One of the  recommendations was to establish a national network of manufacturing  innovation institutes as public-private partnerships. The functions that the RAMI Act identifies for the national office include:
Overseeing the planning, management, and coordination of the
Entering into memorandums of understanding with federal  departments and agencies whose missions contribute to or are  affected by advanced manufacturing, to carry out the program’s  statutory purposes;
Developing, not later than 1 year after the date of enactment of the  RAMI Act, and updating not less frequently than once every 3 years  thereafter, a strategic plan to guide the program;
Establishing such procedures, processes, and criteria as may be  necessary and appropriate to maximize cooperation and coordinate  the activities of the program with programs and activities of other  federal departments and agencies whose missions contribute to or  are affected by advanced manufacturing;
Establishing a clearinghouse of public information related to the  activities of the program; and
Acting as a convener of the network. Seven of these eleven institutes  were operating (i.e., supporting research projects in their technology  focus areas) as of December 2016. Institute members receive a variety of benefits and  rights, such as networking opportunities. Four institutes—three DOD institutes and  one DOE institute—were established prior to the enactment of the RAMI  Act in 2014. About 780 Manufacturers and Other Entities Were Members of the Operating Institutes in 2016

Our analysis of institutes’ membership data showed that about 520  manufacturers (mostly small manufacturers according to a Commerce  official) were members of the seven DOD and DOE institutes that were  operating as of December 2016. Length of federal financial assistance. Commerce, DOD, and DOE Have Developed Performance Measures and Commerce Is Taking Steps to Address Potential Challenges in Assessing Program Progress

AMNPO led a collaboration with DOE and DOD to develop an initial set of  performance measures to assess the Manufacturing USA program’s  progress toward furthering its eight statutory purposes. They also told us  that, subsequently, they plan to work with DOD and DOE to reach  agreement on these revised measures to allow the Secretary of  Commerce to report the data collected on the revised measures in the  Manufacturing USA annual report to Congress for fiscal year 2017. Commerce Has Taken Steps or Has Identified Options to Address Challenges in Measuring Program Performance

Institute officials identified challenges related to measuring progress  toward achieving the Manufacturing USA program’s statutory purposes,  including measuring outcomes within a short timeframe, and Commerce  has taken steps to address these challenges. Commerce Used Various Mechanisms to Help Coordinate the Manufacturing USA Program, but It Has Not Included All Relevant Agencies in Fully Identifying Roles and Responsibilities

AMNPO uses a variety of collaborative mechanisms to coordinate the  efforts of the agencies that contribute to the Manufacturing USA program,  including a network governance system that defines some roles and  responsibilities for agencies that sponsor institutes as well as for agencies  that do not sponsor institutes (non-sponsoring agencies). These mechanisms incorporate several key practices for  enhancing and sustaining interagency collaboration. The Process for Developing the Governance System Did Not Include All Relevant Non-sponsoring Agencies or Ensure That Their Roles and Responsibilities Are Fully Identified

Although the governance system was developed by an interagency team,  the process used to develop the governance system did not ensure that  all relevant non-sponsoring agencies were included or that their roles and  responsibilities for contributing to the Manufacturing USA program were  fully identified. For example, the governance system does not specify any  responsibility for non-sponsoring agencies to provide information or  expertise related to their activities to the program. In addition, DOL  administers discretionary grant programs, which can help increase the  number of skilled workers in advanced manufacturing. Working with other agencies to revise the governance system, including  ensuring that all relevant agencies are involved in the process to fully  identify non-sponsoring agencies’ roles and responsibilities, would  strengthen AMNPO’s efforts to leverage and coordinate agencies’  contributions to the Manufacturing USA program, consistent with key  practices for interagency collaboration, and would improve  implementation of its function to coordinate the program. In response to the  comments received from Commerce and DOD, we followed up with  DOD.
Why GAO Did This Study

The RAMI Act includes a provision for GAO to assess the program every two years, with a final assessment in 2024. This is GAO's first report in response to the statutory provision. Among other objectives, GAO examined (1) the status of the network and use of the institutes, (2) the extent to which performance measures are in place to assess progress toward achieving the statutory program purposes, and (3) the extent to which Commerce has taken steps to coordinate agencies contributing to the program.
GAO reviewed documentation and interviewed officials from Commerce, DOD, DOE, DOL, the Department of Education, and Manufacturing USA institutes; and held discussion groups with a nongeneralizable sample of institute member representatives.

What GAO Found

As of December 2016, the Departments of Defense (DOD), Energy (DOE), and Commerce (Commerce) collectively had signed agreements to establish 11 manufacturing innovation institutes. Four of these institutes were established prior to enactment of the Revitalize American Manufacturing and Innovation Act of 2014 (RAMI Act), which requires Commerce to establish a network of institutes for manufacturing innovation. Since 2014, the network—called the Manufacturing USA network—has grown as DOD, DOE, and Commerce have established seven more institutes, and Commerce, DOD, and DOE plan to sponsor up to four more institutes. Each institute is a public-private partnership between the sponsoring federal agency and a nonfederal entity in charge of operations, with the nonfederal entity matching or exceeding the federal financial assistance. GAO's analysis of institute membership from May through September 2016 shows that about 780 members had joined the seven institutes that were operating during GAO's review (i.e., supporting research projects in their technology focus areas). Members receive a variety of benefits, such as access to intellectual property and networking opportunities.
Commerce, DOD, and DOE worked together to develop initial performance measures to track progress toward the Manufacturing USA program's statutory purposes. Additionally, DOD, working with Commerce and DOE, hired a consultant to review the Manufacturing USA program. The consultant's January 2017 report included recommendations on revised measures to track program progress. After considering the results of this review, Commerce plans to work with DOD and DOE to reach agreement on a revised set of measures. While Commerce may face challenges with assessing the program, such as the timeframe over which results may need to be measured, it has taken steps or has identified options to address these challenges.
Commerce has used a variety of mechanisms to coordinate the Manufacturing USA program. These mechanisms incorporate several key practices GAO has identified for enhancing and sustaining interagency collaboration. However, GAO found that the process used to develop a governance system that outlines agencies' responsibilities for contributing to the program did not include all relevant non-sponsoring agencies (agencies that do not sponsor institutes), or ensure that their roles and responsibilities for contributing to the program are fully identified. Specifically, non-sponsoring agencies, such as the Department of Labor (DOL)—which administers discretionary grant programs that can help increase the number of skilled workers in advanced manufacturing—were not actively involved in developing the governance system. Additionally, the governance system does not specify any responsibility for non-sponsoring agencies to provide information or expertise related to their activities to the program. A Commerce official told GAO that the governance system is subject to revision, but participation in the program is up to each agency. However, including all relevant agencies in the process of revising the system and fully identifying non-sponsoring agencies' roles and responsibilities could strengthen Commerce's efforts to leverage and coordinate agencies' contributions to the program, consistent with key practices for interagency collaboration.

What GAO Recommends

GAO recommends that Commerce work with all relevant federal agencies to fully identify roles and responsibilities for how agencies that do not sponsor institutes could contribute to the Manufacturing USA program. Commerce agreed, but suggested an alternative recommendation. GAO modified the recommendation to clarify its intent.