIM Photonics).
 North Carolina MEP center, to partner with Power America.
 Oregon MEP center, to partner with the Rapid Advancement in Process
Intensification Deployment (RAPID) Institute.
 Pennsylvania MEP center, to partner with America Makes, the National Additive
Manufacturing Innovation Institute.
 Pennsylvania MEP center, to partner with the Advanced Robotics Manufacturing
(ARM) Institute.
 Tennessee MEP center, to partner with the Institute for Advanced Composites
Manufacturing Innovation (IACMI).84
According to NIST, initial survey responses from MEP centers indicated “significant new and
retained revenue, operational cost savings, and new client investments.”85 NIST states that this
activity has concluded.
Business-to-Business Networks
In December 2014, NIST MEP awarded $2.5 million to 10 MEP centers for the establishment of
pilot projects to develop, deploy, and maintain business-to-business (B2B) networks.86 These
networks were intended to help match buyers and sellers of technologies or products and services
in support of SMMs. The two-year projects were designed to be scalable and interoperable to help
determine whether they could be expanded into a national network or a series of regional ones.87
The B2B Network projects have been completed.
Make it in America Challenge
In December 2013, NIST MEP awarded grants to 10 winners in nine states as part of the
multiagency Make it in America (MiiA) Challenge, an Obama Administration initiative to
accelerate job creation and encourage business investment in the United States. Nine awards were

84 NIST, “Pilot Projects Will Bring MEP Small-Business Expertise to Manufacturing USA Institutes,” September 13,
2016; NIST, “NIST Awards $12 Million to MEP Centers in 11 States,” January 13, 2017; and NIST, “Twelve Awards
Made for Notices of Funding Opportunities,” September 1, 2017.
85 Email from NIST to CRS, August 21, 2019.
86 Funding for the B2B awards was provided via reprogramming of $2.5 million in FY2014 appropriations from the
NIST Technology Innovation Program. Source: Letter from Ellen Herbst, Chief Financial Officer and Assistant
Secretary for Administration, Department of Commerce, to Senator Barbara Mikulski, Chairwoman, Senate Committee
on Appropriations, March 7, 2014.
87 National Institute of Standards and Technology, FY2016 Congressional Budget Justification, pp. NIST-229-NIST-
230, http://www.osec.doc.gov/bmi/budget/FY16CJ/NIST-NTIS_FY_2016_CJ_Final_508_Compliant.pdf; NIST, press
release, “NIST Awards $2.5 Million in Grants to MEP Centers for Pilot Business-to-Business Networks,” December 2,
2014, http://www.nist.gov/mep/mep-120214.cfm.
Congressional Research Service

21

The Hollings Manufacturing Extension Partnership Program

to MEP centers. Two were to affiliates of the Ohio MEP center. Each received $125,000 per year
for three years.88 All MiiA projects have been completed.
According to NIST, MiiA was intended to support the efforts of U.S. companies to keep, expand,
or reshore manufacturing operations and jobs in the United States, and to encourage foreign
companies to build facilities in the United States and make products domestically. The MEP’s
MiiA Challenge grants were intended to support greater connectivity in regional supply chains
and to assist SMMs.
Advanced Manufacturing Jobs and Innovation Accelerator Challenge
NIST MEP centers participated in the Advanced Manufacturing Jobs and Innovation Accelerator
Challenge (AMJIAC), a multiagency effort seeking to strengthen U.S. manufacturing.89 A 2012
solicitation led to 10 three-year awards totaling $20 million. All AMJIAC projects have been
completed.
According to NIST:
These grants support the creation and strengthening of regional partnerships capable of
accelerating innovation and growing a region’s capacity for advanced manufacturing. This
funding has been used for activities such as worker training programs or connecting
manufacturers to resources like national labs or universities. Ultimately, these grants
present regions with an opportunity not only to expand their current activities, but also to
fundamentally transform the way that the region supports its manufacturers.90
The role of the MEP center participation varied in the awards. In some cases, an MEP center had
the primary management role. In other cases, an MEP center was engaged in a partnership with
another organization to lead different project elements. In still other cases, an MEP center was
part of a broad-based partnership with different organizations leading one or two project
elements.
Manufacturing Technology Acceleration Centers
In July 2013, NIST announced a pilot program under MEP, the Manufacturing Technology
Acceleration Centers (M-TACs). M-TACs were designed
to explore different approaches to providing manufacturers with the technology transition
and commercialization assistance they need to compete successfully and grow their market
share within manufacturing supply chains.91
All M-TAC projects have been completed.

88 The award recipients were: Maine MEP; Michigan Manufacturing Technology Center; InnovateMEP Mississippi;
Missouri Enterprise; Ohio MEP (State of Ohio, Ohio Development Services Agency: two awards, including the
Appalachian Partnership for Economic Growth and the Manufacturing Advocacy and Growth Network); Oregon MEP;
Northeastern Pennsylvania Industrial Resource Center; South Carolina MEP; and Impact Washington. Source: Email
from NIST to CRS, November 5, 2015.
89 Participating agencies include the NIST, the Department of Commerce’s Economic Development Administration, the
Department of Energy, the Department of Labor’s Employment and Training Administration, the Small Business
Administration, and the National Science Foundation.
90 NIST, The Advanced Manufacturing Jobs and Innovation Accelerator Challenge (AMJIAC): Mid-Project Review,
May 2014, http://www.nist.gov/mep/upload/AMJIAC-Report-final0520.pdf.
91 NIST, Manufacturing Technology Acceleration Center (M-TAC) Pilot Project): Report on Initial Progress and
Learning, February 2015, p. 5, http://www.nist.gov/mep/services/supplychain/upload/MTAC_Report-print.pdf.
Congressional Research Service

22

The Hollings Manufacturing Extension Partnership Program

Other Grants
In October 2010, NIST announced $9.1 million in cooperative agreements for 22 projects
“designed to enhance the productivity, technological performance and global competitiveness of
U.S. manufacturers.”92 The funding was provided by MEP on a competitive basis to nonprofit
organizations to work with the MEP centers and address one or more of these areas identified by
NIST as critical to U.S. manufacturing:
 responding to evolving supply chains;
 accelerating the adoption of new technology to build business growth;
 implementing environmentally sustainable processes;
 establishing and enabling strong workforces for the future; and
 encouraging cultures of continuous improvement.93
According to NIST, “The funding will help encourage the creation and adoption of improved
technologies and provide resources to develop new products that respond to changing market
needs.”94 In this regard, the awards differed from other MEP center activities which do not
support research activities.
MEP Strategic Plan
In 2017, NIST MEP released its MEP National Network Strategic Plan, 2017-2022. Among other
things, the plan identified MEP strategic goals and objectives. The four goals of the plan are to
 empower U.S. manufacturers, by assisting them in adopting productivity-
enhancing manufacturing technologies, navigating advanced technology
solutions, and recruiting and retaining a skilled and diverse workforce;
 champion manufacturing, by promoting the importance of a strong
manufacturing base to the U.S. economy and protection of national security
interests, creating awareness of innovations in manufacturing, creating enabling
workforce development partnerships to build a stronger and diverse pipeline, and
maximizing awareness of the MEP national network;
 leverage partnerships, by leveraging national, regional, state, and local
partnerships to increase market penetration, identifying mission-complementary
advocates to help expand the brand recognition of the MEP national network, and
building an expanded service delivery model to support manufacturing
technology advances; and
 transform the network, by maximizing the MEP’s knowledge and experience to
operate as an integrated national network, increasing efficiency and effectiveness
by employing a learning organization platform, and by creating a resilient and

92 NIST, “NIST Manufacturing Extension Partnership Awards $9.1 Million for 22 Projects to Enhance U.S.
Manufacturers’ Global Competitiveness,” press release, October 5, 2010, http://www.nist.gov/mep/mep_100510.cfm.
93 Ibid.
94 NIST, “NIST Manufacturing Extension Partnership Awards $9.1 Million for 22 Projects to Enhance U.S.
Manufacturers’ Global Competitiveness,” press release, October 5, 2010, https://www.nist.gov/news-events/news/
2010/10/nist-manufacturing-extension-partnership-awards-91-million-22-projects.
Congressional Research Service

23

The Hollings Manufacturing Extension Partnership Program

adaptive MEP national network to support a resilient and adaptive U.S.
manufacturing base.95
The MEP National Network Strategic Plan, 2017-2022—with information on objectives,
measures of success, and priorities—is available at https://www.nist.gov/document/
mepnationalnetworkplan2017to2022finalpdf.
Annual Report to Congress
NIST is required to annually produce and submit to Congress a three-year programmatic planning
document, concurrent with the President’s annual budget request. This report is to include an
assessment of the NIST Director’s governance of the MEP program.
The latest version of the plan, NIST Three-Year Programmatic Plan: 2017-2019, includes the
following information about the MEP program:
NIST’s MEP provides technical and business assistance to smaller manufacturers through
partnerships between Federal and state governments and non-profit organizations in all 50
states and Puerto Rico. Field agents and programs help manufacturers understand, adopt,
and apply new technologies and business practices, increasing productivity, performance,
cost savings, reducing waste and creating and retaining manufacturing jobs. MEP also is a
strategic advisor to promote business growth and innovation and to connect manufacturers
to public and private resources essential for expanding into new markets, developing
efficient processes, and training an advanced workforce.96
The NIST Three-Year Programmatic Plan: 2017-2019 report is available at https://www.nist.gov/
sites/default/files/documents/director/planning/3_year_plan_2017-19_web_ready2.pdf.
External Reviews and Recommendations
A number of organizations have reviewed and commented on the program’s management and
effectiveness, and some have offered recommendations for improving the program. The following
sections discuss some of the findings and recommendations of these organizations.97
MEP Advisory Board
The FY2019 MEP Advisory Board annual report recommended the following 18-month MEP
program goals:
 reaching consensus across the MEP network on the definition of project and
client interaction to ensure accurate and consistent measurement;
 improving operations through on-time and accurate reporting;
 increasing projects by 10% reported new clients by 5%; and
 increasing MEP National Network brand awareness by at least 10%.98

95 NIST, MEP National Network Strategic Plan, 2017-2022, https://www.nist.gov/document/
mepnationalnetworkplan2017to2022finalpdf.
96 Ibid., p. 8.
97 Other comments and recommendations by these organizations are included elsewhere in this report.
98 NIST, MEP Advisory Board, MEP Advisory Board 2019 Annual Report, 2020, https://www.nist.gov/document/mep-
advisory-board-report-2019pdf.
Congressional Research Service

24

link to page 24 link to page 24 The Hollings Manufacturing Extension Partnership Program

Government Accountability Office
The Government Accountability Office has reviewed aspects of the MEP program on several
occasions since the early 1990s. This section provides highlights of those reviews in reverse
chronological order.
In March 2019, GAO issued a congressionally mandated report on the implementation of the
American Innovation and Competitiveness Act provision that allowed the federal government to
provide up to 50% of center funding regardless of the center’s year of operation; previously,
centers in their fourth year could receive no more than 40%, and those in their fifth and later
years could receive no more than one-third. The GAO report stated that MEP centers reported that
the change improved their financial stability and helped them to better serve SMMs, especially
very small and rural manufacturers. The report noted that the change in cost-sharing occurred
concurrently with other factors (notably the recompetition of the centers), making it hard to
determine the exact impact of the cost-share change.99
In an April 2017 report on advanced manufacturing, GAO recommended that the Department of
Commerce strengthen its collaboration with the other agencies participating in Manufacturing
USA.100 The Revitalize American Manufacturing and Innovation Act of 2014 (RAMI Act), which
established a statutory basis for a Network of Manufacturing Innovation (now branded as
“Manufacturing USA”), directed the Secretary of Commerce to ensure that MEP is incorporated
in the Manufacturing USA institutes to ensure the research results reach SMMs. NIST sought to
accomplish this by placing MEP staff in the institutes through competitive grants to MEP centers;
however, that program has concluded. (See “Embedding of MEP Staff in Manufacturing USA
Institutes.”)
In a March 2014 report, GAO reported on its investigation into the extent to which the MEP
program achieves administrative efficiencies. GAO found that 81.4% of MEP funding supported
center awards with the balance devoted to contracts, staff, agency-wide overhead charges, and
other items, some of which NIST considered direct support and some of which NIST considered
administrative spending. In total, NIST estimated that more than 88.5% of federal MEP program
spending in FY2013 was for direct support, and the remainder supported MEP administration.101
In 2010 Congress directed the GAO to report on the cost-share structure of the MEP program and
provide recommendations for how best to structure the cost-share requirement to provide for the
long-term sustainability of the program.102 GAO concluded that it was unable to provide such
recommendations, as it could not identify criteria or a basis for determining the optimal cost-
share structure for this program.103 However, GAO cited a number of factors that could be taken
into account in modifying the existing cost-share structure including promoting equity by

99 GAO, U.S. Government Accountability Office, Manufacturing Extension Partnership: Centers Cite Benefits from
Funding Change, but Impacts Hard to Distinguish from Other Factors, GAO-19-219, March 7, 2019,
https://www.gao.gov/assets/700/697319.pdf.
100 GAO, U.S. Government Accountability Office, Advanced Manufacturing: Commerce Could Strengthen
Collaboration with Other Agencies on Innovation Institutes, GAO-17-320, April 6, 2017, http://www.gao.gov/assets/
690/684343.pdf.
101 Government Accountability Office, Most Federal Spending Directly Supports Work with Manufacturers, but
Distribution Could Be Improved, GAO-14-317, March 2014.
102 America COMPETES Reauthorization Act (P.L. 111-358).
103 Government Accountability Office, Factors for Evaluating the Cost Share of Manufacturing Extension Partnership
Program to Assist Small and Medium-Sized Manufacturers, GAO-11-437R, April 4, 2011, p. 4, http://www.gao.gov/
assets/100/97395.pdf.
Congressional Research Service

25

link to page 14 The Hollings Manufacturing Extension Partnership Program

assigning costs to those who both use and benefit from the services. In this regard, GAO
identified potential beneficiaries as manufacturers, state and local governments, and the nation
and recommended an evaluation of the relative benefits and aligning cost-shares to reflect who
receives the benefits.104 (See “Cost-Sharing” for a further discussion of GAO’s findings.)
In an August 1995 briefing paper, the GAO explored how small and medium-sized firms were
served by various manufacturing extension efforts, including the MEP program.105 GAO received
551 responses to 766 questionnaires distributed. Approximately 73% of responding firms stated
that their relationships with an extension activity had a positive effect on the company’s business
performance. Fifteen percent indicated that there was no effect at all. Among the impacts
identified were improved use of technology (63%), better product quality (61%), and expanded
productivity (56%). According to GAO, this suggested that manufacturing extension activities
“had some success in achieving their primary goal of helping manufacturers improve their
operations through the use of appropriate technologies and through increases in product quality
and worker productivity.” The study also found that companies which used internal funding to
implement recommendations offered by extension programs were the most likely to find an
overall positive impact. “Significantly, approximately 97 percent of [these respondents] ... said
that they believed that this investment had been worthwhile.” Those who utilized these
organizations noted that practical experience in the field contributed to the success of staff
activities, as did the affordability of the assistance. Companies that did not utilize the resources
provided by the MEP tended to be those that were unaware of the program and the opportunities
associated with it.
Further refining this information in a March 1996 report, GAO also noted that company size and
age were significant factors in business perceptions of the extension program. Smaller (under $1
million gross sales) and newer (established after 1985) firms “were most likely to report that their
overall business performance was boosted by MEP assistance.”106 While there were no real
differences in perception between extension services offered by NIST and those funded by other
institutions, there was a difference in assessments of effectiveness based on whether or not
payment was required. According to GAO, those firms that paid fees “were half as likely as those
that paid no fees to credit the assistance for having an extremely positive impact, as opposed to a
generally positive impact, on their business performance.”
Congressional Budget Office
As discussed earlier, the CBO regularly issues a compendium of budget options to help inform
federal lawmakers about the implications of possible policy choices. In 2009 and 2011, one of the
options CBO proposed was elimination of the MEP program; more recent editions of CBO’s
Options for Reducing the Deficit have not included the MEP program among its options.
In its 2009 narrative, CBO asserted that proponents of elimination question the appropriateness
and necessity of the type of technical assistance offered by MEP, stating that “many university
professors of business, science, and engineering consult with private industry, and other ties

104 Government Accountability Office, Factors for Evaluating the Cost Share of Manufacturing Extension Partnership
Program to Assist Small and Medium-Sized Manufacturers, GAO-11-437R, April 4, 2011, p. 4, http://www.gao.gov/
assets/100/97395.pdf.
105 U.S. Government Accountability Office, Manufacturing Extension Programs, Manufacturers’ Views of Services,
GGD-95-216BR, August 7, 1995, http://gao.gov/products/GGD-95-216BR.
106 Government Accountability Office, Manufacturing Extension Programs, Manufacturers’ Views about Delivery and
Impact of Services, GGD-96-75, March 14, 1996, p. 3, http://gao.gov/products/GGD-96-75.
Congressional Research Service

26

The Hollings Manufacturing Extension Partnership Program

between universities and business promote knowledge transfer,” that many centers in the MEP
system existed before the establishment of the MEP program, and that surveys indicated that
about half of MEP’s clients reported that the same services were available to them through other
channels but at a higher price. Supporters of the MEP program, according to CBO, point to the
importance of SMMs to the economy in terms of output and employment, and in providing
supplies and intermediate goods for large companies. Proponents also argue that many SMMs
“face barriers that can prevent them from obtaining the sort of information” that MEP provides.107
CBO also asserted that
The program’s enhancement of U.S. productivity also is questionable. It can be argued that
federal spending for [MEP] allows some inefficient companies to remain in business, tying
up capital, labor, and other resources that could be used more productively elsewhere.108
National Academy of Public Administration
The National Academy of Public Administration also studied the MEP program and in a 2004
report stated that while “on balance ... the MEP Program performs capably and effectively and
that the core premise ... remains viable as it is fulfilling its mission by leveraging both public and
private resources to assist the nation’s small manufacturers,” there should be consideration of a
“fundamental change in the mix of the types of services it provides as well as the structures for
delivering them.”109 As such, a Next Generation Strategic Plan was developed by the MEP in
2006 to concentrate on not just the shop floor but on “the entire enterprise and its position in the
marketplace.” In addition to individual manufacturing firms, NIST concluded that MEP “must
focus on industry/supply chain requirements as well as overall economic development trends.”110
Current MEP efforts include a focus on helping companies to participate in supply chains (e.g., by
helping them become compliant with quality standards) and on supply chain optimization.
Appropriations and Related Issues
This section provides information on FY2020 appropriations for MEP, the status of FY2021
appropriations, and a longer-term perspective on MEP budget requests and appropriations from
FY2003 to FY2021.
FY2020 and FY2021 Appropriations
As in his FY2018, FY2019, and FY2020 budgets, President Trump proposed to eliminate federal
support for MEP in his FY2021 budget request. In FY2018 and FY2019, Congress provided
$140.0 million for MEP, $146.0 million for FY2020, and $150.0 million for FY2021.

107 Congressional Budget Office, Budget Options: Volume 2, 370-372, p. 88, August 2009, https://www.cbo.gov/sites/
default/files/111th-congress-2009-2010/reports/08-06-budgetoptions.pdf.
108 Ibid.
109 National Academy of Public Administration, The Manufacturing Extension Partnership Program, Report 2,
Alternative Business Models, May 2004, available at http://www.napawash.org/Pubs/NIST6-2-04.pdf.
110 Manufacturing Extension Partnership, Next Generation Strategic Plan, 2006, http://www.mep.nist.gov/documents/
pdf/about-mep/Next_Gen_MEP_Strategy.pdf.
Congressional Research Service

27

link to page 33 link to page 33 The Hollings Manufacturing Extension Partnership Program

Table 1. Manufacturing Extension Partnership Program Appropriations, FY2020-
FY2021
(budget authority, in millions of dollars)
FY2020
FY2021
FY2021
FY2021
FY2021

Enacted
Request
House
Senate
Enacted
Manufacturing Extension
Partnership program
$146.0
$0.0
$153.0
$149.5
$150.0
Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, National Institute of Standards and Technology, National Institute of
Standards and Technology/National Technical Information Service, Fiscal Year 2021 Budget Submission to
Congress, February 2020, https://www.commerce.gov/sites/default/files/2020-02/
fy2021_nist_ntis_congressional_budget_justification.pdf; H.R. 7617; H.Rept. 116-455; Senate Departments of
Commerce and Justice, Science, and Related Agencies appropriation bil , as posted on Senate Appropriations
Committee website on November 11, 2020, https://www.appropriations.senate.gov/news/committee-releases-
fy21-bil s-in-effort-to-advance-process-produce-bipartisan-results; and H.R. 133.
a. This bil was not passed by the Senate, but was presented by the Senate Majority Leader as a basis for
discussions and negotiation with the House.
Appropriations and Requests FY2003-FY2021
The MEP program has, at times, enjoyed presidential and congressional support; at other times, it
has been targeted for reductions or elimination. These changes are visible in the history of
presidential budget requests and congressional actions on MEP appropriations. Figure 2
illustrates requested and enacted funding levels for the NIST MEP program for FY2003-FY2021;
Table 2 provides the requested and enacted appropriations amounts for these years.
While President George W. Bush’s annual budget requests generally called for substantial
reductions in support for MEP, Congress appropriated generally steady funding except for
FY2004 and FY2008. In FY2004, MEP funding was cut to $38.6 million, down 62.6% from its
FY2003 level of $105.9 million. However, Congress restored MEP funding in FY2005,
appropriating somewhat more than it had in FY2003.
In FY2008, MEP funding was cut to $89.6 million, down 14.4% from its FY2007 level of $104.7
million. For FY2009, President Bush’s final budget proposed to end federal funding for MEP,
requesting $4 million to allow for “the orderly change of MEP centers to a self-supporting
basis.”111 Congress opted instead to provide $110.0 million for MEP, an increase of 22.8% above
the FY2008 enacted level.
Under President Obama, MEP budget requests equaled or exceeded actual appropriations. In
FY2010, President Obama requested and received $124.7 million for MEP. For the rest of the
Obama Administration, MEP budget requests proposed higher funding for MEP than was enacted.
President Trump proposed the elimination of federal support for the MEP centers in FY2018,
requesting $6.0 million “for the orderly wind down” of the program. In his FY2019, FY2020, and
FY2021 budgets, President Trump proposed the elimination of federal support for the MEP
centers, requesting no funding for the program. In each of those years, however, Congress
provided funding at or above the previous year’s enacted funding level, appropriating $140.0
million for FY2018 and FY2019, $146 million in FY2020, and $150 million in FY2021. Between

111 NIST, Fiscal Year 2009 Budget Submission to Congress, http://www.osec.doc.gov/bmi/budget/09CBJ/
NISTand%20NTIS%20FY2009%20Congressional%20Justification.pdf.
Congressional Research Service

28

link to page 34 link to page 34 link to page 34 link to page 34 link to page 34 link to page 34

The Hollings Manufacturing Extension Partnership Program

FY2003 and FY2021, enacted appropriations for MEP grew at a compound annual growth rate
(CAGR) of 1.95% per year, approximately the same as inflation.112
Figure 2. Manufacturing Extension Partnership Program Funding
Requested and Enacted Appropriations, FY2003-2021
(in millions of current dollars)

Source: Department of Commerce and NIST budget documents, FY2003-FY2021; P.L. 115-141; and H.R. 133.
Table 2. Requested and Enacted Appropriations for the MEP Program
(FY2003-FY2021, in millions of current dollars)
Fiscal Year
Request
Enacted
2003a
$ 12.9
$ 105.9
2004b
12.6
38.6
2005c
39.2
107.5
2006d
46.8
104.6
2007
46.3
104.7
2008
46.3
89.6
2009
4.0
110.0
2010
124.7
124.7
2011e
129.7
128.4
2012
142.6
128.4
2013f
128.0
123.0
2014
153.1
128.0
2015
141.0
130.0
2016
141.0
130.0

112 The GDP (Chained) Price Index, a measure used by the Office of Management and Budget to adjust for inflation in
research and development, grew at 1.95% CAGR during this period; the Consumer Price Index for the period grew at
2.1% CAGR.
Congressional Research Service

29

The Hollings Manufacturing Extension Partnership Program

2017
142.0
130.0
2018
6.0
140.0
2019
0.0
140.0
2020
0.0
146.0
2021
0.0
150.0
Source: Department of Commerce and NIST budget documents, FY2003-FY2021; H.R. 133 (116th Congress).
Notes:
a. Enacted levels reflect an across-the-board rescission enacted in P.L. 108-7.
b. Enacted levels reflect across-the-board rescissions enacted in the FY2004 Consolidated Appropriations Act,
P.L. 108-199, and NIST’s share of the Department of Commerce’s unobligated balances rescission.
c. Enacted levels reflect across-the-board rescissions enacted in P.L. 108-447, FY2005 Consolidated
Appropriations Act ($9.5 mil ion). Does not reflect unobligated balances rescission of $3.9 mil ion.
d. Enacted levels reflect across-the-board rescissions enacted in P.L. 109-108, FY2006 Science, State, Justice,
and Commerce Appropriations Act and in P.L. 109-148, FY2006 Defense Appropriations Act.
e. Enacted levels include 0.2% across-the-board rescission.
f.
Enacted levels reflect the 1.877% rescission, 0.2% rescission, and the 5% sequester applied to 2013
annualized CR level.
Use of MEP Appropriations for Center Awards
In response to direction from Congress,113 GAO investigated the extent to which the MEP
program achieves administrative efficiencies. In its March 2014 report, GAO found that of the
$608 million spent on the MEP program from FY2009 to FY2013, about $495 million (81.4%)
went to center awards. The balance was spent on contracts, staff, agency-wide overhead charges,
and other items, some of which NIST considered direct support and some of which NIST
considered administrative spending. According to GAO, NIST estimated that more than 88.5% of
federal MEP program spending in FY2013 was for direct support, and the remainder (11.5%) was
for administration.114
For FY2020, NIST MEP administrative spending (MEP labor and program overheard) accounted
for about 11.9% of total MEP spending; 88.1% of MEP funding was provided for direct support
of the centers. The NIST FY2020 spending plan anticipated the following allocation of MEP
FY2020 appropriations ($146.0 million), carry over funding from FY2019 ($4.7 million), and
funding from other agencies ($0.3 million):
 $111.7 million (74.0% of total FY2020 MEP spending) for center support,
 $17.5 million (11.6%) for strategic competitions and partnership activities,
 $3.8 million (2.5%) for contracts (e.g., marketing, communications, center
transformation),
 $9.8 million (6.5%) for NIST MEP labor, and
 $8.2 million (5.4%) for NIST and program overhead.115

113 Explanatory Statement, Consolidated and Further Continuing Appropriations Act, 2013, Congressional Record,
March 11, 2013, p. 1301.
114 Government Accountability Office, Most Federal Spending Directly Supports Work with Manufacturers, but
Distribution Could Be Improved, GAO-14-317, March 2014.
115 Email from NIST to CRS, December 18, 2020. According to NIST, “The amount needed to fully fund renewals for
all 51 MEP centers in FY 2020 was $125.5 million. The amount of $111.7 million projects funds obligated from MEP’s
Congressional Research Service

30

The Hollings Manufacturing Extension Partnership Program

Appropriate Role of the Federal Government
Continuing financial support for the MEP program is part of a larger ongoing debate among
federal policymakers about the appropriate role of the federal government in providing assistance
to U.S. industry. The MEP program has, at times as it is now, been included in discussions
surrounding termination of federal programs that provide direct support for industry. Proponents
assert that SMMs play a central role in the U.S. economy and that the MEP system provides
information and assistance not otherwise available to SMMs. Some opponents have asserted that
such services are available from other sources and that MEP inappropriately shifts a portion of the
costs of these services to taxpayers. NIST MEP notes that an independent survey of MEP clients
provides evidence that MEP activities bring positive returns to the U.S. Treasury.
Proponents of the program stress that no direct funding is available to companies. Some
opponents assert that activities such as those performed by the MEP centers are a state
responsibility and that the federal role should have ended as the original legislation envisioned.
In addition, some have questioned whether federal support for the MEP centers should continue
to be provided indefinitely.116 As originally expressed in statute, MEP centers were to receive no
federal funding after their fifth year of operation, instead deriving necessary revenues from state
and local governments as well as from the companies utilizing the centers’ services. In 1998,
Congress lifted the prohibition on funding after the fifth year and allowed NIST MEP to provide
up to one-third of center costs after their sixth year of operation indefinitely. More recently,
Congress has enacted legislation that allows for federal MEP funding to support up to 50% of a
center’s costs indefinitely. The debate over whether the federal government should continue to
provide financial support to the centers indefinitely and, if so, at what level, may be revisited by
Congress, especially in light of the Trump Administration’s proposals to eliminate the program.
These and other issues may be debated as Congress continues to make appropriation decisions
relating to manufacturing extension as it pertains to the role of the federal government in
facilitating research and technological advancement.

FY20 appropriation. The difference represents early funding provided to several centers using FY2019 funds in part to
mitigate the risk of a funding lapse due to a possible government shutdown.”
116 Note: In this usage, “indefinitely” refers to the MEP centers in general, not to a specific center. Under ACIA, each
MEP center must be competed after 10 years of continuous funding.
Congressional Research Service

31

The Hollings Manufacturing Extension Partnership Program

Appendix A. Hollings Manufacturing Extension
Partnership Centers
Table A-1. Hollings Manufacturing Extension Partnership Centers
State
Center Name, Address, and Website
Alabama
Alabama Technology Network
135 South Union Street, Suite 441, Montgomery, AL 36104
http://www.atn.org/
Alaska
Alaska Manufacturing Extension Partnership Center
1901 Bragaw Street, Suite 199, Anchorage, AK 99508
https://alaska-mep.com/
Arizona
Arizona Manufacturing Extension Partnership
100 N. 7th Avenue, Suite 400, Phoenix, AZ 85007
http://www.azmep.com
Arkansas
Arkansas Manufacturing Solutions
900 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 400, Little Rock, AR 72201
http://www.mfgsolutions.org
California
California Manufacturing Technology Consulting
690 Knox Street, Suite 200, Torrance, CA 90502
http://www.cmtc.com/
Colorado
Manufacturer’s Edge
Manufacturer's Edge c/o Geotech, 2650 E. 40th Avenue, Denver, CO 80205
http://www.manufacturersedge.com
Connecticut
CONNSTEP
350 Church Street, 3rd Floor, Hartford, CT 06103-1126
http://www.connstep.org/
Delaware
Delaware Manufacturing Extension Partnership
400 Stanton-Christiana Road, Suite A-158, Newark, DE 19713
http://www.demep.org/
Florida
FloridaMakes
800 N. Magnolia Avenue, Suite 1850, Orlando, 32803
http://www.floridamakes.com
Georgia
Georgia Manufacturing Extension Partnership (GaMEP)
Georgia Tech, 75 Fifth Street, NW Suite 3010, Atlanta, GA 30308
http://www.gamep.org/
Hawaii
INNOVATE Hawaii
521 Ala Moana Blvd., Suite 255, Honolulu, HI 96813
http://www.htdc.org
Idaho
TechHelp
Boise State University, 1910 University Drive, Boise, ID 83725-1656
http://www.techhelp.org
Il inois
Il inois Manufacturing Excellence Center
1501 W. Bradley Avenue, Bradley University, Peoria, IL 61625
http://www.imec.org
Indiana
Purdue Manufacturing Extension Partnership
8628 E. 116th Street, Suite 200, Fishers, IN 46038
http://www.mep.purdue.edu
Congressional Research Service

32

The Hollings Manufacturing Extension Partnership Program

State
Center Name, Address, and Website
Iowa
Center for Industrial Research and Service (CIRAS)
Iowa State University, 1805 Col aboration Place, Suite 2300, Ames, IA 50010
http://www.ciras.iastate.edu
Kansas
Kansas Manufacturing Solutions
10550 Barkley Street, Suite 116, Overland Park, KS 66212
https://www.wearekms.com/
Kentucky
Advantage Kentucky Alliance (AKA)
2413 Nashvil e Road, B8, Suite 310, WKU Center for Research and Development, Bowling
Green, KY 42101
http://www.advantageky.org
Louisiana
Manufacturing Extension Partnership of Louisiana (MEPOL)
265 South Foster Drive, Baton Rouge, LA 70806
http://www.mepol.org
Maine
Maine Manufacturing Extension Partnership
87 Winthrop Street, Augusta, ME 04330-5554
http://www.mainemep.org/
Maryland
Maryland MEP
8894 Stanford Boulevard, Suite 304, Columbia, MD 21045
http://www.mdmep.org
Massachusetts
Massachusetts Manufacturing Extension Partnership (MassMEP)
100 Grove Street, Suite 108, Worcester, MA 01605
http://www.massmep.org/
Michigan
Michigan Manufacturing Technology Center (MMTC)
45501 Helm Street, Plymouth, MI 48170
http://www.the-center.org
Minnesota
Enterprise Minnesota
2100 Summer Street, Suite 150, Minneapolis, MN 55413
http://www.enterpriseminnesota.org
Mississippi
Mississippi Manufacturers Association Manufacturing Extension Partnership (MMA-MEP)
720 North President Street, Jackson, MS 39202
http://www.mma-web.org/mep
Missouri
Missouri Enterprise
900 Innovation Drive, Suite 300, Rol a, MO 65401
http://www.missourienterprise.org
Montana
Montana Manufacturing Extension Center (MMEC)
PO Box 174255, Montana State University, 2310 University Way Building 2, Suite 1, Bozeman,
MT 59717-4255
http://www.montana.edu/mmec
Nebraska
Nebraska Manufacturing Extension Partnership (Nebraska MEP)
University of Nebraska-Lincoln, 3 Agricultural Communications Building
3625 East Campus Loop South, Lincoln, NE 68583-0939
http://nemep.unl.edu
Nevada
Nevada Industry Excellence (NVIE)
UNR Mail Stop 406, Reno, NV 89557-0406
http://www.nevadaie.com
New Hampshire
New Hampshire Manufacturing Extension Partnership (NHMEP)
172 Pembroke Road, Concord, NH 03301
http://www.nhmep.org/
Congressional Research Service

33

The Hollings Manufacturing Extension Partnership Program

State
Center Name, Address, and Website
New Jersey
New Jersey Manufacturing Extension Program (NJMEP)
2 Ridgedale Avenue, Suite 305, Cedar Knol s, NJ 07927
http://www.njmep.org
New Mexico
New Mexico Manufacturing Extension Partnership (New Mexico MEP)
8600 San Mateo Blvd., NE, Suite 200, Albuquerque, NM 87113
http://www.newmexicomep.org
New York
New York Manufacturing Extension Partnership (NY MEP)
625 Broadway, ESD, Division of Science, Technology and Innovation (NYSTAR), Albany, NY
12245
http://www.esd.ny.gov/nystar/nymep.asp
North Carolina
North Carolina Manufacturing Extension Partnership (NCMEP)
1005 Capability Drive, Research III Building, Suite 200, Raleigh, NC 27606
http://www.ncmep.org
North Dakota
Impact Dakota
1929 North Washington Street, Suite M, Bismarck, ND 58501
http://www.impactdakota.com
Ohio
Ohio Manufacturing Extension Partnership (Ohio MEP)
77 South High Street, 28th Floor, Columbus, OH 43215
http://www.development.ohio.gov/bs/bs_mep.htm
Oklahoma
Oklahoma Manufacturing Alliance
525 South Main Street, Suite 210, Tulsa, OK 74103
http://www.okalliance.com/
Oregon
Oregon Manufacturing Extension Partnership
7650 SW Beveland Street, Suite 170, Portland, OR 97223
http://www.omep.org
Pennsylvania
Pennsylvania Manufacturing Extension Partnership
One Col ege Avenue, DIF 32, Wil iamsport, PA 17701
http://www.pamep.orghttp://www.pamade.org/network
Puerto Rico
Puerto Rico Manufacturing Extension Inc. (PRiMEX)
#268 Muñoz Rivera Avenue, World Plaza Building, Suite 1002, Hato Rey, PR 00918
http://www.primexpr.org
Rhode Island
Polaris MEP
75 Lower Col ege Road, Carlotti Administration Building, Kingston, RI 02881
http://www.polarismep.org
South Carolina
South Carolina Manufacturing Extension Partnership (SCMEP)
250 Executive Center Drive, Suite 200, Greenvil e, SC 29615
http://www.scmep.org
South Dakota
South Dakota Manufacturing and Technology Solutions
2329 N. Career Avenue, Suite 106, Sioux Falls, SD 57107
http://www.sdmanufacturing.com
Tennessee
University of Tennessee Center for Industrial Services (UT CIS)
193 Polk Avenue, Suite C, University of Tennessee Center for Industrial Services, Nashvil e,
TN 37210
http://www.cis.tennessee.edu/
Texas
TMAC
202 E. Border Street Suite #323 Arlington, TX 76010
http://www.tmac.org/
Congressional Research Service

34

The Hollings Manufacturing Extension Partnership Program

State
Center Name, Address, and Website
Utah
University of Utah Manufacturing Extension Partnership (UUMEP) Center
100 South 1495 East MEK 1121, Salt Lake City, UT 84112
http://www.mep.utah.edu
Vermont
Vermont Manufacturing Extension Center (VMEC)
1540 VT Rt. 66, Suite 103, VT Tech Enterprise Center, Randolph, VT 05060
http://www.vmec.org/
Virginia
GENEDGE
32 Bridge Street, Suite 200, Martinsvil e, VA 24112-6216
http://www.genedge.org
Washington
Impact Washington
3303 Monte Vil a Parkway, Suite 340, Bothell, WA 98021
http://www.impactwashington.org
West Virginia
West Virginia Manufacturing Extension Partnership (WVMEP)
West Virginia University Industrial Extension, 317 Mineral Resources Building, PO Box 6070,
Morgantown, WV 26506
http://www.wvmep.com
Wisconsin
Wisconsin Center for Manufacturing and Productivity (WCMP)
2601 Crossroads Drive, Suite 145, Madison, WI 53718
http://www.wicmp.org
Wyoming
Manufacturing-Works
Department 3362, 1000 East University Avenue, Laramie, WY 82071-2000
http://www.manufacturing-works.com/
Source: NIST, MEP Center Quick List, https://www.nist.gov/mep/centers/quick-list, provided by NIST to CRS by
email, December 18, 2020.
Congressional Research Service

35

link to page 41 The Hollings Manufacturing Extension Partnership Program

Appendix B. NIST FY2020 Center Funding
Table B-1. NIST FY2020 Center Funding
(in current dollars)
State
NIST FY2020 Funding
Alabama
2,042,802
Alaskaa
600,000
Arizona
1,190,000
Arkansas
1,161,218
California
15,100,000
Colorado
1,919,292
Connecticut
1,708,752
Delaware
700,000
Florida
4,210,215
Georgia
3,037,601
Hawaii
700,000
Idaho
815,236
Il inois
5,557,299
Indiana
3,108,481
Iowa
2,120,743
Kansas
2,130,987
Kentucky
1,200,000
Louisiana
1,400,519
Maine
1,041,522
Maryland
1,190,786
Massachusetts
2,784,770
Michigan
4,693,900
Minnesota
2,994,302
Mississippi
1,193,782
Missouri
2,489,601
Montana
724,000
Nebraska
775,000
Nevada
923,893
New Hampshire
803,176
New Jersey
3,169,074
New Mexico
1,578,978
New York
6,599,660
North Carolina
3,410,118
Congressional Research Service

36

link to page 41 link to page 41 The Hollings Manufacturing Extension Partnership Program

State
NIST FY2020 Funding
North Dakota
700,000
Ohio
5,813,083
Oklahoma
1,529,756
Oregon
2,052,008
Pennsylvania
5,851,784
Puerto Rico
818,133
Rhode Island
1,189,000
South Carolina
2,571,105
South Dakota
700,000
Tennessee
2,252,219
Texas
7,393,645
Utah
1,352,198
Vermont
700,000
Virginia
1,981,221
Washington
2,865,192
West Virginiaa
600,000
Wisconsin

3,633,398
Wyominga
600,000
Source: Email from NIST to CRS, December 18, 2020.
a. Did not accept $100,000 adjustment to base for FY2020.

Author Information

John F. Sargent Jr.

Specialist in Science and Technology Policy

Congressional Research Service

37

The Hollings Manufacturing Extension Partnership Program

Disclaimer
This document was prepared by the Congressional Research Service (CRS). CRS serves as nonpartisan
shared staff to congressional committees and Members of Congress. It operates solely at the behest of and
under the direction of Congress. Information in a CRS Report should not be relied upon for purposes other
than public understanding of information that has been provided by CRS to Members of Congress in
connection with CRS’s institutional role. CRS Reports, as a work of the United States Government, are not
subject to copyright protection in the United States. Any CRS Report may be reproduced and distributed in
its entirety without permission from CRS. However, as a CRS Report may include copyrighted images or
material from a third party, you may need to obtain the permission of the copyright holder if you wish to
copy or otherwise use copyrighted material.

Congressional Research Service
R44308 · VERSION 23 · UPDATED
38