1. What steps have been taken to reduce internal management orders,
regulations, and redundant oversight? Please provide baseline and
performance measures that demonstrate the affect of these changes on
scientists, programs, laboratories, and the agency.
The Department is continually reducing regulatory oversight. Three
examples follow. A complete revision of DoD Directive 3201.1,
"Management of DoD Research and Development Laboratories" is
in process. The revised Directive is intended to
encompass Directives 3201.3, "DoD Research and Development
Laboratories" and 3202.1, "Use of DoD Research Facilities by
Academic Investigators", so that these Directives can be
superseded/canceled with the intent of reducing redundant regulations
within the Department. Further, 10 U. S. C. 2539B will be implemented
by a (draft) instruction "Authority to Sell" being rewritten
for implementation in the near future; once this rewriting is
completed, the Department will be in a position to more effectively and
efficiently enter into contracts with private concerns and other
government entities for fee-access to Department test facilities.
Additionally, the Federal Acquisition Streamlining Act of 1994 has
implemented cost saving changes in the Department’s acquisition
efforts. Another important streamlining initiative is the "Waiver
Authority for Reinvention Laboratories and Centers" (attached). In
this authority, SECDEF delegated to the Secretaries of the Military
Departments and Directors of the Defense Agencies the authority to waive
any requirement contained in a Department of Defense Directive,
Instruction, or Publication for Service or Agency approved reinvention
laboratories and centers.
The Department is approximately half-way in developing its Vision 21
plan Laboratories and Test-and-Evaluation Centers of the Department of
Defense. The initial Vision 21 report to the President and Congress,
dated April 30, 1996, outlines an approach to reduce, restructure and
revitalize the Department’s laboratory and T&E infrastructure,
commensurate with continuing manpower and workload reductions, by 2005.
Prior actions, most notably Project Reliance and the Defense Base
Closure and Realignment Acts of 1988 and 1990, have resulted in
significant changes within the Department. Project Reliance created a
more condensed, corporate and cooperative approach to laboratory and
T&E management by establishing areas of RDT&E capability and
"Lead" military departments for Lab/T&E focus area. The 1988, 1991,
1993 and 1995 rounds of base closures have now entered the
implementation phase and significant reductions in the Department’s Lab
and T&E infrastructure have begun. Specifically, 62 Lab/T&E
sites will have been closed or realigned as a result of the base closure
process. Vision 21 is the intended follow-on to the Project Reliance
and base closure efforts. Furthermore, the DoD is currently
implementing the Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA) within
the laboratory structure. Working with the OSD Comptroller, as the GPRA
lead for the Department, the Lab/T&E community is developing new
goals and performance measures to be complete by September 1997.
2. What steps have been taken to clarify and focus laboratory
missions and assignments? Has redundancy been eliminated and to what
degree has the laboratory system been restructured?
The most dramatic reductions in laboratory missions and redundancy
occurred during the four rounds of base closures. Simultaneously, along
with the downsizing and restructuring associated with BRAC, a reduction
in program overlap is occurring. Numerous management initiatives are
also ongoing as the Services find new, more efficient ways to adapt to a
smaller infrastructure. So far, only 20% of the BRAC recommendations
have been implemented with 100% completion due by 2001. Project
Reliance has evolved into a DDR&E lead on-going initiative which,
among many other things, is a set of formal agreements in the Military
Departments for joint planning and collocated in-house work. Reliance
is a team effort involving OSD, the Joint Staff, Military Services and
Defense Agencies. This participative approach to overseeing the DoD
RDT&E program greatly improves the focus, quality, timeliness and
customer satisfaction of the DoD RDT&E investment. Programs like
Project Reliance and the base closure process have improved the focus of
the laboratory missions and reduced redundancy. Restructuring is, in
fact, one of the three pillars of Vision 21.
Additionally, the ongoing Laboratory Quality Improvement Program (LQIP)
established in 1993 focuses on improving efficiency by streamlining the
laboratories’ business practices and granting the heads of the
laboratories increased authority to operate their organizations in a
3. What has been done to streamline and improve management
practices, both at the agency and in the laboratories? What impact have
these actions had on efficiency and effectiveness of the laboratory
system? Please include information about personnel reductions, both at
the agency and at the laboratories. Also, provide a list of redundant
and/or lower priority programs, projects, and activities that have been
eliminated or significantly reduced and the savings (in FTEs and
dollars) from each reduction or elimination.
The major efforts to streamline and improve management practices are
Project Reliance, the Laboratory Quality Improvement Program (LQIP) and
the Base Realignment and Closure process (BRAC). All of these programs
are ongoing and have produced a 29% reduction in RDT&E personnel
(military and civilian) from 121,000 to 86,000 during the period FY ‘92
FY ‘01. Defense-wide, RDT&E funding has declined $9.7B (FY ‘97$)
since FY ‘85. To accommodate this decline and still maintain a strong
RDT&E program, numerous innovations have taken place. Some examples
are: Services teaming with ARPA and other government agencies to plan,
prepare and evaluate rapid prototyping programs saving approximately
$100M, Air Force using the BMDO funded TOPAZ International Program which
performs non-nuclear electrical testing on space reactors avoiding
additional costs of $15M, a joint program for a chrome coating
technology may save the Air Force $14M per year through elimination of
bearing replacements and the Services are collaborating in research and
development for phased array antenna multichip assemblies and
interconnect technology avoiding costs of $2M per year.
4. What steps have been taken to coordinate and integrate laboratory
resources and facilities within the agency and with other agencies?
The Director, Defense Research and Engineering (DDR&E) has
continually enhanced the strategic planning process for DoD S&T.
The foundation of this process is the Defense S&T Strategy which
presents the DoD S&T vision, strategy, plan, and objectives for the
planners, programmers, and performers of Defense S&T. The Strategy
and associated plans are made available to defense contractors and our
allies with the goal of better focusing our collective efforts on
superior joint warfare capabilities and improving interoperability. The
Department’s future direction lies in the Vision 21 plan. The
preparation of the laboratory portion of the Vision 21 Plan is being led
by the DDR&E. The T&E portion of the Plan is being prepared
under the leadership of the Service Vice-Chiefs in their roles as the
Board of Directors for the T&E Executive Agent (hereafter called the
BoD), augmented by the Director, Test, Systems Engineering and
Evaluation, representing the defense agencies. An Overarching
Integrated Product Team (O-IPT), chaired by the Under Secretary of
Defense (Acquisition and Technology), has been formed. This O-IPT will
include the BoD; the Service Acquisition Executives (SAEs); the
DDR&E; the Director, Operational Test and Evaluation (DOT&E);
and the Director, Test Systems Engineering and Evaluation (DTSE&E).
The O-IPT is providing the policies and framework for the conduct of the
laboratory and T&E center studies and is the focal point for bringing the
e two initial plans together and for producing a final single plan.
Streamlining efforts with other agencies include the NASA/DoD Study,
Federal Laboratory Reform and Section 265 of the FY ‘96 National Defense
Authorization Act. All of these initiatives direct various efforts at
eliminating redundancy, improving efficiency, effectiveness and
productivity and maintaining U.S. preeminence in RDT&E.
SPECIFIC QUESTIONS FOR DoD - July 11, 1996
1. What capability overlays has your effort uncovered?
-- within each Service/OSD?
-- cross-Service integration (among Services)?
-- with other agencies?
The Department is moving to a more fully integrated cross-service
warfighting capability. Thus, a given Service will act more to support
the others than to maintain an ability to fight a conflict alone. To
this end, some redundancy in the R&D arena, and testing
capabilities, has been identified, and is being eliminated. For
example, the Army has been given a lead role in chemical and biological
warfare defense research and technology, with direct cooperation from
the Navy and Air Force. Further, the Air Force has been given lead
service status on fuels research, with a mandate to consider and address
Army and Navy fuel technology concerns above and beyond those addressed
in the Reliance Program. Of course, the various Services have consolidated
internal R&D and testing capabilities to support this new
cross-service focus. Additionally, the Department is cooperating with
other Federal agencies such as NASA to eliminate overlap in such areas
as rocket propulsion test facilities, and wind tunnel testing
capabilities so that fewer and more sophisticated test facilities can be
2. What are the essential technical capabilities DoD needs to
maintain in its laboratories?
A number of major initiatives have been undertaken that will result
in significant reductions and the restructuring of DoD laboratory and
T&E center personnel and infrastructure. The Vision 21 Plan will be
based on analyses of several internal and external DoD laboratory and
T&E center science and technology, infrastructure, and programmatic
studies which will document essential technical capabilities the
Department must sustain in order to maintain U.S. defense technological
superiority well into the 21st century. Warfighting is a unique
operational environment without parallel in the private sector. The
Department recognizes that warfighting to a victorious conclusion relies
on myriad unusual technologies, technologies which in many cases may have
limited, or no, non-military application, and are thus NOT available
off-the-shelf. The Department can, and often successfully does, with
the advice and guidance of its in-house technology laboratories,
procure/adapt commercial technologies for routine operations and even
low-level hot conflicts. However, actual warfighting draws on an
unusually broad technology base, and the Service laboratories are in
part structured to provide and develop unique technologies which provide
US Forces with a qualitative edge in the fog of battle. Specifically,
for example, the Military Departments support in-house research and
development in chemical and biological warfare defense, ultra-high
energy explosives, at-sea refueling and replenishment of naval
platforms, maintenance of secure data processing in hostile electronic
environments, ultra-high power laser systems, and the testing of Service
unique materials (e.g. composite armor) and platforms (e.g. the V-22
Osprey, and advanced jet propulsion systems). These efforts, and many
others, because of their military uniqueness, are supported in-house by
the Services. A more complete compilation of essential (non-classified)
military technologies associated with, or at a minimum evaluated by, the
Service laboratories, is discussed in the DoD Defense Technology Area
Plan document of May 1996.
3. How has your review been coordinated with the National Policy
The Vision 21 Plan will be submitted to the President and the Congress
in July 1998. Formal coordination will begin in early 1998.
4. What internal management instructions, regulations, and redundant
oversight that impede laboratory performance have you identified, per
Consistent with Executive Order 12861, "Elimination of One Half
of Executive Brach Internal Regulations" the Department has
proceeded with a review of existing DoD issuances with the intent of
consolidating such directives which prove redundant. To this end, for
example, the Department is revising and expanding DoD Directive 3201.1
"Management of DoD Research and Development Laboratories" to
encompass redundant instructions included in related directives
addressing laboratory management 3201.3 and 3202.1. The net result of
three years of such effort is that the number of DoD acquisition
regulations has been reduced from 766 to 505, a reduction of over 35%.
Further, page count for these reductions has been from some 155,000
pages to some 84,000 pages, a nearly 50% reduction.
The DoD S&T Reinvention Laboratory Initiative, including the
Laboratory Quality Improvement Program (LQIP), has started and is being
implemented to identify and overcome personnel, facility, contracting,
information infrastructure, and regulatory impediments to effective,
efficient laboratory management. For example, LQIP will enable the
laboratories to hire, pay, and promote technology leaders in support of
Military Department missions in a time efficient manner, using policies
tested by the Navy at China Lake, CA. Further, DoD is actively
implementing changes in information processing which will improve
communications within the Department.
5. How do you define a laboratory?
A laboratory is defined as any DoD activity that performs one or
more of the following functions: science and technology, engineering
development, systems engineering, and engineering support of deployed
materiel and its modernization. Each military department and DoD agency
is organized differently for such functions, but the term embraces
laboratories, research institutes, and research, development,
engineering and technical activities.
6. Have you compiled a list of all your laboratories, along with a
relevant database of personnel, resources, activities, and mission?
These data are currently being updated and compiled as part of the
Vision 21 Study and will be available for review in July 1998. The last
data collection exercise occurred in preparation for BRAC ‘95 and
therefore did not include BRAC ‘95 results. However, some personnel,
resource activity and mission information is currently available in the
DoD RDT&E In-House Activities Reports up to FY ’94. The FY ‘93 and
‘94 reports are available under the documents section of the Laboratory
Management and Technology Transition homepage on the Internet
(http://www.dtic.mil/labman/). Furthermore, we are currently compiling
data for the FY ‘95 report, which will be available shortly.
7. How do the missions of your various laboratories stack up against
the mission statements of the Services they work for?
The missions of the laboratories are specifically designed to
support the product and warfare areas of each Service to which they are
organizationally attached. The Service laboratories have been
structured to support technology innovation in areas of specific
interest to the host Service. For example, Army laboratories are
concerned specifically with human factors engineering, and Army-unique
materials research, Navy labs perform basic and applied research in
materials and energetic substances for Naval applications, while the Air
Force labs focus on propulsion and airfoil technology. All Service
laboratories, however, provide Service specific technical guidance in
ALL technology areas of interest to their host Services.
8. Has DoD examined the effectiveness of in-house versus outsourced
research? In-house versus outsourced management of programs or
A study was conducted by the Institute for Defense Analyses (IDA) in
August, 1994, and documented in their report entitled "Laboratory
Infrastructure Capabilities Study." This study brought together
parallel panels of experts from inside and outside the government to
provide perspectives on the nation’s capabilities to perform DoD’s
science, technology, and engineering functions through industry and
academia in collaboration with the laboratories, and potential shifting
of work from the laboratories to "out-source" performers.
From 1991 to 1994, service laboratories consistently spent more than 50%
of their total funding on out-of-house contracts. During that time,
they increased their funding of out-of-house contracts by 47% from $8.4
billion to $12.3 billion. The study’s main conclusion indicated that
funding for DoD’s science, technology, and engineering functions is
already sufficiently out-sourced. However, it must be noted that the
Department CANNOT necessarily readily, or cost effectively procure
needed research and/or testing expertise for mission critical
technologies outside the in-house facilities. As an example of this
situation note that private industry has little- to no-interest in
studying the long-term storage of hydrocarbon fuels, as commercial
utilization of such fuels is so rapid that there are no "old"
fuels in the private sector. In contrast, the Services stockpile fuels
for years at a time, and fuel degradation in such a time frame is of
critical concern to mission support.
9. What changes in mission and management have been made at your
labs since the end of the Cold War?
The Department has initiated a new, and broad-based
management/planning approach to RDT&E in light of changes in the
Department’s mission at the end of the Cold War. The three major Plans
DoD uses to insure coordination and cross-flow of all programs and
initiatives among all Science and Technology functions are the Basic
Research Plan, the Joint Warfighting Science and Technology Plan and the
Defense Technology Area Plan. The Basic Research Plan presents the DoD
objectives and investment strategy for DoD sponsored research performed
by universities, industry and Service laboratories. The Basic Research
Plan presents the planned investment in 12 broad research areas and 10
strategic research objectives for enabling the development of breakthrough
technologies. The Joint Warfighting Science and Technology Plan takes a
joint perspective horizontally across the Services and Defense Agencies
to ensure support for the requisite technology and advanced concepts for
superior joint and coalition warfighting. The Defense Technology Area
Plan presents the DoD investment strategy for technologies critical to
DoD acquisition plans and the Joint Warfighting Science and Technology
Plan and charts the total DoD investment for a given technology. The
anticipated return on investment is identified through approximately 200
Defense Technology Objectives in ten broad technology areas.
10. As a case study, how is DoD coordinating research on information
Information Warfare/assurance is specifically addressed in the Defense
Technology Area Plan for Information Systems and Technology. Our
Information Warfare Defense Technology Objectives are Context-Based
Information Distribution, Assured Communications, Network Management,
Defensive Information Warfare, Survivable Information Systems,
Navigation Warfare, Highpower Microwave Technology, Modern Network
Command and Control Warfare Technology, Digital Communications
Electronic Attack and Information Warfare Planning Tool ACTD.
11. How has the ratio of direct and indirect workers at labs changed
as personnel levels have changed; overall; by lab category; by major
lab? What efforts has DoD taken to date to downsize the RDT&E
The 1988, 1991, 1993 and 1995 rounds of base closures have now
entered the implementation phase and significant reductions in the
Department’s Lab and T&E infrastructure have begun. Specifically,
62 Lab/T&E sites will have been closed or realigned as a result of
the base closure process. Additionally, these closures and other
programmatic consolidations have produced a 29% reduction in RDT&E
personnel (military and civilian) from 121,000 to 86,000 during the
period FY ‘92 to FY ‘01. These changes represent specific efforts to
downsize the existing RDT&E infrastructure. The ratio of direct and
indirect workers at labs has changed as personnel levels have dropped.
As a specific example of the changes in personnel levels in the
laboratory community, note that the Air Force’s Wright Laboratory
(Dayton, OH) had 1800 scientists and engineers (S&E) and 500 support
personnel as of September 1992, yet had 1500 S&E and 400 support
personnel as of July 1996. These data represent a 17% decrease in
technical staff, and a 20% reduction in support staff. The Department
of the Army reports that, as an example, at the Corps of Engineers
Waterways Experiment Station (Vicksburg, MS) in 1993 47% of its staff
was S&E personnel, in 1996 50% was, and in 1993 there were some 1550
total S&E and support staff, while in 1996 the total staff was 1370.
12. How will downsizing and restructuring the DoD laboratory system
affect our ability to meet our defense mission?
The Vision 21 Plan will serve as the blueprint by outlining an
ongoing process that will enable DoD laboratories and T&E centers to
meet the continuously evolving requirements of the warfighter, both now
and in the future, despite a changing threat environment and reduced
budgets into the 21st century. Vision 21 rests on three integrating
pillars: Reduction (physically reducing the size of the laboratory
infrastructure), Restructuring (including intra-Service and
cross-Service), and Revitalization to fully modernize facilities and
technological capabilities. It will take careful planning to ensure the
DoD laboratory system is not reduced so much that end-term technology
development degrades beyond our capability to support operational, readiness
and training requirements.
13. What type of enabling legislation do you foresee will be
required to implement DoD lab consolidation plans when they are ready?
How critical is this legislation, and what would happen if it could not
The DoD will require legislation to implement the final, approved Vision
21 Plan. A comprehensive package of legislative proposals (e.g.,
waivers to 10USC2687, Davis-Bacon Act, N.E.P.A., etc.) with
justification will be developed and submitted to Congress by January
1997, in accordance with the required legislative clearance framework
established by OMB Circular A-19. Without the legislation, the results
of the Vision 21 Plan cannot be implemented effectively and efficiently,
and at the lowest cost to the taxpayer.
14. What steps are you taking to ensure Service coordination in your
The Vision 21 process is an inclusive effort bringing together all
interested parties in the lab and T&E arena. Specifically, the
Services are represented at every level in every step of the process.
Service coordination will take place incrementally as well as for the
final product. The Vision 21 Internal Control Plan provides the
necessary structure to insure proper coordination.
15. How has the inclusion of test and evaluation centers in DoD’s
laboratory review affected the conduct of the review?
The Vision 21 planning process is being developed through both
laboratory working level Integrated Product Team (IPT) and the Test and
Evaluation working level IPT. An Integrating IPT that is co-chaired by
both Director Defense Research & Engineering and Director, Test
Systems Engineering and Evaluation is responsible for
coordinating/integrating both these essentially parallel efforts. An
Overarching IPT that is chaired by USD (A&T) will make final
recommendations to SECDEF with regards to the Vision 21 effort, based on
input from the Integrating IPT.
T&E centers are an integral component to efficient and effective
testing and evaluation of laboratory output. A T&E center, within
this context, is defined as any facility or capability used for purposes
of data collection for T&E; that is, a set of DoD-owned or
controlled property (air, land, sea or space) or any collection of
equipment, platforms, automated data processing equipment or
instrumentation that conducts a T&E operation; and that provides a
deliverable T&E product.
ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS FROM AUGUST 5, 1996
1. All three agencies are citing reductions in force both in program
administration and at the laboratories. Have the Agencies identified
reductions in programs?
Streamlining programs such as Project Reliance, the Laboratory
Quality Improvement Program (LQIP) and the base closure process as well
as smaller Service unique initiatives have resulted in personnel
reductions of 29% between FY ‘92 and FY ‘01.
FY '92 (act.)
FY '95 (act.)
FY '01 (pro.)
Chng. FY '92-'01
2. A perspective on Agency funding of its Laboratories is
important. A table of the Agencies funding of the labs FY ‘85-’95 with
any projections they care to make is essential to the writing of our