Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.
Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.
OCR for page 176
THE ARMY RESEARCH LABORATORY: Alternative Organizational and Management Options Appendix D: Cost, Personnel, and Contracting Considerations This appendix provides the background, data, comparative analysis results, and statement of findings for each of the three areas (cost, personnel, and contracting) examined by the committee. Each of these three areas is discussed separately below, with the key issues and findings relative to each of the four options considered: (1) an ARL Enhanced option with no regulatory changes (Chapter 3); (2) a NIST option employing demonstration model personnel procedures (Chapter 4); (3) an ARL Multicenter option involving 70 percent of the research being performed outside of ARL under one or more contracts (Chapter 5); and (4) a GOCO ARL option in which all research and management are contracted out (Chapter 6). COSTS One of the objectives of this study was to determine the magnitude of the cost implications involved in changing ARL from its current management structure to alternative management structures. Each conversion option considered has both nonrecurring (i.e., one time) conversion-related cost and recurring operating cost implications. Data for this cost analysis was based on and derived from prior studies and operational cost data from organizations considered to be appropriate models —sources for the data are referenced throughout this appendix. It is difficult to make a direct cost comparison between the different conversion options. Cost estimates can never fully take into account the specific differences between one laboratory option and another, nor one particular (actual or hypothetical) conversion or transition and another. Each organization has a unique set of tasks, its own computing and travel needs, its own support staff requirements and its own facility and utility needs, and each is located in a particular part of the country with its own local area cost considerations. These differences tend to reduce the accuracy of detailed cost comparisons. The assumption underlying this study is that if the Army were to emulate the structure, management, personnel practices, and facilities of research laboratories generally considered within the scientific community to be
OCR for page 177
THE ARMY RESEARCH LABORATORY: Alternative Organizational and Management Options world-class, the value of the resulting research effort would be enhanced compared to that of the existing ARL laboratories. Under such circumstances, even if a conversion were to take place within an equal total operating cost constraint (except for one-time conversion costs), the long-term value would increase. To achieve the Army's vision of becoming a world-class laboratory ARL will have to attract and retain exceptional S&Es. This will probably require additional capital investments, which could not be considered here, within the scope of this analysis. Previous Studies A number of previous studies were reviewed to gain insight into what prior studies concluded about the costs of conversion of government research laboratories to either a NIST-type operation or a GOCO-type operation (these two operations would include the ARL Multicenter option since it is a mixture of in-house and contracted-out research). The summary below identifies those studies and indicates what the committee discovered from that information. The studies used are referenced by number and the numbered references are included at the end of this appendix. Relative to the ARL Enhanced Option A baseline study was conducted by U.S. Army Laboratory Command to provide guidance and direction to ARL in its formative (formation was in 1992) years. The costs and staffing envisioned for fiscal year 1997 generally follow the guidelines of this Laboratory Command study. The Combat Materiel Research Laboratory (now ARL) Baseline Study (Army Laboratory Command, 1991) was reviewed. The results shown in Table D-1 are close to the actual data received from ARL. The study does not appear to have considered any significant changes in personnel or laboratory management of the type envisioned in the ARL Enhanced option. Relative to Demonstration Projects The committee reviewed several studies that provide information on the attempts to estimate the impact on conversion to NIST-like operations. The most relevant of these studies were those conducted by the National Research Council (National Research Council, 1993), several Office of Personnel Management (OPM) analyses and reviews of the ongoing demonstration
OCR for page 178
THE ARMY RESEARCH LABORATORY: Alternative Organizational and Management Options TABLE D-1 ARL Baseline Study Comparison ($ Millions) Current (Fiscal Year 1993) Baseline Study (Fiscal Year 1990) Direct Costs Direct Labor (Fringe, Benefits, Supplies) 170.0 123.9 Support Contracts 167.1 40.4 Equipment above 18.3 Military Reimbursement N/A 5.0 Subtotal 337.1 187.6 Indirect Costs Indirect Labor (loaded) 32.0 15.5 Support Contracts 15.5 10.0 Equipment 2.5 Subtotal 47.5 28.0 General and Administrative Laboratory General and Administrative 31.3 Base Operations/Maintenance 41.3 Laboratory Command/ARL Headquarters 20.2 Subtotal 99.5 92.8 Non-reimbursable Interservice Support Agreement 15.0 Non-reimbursable Military 3.0 Subtotal 0.0 18.0 Grand Total 484.1 326.4 Workyears 3929 3144 Cost/Workyear 123.2K 103.8K Escalated (fiscal year 19993) 114.1K
OCR for page 179
THE ARMY RESEARCH LABORATORY: Alternative Organizational and Management Options projects the Naval Air Weapon Center (NAWC) at China Lake and NIST, and internal reviews of the ongoing demonstration projects. The fact that the demonstration project at China Lake has been extended twice from its original five-year life is evidence that the project has become accepted by the various agencies in the government as viable and worthwhile. The visit made by the panel to China Lake resulted in an impression that the personnel at China Lake are benefitting from relaxed personnel regulations and their payfor-performance evaluation system is enabling constructive actions to be taken when poor or borderline performance is identified. No studies were found that would provide information on conversions to an ARL Multicenter option; however, this option is basically a hybrid between the ARL Enhanced and the GOCO ARL option (a mix of in-house research and contracted-out research), so the information provided for those two options is pertinent to the ARL Multicenter option. Relative to Conversion to a GOCO The committee found no evidence of an entire defense research laboratory having ever been converted to a GOCO operation. Only selected services within laboratories have been converted under Office of Management and Budget A-76 rules to commercial contracts and the available examples are not directly applicable. Consequently no data are available to ascertain implications on resources or value from such a conversion. However, a number of studies are available which conjecture the implications of such conversions. An internal study conducted by ARL (Army Laboratory Command, 1990) examined the conversion of the Laboratory Command, the predecessor of today's ARL, to a GOCO operation. The following key assumptions were made in that study: The average scientist's and engineer's salary was increased by 60 percent and other salaries were increased by lesser amounts. The S&E-to-support-staff ratio was raised from 1:1.1 to 1:1.6. Annual facilities replacement costs are 5 percent of facilities value. New construction (one-time) was estimated at $18 million (in fiscal year 1989 dollars). A GOCO fee of 1 percent was assumed and the total cost for government oversight was 1 percent. Annual maintenance costs were not estimated. Included were 155 percent of payroll to buy-out retirement and 45 percent for early retirement (one-time).
OCR for page 180
THE ARMY RESEARCH LABORATORY: Alternative Organizational and Management Options Sizable one-time costs to improve facilities, maintenance, and equipment were included. Using these values and assumptions the Army generated two management and staffing structures. One structure assumes the total budget is held constant, including the capital investment costs (Table D-2). The other structure keeps the salary budget fixed, but pays for capital investment as additions to the budget (Table D-3). In both cases the one-time conversion costs would have been funded off-line. The one-time conversion costs documented in the Army study totaled $525 million, with $282 million for personnel-related costs and $243 million for facility-related costs. The personnel-related costs include $218 million to buy out retirement and $64 million of early retirement benefits. These costs are not applicable according to DOD Pamphlet 1400.20-1-P (Department of Defense, 1993) since these costs are normal deferred costs. On the other hand, severance pay and other reduction-in-force (RIF)-related expenses, in accordance with the Department of the Army information paper (Department of the Army, 1992a) should be included in conversion costs, but were not part of the Army study conversion costs. Drawing on the Army study, as well as comparable studies performed by the other Services, the Office of Secretary of Defense conducted an in-house review (Heeb, 1991; Department of Defense, 1991) which resulted in a third structure (Table D-4) for the Laboratory Command/ARL on an almost equal recurring operating cost basis. Other cost impact conclusions stated in the Office of Secretary of Defense study, based on the individual Service studies, were: Facilities upgrading will require a one-time cost of 30 percent of the total current budget. One-time personnel conversion costs will be higher than the current annual total salary budget, possibly twice as large. Salary increases for a GOCO option should be about 26 percent to 34 percent. Annual operating costs for the GOCO option would run at least 20 percent over the current costs for a similar laboratory staff. The study further concluded that since no Service estimate included all of the potential cost increases, all of these estimates may be low. The point of including the results summarized above is that, in prior studies, the cost of converting ARL to a GOCO operation was considered to be a very expensive option in terms of reduced staff structure and one-time conversion costs. In neither of the above studies was it demonstrated that any
OCR for page 181
THE ARMY RESEARCH LABORATORY: Alternative Organizational and Management Options TABLE D-2 Staffing Structure Holding Total Budget Constant (ARL Study) Current ARL ($ millions) GOCO ($ millions) Percentage of Personnel in GOCO Total Budget 780 780 — Total Staff 3035 1736 45 S&E 1766 668 38 Technical 504 420 83 Administrative 754 334 44 Clerical 568 214 38 Maintenance 243 100 41 TABLE D-3 Staffing Structure Holding Salary Budget Constant (ARL Study) Current ARL ($ millions) GOCO ($ millions) Percentage of Personnel in GOCO Salary Budget 141 141 — Total Staff 3835 2761 72 S&E 1766 1062 60 Technical 504 669 132 Administrative 754 531 70 Clerical 568 340 60 Maintenance 243 159 65
OCR for page 182
THE ARMY RESEARCH LABORATORY: Alternative Organizational and Management Options TABLE D-4 Holding Recurring Operating Costs Constant (Study of the Office of the Secretary of Defense) Conversion Estimate Current Example GOCOs Employee/Type Full Time Employees Average Salary (K) Total Salary (M) Full Time Employees Increase Salary (percent) Average Salary (K) Total Salary (M) Percent Full Time Employees Scientists/Engineers 1,766 38.3 68.5 1,413 60 62 88 80 Technicians 504 32.3 16.3 1,165 30 42 49 230 Admininstrative 754 31.6 23.8 377 20 38 14 50 Clerical 568 18.3 10.4 284 15 21 6 50 Maintenance 243 29.0 7.0 243 10 32 8 100 Total 3,835 — 141* 3,482 44 avg — 184* — Scientist and Engineer: Support 1.2 — — 1.5 — — — — Contracting $532M $488M * Includes 12 percent benefits Assume: Facilities issues not included; one-time costs not included; and increased in-house technical support reduced need for outside scientist and engineer support.
OCR for page 183
THE ARMY RESEARCH LABORATORY: Alternative Organizational and Management Options of the three structures would, in fact, provide equal or additional value, or that any of the structures would actually be able to perform the ARL mission. Methodology Cost comparisons were made for the four options stated above (i.e., (1) ARL Enhanced, (2) NIST, (3) ARL Multicenter, and (4) GOCO ARL) using the methodology explained in this section. Different institutions perform their financial accounting using very different methodologies making direct detailed comparison by common accounting terms nearly meaningless. Coopers and Lybrand examined 12 FFRDCs in 1991 and concluded that indirect cost comparison is not possible (Coopers & Lybrand, 1991). For example, general and administrative rates varied from 7.2 percent to 92.5 percent for the different institutions. In order to provide valid comparisons, metrics had to be carefully selected. A number of metrics were considered in the course of the present study; however, the ones employed were selected on the basis of: (1) available data; (2) the meaningfulness of the parameter for comparison purposes; and (3) the committee's belief that the metric represents a true discriminator of the options. Due to the wide variation in facility accounting procedures, only cost comparisons at a very high level of aggregation were considered appropriate. Calculable Cost Metrics Initially the relevant costs are divided into recurring costs (i.e., annual costs required to operate ARL under each of the alternative management constructs) and conversion costs (i.e., one-time costs of converting from the current ARL management structure to an alternative management structure). All cost figures shown are adjusted to fiscal year 1993 dollars unless noted otherwise. Total Operating Costs (Adjusted). This metric was selected because it should include all of the direct and indirect (support) costs relevant to carrying out the institution 's mission. The total operating cost was adjusted to exclude the cost of contracting out research which, in general, requires a smaller amount of support, compared to carrying out the research in-house. The cost of support contracts to provide services in support of the laboratory's research functions was however included in the operating cost.
OCR for page 184
THE ARMY RESEARCH LABORATORY: Alternative Organizational and Management Options Total Operating Cost (Adjusted) Per S&E Full-Time Equivalent (FTE). It was assumed that the basic unit performing research is the S&E and that all the other operating costs are performed in his support. Consequently, total operating costs were normalized on the basis of a scientist/engineer FTE. Average Salary. Another metric employed was the basic average salary for a scientist or engineer. Basic salaries were adjusted to represent pay for 2,088 hours per year which includes leave and other paid absences. Some of the data collected had leave costs as part of the fringe benefits. Because of the fragmentation of the fringe benefits in the government among different agencies, an absolute value of those benefits is difficult to determine. However, the fringe benefit package is the same for all government management options, but can vary fairly widely for different GOCO institutions. On the other hand, a 1992 Hay Group survey of 30 DOE management and operating contractors found that the total value of the benefits of the DOE institutions was comparable to those of the national average, or about 40 percent of gross salaries (Hay Group, 1992). The ratio of total operating cost to average cost per S&E was the primary parameter employed to obtain a meaningful loading factor to be applied to average S&E salary numbers. Severance Pay. Severance pay for the fiscal year 1997 ARL workforce was estimated, in detail using the specific employee population expected, by ARL and is shown in Table D-8 for the 3,131 positions expected to be at ARL in fiscal year 1997. About 76 percent (744 of 3,131 is 76.24 percent) of the employees terminated would receive severance pay and 24 percent (23.76 percent) would either retire or transfer to another government position. For the options where only a portion of the personnel are RIFed, ARL estimates are prorated on a per person (per capita) cost of $21,000 per person. Other RIF-Related Costs. These are the cost of terminating a civil servant if the operation shifts from a government-owned, government-operated to a GOCO method of operation. These costs are explained in a DOD pamphlet (Department of Defense, 1993). A June 1992 Department of the Army costing model for RIF actions provides the framework for estimating RIF costs (Department of the Army, 1992a). Costs per involuntary separation during the first 12 months following the RIF effective date are estimated at: $3,700 for severance pay, $2,800 for relocation allowances, $1,900 for lump sum annual leave payment (the Assistant Secretary of the Army [Financial Management] estimates these at $3,000), $1,300 for saved grade/pay, $2,500 for
OCR for page 185
THE ARMY RESEARCH LABORATORY: Alternative Organizational and Management Options unemployment compensation, $1,900 for retraining, and $100 for overtime associated with RIF administration. The total of the above items is $14,200 per RIFed person. ARL has provided a specific projection of the severance pay for the particular workforce so $3,700 has been deleted from the above costs leaving a total of $10,500. Since these costs were in fiscal year 1991 dollars, they have been escalated to fiscal year 1993 dollars (using a 9.3 percent factor) to arrive at a total other RIF costs of $11,500 per RIFed person. For management options in which ARL remains in the government structure no RIF pay is required. If ARL is converted to another type of operation, those employees that are not remaining in government in another position, and are not eligible for retirement, are entitled to severance pay, even if they accept comparable positions with the incoming contractor (Department of Defense, 1993). At one time, exemption from severance pay was possible for personnel who accepted employment with the contractor who took over management of a particular function, but authorization for that exemption was removed in 1989 by OPM (Office of Personnel Management, 1989). Current employees now have the right of first refusal for jobs for which they are qualified and which the contractor taking over a government operation is filling. System Design and Training Cost. In converting to a NIST management option, it is assumed that internal staff will be called upon to design or adapt a personnel model for use by ARL. In addition, there are training costs involved in any conversion of employee pay or rating systems to a new system. This includes the salaries of the employees being trained, the facilities for training and the cost of the instructors. Contracting Process. The process of selecting a contractor is both time-consuming and costly, in terms of manpower required in analyzing and specifying the requirements, performing independent government cost analyses, analyzing the proposals, and selecting a contractor. Other Conversion Costs (Not Easily Calculated/Measured) There are additional costs that could not be estimated accurately, either because they are too dependent on the specific contractual agreements or because insufficient data were available.
OCR for page 186
THE ARMY RESEARCH LABORATORY: Alternative Organizational and Management Options Pay Differential and the Impact of Employee “Bumping”. The pay differential is an adjustment of salaries to place all existing employees and managers converting to a NIST or GOCO operation, and newly appointed managers, on a new pay scale. The cost of bumping rights, because personnel with more seniority have a right to bump someone with lower seniority from a position, is also a cost that is not easy to measure, but will result in some additional cost and disruption time. Facilities Upgrade. This is a one-time cost of upgrading facilities and equipment, when converting to a new management structure, that will help make ARL a world-class laboratory. Since the major portion of ARL is assumed to move into the new Base Closure and Realignment-funded buildings, this cost differential could not be estimated. Legislative and Regulatory Changes Processing Costs. The time and cost associated with getting Departmental, Office of Personnel Management, Office of Management and Budget, and Congressional waivers or approvals, as required to convert to a NIST or a GOCO operation could not be estimated. Union Understanding and Approval. The involvement of government employee unions could require time to explain the new system to union leaders sufficiently to gain their support for the conversion. Adverse legal actions can lead to considerable delays and disruptions, as in the case of the Point Mugu conversion. In some instances (e.g., NAWC) the unionized employees were not converted to the improved personnel system. Disruption Costs. Costs are associated with personnel performing conversion activities not related to their prime mission or decreased productivity due to future uncertainty. Government Monitoring and Oversight Cost. This is the additional cost to the government of managing and overseeing the GOCO or contracted-out services.
OCR for page 212
THE ARMY RESEARCH LABORATORY: Alternative Organizational and Management Options NIST Option Under this option ARL's ability to hire could be considerably enhanced by having the authority to establish their own candidate qualification examinations and hiring from the resultant list of applicants. Pay rates that can be offered for new hires cover a broad range and can be established based on comparisons to private sector rates. Technical managers perform the job classification function using simplified classification standards that are tailored to local jobs. This process can also be automated. The ability to pay for performance is greatly enhanced by the incentive pay system which directly links performance appraisal to adjustments in base salary. No automatic increases are given on the basis of time-in-job alone. The demonstration project system also provides for bonuses and rewards, all aimed at retention of high performers. The performance appraisal and incentive pay systems are run by the technical managers. The ability to fire an employee is also enhanced by a demonstration project system and is tied directly to the appraisal process. Any rating below fully successful automatically triggers a process that results in either improved performance or removal from the workforce. The demonstration project option, in total, can provide a private-industry-oriented personnel system that is responsive to management needs. While it does not offer the broad freedoms enjoyed by private industry, it is a positive step in the right direction. The Army has ventured into the demonstration-project-type system for its non-appropriated fund workforce, but has not adopted it for any appropriated fund activity. ARL may present an opportunity to do that. GOCO ARL Option Under this option ARL could have a powerful base of capability to hire very high-caliber talent from the workforce market. This could include full-time, part-time, and short-term employment that is limited only by overall fund restrictions in the contracts. This also permits reaching out to scientists and engineers who are attuned to the state of the art in virtually any field of R&d that is required. Salaries and fringe benefits that equate to those provided by industrial world-class laboratories or research facilities would be possible. The requirements for the contractor to offer conversion rights to all current ARL employees would create an initial restriction on hiring. The ability to pay for performance is inherent in a GOCO operation. Many private industrial companies have highly sophisticated appraisal systems where performance evaluation is linked directly to pay and retention of the employee as part of the workforce. This also permits both monetary and honorary recognition of high performers.
OCR for page 213
THE ARMY RESEARCH LABORATORY: Alternative Organizational and Management Options In a GOCO operation it would be easier to fire an unsatisfactory employee than in any of the other options being considered. This would be particularly true of the S&E portion of the workforce where tenure need not be a consideration, but performance would drive the decision. However, in GOCO operations the impact of unions and fair labor practices acts may constrain the firing process with legal obstacles. Personnel Findings The most significant findings, as covered above, were the following: Within existing laws and regulations, much can be improved in the personnel management area. Of the four options being considered, the GOCO ARL option offers the greatest opportunity for achieving excellence in the personnel arena, at a greater cost. The demonstration project option offers relative economy plus substantial enhancements in the personnel management area. All of the options being considered involve labor/management relations issues that would have to be addressed at conversion time. CONTRACTING For the purposes of this study, contracting considerations fall into two broad and very different categories. The first of these applies only to the option of converting ARL to a GOCO for which there are contracting issues regarding the establishment of a new GOCO. These include, for example, the appropriate approvals, generation of the necessary procurement documentation, contractor selection, and oversight provisions. Detailed examination of the process for the formation of a new GOCO is beyond the scope of this study. The second category pertains to the provisions and restrictions that apply to the various organizational types under consideration in this study in their procurement and contracting-out activities. Of particular importance are those regulations which procedurally tend to adversely impact research activities. In general, it can be said that the farther one moves in contracting and procurement practices away from government standards and toward those of private industry, the faster and more efficient are the processes. Sluggish procurement practices have the effect of slowing down research progress and hurting staff morale. Scientists and engineers become frustrated and feel under-supported by their administrators and management. Their work is
OCR for page 214
THE ARMY RESEARCH LABORATORY: Alternative Organizational and Management Options delayed sometimes months for want of a seemingly simple item hung-up in the bureaucratic paper mill of procurement. In some cases the wrong item is delivered as a result of adherence to regulations governing bidder selection. In all fairness, the government, in recognition of these problems, has instituted several innovative practices for low value items utilizing credit cards distributed to certain centers. These practices represent a significant improvement and, in the enhanced ARL options and demonstration project option, should be exploited fully. Further, local or service imposed constraints should be selectively eliminated. Likewise, for these options, methods for streamlining contracting-out practices should be sought and used. More extensive use of Competition in Contracting Act exceptions should be promoted. Every indication suggests that in the GOCO ARL option, commercial practices in conformance with the Federal Acquisition Regulation and other applicable regulations, have the potential of providing high-quality support service to the S&Es. At Sandia, for example, the process of contracting out support services is streamlined by the use of pre-approved qualified vendors. The examples of speed in the procurement process cited by Sandia were mostly in the architectural and engineering area for building construction where requests for quotations are used to award contracts to the lowest bid received from the population of pre-qualified bidders. Specific contracting implications of each ARL conversion option are provided in the paragraphs below. ARL Enhanced and Multicenter Options Under either of these ARL options, there are to be no changes in the Federal Acquisition Regulation requirements and the only efficiency improvement possible is to follow procurement practices that have proven successful at other places. For example, the Sandia contracting process makes use of pre-qualified bidders for certain procurement —this could be done by ARL. There are ways to speed up the current Federal Acquisition Regulation processes, but most of these ways require command emphasis and a desire to get things done rapidly. The move to define small purchases as being under $100,000 should improve the speed with which procurement is completed at all federal agencies, and it would help ARL. NIST Option This option would still be under the Federal Acquisition Regulation and be subject to the same processes as described for the ARL enhanced options
OCR for page 215
THE ARMY RESEARCH LABORATORY: Alternative Organizational and Management Options above. There are several things being done at NIST that would improve ARL if they were used more extensively (e.g., use of a credit card for small purchases). GOCO ARL Option Theoretically, this option should provide the most flexible contracting procedures and the fastest completion time on all contracting actions. This would certainly be true if the contractor running the operational site(s) was independent of as many government regulations as possible. As the committee saw at Sandia and other DOE laboratories, this may not always be the case; however, when true relaxation of the procurement process rules is permitted, the committee believes that the process will move more smoothly and the end result will be more rapid completion of all contracting actions.
OCR for page 216
THE ARMY RESEARCH LABORATORY: Alternative Organizational and Management Options REFERENCES Aerospace Corporation. 1993. Informal communication to the Cost, Personnel, and Contracting panel, Committee on Alternative Futures for the Army Research Laboratory . Army Laboratory Command. 1990. GOCO's vs. Army Labs. Internal Report. March 23. Army Laboratory Command. 1991. CMRL baseline study. Briefing of the Laboratory Command. April 29 . Army Materiel Command. 1993. Informal communication to the Cost, Personnel, and Contracting panel, Committee on Alternative Futures for the Army Research Laboratory . Army Research Laboratory. 1993. Informal communication to the Cost, Personnel, Contracting panel, Committee on Alternative Futures for the Army Research Laboratory . Brookhaven National Laboratory. 1993. Informal communication to the Cost, Personnel, and Contracting panel, Committee on the Alternative Futures for the Army Research Laboratory . Cassady, A. 1991. 1991 NIST Personnel Management Demonstration Project: Design, Implementation and Accomplishments. NISTIR 4640. July. Coopers & Lybrand. 1991. Indirect costs survey of comparable government contractors. Letter to Aerospace Corporation. June 13. Defense Base Closure and Realignment Commission. 1991. Report to the President. Washington, D.C. July 1. Department of the Army. 1992a. Estimating Costs of Reduction in Force (RIF). DAPE-CPE. June 29. Information Paper. Department of the Army. 1992b. Army Science and Technology Master Plan. November. Department of Defense. 1991. Background material on GOCOs. Laboratory Demonstration Program Panel. June.
OCR for page 217
THE ARMY RESEARCH LABORATORY: Alternative Organizational and Management Options Department of Defense. 1993. DOD Program for stability of civilian employment, DOD displaced employees information and entitlements pamphlet. Pamphlet 1400.20-1-P. Revised April. Department of Energy. 1992. Capsule review of DOE research and development laboratories and field facilities. Office of the Technical Advisor. September. Department of Energy. 1993. Appendix A (Personnel Appendix) to a typical National Laboratories contract. Hay Group. 1992. Comparison of benefits: management and operating contractors compared to national survey. March. Heeb, M. 1991. GOCO or status quo for defense R&D labs. Department of Defense. Briefing for the Advisory Commission on the Consolidation and Conversion of Defense Research and Development Laboratories.July 17–18, 1991 . Kramer, S. 1993. An overview. Briefing by S. Kramer, Associate Director, National Institute of Standards and Technology. National Institute of Standards and Technology. 1992. NIST evaluation of a Hay management consultants report on Total Compensation Comparability. January 10;Informal communication to the Cost, Personnel, and Contracting panel , Committee on Alternative Futures for the Army Research Laboratory . National Institute of Standards and Technology. 1993. NIST: Research. Services. Facilities. National Research Council. 1993. Improving the Recruitment, Retention, and Utilization of Federal Scientists and Engineers. National Research Council. National Academy Press: Washington, D.C. Naval Air Warfare Center. 1993a. Navy demonstration project under the Civil Service Reform Act (CSRA) . Series of briefings, China Lake, California, July 7, 1993. Naval Air Warfare Center. 1993b. Informal communication to the Cost, Personnel, and Contracting panel, Committee on Alternative Futures for the Army Research Laboratory . China Lake, California.
OCR for page 218
THE ARMY RESEARCH LABORATORY: Alternative Organizational and Management Options Office of Personnel Management. 1989. Notice of proposed changes to Title 5 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Attachments 1 and 2 to FPM Bulletin 550-68. Sandia National Laboratories. 1990. Strategic plan 1990. Sandia National Laboratories. 1992. Sandia National Laboratories: Strategic human resource plan, Fiscal Year 1993–Fiscal Year 1991. October. Sandia National Laboratories. 1993. Introduction to Sandia Laboratories. Series of briefings to the Cost, Personnel, and Contracting panel, Committee on Alternative Futures for the Army Research Laboratory . Albuquerque, New Mexico, July 8, 1993.
OCR for page 219
THE ARMY RESEARCH LABORATORY: Alternative Organizational and Management Options BIBLIOGRAPHY Aerospace Corporation. 1993. Informal communication to the Committee on Alternative Futures for the Army Research Laboratory. July. Army Material Command. 1993. Informal communication to the Committee on Alternative Futures for the Army Research Laboratory. July 18. Letter. Army Research Laboratory. 1992. Annual report. Army Research Laboratory. 1993a. Army Research Laboratory Business Plan: Fiscal Years 1994–2004. Army Research Laboratory. 1993b. Informal communication to the Committee on Alternative Futures for the Army Research Laboratory. Atwood, D.J. 1989. Laboratory demonstration program: Actions for improvement of the quality, productivity, and efficiency of DOD laboratories. November 20. Memorandum. Brookhaven National Laboratory. 1993. Informal communication to the Committee on Alternative Futures for the Army Research Laboratory. June 15. Facsimile. Congressional Budget Office. 1982. Contracting Out for Federal Support Services: Potential Savings and Budgetary Impacts. October. Coopers & Lybrand. 1991. Indirect Cost Survey of Comparable Government Contractors. Letters to Aerospace Corporation, June 13. Defense Base Closure and Realignment Commission. 1991. Report to the President. Washington, D.C. July 1. Department of the Army. 1992a. Estimating Costs of Reduction in Force (RIF). DAPE-CPE. June 29. Information Paper. Department of the Army. 1992b. Army Science and Technology Master Plan. November.
OCR for page 220
THE ARMY RESEARCH LABORATORY: Alternative Organizational and Management Options Department of Defense. 1991. GOCO or status quo for defense R&D labs. Briefing by Michael Heeb for the Advisory Commission on the Consolidation and Conversion of Defense Research and Development Laboratories. July 17–18, 1991. Department of Defense. 1992. Interservice Interdepartmental, and Interagency Support. DOD Instructions 4000.19. April 15. Department of Defense. 1992. Annual report. Tri-Service Science and Technology Reliance, Joint Directors of Laboratories. December. Department of Defense. 1993. DOD program for stability of civilian employment, DOD displaced employees information and entitlements pamphlet. Revised April 1993 (FM&P). DOD Manual 1400.21-1-P. Department of Energy. 1982. The Department of Energy Multiprogram Laboratories, A Report of the Energy Research Advisory Board to the United States Department of Energy. September. Department of Energy. 1992. Capsule Review of DOE Research and Development Laboratories and Field Facilities. Office of the Technical Advisor. September. Department of Energy. 1992. The National Laboratories of the U.S. Department of Energy. Department of Energy. 1993. National Compensation Survey of Research and Development Scientists and Engineers. Wyatt Comparison Report for DOE. April 15. Department of Energy. 1993. Appendix A (Personnel Appendix) to a typical National Laboratories contract. Department of Energy. 1993. Informal communication from the Director, Employee Compensation and Benefits Division to the Cost, Personnel, and Contracting panel, Committee on Alternative Futures for the Army Research Laboratory . July 9. General Accounting Office. 1988. Federal Productivity: DOD's Experience in Contracting Out Commercially Available Activities . GAO Report GAO/GGD-89-6. November.
OCR for page 221
THE ARMY RESEARCH LABORATORY: Alternative Organizational and Management Options Hay Group. 1992. Comparison of Benefits: Management and Operating Contractors Compared to National Survey. March. Heeb, M. 1993. GOCO or status quo for defense R&D laboratories. Briefing to the Committee on Alternative Futures for the Army Research Laboratory, Washington, D.C. August 2, 1993. Naval Air Warfare Center (NAWC). 1993. Navy Demonstration Project under the Civil Service Reform Act (CSRA). Series of briefings to the Cost, Personnel, and Contracting panel, Committee on Alternative Futures for the Army Research Laboratory . China Lake, California. July 7. Naval Air Warfare Center. 1993. Informal communication to the Cost, Personnel, and Contracting panel, Committee on the Alternative Futures for the Army Research Laboratory . July 29. Facsimile. National Institute of Standards and Technology. 1991. NIST Personnel Management Demonstration Project: Design, Implementation and Accomplishments. NISTIR 4640. July. National Institute of Standards and Technology. 1992. NIST Evaluation of a Hay Management Consultants Report on Total Compensation Comparability. January 10. National Institute of Standards and Technology. 1993. An overview. Briefing by Dr. Samuel Kramer, Associate Director, NIST, Gaithersburg, Maryland. May 13. National Institute of Standards and Technology. 1993. NIST: Research. Services. Facilities. National Institute of Standards and Technology. 1993. Informal communication to Cost, Personnel, and Contracting panel, Committee on Alternative Futures for the Army Research Laboratory . July 6. Facsimile. National Research Council. 1993. Improving the Recruitment, Retention, and Utilization of Federal Scientists and Engineers, A Report to the Carnegie Commission on Science, Technology and Government. National Research Council. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press. Naval Research Laboratory. 1984. Final Report of the Working Group on Federal Laboratory Personnel Issues. July 1.
OCR for page 222
THE ARMY RESEARCH LABORATORY: Alternative Organizational and Management Options Naval Research Laboratory. 1993. 1992-1993 Fact Book. NRL Publication NRL/PU/5240-93-238. June. Naval Research Laboratory. 1993. Informal communication to the Cost, Personnel, and Contracting panel, Committee on Alternative Futures for the Army Research Laboratory . July. Letter. Sandia National Laboratories. 1990. Strategic plan. Sandia National Laboratories. 1992. Sandia National Laboratories: Strategic human resource plan, fiscal year 1993-fiscal year 1991. October. Sandia National Laboratories. 1993 Introduction to Sandia Laboratories. Set of briefings for the Cost, Personnel, and Cost panel, Committee on Alternative Futures for the Army Research Laboratory. Albuquerque, New Mexico. July 8, 1993. Sandia National Laboratories. 1993. Sandia National Laboratories 1993. U.S. Army Laboratory Command. 1991. CMRL Baseline Study. LABCOM Briefing. April 29.
Representative terms from entire chapter: