From: bergman@afpan.pa.af.mil (CMSgt Mike Bergman)
Newsgroups: sci.military
Subject: DoD News 11/03/92
Date: 4 Nov 92 17:28:56 GMT
Organization: Hq Air Force News Agency/SCC


From CMSgt Mike Bergman <bergman@afpan.pa.af.mil>

  <<>><<>><<>><<>><<>><<>><<>><<>><<>><<>><<>><<>><<>><<>><<>><<>><<>><<>><>>
  <<>> Assistant Secretary Of Defense                                    <<>>
  <<>>        Public Affairs                    November 1992            <<>>
  <<>>    Pentagon, Washington DC       Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat      <<>>
  <<>>        DSN  225-3886              1   2   3   4   5   6   7       <<>>
  <<>>       - - - - - - -               8   9  10  11  12  13  14       <<>>
  <<>>  DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE NEWS      15  16  17  18  19  20  21       <<>>
  <<>>                                  22  23  24  25  26  27  28       <<>>
  <<>>    TUESDAY, NOVEMBNER 3, 1992    29  30                           <<>>
  <<>>                                                                   <<>>
  <<>>               Courtesy of Air Force Reserve                       <<>>
  <<>>                   - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -                   <<>>
  <<>><<>><<>><<>><<>><<>><<>><<>><<>><<>><<>><<>><<>><<>><<>><<>><<>><<>><>>


DoD News Briefing
Tuesay, November 3, 1992
Mr. Pete Williams, ASD/Public Affairs

     Good Afternoon:

     My only announcement is a reminder that this afternoon at 2:30 p.m.,
Secretary Cheney will speak at the American Stock Exchange, U.S. Perspectives
Conference being held at the Mayflower Hotel at 1127 Conn. Ave., N.W.  The
Secretary's speech and the question and answer session to follow are open for
coverage and they will be piped to the Pentagon.  A press desk is in place at
the Mayflower Hotel.  The phone number there:  AC (202) 466-9369.

     Q:  Are you going to have text of his speech?
     A:  I have not.  I'm assuming it will be about what he's been talking
about lately.

     The first team of archival research experts has arrived in Hanoi to start
the joint research efforts that were recently agreed to by the Vietnamese
government and the United States.  Other teams are expected to follow in the
future and will be deployed to other areas of Vietnam, but for now three
researchers from the Joint Task Force Full Accounting, headquartered Hawaii,
will join the task force people already assigned to the detachment in Hanoi.
While they are in Vietnam they will come under command of Army Lieutenant
Colonel John V. Donovan, who is the detachment commander.

      This initiative results from the agreements reached in Hanoi on October
19 between General Vessey, Senator McCain and the senior Vietnamese officials
that they met with.  As you know, at the time Vietnamese officials informed
General Vessey and Senator McCain that they have been conducted a country-wide
search of all Vietnamese archives for documents, photographs and other materi-
als related to the U.S. POW/MIAs and then consolidating those materials at
military museums where they could be jointly researched.  The agreement to
establish the joint information research teams is an indication of progress and
is welcomed and appreciated by the U.S. government. 

     This three-man team that I talked about from the Joint Task Force Full
Accounting is composed of an Army warrant officer, Navy petty officer and
another Navy petty officer.  They will join Robert Destatte, who is the Chief,
Archival research specialist and overall coordinator and Theodore Schweitzer
from the Office, Secretary of Defense -- he's a consultant basically to this
effort.  They will join those folks and assist in the overall coordination and
work on the retrieval of materials and the analysis of those materials.

     What they are doing right now is setting up operations in the Hanoi
military museum, in the Central Army Museum as it is sometimes known as.  They
will screen, read, examine and copy for future analysis any documents, photo-
graphs and other materials that relate to American POW/MIA cases.  The govern-
ment of Vietnam had said that its been conducting a unilateral search and they
will make the material available to us.  They are setting up their equipment
right now.  They've got photo copy machines, optical scanners that are con-
nected to computers, video and still cameras, word processors and computers.
They will add to that list of equipment if they need to.  They have not
received any new information yet from the Vietnamese because they are just
basically getting established and up and running there right now.  I would
assume that in the next couple of days they will start to receive and analyze
new material.  But what they've done since they've gotten there over the
week-end, late last Friday, is basically to set their operation; get the desks
located in the Central Army Museum; get a little work area set aside; get the
power connected and get ready to go and that's what they've been doing the last
few days.

     Q:  Will these people then remain in Hanoi for some period of time?  Do
you have any idea what the length of their stay might be or would they be going
back and forth between Vietnam and Hawaii?
     A:  The folks that are from Hawaii will rotate in and out.  There is
another three-man team being readied for deployment on the first of December
for duty in the Quang Nam-Danang area.  Further plans are being developed for a
third team soon thereafter, depending on the quantity and the quality of the
information that's provided.  Additional teams may be employed in archives and
museums throughout Vietnam, but they will start with Hanoi and then they will
send the next team in on December 1st to Quang Nam-Danang area.  And as I say,
the three individuals that are in this first group, they may rotate in and out,
they will probably do that once every four to six months.  So they will be
staying for a fairly long time, but they will rotate in and out.

     Q:  Do you have an overall figure?  I know they beefed up the office as
part of that.  How many people are actually there now working on these cases?
Do you have a total number -- Americans in Hanoi and Vietnam?
     A:  Let me add up because that number changes as we have the iterations go
in and out of Vietnam and there's another group that's going out to do field
investigations.  I think what would be useful is:  (1) how many Americans are
in Vietnam right now working on this, and (2) when we get an excavation team,
how does number peak?  So we can give you a right number, an average number or
a peak number.

     Okay, that's it.  I'm now ready to take your questions.

     Q:  Is there any plan to evacuate any of the U.S. personnel in Liberia?
Is there anything working on that at all, if there is a need, or is there even
a need that anyone sees at the moment?
     A:  There have been a fair number of people that have left by airplane.
The State Department has arranged for some people to leave and they have left.
There is no request to the U.S. military right now to evacuate any American
citizens or any other foreign nationals that I'm aware of.  

     Q:  Have there been any inquiries made about the permissability of General
Dynamics selling Fort Worth division to another American company or in pieces
overseas?  Does the department have any opinion on the wisdom of that?
     A:  I don't know whether they've been talking to us.  I'll have to check
with our acquisition folks.  I don't know the answer, but let me look into it
for you.

     Back to your question about Liberia, let me just talk a little about it.
We have a Mediterranean Amphibious Ready Group, the Guam MARG.  It is in the
Eastern Atlantic right now.  It consists of four ships -- the amphibious
assault ship, USS Guam; the amphibious transport dock ship, USS Austin; the
dock landing ship, USS Gunston Hall, and the tank landing ship, USS LaMoure
County.   Guam and Austin are homeported in Norfolk;  Gunston Hall and LaMoure
County are homeported in Little Creek, Va.  The MARG includes the 22d Marine
Expeditionary Unit.

     As I said, it's in the Eastern Atlantic, sort of in the area around
southern Iberian peninsula, that area.  It is available, if we should need it.
It's not on its way to Liberia right now.  Should it be needed, it certainly is
available.   

     Anything else?

     Q:  Department policy on the A-12 deferment, are you still going to
collect that in December as expected?
     A:  Well, its always been our belief that we are entitled to it.  It's
been a subject that's been in litigation.  Our policy has always been to
collect it.  Let me look into it, John.  I haven't looked into it lately to see
where it stands, but let me check on it for you -- the A-12 deferment payment.

     Q:  Has there been any request to extend testing of the tri-service
standoff attack missile?  There's been a report....
     A:  Let me check into that.  I don't know.  You are looking are reducing
the total buy and I don't know whether we've made any testing changes or not.  

     Q:  I think there was a 26-month extension in 1990 and I think it's just
about it.
     A:  Okay, we'll check on that.

     Q:  Should there be a change of administration, is there any policy in the
department, given that it would be a change of party, for officials to say not
shred documents or to maintain some decorum as the transition is under way.
Are you aware of anything like that?
     A:  I don't know what the policy is.  I should note  here that I will
probably begin every sentence by saying "that this highly speculative".

     Q:  Yes, it is. 
     A:  Let me put it this way.  Whenever there is a change of administration
and whenever there is a change of political parties, there are traditions and
procedures that all departments of government follow in providing for a smooth
transition from one administration to the next.  Should that eventuality befall
the Department of Defense, we would certainly make every effort to provide for
a smooth transition.  It's one of the things that career civil servants provide
is that kind of continuity.   The career military don't change when the
administration changes.  Many of those folks stay in their current assignments.
That provides continuity as well.  We certainly want to maintain all the
essential documents and files that make for the smoothest possible transition.

     Q:  Is there any possible way to get figures on how many people in the
building that are career versus the number of appointees?
     A:  Oh sure, we could easily do that for you.  As a matter of fact, I
think that number is available down -- we got some of that stuff last week, we
got some queries on it.  Bill Caldwell at our Defense News Desk has that for
you.

     Q:  Are the political appointees only in DoD, there are none in the
services that would transition?
     A:  No, no, no.  There are 44 presidentially appointed, confirmed by the
Senate people throughout the Department of Defense.  

     Q:  I mean the service secretaries, I meant...
     A:  Service secretaries, service assistant secretaries.  There are career
SES employees of the military department, as well as career Senior Executive
Service employees of OSD.

     Q:  Is there a way to broaden it down, just who has offices in the
Pentagon, per se?
     A:  We'll give you the numbers for the Department of Defense.

     Q:  Also, just for the record, irrespective of...
     A:  Let me just finish that answer.  Clearly, most of the political
appointees work in the Pentagon.  I'm unaware of any political appointees in
the Department of Defense who serve outside of the Pentagon.  Now there is a
U.S. defense adviser to NATO who is, I believe, a Department of Defense
political appointee.  It's currently Dave Nicholas.  He works in Brussels.  But
I can't think of any political appointees who serve outside of the Pentagon.

     In all the Department of Defense, there's a total actually of 45.  I said
44 originally.  I should have said 45 positions that are appointed by the
President and confirmed by the Senate in the argot of executive personnel which
is referred to as the PAS folks, Presidentially Appointed, confirmed by the
Senate.  Right now there are only 43 of them serving, because there are two
vacancies.  One is the Inspector General.  That is a vacancy.  That job is
currently being done by Derek Vander Schaaf who is acting Inspector General.
The other is Secretary of the Navy.  That position is currently held by Sean
O'Keefe who is acting Secretary of the Navy.

     There are 70 Senior Executive Service employees of the Department of
Defense.  Then 126 people that are referred to as Schedule C.  These are
political appointees who are not either in the executive level, at the presi-
dentially appointed, confirmed by the Senate level, or the Senior Executive
Service level, but they would range all the way from GS-5 through GM-15 in the
federal classification system for personnel.  Secretaries, assistants.  They're
political appointees, they serve at the pleasure of the President, they would
probably change whenever there is a change in administration.  The 70 Senior
Executive Service people are also political appointees.  They also serve at the
pleasure of the President.

     I can further break this down for you, if you like.  Of the 45 PAS',
Presidentially Appointed people, confirmed by the Senate, 23 of them are in OSD
-- that's where the two vacancies are; eight in the Army; seven in the Navy;
and seven in the Air Force.  The 70 Senior Executive Service positions, 47 of
them are in OSD, seven in the Army, eight in the Navy, and eight in the Air
Force.  The 126 Schedule C positions, 92 of them are in OSD, and I should say
for the purpose of the uninitiated, that's Office of the Secretary Defense.  It
doesn't mean the Secretary's immediate office.  It's the whole civilian
apparatus.  Thirteen in the Army, six in the Navy, 15 in the Air Force.  So 241
politically appointed positions in the whole Department of Defense out of the
whole civilian work force of a million people worldwide, basically.

     Q:  Irrespective of what happens tomorrow or tonight, has Cheney said
anything about what he would like to do?
     A:  He has not.

     Q:  Another sort of policy type question.  Should there be a change of
administration and there are appointees that are designated, are they given
office space in the Pentagon?  I seem to recall that when Senator Tower was
being considered and then went through, that he had space here.  Do you know
anything about how that works?  Is that only for the Secretary himself?
     A:  Again, I'm working from memory here, but clearly the Department has
gone through this before, there have been changed administrations before.  What
generally happens and again, this is in answer to questions, highly specula-
tive, but what happens is a President at some point would declare his nominee
for Secretary of Defense.   There would be a transition team that would work
then with the people currently in the Department to provide for a smooth
transition to an incoming administration.  That appointee for Secretary of
Defense, before he's confirmed, would work with people in the Department to get
ready for confirmation hearings.  He would be offered briefings from the people
in the Department, military and civilian.  And, presumably, he would have a
little team of people that would work, some of them in the Pentagon and others
elsewhere around town, to provide for a transition.

     Q:  A transition team doesn't necessarily follow the appointment of the
Secretary of Defense.  If Clinton were to win, he could have a transition team
over here tomorrow, couldn't he?  Or the day after?  Before he appointed...
     A:  My understanding is, and again, let's try to make this somewhat more
abstract, but whenever there is a change of administrations, they have a
transition team.  They usually set up offices somewhere around town.  They get
an office building that isn't on the grounds of any cabinet department.
Presumably, there are people working on the transition even before the results
of the election are known -- speculatively working in the event that there
needs to be a transition.  They're associated with the candidates.  I think
some of those folks do start to move into the various government agency
buildings, but there is a sort of a headquarters for the team somewhere else.

     Press:  Thank you.

                                     (END)







     REMARKS PREPARED FOR DELIVERY BY                   No.   486-92
     THE HONORABLE DONALD J. ATWOOD                     (703) 695-3886 (Info.)
     DEPUTY SECRETARY OF DEFENSE                        (703) 697-3189 (Copies)
     NATIONAL COST SCHEDULE PERFORMANCE
      MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE
     TYSONS CORNER, VIRGINIA
     MONDAY, NOVEMBER 2, 1992



     It's a pleasure to have the opportunity to speak with an audience like
this, one that covers such an important spectrum of our national defense.
Quite often I'm asked to talk with a group that concerns itself with a narrow
slice of what we do at the Department.  But I really enjoy the chance to talk
to a variety of professionals whose areas of expertise cross such a broad
expanse of the business end of the Defense Department.

     Before I get started, I want to offer my personal congratulations to Dean
Clubb and everyone at the Texas Instruments Defense Systems and Electronics
Group, who shared in this year's  Malcolm Baldrige Awards.  They should be very
proud of their achievement.  It's evidence that American industry, and in
particular the American defense industry, is putting a greater emphasis on
quality. 

     I'd like to spend my time with you this morning discussing several key
areas of change in the Defense Department.  These changes are essential if the
Department is to adapt to the post-Cold War era.  And they will enable the
Department to provide for our national security with less money.  

     During the last three years, we've witnessed more encouraging events in
world history than any of us have seen since World War II.

     The Cold War is over, and its most obvious symbols are gone.  The Berlin
Wall is down and its pieces are being sold in souvenir shops around the world,
including one in the Pentagon.  The only reason Russian troops aren't entirely
out of Eastern Europe is because there's not enough housing for them at home.
The Soviet Union is no more.  It's now 15 independent nations.  Each of them is
engaged in the difficult effort of building and institutionalizing democracy
and free market economies.

     And, in the midst of all this ferment, we fought and won a major war in
the Persian Gulf. 

     As we tackle the challenges of this new era, the threat of global nuclear
war grows dimmer.  Our bombers are off alert.  We're taking Minuteman missiles
out of their silos.  And President Bush and Russian President Yeltsin have
agreed that strategic nuclear weapons should come down by about three-quarters
from the levels they were just two years ago.  We've pulled our ground-based
nuclear weapons out of Europe, and they are now off our surface ships.  Early
last month I signed a new U.S. agreement with Russia, expanding our efforts to
help them get their nuclear weapons dismantled.  And less than two weeks ago I
signed a similar agreement between the United States and Belarus.  

                                                                          MORE
     These world shifts have been truly extraordinary.  And they've given us an
opportunity to significantly reduce the size of the Department and the amount
we spend on defense.  The changes we're making present us with many important
challenges, such as making certain the nation gets the defense it needs to meet
all threats to its security, and doing the job right so that the taxpayers get
the best bargain for their money.  And we must meet these challenges during a
time in which uncertainties about world events may be even more pronounced than
they have been in the past. 

     The new world situation demands a new strategy, one that allows us to
fundamentally change the size and composition of our armed forces.  In all, we
expect to take about 1 million active-duty troops, civilian employees and
members of the guard and reserve from our structure.  In the last three years,
we have taken nearly half a million people from our rolls, including nearly
120,000 civilian employees. 

     Today, we have fewer men and women in our active-duty force than we did
before the Korean War.   We are reducing the number of divisions, air wings and
ships.  And that's helping us reduce the cost of defense.  All together, by
1997, we will have cut spending in real terms by more than one third.

     Accomplishing these reductions without damaging the strength or readiness
of our military force, demands that we conduct our business more efficiently.

     Every dollar we save -- whether it's through management improvements or
changes in our acquisition process -- is money we can use to maintain the
trained and ready combat forces that provide the muscle of our defense. 

     We have taken a number of significant steps to make the Department of
Defense function more efficiently.  In addition to taking down and
restructuring our armed forces, we are making changes that range from
eliminating unnecessary duplication to streamlining our policies and
procedures.  We want to manage the Department in a more businesslike manner.

     The changes we are implementing are intended to have a lasting impact on
the Department of Defense.  They are a studied effort to make long-term changes
in the management of defense resources.  This is not a quick-fix designed to
deal with a crisis of the moment. 

     At the heart of our program to accomplish that goal is the Defense
Management Report, or DMR.  At the President's direction, we made a thorough
study of our operations in 1989.  And it is paying off.  We have identified
more than $70 billion in savings that have been and will be made by 1997, with
annual recurring savings after that of over $15 billion.  Savings of that
magnitude are a significant contribution to reducing the cost of our national
security structure.

     Our actions are predicated on the philosophy of providing centralized
policies, procedures, standards and systems, while decentralizing their
execution and implementation.

     Perhaps the single-most important element of our DMR process is the
Corporate Information Management initiative.  Our decisions are no better than
the information upon which they are based.  If we improve the process for
delivering timely, accurate and comprehensive information to managers, they
will make better decisions on the crucial investment, operating, and program
choices that must be made in the years ahead.

     We've got over 650,000 individual work stations, and many of them can not
communicate with other units in the Department.  We also have 1,700 different
data processing installations, and 38 major software design centers.  There are
over 100 long distance networks, and about 10,000 local area networks.

                                                                          MORE
     The new Corporate Information Management system is bringing
standardization to this universe, and it's eliminating duplicate technology
upgrades.  This makes sound business sense. 

     We've assigned the job of managing our defense information infrastructure
to the Defense Information Systems Agency.  This agency will serve as our
single manager for all business information technology, including assets and
services.

     The restructuring will improve standardization and interoperability of
hardware and software.  It will also make a significant reduction in operating
costs.

     We are making other management improvements throughout the Department that
will also save significant amounts of money and improve the delivery of our
product to the users.

     We have, for instance, consolidated finance and accounting operations
under the Defense Finance and Accounting Service.  There's no reason why we
need more than 30 different payroll systems and 250 different unit accounting
systems.  We are now providing better accounting and payroll services for less
money.   

     A third initiative is the creation of the Defense Business Operations
Fund.  This will consolidate the management and accounting of business-type
activities for the Department.  We intend to provide all managers total cost
data, and encourage them to make decisions based on complete cost and benefit
information.

     In the past, we have not had total cost information available.  The
changes we are making will result in the ready availability of this
information.

     Every military customer will be provided and charged the full cost of a
product or service, whether it be repairing an aircraft turbine engine,
rebuilding a radio, or fixing a tank targeting system.  The decision to repair,
replace, rebuild, or buy a new unit will be based upon accurate and complete
cost information.  This fund also creates the proper relationship between the
customer, or armed forces, and the support establishment, or supplier.

     When I use the phrase "complete cost information," I am reminded of a
visit I made last year to a tank assembly plant in Eastern Europe.  They used
to make T-72 tanks for the Warsaw Pact.  The managers, with the demise of the
Pact, were trying to convert to making commercial products.  They'd won a
contract with a Western firm to make bucket shovels for huge earth-moving
machines.  They received $400 for each. 

     When I asked the manager if he was making a profit, he said, "Who knows?"
He received his materials from the various government agencies.  His labor
costs were wrapped up in various social services programs.  He had no idea if
he was making or losing money.

     Well, our system wasn't quite that bad -- but it was close.  Now it's
changed -- managers will have complete cost information upon which to base
their decisions.

     In addition to these initiatives, other functional areas are also
undergoing a restructuring that will contribute to increased efficiencies and
savings.  These changes include the consolidation of logistics supply depots
and the coordination of maintenance depot workloads.  They also include the
consolidation of research laboratories, intelligence functions, and contract
management responsibilities.  Even the health services provided by our armed
forces are involved.  We have established a coordinated health care program to
significantly improve medical service for the armed forces and their
dependents, while holding down the growth of costs.




                                                                          MORE
     The area undergoing the most fundamental change, however,  is acquisition.
We no longer have the Cold War threat driving our procurement process.  We've
cancelled or terminated more than 120 major defense programs.  And we're
changing the way we manage the programs to acquire our weapons. 

     Program managers know that one of our most serious problems can be the
lack of discipline in meeting preset milestone criteria before we allow a
program to advance to its next phase in the acquisition process.  Such slips
are costly.  They can lead to budget, scheduling, or performance problems. 

     To remedy this, we're sending the message: programs will be held strictly
accountable to their preset milestone criteria.   If a weapon system does not
meet these criteria, it will not be allowed to progress to the next phase.

     We also have found that fixed-price contracts in the development phase of
a program are a prescription for trouble.  In some cases they may even endanger
the viability of firms who take on work for the Department.  We have concluded
it makes sense to eliminate fixed-price contracts when there's uncertainty or
risk in the development of advanced technology.

    Eliminating some of the paperwork associated with the
acquisition process will help solve another of the problems that has developed
over the years.  In the past, we've used too many specifications that are
unique to military procurement.  And we've made too little use of commercially
available products.  Excessive use of military specifications drives up the
costs.  

     As a result of our new program, we have reviewed  thousands upon thousands
of military specifications and standards.  Nearly 6,000 standards have been
cancelled.  And we're using some 2,000 industry standards or simple commercial
descriptions in place of specifications once unique to military products.

     Finally, we are making a major effort to restructure and streamline the
acquisition organization in each military department.  The goal is to simplify
command channels and improve the quality of the acquisition work force.   In
the past, the level of authority was not commensurate with the responsibility
of the organization, and accountability was diffused.

     The new three-tiered management structure we have created provides direct
acquisition reporting channels.  It gives authority to those responsible for
programs.  And it puts decision authority at the lowest appropriate level.

     While our acquisition system is undergoing an organizational
restructuring, it is also facing the reality that we no longer need to procure
weapons at the pace or in the volume we once did.  In many cases, we have
sufficient numbers of weapons on hand to meet the needs of our smaller force.
And, if conditions emerge that require us to build up again, we will have time
to reconstitute both our armed forces and our production lines. 

     So, for the foreseeable future, the rate and pace of weapons production
will be below that of previous years and below the capacity of our industry.
In fact, given the inventories of many of the high technology weapons we have
developed, there may well be gaps in the production requirements for some of
these systems.

     However, what has not changed is our need to maintain the technological
advantage that we were able to use so decisively in the Gulf War.  The
performance of our complicated systems validated the attention we have given to
technology, and it wiped out the argument that our weapons don't work.

                                                                          MORE
     In order to maintain our advantage in this important area, the approach to
acquisition is being refocused to increase emphasis on technology research and
development.

     The Department is also centralizing oversight and financial control of
science and technology under the Director of Defense Research and Engineering.
This responsibility includes not only those of each of the individual military
services, but also those of the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency and
the Strategic Defense Initiative Organization.

     The Department's science and technology programs will incorporate not only
basic research but also the development of new products and related
manufacturing processes.  These latter efforts should, when possible, make
maximum use of proven commercial capabilities.  That will allow us to reduce
uncertainty and risk in the development phases of the acquisition process.

     When our restructured and improved science and technology programs are
coordinated with defense needs as established by the Joint Requirements
Oversight Council and the military services, we will significantly reduce the
duration and cost of the development phases of the acquisition process.  In
addition, we will expedite fulfillment of the preset milestone criteria which
are essential before a project moves from one phase to another of the
acquisition process.  And finally, because we will conduct the science and
advanced technology programs in a research and development environment, we will
avoid the use of many of the rules and regulations of the more formal
acquisition system.

     Even in the face of declining defense budgets, we will support increased
spending for research programs.  Over the next five years we plan to devote 14
percent of the defense budget, or $190 billion, to research and development.
And although our spending for procurement is down to less than half of what it
was in 1985, we intend to commit $300 billion to procurement over the next five
years, or 22 percent of our budget.

     None of us should imagine that what we are doing will be easy on our
defense industries.  I'm sure there will be a shake-out as excess production
capacity comes out of the system.  Nor is it going to be easy on the Department
as we implement internal changes.

     We have an impressive program of change before us -- manpower cuts,
management initiatives, acquisition system changes, and the shift in emphasis
to research and development.  The decisions we make today on each of these
important program areas will determine if our forces can prevail in the next
crisis, and how many of our young men and women will return unharmed.  We know
from history that the cost is higher and the risk greater if we ignore the need
to maintain a capable military force. 

     We have the world's best armed forces.  They are the best trained.  They
are the best equipped.  They are the most talented and capable force in the
world.  You helped make them that way.  Americans take pride in what they have
accomplished, and in the professionalism and discipline they display.  We owe
them our best effort.

     How well we meet the challenges of the future will depend on how well we
make the decisions of today.

     Thank you very much.



                                     (END)



DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE CONTRACT AWARDS
(NOT FOR USE BEFORE 5:00 P.M. EST NOVEMBER 2, 1992)

                      DEFENSE INFORMATION SYSTEMS AGENCY

	GTE Government Systems, Federal Systems Division, Chantilly, VA., is being
awarded a cost plus award fee contract with a life cycle not-to-exceed price of
$53,168,198 for Defense Switched Network Worldwide Management Support Services.
The contractor is required to provide support services in the continental
United States, Europe and the Pacific for a base year with four one year
options to extend.  $10,036,709 is being obligated initially.  Work is being
performed in Virginia, Maryland, Illinois, Hawaii, and Europe.  The Defense
Commercial Communications Office, Scott AFB, Illinois is the contracting
activity.  (DCA200-93-C-0009).

	Denro, Inc., Gaithersburg, MD., is being awarded a firm-fixed price,
indefinite delivery/indefinite quantity contract for $9,006,975 for the
purchase of an intergrated voice switch (4 positions or less) for small air
control towers (ATCTS) handling only visual flight rules traffic.  The contract
extends over ten years, provided all option years are exercised.  $3,813,067 is
being initially obligated for the minimum buy.  Work will be performed in
various locations throughout the United States.  151 bids were solicited and
six were received.  The Defense Commercial Communications Office, Scott AFB,
Illinois is the contracting activity.  (DCA 200-93-D-0014).

                                     NAVY

	Hughes Aircraft Company, Radar Systems Group, Los Angeles, California, is
being awarded a $20,000,000 modification to a firm-fixed-price contract for the
procurement of the AN/APG-71 radar pre-deployment upgrade in support of the
F-14D aircraft.  Work will be performed in Los Angeles, California, and is
expected to be completed by September 1995.  Contract funds in the amount of
$4,083,000 would have expired at the end of the current fiscal year.  This
contract was not competitively procured.  The Naval Air Systems Command is the
contracting activity (N00019-90-C-0159).

	General Dynamics Corporation, Electric Boat Division, Groton, Connecticut,
is being awarded a $5,092,625 cost-plus-fixed-fee contract modification for
reactor plant planning yard services for nuclear powered guided missile
cruisers.  Work will be performed in Groton, Connecticut.  Contract funds will
not expire at the end of the current fiscal year.  This contract was not
competitively procured.  The Naval Sea Systems Command is the contracting
activity (N00024-91-C-4030).

	Jowett, Inc., Clinton, Maryland, is being awarded a $7,288,000 firm-fixed-
price contract for a fleet requirements support building.  Work will be
performed at the Naval Surface Warfare Center, Dahlgren, Virginia, and is
expected to be completed by April 1994.  Contract funds will not expire at the
end of the current fiscal year.  This contract was competitively procured with
153 plans and specifications distributed and 3 bids received.  The Chesapeake
Division, Naval Facilities Engineering Command, Washington, D.C., is the
contracting activity (N62477-90-C-0205).

	Fredericksburg Construction, Lorton, Virginia, is being awarded a
$7,360,000 firm-fixed-price contract for the construction of an electronic
systems laboratory.  Work will be performed at the Naval Surface Warfare
Center, Dahlgren, Virginia, and is expected to be completed by May 1994.
Contract funds will not expire at the end of the current fiscal year.  This
contract was competitively procured with 203 plans and specifications distrib-
uted and 3 bids received.  The Chesapeake Division, Naval Facilities Engineer-
ing Command, Washington, D.C., is the contracting activity (N62477-89-C-0126).

                                     ARMY

	BMY-Combat Systems, Division of Harsco Corporation, York, Pennsylvania, is
being awarded a $773,724 modification to a $253,736,914 contract for 6 M88A1
Medium Recovery Vehicles for Saudi Arabia.  Work will be performed in York,
Pennsylvania, and is expected to be completed by November 30, 1992.  Contract
funds will not expire at the end of the current fiscal year.  This is a sole
source contract initiated on March 31, 1985.  The contracting activity is the
U.S. Army Tank Automotive Command, Warren, Michigan, (DAAE07-85-C-A075).

	BMY-Combat Systems, Division of Harsco Corporation, York, Pennsylvania, is
being awarded a $17,896,356 modification to a $115,865,105 contract for 98
M88A1 Medium Recovery Vehicles (47 for Saudi Arabia, 8 for Thailand, 40 for
Egypt, 1 for Oman, and 2 for the U.S. Marine Corps).  Work will be performed in
York, Pennsylvania, and is expected to be completed by December 21, 1993.
Contract funds will not expire at the end of the current fiscal year.  This is
a sole source contract initiated on December 31, 1990.  The contracting
activity is the U.S. Tank Automotive Command, Warren, Michigan (DAAE07-91-C-
A003).

	Nielson, Incorporated, Cortez, Colorado, is being awarded a $10,207,998
firm fixed price contract for extending cable for 1 1/2 miles between towers
and the construction of 6 buildings and roads to support aerial cable test
capability.  Work will be performed in White Sands Missile Range, New Mexico,
and is expected to be completed by November 2, 1993.  Contract funds will not
expire at the end of the current fiscal year.  There were 37 bids solicited on
August 18, 1992, and 6 bids received.  The contracting activity is the U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers, Fort Worth, Texas (DACA63-92-C-0009).

	Beech Aerospace Services, Incorporated, Madison, Mississippi, is being
awarded an $8,373,624 modification to a $105,409,227 contract for contractor
logistic support for 116 C-12; 39 RC-12; 114 U-21; and 39 RU-12; 114 U-21; and
29 RU-21 fixed wing aircraft.  Work will be performed in various beddown sites
worldwide and is expected to be completed by September 30, 1996.  Contract
funds will not expire at the end of the current fiscal year.  There were 18
bids solicited on July 31, 1990, and 1 bid received.  The contracting activity
is the U.S. Army Aviation and Troop Command, St. Louis, Missouri (DAAJ09-92-
C-0009).

						END


-- 
         
      // \\
    //     \\                    Air Force News Agency 
   |         |               Kelly Air Force Base, Texas, USA
   \\  {*}  //                   bergman@afpan.pa.af.mil  
   \  CMSgt  /      ___________________ /____________________________________
   \  Mike   /   
   \ Bergman /
     \     / 
Newsgroups: sci.military