4

Improving MII Linkages with DoD and Other Federal Sponsors for Technology Development and Transition

INTRODUCTION

The previous chapter discussed education and workforce development (EWD) topics relevant to the MIIs and considered approaches for enhancing MII working relationships with the Department of Defense’s (DoD’s) organic industrial base. In general, the committee notes that OSD ManTech has been very successful in the development and execution of an engagement strategy for EWD which has led to a variety of sponsored EWD programs at the MIIs. EWD programs have been funded by Office of the Secretary of Defense (OSD) Manufacturing Technology program (ManTech), by DoD organizations, by a number of other federal agencies, by state organizations, and by foundations. Further, there is an active discussion between the OSD ManTech EWD leadership and the MIIs to share best practices on program development and delivery and to identify opportunities. In this chapter the committee addresses improving MII linkages for technology development and transition.

In contrast to other federal agencies, DoD is not only a sponsor of MII technology development but also a customer for the resulting technologies. To meet mission needs, DoD plans and expends substantial science and technology (S&T), acquisition and sustainment budgets on projects that, in many instances, could benefit from engagement with the MIIs. The Phase 1 study recommended that the

MIIs could continue to use core funding from OSD ManTech to support high value activities defined by their members, and they could migrate to a DoD customer model for technology development and transition and DoD training activities. The vision for this customer model was that the MIIs would dramatically increase their engagement with, funding from, and impact upon the broader DoD S&T, acquisition, and sustainment communities. This model had the dual benefit of increasing the MII’s long-term financial viability as well as increasing the impact of the MIIs for the DoD. The Phase 1 report noted that this DoD customer model would require a substantial increase to the functions of the OSD sponsoring organization. The anticipated organizational requirements associated with the various business model options are shown below in Table 4.1.

In this study, the committee has noted that there are a number of individual successes in movement towards a DoD customer model for some of the MIIs. The committee observed three distinct lines of business, shown in Table 4.2.

TABLE 4.1 MII Engagement Models from Phase 1 Study on Option C as a Pathway to DoD Customer Communities

NOTE: Acronyms are defined in Appendix F.

SOURCE: National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine, 2019, Strategic Long-Term Participation by DoD in Its Manufacturing USA Institutes, Washington, DC: The National Academies Press, https://doi.org/10.17226/25417. Appears in the original Phase 1 study as Table 4.3.

TABLE 4.2 MII Technology Lines of Business

NOTE: DoD, Department of Defense; G&A; MII, Manufacturing Innovation Institute; OSD, Office of the Secretary of Defense; TRL, technology readiness level.

However, there is still the need for organizational enhancements to facilitate scale-up of the elements envisioned for a robust customer model-based MII program. These enhancements include development of a resourced plan for support of the customer model envisioned for the MIIs, as well as the identification of contractual mechanisms, organizations and practices which will facilitate better integration of the MIIs into the DoD technology development and implementation community. The committee’s perspectives on the strategies for increasing awareness and engagement of the MIIs within the DoD, for building programmatic relationships with the S&T community, for building programmatic relationships with the acquisition and sustainment organizations across the department, and for improving MII connections with other federal agencies are discussed in the following sections. Throughout this chapter, while recognizing that each MII comprises a consortium of industry and academia members, the committee’s primary focus is on the interface between the MII host organization and DoD and other federal agencies.

DOD’S MII STRATEGIC COMMUNICATIONS AND OUTREACH PLAN

As a part of the National Academies first study on DoD Engagement with its MIIs, a workshop was held to gather information from MII stakeholders on their views on how the institutes have progressed and on suggestions on the most useful attributes of the MIIs. One of the subgroups within the workshop was a group of representatives from across the DoD. An observation from the workshop discussions in this DoD group was that there was a distinct difference of opinion on the

value of the MIIs to the DoD based on whether the DoD participants were directly involved with the MIIs or not. People and organizations which were directly engaged with the MIIs were supportive of the value of the institutes and of their potential in providing the department with advanced manufacturing technologies to support emerging and future systems. However, others in the group, did not see the value proposition, or did not have direct engagement with the MIIs. The latter group was completely unaware of the institutes or were unaware of the capabilities of the institutes, or was unaware of how to engage with the institutes in technology development or EWD activities relevant to their organizations. Since there was a need for the institutes to engage with the broader DoD community for their own sustainment and also for increased impact on DoD systems, this observation was significant.

OSD ManTech has taken steps to address this issue. In 2020, they published the DoD Manufacturing Technology Program Office Manufacturing Innovation Institutes Communication and Outreach Plan. As stated in the document, a key goal is “OSD ManTech seeks to better integrate the Institutes with DoD and National research, development, acquisition, production, and sustainment infrastructures to facilitate transition of advanced manufacturing capabilities into fielded systems and programs of record.” The plan further states that the MIIs “support the full life-cycle of Defense manufacturing beginning with the requirements through to technology sustainment by directly engaging with the Military Services and the Defense Agencies.” The plan is focused on OSD ManTech’s strategic approach to increasing outreach and awareness of the MIIs internally within the DoD and federal government as well as with the public with a goal of ensuring awareness in all stakeholder groups of the value proposition of the MIIs which will lead to utilization and integration.

The plan identifies a broad set of important stakeholders for the MIIs that includes the White House, Congress, DoD organizations, and industry and outlines communication strategies relevant to each organization. The table provided in the plan is shown below as Table 4.3.

The committee found this stakeholder analysis to be a well-structured approach to identifying target audiences and communications objectives. The committee noted that the Manufacturing USA network of MIIs is an important stakeholder community that was not included. Although DoD provides ample input to this community, it merits inclusion in the plan due to the strategic relationship of DoD MIIs to the overall national network. Another useful addition would be the National Science and Technology Council Subcommittee on Advanced Manufacturing (NSTC SAM), which is a key interagency body for S&T.

This Communications Plan addresses an important component of the barriers which limit MII integration into the broader technology development infrastructure, both within DoD and with other stakeholders noted in the plan, and if

TABLE 4.3 OSD ManTech Key Stakeholder Analysis and Messaging Plan

NOTE: Acronyms are defined in Appendix F.

adequately resourced, it will improve the awareness of and contacts to the DoD MIIs by this broader community. However, the committee asserts that improved awareness is necessary but insufficient to engage this broader community in sponsorship of MII projects. Direct business development interaction between MIIs and other stakeholders will be needed for that purpose, and additional information will be needed to support those engagements. For example, in the case of DoD Acquisition and Sustainment communities (stakeholder groups 4 and 9 in the Communications Plan), iterative engagement will be needed to develop the value proposition the MII offers for meeting specific DoD needs. In addition to awareness of the Institutes overall, additional information which would be useful for OSD ManTech’s utilization goal includes detailed description of the capabilities of the MII for the communities of interest within the DoD, as well as a clear definition of the engagement mechanisms by which DoD groups can contract with the MIIs for projects. In the case of the DoD MIIs, this is complicated by the variety of contracting mechanisms which are used within the set of MII organizations. Fortunately, there are some lessons learned from other DoD-sponsored organizations which provide some useful insights. As has been discussed in the interim report, the 5-year evaluation framework selected for the review of the MIIs is based on a similar approach used in the periodic review of the DoD’s university affiliated research centers (UARCs). These organizations have been in existence for approximately 25 years. Shortly after their initiation, it became clear that the broader DoD community would benefit from a better understanding of the capabilities and areas of expertise available at the UARCs, tasking which would be appropriate to give to UARCs, and the contractual mechanisms for working with these organizations. In the Engagement Guide, DoD UARCs published by the OSD Studies and FFRDC Management Office in 2013,¹ there are short, focused descriptions of: the DoD organizations and points of contact responsible for management of the UARCs, the appropriate tasking for UARCs, the protocols for engagement with the UARCs, and a synopsis of the essential engineering capabilities available at the individual UARC organizations. The Engagement Guide² has been updated periodically as the number of UARC organizations have increased. This document has been very useful in supporting awareness and engagement of the DoD UARC organizations with the broader DoD community.

___________________

¹ Department of Defense (DoD), “Engagement Guide,” University Affiliated Research Centers (UARCs), April 2013.

² Ibid.

ENGAGEMENT WITH OSD MANTECH AND THE DOD S&T COMMUNITY

Current Linkages for Road Mapping and Core-funded Technology Projects

The Phase 1 report found that technology road mapping and cost-shared core technology projects were vital elements of MII operations, delivering value to both industry and government. The report recommended continued support of these activities, which DoD has provided through OSD ManTech core funding.

Each MII has a process for engaging members and DoD participants in road mapping workshops. Those workshops and roadmaps are influential in the MII developing project calls for core technology development projects. The MII host organization, MII members on the Technical Advisory Committee, the government program manager (PM), and government guests from other services and organizations provide input in the road-mapping sessions. In addition, workshops, program reviews, bidders conferences, facility open-houses, and EWD sessions provide opportunities for socialization of the MII goals and thrusts and an opportunity for feedback and ecosystem growth. Some MII hosts, as in the case of America Makes with National Center For Defense Manufacturing and Machining (NCDMM), have strong understanding of transition processes past technology readiness level (TRL)/manufacturing readiness level (MRL) 4-7 and have the needed connections to invite DoD Acquisition and Sustainment inputs to road mapping activities. All MIIs need to develop similar understanding of DoD customers and build their own network of contacts.

Core technology project calls are developed in planning workshops and road-mapping sessions which occur both on a scheduled basis and also via focused topical sessions. America Makes, for example, has a theme of “convene, coordinate, catalyze” which includes attention to the voice of customer in a system engineering approach for precompetitive efforts which are communicated broadly so that industry and defense stakeholders are able to show how and where technology needs fit on the roadmap, with reference to DoD applications. Other roadmaps may have very limited visibility of DoD application needs. DoD S&T sponsors beyond ManTech may participate in the sessions.

Based on responses to the project call from member companies/teams, projects are selected and core funding is allocated by the MII technical board. Participation in the project is limited to MII members and subcontractors. Intellectual property (IP) created during the project is shared among MII members in accordance with membership agreement rules for each tier of membership, or in some cases, rules tailored to a specific project. The PM and OSD ManTech monitor core project topics and progress. This information is generally available to DoD S&T, acquisition and

sustainment communities, but active engagement with those communities depends heavily on outreach and personal contacts of the MII host organization and the MII government PM. These contacts tend to be concentrated within the PM’s Service, the ManTech community and the S&T community.

The nine DoD-sponsored MIIs differ greatly in the degree of technology (and technology maturity) similarity with the ManTech community and the Joint Defense Manufacturing Technology Panel (JDMTP). LIFT, America Makes, MxD, and Advanced Robotics Manufacturing (ARM) Robotics work in very similar fields as JDMTP subpanels for metals and manufacturing enterprise systems. NextFlex, Advanced Functional Fabrics of America, and American Institute for Manufacturing Photonics have a more general common technology interest with the electronics subpanel. BioFab USA and BioMADE are not affiliated with a JDMTP subpanel. Since OSD ManTech is responsible for MII core funding, the JDMTP ties are currently focused more on awareness and coordination than on connections with the organizations represented by JDMTP. There are examples of engagements between MIIs and the JDMTP and ManTech community which will increase potential collaborations in the future. JDMTP has held technology meetings on-site at MII locations, for instance at LIFT, which included presentations on LIFT capabilities and a facility tour. Similar meetings with other MIIs are expected in the future. The organizations participate in annual briefings to Congress, where JDMTP and MII PMs both provide briefings to congress on their efforts. Also, there are designated sessions for MIIs at the annual Defense Manufacturing Conference Defense Manufacturing Conference at which the MIIs highlight capabilities, and technology and programmatic successes of the organizations to the ManTech community.

In some instances, MII engagement for EWD projects has also opened up DoD linkages for technology development. For example, the ARM Robotics’ interaction with Warner Robins Air Logistics Center (WR ALC) on EWD needs opened more communications on technical problems/solutions that can affect ARM’s roadmaps. The JROBOT group (discussed in Chapter 3) developed with ARM a list of technology projects which are now in final design reviews with demonstrations planned in a few months.³ These ARM and WR ALC collaborations have led to tangible benefits on the order of $5 million at WR ALC over the past 2 years.⁴ This joint working group activity may serve as a model, or “best practice,” that could be expanded, and/or replicated, to address other MII technology areas. DoD could similarly build on the Joint Additive Manufacturing Working Group (JAMWG).⁵ The America Makes MII has already benefited from interactions with JAMWG.

___________________

³ Interview with Greg Hudas, DoD Program Manager, Advanced Robotics for Manufacturing.

⁴ Interview with Shane Groves, Chief Robotics Engineer, Warner Robins ALC.

⁵ Defense Innovation Marketplace webpage, https://defenseinnovationmarketplace.dtic.mil/man-tech-jamxg, accessed June 18, 20201.

In sum, the committee found many examples of MII linkages that inform road mapping and core technology projects. The process has generally worked well for the core funded activities that dominated the startup phase of the MIIs. These linkages offer a starting point for engaging sponsors of technology projects beyond the OSD ManTech funded core, but can depend heavily on personal contacts and existing communities that do not scale.

Current Linkages to DoD S&T Sponsors beyond Core Funding

The MIIs were established as partnerships to focus on pre-competitive TRL/MRL 4-7 technology development, with contracts, organizations and practices optimized for this purpose. This focus is not attractive to DoD acquisition and sustainment programs which generally need mature technologies. The focus has, however, allowed the MIIs to attract DoD S&T sponsored projects in addition to core projects.

These “directed” projects have stemmed from a variety of types of engagements between individual MIIs and DoD S&T groups. For instance, projects have developed based on the MII government PM’s network within the S&T community. There are examples of engagements which have grown from initial, directed projects at the MII to a broader use of the MII by Service S&T organizations in sponsoring their own project calls through the MII. These connections have been very useful in enhancing MII engagements within the DoD, but have often been restricted to a particular Service where the PM’s connections are strongest. S&T community awareness of the capabilities of the MIIs beyond those used in a specific project is limited.

Connections with these S&T sponsors have arisen through ad hoc arrangements rather than scalable, repeatable processes. Some MIIs have engaged with government working groups (such as JROBOT) closely related to the technology field of the institute. In these cases, there has been active participation by the S&T groups in the development of MII technology roadmaps. Some of these interactions have led to directed technology maturation projects from the S&T organizations. Also, in some cases, MIIs have used their core funded projects to address the technology gaps identified by the DoD S&T organizations. Finally, there are examples of MII leadership developing directed projects based on their personal relationships with DoD S&T groups.

One benefit of these interactions is that most of the S&T sponsoring organizations have their own connections to DoD acquisition and sustainment community needs, and may look to the MIIs to help advance MRLs to make technologies of interest ready for transition or commercialization. Service ManTech programs have a similar set of connections to user communities and a focus on advancing

MRLs, but few, if any, externally directed MII projects have been funded by Service ManTech programs.

Directed projects executed through the MII core cooperative agreement (CA), or technology investment agreement (TIA) are subject to the membership rules and IP protocols of the agreement. This has been an impediment for industry member participation in cases where cost share is mandatory and the project is aimed at a defense need rather than a commercial need. Some directed technology projects have been executed using other transaction agreements (OTAs) separate from the base MII agreement to gain flexibility and attract participants.

The challenge for MIIs is to build on the successful examples to date and expand engagement with potential S&T sponsors.

Opportunities for Enhancing MII Engagement with the DoD S&T Community

To expand the engagement between the DoD MIIs and the DoD S&T community it is necessary to build and staff a more systematic engagement process. The DoD S&T community is organized in 17 Reliance 21 communities of interest (COIs).⁶ OSD’s Communications and Outreach Plan can provide general awareness of the MIIs for these COIs, and the MII Engagement Plan discussed above could further define the contractual mechanisms, key points of contact, and organizational principles of the MIIs. Beyond awareness, however, direct engagement by the MIIs will be needed. A good starting point would be for the OSD ManTech staff, with help from the JDMC, to identify points of contact in the COIs and facilitate initial meetings with MIIs where mutual interests are identified. The JDMC, which has a technology coordination mission within the department, can also perform a pivotal role in supporting awareness and engagement between the MIIs and all of the technology development components in the department, including S&T groups. A key message is that for S&T technologies to transition, MRLs will have to advance along with TRLs. Each MII needs to demonstrate and communicate capabilities to be the most effective partner to S&T sponsors for advancing MRLs. Development of an OSD ManTech strategy for engagement could solidify this important transition connection between the MIIs and the S&T community. As a component of the strategy, the development of a guide which describes the lessons learned and best practices from the successful engagement approaches would support future growth of MII-S&T organization collaborations.

___________________

⁶ Defense Innovation Marketplace, “Reliance 21—DoD Communities of Interest,” https://defenseinnovationmarketplace.dtic.mil/communities-of-interest.

MII LINKAGES WITH DOD ACQUISITION AND SUSTAINMENT COMMUNITIES FOR TECHNOLOGY TRANSITION

The ultimate benefit to DoD and the nation of MII technology development is the transition of successful results to operational use in commercial and/or defense settings. The DoD acquisition and sustainment communities, and the dual use industrial base that supports them, need mature technologies. As technologies mature, they become more application specific and proprietary, with competitive development building on earlier results. Although the MIIs are chartered for TRL/MRL 4-7 work, the Table 4.4 descriptions of MRL 6 and 7 imply a focus on a product (prototype system, subsystem or component) and represent a significant change from earlier stages of development. The industry team appropriate for transition projects is likely to include additional members beyond those who performed earlier stage development. Integration of multiple technologies, possibly from multiple MIIs, may be the norm in transition projects. Contractual provisions need to respect MII background IP and have transition-appropriate provisions for transition project foreground IP. To attract users, contracting will have to be easy to use and able to transition to production fast enough to hit technology insertion windows and avoid barriers to non-traditional defense contractors. For all of these reasons, the committee looked at transition projects as a separate line of business for MIIs, distinct from core and S&T-sponsored development projects.

TABLE 4.4 Manufacturing Readiness Levels (MRLs)

SOURCE: Manufacturing Readiness Level (MRL) Deskbook, Version 2.0, May, 2011, prepared by the OSD Manufacturing Technology Program in collaboration with the Joint Service/Industry MRL Working Group, https://www.dodmrl.com/MRL_Deskbook_V2.pdf.

Current Technology Transition Linkages

A key operating tenet of the DoD MIIs is “Industrially relevant, DoD-oriented R&D to ‘Bridge the Gap’ [TRL/MRL 4-7].”⁷ The MII agreements with DoD and their internal membership agreements are configured for pre-competitive research and projects sponsored by OSD ManTech and the DoD S&T community. As shown in Table 4.5 below, this is just one phase in an end-to-end process.

The examples to date of MII technology transitions to DoD acquisition programs or sustainment activities have found flexible ways to use existing MII contractual agreements, or in some cases, have established separate OTAs for prototype projects. These have been ad hoc efforts. The committee has observed:

• MII government PM networking with DoD acquisition and sustainment programs such as seen with NextFlex and PEO Soldier or BioFAB, with the Veterans Administration.
• The MII lead organization networking with DoD acquisition and sustainment programs, as with NCDMM for America Makes, which is further supplemented by the ties created with the JAMWG.

TABLE 4.5 End-to-End Technology Process

NOTE: Acronyms defined in Appendix F.

___________________

⁷ Chart from “DoD MII Long Term Strategy and 5-year Assessment Process” briefing (or its source document).

• Industry member transition such as those communicated through Lockheed Martin to its government program counterparts and Raytheon for digital thread activity.
• Government/technical community working groups—ARM Robotics—tie to JROBOT and LIFT—Army contracting to facilitate service to the ground vehicle community.

The committee also observed that collaboration across MIIs, regardless of sponsoring agency—such as MxD and AIM Robotics—is difficult due to different membership, different intellectual property provisions, and different contracting arrangements. However, providing a path to complete solutions, even if it means teaming outside of a particular MII with other MIIs or other resources altogether, will be attractive to TRL/MRL 4-7 sponsors who are measured by successful transitions into products, be it commercial or defense applications. Simpler, faster means are needed for bringing new participants onto teams. When one considers the needs of maturation beyond TRL/MRL 7, to get technology into a useful form for implementation to a DoD program, the situation is even more difficult. Maturation at MRL 7 and beyond would require MII or MII member full-scale facilities for manufacturing hardening of technologies, similar to approaches used in the United Kingdom with the University of Sheffield, its related Advanced Manufacturing Research Center, and the UK Catapult initiative.⁸

As the MIIs move beyond their startup period and start to deliver transition-ready outputs, a scalable and repeatable process is needed to engage acquisition and sustainment sponsors.

Contracting

The MIIs have been contracted using a variety of mechanisms that include CAs, TIAs, and OTAs. As shown in Figure 4.1,⁹ the basic PPP agreements with the MIIs have been assistance instruments for public purpose. Projects beyond core funding have sometimes been contracted using OTs for the direct benefit of the DoD sponsor.

DoD currently has in place CAs with five of the MIIs and TIAs with four MIIs. In all cases, these assistance instruments were deemed appropriate for the core mission of the MIIs. The selection of the assistance mechanism was at the discretion of the contracting agency. While each of these mechanisms has strengths, the need to negotiate with each unique MII mechanism and terms separately has been a source of frustration among members involved with multiple institutes. Additionally, as

___________________

⁸ Discussion with Ben Morgan, Advanced Manufacturing Research Centre, May 28, 2021.

⁹ Steve Luckowski email of June 3, 2021.

the committee compared and contrasted the various business models being used across the MII network, the funding mechanism(s) imposed on the individual MII impacted the ability of the institute to quickly start up, the type of work it could execute, and the ability to engage organizations outside the sponsoring organization.

MIIs operating under CAs have been able to accept DoD directed projects with relative ease. For example, America Makes has entered a third CA and has had good success in accepting externally sponsored technology projects since, for public purpose, there is no cost share requirement. AIM Photonics operates under a CA with a 1:1 cost match requirement. The cost match requirement has not been an issue in their technology ecosystem. They are planning to use a CA for their second agreement, although membership levels and benefits will be different than in the first agreement. NextFlex also has no issues with use of a CA for public purpose.

The committee found the use of TIAs to be more restrictive for use by the institutes due to mandatory cost share provisions. While a TIA can be executed as part of a CA or OTA, with the institutes it was implemented as part of a CA since the

government did not intend to deviate from Bayh-Dohl Act. The use of a TIA is chosen when it has been determined that the use of other instruments and mechanisms would hinder participation from large segments of the technology and industrial base or to encourage new business practices. The benefit of the TIA is the flexibility it provides in terms of IP protections but it does require 50 percent cost as a matter of DoD policy and the recipient cannot receive fee or profit. Since some institutes have an IP policy that applies to the entire MII (rather than by MII project), they were unable to take advantage of the benefit of a TIA while being forced to enforce a 50 percent cost share. An exception is AFFOA, where the TIA IP provisions are defined by project rather than at the MII-wide level. AFFOA found using the TIA during the initial funding of the institutes to be a benefit. As funding sources and purposes are expanded for the institutes, the cost share provisions of the TIA can prove troublesome, especially when the fledging technology development does not yet have a strong enough business case to support the investment by industry. For example, ARM Robotics experienced the need for another contractual agreement so they could work prototypes.

MxD started as with a CA and moved to a TIA for their second agreement for added flexibility in technology negotiation. However, MxD plans to return to a CA in the future. The rigid 1:1 cost share of the TIA is not palatable, especially for government directed work that primarily benefits the government. Also, the TIA requires that every project be approved by the Agreements Officer, which impacts responsiveness. In addition to the TIA for core funding, MxD has also had programs under OTAs, separate contracts, and grants for education and workforce development.

Several of the institutes were able to secure OTAs for directed technology projects for DoD customers. The OTAs provide maximum flexibility for the institutes to work with their membership and the federal government. The OTA provided speed and flexibility that allowed the institute to avoid barriers such as the cost accounting systems and IP requirements that other agreements require and which inhibit industry participation. In 2020, LIFT signed a 5-year OTA with U.S. Army (DEVCOM) Ground Vehicle Systems Center.¹⁰ The agreement provides a mechanism for prompt engagement in programs between the Army and LIFT. The OTAs also offered greater flexibility concerning cost share so long as non-traditional contracts did a significant portion of the development, as authorized by Section 2371 of Title 10 US Code. According to Richard Dunn, an OTA expert, “The intent behind the enactment of Section 2371 was to spur dual-use research and development. The idea was to create an attractive way for companies to do business with the depart-

___________________

¹⁰ K. Laing, 2020, “Detroit-Based LIFT Signs 5-Year Technology Agreement with U.S. Army,” The Detroit News, July 14, https://www.detroitnews.com/story/business/2020/07/14/detroit-based-liftsigns-technology-agreement-united-states-army/5437896002.

ment while retaining the characteristics of innovative commercial companies.”¹¹ This intent is well aligned with the purpose of the MIIs. OTAs may be established for an individual project or topic area, or may be established with a consortium. A strong argument has been made that OTAs are a more appropriate contractual instrument for DoD directed R&D than FAR contracts or assistance instruments.¹²

Best Practices for Transition Engagement

To inform the committee’s findings and recommendations on improving DoD MII linkages for technology transition the committee identified transition-oriented best practices in Service ManTech programs, the Metals Affordability Initiative, SBIR, OTA consortia, and the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) Entrepreneur in Residence programs.

Best Practices 1. Service ManTech Practices for Transition

The Manufacturing Technology programs in OSD, the Services and defense agencies share a number of mission goals with the DoD MIIs. DoD Directive 4200.15, “Manufacturing Technology (ManTech) Program”¹³ states that ManTech investments should:

• Aid in the economical and timely acquisition and sustainment of weapon systems and components
• Ensure that advanced manufacturing processes, techniques, and equipment are available for reducing DoD materiel acquisition, maintenance, and repair costs
• Advance the maturity of manufacturing processes to bridge the gap from research and development advances to full-scale production
• Promote capital investment and industrial innovation in new plants and equipment by reducing the cost and risk of advancing and applying new and improved manufacturing technology
• Ensure that manufacturing technologies used to produce DoD materiel are consistent with safety and environmental considerations and energy conservation objectives

___________________

¹¹ R.L. Dunn, 2017, “Other Transactions Contracts: Poorly Understood, Little Used,” National Defense, May 15, https://www.nationaldefensemagazine.org/articles/2017/5/15/other-transactionscontracts-poorly-understood-little-used.

¹² See The Government Contractor, Volume 59, No. 25, July 12, 2017, https://secureservercdn.net/198.71.233.31/n4w.34c.myftpupload.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/07/TGC59-25.pdf.

¹³ DoD, DoD 4200.15, September 2018, https://www.esd.whs.mil/Portals/54/Documents/DD/issuances/dodd/420015p.pdf?ver=2018-10-23-082506-347.

• Provide for the dissemination of program results throughout the industrial base
• Sustain and enhance the skills and capabilities of the manufacturing workforce and promote high levels of worker education and training
• Meet other national defense needs with investments directed toward areas of greatest need and potential benefit

The ManTech community has developed metrics for accomplishment of these objectives. Where applicable, these metrics were taken into account in the recommended MII metrics addressed in the interim report.

There are differences among the DoD ManTech programs in the Services, Agencies, and at OSD, which derive from unique organizational needs. For example, the Navy’s ManTech program has had a traditional focus on technology transition to Navy acquisition and sustainment programs.¹⁴ The Navy ManTech program differs from the other Services in that it relies on seven Centers of Excellence (COEs) to perform technology development.¹⁵ These COEs have some similarities to the MIIs, but are chartered to bring manufacturing technologies to a higher level of maturity when needed for an acquisition or sustainment program. Office of Naval Research (ONR) has established working relationships with the technology development leads in key DoN platform programs. ONR works with these Navy PM’s, with relevant platform OEMs, and with the ManTech CoE’s to develop their annual program portfolio of projects. Each COE has a task order contract for R&D that generally does not require cost share, allows project level teaming between large and small companies, allows work beyond TRL/MRL 7, and has a path to transition to a prime contractor, procurement office or sustainment activity. Navy ManTech projects have a technology transition agreement which is signed by the platform PMs which represents a commitment by the PMs to transition and implement successful ManTech programs. ManTech funds the proof-of-concept work required to reduce the risk of implementation of a new technology and then the PM agrees to fund the implementation-at-scale of the new technology. Progress on projects focused on Navy platform technology issues is reviewed regularly with the program PMs as is the technology transition agreement. The result has been a long and growing list of success stories,¹⁶ including major affordability improvements and life cycle cost savings for their acquisition program partners. Significantly, the cost savings

___________________

¹⁴ J. Carney, 2019, “Navy ManTech Program,” Keynote Address for the 2019 National Shipbuilding Research Program All Panel Meeting, March 12, https://www.nsrp.org.

¹⁵ DoD ManTech program webpage, https://www.dodmantech.com/ManTechPrograms/Navy.

¹⁶ Office of Naval Research webpage, https://www.onr.navy.mil/en/work-with-us/navy-mantech/navy-mantech-achievements.

estimates are vetted by the Navy program PM’s. Other Service ManTech programs have similar acquisition and sustainment relationships and similar success stories.

The potential lesson for MIIs is that help from Service and ManTech organizations, or their joint coordination body, the JDMTP, can be instrumental in establishing partnerships with DoD acquisition and sustainment program and opening avenues for technology transition. For example, each Manufacturing Technology Program project has an implementation plan which is periodically reviewed with prospective technology users.¹⁷ While not every MII project needs such an implementation plan, understanding implementation requirements and communicating with prospective users/customers is critical for transition projects. MIIs have the opportunity to work with JDMTP subpanels (as some MIIs have) and benefit from ManTech best practices, including:

• Strategy driven by needs of key platforms, with a smaller set-aside for technology push.
• Explicit Technology Transition Plan, reviewed annually, with appropriate stakeholders engaged.
• Project selection based on the best impact
• MII as a center of excellence for the focus of the project work, and serving as a matchmaker for small, mid, large, and OEM industrial entities, appropriate government technology development sponsors and ultimate technology transition sponsors.

Best Practices 2. Metals Affordability Initiative

The Metals Affordability Initiative (MAI), a public-private partnership between the Air Force and the aerospace metals supply chain, has led to over 103 insertions into defense systems with a return on investment of over $1.86 billion (military $1,175 million, dual-used $690 million) since its inception in 1999.¹⁸ Military insertions have included AF, Army, Navy, NASA, and multi-service, including Marines and Coast Guard as well. In addition to AFRL, DLA and NASA have been engaged with MAI programs. Other stakeholders include USAF Sustainment Center and USAF Life Cycle Management Center.

For example, in the area of additive manufacturing maturation, four technical projects ranging from 2 to 8 industry partners each, representing the entire domestic aerospace specialty metal supply chain, were conducted to reduce flaws in rapidly built components with potential savings return of investment in the 18:1

___________________

¹⁷ Manufacturing Technology Program, Title 10 USC 2521, October 30, 2000.

¹⁸ FY20 MAI Impact Report_DistributionA.pdf, Metals Affordability Initiative, FY20 Achievements, FY21 Outlook, FY 22 Needs.

to 63:1 range. In the area of titanium alloy dwell fatigue modeling, four technical projects to reduce risks in titanium compressor fan failures and decrease total component life cost via accurate life prediction models, with six to nine industry partners each (again from across the entire supply chain), had potential savings of $290 million over the 10-year period after implementation.

Success is driven by the active partnership between the industrial members and AFRL. There is an agreement-style contracting vehicle that enables open partnership and sharing of data while protecting industrial intellectual property. Cost share for projects is not competitive; it is a benefit analysis for each company to determine whether than would like to participate in a particular proposal. There are no fees to join MAI, industrial members are only required to provide cost share when they choose to participate on a particular technical project. MAI has been governed by three contracts since its inception. Their first novel agreement allowed for pre-competitive partnership supported by congressional funding. The second added contractual ability to provide a mechanism for “Air Force-Driven” projects which are directly aligned with U.S. Air Force 2030 S&T Study¹⁹ Transformational Strategic Capabilities, but still under the MAI Agreement structure to promote cross-industrial base working groups. The third provided continual improvement in the proposal solicitation process and resulted in a portfolio directly aligned with AFRL roadmaps, while still respecting industrial priorities.

The best practices of the MAI program offer a path for the MIIs and DoD sponsors to flexibly handle both cross-industry collaborative projects and DoD-directed projects while protecting industry competitive positions.

Best Practices 3. SBIR Practices for Transition

SBIR programs throughout DoD award contracts for Phase I feasibility studies and Phase II R&D demonstrations. Phase III commercialization contracts are not funded by SBIR, but rather by DoD acquisition or sustainment programs. The Navy SBIR program has a high rate of Phase III transitions,²⁰ and hence was chosen by the committee to discuss transition practices.²¹ Navy’s success is largely due to practices in SBIR topic selection, explicitly asking “what if Phase II succeeds,” and assisting small firms in linkages for Phase III transitions.

___________________

¹⁹ U.S. Air Force, 2019, Science and Technology Strategy: Strengthening USAF Science and Technology for 2030 an Beyond, April, https://www.af.mil/Portals/1/documents/2019%20SAF%20story%20attachments/Air%20Force%20Science%20and%20Technology%20Strategy.pdf.

²⁰ Navy SBIR program successes can be found at https://www.navysbir.com/success, accessed June 22, 2021.

²¹ Reference to May 25 meeting with Robert Smith, Navy SBIR Program Director.

Rather than using an S&T organization to define the topics for SBIR competitions, Navy’s practice is to give the acquisition programs which were “taxed” for SBIR first choice on those projects that most impact their needs. This creates an incentive for large programs to define relevant topics, have a stake in SBIR project success, and plan for funding of Phase III if Phase II is successful. Phase I/II awards consider from the beginning what will happen if the concept works. Another incentive is that the Phase I/II competition fulfills competition requirements and can justify sole source Phase III awards. Since each SBIR topic in a competition has a technical point of contact with whom bidders can interact, the Phase I/II bidders have a direct opportunity to understand Navy acquisition and sustainment needs and to build relationships for future transition. Navy targets 10 percent of SBIR funds for sustainment, recognizing he sustainment community needs more mature technology. The project might use or adapt commercial equipment or approaches to address DoD sustainment needs (e.g. use of drones for inspection shipboard, rather than having a person climb a mast). Navy uses a single contracting office at Lakehurst NJ for Phase I and II SBIR awards, with a standard contracting template and economy of scale that speeds the award process (30-90 days). Transition to Phase III is aided by Navy’s Phase III Transition Guidebook²² for government PMs (Air force has a similar guide). Industry is aided by the Navy SBIR/STTR Transition Program (STP),²³ which provides mentoring, leads for transition engagement, connections to regional technology ecosystems and sources of capital, a Virtual Transition Marketplace and an annual Navy Forum for Transition. The committee did not review other Service SBIR programs, but many transition-oriented tools (such as handbooks and training materials for doing business with DoD) and DoD networking events have been successful over the history of the SBIR program, with great benefits to DoD.²⁴ The DoD MII program has an opportunity to adopt these or similar practices to improve contracting and encourage transition of successful MII technology development results.

Best Practices 4. Use of OTAs and OT Consortia

The primary purpose of OTs is to attract non-traditional performers—that is, innovative technology companies that usually avoid federal government contracts. DoD has authority for (1) research OTs, (2) prototype OTs, and (3) production OTs. These are authorized by Title 10 of the United States Code, Section 2371, Section

___________________

²² Department of the Navy, Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR) and Small Business Technology Transfer (STTR) Phase III Guidebook, https://www.navysbir.com/docs/DON-SBIR_STTR_PhaseIII_Guidebook_V2-2020.pdf.

²³ The Navy STP (SBIR/STTR Transition Program) webpage, https://navystp.com/.

²⁴ National Research Council, 2014, SBIR at the Department of Defense, The National Academies Press, Washington, DC.

2371b, and Section 2371b(f), respectively. These three types of OTs represent three stages of initial research, development of a prototype, and eventual production.²⁵

DoD use of OTAs has grown rapidly in recent years: obligations increased from $0.76 billion to $16.18 billion between fiscal year (FY) 2015 and FY2020, with 96 percent awarded to teams with significant non-traditional participation.²⁶ The majority of that funding has been awarded through OT consortia.

The typical OT consortium model has both non-traditional and traditional defense company members and a consortium manager who administers all nontechnical functions. Membership fees are kept low to reduce barriers to entry. Government and industry collaboration is facilitated to define needs and solution concepts, followed by a project call and government selection of competitively solicited projects. For prototype projects, cost share is not required if a significant amount of work is performed by non-traditional team members. This is a powerful incentive for defense companies to team with non-traditional companies. Transition to limited production using an OTA can proceed without re-competition if the prototype OT was competitively awarded. This is a powerful incentive for DoD sponsors to use OTs and has the potential to greatly speed transition of successful prototypes. The facilitation provided by the consortium manager may include mentoring of small companies, liaising between government and industry, maximizing teaming and working group opportunities, streamlined contracting actions and active engagement to recruit and retain non-traditional members.²⁷ The OT consortium model had been effective in attracting DoD sponsors and industry participants on a scale orders of magnitude larger than the MII model. Since each MII is a consortium, adding OT contractual interfaces, practices and incentives to MIIs individually or collectively may offer a way to expand engagement with sponsors in acquisition and sustainment communities. Of particular importance for engaging the sustainment community, the DoD OT Guide²⁸ outlines conditions under which it may be appropriate to use Operations and Maintenance appropriations for projects under an OTA.

___________________

²⁵ Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency, “What Are OTs?” https://acquisitioninnovation.darpa.mil/what-are-ots.

²⁶ R. McCormick, 2012, “Trends in Department of Defense Other Transaction Authority Usage: A Preliminary Look,” Proceedings of the 18th Acquisition Research Symposium, https://dair.nps.edu/handle/123456789/4348.

²⁷ OT Consortium Manager, presentation to the committee, February 9, 2021.

²⁸ DoD, 2018, Other Transactions Guide, Version 1.0, Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition and Sustainment, November, https://www.dau.edu/guidebooks/Shared%20Documents/Other%20Transactions%20(OT)%20Guide.pdf.

Best Practices 5. Transition Accelerators

DARPA’s Embedded Entrepreneurship Initiative (EEI) is designed to provide seed funding, mentorship, and investor and corporate connections for DARPA researchers to aid in commercialization. DARPA has partnered with IQT Emerge, a new effort within In-Q-Tel (IQT), to provide:

1. An average of $250,000 in non-dilutive funding to hire a seasoned entrepreneur or business executive for 1 to 2 years with the goal of developing a robust go-to-market strategy for both defense and commercial markets
2. Dedicated commercialization mentors with extensive private sector experience
3. Engagement with DARPA’s private sector Transition Working Group composed of top-tier U.S. investors and corporations key to scaling and supply chain development

EEI has helped more than 30 pre-seed stage research teams raise over $100 million in U.S. investment, spin out a dozen new companies, establish numerous joint development agreements with corporate partners, and commission multiple manufacturing facilities, with notable success in supporting biotechnology teams which needed commercial backing.

The opportunity for MIIs and their sponsors is to facilitate connections between MII members who need assistance with transition to commercial manufacturing and DoD programs such as DARPA’s EEI or DoD’s Trusted Capital program.²⁹

Opportunities for Improving Transition and Commercialization

The best practices discussed above suggest that improving MII technology transition will require more than ad hoc adaptation of mechanisms designed for precompetitive TRL/MRL 4-7 projects. As recommended in the Phase 1 study, adding processes and tools for transition will necessitate dedicated staff and effort, and changes in both DoD and MII processes to facilitate engagement with acquisition and sustainment communities. On the government side, a new role of “transition team” could be defined to go beyond the personal contacts of the MII’s DoD PM, transition oriented contracting mechanisms could be established, and transition guides similar to SBIR guides could be developed. On the MII side, more aggressive outreach could focus on bringing DoD acquisition and sustainment needs into the technology road mapping and project selections process, better mechanisms for integration of solutions across MIIs could be developed, and provisions for

___________________

²⁹ DoD Trusted Capital program, https://www.acq.osd.mil/tc/.

competitive R&D and proprietary market interests could be accommodated. Opportunities for improvement exist in four areas:

1. Dedicated personnel for active engagement with acquisition and sustainment programs to include their needs in technology development and gain their commitment to transition of successful results, similar to Navy and other DoD ManTech practices. The committee believe a team of 4-6 transition facilitators could work across all the MII PMs and the various Service acquisition and sustainment communities. The connections would be provided through the JDMTP, with additional assistance from JDMC when needed (e.g. where MII topics do not overlap with JDMTP subpanels, such as bio-related connections). If a DoD team facilitates initial contacts, MIIs need to follow through with engagements (including members) to iterate with potential DoD sponsors on needs and solution concepts that are mature enough for transition projects.
2. MII assistance to non-traditional members to: understand DoD transition needs and team with system integrators and others beyond the original development team, similar to the practices of OT consortium managers; benefit from MEP, Procurement Technical Assistance Centers and other ecosystem programs, similar to SBIR and Navy STP practices; and open paths to commercialization with access to capital and business acumen, similar to the DARPA EEI and SBIR assistance programs. Some MIIs provide such assistance to varying degrees today, but all have the opportunity to build on the best practices discussed above.
3. DoD facilitation of MII relationships with other ecosystem programs where needed. OSD ManTech has the opportunity to work with other DoD programs, such as the Defense Manufacturing Community Support Program,³⁰ to strengthen the national security industrial base.
4. Transition-friendly contracting mechanisms to supplement current precompetitive assistance agreements with DoD. DoD directed projects are procurements that can be implemented using OTAs, although federal acquisition regulation (FAR) contracts could also be considered. Adding new contracting vehicles can also open opportunities for MIIs to add membership arrangements to attract transition participants. The committee identified several alternatives for DoD to consider:
   1. Award OTAs at the project or topic level, similar to the current Wearable Sensors project which has competitively awarded OTAs to AFFOA, NextFlex, and MxD.

___________________

³⁰ The Defense Manufacturing Community Support Program is authorized by Section 846 of Public Law 115-232, which includes a provision requiring engagement of MIIs.

1. 2. Award OTAs (or contracts) at the MII level as an “umbrella” to allow multiple transition projects, with needed flexibility on cost share and other barriers to transition projects.
   3. Multi-award OTAs or contracts at the MII level through a single contracting office to gain consistency of terms and economy of scale (similar to Navy SBIR contracting). Transition projects would be handled as task orders.
   4. Form a new OTA consortium for transition of MII-matured technologies, with all MII members automatically included, and with MII host organizations having board seats. The consortium manager could be selected by the government or by the consortium board. Background IP for transition projects would follow current MII unique licensing practices while foreground IP would be handled per the transition project terms. As in the case of other OT consortia, low fees and business opportunities could attract new members in addition to the MII members. The OTA authority for direct transition to production (if the project is competitively awarded) could be an incentive for DoD program offices.

Table 4.6 provides an initial assessment of strengths and weaknesses of these alternatives. The committee considers all to be viable, and sees particular merit in deeper DoD consideration of Alternative (d).

MII LINKAGES TO OTHER FEDERAL AGENCIES

Current Linkages

Several examples exist of DoD MIIs engaging with federal agencies other than the DoD and the National Laboratories to support technology development, both in the TRL/MRL 4-7 range and in earlier stage research, and for ecosystem development. Overall, these examples are limited when compared to the opportunity and its potential benefit, and ad-hoc lacking formalization/follow-through.

One recent example of TRL/MRL 4-7 technology development is an effort by ARM, funded by NIST, to build collaborative robots to automate COVID testing, leading to a 300 percent increase in lab throughput in 5 months from robotic work cell conception to utilization.³¹ An example of early stage research is the use of the AIM Photonics foundry by NSF-sponsored researchers to fabricate custom pho-

___________________

³¹ Manufacturing USA, 2021, Rapid Response to COVID-19: Advanced Manufacturing Leadership to Support National Resiliency, NIST Office of Advanced Manufacturing, Department of Defense Manufacturing Technology Program Office, https://nvlpubs.nist.gov/nistpubs/ams/NIST.AMS.600-7.pdf.

TABLE 4.6 Alternatives for MII Contracting for Transition Project

tonic integrated circuits. Although this is a relatively rare example of a successful collaboration with another federal agency, the program lacked sufficient formalization such that this collaboration lapsed for a period of time until its absence was noticed by federal PMs and the program was re-started. Such early stage research can benefit both the DoD MIIs and the researchers, and is likely an opportunity for all DoD MIIs. First, these early-stage investigations may eventually mature to TRL 4 and be fed into an MII, so making these connections early and often will likely improve the efficacy of this eventual hand-off. Second, this effort is evidence of the unique, cross-cutting, and valuable “infrastructure” built by the DoD MIIs—which may come in the form of physical equipment, digital tools and platforms, etc. There is an opportunity to build on and improve this success—for example, other DoD MIIs with unique shared infrastructure might develop a similar partnerships with NSF for access to critical tools. NSF has identified Program Managers to act as liaisons for each of the MIIs to streamline this linkage. Further, NSF may stand up a new directorate focused on technology,³² which further increases the relevancy of MII/NSF engagement.

For ecosystem development, one example is where the DoD MIIs engaged the NIST MEP Centers to connect with and upskill small manufacturers. As described in Chapter 2, MEP Center staff were embedded in the MIIs from 2016 until 2020 to help engage small manufacturers in the technology focus areas and market opportunities of the MIIs. Ultimately, this program was not continued due to inherent mismatches in expectations, business models, and geography of the MIIs, MEP Centers, and small manufacturers,³³ although the committee believes there is strong motivations to re-engage. Another recent example of ecosystem development collaboration was spurred by COVID-19 response. In this case, America Makes partnered with the National Institutes of Health, the Food and Drug Administration, and Veterans Affairs to “efficiently and safely match health care provider needs for PPE with manufacturers capable of providing 3D-printed supplies.”³⁴ Further, America Makes and NIH worked to connect manufacturers with free PPE designs, including the rapid vetting, certifying, and fielding of these PPE designs.³⁵

Finally, the DoD MIIs have also engaged with the National Laboratories, although on a limited basis. Examples include AFFOA working with Lincoln Labora-

___________________

³² U.S. Senate, S.1260 - United States Innovation and Competition Act of 2021, https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/senate-bill/1260.

³³ Committee discussion with Phil Singerman, formerly of NIST, February 9, 2021.

³⁴ Manufacturing USA, 2021, Rapid Response to COVID-19.

³⁵ R. Irie, R. Gold, and T. Frost, 2021, “Manufacturing Innovation Institutes Integral to U.S. Pandemic Response,” May 5, https://www.defense.gov/Explore/News/Article/Article/2595223/manufacturing-innovation-institutes-integral-to-us-pandemic-response.

tory³⁶ and AIM working with Lincoln Laboratory.³⁷ This limited engagement to-date could be due to natural competition: first, both the DoD MIIs and the National Laboratories have unique laboratory infrastructure for technology development, which can be a natural source of competition; and second, the collaboration would require the DoD MIIs to pay the National Laboratories. Collaboration between the DoD MIIs and the National Laboratories on developing technology roadmaps has generally occurred on an informal, ad hoc basis. Open sharing of road mapping information can be limited due to the intellectual property terms under which the respective roadmaps were developed. The DoD MIIs and National Laboratories are complimentary in how they utilize their unique infrastructure and core competencies to respond to DoD needs, and opportunities exist to further strengthen and formalize their collaboration for the benefit of the DoD.

A number of these linkages were catalyzed by legislative initiatives; for example, the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act appropriated funding for NIST to spend in projects “at other Manufacturing USA institutes” including the DoD MIIs.

Opportunities for Improving MII Linkages to Other Agencies

The linkage between MIIs and other federal agencies is necessary for a nationally networked system of manufacturing technology, EWD and ecosystem advancement. Further, this linkage may open new contracting mechanisms to mature and even transition technologies, supporting and facilitating incremental funding from diverse sources, which supports the goal of MII financial independence. Across technology development, EWD, and ecosystem, the National Science and Technology Council Subcommittee on Advanced Manufacturing (NSTC SAM) is a key interagency body where the DoD can raise awareness of the MIIs and their roadmaps, identify common priorities in the technology focus areas of the MIIs, and discover actionable paths forward (including contracting mechanisms) with other federal agencies. Given the importance of these linkages in supporting and maturing the technology areas prioritized by DoD for their MIIs, DoD has a ripe opportunity to actively engage NSTC SAM members and foster their productive connection with the relevant DoD MIIs.

DoD and DoD MIIs would benefit greatly if they build a healthy pipeline of technologies feeding into the DoD MIIs, maturing within the DoD MIIs, and

___________________

³⁶ MIT Lincoln Laboratory, “Defense Fabric Discovery Center,” https://www.ll.mit.edu/about/facilities/defense-fabric-discovery-center, accessed June 11, 2021.

³⁷ D. Ryan, 2017, “Lincoln Laboratory Receives State Grant to Advance Integrated Photonics Development,” December 14, https://www.ll.mit.edu/news/lincoln-laboratory-receives-state-grantadvance-integrated-photonics-development.

transitioning out of the DoD MIIs. Basic and applied research sponsored by other agencies is an important source of input for MII road mapping and technology development. For these TRL 0-3 technologies, DoD can build on the successful model of NSF-funded projects at AIM by connecting DoD MIIs with unique shared infrastructure with NSF-funded researchers. Similar partnerships can be developed with other federal agencies funding relevant low-TRL research. One notable opportunity that may exist in the future is the formation of a Technology Directorate at NSF, as being currently considered by Congress—if established, each DoD MII is likely to have significantly overlapping technology interests with this new directorate that could lead to academic researchers utilizing the DoD MII’s unique infrastructure and transitioning their mature research into the DoD MII for further development. Increasing such engagement with researchers and their students opens an immediate opportunity for the DoD MIIs to provide value to their industry members, by identifying skilled students who could make strong job candidates after graduation for member companies.

For TRL 4-7 technology projects, DoD MIIs could look for opportunities to work with other federal agencies in funding work relevant to their technology area. For example, DoD MIIs could run their funding solicitations in collaboration with specific agencies, so that promising proposals can be funded by any of the collaborators. This also enables alignment of technology roadmaps across the collaborating agencies. An example of this is the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA)/Department of Energy Biomass R&D Initiative.³⁸

Transitioning technologies from pre-competitive TRL/MRL 4-7 is critical to DoD as a customer, but often transition occurs through commercialization in a dual use industrial base. Other federal agencies may have commercialization assistance programs that MIIs can benefit from. For example, the USDA Biorefinery Commercialization Assistance Program provides loan guarantees to first-of-a-kind biorefineries.³⁹ Engaging SMMs is another key opportunity for transitioning technology—the MEPs and DMCSP hubs represent two key networks to enable this connection at scale, while further strengthening regional manufacturing ecosystems. Fostering the connection between DoD MIIs and relevant programs at other federal agencies is a highly leveraged opportunity to ensure the transition and scale up of the technologies critical to DoD’s mission.

___________________

³⁸ E. Voegele, 2017, “USDA, DOE Open $9 Million BRDI Funding Opportunity,” Biomass Magazine, June 7, http://biomassmagazine.com/articles/14436/usda-doe-open-9-million-brdi-fundingopportunity.

³⁹ USDA Rural Development webpage, https://www.rd.usda.gov, accessed on May 2, 2021.

Findings

Finding 4.1: DoD’s MII Strategic Communications and Outreach Plan is well structured to increase stakeholder awareness of MIIs, but does not provide a strategy for direct engagement. Although the stakeholder list is extensive, it omits two important federal interagency groups: Manufacturing USA and the National Science and Technology Council Subcommittee on Advanced Manufacturing. Beyond communications, direct engagement with stakeholders would benefit from an Engagement Guide similar to that developed for DoD University Affiliated Research Centers (UARCs).

Finding 4.2: Engagement with the DoD S&T community to sponsor MII projects has been successful for some MIIs, but has been accomplished on an ad hoc basis and is highly dependent on personal connections of the host organization and the government PM. S&T efforts that advance TRL maturity also need to advance MRLs. MIIs have capabilities to assist S&T programs in this regard. OSD ManTech and the JDMC are well positioned to facilitate MII engagement with potential S&T sponsors on a more systematic basis than current practices.

Finding 4.3: Engagements between the MIIs and the DoD acquisition and sustainment communities for technology transition have been very limited and need to increase for DoD to benefit fully from its MII investments. A dedicated DoD team is needed to implement best practices to facilitate active engagement with acquisition and sustainment programs by building on existing connections through the JDMTP, with assistance from the Joint Defense Manufacturing Council.

Finding 4.4: MIIs are currently configured for cost shared pre-competitive technology projects using contract vehicles that have often hindered engagement with potential non-core sponsors in the DoD and federal sector. Individual MIIs have broadened the available set of contract vehicles to include OTAs and project level agreements better suited to sponsor directed technology transition projects, however, changes will be needed in government facilitation, contracting mechanisms, and MII membership arrangements. These changes are essential to attract industry participants and DoD acquisition and sustainment sponsors whose primary interest is transition. Multiple viable alternatives are available for future contracting arrangements using OTAs or FAR contracts. The rapid growth in DoD’s use of various OTA consortia models for prototyping and transition to production suggests that growth in MII transition projects can benefit from consortium lessons learned.

Finding 4.5: The linkage between MIIs and other federal agencies is necessary for national advancement of manufacturing technology, EWD and ecosystem. How-

ever, engagements with other federal sector organizations, including the National Laboratories, for the purposes of technology and ecosystem have been limited and ad-hoc. A healthy pipeline for developing and maturing technology in the DoD MII focus areas involves projects feeding into the MIIs, maturing within the MIIs, and transitioning out of the MIIs. Similarly, engagements with other agencies can enhance DoD MII EWD and ecosystem development. Transition of mature MII outputs to the US industrial base can leverage ecosystem elements provided by other federal agencies. Similarly, a closer relationship with MEP can support EWD and ecosystem development with SMMs.

Recommendations

Recommendation 4.1: OSD ManTech should continue implementation of the Strategic Communication and Outreach Plan and develop a supplementary Engagement Guide as a resource for direct engagement with MII stakeholders. The Guide should identify the contractual vehicles available for contracting with the MII organizations, explain the unique capabilities and benefits of the DoD MIIs to the broader DoD science and technology, acquisition, and sustainment communities, and provide a starting point for engaging stakeholders to sponsor work at DoD MIIs.

Recommendation 4.2: OSD ManTech should develop a formal strategy of engagement with the science and technology (S&T) community to facilitate connections with MIIs who have capabilities to help with manufacturing readiness level advancement. The strategy should include connections with the Reliance 21 Communities of Interest and Service S&T organizations, with assistance from the Joint Defense Manufacturing Council. A key component of the strategy would be an S&T Program Development Guide for the MIIs that documents best engagement practices from institutes acting individually or in collaboration. OSD ManTech can implement the S&T engagement strategy working with the MIIs and government program managers.

Recommendation 4.3: OSD ManTech should fund a team of transition facilitators to assist MIIs in engaging Service acquisition and sustainment communities. This team should establish DoD connections through coordination with the Joint Defense Manufacturing Technology Panel (JDMTP), with additional assistance from the Joint Defense Manufacturing Council when needed or when MII topics do not overlap with a JDMPT subpanel topic, such as bio-related connections. The role of the DoD team is to facilitate initial contacts. MIIs host organizations and members need to follow through with engagements to iterate

with potential DoD sponsors on needs, including DoD needs on MII roadmaps, and identify solution concepts that are mature enough for transition projects.

Recommendation 4.4: OSD ManTech should add a transition-friendly contracting interface with the MIIs configured for projects sponsored by the DoD acquisition and sustainment communities. A spectrum of effective contracting models is available for transition projects, using other transaction agreements (OTAs) or federal acquisition regulation contracts, implemented at the project level, MII level or Multi-MII level, through a single or multiple contracting offices. The committee saw several advantages in an OTA consortium model across the MIIs based on the widespread DoD use of such models. The committee recommend OSD ManTech choose a model on this spectrum, with selection based on cost, effectiveness in engaging new transition sponsors and industry performers, and feasibility of implementation.

Recommendation 4.5: OSD ManTech should designate a focal point to develop an MII engagement strategy for other federal agencies which defines the value proposition of the MIIs relative to the organizational needs of these agencies, and to execute this strategy. DoD should actively engage members of the National Science and Technology Council Subcommittee on Advanced Manufacturing to raise awareness of the MIIs and their roadmaps, identify common priorities in the technology focus areas of the MIIs, and discover actionable paths forward (including contracting mechanisms) with other federal agencies. Objectives should include enabling researchers funded by other agencies to utilize the DoD MIIs’ unique shared infrastructure, co-funded projects of mutual interest, and leverage of loan guarantees and other transition and scale up assistance mechanisms available with non-DoD agencies.