ARMY AL&T
science and technology enterprise community and representatives from supporting Army budget and Congressional liaison offices. Te IPT collaboratively identified the need to improve standard- ization of the proposal template, develop a process flowchart, and ensure alignment with all guidance to ensure mission success.
TIMING IS CRITICAL Timing of the workflow process was an important aspect for the Army science and technology enterprise, as many different eche- lons needed to route requirements through various command levels for approval. “Te flow and timeline is so very short after an enactment of an appropriation,” observed Kim McGraw, science and technology functional budget lead at Army Futures Command’s Science and Technology Directorate, Acquisitions and Systems. “It was very important,” offered McGraw, “for everyone on the IPT to talk about their time sensitivity and work- flow issues.”
LeGrand outlined the process the IPT used to get to a more effi- cient process. “After cataloging lessons learned from the fiscal year 2020 cycle, we started our efforts to refine the proposal template. In addition to clarifying data fields to make proposal formulation easier for the [science and technology] community, we reviewed stakeholder guidance to ensure the template addressed all require- ments, both explicit and implied,” stated LeGrand.
Understanding that science and technology is a subset of the overarching RDT&E appropriation, the team recognized the requirement to develop a template that would be applicable to the entire community. While the team finalized revisions to the template, they worked a parallel effort with the Army’s Congres- sional budget liaisons to clarify a new requirement proposed by the House Appropriations Committee. Specifically, the committee introduced language in House Report 116-453 that, if affirmed during the conference process, would require “the Secretary of Defense to limit Department overhead costs on Congressional program increases to not more than 10 percent of the funding level provided.”
Tis new requirement could potentially have an impact on the science and technology proposal process, as Army laboratories and research centers often retain more than 10 percent of Congressional add funding to manage contracts, conduct in-house research and engineering, and purchase equipment necessary to achieve program goals in line with Congressional intent. Because the approval process for science and technology plans for Congressional adds is complex, clarification was critical as the team prepared to meet the submission deadlines set forth
“This innovative approach to work collaboratively across organizations to meet challenges speaks of the caliber of people who work in the Army’s RDT&E community.”
by ABO, explained Jeffrey D. Singleton, deputy assistant secretary of the Army for research and technology.
“Although we weren’t certain we would need to employ our strategy to address the committee’s proposed requirement, we recognized the benefit of including it in the template,” Singleton said. “With over 180 proposals anticipated for [fiscal year] 2021, we knew it would be easier to remove the language and relax the requirement vice trying to add the language and sharpen the restrictions midway through the process.”
Te team’s proposal to address the new requirement was high- lighted in a separate section of the template that showed funding dedicated to overhead represented as a dollar amount and percentage of total Congressional add funding for that effort, Singleton added.
Ultimately, the recommended template was accepted for use across the whole RDT&E community, and the limitation proposed in House Report 116-453 did make it through conference as a requirement for the execution of Congressional add funding. As a result of the proactive coordination and planning efforts, the Army science and technology enterprise was prepared to report on the new requirement—or so they thought.
“While the IPT working group did seek and receive clarification on the intent of the 10 percent overhead limitation to ensure it was being captured in an accurate and standardized manner, one day before the suspense, the community received further guid- ance on what should be counted in the calculation of the total overhead from the committee,” LeGrand said.
https://asc.ar my.mil 67
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
