Technical Cross-Service Group - Meeting Minutes of June 24, 2004. Page: 2 of 36
This text is part of the collection entitled: Defense Base Closure and Realignment Commission and was provided to UNT Digital Library by the UNT Libraries Government Documents Department.
Extracted Text
The following text was automatically extracted from the image on this page using optical character recognition software:
Deliberative Document - For Discussion Purposes Only - Do Not Release Under FOIA
hours by resource category. (NOTE: This is NOT the position of all of the
TJCSG Principals)
5. The Military Value Analysis Report will be updated to reflect the final values and
rationale.
Critical issue 6-24-04-02 Federally Funded Research & Development Centers (FFRDCs)
* Mr. Shaffer presented the recommendation as stated in the issue paper.
* Mr. Potochney indicated it would be necessary to develop rules that could be applied
equally across the Department for determining when FFRDCs would be a factor in
military value in order to fulfill the statutory requirement to treat all bases equally.
Absent such rules, counting only FFRDCs at Hanscom AFB and Los Angeles AFB
would be a violation of the statute.
* Dr. Stewart indicated those particular FFRDCs are examples of FFRDCs that are an
integral part of the intellectual capital required to accomplish the mission at these
locations. He indicated FFRDCs were established to fill a void for intellectual capital
within DoD and therefore this intellectual capital should be included in the Military
Value score.
* Mr. Potochney requested that rationale for differentiating FFRDCs from other
contractors.
* Dr. Stewart stated FFRDCs are different from other contractors in that they are
established by different statute and governed by different rules. He agreed that
specific organizations should not be singled out, but rather the criteria for including
FFRDCs should be applied across all installations.
* In regard to contract termination costs, Mr. Potochney indicated the costs could be
avoided by using the time prescribed by the six year statutory requirement to
implement BRAC recommendations to simply not renew contracts vice terminating..
He also stated potential cost associated with the relocation of an FFRDC due to a
BRAC action may be accounted for during the COBRA analysis
* Mr. Potochney indicated that the TJCSG may raise the issue by asking Mr. Wynne to
revisit his decision in his 4 June 2004 memo that contractors are not to be counted in
the Military Value analysis.
* Mr. Shaffer indicated the TJCSG would like to seek clarification from Mr. Wynne on
his intent of including FFRDCs in the no contractor decision.
* Dr. Dillon indicated he did not know how the TJCSG would be able to accurately
account for all FFRDCs at other locations.
* Dr. Foulkes indicated he was not opposed to asking Mr. Wynne for clarification but
he also indicated these same arguments could be made for all DoD contractors.
Therefore any outcome should either include all contractors and not just FFRDCs or
exclude all contractors
* Dr. Stewart indicated FFRDCs are auditable which would satisfy the IG
recommendations to ensure any contractor data is auditable.
* Mr. Ryan indicated he was neutral on this issue.
* Dr. Short indicated this could have up to a 25% impact on the associated Military
Value scores.
Upcoming Pages
Here’s what’s next.
Search Inside
This text can be searched. Note: Results may vary based on the legibility of text within the document.
Tools / Downloads
Get a copy of this page or view the extracted text.
Citing and Sharing
Basic information for referencing this web page. We also provide extended guidance on usage rights, references, copying or embedding.
Reference the current page of this Text.
United States. Department of Defense. Technical Cross-Service Group - Meeting Minutes of June 24, 2004., text, July 8, 2005; (https://digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metadc17997/m1/2/: accessed April 25, 2024), University of North Texas Libraries, UNT Digital Library, https://digital.library.unt.edu; crediting UNT Libraries Government Documents Department.