From: CMSgt Mike Bergman <bergman@afnews.pa.af.mil>
Subject: DoD Briefing/Contracts 08/06/92 (long)
Organization: Hq Air Force News Agency/SCC
Date: Wed, 12 Aug 1992 20:32:58 GMT


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


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


  <<>><<>><<>><<>><<>><<>><<>><<>><<>><<>><<>><<>><<>><<>><<>><<>><<>><<>><>>
  <<>> Assistant Secretary Of Defense                                    <<>>
  <<>>        Public Affairs                     August 1992             <<>>
  <<>>    Pentagon, Washington DC       Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat      <<>>
  <<>>        DSN  225-3886                                      1       <<>>
  <<>>       - - - - - - -               2   3   4   5   6   7   8       <<>>
  <<>>  DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE NEWS       9  10  11  12  13  14  15       <<>>
  <<>>                                  16  17  18  19  20  21  22       <<>>
  <<>>                                  23  24  25  26  27  28  29       <<>>
  <<>>                                  30  31                           <<>>
  <<>>                                                                   <<>>
  <<>>                   - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -                   <<>>
  <<>><<>><<>><<>><<>><<>><<>><<>><<>><<>><<>><<>><<>><<>><<>><<>><<>><<>><>>


DoD News Briefing
Thursday, August 6, 1992 - Noon
Mr. Pete Williams, ASD (Public Affairs)

     Mr. Williams:  Good afternoon.

     I only have a few brief announcements to make.  One is that Under
Secretary of the Navy Dan Howard will be the featured speaker at a 50th
Anniversary Commemoration of the Battle of Guadalcanal tomorrow.  The event
will be at 10:00 in the morning, tomorrow morning, aboard the Guadalcanal,
which is at Norfolk Naval Station.  One hundred veterans of the amphibious
assault will also take part in this commemoration.  Reporters interested in
covering the event should contact the public affairs office of the Naval
Surface Fleet, Atlantic Fleet.  The number is 804-444-5640.  As we announced on
Tuesday, there are also ceremonies here in Washington over at the Marine Corps
Memorial, more popularly known as the Iwo Jima Memorial.

     One other announcement here, then we'll go for about 15 minutes or so and
then pause for Secretary Rice.  There is a typhoon called Janice that is moving
toward the Japanese islands, and it's expected to pass through pretty shortly,
so the military is taking some precautions with its aircraft.  Aircraft at
Kadena Air Base in Japan have been evacuated to U.S. bases throughout the
Pacific area as a precaution, because of the pending arrival of Typhoon Janice.
The storm is expected to pass Kadena within the next 12 hours, as of 12 o'clock
p.m. eastern time today, on the 6th of August.  So by midnight tonight eastern
time, the storm is expected to pass Kadena.

     Storm condition procedures are in effect at the base to ensure the safety
of the remaining personnel, but because it's just very hard to hold down
aircraft they're going to move some of them out of there.  The types of
aircraft to be evacuated, and the numbers of them, are:  four F/A-18's, five
P-3's, seven KC-135's, one C-12, an Air Force C-12, six C-130's, these are Air
Force C-130's.  That's a total of 23 aircraft.  The rest of the aircraft have
been put in hangars as a precaution. 

     If you're interested in more details for this, you can call the public
affairs office at Kadena.  The number is 011-81-989-38-1111, and then ask for
Extension 41509.

     Q:  Pete, there's a report out that Iraq is ruling out allowing any
further UN inspection teams to go into any of their ministries, saying it would
be a violation of their sovereignty, and quoting the Culture and Information
Minister, that it would hurt their sovereignty and independence.  What's the
Pentagon's reaction to this?
     A:  I haven't seen the report.  I think I got the same little wire story
that you all saw, I just saw the first couple of paragraphs of it.  It's not a
new statement from Iraq.  A couple of weeks ago, when we were approaching the
second anniversary of the invasion of Kuwait, the Iraqis made similar
statements.  They said they had done historical research showing that Kuwait
has always been part of Iraq.  Some Iraqi officials, including Saddam Hussein's
press secretary, made statements that no one should cooperate with UN
inspectors, that they were causing nothing but trouble, and language to the
effect that they should be trampled underfoot.  They said at that time that
ministry buildings were sovereign places and no inspection should be allowed,
of ministry buildings.  So it's not a new statement.

     Q:  Do you think the inspectors should go ahead and visit the Ministry of
Defense in Baghdad?
     A:  It's not for me to tell the UN where to go.  The UN makes those
decisions.  The UN Special Commission decides where it's going to go.  I don't
advise the UN from the briefing podium

     Q:  But don't you think if they're visiting the Ministry of Agriculture
and the Ministry of Industry that the Ministry of Defense would seem to be a
logical place they would want to go?
     A: I can't speak for the UN Special Commission.  I would say it's always
been our belief, and the UN's belief as well, that Security Council resolutions
in place now, which the Iraqis have signed up to, require them to submit
unconditionally to UN demands for inspection.  That Security Council resolution
doesn't say except for ministry buildings.  We have been in ministry buildings
twice before -- the Agriculture Ministry and one before that, I think the
Ministry of Industry.  I can't remember which it was.  But there was a ministry
building in the spring the UN visited.  So this is not anything new.  We've
been through this before.  The UN resolutions are clear that the Iraqis need to
submit to UN inspections whenever and wherever the UN wants to visit somewhere,
whether it's a ministry building or a library building or anything else.

     Q:  If they don't, how long will the United States wait this next time?
When we had the Agriculture standoff it went on for weeks.  Can we expect the
same kind of patience from the United States?
     A:  I don't want to get into sort of hypothetically guessing what the
Iraqis are going to do next time and how the United Nations and the United
States will respond.  As far as I know, there are no problems with UN
inspectors now in Iraq getting access where they need to go.  We expect full
Iraqi cooperation.  If we don't get it, I can't speculate on what the United
Nations will want to do next time.

     Q:  Is it your understanding that this statement by this minister today,
this latest Iraqi statement barring any future visit to ministries, comes in
response to a fresh UN request to visit some ministry? 
     A:  Not that I know of.  I don't know whether it does or not.  I assume
one of the reasons we're discussing it so much is that it came out just a few
minutes before the briefing.  But it is not a new statement.  This is not the
first time that an Iraqi official has made such a statement.  They've been
making similar statements saying the same thing about ministry buildings now,
for the last couple of weeks. And other outrageous statements about UN
inspectors.  They've been trying to blame all of Iraq's economic problems on
the presence of UN inspectors and saying other things that are clearly
preposterous.  This would be only the latest in a series of preposterous
statements about UN inspectors.

     Q:  And it is your understanding that they would have to submit the
Defense Ministry to a UN inspection if it was requested.
     A:  Again, Wolf, I just don't want to be drawn into discussing any
specific sites that the UN wants to inspect.  The resolutions are clear.  The
resolutions say that the UN Special Commission has the authority to conduct
these inspections in pursuit to other UN resolutions that require Iraq to
demonstrate destruction of its weapons of mass destruction.  The UN, therefore,
has said that it will conduct these inspections sometimes in an announced way,
sometimes in a surprise way.  But it's clear from the resolutions, and indeed
from the way the inspections have been conducted now for several months, that
the UN Special Commission has the right, under the resolutions, to inspect
wherever it wants, under any circumstances.  It doesn't exclude any type of
facilities from that general rule.

     Q:  I think you've said publicly that since the Agriculture Ministry
standoff, the United States has passed fresh intelligence. . .as part of our
cooperation with the Special Commission.  About how many sites have you given
new intelligence to the Special Commission?
     A:  Number one, I'm not sure whether I've said that publicly.  But number
two, since the inspection regime began, various nations in the coalition,
including the United States but by no means limited to the United States, have
provided suggestions to the UN Special Commission on where it ought to go to
look for evidence of weapons of mass destruction.  Some of that information
comes from intelligence sources.  Some of it comes from other means and other
sources.  All the nations in the coalition have been passing this information
along to the UN Special Commission.  So it's not anything new just since the
Agriculture Ministry thing, but I'd rather not speculate about how many sites
we've suggested or anyone else has suggested they go visit.

     Q:  Did you have any sense of when the next visit was going to be?
     A:  I haven't heard, no.

     Q:  There was testimony on the Hill yesterday from Colonel Cole who heads
the DIA's POW/MIA office in Bangkok, that the Vietnamese were reneging on a
recently concluded agreement having to do with snap inspections.  Can we get
the Pentagon's view of where we stand?
     A:  I think you heard the Pentagon's view of where we stand on that
yesterday from Colonel Cole.  As a general matter, the Vietnamese have been
doing better over the last several months, in a kind of umbrella way, in a kind
of overall way, in helping us pursue reports in our own cases of POW's and
MIA's.  They have allowed us to establish the office in Vietnam.  They have
allowed us to use some of our own equipment.  They have taken us to some of the
sites.  As a general matter, they've been doing better.  But there is no
question, as Colonel Cole said yesterday, that in some specific cases they have
a long way to go in allowing us to get the access to crash sites, for example,
that we need.  No question about it, and I think the testimony you heard from
him is a good summary of where things stand.

     Q:  There's a report out of Hanoi this morning that the Vietnam
governments wants access to our intelligence information on missing U.S.
servicemen in Vietnam.  Are you aware of any request like that?  What would the
Pentagon's reaction to that be?
     A:  You're saying the Vietnamese want our files on information about...
Well number one, as you all know, we've been declassifying an enormous amount
of material here lately in pursuit of an executive order which in turn followed
the passage of a Senate resolution on declassifying MIA documents.  A great
deal of this stuff is going to be out there in the public domain for anybody to
look at.

     Secondly, we do share with the Vietnamese some limited intelligence from
time to time in order to demonstrate to them the need for us to visit specific
sites.  But as a matter of policy, what it is that we turn over to the
Vietnamese or not, you really ought to talk to the State Department because
that's a government-to-government transaction.

     But the people from Joint Task Force Full Accounting are in touch with the
Vietnamese counterparts all the time, whenever we want to do an inspection.  I
have to say, I have not seen the specific Vietnamese request.

     Q:  Senator Smith cited unconfirmed reports that the Vietnamese might have
built an underground prison near Ho Chi Minh's tomb.  The question arose
whether the Defense Department was seeking access to the compound in order to
check for any such facility.
     A:  My understanding is, number one, we've checked this report out before,
including a visit to the site.  But I think they said to Senator Smith
yesterday that if he wants to go back, they'd certainly be happy to take him
back.

     Q:  They specifically said they had been denied access to...
     A:  Well recently, but I think DIS checked this report out before.  That's
my understanding.

     Q:  The entry to the underground prison, if it exists, is supposedly off
of the Defense Ministry complex, which is by Ho Chi Minh's tomb.  The Pentagon
people said they have been denied access when they'd asked in the past.
     A:  Let me check that out.  My understanding was, talking to the POW/MIA
folks this morning, that we have checked this report out in the past.  We don't
believe it to be true as a result of our having looking into it in the past.
But let me find out if we've had access problems.

     Q:  And whether you're going to seek it, if you haven't.
     A:  Right.

     Q:  Does the U.S. Government yet have any confirmation of these reports of
death camps, concentration camps in Yugoslavia?
     A:  The quick answer to the question is no.  We have seen the press
reports about detention centers in Bosnia, Hertzogovina and Serbia, and about
atrocities committed in them.  We take them seriously.  But we are also seeking
to use other intelligence means to find out what is going on in these camps.
We do not see any evidence of a program of systematic or massive killing of
innocent people by any part of the parties to the fighting.  We continue to
check these reports out.  We have been able to confirm the existence of a
number of the detention camps, the existence of the camps.  And indeed, the Red
Cross has visited some of them.  As the State Department said yesterday, the
Red Cross has reported harsh conditions of detention, but the Red Cross has not
found any evidence of what could be called death camps.

     The Red Cross continues its efforts to visit the rest of the detention
camps, and we continue to use the means available to us to learn what we can
about them as well.

     Q:  . . .did you say, of a program of systematic extermination?
     A:  Yes.  We do not.

     Q:  Is that a restatement of old intelligence, or is that the product of
something new?  Is this up to the minute?
     A:  This is up to the minute.

     Q:  Have you examined enough places that you believe you would have found
evidence of such a systematic extermination?
     A:  I don't know that I can say that.  I can say we continue to look, but
so far we haven't found any evidence.

     Q:  Not having found evidence could mean anything ranging from you haven't
looked to you have looked a little to...
     A:  Let me make it clear.  I already said we've looked, and I'll say again
that we have looked.  Part of the problem is some of these so-called camps are
indoors, they're buildings.  That gives us some limitations.  Some of the
facilities are outdoors.  But we have looked and we continue to look.

     Q:  How many camps, detention camps, have you identified?
     A:  The Red Cross has a list.  I think they've identified a list of 105.

     Q:  That was the list submitted by the Bosnian government.  Have you
confirmed that number?
     A:  No, I don't believe we can independently confirm that number.

     Q:  When you say you've looked into it...
     A:  Obviously, this is no great mystery.  When we hear about a suspected
site then we can use intelligence means to try to find out what we can about
it.

     Q:  You don't mean that U.S. military or diplomatic staff are personally
checking each site, or do you?
     A:  You need to sharpen that question.  

     Q:  When you say you've checked it out, have you talked to people who have
been there, or are U.S. personnel visiting these sites?
     A:  No, U.S. personnel are not visiting these sites.  Red Cross personnel
are visiting the sites.  When I say we're checking them out, I said we're using
other intelligence means.  That's in addition to talking to people.

     Q:  Are you confident, Pete, that reconnaissance photography or satellite
imagery could detect systematic killings if they were taking place?
     A:  Number one, I'm not going to verify or confirm that the intelligence
means that we're talking about are the two that you contained in your question.
What I'm saying, Wolf, is that we have to use all means possible to look into
these reports.  So far, looking at all means possible, as I said earlier, we
haven't seen any evidence of a program of systematic or massive killing of
innocent people by any of the parties to the fighting.

     Q:  You did say that you'd been able to verify the existence of the
detention centers, correct?
     A:  Yes.

     Q:  Is there any evidence of large numbers of people being held in open
pits, out in the open without any shelter, steel cages, all these things that
have been...
     A:  Not that we've seen.

     Q:  Did you reformulate your statement to leave a certain margin of
maneuver in suggesting that you hadn't seen any programs of massive or
systematic extermination, leaving open the possibility that there was something
you might characterize as less than massive?
     A:  Two answers to your question.  Did I reformulate it?  No, it's exactly
the way I said it the first time.  Secondly, am I trying to leave open the
possibility of something less than that?  I'm trying to directly respond to the
questions about whether we've seen any reports through means of our own of
death camps.  But the State Department has spoken at length about the fact that
we have heard many reports of individual atrocities and violations of human
rights.

     Q:  You mentioned a minute ago that there is a problem that many of these
alleged camps may be in buildings, not outdoors.  What other challenges are
there to using other intelligence means to...
     A:  That gets into the limitations and capabilities of intelligence means,
and I just can't get into that.

     Q:  This is just from your explanation of how we're doing the checking
out.  Are we limited to checking only those camps that Red Cross personnel are
given access to?
     A:  No.

     Q:  I want to try one more time to get a sense of how much evidence you've
collected.  Have you looked hard enough, can you characterize the way you've
looked?  Have you looked hard enough that you have some confidence that these
death camps don't exist or aren't happening, or are you not yet in a position
to draw that conclusion?
     A:  I think the statement is carefully crafted with just that question in
mind, and I'll leave it at that.

       Let me turn it over to Secretary Rice now.

     (Secretary Rice briefs of B-2 matters.)

     Mr. Williams:  I should note that copies of the briefing slides that the
Secretary used are available for you here at the door.  If you have any further
questions on the B-2 and what Secretary Rice, said, I refer you to the Air
Force.

     Q:  On Yugoslavia, getting back to this statement that you just made,
based on the intelligence you have, you can't confirm any systematic killings,
I don't remember the exact words that you used.
     A:  I'll read the sentence again.  "We do not see any evidence of a
program of systematic or massive killing of innocent people by any of the
parties to the fighting."

     Q:  You know that critics will argue that this statement would appear to
be a rush to some sort of judgment that...
     A:  I'm relying on you to accurately note the context.  The question was,
based on our intelligence means can we independently confirm.  This was the
very narrow answer to a very narrow question.  I also noted, echoing some of
the language that the State Department has used in the last couple of days,
that we've seen reports about this.  We take them seriously.  This answer to
the question, which I obviously anticipated because it's the same question you
asked me on Tuesday and I just assumed you'd ask me again today, is carefully
worded to respond to precisely that question.  It is in no way intended to
gainsay, denigrate, criticize or anything else the reports of these atrocities
that are coming from the former Yugoslavia.  So please note the context in
which I answered the question.  It is a very narrow answer to a very narrow
question, and it is not intended to carry any cargo beyond that.

     Q:  The critics will argue that since the military, the Pentagon is
reluctant to get more involved militarily in trying to do something about this,
your statement suggesting that the intelligence is simply not available or not
there to confirm these horror stories is designed to reduce that public
pressure or congressional pressure or Clinton/Gore pressure, to see a more
assertive U.S. military role.
     A: It's a fair question.  It contains two logical flaws, however.  Logical
flaw number one is your assertion that the Pentagon is reluctant to get
militarily more involved.  The Secretary of Defense said in late June that the
United States was willing to provide naval and air support, for example, for
the provision of humanitarian assistance into Yugoslavia.  We have made several
offers to the United Nations and have been discussing with the UN for many
months what's the best way to handle the problems of Yugoslavia, including the
humanitarian mission.

     It is a UN mission.  A peacekeeping mission, right now, in Yugoslavia.
The United States isn't going to take any unilateral action here.  We're going
to do what we do through the UN.  We're going to respond to UN requests.  Why
is that?  One of the reasons is the reason that General McKenzie has been
sketching out on the appearances on many of your broadcasts and in many of your
publications the last couple of days.  He said it first at the news conference
that he had up at the UN in New York on Tuesday.  He said you can't switch from
a peacekeeping to a peacemaking operation overnight.  You can't go from one
chapter of the UN resolutions on peacekeeping into another overnight because
you threaten at least the 1600 peacekeeping forces that are around the Sarajevo
Airport, to say nothing about the thousands of other UN peacekeeping troops
that are elsewhere throughout the region of the former Yugoslavia.  So bear
that in mind, number one.  It's not a question of what the U.S. is willing to
do or not to do.  The fact of the matter is that we are working very carefully
in response to what the UN sees as the best way to handle the problem.

     The second thing is that, you asked me a question, what does U.S.
intelligence show, and I've given you the answer to the best of my ability.
The answer that I've given you is in no way colored or shaped by what anybody
thinks should or should not be done.  It is a simple statement of the fact.

     The third thing I would point out is that I think the President is going
to make a statement on Yugoslavia, so I may defer any of your other policy
questions because he's going to speak to this this afternoon.

     Q:  Can you give us a status report on U.S. involvement in the relief
efforts?
     A:  It hasn't really changed since Tuesday.  We are flying humanitarian
flights into Yugoslavia.  The United States has done several things in pursuit
of the UN request to help out in the provision of humanitarian relief supplies
to Yugoslavia.  We have flown repeated flights into the Sarajevo Airport to try
to get food aid into Sarajevo.  Since the operation began on July 3rd, the
United States has flown 80 missions into Sarajevo, delivering more than 960
tons of relief supplies.  That's the U.S. portion.  Many other nations are
taking part, too.  They're getting an average of about 200 metric tons a day of
food, something about 150 to 200 metric tons of food a day into Sarajevo.

     Secondly, the United States has contributed a ship to NATO's Standing
Naval Force Mediterranean which is patrolling the Adriatic.  The Standing Naval
Force is patrolling the Adriatic to monitor compliance with the UN sanctions on
the former Yugoslavia.

     Thirdly, we have two other ships in the Adriatic to assist in logistical
support for these humanitarian flights into Sarajevo.

     Q:  When was our last flight in?
     A:  The last flight was Tuesday, just before the airport was closed.

     Q:  So it's not been reopened since?
     A:  It has not been reopened.  The 72 hour suspension expires tomorrow
morning at 7:30 eastern time.  There are discussions going on right now about
whether and how to reopen the airport.

     Q:  What is your response to complaints from veterans organizations that
the government has been too slow to respond to the Gulf veterans who are coming
down with some kind of sickness?
     A:  I think the President was over meeting with some veterans yesterday.
He has established a commission to look into these complaints about care for
veterans in general.  The panel that he mentioned in his address to the
Disabled American Veterans last night was to review national health plans of
the Veterans Affairs Department.  He noted concern about having a voice heard
by veterans in the Washington bureaucracy about health care, and he said he
created a panel in Washington to guarantee the leadership of the DAV and other
veterans groups would be involved on the question of how best to provide for
the health care of veterans.

     As to the health complaints and problems that people are having who served
in the Gulf, we've done a lot of things to try to figure out how best to care
for those folks.  From the earliest stages of combat when the potential ill
effects of petrochemicals first became an issue, we've been involved in steps
to try to protect the health of the troops and to assess the future impact of
exposure both over the short time while they were there, and the long term
after they got back.  We've set up a working group of all the military
departments to work on the health effects of the Kuwaiti oil well fire smoke.
It's composed of people who have experience in occupational medicine,
preventive medicine, environmental health, and industrial hygiene.  It includes
representatives from the Veterans Administration, the Centers for Disease
Control, the Environmental Protection Agency, and NOAA -- the National Oceanic
and Atmospheric Administration, the Armed Forces Institute of Pathology, and
the Armed Forces Epidemiology Board.  It's developing programs to identify
potential health effects on the troops who served in the Gulf and to recommend
ways to protect the health of military personnel in the future.  We expect the
findings of that group to be finished by the end of the year.

     It involves basically a study of 4700 soldiers of the 11th Armored Cavalry
Regiment who were exposed to the oil fires from June 1st to October 14th of
'91.  After they got back they collected health information, answered questions
about their service, gave them all kinds of medical tests, pulmonary function
tests, and they're now analyzing all the data from all those studies.

     They have also taken action to identify individuals who are potentially at
risk from exposure to the fires and the smoke.  In November of '91, the
Department began work with the Department of Veterans Affairs to establish a
registry of all the individuals who served in the Persian Gulf region.  That
registry consists of a database of all daily ground locations of military
combat units in theater during Desert Shield and Desert Storm.  So we can go
back and plot where everybody was at a given time.

     We haven't ruled out any potential cause for ailments experienced by
veterans of the Gulf conflict.  Petroleum poisoning is an area that has been
and continues to be seriously examined by the Department's doctors.  There is
no firm confirmation of petroleum poisoning cases in the cases that have been
mentioned in recent press reports that some of you have written about, although
we are still looking into it.  It's an area that we are very interested in.

     To sum it up, the health of our personnel is a high priority.  Medical
experts from the Department and the civilian community are being called upon to
make medical evaluations.  Although we have seen no major difference in the
health of military personnel returning from the Gulf compared to those who
didn't serve there, we are continuing to monitor it carefully and do what we
can for these folks.

     Q:  To clarify a statement you made Tuesday about Secretary Cheney
recommending a veto of the bill because of the nuclear test ban, is that the
Energy and Water Bill, or a defense bill or both?
     A:  As of the time I was asked about it on Tuesday it was an amendment to
the Senate version of the Energy and Water Bill.  There is a consideration to
put it on the Defense Authorization Act as well.  It doesn't matter what it's
put on.  The fact of the matter is, as the Secretary has already told the
Congress in testimony and in a letter, we will oppose any bans or moratoriums
on testing of nuclear weapons for safety and reliability, and if Congress
enacts such a ban, the Secretary of Defense will recommend a veto.

     Q:  How about Senator Leahy's measure that would place a one year
moratorium on the export of land mines?
     A:  I haven't seen it.  I don't know.  Do you need to know what our
position on that is?  I don't have any idea, is the honest answer to the
question.

     Press:  Thank you.
     Mr. Williams:  Thank you.
:END




HOLD FOR RELEASE
UNTIL 5:00 P.M. (EDT)		AUGUST 6, 1992		(703) 697-5131 - Info.

                             DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
                                CONTRACT AWARDS

                                     ARMY

	NCR Corporation, Rockville, Maryland, is being awarded a $8,360,554 fixed
price contract for retail point of sale intelligent registers (cash registers).
Work will be performed at various sites worldwide, and is expected to be
completed by August 5, 1996.  Contract funds will not expire at the end of the
current fiscal year.  This is a sole source contract initiated on April 16,
1992.  The contracting activity is the Army and Air Force Exchange Service,
Dallas, Texas (HQ92-PZS-147).

	Atlantic Research Corporation/Unit of SEQUA Corporation, Rockville,
Maryland, is being awarded a $250,000 increment as part of a $30,625,000 time
and material/award fee contract for software support.  Work will be performed
at Fort Meade, Maryland (80%) and Rockville, Maryland (20%), and is expected to
be completed by September 30, 1996.  Contract funds will expire at the end of
the current fiscal year.  There were ten bids solicited on March 31, 1992, and
three bids received.  The contracting activity is the Maryland Procurement
Office, Fort Meade, Maryland (MDA904-92-C-D118).

	McCartey Construction-Mark Diversified, Sacramento, California, is being
awarded a $18,353,000 firm fixed price contract for construction of Aerospace
Audiovisual Service Facility.  Work will be performed at March Air Force Base,
California, and is expected to be completed by October 23, 1993.  Contract
funds will not expire at the end of the current fiscal year.  There were 93
bids solicited on April 7, 1992, and 5 bids received.  The contracting activity
is the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers, Sacramento, California (DACA05-92-
C-0082).

	AM General Corporation, South Bend, Indiana, is being awarded a
$12,314,519 modification to a fixed price with economic price adjustment
contract for 194 each, High Mobility Multi-Purpose Wheeled Vehicle (HMMWV)
M1025 Armament Carrier.  Work will be performed in Mishawaka, Indiana, and is
expected to be completed by December 30, 1993.  Contract funds will not expire
at the end of the current fiscal year.  There were 30 bids solicited on
February 17, 1989, and 1 bid received.  The contracting activity is the U. S.
Army Tank Automotive Command, Warren, Michigan (DAAE07-89-C-0998).

                                     NAVY

	Paramax Systems Corporation, Systems Development, Great Neck, New York, is
being awarded a $17,066,663 cost-plus-award-fee contract modification for
grooming of the combat systems for five follow ships for the Taiwanese Navy
PFG-2 class patrol frigate program plus technical, logistics, program manage-
ment and additional ship acquisition program management engineering and
material support services.  Work will be performed in Ronkonkoma, New York
(89%) and Reston, Virginia (11%) and is expected to be completed by August
1997.  Contract funds will not expire at the end of the current fiscal year.
This contract is for Taiwan (100%) under the foreign military sales program.
The Naval Sea Systems Command is the contracting activity (N00024-89-C-5230).

	Philadelphia Naval Shipyard, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, is being assigned
the firm-fixed-price drydocking phased maintenance availability (DPMA) of USS
BUTTE (AE 27) for $8,168,117.  Expected availability dates are 7 August 1992
through 20 November 1992, and the work will be performed at the shipyard in
Philadelphia.  Assignment funds in the amount of $7,495,410 will expire at the
end of the current fiscal year.  This assignment was competitively procured
with four offers solicited and three bids received.  The Supervisor of Ship-
building, Conversion and Repair, Bath, Maine is the contracting activity
(N62786-92-R-0002).

                                   AIR FORCE

	Teledyne Ryan Aeroanutical, San Diego, California, is being awarded a
$67,753,927 face value increase to a firm-fixed-price contract for 32 BQM-34A
aerial target drones for the Air Force, 100 BQM-34S aerial target drones for
the Navy, and associated installation kits, warranties, and data.  Contract is
expected to be completed August 1995.  Contract funds will not expire at the
end of the current fiscal year.  The Warner Robins Air Logistics Center,
Robbins Air Force Base, Georgia, is the contracting activity (F09603-90-C-1837,
P00013).

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



Newsgroups: sci.military