[House Hearing, 114 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

[H.A.S.C. No. 114-142]

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

LABORATORIES: INNOVATION THROUGH

SCIENCE AND ENGINEERING IN

SUPPORT OF MILITARY OPERATIONS

__________

HEARING

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON EMERGING THREATS AND CAPABILITIES

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED FOURTEENTH CONGRESS

SECOND SESSION

__________

HEARING HELD

SEPTEMBER 28, 2016

[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

____________

U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
22-460 WASHINGTON : 2017
_____________________________________________________________________________________
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Publishing Office,
http://bookstore.gpo.gov. For more information, contact the GPO Customer Contact Center,
U.S. Government Publishing Office. Phone 202-512-1800, or 866-512-1800 (toll-free).
E-mail, gpo@custhelp.com.

SUBCOMMITTEE ON EMERGING THREATS AND CAPABILITIES

JOE WILSON, South Carolina, Chairman

JOHN KLINE, Minnesota JAMES R. LANGEVIN, Rhode Island
BILL SHUSTER, Pennsylvania JIM COOPER, Tennessee
DUNCAN HUNTER, California JOHN GARAMENDI, California
RICHARD B. NUGENT, Florida MARC A. VEASEY, Texas
RYAN K. ZINKE, Montana DONALD NORCROSS, New Jersey
TRENT FRANKS, Arizona, Vice Chair BRAD ASHFORD, Nebraska
DOUG LAMBORN, Colorado PETE AGUILAR, California
MO BROOKS, Alabama (Vacancy)
BRADLEY BYRNE, Alabama
ELISE M. STEFANIK, New York
Kevin Gates, Professional Staff Member
Lindsay Kavanaugh, Professional Staff Member
Neve Schadler, Clerk

C O N T E N T S

----------
Page

STATEMENTS PRESENTED BY MEMBERS OF CONGRESS

Langevin, Hon. James R., a Representative from Rhode Island,
Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Emerging Threats and
Capabilities................................................... 2
Wilson, Hon. Joe, a Representative from South Carolina, Chairman,
Subcommittee on Emerging Threats and Capabilities.............. 1

WITNESSES

Franchi, Dr. Edward R., Acting Director of Research, Naval
Research Laboratory............................................ 6
Holland, Dr. Jeffery P., Director, Engineer Research and
Development Center, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Waterways
Experiment Station............................................. 5
McMurry, Maj Gen Robert D., USAF, Commander, Air Force Research
Laboratory..................................................... 3
Perconti, Dr. Philip, Acting Director, United States Army
Research Laboratory............................................ 8

APPENDIX

Prepared Statements:

Franchi, Dr. Edward R........................................ 83
Holland, Dr. Jeffery P....................................... 65
McMurry, Maj Gen Robert D.................................... 27
Perconti, Dr. Philip......................................... 101
Wilson, Hon. Joe............................................. 25

Documents Submitted for the Record:

[There were no Documents submitted.]

Witness Responses to Questions Asked During the Hearing:

Mr. Langevin................................................. 115

Questions Submitted by Members Post Hearing:

Mr. Norcross................................................. 127
Mr. Wilson................................................... 121

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE LABORATORIES: INNOVATION THROUGH SCIENCE AND
ENGINEERING IN SUPPORT OF MILITARY OPERATIONS

----------

House of Representatives,
Committee on Armed Services,
Subcommittee on Emerging Threats and Capabilities,
Washington, DC, Wednesday, September 28, 2016.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 2:00 p.m., in
room 2212, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Joe Wilson
(chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JOE WILSON, A REPRESENTATIVE FROM
SOUTH CAROLINA, CHAIRMAN, SUBCOMMITTEE ON EMERGING THREATS AND
CAPABILITIES

Mr. Wilson. Ladies and gentlemen, welcome. I call this
hearing of the Emerging Threats and Capabilities [ETC]
Subcommittee of the House Armed Services Committee to order. I
am pleased to welcome everyone here today for this hearing on
the role of the Department of Defense [DOD] laboratories in
supporting military operations.
While the Secretary of Defense has been highlighting the
need for increased partnerships with commercial providers in
Silicon Valley, Boston, and elsewhere, I think it is important
to remember that the Defense Department also maintains its own
in-house sustained source of innovation. The Defense Laboratory
Enterprise is a robust network of 67 laboratories and
engineering centers that are dedicated to providing responsive
scientific and engineering advice to support military needs.
As we look to make the Department more flexible and
adaptable to take on new innovations, it will be vitally
important to ensure that the labs maintain the workforce and
infrastructure needed to keep them relevant for the future
warfighting environment. And looking at the challenge over the
past 2 years, as chairman of this subcommittee, I am concerned
that the Department is not doing enough to keep pace with the
ever-evolving set of threats.
In order to get a better perspective of these issues, I
would like to welcome our distinguished panel of witnesses,
which includes Major General Robert D. McMurry, U.S. Air Force,
Commander, Air Force Research Laboratory [AFRL]; Dr. Jeffery
Holland, Director, Engineering Research and Development Center
[ERDC], U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Waterways Experiment
Station; Dr. Edward Franchi, the Acting Director of Research at
the Naval Research Laboratory [NRL]; and Dr. Philip Perconti,
the Acting Director of the United States Army Research
Laboratory, ARL.
I would like now to turn to my friend and ranking member,
Mr. Jim Langevin from Rhode Island, for any comments he would
like to make.
I would like to remind our witnesses that your written
statements will be submitted for the record so that you would
summarize your comments to 5 minutes or less.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Wilson can be found in the
Appendix on page 25.]

STATEMENT OF HON. JAMES R. LANGEVIN, A REPRESENTATIVE FROM
RHODE ISLAND, RANKING MEMBER, SUBCOMMITTEE ON EMERGING THREATS
AND CAPABILITIES

Mr. Langevin. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And thank you to our witnesses for being here today. I
certainly look forward to hearing your testimony.
And this hearing represents a unique opportunity to engage
the individuals who run the Department of Defense, the DOD in-
house innovation centers, the major science and technology
laboratory directors.
So, this year in particular, we have heard a lot about the
need for innovation in defense technology, and we often
associate it with the defense innovation centers, or DIUx,
initiative. Although I support outreach to nontraditional
defense contractors, today is an important reminder that there
are existing tools in DOD's toolbox that have a long history of
producing game-changing technologies for our warfighters.
This includes the Naval Undersea Warfare Center's [NUWC]
Newport Division in my home State of Rhode Island. NUWC has
produced technical advances throughout the lifecycle of many
undersea platforms and systems, such as improved mine warfare
sonar technology to ensure safe access and passage to vessels
both on and below the waves.
Our labs, our DOD labs, are institutions that can and
should be further leveraged and enabled by Congress and the
Department to make technical advances necessary to maintain our
edge. These lab directors are not only intimately familiar with
warfighting needs and future requirements, they also have
longstanding partnerships with academia and industry in their
surrounding communities. If we give them support, facilities,
and additional enabling authorities, I believe that they can do
even more.
The ETC Subcommittee has long recognized the importance of
our defense labs. Over the years, we have granted the
Department many different authorities aimed at maintaining
innovation in these institutions. These range from providing
lab directors direct hiring authority, to special pay and
incentives for workforce recruitment and retention, to using
research, development, and technology money for military
construction [MILCON] and facility repair.
Furthermore, this year, in the National Defense
Authorization Act [NDAA] for Fiscal Year 2017, we are
considering a pilot program that will enable our lab directors
to waive, with approval, internal regulations that hinder
technological advancement.
Yet there is more that we can do and more the Department
can do to support our labs, including taking a serious look at
how the services' varying and stringent conference attendance
policies over the last few years have impacted the ability of
the technical workforce to network, to learn, and to showcase.
Today, I look forward to hearing each of your perspectives
on innovation in our labs, specifically how past authorities
granted have aided in keeping our labs innovative and what more
can be done to keep our labs at the forefront of technological
advancements.
With that, again, Mr. Chairman, I want to thank you for
holding this hearing, and I look forward to the testimony of
our witnesses. And I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. Wilson. Thank you, Mr. Langevin.
It is very appropriate that we have Congressman Mike Turner
here today. He is a champion for the Air Force Research
Laboratory at Dayton, Ohio, of course. And I am very grateful.
Ten thousand persons, military and civilian, work there, and he
is a champion. And that is why he is here.
And I ask unanimous consent that non-subcommittee members
be allowed to participate in today's hearing after all
subcommittee members have had an opportunity to ask questions.
Is there objection?
Hearing none, without objection, the non-subcommittee
members will be recognized at the appropriate time for 5
minutes.
General McMurry.

STATEMENT OF MAJ GEN ROBERT D. McMURRY, USAF, COMMANDER, AIR
FORCE RESEARCH LABORATORY

General McMurry. Chairman Wilson, Ranking Member Langevin,
members of the subcommittee and staff, Congressman Turner, as
we move into fiscal year 2017, I am pleased to have the
opportunity to provide testimony on the Air Force Research
Laboratory and our efforts to lead the discovery, development,
and integration of affordable warfighting technologies in the
face of a dynamic, complex, and unpredictable future.
I would like to take a moment to thank Congress and
especially the members of this subcommittee for your service
and your continued support of our laboratories, facilities,
and, most importantly, our valuable scientists and engineers.
As the laboratory's commander, I have seen how your commitment
to science and technology [S&T] enables us to advance game-
changing capabilities, continually develop the S&T workforce,
and strengthen and support industrial and academic base while
leveraging them for the long-term security of our Nation.
Today's AFRL has a proud legacy of 99 years of critical
research efforts enabling the Air Force and Department of
Defense to keep the fight unfair. Our technology breakthroughs
have contributed to or supported every major operational Air
Force platform. As we approach our 100-year anniversary, we now
face a relentless pace of change that is increasing complexity
and decreasing predictability in warfare.
To address this complex environment, we follow the
direction of the Secretary of Defense, Secretary of the Air
Force, and Chief of Staff of the Air Force to bring a new level
of agility and innovation into our capability development
processes, workforce, and infrastructure.
Just as the laboratory provided key innovations in support
of both the first and second offset strategies, I am pleased to
confirm that our game-changing technologies are already
providing support and foundation for realizing a third offset
strategy.
Our efforts, many of which are described in my written
statement, are aligned to the Long-Range Research and
Development Planning Program initiatives. And as part of the
Air Force acquisition process, we also incorporate and support
Mr. Kendall's Better Buying Power 3.0 initiatives. Both of
these broader initiatives provide tools strengthening our
ability to innovate, achieve technical intelligence, and
transition dominant military capabilities to the warfighter.
The laboratory executes the bulk of Air Force S&T
investment. The fiscal year 2017 President's budget request for
S&T is approximately $2.5 billion, a 4.5 percent increase from
fiscal year 2016.
The budget request provides funding for the small advanced
capability missile, the low-cost delivery vehicle, a high-speed
strike weapon demonstration, component weapons technology, and
for position, navigation, and timing technologies in direct
support of the third offset.
We are investing heavily in basic, applied, and advanced
research while continuing to focus on game-changers like
autonomous systems, unmanned systems, nanotechnology,
hypersonics, and directed energy.
At the request of the Chief of Staff of the Air Force, Air
Force Materiel Command recently stood up a Strategic
Development Planning and Experimentation Office. This office
will reinvigorate development planning at the Air Force
enterprise level. The new effort will shift the Air Force from
platform-centric to strategy-based multi-domain solutions
spanning air, space, and cyberspace. The office will support
enterprise capability collaboration teams while providing
modeling and simulation, wargaming, and data to facilitate
development planning for the Air Force's highest priority
mission areas.
The laboratory brings data and requirements together with
operators, technologists, and acquisition professionals to
support Air Force experimentation efforts. We integrate into
and support the Air Force's four pilot experimentation
campaigns: Future Attack, Directed Energy, Data to Decisions,
and Defeat Agile Intelligent Targets.
Finally, I am extremely proud of our world-class scientists
and engineers. Every day, I get to work with some of the
brightest people in the world. They love this Nation and give
selflessly to ensure its protection.
We are working to exercise every authority available to us
to compete with industry in attracting and hiring the best
people. AFRL does have unique facilities and capabilities, and
we use them to attract and inspire individuals to Air Force
STEM [science, technology, engineering, and mathematics]
careers through outreach and student research experiences.
We endeavor to use all our authorities, including section
219 and MILCON funding, to ensure our laboratory facilities
continue to meet our Nation's defense goals.
Mr. Chairman, members of the subcommittee, and staff, thank
you again for the opportunity to testify today. I look forward
to your questions.
[The prepared statement of General McMurry can be found in
the Appendix on page 27.]
Mr. Wilson. Thank you very much, General McMurry.
We now proceed to Dr. Holland.

STATEMENT OF DR. JEFFERY P. HOLLAND, DIRECTOR, ENGINEER
RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT CENTER, U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS,
WATERWAYS EXPERIMENT STATION

Dr. Holland. Chairman Wilson, Ranking Member Langevin,
distinguished members of the subcommittee, Congressman Turner,
thank you for the opportunity to discuss the U.S. Army Engineer
Research and Development Center's role as a major Department of
Defense science and technology organization. I greatly
appreciate the support this committee has shown to S&T and the
opportunities that your support has provided ERDC to carry out
its mission.
ERDC is the S&T arm of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. We
conduct research and development in support of the warfighter,
military installations, and the Corps' civil works mission. We
also manage the Department of Defense's High Performance
Computing Modernization Program, which provides supercomputing
capabilities to DOD research, development, testing, and
evaluation communities throughout the Department.
In fiscal year 2016, we are executing a $1 billion program,
$500 million of which is associated with reimbursable projects
from every military service, the Office of the Secretary of
Defense, and most Federal agencies.
Today, I would like to address three elements that are
critical to everything that we do within the ERDC: people,
programs, and facilities.
Innovation requires a talented workforce, and I am proud to
represent ERDC's 2,100 engineers, scientists, and support
personnel. ERDC's human capital goal for this fiscal year and
the next 5 years is to hire more than 800 new scientists and
engineers to our organization.
We exceeded our annual recruiting goal this year, in large
part due to the direct hiring authorities that have been made
possible because ERDC is one of the 18 Science and Technology
Reinvention Laboratories with laboratory demonstration projects
authorized by the 1995 National Defense Authorization Act.
Differing NDAAs have provided numerous enhancements to our
hiring authorities, and NDAA 2015 provided direct hiring
authorities for students. However, that authority, as yet, has
not been delegated to the laboratories.
I want to thank the Congress for its continued support to
S&T laboratories by including language in the House and Senate
versions of the 2017 NDAA that should greatly enhance our
organizations.
Because we have great people, we execute impactful
programs. DOD service laboratories play a key role in national
security, and ERDC has a long history of providing innovative
solutions to keep our warfighters and civilians safe.
Our force protection technologies are installed in theater
to protect base camps from rocket and mortar attacks. As an
example, though, of a counter-use, the State Department is
using this technology to protect critical facilities and
personnel worldwide. And many buildings in the National Capital
Region, such as the one in which we sit, the Pentagon, and
others, are safer because of ERDC protection technologies.
Our airborne counter-IED [improvised explosive device]
systems are currently providing CENTCOM [Central Command] with
unique capabilities. ERDC's tunnel detection technologies have
been applied in Iraq, along the Egypt-Gaza border, and along
the U.S.-Mexico border in support of DOD and the Department of
Homeland Security.
We deliver environmentally sustainable solutions for
energy, water, and waste in installations. And we are the
Army's leader in energy R&D [research and development] in
support of contingency basing. ERDC is also the world leader in
water resources research and development, supporting the Corps'
critical missions that provide economic security for our
Nation.
Finally, I welcome the opportunity to discuss our
facilities in the 219 program. ERDC needs to modernize and
recapitalize our facilities in order to ensure that we continue
to do the world-class research that we do in support of the
warfighter and our Nation. Our 219 authority allows us to fund
facilities' improvements, and we have had great success in the
use of this authority.
This is particularly important given ERDC's difficulties in
obtaining major MILCON funding. We benefit greatly from the
committee's willingness to extend and enhance the 219
authorities.
We have not, as yet, been able to take advantage of the
authority to provide the 2014 NDAA capabilities that have been
written into law to accrue funds over multiple years for larger
infrastructure activities. We are working on processes that
would allow us to accrue these in an accountable, sustainable
fashion.
In conclusion, I invite you to visit ERDC at any time to
see firsthand why we come to work every day. We make a
difference. We save lives. We safeguard our military and
civilians at home and abroad. And we protect and enhance the
environment around us.
Mr. Chairman, this concludes my statement. I look forward
to the opportunity to answer questions from you and the other
members. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Holland can be found in the
Appendix on page 65.]
Mr. Wilson. Dr. Holland, as a grateful dad of a member of
the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Thank you for your service.
Dr. Holland. Thank you, sir.
Mr. Wilson. Dr. Franchi.

STATEMENT OF DR. EDWARD R. FRANCHI, ACTING DIRECTOR OF
RESEARCH, NAVAL RESEARCH LABORATORY

Dr. Franchi. Chairman Wilson, Ranking Member Langevin, and
distinguished members of the subcommittee, I thank you for this
opportunity to talk about the Naval Research Laboratory's work,
how it performs its S&T mission, and some of the challenges it
faces to the successful execution of that mission.
NRL was borne from an idea conceived in 1915 by Thomas Alva
Edison. The idea became a reality on July 2, 1923. At its most
elemental, Edison's idea was that NRL, working with industry
and academia, and knowledgeable of naval needs, would help
build American seapower through long-term mission-related
research and development. For more than 90 years, NRL has
fulfilled that inventor's idea and vision.
I would like to give you just a few examples over that time
period. In the early years leading up and including World War
II, NRL invented the first U.S. radar and we developed the
first operational U.S. sonar. During the Cold War, NRL provided
America's first intelligence satellite, launched 52 days after
the downing of the U-2 aircraft over the Soviet Union. NRL also
developed the original concept and two prototype satellites for
what is now the Global Positioning System.
As we go forward into regional conflicts and the current
uncertain future, we are focusing on key technologies that
encompass the third offset strategy. As one example, the
laboratory is making important contributions to laser weapons
and railguns. NRL scientists were the first to prepare and
simulate the use of incoherently combined, high-power fiber
lasers as the architecture for the Navy's new Laser Weapon
System. NRL's railgun program began in 2003 and has since
become a critical element in the efforts to development
hypervelocity electric weapons.
Rapid prototyping and experimentation is an important
mechanism in transitioning science and technology to
demonstrations of operational capabilities. One mechanism is
the Navy's rapid prototyping process, where fleet needs are
identified through the OPNAV [Office of the Chief of Naval
Operations] and Secretariat organizations to energize the
entire Naval Research and Development Enterprise to develop
solutions for demonstration and evaluation.
The reasons for NRL's success in providing science at the
cutting edge through patents and publications and delivering
value to the fleet and Nation through technology development
and transitions depends on two fundamental imperatives: a high-
quality workforce and satisfactory facilities. These are our
two main challenges today.
NRL's most serious challenge is the need to remodernize our
aging infrastructure. NRL facilities and laboratories are
experiencing excessive infrastructure failures. While this is
to be expected given the average age of the buildings at NRL's
main campus is 59 years, it is further compounded by inadequate
investment in new facilities and major repairs of existing
facilities.
NRL continues to work with Navy and the Department of
Defense to address these issues, as it is critical that
facilities be improved so we can attract and retain qualified
personnel to work at NRL and deliver state-of-the-art research
and technology solutions in facilities adequately suited not
only for our current requirements but our future requirements.
The second challenge, which we have done, I think, very
well with the help of this subcommittee, is in workforce. We
have a world-class workforce of about 1,600 scientists and
engineers, with more than 870 of them having Ph.D. degrees.
This high-quality workforce is the biggest reason for NRL's
sustained success.
But we must constantly renew this workforce. We use three
primary vehicles authorized by Congress: the Naval Innovative
Science and Engineering Program, part of section 219; the
Laboratory Demonstration Program; and direct hire authority.
Section 219 is primarily used in workforce development,
where we have established the Karles Fellowship Program, which
provides funding to new hires within a year of their graduation
at any degree level with a grade-point average of 3.5. The
fellowship provides for 2 years to conduct their own proposed
research, and we typically fund 25 to 30 of these new fellows
each year.
The Laboratory Demonstration Program began in 1999, and I
will say it is working very well, and high satisfaction from
the workforce. We are also working with DOD's Laboratory
Quality Enhancement Program to achieve other authorities that
have been granted.
And, finally, direct hire authority has, since its
beginning, enabled NRL to hire almost 500 people in the science
and engineering disciplines.
I invite each of you to visit the Naval Research
Laboratory, located a short drive from the Capitol. Thank you
for your time today, your interest in NRL's work, your concern
for defense science and technology, and support of the DOD
laboratories and their missions. I look forward to answering
any questions you have.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Franchi can be found in the
Appendix on page 83.]
Mr. Wilson. Thank you, Dr. Franchi.
We now proceed to Dr. Perconti.

STATEMENT OF DR. PHILIP PERCONTI, ACTING DIRECTOR, UNITED
STATES ARMY RESEARCH LABORATORY

Dr. Perconti. Good afternoon, Chairman Wilson, Ranking
Member Langevin, distinguished members of the subcommittee, and
Congressman Turner. Thank you for inviting me to speak about
Army science and technology in support of military operations.
I am truly honored to be here and to represent my colleagues.
Army Chief of Staff General Mark Milley has made readiness
the Army's top priority. As the world's preeminent ground
combat force, the Army's definition of readiness must include
meeting today's urgent operational needs while ensuring
decisive overmatch for the future force.
As the Army's corporate research lab, ARL performs
foundational research to discover, innovate, and transition
technological developments geared toward acting on
opportunities in power projection, information, lethality and
protection, and soldier performance.
ARL is a part of the Research, Development, and Engineering
Command [RDECOM], the Army's lead for technology integration
and the Army's enabling command in the development and delivery
of unprecedented capabilities for the warfighter.
The RDECOM's strategy for understanding emerging threats
and the operational requirements that next-generation systems
will face are shaped by the strategic guidance from the Office
of the Secretary of Defense [OSD]; the technical and
programmatic oversight of the Office of the Assistant Secretary
of the Army for Acquisition, Logistics, and Technology; the
Army Materiel Command; and various members of the Army
requirements and acquisition communities.
The uncertainty and complexity of future warfare
necessitate innovation across a broad range of science and
technology, which requires a research culture that is agile and
effective, with an emphasis on collaboration that enables the
continuous flow of people and ideas between government,
academia, and the private sector.
ARL is piloting a new business model to create an S&T
ecosystem emphasizing mutual reliance and interdependent,
collaborative research as a critical element of national
security. This new business model, which we call ``Open
Campus,'' focuses on three major initiatives: modern workforce
management and policies, shared facilities with our partners,
and fostering an entrepreneurial and innovative culture.
Through the Open Campus, ARL scientists and engineers work
side by side with colleagues from academia, government, and
industry at ARL and our partner facilities. Over the last year
alone, the number of Open Campus agreements with academia and
industry has more than doubled, from 60 to over 180, with 170
more in negotiation. These agreements have leveraged over $23
million from our Army partners.
Early in 2016, we opened ARL West in Playa Vista,
California. As part of the Open Campus initiative, ARL is
hiring scientists and engineers on the West Coast in order to
gain access to subject-matter experts, technical centers, and
universities not well represented east of the Mississippi. By
the end of this year, ARL will have similar hubs established in
Chicago and in Austin, Texas.
RDECOM enables readiness for today's Army and is now
developing capabilities for the Army of the deep future. RDECOM
scientists and engineers were intimately involved with
developing concepts for the DOD's third offset strategy, as
leading members of the two long-range research and development
planning studies. The third offset strategy places major
emphasis on technologies incorporating unprecedented levels of
automation and integration, and ARL is concentrating on
research areas that are essential to enabling this third
offset.
ARL has greatly benefited from the authorities this
committee has worked so intensely to provide. In particular,
section 219 authority gives ARL the ability to quickly plan and
execute leading-edge research in support of strategic land
power dominance. 219 authority for facilities revitalization
enables ARL to maintain world-class laboratories.
This authority, when combined with the direct hire
authority, gives ARL the ability to attract, train, and then
retain the best workforce our country has to offer, permitting
us to provide competitive starting salaries and benefits on par
with universities and most of the private sector. So, on behalf
of my nearly 3,000 colleagues at the laboratory, thank you for
these vital efforts.
Within fiscal constraints, the Army is investing in
modernization while rebuilding readiness and producing a more
capable, leaner, and globally responsive Army. We will continue
working with our partners to rely on our S&T to develop the
technologies that support the Army's priorities. We will focus
S&T investment priorities to provide the innovative
technologies that close capability gaps, address emerging
threats, reduce acquisition and sustainment costs, and change
the nature of the fight.
There are many opportunities to take advantage of, and
there is more hard work ahead, but I believe ARL is winning the
innovation challenge placed before us. But we need your
continued support as we continue to evolve as the Nation's
premier lab for land forces.
Thank you. And, along with my colleagues, I would like to
extend an invitation to you to visit ARL, which is just up the
beltway. Thank you very much.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Perconti can be found in the
Appendix on page 101.]
Mr. Wilson. Thank you, Dr. Perconti.
And thank each of you. This is remarkable; each of you were
within the 5-minute rule. And now Kevin Gates is going to make
sure that Members of Congress stay within the 5-minute rule,
beginning with me. And so we will begin immediately.
And for each of you, could you name one problem or
impediment that you see keeping the labs from being more
effective at supporting the science and engineering mission of
the Department?
Beginning with General McMurry.
General McMurry. I think that our biggest impediment, when
we talk to our customers, has actually been our ability to put
things on contract in a timely manner. That feedback came back
resoundingly from internal customers and external.
We have taken steps to bring an external team in to look at
our processes and figure out what we have to do to make that
work. And we have begun that process of really trying to
capture the end-to-end, kind of, if you will, engineering or
industrial process of getting things on contract.
That said, things like Direct to Phase II for SBIR [Small
Business Innovative Research] and those authorities that we
have to allow us to bring small-business contracts in place
quickly have been very useful, but the one biggest complaint
from customers has been our ability to put things on contract
and retaining contracting officers and keeping people.
It is more than a problem of just contracting officers.
They are key, but we also have to find a kind of a survivalist
level of training for acquisition. Because it doesn't matter
that you are a lab; you are really focused on trying to make
the same kind of quality decisions and preparations to put
something on contract.
Our researchers need to be competent at that, but we really
need them to be better at--you know, to be researchers. So we
need to get them to a level of competence to support that
process well in a low-overhead manner. And so we are working
that through a multiple set of programs.
Mr. Wilson. And, General, if there is any legislative
initiative that we need to follow up--because we have
constituents come to us frequently with extraordinary
innovation that would be helpful to small businesses, and
however we can expedite them working with you, please let us
know.
General McMurry. We will do that.
Mr. Wilson. Doctor.
Dr. Holland. Mr. Chairman, I would say that you have heard
an allusion to the issues of facilities, and modernizing our
facilities, I would say, is a major issue for us. The ability
to fund those, given the extraordinary priorities that we have
for readiness elsewhere within the services and across the
Department of Defense, the relative priority that science and
technology would have against those, is a major, major issue
for us.
The Department has extraordinary issues associated with
readiness and modernization of its installations in and of
itself. So we have not been able to, thus far, crack the nut,
if you will, sir, on issues of military construction, for major
military construction. We have been successful, in my
organization, getting some unspecified minor MILCON activities
thus far.
And that does put the importance of the opportunity to
possibly aggregate 219 funding back in the game as a major
source of possible funding for modernizing and recapitalizing
facilities.
Mr. Wilson. And we want to back you up too.
Dr. Franchi.
Dr. Franchi. Yes. First, I would like to add to Dr.
Holland's comments about facilities and ways to be able to do
more both the minor and major construction at our facilities.
As another example, as NRL works under the Working Capital
Fund, that means we are a coin-operated operation, 100 percent
customer-funded. And while I think we do world-class science
and technology and engineering and we have a very dedicated
workforce to that, there is a lot of frustration in being able
to do the business operations, not from the competency of the
people, but it is very difficult to retain contracting
officers, supply officers, accountants, budget people. And that
really slows the process down.
And I think General McMurry alluded to that in one sense,
but that is also part of our difficulties, as an example.
Thank you, sir.
Mr. Wilson. And we appreciate your acting leadership on
that too.
Dr. Perconti.
Dr. Perconti. Yes, sir. So I think my colleagues have
really hit on something that we all experience, and that is
this frustration with speed and agility in the system.
When you think about hiring, we have lots of authorities
from DHA, direct hire authority, but now we get to hire people
into the system only to be caught by things like security,
delays for security processing, delays for hiring through the
human resources, things of that nature, which causes you to
lose, you know, very, very high-quality candidates oftentimes.
So I think, across the board, what you are seeing is, if we
could streamline processes along a number of different
opportunities, that would be very, very helpful.
Mr. Wilson. We look forward to working with you on that.
Thank you very much.
Mr. Langevin.
Mr. Langevin. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Again, thank you to all of our witnesses for your testimony
and for the work that you are doing.
I have several questions, but let me get right into it. For
all of our witnesses, please describe how warfighting needs and
future requirements have driven investments and priorities.
And, in particular, how are our lab enterprises closely
connected with the customer?
Dr. Holland. Sir, I would say that the defense labs are
remarkably connected to their customers. I will use my
organization as an example. We meet routinely, perhaps monthly,
quarterly, annually, with a variety of different customers of
different echelons to understand what their requirements are,
even going to the point of placing people directly in line with
customers to understand their requirements very closely.
We attempt very strongly to balance the short-term
requirements that they will bring to us with the long-term
requirements of science and technology to be sure that we are
ahead of the requirements gristmill, if you will, sir, so that
we are not working on today's problems alone all the time.
There is a strong connectivity inside the Army for long-range
assessment planning within the Assistant Secretary of the Army
for Acquisition, Logistics, and Technology, as well as the
Long-Range Research and Development Planning process, LRRDP,
that is ongoing at present at the OSD level.
So there are multiple levels of planning. We work our plans
each year against each of those requirements, working to align
ourselves with those annually.
Gentlemen.
Mr. Langevin. General, you are next.
General McMurry. I think we are aligned very carefully
through strategic planning documents all the way down. We have
also maintain an outreach process with our major commands
[MAJCOMs] where we are talking to them through acquisition
sustainment reviews, also advanced technology councils.
And then we link almost all of our projects to the core
functions support plans that those MAJCOMs put out and the gaps
that are identified in those. Beyond that, it is joint needs
and urgent needs that we are really heavily focused on in the
near term.
Mr. Langevin. Thank you.
Dr. Franchi.
Dr. Franchi. Yes, for our science and technology, our basic
research, early technology development, we are well-aligned
with the Naval Science and Technology Strategy, and that
derives from higher level strategies. We have divisions that
represent over 15 different disciplines, and that means that we
are working on problems that are part of and will be important
to the third offset strategy, just as we have done in the past.
What the challenge is for us is to see where are those
areas where we have sufficient expertise, sufficient people
power to do it, and emphasize those areas more, such as in
cybersecurity expertise, synthetic biology, people who know
about autonomy and cognition and autonomous and manned
interactions and things of that nature.
So I think we are well-positioned to address that in the
future.
Mr. Langevin. Okay. Thank you.
Dr. Perconti. Yes, sir. So we work very, very closely with
the Army's Training and Doctrine Command [TRADOC] to look at
future requirements together, both near-term and far-term. And
much of what we do for the command is to really understand what
the Army future warfighting challenges are and how we can bring
technology to bear to support those challenges.
We are also very much involved with TRADOC's new Big 6+1,
as they call them, the new capabilities that have come out of
the Army Operating Concept Framework. ARL and the Research and
Development Engineering Command has been a very, very important
player in developing the technologies that will go into those
capabilities.
So it is a very, very tight relationship. We very much love
to have TRADOC soldiers in our organizations to work with us
side by side to really teach our scientists and engineers about
what warfighting means and what capabilities mean.
Thank you.
Mr. Langevin. Thank you.
And for all of you very quickly, I think collaboration is
very important in understanding what other capabilities are out
there, what is commercial, off-the-shelf technology that you
can leverage.
What is your respective services' current conference
attendance policy? And, more specifically, who is the final
approval authority? How have the last few years of limitations
on conference attendance impacted the workforce, the lab, and,
ultimately, innovation?
Dr. Franchi. Yes, sir. Right now, conference travel still
requires approval by the Secretary of the Navy's office.
We have worked to streamline the process in the sense of
shortening the lead time involved. We have expanded the
qualifications, if you will, for conference attendance from
just being presenting a paper at a conference to presenting
posters, being on committees, for technology managers being
able to go and see what the state of the art is.
And all of that has been successful, and we have had a very
high approval rate from the Secretary of the Navy's office.
What it requires is--still requires a fair amount of
paperwork to be submitted, and that is probably the one
frustration that our scientists and engineers have. But we are
able to go to conferences. That number of people is growing
again. And so just deleting some of the additional paperwork
would be most helpful, from the Navy's point of view, or at
least my personal opinion, sir.
Mr. Langevin. My time has expired, but if each of you could
respond to that in writing, I would appreciate it. I know the
vote has been called.
[The information referred to can be found in the Appendix
beginning on page 115.]
Mr. Langevin. I yield back.
Mr. Wilson. Thank you, Mr. Langevin.
And we have had votes called. We will proceed for
Congressman Lamborn of Colorado, and then we would recess, with
the goal of coming back around 3:20.
Congressman Lamborn.
Mr. Lamborn. Mr. Chairman, I am going to yield the balance
of my time to Representative Turner, but I do have one quick
question for Dr. Holland.
Which of your four locations does the tunnel research?
Dr. Holland. Vicksburg, Mississippi, sir.
Mr. Lamborn. Okay. I would like to come see that one of
these days. Thank you.
Dr. Holland. Very good.
Mr. Turner. Thank you, Mr. Lamborn. This is a just-in-the-
nick-of-time delegation of time. Thank you.
General McMurry, you and Dr. Holland have both given very
impressive commercials, if you will, for the importance of the
219 provision that allows you to use up to 3 percent of your
laboratory's budget toward revitalization and recapitalizing
facilities infrastructure.
Dr. Holland, you even state that you have not had a project
funded with MILCON in recent memory, which I think gives us the
stress of the need for looking for investment in our
laboratories.
General, you talked about the current opportunities of
where you are trying to advance knowledge being in autonomy,
UAS [unmanned aerial systems], hypersonics, directed energy,
nanotechnology--all areas that it would seem would require both
investment in labs and investment in technologies to advance
that research.
So my question to the panel is: We have, really, two
aspects of this--one, obviously, to continue and strengthen the
authorities that you have in 219, which has given you some
flexibility to direct funds to these types of investments. But,
secondly, how can we increase the competitiveness or your
success rate in the MILCON process?
And if you would, please, give us your thoughts on ways
that the MILCON process perhaps has criteria or a process that
does not give you an advantage, that disadvantages you, and
ways in which we might be able to improve it, and your
additional thoughts on 219.
If General McMurry and Dr. Holland could respond on that.
General McMurry. Congressman Turner, good seeing you again.
I would say that--let's start with the 219. The project
limit increase would be significant capability. I believe that
moves from $4 million to $6 million. That would change what we
can do there. Otherwise, 219 is the--I mean, that is the crowd-
pleaser within the lab. Everybody is very happy with the
capabilities that that brings.
With respect to MILCON, we have had some success. We had a
project at Kirtland on our space vehicles lab that has been
underway from last year. And we are--well, we have a submission
that should happen in 2017, all things being equal, down at
Eglin for a munitions, advanced munitions, capability.
To improve our capability, it appears that the closer you
are to the flight line and the more you are to hazard response,
the better chance you have. What I have been trying to explain
to people is that, for the labs, the facilities are our
runways. You know, they are the things that allow us to do our
mission. So I think we are trying to educate ourselves to
better explain how the facilities impact mission.
And the reason I didn't highlight that as the number-one
issue is because, currently, our rating of what our facilities
are capable of doing is pretty--it is okay. We can get the
mission done; we have support issues. But as we look down the
way, that is when we start to see them tail off in capability
and the need to upgrade them. 219 helps alleviate that a lot.
MILCON will help more.
Dr. Holland. Certainly, the opportunity to implement the
process of aggregating and, if you will, rolling over 219
funding to be able to bring funding from certain years forward,
to be able to fund larger projects, would help this process. It
would provide for an additional funding source. The actual
legislation does exist. Our implementation process has not yet
come to fruition for us.
As for the actual MILCON process, I would say that the
process as it exists today, for the sake of the Department, is
not particularly flawed. There are enormous sets of issues in
the Department that require aspects of military construction.
Rather, if we are going to be able to make inroads for, in
the case of Army--and I would not propose to speak for the
Navy, but in case of the Navy's issues, we would be in a
situation where we would almost have to have a separate set of
criteria or funding opportunity that would be specific to the
laboratories to be able to cause that to happen.
The Air Force has actually been somewhat more successful
than I have been able to be, thus far, for funding MILCON
projects.
Mr. Turner. Thank you both.
Mr. Wilson. Thank you very much.
And we are in recess.
[Recess.]
Mr. Wilson. Ladies and gentlemen, we will call the
subcommittee back to order. And my other colleagues, I am
confident, are racing across Capitol Hill as we speak.
And as we are awaiting others to proceed, a question for
each of you that would be important: Could the labs play a
bigger role in training future workforces for emerging
technologies like cyber, autonomy, or quantum technologies?
General.
General McMurry. I think that we can contribute to a
training environment; I don't know that we are the best
training ground. I think that there is no doubt that we can
contribute to doing that. I do think that, as we move into
those new technologies, we will likely draw on lab expertise to
figure out how to set up education and training and build that
expertise. That is more across the force, but that is kind of
where I come down on that, sir.
Mr. Wilson. And Doctor.
Dr. Holland. Mr. Chairman, I believe that if we could set
the right conditions, I believe the answer is very much ``yes''
to that.
Within the work that we are able to do within the science,
technology, engineering, and mathematics communities,
particularly for K through 12 activities and even within the
college realm, if we were able to continue to get some funding
for these activities to work with younger students to get them
engaged in these efforts, to hold summertime activities with
them to introduce them to the types of opportunities and
facilities that we have, many of our people are remarkably
passionate about having the chance to share these types of
opportunities. And so, at that level, I think we could be
extremely successful.
Mr. Wilson. And you are probably already doing this, but I
am really grateful the Savannah River National Laboratory is in
the district I represent. And they have internships and
programs with the local technical college to provide
opportunities for shadowing--and I am sure you all probably
already do that, but I--and then promoting STEM programs, as
you mentioned, at every level.
So thank you very much.
And Dr. Franchi.
Dr. Franchi. Yes, at NRL, we have several programs. We have
the Science and Engineering Apprenticeship Program for 10 weeks
in the summer. A very diverse community comes to that. We have
the Naval Research and Engineering Internship Program, which is
sponsored by the Office of Naval Research--similar. We engage
with high schools in the area very much to encourage regular
students coming in.
I think two things. I think one is for management to
encourage more of our workforce to be mentors, because it does
take time. And, secondly, to perhaps have a source of funding
for that mentorship, since we are working for customers on
reimbursable orders, and I think a lot of our scientists and
engineers give more than their--way more than their 40 hours as
it is. And it is not that they don't want to do it, but they
feel sometimes it is difficult to trade that off over what our
customer is working for.
Mr. Wilson. Thank you.
And Dr. Perconti.
Dr. Perconti. Yes, sir. So it is absolutely vital for us to
bring students in at the earliest age, K through 12 in
particular. If you can hook them when they are young, then they
want to move into S&T as a profession. So we work very hard to
make sure that we have programs available for--STEM programs
available for K through 12.
The Army has a wonderful program called eCYBERMISSION that
allows students to compete in computer sciences and cyber-
related kinds of activities. So, very, very fortunate for us to
have programs like that to continue to train the workforce.
Mr. Wilson. And I am delighted to hear about the
eCYBERMISSION. There is no question that the younger the person
is introduced to these issues, the better and then the more
proficient as they grow older. So I wish you well.
And then a final question from me, and you have all touched
on it, and it is regarding the sustainment and repair of
existing infrastructure. And I am concerned to hear the age of
59, as to the age of the buildings. What more can we do to help
each of you address this?
And this time, we will reverse this way, with Dr. Perconti
going first.
Dr. Perconti. Well, sir, SRM [sustainment, restoration,
modernization] is a big problem for us because of the
reductions in the Army SRM budgets in general. I think that one
thing that people need to do is recognize the difference
between services or, say, laboratory operations versus the
difference in services that are provided for generalized
offices and the things like that. It is a very complicated
space that needs lots of planning and lots of maintenance and
requires sustained investment to keep those facilities
operating in a manner that is proficient for all of us.
So I think that is a recognition that those services need
to be increased, or perhaps we can then use other financial
resources to perhaps use--if it is a mission-related problem,
perhaps to use some of our RDT&E [research, development, test
and evaluation] mission funds to actually take care of some of
those problems.
Mr. Wilson. And Dr. Franchi.
Dr. Franchi. Yes. First of all, regarding SRM, we collect
SRM in our overhead, I think, sufficient to do a lot of our
maintenance and some modernization. It would very much help if
we could do that with minor construction authority levels
raised. I understand that is under consideration. As Dr.
Holland said, being able to accumulate funding for facilities
over years and then use it, that would be very helpful.
And we are working very seriously in the Department of the
Navy to look at ways to put more attention and perhaps funding
into the military construction process. NRL in the last 15
years has been, I guess, fortunate, because that 59 years has
been decreased by two very significant military construction
projects--one, an Institute for Nanoscience, which has really
put us on the leading edge of nanoscience and quantum. That was
about 15 years ago. And 4 years ago, we opened the Laboratory
for Autonomous Systems Research, which gives us facilities that
simulate, emulate all of the environments that our
warfighters--Navy, Marine Corps, compatriots in the Army and
the Air Force--could take advantage of.
So it is really continuing down that road as we move into
these emerging areas where we have to put more emphasis would
really be helpful.
Mr. Wilson. Thank you.
And Dr. Holland.
Dr. Holland. Sir, just to reiterate, the opportunity to
have a greater understanding of the total cost of laboratory
space and what it actually costs to maintain that versus a
standard barracks or a standard office space would be a very
helpful piece of information to understand.
Secondly, anything that is done that increases our
opportunity to modernize will very much decrease the cost of
maintaining these extremely old facilities that we have. So,
for example, even though I have not given a number, inside
ERDC, our average building is over 41 years old. And that
includes the construction of three new facilities in the last 5
years that we have been able to build not off MILCON but off of
other resources available through the Corps of Engineers.
Mr. Wilson. Thank you.
And we conclude with General McMurry.
General McMurry. First, Mr. Chairman, I would say that on
the previous question regarding the training, I think the STEM
aspects I wholeheartedly support, and I probably misinterpreted
your question slightly.
As we go forward on this, I really think the ability to do
projects outside of MILCON is huge. I think anything that would
raise the level of--allow us to use 219, R&D, anything. The
deferred maintenance budget within the Air Force is a big deal.
I mean, we have really squeezed facilities in order to deal
with the ongoing fight and modernization. So I think anything
that gives us a little flexibility is fine.
We are not the only ones feeling the squeeze on facilities
and maintenance. And we know that the resources to do just
routine maintenance are very stretched.
So I will leave it at that. I think the others have talked
very eloquently about it.
Mr. Wilson. Well, thank each of you for your response.
And we now will be concluding with Congressman Langevin.
Mr. Langevin. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
If I could go back to when I was asking about transition of
technologies to the warfighter, can you describe examples of
successes in rapidly delivering game-changing technologies or
capabilities? For example, a capability to protect against
improvised explosive devices. What enabled you to ultimately
deliver these game-changing technologies? Was it things like
funding, for example, or authorities? What precludes
transitioning such technology into systems or platforms on a
more routine and rapid basis?
General McMurry. Well, sir, I would say that the thing that
enables us to solve that is actually putting the focus on it.
That is generally the first thing. We resource it, we put it
into--for us, we use the Center for Rapid Innovation, and they
tear that problem apart and look at it as what is the real
problem, not what is your preferred solution. I think that is a
key step in how we deal with it. It is really back to that
strategy-based look, but what are we really trying to solve.
Examples that we have is providing ISR [intelligence,
surveillance, and reconnaissance] assets--that is of Silver
Fang--or the LEAP [Long Endurance Air Platform] aircraft that
is flying over there now are pretty good examples of things
that we have been able to put out. And we end up providing
capabilities that meet the need as opposed to capabilities that
meet the expected solution. And when we do that, we tend to do
it at a lower cost and a shorter rate.
The thing that prevents transition, it is hard to say, but
I think it is really just getting the agreement that we are
going to transition and how we are going to bring that into the
operational fold and which service will pick that bill up and
when. Because, usually, the bills aren't that big, but
everybody is so tight on money, just trying to figure out how
to plan for that and a timeline is a challenge. And part of
what I am trying to do is get that agreement up front.
Mr. Langevin. Anybody else want to comment on that?
Dr. Holland. Yes, sir. The funding aspect of it I think
could perhaps be best shown by the extreme emphasis that we put
on counter-IED issues through the Joint IED Defeat Organization
during its existence. Because we had a very dedicated pot of
money associated with that and an extraordinary need in
theater, we were able to, across the Department, come together
to bring a variety of technologies together very quickly
compared to what we might refer to as normal means, many times
bringing very basic research into application in as little as
24 months.
Admittedly, in doing that, we were also identifying levels
of risk that we were taking that were levels of risk that are
not normal for a normal program of record. But the requirement,
that joint urgent need that we had, mandated that we take those
risks at that time. And we were able to field a number of
capabilities that we brought to theater that met a requirement
for the short term that we had in theater, particularly in
Afghanistan.
Now, transitioning those over the long term then falls back
to the process of working within our program of record to
ensure that we are able to do that. And that goes back to the
process, the tried-and-true process, of working that through
the system to achieve that transition within those programs.
But we are fully capable of developing that integrated
capability when the opportunity arises.
Mr. Langevin. And how do you coordinate to reduce our
redundant investments amongst the enterprise, as well as to
leverage lessons learned and investments made?
Do either of the other two witnesses want to comment?
Dr. Franchi. Yes, sir. I can add a few things here.
I think it is at the bench level, principally, when we have
our scientists and engineers across the DOD Laboratory
Enterprise engaging with industry, engaging with academics at
conferences, meetings, other venues. That is where we learn
what the capabilities are.
And then it is incumbent on them and their managers to say,
okay, are we doing the same type of work? And, if so, if it is
complementary or even duplicative in the sense of taking a
different approach, that is good, because that is how we learn.
And so I think that is one way to reduce the concern about
redundancy.
I would also like to comment on your first question, if I
may, Congressman.
Mr. Langevin. Sure.
Dr. Franchi. You asked what enables, sort of, rapid
responses to capabilities. I think it is the sustained
investment over many years of science and technology at your
defense laboratories. Because we often have the technology on
the shelf, but not until there is an urgent need for it does it
come forward. And it is either a technology we have or a
technology that we can adapt in a reasonable amount of time to
meet a need.
And so, in that sense, it is transitioning to today's
warfighting needs, the urgent needs. But I think processes that
would allow us to look further into the future and transition
warfighting capabilities from our science and technology that
may not be as urgent today but might be in 5 or 10 years.
Dr. Perconti. Sir, if I may add, I think that the
Department has the communities of interest, which is run by
ASD(R&E) [Assistant Secretary of Defense for Research and
Engineering], where the three services come together to really
look at our programs across a number of disciplines to ensure
that we are aligned, to ensure that redundancies in those
programs are reduced or eliminated, and to ensure that we are
leveraging the resources to the best of abilities across our
program.
This has been very, very effective in bringing the three
services together to make sure--everyone has slightly different
requirements, but many times, particularly at the component
level, those technologies are leveraged.
Mr. Langevin. Very good.
Well, thank you very much. With that, I will yield back the
balance of my time. I appreciate you all being here and the
work that you are doing.
Mr. Wilson. Thank you, Mr. Langevin.
I would like to thank Kevin Gates again for his leadership
on the committee. We have a terrific professional staff that
are available to you. And, each of you, thank you for your
service on behalf of our country.
We are now adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 4:00 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]

=======================================================================

A P P E N D I X

September 28, 2016

=======================================================================

PREPARED STATEMENTS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD

September 28, 2016

=======================================================================

[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

=======================================================================

WITNESS RESPONSES TO QUESTIONS ASKED DURING

THE HEARING

September 28, 2016

=======================================================================

RESPONSES TO QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MR. LANGEVIN

General McMurry. AFRL conference attendance is now delegated to
supervisory level approval. June 2016 Guidance empowers leadership to
make the best decision at the optimum levels for employees and members
to attend science and technology conferences. AFRL has experienced a
savings of over 700+ man-hours due to not having to complete travel
packages each time someone wants to attend a conference. Quicker and
more appropriate approval authority--now at the level in which the
approver is very aware of the benefits to the organization. In addition
to the obvious benefit of giving our S&Es a chance to excel at their
jobs, a significant secondary benefit is the re-establishment of some
level of trust that our S&Es and their supervisors are able to figure
out for themselves which conferences they should and can afford to
attend. This in turn supports the organization's mission and allows for
professional growth of S&Es. Our S&Es and their immediate supervisors
can again manage to their budgets and requirements. An additional
benefit to the government is the S&Es ability to book travel earlier,
which in some cases allows them to take advantage of lower travel
costs, leading to cost savings to the government. Attendance by our AF
SMEs at these S&T conferences is necessary in order to maintain and
advance the leading/cutting edge of technology to support the AF
warfighters.
However, despite the tremendous improvements made to attend Non-DOD
Hosted conferences, the approval process for DOD-Hosted conferences
over $100K continues to be burdensome and time-consuming. AF Conference
Business Rules added that all co-sponsored conferences that have 50% or
more government speakers be approved by SAF/AA. This policy has no
dollar amounts, making any interchanges with industry and academia with
a registration fee and scheduled agenda impossible. The approval
packages takes months for the many coordination's before it reaches
SAF/AA. Small and low cost local events sponsored with non-profit
organizations, industry, and universities should be approved (if at
all) at the local leadership level based on the value to the local
community as well as to the local military organizations. [See page
13.]
Dr. Holland. The current Army policy on conference attendance is
``Army Directive 2016-14 (Army Conference Policy)'' dated 4 May 2016.
This policy establishes the final approval authority for attending
conferences hosted by non-Department of Defense organizations (non-DOD
conferences) based on the estimated total Army expenditures in support
of the conference.
This Army policy permits any General Officer or SES in the chain of
command to approve participation in a non-DOD conference where total
Army expenditures are less than $100,000 and fewer than 50 personnel
within his or her purview are attending. This authority cannot be
delegated further. Non-DOD conference attendance where Army
expenditures are in excess of $100,000 or more than 50 personnel from a
single organization are participating must be approved by the Secretary
of the Army (SA), Chief of Staff of the Army (CSA), or the
Administrative Assistant to the Secretary of Army (AASA) as
appropriate. Attendance at non-DOD conferences exceeding $500,000 in
costs to the Army are generally prohibited, although the SA may grant a
written waiver.
The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) conference policy
supplements the Army conference policy and provides further guidance
impacting Engineer Research and Development Center (ERDC) attendance at
non-DOD conferences. At this time, the Corps policy is in draft form
but is the operating policy as directed by USACE HQ 8 August 2016. The
USACE policy requires me to approve all conference attendance of ERDC
personnel (SES lab Directors do not have approval authority) and limits
my approval authority to $50,000 total expenditures and less than 50
attendees. The USACE Commanding General (CG) must approve conference
attendance when we exceed $50,000 in total expenditures. The CG must
also approve any OCONUS conference attendance.
Prior to the May 2016 update to conference policy, the procedures
for attending non-DOD conferences were considerably more stringent. For
example, under the policy dated 8 July 2015, the USACE CG was only
authorized to approve attendance at non-DOD conferences with costs less
than $20,000. Requests with higher costs had to be routed to the AASA
(up to $75,000) or the SA. In addition, previous policies required
lengthy request packets and record keeping requirements even for events
with very low costs to the government.
The limitations on conference attendance over the last few years
significantly reduced the numbers of scientists and engineers attending
conferences. The goal of reducing conference expenditures and
conference participation was accomplished. Unfortunately, those
restrictions had a significant negative impact on our ability to share
and learn information from our colleagues in the scientific community.
The lengthy, convoluted process, effectively limited participation
of Scientists and Engineers who were invited as speakers or panel
members. Our scientists were discouraged by the amount of time,
preparation and paperwork needed to obtain approval to attend a
conference. As a result, our conference attendance dropped
dramatically. While our most senior and accomplished members were
approved to speak at conferences, our new and young scientists and
engineers had almost no opportunity to hear them or any other top
people in their field. Non participation left a feeling of uncertainty
within the Science and Engineering community and our status and
recognition as subject matter experts and ability to grow innovation
was jeopardized. Where we once were chairing scientific panels and had
younger scientists ``waiting in the wings,'' our inability to commit to
attendance in advance led conference organizers to seek other
scientists and engineers to fill those panels.
The Army policy that came out in May simplified the conference
approval process, even with the additional restrictions of the Corps.
Our scientists and engineers are now encouraged to participate in more
conferences and they are eagerly accepting these opportunities. We have
seen a significant increase in conference attendance requests since the
release of the May Army guidance and those requests are being approved
in a much timelier manner. I believe, with time, our scientists and
engineers will be back to attending those conferences that will keep
them on the cutting edge of technology and as recognized subject matter
experts in their fields. [See page 13.]
Dr. Franchi. A. Non-DOD conference attendance that cost $100K or
less requires Department of the Navy/Assistant for Administration
approval. Requests for conference travel are signed and submitted by
the Naval Research Laboratory (NRL) Director of Research (DOR) to
Department of the Navy/Assistant for Administration (DON/AA). Each
conference travel request submitted to DON/AA for approval by the DOR
requires: 1) Conference Request Memorandum--A required document by DON/
AA signed by the DOR certifying that the conference attendance/
participation is essential to NRL's mission 2) Conference Attendance
Request (brief sheet)--Overall conference/travel details with a cost
analysis (i.e. purpose of conference, value to the organization and how
it advanced the DON mission, impact if disapproved, cost estimates and
dates of travel) 3) Agenda--if available, or an abbreviated conference
agenda. 4) In keeping with SECNAV policies and the ALNAV 046/16 (Ref.
(a)) to be fiscally responsible, NRL requires that participation at
conferences be limited to those with an active role. An active role is
defined as: a. A traditional speaking or responsibility role at a
conference (ex. Invited speaker, poster presenter, conference
chairperson, etc.), and/or b. Participants will be attending relevant
technical/scientific sessions in order to capture cutting edge
scientific/technical information paid for by others for the benefit of
the Navy and to more effectively shape the directions of their
research, and/or c. Participants will be reviewing the research
presented by other researchers in their field and will be seeking
qualified peer researchers for potential collaboration as means of
amplifying the products of the Navy's research investments, and/or d.
Participants manage large research portfolios and it is imperative that
the individuals understand the state-of-the-art in the research fields
for which they are responsible. They can benefit from research
conducted by others so that they may more effectively direct their
research programs to the best benefit of the Navy, avoid duplication,
and identify potential collaborators or highly qualified candidates for
hire.
B. Non-DOD conference attendance exceeding $100K requires both
Secretary of the Navy (SECNAV) pre-approval and approval. The SECNAV
conference approval process consists of: 1) A conference pre-approval
data call by DON/AA for preliminary attendance and exhibit costs. This
is due approximately three quarters before the start date. The exact
due date is listed in the Monthly Upcoming SECNAV/UNSECNAV Conferences
List issued by DON/AA. 2) Commands submit formal requests to attend the
pre-approved conference (90 days in advance of the conference start
date).
C. Current DON Conference Guidance: 1) ALNAV 046/16, dated 27 June
2016 2) DOD Conference Guidance Version 4.0, dated 26 June 2016 3) OMB
Memo M-12-12 of May 11, 2012, Subj: Promoting Efficient Spending to
support Agency Operations 4) Conference Management SECNAV website:
https://portal.secnav.navy.mil/orgs/DUSNM/DONAA/CPEM/SitePages/
DON%20Conferences.aspx
SECNAV is responsible for conference policy for the DON. DUSN (M)
is responsible for implementing the policy and will issue operating
guidance for conference management within the DON. [See page 13.]
Dr. Perconti. The Army's most recently published policy on
conference attendance was put in place May of 2016, permitting the
first Senior Executive Service supervisor in an employee's chain of
responsibility to approve conference participation outside of the
Department of Defense for Army expenditures of less than $100,000 when
fewer than 50 employees will be attending. When the expenditure exceeds
the $100,000/50 employee ceiling, it requires the approval of either
the Secretary of the Army, Chief of Staff of the Army or the
Administrative Assistant to the Secretary of the Army, as appropriate.
This new policy has greatly improved RDECOM's overall participation in
scientific and technical conferences.
The last few years of limited conference attendance has
significantly reduced ARL's ability to lead and influence the
scientific community in support of Army priorities, and has had similar
impacts on other parts of RDECOM as a whole. Within ARL alone
conference publications went from a high of 1,497 conference papers
published in 2012 to a 43 percent decline after restrictions in 2013,
with 848 papers published. Only 20 percent of these papers were
presented by ARL staff as a result of the strict conference attendance
guidelines. Several years of limited conference attendance has kept
leading experts away from discussions about cutting-edge research that
came out during that timeframe; it impacted the natural synergy among
colleagues that boosts scientific discovery and it impacted ARL's
influence in industries where the laboratory typically leads. The drain
on innovation is something that we are working hard to overcome using
the Open Campus Initiatives to foster closer collaborations with
academia and industry at the earliest stages of research. The most
recent policy changes have made approvals for conference attendance
quicker and easier, with more lead time for those participating. This
has significant impact on Army readiness, both current and future, by
allowing RDECOM to better drive the national research and development
agenda to address Army and joint Warfighter needs. [See page 13.]

=======================================================================

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MEMBERS POST HEARING

September 28, 2016

=======================================================================

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MR. WILSON

Mr. Wilson. Can you tell us for the past three years what your
time-to-hire is for each of the various types of direct hire? How does
that compare in the same timeframe for traditional government hiring
processes?
General McMurry. AFRL utilizes the legislated Direct Hire
authorities for most of our Scientist & Engineering (S&E) hiring, which
does not require job posting. The Direct Hire authority has enabled
AFRL managers to hire scientists and engineers in less than 3/4th the
time of traditional hiring methods. In order to provide a comparison
between Direct Hire and conventional hiring, we measured the date a
hiring request arrived in the personnel office to the date of tentative
offer to a candidate:
Direct Hire--11 days
Conventional Hire--44 days
RPAs--Request for Personnel Actions
DHA--Direct Hire Authority
DHA-Adv--Advanced Degree
DHA-Bach--Bachelor's Degree
DHA-Vet--Veteran
EHA--Expedited Hiring Authority
Others--Conventional Hire

AFRL Direct Hire Timelines (FY14-16)
FY14
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Average # Days from RPA
Hiring Authority # of RPAs Submitted Initiated to Tentative Average # Days from RPA
Offer Initiated to Effective Date
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DHA-Adv 80 28.9 65.6
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
EHA 44 31.9 66.7
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Others 125 64.6 87.2
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

FY15
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Average # Days from RPA
Hiring Authority # of RPAs Submitted Initiated to Tentative Average # Days from RPA
Offer Initiated to Effective Date
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DHA-Adv 114 20.7 60.6
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DHA-Bach 68 22.0 55.8
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DHA-Vet 2 16.0 60.0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
EHA 42 21.8 68.0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Others 151 56.9 83.8
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

FY16
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Average # Days from RPA
Hiring Authority # of RPAs Submitted Initiated to Tentative Average # Days from RPA
Offer Initiated to Effective Date
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DHA-Adv 111 15.6 63.9
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DHA-Bach 53 17.2 60.9
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DHA-Vet 3 34.2 63.3
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
EHA 40 37.5 76.1
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Others 136 66.3 87.4
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Mr. Wilson. This committee has sponsored and the Congress has
passed numerous personnel management authorities for the laboratories.
The implementation of many of these authorities, such as the direct
hire for students from the FY15 NDAA, are still undergoing
administrative review and have not been implemented.
From your perspective, what is causing such long delays in
implementation?
What impact are these long delays having on lab operations?
The office of the Under Secretary for Personnel and Readiness P&R
is responsible for implementing these workforce authorities. Do you
feel like P&R is placing sufficient focus or attention on these
laboratory workforce issues? What more could or should they be doing?
General McMurry. We appreciate the work of Congress to provide
continued improvements in personnel authorities. These authorities
allow AFRL to be as competitive as possible with industry in attracting
top scientists and engineers. AFRL is working with OUSD(P&R) to use all
of these authorities provided us to their full extent. Unfortunately
there have been very long delays in obtaining many of our legislated
authorities. The reason appears to be the fact that OUSD(P&R) no longer
has a dedicated office to manage the alternative personnel systems
(demonstration projects).. This coupled with significant internal
review, to include Office of General Counsel review on most actions,
and conflicting guidance, has hampered timely implementation of these
authorities.
The delay in approving the legislated student direct hire authority
delayed AFRL's plans to establish a robust student hiring plan during
the CY16 student hiring timeframe. Past STEM student hiring has been
minimal due to quality of applicants, missing documentation that
disqualifies qualified applicants, inability to target specific
schools, etc. associated with the Pathways program. Through our K-12
STEM Outreach efforts we are establishing an apprenticeship program
that will place high school students with technical mentors to
accomplish STEM projects. The Student Direct Hire would provide an
effective mechanism to continue these students through their college
careers.
AFRL had an individual who retired from Google, and was
instrumental in establishing Google Maps, that wanted to volunteer with
us. Our current Federal Register Notice (FRN) allowed for retired
military and civilians to volunteer but not private citizens. The lack
of approval on a minor modification we requested in November 2016
resulted in a loss of this valuable, free asset.
The lack of approval of the AFRL FRN for flexible term appointments
and temporary promotions has prevented us from using these
flexibilities. Considering the requested publication of the
aforementioned AFRL FRN for flexible term appointments and temporary
promotions was sent to OUSD(P&R) in November 2015, the AFRL minor
modification to our Voluntary Emeritus Corps authority was sent in
November 2016 and the FY15 and 16 legislated authorities have yet to be
approved by OUSD(P&R), I would prefer the system was more responsive. A
dedicated staff, a definitive determination when a FRN is needed and a
clear, concise process for approval of demonstration project and
legislative authorities would be helpful.
Mr. Wilson. Can you tell us for the past three years what your
time-to-hire is for each of the various types of direct hire? How does
that compare in the same timeframe for traditional government hiring
processes?
Dr. Holland. For the past three years, the U.S. Army Engineer
Research and Development Center (ERDC) has been able to use its Direct
Hire Authorities (DHA) to reduce the time it takes to successfully
recruit in the Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics (STEM)
fields by over 50 percent. The majority of ERDC's new Direct Hires are
graduating students in the science and engineering fields, and an
important factor in the successful recruitment of these students is
getting a job offer commitment early in the academic year before
graduation. Therefore, the most telling measure of the positive DHA
impact is the ``Initiation to Commit'' time, which is a measure of the
time between the first steps in the recruit action until the recruit
accepts a tentative job offer (pending their graduation in good
standing). The average commit times for the last three fiscal years are
21.3 days for ERDC's DHA actions and 44.6 days for our traditional
Competitive actions. This critically important 21 day commit time
compares even more favorably to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
(USACE) average of 62 days and the Army average of 81 days over the
past three years for Competitive hires. It is clear that the DHA allows
the ERDC to target and successfully recruit the best and brightest
candidates available in the very competitive STEM fields.
Mr. Wilson. This committee has sponsored and the Congress has
passed numerous personnel management authorities for the laboratories.
The implementation of many of these authorities, such as the direct
hire for students from the FY15 NDAA, are still undergoing
administrative review and have not been implemented.
From your perspective, what is causing such long delays in
implementation?
What impact are these long delays having on lab operations?
The office of the Under Secretary for Personnel and Readiness P&R
is responsible for implementing these workforce authorities. Do you
feel like P&R is placing sufficient focus or attention on these
laboratory workforce issues? What more could or should they be doing?
Dr. Holland. Management responsibilities in the Office of the Under
Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness (P&R) for Alternate
Personnel Systems, which includes the Laboratory Demonstration Programs
in the Science and Technology Reinvention Laboratories (STRLs), are not
assigned to any one office in P&R. Previously, there was one office
which focused entirely on Alternate Personnel Systems. This was of
great benefit to the STRLs to expedite the publishing of Federal
Registers, when needed. The current plan for utilizing personnel
demonstration authorities, Department of Defense Instruction 1400.37,
includes specific timelines for review of actions by the Components and
P&R and is satisfactory to allow Laboratory Directors to utilize the
authorities. We are encouraged that P&R is now reviewing this plan and
hopeful of positive results to improve and streamline processes to meet
Demonstration Project objectives.
Direct hire for students is a very beneficial authority that will
allow us to immediately hire students without going through the
cumbersome, time-consuming, and restrictive national advertising of
these positions. We have robust outreach programs with local schools in
four states and Educational Partnership and Cooperative Research and
Development Agreements with over 80 colleges and universities. The
ability to directly hire students will afford us the opportunity to
promote early interest in Science, Technology, Engineering, and
Mathematics (STEM)-related fields to bring to bear the best talent to
solve the interdisciplinary problems that we address.
The NDAA 2016 includes provisions to assist in the reshaping of the
workforce; specifically, Voluntary Separation Incentive Payments
(VSIP). Not having this results in our inability to be able to quickly
eliminate skills that are no longer needed and acquire new technical
capabilities in response to evolving requirements. We are extremely
grateful for the support provided by P&R to expand the scope of this
flexibility to ensure full utilization of these authorities.
Mr. Wilson. Can you tell us for the past three years what your
time-to-hire is for each of the various types of direct hire? How does
that compare in the same timeframe for traditional government hiring
processes?
Dr. Franchi. The average time for Direct Hire for Advanced Degrees
to receive a tentative offer from date of receipt of RPA in the NRL
Human Resources Office (HRO) is 2 calendar days. To receive a firm
offer is 15 calendar days from date of receipt of RPA in the NRL HRO.
The average time for Direct Hire for Bachelors to receive a
tentative offer from date of receipt of RPA in the NRL HRO is 2
calendar days. To receive a firm offer is 13 calendar days from date of
receipt of RPA in the NRL HRO.
The average time for Direct Hire for Veterans to receive a
tentative offer from date of receipt of RPA in the NRL HRO is 13
calendar days. To receive a firm offer is 34 calendar days. The reason
for delays include waiting for veterans documentation.
Direct Hire authorities waive the requirement to publish individual
vacancy announcements, evaluate candidates, and issue certificates of
eligible candidates; whereas direct hire authority allows managers to
submit name requests immediately after identification of a qualified
candidate. NRL HRO reviews selection packages to ensure eligibility
requirements are met and makes tentative offers within three calendar
days of receipt of the RPA.
For traditional delegated examining used to fill NRL positions, it
takes on average 97 calendar days from date of receipt of RPA in the
NRL HRO to give a tentative offer and 120 calendar days from date of
receipt of RPA in the NRL HRO to give a firm offer. The length of time
is increased because of the time it takes to prepare job analysis,
advertise the position, evaluate the candidates, issue the certificate
of eligible candidates, and interview the candidates.
Competition for high-quality S&T candidates in private industry is
fierce. Industry is often able to make job offers to candidates on-the-
spot. Under traditional hiring methods, it could take 85 plus days to
advertise the position, wait for a certificate, and make an offer and
by then, candidates may have decided to accept a position elsewhere.
With Direct Hire, NRL is able to give a tentative offer within three
days of receipt of a hiring action in the Human Resources Office, and a
firm offer is typically made within 15 calendar days of receipt of the
hiring action which allows NRL to be more competitive with private
industry.
See below for S&T hiring statistics for NRL.

FY 2016 EXTERNAL S&T HIRING STATS
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
*Avg # **Avg #
Type of Recruitment # Less than # BS Hires # MS Hires # Phd Hires Total # days to days to
BS Hires Tent offer Firm Offer
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Direct-Hire Authority N/A N/A 18 50 68 2 15
Advanced Degree
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Direct-Hire Authority N/A 17 1 1 19 2 12
Bachelor's Degree
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Direct-Hire Authority 1 0 0 0 1 29 67
Veteran's
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Delegated Examining 4 0 0 0 4 97 111
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PhD was in different field than BS/MS (nonqualifying for position)
* Average time from date recruitment action is received in HRO to tentative offer
** Average time from date recruitment action is received in HRO to tentative offer

FY 2015 EXTERNAL S&T HIRING STATS
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
*Avg # **Avg #
Type of Recruitment # Less than # BS Hires # MS Hires # Phd Hires Total # days to days to
BS Hires Tent offer Firm Offer
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Direct-Hire Authority N/A N/A 16 43 59 2 15
Advanced Degree
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Direct-Hire Authority N/A 28 N/A N/A 28 2 15
Bachelor's Degree
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Direct-Hire Authority 1 0 2 1 4 6 22
Veteran's
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Delegated Examining 3 0 0 0 3 72 87
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Average time from date recruitment action is received in HRO to tentative offer
** Average time from date recruitment action is received in HRO to tentative offer

FY 2014 EXTERNAL S&T HIRING STATS
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
*Avg # **Avg #
Type of Recruitment # Less than # BS Hires # MS Hires # Phd Hires Total # days to days to
BS Hires Tent offer Firm Offer
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Direct-Hire Authority N/A N/A 18 41 59 2 15
Advanced Degree
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Direct-Hire Authority N/A 2 N/A N/A 2 1 10 Implemented 8/8/14 at NRL
* Average time from date recruitment action is received in HRO to tentative offer
** Average time from date recruitment action is received in HRO to tentative offer

Mr. Wilson. This committee has sponsored and the Congress has
passed numerous personnel management authorities for the laboratories.
The implementation of many of these authorities, such as the direct
hire for students from the FY15 NDAA, are still undergoing
administrative review and have not been implemented.
From your perspective, what is causing such long delays in
implementation?
What impact are these long delays having on lab operations?
The office of the Under Secretary for Personnel and Readiness P&R
is responsible for implementing these workforce authorities. Do you
feel like P&R is placing sufficient focus or attention on these
laboratory workforce issues? What more could or should they be doing?
Dr. Franchi. Thank you for granting these authorities in the past.
Since 2009, NRL has hired 459 scientists and engineers and committed to
an additional 43 hires this calendar year using Direct Hire for
Advanced Degrees (405 hired/26 committed), Bachelors (48 hired/16
committed) and Veterans (6 hired/1 committed). When DOD STRLs received
the authority for Direct Hire for Advanced Degrees, we were able to use
the authority within five months of NDAA passage using DOD
``implementation guidance''. A Federal Register Notice (FRN) was not
required to begin using this authority.
When DOD STRLs received authority for Direct Hire for Bachelors and
Veterans, we were able to use this authority within eight months of
NDAA passage using a FRN. This FRN was drafted by DOD STRLs and
together DOD STRLs and the Defense Civilian Personnel Advisory Services
(DCPAS) finalized the FRN. DOD OGC determined that a FRN was required
for these new authorities; therefore, the Direct Hire for Advanced
Degrees was included in this FRN.
The NDAA FY2015, Section 1105, signed into law December 19, 2014,
gave DOD Science and Technology Reinvention Laboratories (STRLs) a STEM
student direct hire authority (DHA). Over the past 23 months, OSD, in
conjunction with the Laboratory Quality Enhancement Program (LQEP)
Personnel Subpanel Lead, and Components, have been working towards
issuing a FRN for this DHA. Currently, OSD is working with the LQEP
Personnel Subpanel Lead and DCPAS to reconcile language regarding
probationary periods and removal of student interns. Once a final
version of the revised language is mutually agreed upon by the STRLs
and OSD the revised final FRN will be sent to the Component and STRL
POCs and the FRN will begin formal coordination for approval and
publication in the Federal Register.
Without Direct Hire for STEM students, NRL has experienced a
significant decline in our student programs. In FY12 (the last year we
were under the Student Career Experience Program (SCEP)/Student
Temporary Employment Program (STEP)), we hired 171 students, compared
to this Fiscal Year in which we hired 92 students (a 46% decrease in
hires). Student participation decreased by 62% (we had 429 STEP/SCEP
participants in FY12 and 161 Pathways Intern participants in FY16).
Pathways requires an announcement and the ability to select the
candidate from a certificate, causing a significant delay between the
time a hiring manager finds a candidate until the individual may be
hired, if the candidate is still available and within reach on the
certificate.
Unfortunately, I cannot provide insight into the operations in OSD.
All I would say is that the additional workforce authorities would be
helpful for us at NRL and we are working closely with DOD and DON
offices.
Mr. Wilson. Can you tell us for the past three years what your
time-to-hire is for each of the various types of direct hire? How does
that compare in the same timeframe for traditional government hiring
processes?
Dr. Perconti. The average time to make a job offer to a candidate
during these last three years using Direct Hire Authorities is 30 days,
compared to a historical 150 to 180 day-average using traditional
hiring mechanisms. The time-to-hire decrease has significantly helped
us to bring on student interns and post-doctoral candidates who bring
fresh perspective and ideas to the programs at ARL.
Mr. Wilson. The Army Research Lab has been advocating an open
campus concept to try to better bring together commercial and academic
innovators to work collaboratively with Army scientists.
How is that effort coming along?
Do you have the right authority and funding to support academic
faculty to come to the lab and conduct collaborative research with
government scientist and engineers?
For the others, are any of you looking at a similar concept to help
spur public-private collaborations?
Dr. Perconti. ARL's Open Campus business model has begun to foster
a dynamic, cooperative science and technology ecosystem that links
government assets with the global research community. Collaboration is
centered on mutual scientific interest and investment by all partners.
The goal is to lay out the technical program and invite experts in the
community to interact, create transformative projects and reach shared
goals. Open Campus started as a pilot program. The concept has since
morphed into a new business model for Defense science and technology.
Interest in ARL's Open Campus continues to grow. This is made
evident by the more than 634 researchers from academia and industry,
including 53 from 20 countries, who have moved into and out of the
Laboratory under the umbrella of Open Campus. One hundred ninety-five
Cooperative Research and Development Agreement projects are active, and
195 additional projects are in staffing. ARL estimates that
approximately $40 million of in-kind research has been performed by our
open campus collaborators.
The authorities granted through this committee help ARL to
accelerate innovation by facilitating closer partnerships derived from
Open Campus initiatives. ARL continues to pursue opportunities for Open
Campus improvements at Adelphi, Maryland and at the Aberdeen Proving
Ground (APG). At APG, initial plans are being explored for new Open
Campus facilities for unclassified high performance computing, and
facilities for Human Sciences, Sciences for Maneuver, and Materials
Sciences. These new facilities are needed to establish a research park-
like setting that provides a strong pull for collaborative foundational
research at an APG location specifically supporting freedom-of-
movement. The Open Campus vision to accelerate Army innovation,
facilitated by proximity, using collaborative partnerships between
government, industry and academia will not happen unless MILCON funds
become available.
Mr. Wilson. This committee has sponsored and the Congress has
passed numerous personnel management authorities for the laboratories.
The implementation of many of these authorities, such as the direct
hire for students from the FY15 NDAA, are still undergoing
administrative review and have not been implemented.
From your perspective, what is causing such long delays in
implementation?
What impact are these long delays having on lab operations?
The office of the Under Secretary for Personnel and Readiness P&R
is responsible for implementing these workforce authorities. Do you
feel like P&R is placing sufficient focus or attention on these
laboratory workforce issues? What more could or should they be doing?
Dr. Perconti. ARL does not have sufficient insight into the office
of the Under Secretary for Personnel and Readiness to report for the
record what challenges might hinder the implementation of personnel
management authorities for personnel systems such as the laboratory
demonstration projects in the Science and Technology Reinvention
Laboratories (STRL).
However, certain circumstances and choices do impact the
laboratory's personnel readiness. The first is the lack of dedicated
P&R staff to manage STRL personnel demonstration projects. This leads
to a lack of institutional knowledge about the unique flexibilities and
features permissible under the demonstration projects, which makes it
difficult to hire technical staff in a competitive job market. There
are also multiple layers of management oversight involved in staffing
the implementing guidance.
Second, the implementation process guidance needs more clarity as
it concerns the Federal Register Notice requirement. According to USD
(P&R), Civilian Personnel Policy Office, a Federal Register Notice is
required in order to implement personnel management authorities granted
through legislation, rather than a memorandum that delegates authority
and provides implementing guidance. These two documents are similar on
the surface, but it may take around two years to implement a Federal
Register Notice, while the memorandum may take only two months. It is
unclear why a Federal Register Notice, versus a memorandum of
instruction/implementation is required to implement legislation.
Definitive and written guidance on this requirement will aid in the
implementation of legislation.
ARL has been also been negatively impacted in relation to student
hiring. Authorities granted by the FY14 (manage workforce to budget)
and FY16 (flexible length, renewable term appointing authority and
other work force shaping authorities) NDAA, would lift existing
personnel restrictions, and allow ARL to begin hiring a larger portion
of the federal STEM workforce into flexible-length, renewable, time-
limited appointments. Incorporating the speed and agility that would
come from fully implementing personnel management authorities for the
laboratory would improve the ability of the workforce to match its
technical skill set with changing technological trends, missions, and
threats, as well as to efficiently manage budget-driven reductions in
workforce. It would also enhance the innovative capacity of the ARL by
promoting flow of talent between the federal government and academic
and industry partners.
______

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MR. NORCROSS
Mr. Norcross. Please explain how you separate the ``inherently
governmental work'' you do in the government labs from work industry
should do and how this provides for any competition in accordance with
Better Buying Power?
General McMurry. AFRL does not award contracts for inherently
governmental services (IAW FAR 7.503). The degree of government
involvement and expertise necessary to keep sufficient oversight and
control of government operations varies by function and situation,
depending on such factors as delegation of approval authority,
complexity of operation, geographic dispersion of the activity,
regulatory authority, and consequence of default. To preclude ceding
governmental control and authority of Inherently Governmental functions
to the private sector, AFRL conducts a risk assessment on activities
proposed to be accomplished by the private sector. This risk assessment
for the activity considers such factors as a need for informed,
independent judgment, government oversight and the exercise of
substantial discretion when applying Federal Government authority. This
assessment results in a manpower certification which ultimately
determines the activity as inherently or non-inherently governmental.
The manpower certification is required, prior to contract award, for
all activities performed by the private sector. Once the activity has
been determined to be non-inherently governmental, the activity is
competitively awarded via a contract. AFRL fully embraces the Better
Buying Power competition initiatives, specifically in the areas of
market intelligence, fair opportunity competition on Multiple Award
Indefinite Delivery Indefinite Quantity contracts and reduction in the
reliance of sole source bridge contracts. Through these initiatives,
AFRL achieved a 96% competition rate in FY15.
Mr. Norcross. Please explain how you separate the ``inherently
governmental work'' you do in the government labs from work industry
should do and how this provides for any competition in accordance with
Better Buying Power?
Dr. Holland. The Office of Federal Procurement Policy Letter 11-01
of 2011 defines inherently governmental work and is the guiding policy
that separates what we do from what Industry should do. The Engineer
Research and Development Center (ERDC) contracts with the private
sector and academia to support its Science and Technology (S&T)
mission, in areas that do not constitute inherently governmental work.
ERDC has a stringent review processes in place, with government
management and oversight, of all service contracts, to promote healthy
competition in line with the Better Buying Power 3.0 program. These
business processes, in conjunction with its overarching S&T strategy,
allow ERDC to ensure fiscal responsibility while meeting mission
requirements today and into the future.
Mr. Norcross. Please explain how you separate the ``inherently
governmental work'' you do in the government labs from work industry
should do and how this provides for any competition in accordance with
Better Buying Power?
Dr. Franchi. As the corporate laboratory of the Department of the
Navy (DON), the U.S. Naval Research Laboratory (NRL) conducts basic
research, translates the results of this research into technologies,
and assists in the transfer of these technologies to other DON,
Department of Defense (DOD), federal, and industrial organizations for
incorporation into effective operational military systems. The
successful transition of these technologies supports NRL's corporate
philosophy that a sustained and well-managed investment in
multidisciplinary research and development (R&D) leads to continual
improvements to the nation's defense, helps prevent technological
surprise by potential adversaries, and can lead to revolutionary and
world-changing capabilities, such as NRL's pioneering contributions
that led to sonar, radar, satellites, GPS, and, maybe soon, laser
weapons and railguns.
As a government laboratory, NRL is a part of the DOD's internal
technical capability--the cadre of government S&Es who perform R&D.
Their hands-on expertise distinguishes them from the much larger
acquisition workforce, which is the primary focus of the DOD's Better
Buying Power initiatives.\1\ These S&Es provide authoritative advice to
the acquisition workforce, which is in turn responsible for managing
procurement programs. The two communities serve a common purpose, but
they operate within different environments, with different requirements
and skills.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Better Buying Power (BBP) 3.0 reflects the ``commitment to
continuous improvements in the defense acquisition system. Under the
overarching theme, Achieving Dominant Capabilities through Technical
Excellence and Innovation, we are strengthening our efforts in
innovation and technical excellence while also continuing the
Department's efforts to improve efficiency and productivity that began
under BBP 1.0 and 2.0'' [ref: USD (AT&L), ``Better Buying Power Fact
Sheet'', 2015. http://www.acq.osd.mil/fo/docs/
BBP3.0FactSheetFINAL.PDF].
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Specifically, the DOD's laboratories represent a critical and
unique resource for solving the scientific and engineering problems,
deficiencies, and needs of the Military Departments. They exist to
achieve--in cooperation with universities and industry--a level of
technological leadership that shall enable the DOD to develop, acquire,
and maintain military capabilities needed for national security. This
collaboration with industry and academia is productive and has
resulted, from FY11 to FY15, a cumulative total of 75 new Cooperative
Research and Development Agreements, 21 new licenses, 513 invention
disclosures, 546 patents issued, 7,600 publications, 4,193 refereed
journal articles and 40,857 citations.
In particular, this degree of collaboration is vital because
industry will not take on the full range of necessary work because many
areas hold limited opportunities for profit, and specialized defense
technologies often have little or no applicability to commercial
products. In addition, R&D is expensive, the time to achieve success is
long, the work is often very risky, and the payoff (especially from
research) is usually not immediate.
Mr. Norcross. Please explain how you separate the ``inherently
governmental work'' you do in the government labs from work industry
should do and how this provides for any competition in accordance with
Better Buying Power?
Dr. Perconti. As it applies to the U.S. Army Research Laboratory
(ARL), the Office of Federal Procurement Policy Letter 11-01 of 2011
defines inherently governmental work as those items that guide program
priorities. As it pertains to RDECOM, government officials take a
leading role in managing, overseeing and performing research in areas
that are critical to Army mission requirements, e.g. armor, advanced
energetics, etcetera. Often, ARL leads in technology areas that have
limited market potential or return-on- investment for the private
sector. In such areas, the Army must perform in-house research to
enable new warfighting capabilities and to counter emerging threats.
ARL has developed a technical strategy influenced by the near-, mid-
and far-term needs of the Army as outlined in strategic documents such
as the Army Operating Concept and in the Army Warfighting Challenges.
Within this S&T strategy, ARL has identified research areas in which it
will lead, and those which are addressed either by collaborating with
or following research occurring in industry and academia. Through ARL's
Open Campus business model, the organization is working even more
closely with industry and academic partners to leverage resources and
focus efforts towards Army-specific applications at early stages of
technology development. ARL offers a variety of collaboration
mechanisms promoting competition consistent with Better Buying Power
3.0. By focusing the Army's S&T resources with this strategy, ARL
ensures fiscal responsibility while shaping the technology investments
necessary for the future force

[all]