United States General Accounting Office

GAO Report to the Ranking Minority Member,

Subcommittee on Post Office and Civil

Service, Committee on Governmental

Affairs, U.S. Senate

April 1996 FEDERALLY FUNDED

R&D CENTERS

Information on the Size

and Scope of

DOD-Sponsored

Centers

G O A

years

1921 - 1996

GAO/NSIAD-96-54

GAO United States

General Accounting Office

Washington, D.C. 20548

National Security and

International Affairs Division

B-270464 

April 24, 1996

The Honorable David Pryor

Ranking Minority Member

Subcommittee on Post Office and

 Civil Service

Committee on Governmental Affairs

United States Senate

Dear Senator Pryor:

As requested, we are updating our 1988 report entitled Competition:

Information on Federally Funded Research and Development Centers

(GAO/NSIAD-88-116FS, May 24, 1988) for the Department of Defense’s (DOD) 

11 federally funded research and development centers (FFRDC).

Specifically, this report describes the (1) funding and staff size of the

FFRDCs; (2) extent of subcontracted FFRDC work; (3) structure of the parent

organizations; (4) missions, core competencies, and capabilities of the

FFRDCs; (5) sponsors’ criteria for defining core work; and (6) sponsors’

oversight mechanisms and responsibilities.

Background FFRDCs were first established during World War II to meet specialized or

unique research and development needs that could not be readily satisfied

by government personnel, due to limits on federal salaries and hiring, or

by commercial contractors.1

 Additional and expanded requirements for

specialized services led to increases in the size and number of FFRDCs to a

peak of 74 FFRDCs in 1969. Today, 8 agencies, including DOD, fund 39 FFRDCs

that are operated by universities, nonprofit organizations, or industrial

firms under long-term contracts.2

 Legislation and federal procurement

regulations permit agencies to award these contracts noncompetitively.3

Within DOD, the Director of Defense Research and Engineering is

responsible for developing overall policy for DOD’s 11 FFRDCs. The Director

also determines the funding level for each FFRDC based on the overall

congressional ceiling on FFRDC funding and FFRDC sponsors’ funding

1

FFRDCs were previously called federal contract research centers (FCRC).

2

Of the total $74.4 billion spent on federal research in fiscal year 1994, federal agencies spent about

$6.3 billion, or 8.5 percent, on FFRDCs.

3

See the Competition in Contracting Act, 10 U.S.C. 2304, and the Federal Acquisition Regulation.

Page 1 GAO/NSIAD-96-54 Federally Funded Centers
B-270464 

requirements.4 DOD categorizes each of its FFRDCs as a (1) systems

engineering and integration center, (2) studies and analyses center, or

(3) research and development laboratory. Table 1 shows DOD’s 11 FFRDCs

by category, parent organization, and primary sponsor.

Table 1: DOD’s FFRDCs, Parent

Organizations, and Primary Sponsors FFRDC Parent organization Primary sponsor

Systems engineering and integration centers

Aerospace The Aerospace Corporation Air Force

MITRE C3I The MITRE Corporation Assistant Secretary of

Defense (C3I)

Studies and analyses centers

Arroyo Center RAND Army

Project AIR FORCE RAND Air Force

National Defense Research

Institute

RAND OSD

Center for Naval Analyses The CNA Corporation Navy

IDA-Studies and

Analyses/Operational

Test and Evaluation

IDA OSD

Logistics Management

Institute

Logistics Management

Institute

OSD

Research and development laboratories

Lincoln Laboratory Massachusetts Institute of

Technology

Air Force

Software Engineering

Institute

Carnegie Mellon University Defense Advanced

Research Projects Agency

IDA-Communications and

Computing Centera

IDA National Security Agency

Note: Command, Control, Communications, and Intelligence (C3I); Office of the Secretary of

Defense (OSD); and Institute for Defense Analyses (IDA).

aIDA-Communications and Computing Center is sometimes referred to as IDA-C3I.

The military services and defense agencies sponsor individual centers and

award and administer the 5-year contracts that are typically negotiated

noncompetitively after the agencies’ continued need for the FFRDC is

established. Unlike commercial contractors, an FFRDC accepts restrictions

on its ability to manufacture products and compete for other government

or commercial business. These restrictions are intended to (1) limit the

potential for conflicts of interest when FFRDC staff have access to sensitive

4

In fiscal year 1994, DOD spent about $824.6 million, or about 2.4 percent, of its total $34.7 billion

budget for research, development, test, and evaluation on its FFRDCs. DOD’s FFRDCs also receive

funds from the procurement and operations and maintenance accounts.

Page 2 GAO/NSIAD-96-54 Federally Funded Centers
B-270464 

government or contractor data and (2) allow the center to form a special

or strategic relationship with its DOD sponsor.5

The size, scope, and oversight of DOD’s FFRDCs have been recurring areas of

concern to Congress, federal officials, and the private sector throughout

the past three decades. Since 1991, Congress reduced the funding and

approved personnel ceilings for the FFRDCs, capped executives’ salaries,

and prohibited the creation of new FFRDCs.

Results in Brief Overall funding for DOD’s FFRDCs, in constant 1995 dollars, increased by

about 23 percent, from almost $1.4 billion in fiscal year 1985 to a peak of

approximately $1.7 billion in fiscal year 1990, after which Congress began

reducing DOD’s FFRDC funding.6

 Since fiscal year 1990, funding for DOD’s

FFRDCs has decreased by almost 26 percent to about $1.3 billion in fiscal

year 1995. However, over this 5-year period, funding and members of

technical staff (MTS)7

 for the three categories of FFRDCs were not reduced

proportionately; smaller funding reductions were made to the studies and

analyses centers (7 percent) in contrast to the systems engineering centers

(24 percent) and the laboratories (36 percent). Hence, the studies and

analyses centers remained closer to their 1990 levels. The majority of

resources—about 57 percent of funding and 62 percent of MTS—in fiscal

year 1995 were used in DOD’s two systems engineering and integration

centers—Aerospace and MITRE. The average cost per MTS for DOD’s FFRDCs

was about $181,000 in fiscal year 1995.

Subcontracting at DOD’s FFRDCs, which primarily included engineering and

consulting assistance, totaled 7 percent, or about $83 million, of FFRDC

5

Role of Federally Funded R&D Centers in the Mission of the Department of Defense, Defense Science

Board Task Force, April 25, 1995, and Report of the DOD Internal Advisory Group on Federally Funded

Research and Development Centers, May 18, 1995, define the characteristics of the special or strategic

relationship as unique competence and quality, close integration, objectivity and independence, and

long-term continuity.

6

The policy of the Office of the Director of Defense Research and Engineering is to report funding data

using actual obligations rather than expenditures. Actual obligations represent the amount of contracts

awarded, services rendered, and similar transactions during a given period that will require payment

during the same or future period. Expenditures result from the issuance of checks, disbursement of

cash, or electronic transfer of funds made to liquidate a federal obligation. According to DOD officials,

using obligations allows you to refer to a fixed number, while expenditures are constantly changing

due to economic fluctuations, among other things.

7

MTS includes the direct professional labor of researchers, mathematicians, analysts, economists,

scientists, engineers, and others who perform professional-level technical work. DOD defines an

average MTS as 1,810 hours of full-time employee or professional effort; subcontracting is excluded. A

DOD official told us that the FFRDCs may not use this number to calculate MTS; therefore, differences

in determining MTS sometimes occur.

Page 3 GAO/NSIAD-96-54 Federally Funded Centers
B-270464 

funding in fiscal year 1995.8 Lincoln Laboratory had the most

subcontracts—approximately 29 percent or about $78.4 million of its total

expenditures in that year. It accounted for about 95 percent of all reported

subcontracting.

Of the eight parent organizations that operate DOD’s FFRDCs, six also

operate organizations outside the FFRDC structure. Two of the six that

operate other organizations are universities. Of the four remaining, DOD’s

FFRDCs constitute the majority of their total revenue. For these parent

organizations, FFRDC funding ranged from about 69 percent of total funding

at RAND to 94 percent at The CNA Corporation in fiscal year 1994.9

 The

MITRE Corporation and RAND also operate FFRDCs sponsored by federal

agencies other than DOD.

Each of DOD’s FFRDC’s stated mission and core competencies are focused

on supporting the requirements of the sponsor. The mission is expected to

reflect the characteristics of the special or strategic relationship between

the DOD sponsor and the FFRDC. The core competencies of the FFRDCs

include a wide range of research and technical areas that are related to

their missions. According to DOD, in pursuit of their missions, the FFRDCs

maintain capabilities, including the staff, tools, facilities, and research

disciplines required to effectively address diverse sponsor research needs

with consistently high-quality work.

DOD defines core work as that which is consistent with an FFRDC’s purpose,

mission, capabilities, core competencies, and its special relationship with

the sponsor. According to DOD, to be consistent with the special

relationship, its FFRDCs are required to maintain certain characteristics,

including freedom from real or perceived conflicts of interest, broad

access to sensitive government and proprietary information, and long-term

continuity of knowledge on issues and problems that are of enduring

concern to the sponsors.

According to the DOD sponsoring agencies, oversight of an FFRDC is

conducted at several levels, which generally include the DOD primary

sponsor, an advisory group, and an executive agent as well as by other

groups such as the Defense Contract Audit Agency, Defense Contract

8

According to DOD, subcontracting includes only the subcontracts or purchase orders that the

FFRDCs awarded to private companies for services directly supporting official FFRDC work. It does

not include subcontracts for supplies or materials, administrative support and janitorial services, or

consultants paid on a daily basis.

9

Fiscal year 1994 funding data was not available for the Logistics Management Institute’s organization,

since it was created at the end of fiscal year 1994.

Page 4 GAO/NSIAD-96-54 Federally Funded Centers
B-270464 

Management Command, DOD Inspector General’s office, and OSD. For each

FFRDC, the primary sponsor is responsible for providing guidance on its

needs and priorities; approving and overseeing research; and continually

reviewing the FFRDC’s work to oversee its quality, efficiency, and

appropriateness. These reviews include at least an annual review and a

5-year comprehensive review. The DOD advisory group is expected to

provide information to the FFRDC on the sponsor’s interests and priorities;

provide guidance on the scope of work; and review, evaluate, and approve

the FFRDC’s research and technical program. The responsibilities of the DOD

executive agent generally include administering and providing guidance to

the FFRDC and serving as a liaison between the advisory group and the

FFRDC.

Agency Comments DOD generally concurred with this report. (See app. VI.) DOD provided some

technical comments that have been incorporated into the report where

appropriate.

We also obtained comments from the FFRDCs and have incorporated their

comments where appropriate. In cases where the FFRDCs’ information

differed from DOD’s information, we contacted both parties to attempt to

resolve the discrepancies.

Scope and

Methodology

We obtained the obligations and MTS data included in appendixes I and II

from DOD documents, reports, and interviews with officials from the Office

of the Director for Defense Research and Engineering, the sponsoring

agencies, and the FFRDCs. Subcontracting data was provided by the FFRDCs.

We did not independently verify the accuracy of this information.

According to a DOD official, since DOD has rigidly managed its FFRDC

funding within the ceilings provided by Congress, the obligations data

provided by DOD is accurate. The official also said that, although the MTS

data are estimates and difficult to verify, he is confident that the FFRDCs

have been consistently applying the MTS definition provided by DOD to

calculate their MTS. When we identified apparent discrepancies in the data,

we cross-checked the information with DOD and the FFRDCs and were

generally able to resolve the differences. We reported DOD data in the few

cases when differences could not be resolved.

We ascertained the official purpose and mission of each FFRDC from its

sponsoring agreement or contract. The core competencies, capabilities,

criteria for assigning work, and oversight and responsibilities were

Page 5 GAO/NSIAD-96-54 Federally Funded Centers
B-270464 

obtained from DOD documents, reports, and interviews with officials from

the Office of the Director for Defense Research and Engineering, the

sponsors, and the FFRDCs. We also reviewed prior reports by the Defense

Science Board, DOD’s Inspector General’s office, Congressional Research

Service, Office of Technology Assessment, and our office. We conducted

our review between April and November 1995.

Appendix I provides information on the funding, staff size, and extent of

subcontracting at DOD’s FFRDCs, and appendix II includes information on

the parent organizations of the FFRDCs. Appendixes III through V include

general information on each of the FFRDCs by category, and appendix VI

contains comments from DOD. A list of related FFRDC reports is provided at

the end of this report.

Unless you publicly announce the contents of this report earlier, we plan

no further distribution until 30 days after its issue date. At that time, we

will send copies of this report to the Chairmen and Ranking Minority

Members, Senate and House Committees on Appropriations, Senate

Committee on Governmental Affairs, and House Committee on

Government Reform and Oversight; the Secretary of Defense; and the

Administrator of the Office of Federal Procurement Policy. Copies will

also be available to others on request.

Please contact me at (202) 512-4587 if you or your staff have any questions

concerning this report. Major contributors to this report were Maria

Boyreau, Erin Slonaker Noel, and Charles W. Thompson.

Sincerely yours,

David E. Cooper

Associate Director

Defense Acquisitions Issues

Page 6 GAO/NSIAD-96-54 Federally Funded Centers
Page 7 GAO/NSIAD-96-54 Federally Funded Centers
Contents

Letter 1

Appendix I 

Information on the

Funding, Staff Size,

and Extent of

Subcontracting at

DOD’s FFRDCs

12

Funding and Staff Size 12

Extent of Subcontracting 19

Appendix II 

FFRDCs’ Parent

Organizations

21

The Aerospace Corporation 21

The MITRE Corporation 21

RAND 22

The CNA Corporation 23

Institute for Defense Analyses 24

Logistics Management Institute 25

Massachusetts Institute of Technology 25

Carnegie Mellon University 25

Appendix III 

Systems Engineering

and Integration

Centers

26

Aerospace 26

MITRE C3

I 28

Appendix IV 

Studies and Analyses

Centers

31

Arroyo Center 31

Project AIR FORCE 33

National Defense Research Institute 35

The Center for Naval Analyses 37

IDA-Studies and Analyses/Operational Test and Evaluation 38

Logistics Management Institute 41

Page 8 GAO/NSIAD-96-54 Federally Funded Centers
Contents

Appendix V 

Research and

Development

Laboratories

43

Lincoln Laboratory 43

Software Engineering Institute 45

IDA-Communications and Computing Center 46

Appendix VI 

Comments From the

Department of

Defense

49

Related FFRDC

Products

51

Tables Table 1: DOD’s FFRDCs, Parent Organizations, and Primary

Sponsors

2

Table I.1: Obligations, MTS, and Cost per MTS for DOD’s

FFRDCs

19

Table I.2: DOD FFRDCs’ Obligations and Extent of

Subcontracting

20

Table II.1: Funding and MTS for the MITRE Corporation’s

FFRDCs and Non-FFRDC Organizations

22

Table II.2: Funding and MTS for RAND’s FFRDCs and

Non-FFRDC Organizations

23

Table II.3: Funding and MTS for The CNA Corporation’s FFRDC

and Non-FFRDC Organization

24

Table II.4: Funding and MTS for IDA’s FFRDCs 24

Table III.1: General Information on Aerospace 26

Table III.2: General Information on MITRE C3

I 28

Table IV.1: General Information on the Arroyo Center 31

Table IV.2: General Information on Project AIR FORCE 33

Table IV.3: General Information on NDRI 35

Table IV.4: General Information on CNA 37

Table IV.5: General Information on IDA-Studies and

Analyses/Operational Test and Evaluation

39

Table IV.6: General Information on LMI 41

Table V.1: General Information on Lincoln Laboratory 44

Table V.2: General Information on SEI 45

Page 9 GAO/NSIAD-96-54 Federally Funded Centers
Contents

Table V.3: General Information on IDA-Communications and

Computing Center

47

Figures Figure I.1: Obligations for DOD’s FFRDCs in Constant 1995

Dollars

12

Figure I.2: MTS for DOD’s FFRDCs 13

Figure I.3: Obligations by FFRDC Category in Constant 1995

Dollars

14

Figure I.4: MTS by FFRDC Category 15

Figure I.5: Percentage of Obligations and MTS for Each FFRDC

Category

16

Figure I.6: Percentage of Obligations for DOD’s FFRDCs 17

Figure I.7: Percentage of MTS for DOD’s FFRDCs 18

Abbreviations

C3I command, control, communications, and intelligence

C4I command, control, communications, computers, and

intelligence

CNA Center for Naval Analyses

DOD Department of Defense

FFRDC federally funded research and development center

IDA Institute for Defense Analyses

LMI Logistics Management Institute

MTS members of technical staff

NDRI National Defense Research Institute

OSD Office of the Secretary of Defense

SEI Software Engineering Institute

Page 10 GAO/NSIAD-96-54 Federally Funded Centers
Page 11 GAO/NSIAD-96-54 Federally Funded Centers
Appendix I 

Information on the Funding, Staff Size, and

Extent of Subcontracting at DOD’s FFRDCs

Funding and Staff Size From fiscal year 1985 to 1991, overall funding, in constant 1995 dollars, for

the Department of Defense’s (DOD) federally funded research and

development centers (FFRDC) increased by about 23 percent. After this

growth period, Congress began to legislate reductions. From a peak of

almost $1.7 billion in fiscal year 1990, funding decreased approximately 

26 percent to about $1.3 billion in fiscal year 1995. Figure I.1 shows the

obligations of DOD’s FFRDCs from fiscal year 1985 to 1995.

Figure I.1: Obligations for DOD’s

FFRDCs in Constant 1995 Dollars

(fiscal years 1985-95) 

1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995

0

500

1,000

1,500

2,000

Fiscal year

Dollars in millions

Systems engineering Studies and analyses Laboratories

Source: DOD.

From the mid-1980s to the early 1990s, DOD’s FFRDCs experienced a growth

in members of technical staff (MTS). In conjunction with congressional

Page 12 GAO/NSIAD-96-54 Federally Funded Centers
Appendix I 

Information on the Funding, Staff Size, and

Extent of Subcontracting at DOD’s FFRDCs

reductions in DOD’s FFRDC funding, in fiscal years 1991-95, total MTS were

reduced by about 18 percent from 7,833 to 6,446 (see fig. I.2).

Figure I.2: MTS for DOD’s FFRDCs

(fiscal years 1991-95) 

1991 1992 1993 1994 1995

0

2,000

4,000

6,000

8,000

10,000

AAAA AAAA

AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA

AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA

AAAA AAAA

AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA

AAAA AAAA

AAAA AAAA

AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA

AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA

AAAA

AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA

AAAA

A

A

A

A

A

A

A

AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA

AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA

AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA

AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA

AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA

AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA

A

A

A

A

A

A

A

A

AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA

AAAA AAAA AAAA

AAAA

AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA

AAAA AAAA

AAAA

AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA

AAAA AAAA

A

A

A

A

A

A

A

AAAA AAAA AAAA

AAAA AAAA AAAA

AAAA

AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA

AAAA AAAA AAAA

AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA

AAAA AAAA AAAA

A

A

A

A

A

A

A

Fiscal year

MTS

AAA AAA

AAA

Systems engineering Studies and analyses Laboratories

Note: MTS data was available for fiscal years 1985-95; however, due to a change in the definition

for MTS in fiscal year 1991, data for fiscal years 1985-90 is not comparable to more recent data

and is not presented.

Source: DOD.

In fiscal year 1991, Congress began to reduce funding for DOD’s FFRDCs.

During fiscal years 1990-95, funding for DOD’s studies and analyses centers

was reduced 7 percent versus a reduction of 24 percent and 36 percent for

Page 13 GAO/NSIAD-96-54 Federally Funded Centers
Appendix I 

Information on the Funding, Staff Size, and

Extent of Subcontracting at DOD’s FFRDCs

systems engineering and laboratory centers, respectively. Figure I.3 shows

obligations by FFRDC categories for fiscal year 1985 through 1995.

Figure I.3: Obligations by FFRDC

Category in Constant 1995 Dollars

(fiscal years 1985-95) 

.

1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995

0

200

400

600

800

1,000

Fiscal year

Dollars in millions

Systems engineering Laboratories Studies and analyses

Source: DOD.

Similar to funding trends for the different types of DOD FFRDCs, reductions

in MTS levels for fiscal years 1991-95 were greater for the laboratories and

systems engineering FFRDCs. The cumulative MTS reduction for studies and

analyses FFRDCs was approximately 9 percent, as compared to 24 percent

and 18 percent for laboratories and systems engineering FFRDCs,

respectively. Figure I.4 shows MTS by FFRDC categories for fiscal years

1991-95.

Page 14 GAO/NSIAD-96-54 Federally Funded Centers
Appendix I 

Information on the Funding, Staff Size, and

Extent of Subcontracting at DOD’s FFRDCs

Figure I.4: MTS by FFRDC Category

(fiscal years 1991-95) 

1991 1992 1993 1994 1995

0

1,000

2,000

3,000

4,000

5,000

6,000

Fiscal year

MTS

Systems engineering Studies and analyses Laboratories

Source: DOD.

In fiscal year 1995, DOD spent about $1.25 billion for its FFRDCs and used

6,446 MTS. The majority of funds (57 percent) and staff (62 percent) were

used in DOD’s two systems engineering and integration FFRDCs—MITRE

command, control, communications, and intelligence (C3

I) and Aerospace

(see fig. I.5).

Page 15 GAO/NSIAD-96-54 Federally Funded Centers
Appendix I 

Information on the Funding, Staff Size, and

Extent of Subcontracting at DOD’s FFRDCs

Figure I.5: Percentage of Obligations and MTS for Each FFRDC Category (fiscal year 1995) 

56.6%

26.8%

16.6%

Obligations

62.4%

20.6%

17.0%

MTS

Systems engineering Laboratories Studies and analyses

Source: DOD.

The three largest FFRDCs—including the two systems engineering and

integration FFRDCs and Lincoln Laboratory—used about 79 percent of the

funds and 78 percent of MTS in fiscal year 1995. Figures I.6 and I.7 show the

percentage of obligations and MTS allocated to MITRE C3

I, Aerospace,

Lincoln Laboratory, and the remaining FFRDCs, respectively.

Page 16 GAO/NSIAD-96-54 Federally Funded Centers
Appendix I 

Information on the Funding, Staff Size, and

Extent of Subcontracting at DOD’s FFRDCs

Figure I.6: Percentage of Obligations for DOD’s FFRDCs (fiscal year 1995) 

MITRE C 

Aerospace

Lincoln Laboratory

Other DOD FFRDCs

29.9%

26.7%

22.0%

21.5%

3 I

Note: Other DOD FFRDCs include Arroyo Center, 1.6 percent; Project AIR FORCE, 1.9 percent;

National Defense Research Institute (NDRI), 1.5 percent; Center for Naval Analyses (CNA),

3.7 percent; Institute for Defense Analyses-Studies and Analyses/Operational Test and Evaluation

(IDA), 5.5 percent; Logistics Management Institute (LMI), 2.3 percent; Software Engineering

Institute (SEI), 2.3 percent; and IDA-Communications and Computing Center, 2.6 percent.

Source: DOD.

Page 17 GAO/NSIAD-96-54 Federally Funded Centers
Appendix I 

Information on the Funding, Staff Size, and

Extent of Subcontracting at DOD’s FFRDCs

Figure I.7: Percentage of MTS for DOD’s FFRDCs (fiscal year 1995) 

MITRE C 

Aerospace

Lincoln Laboratory

Other DOD FFRDCs

32.7%

29.6%

15.8%

21.9%

3 I

Note: Other DOD FFRDCs include Arroyo Center (1.5 percent), Project AIR FORCE (1.7 percent),

NDRI (1.6 percent), CNA (3.7 percent), IDA-Studies and Analyses/Operational Test and

Evaluation (5.9 percent), LMI (2.6 percent), SEI (2.6 percent), and IDA-Communications and

Computing Center (2.2 percent).

Source: DOD.

The average cost per MTS for DOD’s FFRDCs is about $181,000.1 This cost is

somewhat higher for the research and development laboratories—about

$194,000.2

 The averages of the cost per MTS for the systems engineering

1

The cost per MTS is calculated by dividing the total obligations for the FFRDC, minus subcontracts,

by the total MTS. The cost per MTS includes direct and indirect costs. According to a DOD official, the

comparability of the cost per MTS is affected by several factors, such as the type and amount of

materials and equipment procured by the FFRDC.

2

According to DOD, the cost per MTS for DOD FFRDC laboratories may be higher due to the nature of

work that FFRDC laboratories are tasked to complete. For example, DOD FFRDC laboratories are

required to design prototypes that necessitate purchasing a great deal of hardware. Hence, some

laboratories, as compared to studies and analyses centers, use a greater proportion of their DOD

FFRDC ceiling allocation to procure materials and equipment.

Page 18 GAO/NSIAD-96-54 Federally Funded Centers
Appendix I 

Information on the Funding, Staff Size, and

Extent of Subcontracting at DOD’s FFRDCs

and integration centers and the studies and analyses centers are

approximately $176,000 and $186,000 respectively. Table I.1 provides DOD’s

fiscal year 1995 FFRDC obligations less subcontracts, MTS, and cost per MTS.

Table I.1: Obligations, MTS, and Cost

Per MTS for DOD’s

FFRDCs (fiscal year 1995) 

Dollars in thousands

FFRDC

Obligations less

subcontracting MTS

Cost per MTS

(obligations/MTS)

Aerospace $334,700 1,910 $175

MITRE C3I 373,200 2,109 177

Arroyo Center 20,100 99 203

Project AIR FORCE 24,000 112 214

NDRI 19,100 105 182

CNA 46,200 238 194

IDA-Studies and Analyses/

Operational Test and

Evaluation

67,100 377 178

LMI 27,700 166 167

Lincoln Laboratory 196,500 1,018 193

SEI 28,700 170 169

IDA-Communications and

Computing Center

32,600 142 229

Total $1,169,900 6,446 $181

Source: DOD.

Extent of

Subcontracting

Data provided by the FFRDCs showed that the extent of subcontracting by

DOD’s FFRDCs in fiscal year 1995 totaled about $83 million, or about

7 percent of total fiscal year 1995 obligations. Table I.2 shows the extent of

subcontracting reported by each FFRDC.

Page 19 GAO/NSIAD-96-54 Federally Funded Centers
Appendix I 

Information on the Funding, Staff Size, and

Extent of Subcontracting at DOD’s FFRDCs

Table I.2: DOD FFRDCs’ Obligations

and Extent of Subcontracting (fiscal

year 1995)

Dollars in thousands

FFRDC Obligations Total subcontracts

Subcontracts as a

percentage of

obligations

Aerospace $335,000 $288 0.09

MITRE C3I 373,984 777 0.21

Arroyo Center 20,100 0 0

Project AIR FORCE 24,000 33 0.14

NDRI 19,355 221 1.14

CNA 46,642 443 0.95

IDA-Studies and

Analyses/

Operational Test and

Evaluation

68,380 1,279 1.87

LMI 28,972 1,295 4.47

Lincoln Laboratory 274,900 78,408 28.52

SEI 28,700 0a 0

IDA-Communications

and Computing Center

32,593 6 0.02

Total $1,252,626 $82,750 6.61

aSEI subcontracts fall within the categories of supplies and consultants paid on a daily basis and

therefore are not required to be reported.

Source: DOD provided the data on obligations, and the FFRDCs provided the data on

subcontracts.

Page 20 GAO/NSIAD-96-54 Federally Funded Centers
Appendix II 

FFRDCs’ Parent Organizations

Eight parent organizations currently operate DOD’s 11 FFRDCs. Six of these

parents—MITRE, RAND, and CNA Corporations; Logistics Management

Institute; the Massachusetts Institute of Technology; and Carnegie Mellon

University—also operate one or more organizations that are outside of the

FFRDC structure. In addition, the MITRE Corporation and RAND operate

FFRDCs that are sponsored by the Federal Aviation Administration and the

Office of Science and Technology Policy, respectively. This appendix

provides information on each parent organization, including the DOD and

non-DOD obligations and MTS for each FFRDC it operates and the obligations

and MTS for each of its affiliated organizations.

The Aerospace

Corporation

The Aerospace Corporation is a private, nonprofit corporation chartered

in 1960 that has entered into a sponsoring agreement with the Air Force

for the operation of the Aerospace FFRDC. The Board of Trustees oversees

all functions of The Aerospace Corporation—DOD FFRDC activities account

for about 95 percent of the corporation’s work. The remainder of its work

deals with space or space-related technical matters for non-DOD agencies,

such as the National Aeronautics and Space Administration. The total

funding for Aerospace’s FFRDC was $381 million and MTS was 2,186 for

fiscal year 1994. This total funding includes $365.5 million of DOD

obligations and 2,090 MTS.

The MITRE

Corporation

The MITRE Corporation was incorporated in 1958 as a private, nonprofit,

public service organization. Prior to 1996, the corporation operated a

DOD-sponsored FFRDC—MITRE C3I —and an FFRDC sponsored by the

Federal Aviation Administration—the Center for Advanced Aviation

System Development.1

 The MITRE Corporation also operated two

organizations that were outside of the FFRDC structure, the Center for

Environment Resources and Space and the Center for Information

Systems. These non-FFRDC organizations received most of their funding

from federal agencies, including DOD, the National Aeronautics and Space

Administration, the Department of Justice, and the General Services

Administration. Table II.1 provides fiscal year 1994 funding and MTS

information for the FFRDCs and non-FFRDCs operated by the MITRE

Corporation.

1

In early 1996, the MITRE Corporation spun off a nonprofit company—Mitretek Systems—to perform

all of its non-FFRDC work.

Page 21 GAO/NSIAD-96-54 Federally Funded Centers
Appendix II 

FFRDCs’ Parent Organizations

Table II.1: Funding and MTS for the

MITRE Corporation’s FFRDCs and

Non-FFRDC Organizations (fiscal year

1994) 

Dollars in millions

Organization Funding

Percentage of

total funding MTS

Percentage of

total MTSa

MITRE C3I $437b 74 2,569b 75

Center for Advanced Aviation

System Development

90 15 502 15

Center for Information

Systems and Center for

Environment Resources and

Space

63 11 374 11

Total $590 100 3,445 100

aPercentages do not add due to rounding.

bThis figure includes $402.9 million of DOD obligations and 2,319 MTS.

Source: DOD.

RAND RAND is a private, nonprofit corporation headquartered in California that

was created in 1948 to promote scientific, educational, and charitable

activities for the public welfare and security. RAND has contracts to

operate four FFRDCs, three of which are studies and analyses centers

sponsored by DOD—the Arroyo Center, Project AIR FORCE, and NDRI.

RAND’s fourth FFRDC, the Critical Technologies Institute, is administered

by the National Science Foundation on behalf of the Office of Science and

Technology Policy. RAND also operates five organizations outside of the

FFRDC structure: the National Security Research Division, Domestic

Research Division, Planning and Special Programs, Center for Russian and

Eurasian Studies, and RAND Graduate School. These non-FFRDC

organizations receive funding from the federal and state governments,

private foundations, and the United Nations, among others. Table II.2

provides funding and MTS information for RAND’s FFRDCs and

organizations operated outside the FFRDC structure.

Page 22 GAO/NSIAD-96-54 Federally Funded Centers
Appendix II 

FFRDCs’ Parent Organizations

Table II.2: Funding and MTS for

RAND’s FFRDCs and Non-FFRDC

Organizations (fiscal year 1994) 

Dollars in millions

Organization Funding

Percentage of

total funding MTS

Percentage of

total MTSa

Arroyo Center $20b 20 99b 19

Project AIR FORCE 24b 24 117b 22

NDRI 25b 25 122b 23

Critical Technologies Institute 3 3 25 5

National Security Research

Division, Domestic Research

Division, and others

28 28 168 32

Total $100 100 531 100

aPercentages do not add due to rounding.

bThis figure includes only DOD obligations; the FFRDC did not receive any non-DOD obligations

during fiscal year 1994.

Source: DOD.

The CNA Corporation The CNA FFRDC was created in 1961 when several elements of the Navy’s

civilian analytical support community were brought together under the

management of the Franklin Institute. Between 1961 and 1990, the FFRDC

operated under the umbrella of university and nonprofit institutions,

including the University of Rochester and the Hudson Institute. In 1990,

The CNA Corporation became an independent organization and entered

into a contractual agreement to operate an FFRDC with the Navy. The CNA

Corporation operates one FFRDC that is sponsored by the Navy as well as

an organization outside the FFRDC structure—the Institute for Public

Research. The Institute conducts work for federal, state, and local

governments as well as nonprofit corporations, foundations, and

educational institutions. Table II.3 provides funding and MTS information

for The CNA Corporation’s FFRDC and organization operated outside the

FFRDC structure.

Page 23 GAO/NSIAD-96-54 Federally Funded Centers
Appendix II 

FFRDCs’ Parent Organizations

Table II.3: Funding and MTS for The

CNA Corporation’s FFRDC and

Non-FFRDC Organization (fiscal year

1994)

Dollars in millions

Organization Funding

Percentage of

total funding MTS

Percentage of

total MTS

CNA $49a 94 249a 97

Institute for Public Research 3 6 7 3

Total $52 100 256 100

aThis figure includes only DOD obligations; the FFRDC did not receive any non-DOD obligations

during fiscal year 1994.

Source: DOD.

Institute for Defense

Analyses

At the request of the Secretary of Defense, IDA was created as an

independent, nonprofit corporation in 1956. IDA has contracts to operate

two DOD-sponsored FFRDCs, the Studies and Analyses/Operational Test and

Evaluation Center and the Communications and Computing Center, a

research and development laboratory. Table II.4 provides funding and MTS

information for IDA’s FFRDCs.

Table II.4: Funding and MTS for IDA’s

FFRDCs (fiscal year 1994) Dollars in millions

Organization Funding

Percentage of

total funding MTS

Percentage of

total MTS

IDA-Studies and Analyses/

Operational Test and

Evaluation

$73a 68 414a 74

IDA-Communications and

Computing Center

34b 32 149b 26

Total $107 100 563 100

aThis figure includes $72 million in DOD obligations and 405 MTS.

bThis figure includes only DOD obligations; the FFRDC did not receive any non-DOD obligations

during fiscal year 1994.

Source: DOD.

Page 24 GAO/NSIAD-96-54 Federally Funded Centers
Appendix II 

FFRDCs’ Parent Organizations

Logistics Management

Institute

LMI was created in 1961 as a private, nonprofit corporation whose purpose

is to promote national security and the public interest. LMI has operated a

DOD-sponsored FFRDC since 1985. The total funding for LMI’s FFRDC was

$36.3 million and MTS was 207 for fiscal year 1994. This total funding

includes $29.7 million of DOD obligations and 171 MTS. At the end of fiscal

year 1994, LMI created an organization outside of the FFRDC structure, the

Center for Public Administration. LMI reported no funding for the Center in

fiscal year 1994.

Massachusetts

Institute of

Technology

The Massachusetts Institute of Technology has operated a DOD-sponsored

FFRDC—Lincoln Laboratory—since 1951. Lincoln Laboratory is only one of

the Institute’s operations, and the Laboratory’s funding does not constitute

the majority of the Institute’s total funding.2

 The total funding for Lincoln

Laboratory was $316.5 million and MTS was 1,243 for fiscal year 1994. This

total funding includes $268.1 million of DOD obligations and 1,052 MTS.

Carnegie Mellon

University

Carnegie Mellon University operates a DOD-sponsored FFRDC—SEI—which

is a research and development laboratory that was created in 1984. SEI is

only one of the university’s operations, and SEI’s funding does not

represent the majority of the university’s total funding. The total funding

for SEI was $32.7 million and MTS was 193 for fiscal year 1994. This total

funding includes $30.5 million of DOD obligations and 182 MTS.

2

Total funding is not provided for the universities, because the FFRDCs are separate arms of the

universities and, as opposed to corporate-sponsored FFRDCs, have a different structural relationship

with the FFRDCs.

Page 25 GAO/NSIAD-96-54 Federally Funded Centers
Appendix III 

Systems Engineering and Integration

Centers

DOD has two FFRDCs that are classified as systems engineering and

integration centers—Aerospace and MITRE C3

I. These centers were

created to provide long-term technical and engineering support that

cannot be met by existing in-house or contractor resources to ensure that

systems will meet operational requirements. The centers are expected to

assist with the creation and choice of system concepts and architectures,

specification of technical system and subsystem requirements and

interfaces, development and acquisition of system hardware and software,

tests and verification of performance, and integration of new capabilities

and continuous improvement of system operation and logistics. The

centers are also expected to assist their sponsors in technically

formulating, initiating, and evaluating programs and activities undertaken

by for-profit firms.

Aerospace The Aerospace FFRDC was created to provide scientific and engineering

support involving launch, space, and related ground support systems;

support scientific activities and projects; provide space system

architecture and planning functions; perform research, development, and

advisory services; and provide general systems engineering, engineering

support, and systems integration support to the U.S. government. The

Assistant Secretary of the Air Force (Acquisition) is the primary sponsor

for the Aerospace FFRDC. Day-to-day management responsibilities are

delegated to the Air Force Materiel Command’s Space and Missile Systems

Center, which is the executive agent and primary user of the Aerospace

FFRDC. Table III.1 provides general information regarding Aerospace.

Table III.1: General Information on Aerospace

Mission Assist the Air Force in applying the resources of modern science and technology to achieve continuing

advances in military space and space-related systems that are basic to national security.

Provide the Air Force’s space efforts with an organization that is objective, technically competent, and

characterized by long-term continuity.

Provide a link between the U.S. government and U.S. scientific and industrial organizations with a

capability and interest in the space field.

Help to ensure that the technical resources of the nation are properly applied and that the potential

advances in the space field are realized in the shortest time possible.

Support the U.S. government through technical review, monitoring, and steering of industry efforts.

Ensure that technical deficiencies and weaknesses are isolated and that the impact of new data and

developments is properly assessed.

Core competencies Launch certification.

Systems of systems engineering.

(continued)

Page 26 GAO/NSIAD-96-54 Federally Funded Centers
Appendix III 

Systems Engineering and Integration

Centers

Systems development and acquisition.

Process implementation.

Technology application.

Capabilities Assist with the creation of and choice of space system concepts and architectures; specification of

technical space systems and subsystem requirements and interfaces; development and acquisition of

space systems hardware and software; testing and verification of performance; integration of new

capabilities and continuous improvement of system operations and logistics; and the technical

formulation, initiation, and evaluation of space programs and activities of commercial firms supporting

the Air Force and national security space community.

Provide technical review, monitoring, and steering of industry efforts after a development program is

initiated.

Ensure that technical deficiencies and weaknesses are isolated and that the impact of new data and

developments are properly assessed and appropriate changes are made.

Maintain a workforce with the highest technical capability in disciplines relevant to national security

space systems.

Provide two levels of systems engineering for space systems, including the integration of subsystems

and system segments into complete systems and the integration of each system into the overall national

security space system.

Criteria for defining core

work

Consistent with Aerospace’s mission.

Consistent with core capabilities and competencies.

Consistent with special relationship:

•Objective and high-quality work on subjects integral to the Air Force’s mission.

•Freedom from real or perceived conflicts of interest.

•Broad access to DOD planning information, intelligence, and industry proprietary information.

•Comprehensive knowledge of Air Force needs and problems.

•Long-term continuity of knowledge of Air Force issues.

•Technical link between the Air Force space program and scientific and industrial organizations

 worldwide.

Oversight and

responsibilities

Primary sponsor

Sets broad program direction.

Oversees ongoing development programs.

Reviews annual work plans and manpower allocations.

Periodically assesses efficiency and effectiveness.

Evaluates the work.

Resolves intraprogram conflicts.

Validates the appropriateness of assigning work to the FFRDC.

Executive agent

Manages daily activities.

Chief Engineer’s Office

Reviews, critiques, and summarizes the assessments of Aerospace’s efficiency and effectiveness and

formally presents this information to the commander.

(continued)

Page 27 GAO/NSIAD-96-54 Federally Funded Centers
Appendix III 

Systems Engineering and Integration

Centers

Users

Assess the efficiency and effectiveness of Aerospace, including the FFRDC’s ability to maintain its

objectivity, independence, quick response capability, and currency in its field of expertise.

Contracting officers

Reviews the appropriateness of work on their contracts and compliance with applicable regulations and

funding limits.

Board of Trustees

Oversees all functions of the corporation and its FFRDC activities.

Considers corporation’s business base, corporate structure, and executive leadership.

Reviews Aerospace performance, including technical, financial, personnel, and security issues.

MITRE C3I MITRE C3

I was created to serve as a link between the government and the

science and engineering communities and provide a sound technical basis

for the conception, analysis, selection, design, and evaluation of

command, control, communications, computers, and intelligence (C4

I)

systems. The Assistant Secretary of Defense (C3

I) is the primary sponsor of

MITRE C3

I. The secondary sponsors are the Air Force Electronic Systems

Center and the Army Communications-Electronics Command. Table III.2

provides general information regarding MITRE C3

I.

Table III.2: General Information on MITRE C3I

Mission Provide C4I general systems engineering, engineering support, and systems integration support to the

DOD users.

Assist sponsors in applying science and technology to the continuing advancement of military electronic

systems.

Use all pertinent resources to ensure the accomplishment of known military requirements.

Provide technical assessment on the requirements as improved capabilities are projected.

Perform work objectively with state-of-the-art technical knowledge and extensive familiarity with military

requirements.

Provide continuity of experience in developing successive systems.

Core competencies Systems of systems engineering.

Systems development and acquisition.

Process implementation.

Technology application.

Architectures and interoperability.

Capabilities Assist with the creation and choice of C4I systems concepts and architectures, specification of technical

systems and subsystem requirements and interfaces; development and acquisition of system hardware

and software; testing and verification of system performance; integration of new capabilities; continuous

improvement of systems operations and logistics; and technical formulation, initiation, and evaluation of

programs and activities of commercial firms supporting DOD.

(continued)

Page 28 GAO/NSIAD-96-54 Federally Funded Centers
Appendix III 

Systems Engineering and Integration

Centers

Provide technical review, monitoring, and steering of industry efforts after a system development

program is initiated.

Maintain a workforce with the highest technical capability and integrity.

Maintain a thorough understanding of the operational role played by the overall C4I systems in wartime

and peacetime.

Provide on-site support to operational commanders worldwide and during actual demonstrations, tests,

and exercises.

Provide a quick, in-depth response.

Provide unique, high-quality, technical, international perspectives in the mission area.

Criteria for defining core

work

Consistent with MITRE C3I’s purpose, mission, and capabilities.

Consistent with core competencies.

Consistent with special relationship:

•High-quality, state-of-the-art work.

•Freedom from bias and real or perceived conflicts of interest.

•Broad access to sensitive government information to ensure interoperability, detailed government

 budget plans, and proprietary information to support future full and open competition with industry.

•Comprehensive knowledge.

•Long-term continuity of effort ensuring technical consistency of design and a stable development

 strategy for the C3I systems being developed within DOD.

Oversight and

responsibilities

Primary sponsor

Implements and monitors provisions in applicable regulations and legislation for using FFRDCs.

Provides management oversight and direction, technical review, and policy guidance.

Defines its mission, overall priorities, and core work.

Allocates dollar ceilings to all users.

Serves as the focal point for DOD regarding funding and dollar ceiling issues.

Provides guidance to the secondary users on the use of the FFRDC and other policy matters.

Assesses and reviews the appropriateness of each project.

Aligns overall work program based on assessments of DOD-wide priorities.

Oversees the spring reviews, comprehensive reviews, and corporate activities that affect the FFRDC.

Secondary sponsor

Negotiates and administers contracts and manages contracting relationship with MITRE C3I.

Oversees respective work programs.

Performs annual spring reviews.

Serves as focal point to prioritize the users’ needs.

Reviews requests for support to determine continuing need for the FFRDC.

Ensures conformance with regulations.

Analyzes customer satisfaction and provides assessment to primary and other secondary sponsors, as

well as MITRE management.

(continued)

Page 29 GAO/NSIAD-96-54 Federally Funded Centers
Appendix III 

Systems Engineering and Integration

Centers

Joint Users Committeea

Reviews MITRE C3I work, the allocation of dollar ceilings, the quality of work, major accomplishments of

the FFRDC during the previous year, and problems identified by the sponsors and/or major users.

Contracting officers

Review the appropriateness of work on their contracts, compliance with applicable regulations, and

efficiency and cost-effectiveness of work programs.

Project officers

Determine the need for MITRE C3I support.

Define objectives of individual projects.

Provide evaluations of project performance to MITRE project leaders and management and sponsor

managers.

Receive monthly progress reports, conduct ad hoc project reviews, and submit an annual standardized

report evaluating the FFRDC’s quality and efficiency.

Major users

Conduct periodic management reviews.b

Provide a sole-source certification for each project that is signed by a general officer or senior executive

official.

Focal points of major users

Oversee the appropriateness of MITRE’s support.

Prioritize dollar ceiling allocations.

aThe Joint Users Committee includes senior officials of the primary and secondary sponsors,

services, defense agencies, and Joint Staff that receive technical support from the FFRDC.

bManagement reviews are conducted by panels of general officers and/or senior executive officials.

Page 30 GAO/NSIAD-96-54 Federally Funded Centers
Appendix IV 

Studies and Analyses Centers

DOD has six FFRDCs that are classified as studies and analyses centers—the

Arroyo Center, Project AIR FORCE, NDRI, CNA, IDA-Studies and

Analyses/Operational Test and Evaluation, and LMI. These centers were

created to provide objective analyses and advise on core areas important

to their sponsors in support of policy development, decision-making,

alternative approaches, and new ideas on major defense issues.

Arroyo Center At the request of the Chief of Staff of the Army, the Arroyo Center, an

existing FFRDC, was moved to RAND in 1985. The center was created to

provide the Army with objective and independent analyses of major

policies, with an emphasis on mid- to long-term issues. The Arroyo

Center’s stated purpose is to maintain expertise and institutional memory

about Army operations and policy; provide a balanced, arms-length

perspective on controversial issues; and provide short-term assistance on

urgent issues relevant to senior Army officials. The Department of the

Army is the primary sponsor of the center. Table IV.1 provides general

information regarding the Arroyo Center.

Table IV.1: General Information on the Arroyo Center

Mission Provide expert and interdisciplinary analytical research capabilities covering a broad range of relevant

specialties.

Provide objective, independent analyses emphasizing mid- and long-term issues.

Provide advice to the Army on alternative programs and courses of action without real or perceived

conflicts of interest.

Provide a quick response capability in area of expertise.

Core competencies Force development and technology.

Manpower and training.

Military logistics.

Strategy and doctrine.

Capabilities Provide in-depth knowledge of Army and DOD systems, technologies, operations, strategies, and

resources.

Cover a broad spectrum of issues, including alternative strategies and structures for a post-Cold War

army.

Maintain a high-quality, interdisciplinary research staff that combines long-standing experience with

current knowledge.

Draw on a broad range of facilities and current analytic tools, such as models, simulations, and

databases, that are provided by RAND.

Provide independent analyses that are free from conflicts of interest.

Enforce a rigorous review of project results to ensure that the analyses and conclusions are thorough

and sound.

(continued)

Page 31 GAO/NSIAD-96-54 Federally Funded Centers
Appendix IV 

Studies and Analyses Centers

Criteria for defining core

work

Consistent with Arroyo’s purpose, mission, and capabilities.

Consistent with core competencies.

Consistent with special relationship:

•Effective performance of objective, high-quality work on subjects integral to the mission and operations

 of the sponsors.

•Freedom from real or perceived conflicts of interest caused by service, commercial, or other

 involvement.

•Broad access to proprietary, competition-sensitive, or no-contract data.

•Comprehensive knowledge of sponsors’ needs, problems, and issues.

•Long-term continuity of effort on issues and problems of enduring concern, including both

 maintaining corporate memory for sponsors when appropriate and providing a quick response as

 needed in areas of established expertise.

Responsiveness to emerging and evolving needs of sponsors.

Oversight and

responsibilities

Primary sponsor

Exercises broad oversight over the center and conducts a comprehensive review to determine the

continuing need for the FFRDC.

Arroyo Center Policy Committeea

Provides policy guidance to the Arroyo Center’s management and meets semiannually to review,

evaluate, and approve the annual research program.

Executive agentb

Chairs pre-committee meetings semiannually and provides an annual update to the center’s

management.

Offers guidance and emphasis on development of the research agenda.

Maintains personal interaction with committee members.

Facilitates the center’s contacts with senior Army leaders.

Develops, coordinates, and justifies the center’s annual budget.

Conducts the annual survey, which includes a review of the center’s efforts regarding quality, utility,

value, cost, and timeliness.

Project sponsorsc

Oversee individual research projects.

Board of Trustees

Oversees operation of the center as specified in RAND’s charter.

aThe Arroyo Center Policy Committee is co-chaired by the Vice Chief of Staff of the Army and the

Assistant Secretary of the Army (Research, Development, and Acquisition).

bThe Director for Program Analysis and Evaluation serves as the executive agent for the Arroyo

Center.

cA project sponsor must be a general officer or official in the Senior Executive Service.

Page 32 GAO/NSIAD-96-54 Federally Funded Centers
Appendix IV 

Studies and Analyses Centers

Project AIR FORCE Project AIR FORCE was established by the Air Force (then the Army Air

Forces) at Douglas Aircraft in 1946.1

 It was transferred to RAND in 1948.

The purpose of the FFRDC is to provide studies, analyses, and research on

the broad subject of aerospace power, with the objective of

recommending to the Air Force preferred methods, techniques, and

instrumentalities for the development and deployment of aerospace

power. To carry out its mission, Project AIR FORCE must have an Air

Force-wide perspective and ability to deal with cross-cutting,

multidisciplinary problems; a responsibility to follow problems across

organizational boundaries; a focus on future Air Force needs and

effectiveness; access to senior Air Force leadership and planning; and an

institutional memory. The Assistant Secretary of the Air Force

(Acquisition) is the primary sponsor of the center. Table IV.2 provides

general information on Project AIR FORCE.

Table IV.2: General Information on Project AIR FORCE

Mission Conduct a continuous interrelated program of objective analyses on major cross-cutting policy and

management issues of enduring concern to the Air Force.

Maintain expertise on, and an institutional memory about, Air Force operations and policy.

Provide timely, short-term assistance on urgent problems consistent with the project’s demonstrated

expertise.

Explore long-term issues and questions that will become vital concerns in the future.

Core competencies Strategy and doctrine.

Force development and application.

Resource management.

Capabilities Based on its institutional memory, provide a broad understanding of the major issues facing the Air

Force, including the most pressing concerns identified by Air Force leaders.

Provide an integrated, interdisciplinary research style and approach policy issues from multiple

perspectives, which results in an understanding of the shifting boundaries and connections among

policy areas.

Draw on a broad range of research disciplines, facilities, and current analytic tools, such as models,

simulations, and databases, that are provided by RAND.

Provide trusted advice in response to urgent policy questions.

Criteria for defining core

work

Consistent with Project AIR FORCE’s mission, purpose, and capabilities.

Consistent with core competencies.

Consistent with special relationship:

•Objective, high-quality research on subjects integral to the mission of the Air Force.

•Freedom from real or perceived conflicts of interest.

(continued)

1

Project AIR FORCE was originally known as Project RAND. The FFRDC was renamed in 1976.

Page 33 GAO/NSIAD-96-54 Federally Funded Centers
Appendix IV 

Studies and Analyses Centers

•Comprehensive knowledge of sponsors’ needs and operations.

•Long-term continuity of effort on Air Force and aerospace power issues.

Oversight and

responsibilities

Air Force Advisory Groupa

Administers Project AIR FORCE.

Establishes overall objectives for the project.

Provides information on Air Force needs, interests, and priorities to permit the project to formulate the

annual research program.

Provides broad supervisory and policy guidance to enable RAND and the project’s management to

conduct the research program.

Reviews and approves the annual research program.

Empowers the project sponsors to approve and oversee the individual project research.

Periodically evaluates, with RAND management, the total current and planned research program.

Establishes the policy for conducting direct research assistance and concept formulation.

Serves as the final corporate-level mechanism for providing monitoring and oversight.

Executive agentb

Administers Project AIR FORCE, as approved by the advisory group.

Ensures FFRDC compliance with DOD and federal FFRDC policy.

Evaluates and presents to the advisory group an annual assessment of individual research projects and

the overall program.

Establishes and executes policies for processing new research proposals and distributing the project’s

publications.

Consolidates and provides to the advisory group proposed guidance for the future direction of the

project’s research program.

Acts as the Air Force focal point for contact with the project.

Recommends and assists in developing the project’s budgets, work statements, and procurement

actions.

Furnishes information on Project AIR FORCE research to the Air Force, DOD, and other government

agencies.

Monitors direct assistance requests.

Project sponsorsc

Furnish guidance on Air Force needs and priorities.

Approve research objectives.

Oversee the research.

Ensure access to information necessary to conduct the research.

Periodically review the status of the research under their cognizance.

Make recommendations on the future direction of the research.

Inform the advisory group of progress and results.

Appoint a project focal point and action officers to facilitate the administration of the project.

Board of Trustees

Oversees the operation of the FFRDC as specified in RAND’s charter.

(Table notes on next page)

Page 34 GAO/NSIAD-96-54 Federally Funded Centers
Appendix IV 

Studies and Analyses Centers

aThe Air Force Advisory Group is chaired by the Air Force Vice Chief of Staff and includes senior

representatives from the Air Force Secretariat and Air Staff.

bThe Director of Plans is the executive agent of the advisory group.

cAn Air Force sponsor is a general officer or senior executive equivalent from Air Force

headquarters or a major command. Each sponsor formulates and supports a particular research

project.

National Defense

Research Institute

NDRI was established in 1984 to consolidate into a single FFRDC RAND’s

research efforts in support of the Office of the Secretary of Defense (OSD),

the Joint Staff, and the defense agencies. NDRI’s purpose is to help meet the

long-term analytical needs of its sponsors. The Office of the Under

Secretary of Defense (Acquisition and Technology) is the primary sponsor

of NDRI. Table IV.3 provides general information regarding NDRI.

Table IV.3: General Information on NDRI

Mission Broadly support the analytical requirements of the sponsor.

Provide independent, objective findings and policy advice based on research and analyses of national

security problems.

Conduct a continuous, integrated research program focused on the high-priority, mid- to long-term

policy research and analysis needs of the sponsor, including enduring issues that cut across

organizational boundaries.

Maintain expertise on important issues of interest to the sponsor and a thorough understanding of the

sponsor’s needs.

Further develop and institutionalize capabilities for analysis and integration of defense issues.

Perform both in-depth and quick response policy analyses.

Core competencies International policy and defense strategy.

Forces and resources policy.

Technology and acquisition policy.

Research integration.

Capabilities Addresses diverse sponsor needs with consistently high quality.

Maintains a high-quality, multidisciplined staff with in-depth, long-standing experience in all areas of

defense policy as well as many areas of nondefense policy.

Draws on a broad range of facilities and current analytic tools, such as models, simulations, and

databases, that permit efficient and reliable analyses of complex policy questions.

Provides a proven internal review process.

Criteria for defining core

work

Consistent with NDRI’s mission and purpose.

Require RAND’s research capability and consistent with NDRI’s core competencies.

Consistent with special relationship:

(continued)

Page 35 GAO/NSIAD-96-54 Federally Funded Centers
Appendix IV 

Studies and Analyses Centers

•Independence and objectivity.

•Absence of conflicts of interest to allow access to sensitive government or proprietary information.

•Familiarity with sponsor mission, responsibilities, and policy-analytical needs and close working

 relationship.

•Long-term continuity of the research program.

•Adaptability to rapidly changing research needs.

•Flexibility and quick response capability.

•Dedication to the public interest.

Oversight and

responsibilities

Primary sponsor

Ensures continuity in level of support to FFRDC, consistent with the agency’s need for the FFRDC and

the sponsoring agreement regulations and contingent on available funding.

Ensures that NDRI is consistent with its mission.

Ensures that individual sponsors use NDRI work appropriately.

Determines that costs of services offered by NDRI are reasonable and that work produced is of high

quality.

Reviews final outcome of comprehensive review.

Designates an executive agent to administer NDRI.

NDRI Advisory Boarda

Establishes multiyear objectives and guidelines on overall level of effort and recommends a ceiling

when required.

Provides information on DOD needs, interests, and priorities, especially on cross-cutting issues.

Reviews, revises, and approves NDRI’s long-term research plan and annual research plan, ensuring

they are consistent with the mission, scope, and objectives of the FFRDC.

Reviews the annual research program proposed jointly by the sponsor community and RAND; makes

adjustments when required by ceiling constraints or in the interest of balance.

Identifies funding from the OSD studies budget and other sources.

Semiannually evaluates with RAND management the current research effort and suggests correction as

necessary.

Reviews the annual assessments of individual research projects and the overall NDRI program and

coordinates with RAND to resolve problems.

Executive agent and project sponsor

Exercise joint responsibility for determining that a proposed research project is consistent with NDRI’s

mission, is within the general scope of work, and meets the criteria for being assigned to an FFRDC.

Provide day-to-day management and oversight through the FFRDC program management office and

contracting officer’s representative.

Designate membership and chair the NDRI Advisory Board.

Contracting officer’s representative

Administers NDRI for the government consistent with primary sponsor initiatives.

Ensures compliance with DOD and FFRDC policy.

Administers procurement actions for NDRI research efforts.

Acts as the DOD focal point for contact with NDRI.

(continued)

Page 36 GAO/NSIAD-96-54 Federally Funded Centers
Appendix IV 

Studies and Analyses Centers

Board of Trustees

Oversees the operation of the FFRDC as specified in RAND’s charter.

aThe NDRI Advisory Board is chaired by the Director, Acquisition Program Integration, Office of

the Under Secretary of Defense (Acquisition and Technology), and includes representatives from

OSD, Joint Staff, and Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency.

The Center for Naval

Analyses

The CNA FFRDC was created in 1961 to provide a unique ability to combine

technical analytical capability with current operational experience to

address the Navy requirements for the analyses of major issues. Table IV.4

provides general information on the CNA FFRDC.

Table IV.4: General Information on CNA

Mission Provide the Navy with an independent, authoritative source of applied research and analyses that is

focused on the major present and future needs and issues of the Navy and Marine Corps.

Offer analytical support in evaluation of operational capabilities, optimum use of resources, analyses of

fleet or field exercises, and development and evaluation of tactics.

Core competencies Operations analyses.

System requirements and acquisition.

Resource analyses.

Program planning.

Policy, strategy, and doctrine.

Capabilities Combines technical analytical capability with current operational experience to address Navy

requirements for analyses of major issues.

Maintains a well-educated, multidisciplined staff with experience in Navy issues, operational experience

gained through hands-on exposure to Navy fleets, and a perspective on the policy-making environment.

Produces high-quality, analytically rigorous, and comprehensive analyses free from bias or partisanship.

Provides a quick response to meet urgent or immediate requirements.

Assists the Navy in bringing definition to unstructured problems and issues and identifies the best

method and analytical approach for assessing these problems.

Provides on-site, timely, and objective analyses to operational commanders worldwide.

Criteria for defining core

work

Consistent with CNA’s mission, purpose, and capabilities.

Consistent with core competencies.

Consistent with special relationship:

•Independent and objective.

•Access to sensitive government and proprietary information.

• Long-term relationship.

•Broad corporate knowledge.

(continued)

Page 37 GAO/NSIAD-96-54 Federally Funded Centers
Appendix IV 

Studies and Analyses Centers

Could not be performed as effectively by another contractor.

Oversight and

responsibilities

CNA Policy Council

Annually reviews the quality of CNA’s performance, budget, and operating procedures, proposed

studies, and relationship with the Navy.

Provides policy guidance to CNA.

Considers other matters proposed by any member.

Product area managers

Review, approve, and coordinate CNA work that falls within their responsibilities.

Scientific officera

Monitors all CNA work done for the Department of the Navy and non-Navy sponsors.

Contracting officer

Reviews proposed CNA research projects for appropriateness.

Contracting officer’s technical representativeb

Provides final determination of whether a proposed research project is appropriate for CNA.

aThe scientific officer is the Deputy Chief of Naval Operations (Resources, Warfare Requirements,

and Assessments).

bThe contracting officer’s technical representative is the Director of the Assessment Division.

IDA-Studies and

Analyses/Operational

Test and Evaluation

As part of IDA, the Studies and Analyses/Operational Test and Evaluation

FFRDC was created to promote the national security, public welfare, and

advancement of scientific learning by performing analyses, evaluations,

and reports on matters of interest to the U.S. government. OSD is the

primary sponsor; secondary sponsors include the Joint Staff, Unified and

Specified Commands, and defense agencies. Table IV.5 provides general

information on IDA-Studies and Analyses/Operational Test and Evaluation.

Page 38 GAO/NSIAD-96-54 Federally Funded Centers
Appendix IV 

Studies and Analyses Centers

Table IV.5: General Information on IDA-Studies and Analyses/Operational Test and Evaluation

Mission Provide studies, analyses, computer software prototypes, simulations, analytical models, and other

technical and analytical support useful for policy, program planning, and management by its sponsors.

Maintain high-quality staff and technical capabilities across a broad range of issues of concern to its

sponsors, consistent with its charter.

Maintain access to sensitive government and proprietary data and facilities.

Core competencies Systems evaluations.

Technology assessments.

Force and strategy assessments.

Resource and support analyses.

Capabilities Provides high-quality, timely analyses that are produced in an environment that encourages

independent thinking and objective results.

Maintains a high-quality, interdisciplinary research staff that combines long-standing experience with

current knowledge.

Draws on a broad range of current analytic tools, such as models, simulations, and databases.

Enforces a rigorous review of project results to ensure that the analyses and conclusions are thorough

and sound.

Maintains technical direction, oversight, and responsibility for its work.

Criteria for defining core

work

Consistent with IDA’s mission, purpose, and capabilities.

Consistent with core competencies.

Consistent with special relationship:

•Objective, high-quality work on subjects integral to the mission and operations of sponsors.

•Freedom from real or perceived conflicts of interest caused by service, commercial, or other

 involvement.

•Broad access to sensitive government and proprietary information.

•Comprehensive knowledge of sponsor needs, problems, and issues.

•Long-term continuity of knowledge on issues and problems of enduring concern, including

 maintaining corporate memory for sponsors and providing a quick response when appropriate in

 areas of established expertise.

•Responsive to emerging and evolving needs of sponsors.

Oversight and

responsibilities

Primary sponsor

Ensures that the IDA program deals with and adheres to issues that the sponsors collectively believe

are important and in the national interest to resolve.

Ensures that the work is within the scope of IDA’s charter.

IDA Advisory Groupa

Periodically evaluates IDA’s overall research effort.

Provides information on the general interest and priorities of sponsors.

Offers guidance on the general scope of IDA’s work.

(continued)

Page 39 GAO/NSIAD-96-54 Federally Funded Centers
Appendix IV 

Studies and Analyses Centers

Executive agent

Administers IDA work for OSD and the Joint Staff and their components.

Administers IDA work done for defense agencies at the agencies’ request.

Contracting officer

Reviews contract tasks for appropriateness and funding limits.

Contracting officer’s representative

Reviews all task orders for appropriateness and compliance with the DOD Management Plan.

Administrative contracting officer

Coordinates the oversight of all of the FFRDC’s business operations.

Reviews and approves all major subcontracting transactions.

Board of Trustees

Oversees IDA’s operation as specified in the certificate of incorporation with the State of Delaware.

Exercises quality control.

IDA management

Review and direct all of the FFRDC’s operations.

Ensure compliance with all aspects of the FFRDC’s charter and sponsoring agreement.

Exercise day-to-day control of staff activities.

aIDA’s Advisory Group is chaired by the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition and

Technology or his designee, and the members of the group include the heads of the principal

offices that sponsor work at IDA.

Page 40 GAO/NSIAD-96-54 Federally Funded Centers
Appendix IV 

Studies and Analyses Centers

Logistics Management

Institute

LMI’s FFRDC was created in 1984 to help meet the short- and long-term

analytical needs of its sponsors. The primary sponsor is OSD; secondary

sponsors include the military services, Joint Staff, Unified and Specified

Commands, and defense agencies. Table IV.6 provides general information

on LMI’s FFRDC.

Table IV.6: General Information on LMI

Mission Provide independent, objective, and high-quality research, studies, and analyses across the spectrum

of logistics and acquisition issues.

Maintain access to sensitive government or proprietary information.

Core competencies Materiel management.

Acquisition.

Operational logistics.

Facilities and environment.

Force management.

Capabilities Provides high-quality, timely policy and management analyses that are produced in an environment that

encourages independent thinking and objective results.

Maintains a high-quality, interdisciplinary research staff that combines long-standing experience with

current knowledge.

Draws on a variety of current analytic tools, such as models, technologies, and databases.

Enforces a rigorous review of project results to ensure that the analyses and conclusions are thorough

and sound.

Maintains technical direction, oversight, and responsibility for its work.

Provides an understanding of the logistics and acquisition issues across DOD, especially the complex

interrelationships of responsibilities, and identifies opportunities to improve efficiency and effectiveness.

Focuses on the high-priority needs of the sponsors, especially enduring cross-cutting issues.

Criteria for defining core

work

Consistent with LMI’s mission, purpose, and capabilities.

Consistent with core competencies.

Consistent with special relationship:

•Objective, high-quality work on subjects integral to the mission and sponsor’s operations.

•Freedom from real or perceived conflicts of interest caused by service, commercial, or other

 involvement.

•Broad access to sensitive government or proprietary information.

•Comprehensive knowledge of sponsor needs, issues, and problems.

•Long-term continuity of knowledge on issues and problems of enduring concern, including

 maintaining corporate memory for sponsors and providing a quick response when appropriate in

 areas of established expertise.

 Responsive to emerging and evolving needs of sponsors.

(continued)

Page 41 GAO/NSIAD-96-54 Federally Funded Centers
Appendix IV 

Studies and Analyses Centers

Oversight and

responsibilities

LMI Advisory Boarda

Provides and exchanges information on issues of general interest.

Reviews, determines, and establishes the long-term research agenda.

Prioritizes specific studies and research projects.

Identifies sources and levels of funding for sponsor studies.

Reviews and establishes the level of support required of the FFRDC.

Evaluates the quality, efficiency, and substance of the LMI support.

Executive agent and task sponsors

Determine that a proposed project is appropriate and within LMI’s charter and that LMI is the most

effective source.

Incur sole responsibility for the conduct and oversight of the annual and comprehensive reviews.

Contracting officer’s representative

Analyzes task orders for compliance with the DOD Management Plan, the FFRDC contract, and the

appropriateness of work assigned to LMI.

Reviews all documents for each task order requested by the sponsor to verify appropriateness of work.

Board of Trustees

Develops the strategic plan and has final authority over the Institute’s business and assets.

LMI’s president and vice presidents

Oversee task orders for conformance with the DOD Management Plan, the FFRDC contract, and the

appropriateness of work assigned to LMI.

aThe LMI Advisory Board includes senior members of sponsor activities; Assistant and Deputy

Under Secretaries of Defense; Secretaries of the Departments of the Army, Navy, and Air Force;

Marine Corps; Coast Guard; and defense agencies.

Page 42 GAO/NSIAD-96-54 Federally Funded Centers
Appendix V 

Research and Development Laboratories

DOD has three FFRDCs that are classified as research and development

laboratories—Lincoln Laboratory, SEI, and IDA-Communications and

Computing Center. These laboratories were created to fill voids in which

in-house and private sector research and development centers were

unable to meet DOD’s needs and engage in projects that emphasize the

evolution and demonstration of advanced concepts and technology and

the transfer or transition of technology. Specific objectives for these

FFRDCs are to (1) maintain long-term competence in areas where no

government in-house or private sector resources exist and (2) develop and

transfer important new technology to the private sector so the government

can benefit from a broader base of expertise.

Lincoln Laboratory Lincoln Laboratory was established as an FFRDC in 1951 under the

sponsorship of the Air Force, Army, and Navy.1

 The Air Force is currently

the primary sponsor. Lincoln Laboratory was created to perform research

and development that is pertinent to the national defense, with particular

emphasis on advanced electronics. Table V.1 provides general information

regarding Lincoln Laboratory.

1

The Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency became a sponsor in 1958.

Page 43 GAO/NSIAD-96-54 Federally Funded Centers
Appendix V 

Research and Development Laboratories

Table V.1: General Information on Lincoln Laboratory

Mission Demonstrate the feasibility of and conduct research and development on advanced systems concepts

and technology with an emphasis on advanced electronics, and build the necessary

prototype/demonstration components for the sponsors.

Conduct research and development in other relevant technical areas.

Produce models of laboratory-developed equipment suitable for field demonstration and test by

appropriate military services or agencies.

Furnish necessary procurement information concerning such equipment.

Provide technical advice on military technology areas.

Core competencies Ballistic missile defense.

Communications.

Space surveillance.

Air defense.

Surface surveillance.

Advanced electronics technology.

Capabilities Provides independent advice on military technology issues.

Maintains high-quality, experienced, and interdisciplinary research staff who are productive, have

published extensively, and are recognized regularly by their technical peers.

Draws on the resources of and interacts with the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, one of the

world’s leading technical universities, to produce technical advances.

Criteria for defining core

work

Consistent with Lincoln Laboratory’s mission, purpose, and capabilities.

Consistent with core competencies.

Consistent with special relationship:

•Objective, high-quality work on subjects integral to the mission of the sponsor.

•Freedom from real or perceived conflicts of interest.

•Broad access to sensitive government or proprietary information.

•Comprehensive knowledge of sponsor needs and problems.

•Long-term continuity of knowledge of sponsor issues.

Oversight and

responsibilities

Joint Advisory Committeea

Annually reviews and approves the research and development program.

Executive agent

Reviews policy and administers the contract.

Contracting officer

Performs continuing reviews of Lincoln Laboratory’s management.

aThe Joint Advisory Committee is chaired by the Director of Defense Research and Engineering

and made up of secretariat-level representatives from the services, Defense Advanced Research

Projects Agency, and Ballistic Missile Defense Organization.

Page 44 GAO/NSIAD-96-54 Federally Funded Centers
Appendix V 

Research and Development Laboratories

Software Engineering

Institute

SEI was created as an FFRDC in 1984 by Congress to address the transition

of software engineering technology. Its purpose is to provide leadership in

advancing state-of-the-art software engineering and improving the quality

of systems that depend on software. The Defense Advanced Research

Projects Agency is the primary sponsor. Table V.2 provides general

information regarding SEI.

Table V.2: General Information on SEI

Mission Improve the quality of operational software in software-intensive systems.

Accelerate the reduction to practice of modern software engineering technology.

Institute the use of modern software engineering techniques and methods throughout the defense

systems community.

Establish standards of excellence for software engineering.

Core competencies Software engineering and supporting software technology.

Technology transition.

Capabilities Establishes state-of-the-art and state-of-the-practice in software engineering technology and maintains

appropriate metrics.

Identifies and assesses needs and opportunities for software technology transition.

Engineers technology for use, as required.

Demonstrates, disseminates, and encourages the use of such technology products throughout the

software community.

Conducts research and development in support of technology areas judged to be the most essential

and to have the highest potential payoff.

Evaluates, develops, and conducts courses and seminars that support technology transitioning and

influences software engineering curricula throughout the educational community, industry, and

government.

Criteria for defining core

work

Consistent with SEI’s mission, purpose, and capabilities.

Consistent with core competencies.

Consistent with special relationship:

•High-quality work.

•Freedom from real or perceived biases or conflicts of interest.

•Ability to protect sensitive government or proprietary information.

•Comprehensive knowledge of sponsor programs, operations, needs, and problems and the

 technical opportunities that will address these problems.

•Relationship with and ability to influence the software engineering infrastructure.

Must be sponsored by an appropriate organization.

Oversight and

responsibilities

Primary sponsor

Provides overall strategic policy and program guidance to the FFRDC, administrative agent, and Air

Force Electronics Systems Center for the management of the FFRDC.

(continued)

Page 45 GAO/NSIAD-96-54 Federally Funded Centers
Appendix V 

Research and Development Laboratories

Sets general guidance for work that is appropriate.

Conducts in-depth program reviews two to three times per year.

Joint Advisory Committeea

Provides overall policy and program guidance to the FFRDC.

Reviews the FFRDC’s work plan.

Provides recommendations on priorities.

Provides advice to the primary sponsor on strategy and current and proposed programs.

Advises and assists the FFRDC in implementing policies affecting its status as an FFRDC, relations with

federal agencies, and general operations.

Administrative agent

Implements strategic guidance and oversees the day-to-day activities for the primary sponsor.

Administers the FFRDC, including providing guidance to the FFRDC.

Determines through technical and contractual reviews that all work is consistent with the Institute’s

program plan and mission and federal regulations.

Conducts three to four financial/program management reviews each year.

Joint Program Office Site Director

Reviews and approves all work performed by the FFRDC.

Senior technical review group

Provides technical advice to the advisory committee and primary sponsor to determine the relevance of

technical objectives and priorities.

Reviews program plans and progress to date.

Program technical advisory panelsb

Provide customer guidance on current activities and future plans.

Perform technical reviews of projects.

Board of Visitors

Reviews the plans and accomplishments of the FFRDC.

aThe Joint Advisory Committee is composed of senior executives from the Army, Navy, Air Force,

and Defense Information Systems Agency.

bProgram technical advisory panels have included the Software Process Program Advisory

Board, Software Acquisition Metrics Working Group, and Risk Taxonomy Users Group.

IDA-Communications

and Computing

Center

As part of IDA, the Communications and Computing Center’s purpose is to

promote national security, public welfare, and the advancement of science

by performing analyses, evaluations, and reports on matters of interest to

the U.S. government. The primary sponsor of the center is the National

Security Agency. Table V.3 provides general information regarding

IDA-Communications and Computing Center.

Page 46 GAO/NSIAD-96-54 Federally Funded Centers
Appendix V 

Research and Development Laboratories

Table V.3: General Information on IDA-Communications and Computing Center

Mission Perform applied research and development in the specialized fields of cryptomathematics and

cryptocomputing and in related fields, such as speech research and special signals processing

techniques.

Maintain a staff with expertise and currency in the relevant disciplines, familiarity with National Security

Agency needs, and access to experts in industry and academia.

Core competencies Cryptologic mathematics.

Computing sciences.

Basic communications theory.

Capabilities Not available.

Criteria for defining core

work

Consistent with IDA-Communications and Computing’s mission, purpose, and capabilities.

Consistent with core competencies.

Consistent with special relationship:

•High-quality work.

•Freedom from real or perceived biases or conflicts of interest.

•Ability to protect sensitive government or proprietary information.

•Comprehensive knowledge of sponsor programs, operations, needs, and problems and the technical

 opportunities that will address these problems.

•Relationship with and ability to influence the software engineering infrastructure.

Oversight and

responsibilities

Primary sponsor

Ensures that the IDA program deals with and adheres to issues that the sponsors collectively believe

are important and in the national interest to resolve.

Ensures that the work is within the scope of IDA’s charter.

IDA Advisory Groupa

Periodically evaluates IDA’s overall research effort.

Provides information on the general interest and priorities of sponsors.

Offers guidance on the general scope of IDA’s work.

Executive agent

Administers IDA work for OSD and the Joint Staff and their components.

Administers IDA work done for defense agencies at the agencies’ request.

Contracting officer

Reviews contract tasks for appropriateness and funding limits.

Contracting officer’s representative

Reviews all task orders for appropriateness and compliance with the DOD Management Plan.

Administrative contracting officer

Coordinates the oversight of all of the business operations of the FFRDC.

Reviews and approves all major subcontracting transactions.

(continued)

Page 47 GAO/NSIAD-96-54 Federally Funded Centers
Appendix V 

Research and Development Laboratories

Board of Trustees

Oversees the operation of IDA as specified in the certificate of incorporation with the State of Delaware.

Exercises quality control.

IDA management

Review and direct all of the operations of the FFRDC.

Ensure compliance with all aspects of the FFRDC charter and sponsoring agreements.

Exercise day-to-day control of staff activities.

aIDA’s Advisory Group is chaired by the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition and

Technology or his designee, and the members of the group include the heads of the principal

offices that sponsor work at IDA.

Page 48 GAO/NSIAD-96-54 Federally Funded Centers
Appendix VI 

Comments From the Department of Defense

Page 49 GAO/NSIAD-96-54 Federally Funded Centers
Appendix VI 

Comments From the Department of Defense

Page 50 GAO/NSIAD-96-54 Federally Funded Centers
Related FFRDC Products

Federally Funded R&D Centers: Observations on DOD Actions to Improve

Management (GAO/T-NSIAD-96-117, Mar. 5, 1996).

Defense Research and Development: Fiscal Year 1993 Trustee and Advisor

Costs at Federally Funded Centers (GAO/NSIAD-96-27, Dec. 26, 1995).

Federal Research: Information on Fees for Selected Federally Funded

Research and Development Centers (GAO/RCED-96-31FS, Dec. 8, 1995).

Federally Funded R&D Centers: Use of Fee by the MITRE Corporation

(GAO/NSIAD-96-26, Nov. 27, 1995).

Federally Funded R&D Centers: Use of Contract Fee by The Aerospace

Corporation (GAO/NSIAD-95-174, Sept. 28, 1995).

Defense Research and Development: Affiliations of Fiscal Year 1993

Trustees for Federally Funded Centers (GAO/NSIAD-95-135, July 26, 1995).

A History of the Department of Defense Federally Funded Research and

Development Centers, Office of Technology Assessment (OTA-BP-ISS-157,

June 1995).

Compensation to Presidents, Senior Executives, and Technical Staff at

Federally Funded Research and Development Centers, DOD Office of the

Inspector General (95-182, May 1, 1995).

Comprehensive Review of the Department of Defense’s Fee-Granting

Process for Federally Funded Research and Development Centers,

Director of Defense Research and Engineering, May 1, 1995.

The Role of Federally Funded Research and Development Centers in the

Mission of the Department of Defense, Defense Science Board Task Force,

April 25, 1995.

Addendum to Final Audit Report on Contracting Practices for the Use and

Operations of DOD-Sponsored Federally Funded Research and

Development Centers, DOD Office of the Inspector General (95-048A,

Apr. 19, 1995).

DOD’s Federally Funded Research and Development Centers,

Congressional Research Service (95-489 SPR, Apr. 13, 1995).

Page 51 GAO/NSIAD-96-54 Federally Funded Centers
Related FFRDC Products

Report on Department of Defense Federally Funded Research and

Development Centers and Affiliated Organizations, Director of Defense

Research and Engineering, April 3, 1995.

Federally Funded R&D Centers: Executive Compensation at The

Aerospace Corporation (GAO/NSIAD-95-75, Feb. 7, 1995).

Contracting Practices for the Use and Operations of DOD-Sponsored

Federally Funded Research and Development Centers, DOD Office of the

Inspector General (95-048, Dec. 2, 1994).

Sole Source Justifications for DOD-Sponsored Federally Funded Research

and Development Centers, DOD Office of the Inspector General (94-012,

Nov. 4, 1993).

DOD’s Federally Funded Research and Development Centers,

Congressional Research Service (93-549 SPR, June 3, 1993).

Inadequate Federal Oversight of Federally Funded Research and

Development Centers, Subcommittee on Oversight of Government

Management, Senate Governmental Affairs Committee (102-98, July 1992).

DOD’s Federally Funded Research and Development Centers,

Congressional Research Service (91-378 SPR, Apr. 29, 1991).

(705106) Page 52 GAO/NSIAD-96-54 Federally Funded Centers
Ordering Information

The first copy of each GAO report and testimony is free.

Additional copies are $2 each. Orders should be sent to the

following address, accompanied by a check or money order

made out to the Superintendent of Documents, when

necessary. VISA and MasterCard credit cards are accepted, also.

Orders for 100 or more copies to be mailed to a single address

are discounted 25 percent.

Orders by mail:

U.S. General Accounting Office

P.O. Box 6015

Gaithersburg, MD 20884-6015

or visit:

Room 1100

700 4th St. NW (corner of 4th and G Sts. NW)

U.S. General Accounting Office

Washington, DC

Orders may also be placed by calling (202) 512-6000 

or by using fax number (301) 258-4066, or TDD (301) 413-0006.

Each day, GAO issues a list of newly available reports and

testimony. To receive facsimile copies of the daily list or any

list from the past 30 days, please call (202) 512-6000 using a

touchtone phone. A recorded menu will provide information on

how to obtain these lists.

For information on how to access GAO reports on the INTERNET,

send an e-mail message with "info" in the body to:

info@www.gao.gov

PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
United States

General Accounting Office

Washington, D.C. 20548-0001

Official Business

Penalty for Private Use $300

Address Correction Requested

Bulk Rate

Postage & Fees Paid

GAO

Permit No. G100