$
Use of these organizations could result in efficiencies that touch multiple areas in the guidance from USD(AT&L), but only if the workforce is aware of their existence and understands their role. The Army results project sought to mea- sure current awareness of FFRDCs and UARCs in the acquisition community and customer satisfaction with them. The goal was to provide USAASC with find- ings and recommendations to support decisions on how to increase the Army Acquisition Workforce’s awareness and use of FFRDCs and UARCs.
THE FFRDC’S ROLE FFRDCs are unique nonprofit entities sponsored and funded by the U.S. govern- ment to meet special long-term research or development needs that cannot be met effectively with existing in-house or con- tractor resources. The FFRDCs operate in the industries of defense, homeland secu- rity, energy, aviation, space, health and human services, and tax administration. They are grouped into three categories focusing on different types of activities:
1. Systems Engineering and Integra- tion Centers.
2. Study and Analysis Centers. 3. Research and Development Centers (including national laboratories).
First established during World War II, FFRDCs—previously called Fed- eral Contract Research Centers—were semi-academic laboratories and research groups created by the federal government for defense research. FFRDCs grew out of the need to obtain objective assess- ments of military problems or programs of increasing technical complexity.
FFRDCs can be not-for-profit or non- profit organizations, or managed by an industrial firm as an autonomous orga- nization that does not have shareholders
or partners. FFRDCs do not have a prescribed organizational structure. They can be built around traditional contractor-owned, contractor-operated entities; government-sponsored private organizations; or government-owned, contractor-operated entities. Or they can reflect blended relationships.
The benefit of FFRDCs is that there is no profit motive or conflict of interest, allow- ing them to function as independent, trusted advisors and honest brokers. The FFRDCs are answerable to the govern- ment customer and have no vested interest in particular technologies or solutions.
It is important that FFRDCs do not compete for federal contracts against non- FFRDC entities, but they may compete against other FFRDCs for government contracts and work. FFRDCs are required to work within the purpose, mission, gen- eral scope, or competency assigned by their sponsor. FFRDCs must not perform work that is otherwise performed by a for- profit corporation.
THE UARC’S ROLE UARCs are strategic DoD research centers associated with a university. They were formally established in May 1996 by the Director of Defense Research and Engi- neering to ensure that essential engineering and technology capabilities of particular importance to DoD are maintained.
Although UARCs receive sole-source funding under the authority of 10 U.S.C. Section 2304(c)(3)(B), they also may com- pete for science and technology work unless precluded from doing so by their contracts with DoD.
These not-for-profit organizations pre- serve essential research, development, and engineering “core” capabilities; maintain long-term strategic relationships with
their DoD sponsors; and operate in the public interest, free from real or perceived conflicts of interest. Collaboration with the educational and research resources available to them enhances the UARCs’ ability to meet the needs of their sponsors.
EIGF RESULTS PROJECT In Phase I, the pilot program survey, the project team set out to establish a baseline measurement of U.S. Army Acquisition Corps (AAC) knowledge and expertise on the use of FFRDC and UARC sup- port. The base survey of a select, small (fewer than 1,500) acquisition population would then be refined for a final survey and data collection.
The pilot survey of 16 questions was designed to measure awareness and satis- faction related to the use of FFRDCs and UARCs. The survey allowed for write-in answers, multiple-choice selections, and comments. It was given to a small pool of participants within Program Execu- tive Office (PEO) Missiles and Space and PEO Aviation, resulting in 598 total responses for an approximate response rate of 39.9 percent. Before releasing the pilot survey, fellows briefed each Deputy PEO on the process and desired results to gain command endorsement. Because the pilot survey had this endorsement, better participation occurred than in the final survey.
The feedback and data collected from the pilot survey resulted in changes to questions and an improved final survey. Write-in responses were removed to allow for faster compilation of results and data. The pilot survey also resulted in a ques- tion tree analysis and logic diagramming for use on the final survey, providing bet- ter clarity and a better survey product.
In Phase II, the final survey was sent to the greater Army acquisition community.
ASC.ARMY.MIL 133
EFFICIENCIES
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72 |
Page 73 |
Page 74 |
Page 75 |
Page 76 |
Page 77 |
Page 78 |
Page 79 |
Page 80 |
Page 81 |
Page 82 |
Page 83 |
Page 84 |
Page 85 |
Page 86 |
Page 87 |
Page 88 |
Page 89 |
Page 90 |
Page 91 |
Page 92 |
Page 93 |
Page 94 |
Page 95 |
Page 96 |
Page 97 |
Page 98 |
Page 99 |
Page 100 |
Page 101 |
Page 102 |
Page 103 |
Page 104 |
Page 105 |
Page 106 |
Page 107 |
Page 108 |
Page 109 |
Page 110 |
Page 111 |
Page 112 |
Page 113 |
Page 114 |
Page 115 |
Page 116 |
Page 117 |
Page 118 |
Page 119 |
Page 120 |
Page 121 |
Page 122 |
Page 123 |
Page 124 |
Page 125 |
Page 126 |
Page 127 |
Page 128 |
Page 129 |
Page 130 |
Page 131 |
Page 132 |
Page 133 |
Page 134 |
Page 135 |
Page 136 |
Page 137 |
Page 138 |
Page 139 |
Page 140 |
Page 141 |
Page 142 |
Page 143 |
Page 144 |
Page 145 |
Page 146 |
Page 147 |
Page 148 |
Page 149 |
Page 150 |
Page 151 |
Page 152 |
Page 153 |
Page 154 |
Page 155 |
Page 156 |
Page 157 |
Page 158 |
Page 159 |
Page 160 |
Page 161 |
Page 162 |
Page 163 |
Page 164 |
Page 165 |
Page 166 |
Page 167 |
Page 168 |
Page 169 |
Page 170 |
Page 171 |
Page 172 |
Page 173 |
Page 174 |
Page 175 |
Page 176 |
Page 177 |
Page 178 |
Page 179 |
Page 180
