Proposed biomanufacturing center may create competition among states

The proposed Biomanufacturing Excellence Act of 2025 would establish a single National Biopharmaceutical Manufacturing Center of Excellence within the U.S. Department of Commerce’s National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST). H.R. 6089 was introduced by Rep. Chrissy Houlahan (D-PA) with bipartisan cosponsors and paired with a Senate companion bill (S. 3188) led by Senators Chris Coons (D-DE) and Ted Budd (R-NC). It authorizes $120 million in FY 2026 for NIST to conduct a competitive process to select one non-federal entity to build and operate the center. Eligible applicants include public-private partnerships, institutions of higher education, and multi-institution consortia. Because only a single awardee will be chosen, the proposed legislation likely sets up what is likely to be a stiff competition among many states which have made life sciences and manufacturing key elements of their innovation strategies.

The bill defines the center’s goal as advancing the science and engineering of biopharmaceutical manufacturing in the U.S. It would develop flexible, multi-platform manufacturing technologies and accelerate the adoption of innovative manufacturing approaches for the sector. The center also is expected to build a national network of academic, industrial, and government partners to share infrastructure, disseminate best practices, and support workforce development through coordinated, scalable training partnerships. 

The initiative follows a long-standing federal model used for advanced manufacturing and high-impact technologies, including the Manufacturing USA institutes and NIST Centers of Excellence. These centers serve as shared R&D and scale-up platforms, combine public and private investment, and build unified training and standards infrastructure. The Manufacturing USA network already includes two bio-related manufacturing institutes in BioMADE (St. Paul, MN) and ARMI|BioFabUSA (Manchester, NH). 

With just one national center to be chosen, competition among states is expected to be intense. The selection criteria specified in the bill include demonstrated biomanufacturing capacity, existing workforce development pipelines, proximity to established biopharmaceutical manufacturing clusters, the ability to rapidly become operational, and the amount of state, institutional, and private co-investment. These criteria seem to strongly favor regions where industry, academia, and government already collaborate around biomanufacturing, and where significant site-ready infrastructure exists. In addition to the Manufacturing USA centers, other likely competitors might include:

• Indiana (BioMidwest)—Heartland BioWorks, major Eli Lilly investments, strong university and private engineering and automation capabilities. 

• Mid-Atlantic “Pharm Country”—cluster of major biopharma firms and regulatory talent, extensive manufacturing and quality systems expertise In Philadelphia, New Jersey and Delaware.

• North Carolina—large, fast-growing biomanufacturing cluster; nationally recognized workforce assets (BioWork, BTEC, Regenerative Medicine Engine); expansions by multiple major manufacturers.

• Virginia (BioCapital region)—strong federal–industry–academic integration; home to theAlliance for Building Better Medicine Tech Hub; increasing pharmaceutical manufacturing capacity.

• Additional strong contenders—Massachusetts, California, Maryland, Texas, and Puerto Rico, each with substantial bioscience, biomanufacturing or process-development ecosystems.

The proposed Center also would build on a growing set of federal regional initiatives already investing in biomanufacturing capacity across the country; in addition to Manufacturing USA are the U.S. Economic Development Administration’s Building Better Regions and Tech Hubs programs, and the National Science Foundation’s Regional Innovation Engines (see table below). Together, these regional hubs, institutes, and Engines form a distributed national foundation.