Below is the uncorrected machine-read text of this chapter, intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text of each book. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.
Introduction BACKGROUND In 1994, then-Secretary of Defense William Perry issued a policy memorandum directing the Secretaries of the military departments in the Department of Defense (DoD) to take concerted action to increase access to commercial state-of-the-art technology and adopt business processes characteristic of worId-ciass suppliers. In addition to affecting many aspects of the DoD's procurement activities, the memorandum had a major impact on specifications anal stanciards. The memorandum was interpreted by many as a directive that would Rescind military-unique standards and specifications. · Establish performance-based specifications for new acquisitions and for system upgrades and modifications. · Adopt commercial or industry specifications when necessary. · Make the cultural changes that would encourage manufacturers to move toward the performance-based model. In many areas of procurement, the results of this policy have been positive and will, it is hoped, help to reduce the complexity and costs of the DoD purchase of major weapon systems and their many support requirements. Many other aspects of the move away from military and federal specifications to commercial or industry documents have also been positive. However, in one particular areaspecifications and standards for materials and processes the changes introduced since 1994 have, as a result of various interpretations of Secretary Perry's specifications and standards directive, caused some concerns, which in turn lee! to the formation of this committee. Even before the introduction of the 1994 Specifications and Standards activity, there was considerable interest on the part of the DoD and the U.S. Congress in considering the status and posture of commercial materials and process specifications and standards in defense procurement. The military specifications (MilSpecs3 have been recognized as being of paramount importance and, in fact, critical for the economic design and procurement of DoD systems. Senate bills (e.g., S.3555, Voluntary Standards and Certification Act of 1976) and Office of Management and Budget circulars over the years have considered the many and complex ramifications of government use of the voluntary consensus standards system. A voluntary consensus standard is a standard developed or adopted by voluntary consensus bodies, both domestic and international. These stanclards require that owners of relevant intellectual property agree to make that intellectual property available on a nondiscriminatory, royalty-free, or reasonable-royalty ;.
6 Impact of Acquisition Reform on DoD Materials and Processes Specifications and Standards basis to all interested parties. These activities are represented by the efforts of the nongovernment standards bodies (NGSBs) in generating materials and process specifications and standards. A nongovernment standard (NGS) is a national or international standardization document cleveloped by a private sector association, organization, or technical society that plans, develops, establishes, or coordinates standards, specifications, handbooks, or related documents. In fact, a detailed study by a previous National Materials Advisory Board (NMAB) committee in 1975 considered the total output of the NGSB activities at that time and the role NGSBs should play in DoD procurement. That committee's final report, "Materials and Process Specifications ant! Standards," NMAB-330, was publisher! in 1977. One of its main conclusions stancis out clearly today: The DoD should take advantage of the voluntary consensus standards system. This shows that the issue of the DoD adopting commercial anal industry specifications and standards for the materials and processes area is not new. As a result of the concerns previously mentioned and the historical interest in this topic, NMAB was informally asked by the DoD Materials Panel of the Joint Reliance Group to conduct a workshop that wouict explore the issues currently associated with the DoD's adoption of commercial materials and process specifications and standards. The key issues raised in the workshop are presented in this report. OBJECTIVE AND TASKS The objective of the workshop was to examine in detail the issues associates! with adopting commercial materials and process specifications for DoD procurement. The participants were asked to identify approaches that would ensure compliance with DoD requirements while satisfying the intent of acquisition reform directives. The Committee for the Workshop on Technical Strategies for Adoption of Commercial Standards in Defense Procurement was formed to plan and conduct a workshop that would identify barriers to the implementation of commercial materials and processing specifications and standards for military systems. The committee, through the workshop, was to explore ways to take advantage of the rapid development of commercial technology in a more efficient and less costly manner. The specific tasks of the workshop included the following: .. · Discussion of military services' requirements and the status of acquisition reform, · Identification of applicable commercial standards and specifications, including appropriate NGSs, · Identification of barriers to the adoption of commercial standards, and · Discussion of the role of the DoD in supporting the preparation, evaluation, and implementation of commercial materials and processing standards and specifications. It was not the committee's assignment to develop independent conclusions or recommendations based on workshop activities. Rather, the committee was tasked with organizing and conducting the workshop and then preparing a report. This report
Introduction highlights the important points of the presentations and resulting discussions, with emphasis on the observations, recommendations, subjects of consensus and/or disagreement, and suggestions made by the participants in the workshop. COMMITTEE FORMATION AND ACTIVITIES ;; The committee was formed in January 2000 as a result of invitations to participate sent from the NMAB. It was intended that the committee would represent a cross section of the technical community involved in the preparation and use of materials and process specifications and standards for DoD applications. Included were representatives of original equipment manufacturers (OEMs), their subcontractors, materials suppliers, and inclepenclent consultants with significant experience in materials and processes and their applications. The first meeting of the committee was held on April 3, 2000, in Washington, D.C. In addition to members of the NMAB staff, several technical representatives of DoD agencies including the Defense Standardization Program Office, the Office of Defense Directorate of Research anti Engineering, the Office of the Deputy Under Secretary of Defense, the United States Air Force, the United States Army, ant! the United States Navy attendee! and participated in the discussions. After introductory comments, the workshop theme, objectives, and topics to be covered were discussed. A preliminary agenda was established, and the group then considered in some detail who would be asked to speak on these topics. At the conclusion of the meeting, individual committee members were asked to contact the potential speakers. Since this was the only meeting schedulecl for the committee prior to the workshop, members were also assigned to serve as session chairs and session scribes; the latter would accurately record the comments and observations made during the workshop. The date of October 11-12, 2000, was agreed upon for the workshop, allowing the committee ample time to contact and confirm the speakers. The decision was made to howl the workshop in the Washington, D.C., area, with NMAB staff to select the exact location and make the necessary arrangements. Since no more meetings of the committee were scheduled, all subsequent activities inviting and confirming speakers and other participants were to be handled by e-mail and telephone. NMAB staff sent formal invitations to the speakers asking them to participate. The remainder of this report presents the details of the workshop, inclucling summaries of the major points made by the speakers in their presentations and detailed descriptions of the questions asked after the presentations, as prepared by the session scribes. Also included are descriptions of the panel discussions held at the conclusion of each session, with the presenters serving as panel members. It was the committee's goal to accurately record the results of the workshop without editorial comment. \
