U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Publishing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

i 

22–460 2017

[H.A.S.C. No. 114–142] 

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 

LABORATORIES: INNOVATION THROUGH 

SCIENCE AND ENGINEERING IN 

SUPPORT OF MILITARY OPERATIONS 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON EMERGING THREATS 

AND CAPABILITIES 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED FOURTEENTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

HEARING HELD 

SEPTEMBER 28, 2016 
(II) 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON EMERGING THREATS AND CAPABILITIES 

JOE WILSON, South Carolina, Chairman 

JOHN KLINE, Minnesota 

BILL SHUSTER, Pennsylvania 

DUNCAN HUNTER, California 

RICHARD B. NUGENT, Florida 

RYAN K. ZINKE, Montana 

TRENT FRANKS, Arizona, Vice Chair 

DOUG LAMBORN, Colorado 

MO BROOKS, Alabama 

BRADLEY BYRNE, Alabama 

ELISE M. STEFANIK, New York 

JAMES R. LANGEVIN, Rhode Island 

JIM COOPER, Tennessee 

JOHN GARAMENDI, California 

MARC A. VEASEY, Texas 

DONALD NORCROSS, New Jersey 

BRAD ASHFORD, Nebraska 

PETE AGUILAR, California 

(Vacancy) 

KEVIN GATES, Professional Staff Member 

LINDSAY KAVANAUGH, Professional Staff Member 

NEVE SCHADLER, Clerk 
(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

STATEMENTS PRESENTED BY MEMBERS OF CONGRESS 

Langevin, Hon. James R., a Representative from Rhode Island, Ranking 

Member, Subcommittee on Emerging Threats and Capabilities ..................... 2 

Wilson, Hon. Joe, a Representative from South Carolina, Chairman, Subcommittee on Emerging Threats and Capabilities ................................................... 1 

WITNESSES 

Franchi, Dr. Edward R., Acting Director of Research, Naval Research Laboratory ........................................................................................................................ 6 

Holland, Dr. Jeffery P., Director, Engineer Research and Development Center, 

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Waterways Experiment Station ..................... 5 

McMurry, Maj Gen Robert D., USAF, Commander, Air Force Research Laboratory ................................................................................................................... 3 

Perconti, Dr. Philip, Acting Director, United States Army Research Laboratory ........................................................................................................................ 8 

APPENDIX 

PREPARED STATEMENTS: 

Franchi, Dr. Edward R. .................................................................................... 83 

Holland, Dr. Jeffery P. ..................................................................................... 65 

McMurry, Maj Gen Robert D. .......................................................................... 27 

Perconti, Dr. Philip ........................................................................................... 101 

Wilson, Hon. Joe ............................................................................................... 25 

DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD: 

[There were no Documents submitted.] 

WITNESS RESPONSES TO QUESTIONS ASKED DURING THE HEARING: 

Mr. Langevin ..................................................................................................... 115 

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MEMBERS POST HEARING: 

Mr. Norcross ..................................................................................................... 127 

Mr. Wilson ......................................................................................................... 121 

(1) 

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE LABORATORIES: INNOVATION THROUGH SCIENCE AND ENGINEERING IN SUPPORT OF MILITARY OPERATIONS 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES, SUBCOMMITTEE ON EMERGING THREATS AND CAPABILITIES, 

Washington, DC, Wednesday, September 28, 2016. 

The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 2:00 p.m., in room 

2212, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Joe Wilson (chairman 

of the subcommittee) presiding. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JOE WILSON, A REPRESENTATIVE FROM SOUTH CAROLINA, CHAIRMAN, SUBCOMMITTEE 

ON EMERGING THREATS AND CAPABILITIES 

Mr. WILSON. Ladies and gentlemen, welcome. I call this hearing 

of the Emerging Threats and Capabilities [ETC] Subcommittee of 

the House Armed Services Committee to order. I am pleased to 

welcome everyone here today for this hearing on the role of the Department of Defense [DOD] laboratories in supporting military operations. 

While the Secretary of Defense has been highlighting the need 

for increased partnerships with commercial providers in Silicon 

Valley, Boston, and elsewhere, I think it is important to remember 

that the Defense Department also maintains its own in-house sustained source of innovation. The Defense Laboratory Enterprise is 

a robust network of 67 laboratories and engineering centers that 

are dedicated to providing responsive scientific and engineering advice to support military needs. 

As we look to make the Department more flexible and adaptable 

to take on new innovations, it will be vitally important to ensure 

that the labs maintain the workforce and infrastructure needed to 

keep them relevant for the future warfighting environment. And 

looking at the challenge over the past 2 years, as chairman of this 

subcommittee, I am concerned that the Department is not doing 

enough to keep pace with the ever-evolving set of threats. 

In order to get a better perspective of these issues, I would like 

to welcome our distinguished panel of witnesses, which includes 

Major General Robert D. McMurry, U.S. Air Force, Commander, 

Air Force Research Laboratory [AFRL]; Dr. Jeffery Holland, Director, Engineering Research and Development Center [ERDC], U.S. 

Army Corps of Engineers, Waterways Experiment Station; Dr. Edward Franchi, the Acting Director of Research at the Naval Research Laboratory [NRL]; and Dr. Philip Perconti, the Acting Director of the United States Army Research Laboratory, ARL. 
2 

I would like now to turn to my friend and ranking member, Mr. 

Jim Langevin from Rhode Island, for any comments he would like 

to make. 

I would like to remind our witnesses that your written statements will be submitted for the record so that you would summarize your comments to 5 minutes or less. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Wilson can be found in the Appendix on page 25.] 

STATEMENT OF HON. JAMES R. LANGEVIN, A REPRESENTATIVE FROM RHODE ISLAND, RANKING MEMBER, SUBCOMMITTEE ON EMERGING THREATS AND CAPABILITIES 

Mr. LANGEVIN. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

And thank you to our witnesses for being here today. I certainly 

look forward to hearing your testimony. 

And this hearing represents a unique opportunity to engage the 

individuals who run the Department of Defense, the DOD in-house 

innovation centers, the major science and technology laboratory directors. 

So, this year in particular, we have heard a lot about the need 

for innovation in defense technology, and we often associate it with 

the defense innovation centers, or DIUx, initiative. Although I support outreach to nontraditional defense contractors, today is an important reminder that there are existing tools in DOD’s toolbox 

that have a long history of producing game-changing technologies 

for our warfighters. 

This includes the Naval Undersea Warfare Center’s [NUWC] 

Newport Division in my home State of Rhode Island. NUWC has 

produced technical advances throughout the lifecycle of many undersea platforms and systems, such as improved mine warfare 

sonar technology to ensure safe access and passage to vessels both 

on and below the waves. 

Our labs, our DOD labs, are institutions that can and should be 

further leveraged and enabled by Congress and the Department to 

make technical advances necessary to maintain our edge. These lab 

directors are not only intimately familiar with warfighting needs 

and future requirements, they also have longstanding partnerships 

with academia and industry in their surrounding communities. If 

we give them support, facilities, and additional enabling authorities, I believe that they can do even more. 

The ETC Subcommittee has long recognized the importance of 

our defense labs. Over the years, we have granted the Department 

many different authorities aimed at maintaining innovation in 

these institutions. These range from providing lab directors direct 

hiring authority, to special pay and incentives for workforce recruitment and retention, to using research, development, and technology money for military construction [MILCON] and facility repair. 

Furthermore, this year, in the National Defense Authorization 

Act [NDAA] for Fiscal Year 2017, we are considering a pilot program that will enable our lab directors to waive, with approval, internal regulations that hinder technological advancement. 

Yet there is more that we can do and more the Department can 

do to support our labs, including taking a serious look at how the 
3 

services’ varying and stringent conference attendance policies over 

the last few years have impacted the ability of the technical workforce to network, to learn, and to showcase. 

Today, I look forward to hearing each of your perspectives on innovation in our labs, specifically how past authorities granted have 

aided in keeping our labs innovative and what more can be done 

to keep our labs at the forefront of technological advancements. 

With that, again, Mr. Chairman, I want to thank you for holding 

this hearing, and I look forward to the testimony of our witnesses. 

And I yield back the balance of my time. 

Mr. WILSON. Thank you, Mr. Langevin. 

It is very appropriate that we have Congressman Mike Turner 

here today. He is a champion for the Air Force Research Laboratory at Dayton, Ohio, of course. And I am very grateful. Ten thousand persons, military and civilian, work there, and he is a champion. And that is why he is here. 

And I ask unanimous consent that non-subcommittee members 

be allowed to participate in today’s hearing after all subcommittee 

members have had an opportunity to ask questions. Is there objection? 

Hearing none, without objection, the non-subcommittee members 

will be recognized at the appropriate time for 5 minutes. 

General McMurry. 

STATEMENT OF MAJ GEN ROBERT D. McMURRY, USAF, 

COMMANDER, AIR FORCE RESEARCH LABORATORY 

General MCMURRY. Chairman Wilson, Ranking Member Langevin, members of the subcommittee and staff, Congressman Turner, 

as we move into fiscal year 2017, I am pleased to have the opportunity to provide testimony on the Air Force Research Laboratory 

and our efforts to lead the discovery, development, and integration 

of affordable warfighting technologies in the face of a dynamic, 

complex, and unpredictable future. 

I would like to take a moment to thank Congress and especially 

the members of this subcommittee for your service and your continued support of our laboratories, facilities, and, most importantly, 

our valuable scientists and engineers. As the laboratory’s commander, I have seen how your commitment to science and technology [S&T] enables us to advance game-changing capabilities, continually develop the S&T workforce, and strengthen and support 

industrial and academic base while leveraging them for the longterm security of our Nation. 

Today’s AFRL has a proud legacy of 99 years of critical research 

efforts enabling the Air Force and Department of Defense to keep 

the fight unfair. Our technology breakthroughs have contributed to 

or supported every major operational Air Force platform. As we approach our 100-year anniversary, we now face a relentless pace of 

change that is increasing complexity and decreasing predictability 

in warfare. 

To address this complex environment, we follow the direction of 

the Secretary of Defense, Secretary of the Air Force, and Chief of 

Staff of the Air Force to bring a new level of agility and innovation 

into our capability development processes, workforce, and infrastructure. 
4 

Just as the laboratory provided key innovations in support of 

both the first and second offset strategies, I am pleased to confirm 

that our game-changing technologies are already providing support 

and foundation for realizing a third offset strategy. 

Our efforts, many of which are described in my written statement, are aligned to the Long-Range Research and Development 

Planning Program initiatives. And as part of the Air Force acquisition process, we also incorporate and support Mr. Kendall’s Better 

Buying Power 3.0 initiatives. Both of these broader initiatives provide tools strengthening our ability to innovate, achieve technical 

intelligence, and transition dominant military capabilities to the 

warfighter. 

The laboratory executes the bulk of Air Force S&T investment. 

The fiscal year 2017 President’s budget request for S&T is approximately $2.5 billion, a 4.5 percent increase from fiscal year 2016. 

The budget request provides funding for the small advanced capability missile, the low-cost delivery vehicle, a high-speed strike 

weapon demonstration, component weapons technology, and for position, navigation, and timing technologies in direct support of the 

third offset. 

We are investing heavily in basic, applied, and advanced research while continuing to focus on game-changers like autonomous 

systems, unmanned systems, nanotechnology, hypersonics, and directed energy. 

At the request of the Chief of Staff of the Air Force, Air Force 

Materiel Command recently stood up a Strategic Development 

Planning and Experimentation Office. This office will reinvigorate 

development planning at the Air Force enterprise level. The new 

effort will shift the Air Force from platform-centric to strategybased multi-domain solutions spanning air, space, and cyberspace. 

The office will support enterprise capability collaboration teams 

while providing modeling and simulation, wargaming, and data to 

facilitate development planning for the Air Force’s highest priority 

mission areas. 

The laboratory brings data and requirements together with operators, technologists, and acquisition professionals to support Air 

Force experimentation efforts. We integrate into and support the 

Air Force’s four pilot experimentation campaigns: Future Attack, 

Directed Energy, Data to Decisions, and Defeat Agile Intelligent 

Targets. 

Finally, I am extremely proud of our world-class scientists and 

engineers. Every day, I get to work with some of the brightest people in the world. They love this Nation and give selflessly to ensure 

its protection. 

We are working to exercise every authority available to us to 

compete with industry in attracting and hiring the best people. 

AFRL does have unique facilities and capabilities, and we use them 

to attract and inspire individuals to Air Force STEM [science, technology, engineering, and mathematics] careers through outreach 

and student research experiences. 

We endeavor to use all our authorities, including section 219 and 

MILCON funding, to ensure our laboratory facilities continue to 

meet our Nation’s defense goals. 
5 

Mr. Chairman, members of the subcommittee, and staff, thank 

you again for the opportunity to testify today. I look forward to 

your questions. 

[The prepared statement of General McMurry can be found in 

the Appendix on page 27.] 

Mr. WILSON. Thank you very much, General McMurry. 

We now proceed to Dr. Holland. 

STATEMENT OF DR. JEFFERY P. HOLLAND, DIRECTOR, ENGINEER RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT CENTER, U.S. ARMY 

CORPS OF ENGINEERS, WATERWAYS EXPERIMENT STATION 

Dr. HOLLAND. Chairman Wilson, Ranking Member Langevin, distinguished members of the subcommittee, Congressman Turner, 

thank you for the opportunity to discuss the U.S. Army Engineer 

Research and Development Center’s role as a major Department of 

Defense science and technology organization. I greatly appreciate 

the support this committee has shown to S&T and the opportunities that your support has provided ERDC to carry out its mission. 

ERDC is the S&T arm of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. We 

conduct research and development in support of the warfighter, 

military installations, and the Corps’ civil works mission. We also 

manage the Department of Defense’s High Performance Computing 

Modernization Program, which provides supercomputing capabilities to DOD research, development, testing, and evaluation communities throughout the Department. In fiscal year 2016, we are executing a $1 billion program, $500 

million of which is associated with reimbursable projects from 

every military service, the Office of the Secretary of Defense, and 

most Federal agencies. 

Today, I would like to address three elements that are critical to 

everything that we do within the ERDC: people, programs, and facilities. 

Innovation requires a talented workforce, and I am proud to represent ERDC’s 2,100 engineers, scientists, and support personnel. 

ERDC’s human capital goal for this fiscal year and the next 5 years 

is to hire more than 800 new scientists and engineers to our organization. 

We exceeded our annual recruiting goal this year, in large part 

due to the direct hiring authorities that have been made possible 

because ERDC is one of the 18 Science and Technology Reinvention 

Laboratories with laboratory demonstration projects authorized by 

the 1995 National Defense Authorization Act. 

Differing NDAAs have provided numerous enhancements to our 

hiring authorities, and NDAA 2015 provided direct hiring authorities for students. However, that authority, as yet, has not been delegated to the laboratories. 

I want to thank the Congress for its continued support to S&T 

laboratories by including language in the House and Senate versions of the 2017 NDAA that should greatly enhance our organizations. 

Because we have great people, we execute impactful programs. 

DOD service laboratories play a key role in national security, and 

ERDC has a long history of providing innovative solutions to keep 

our warfighters and civilians safe. 
6 

Our force protection technologies are installed in theater to protect base camps from rocket and mortar attacks. As an example, 

though, of a counter-use, the State Department is using this technology to protect critical facilities and personnel worldwide. And 

many buildings in the National Capital Region, such as the one in 

which we sit, the Pentagon, and others, are safer because of ERDC 

protection technologies. 

Our airborne counter-IED [improvised explosive device] systems 

are currently providing CENTCOM [Central Command] with 

unique capabilities. ERDC’s tunnel detection technologies have 

been applied in Iraq, along the Egypt-Gaza border, and along the 

U.S.-Mexico border in support of DOD and the Department of 

Homeland Security. 

We deliver environmentally sustainable solutions for energy, 

water, and waste in installations. And we are the Army’s leader in 

energy R&D [research and development] in support of contingency 

basing. ERDC is also the world leader in water resources research 

and development, supporting the Corps’ critical missions that provide economic security for our Nation. 

Finally, I welcome the opportunity to discuss our facilities in the 

219 program. ERDC needs to modernize and recapitalize our facilities in order to ensure that we continue to do the world-class research that we do in support of the warfighter and our Nation. Our 

219 authority allows us to fund facilities’ improvements, and we 

have had great success in the use of this authority. 

This is particularly important given ERDC’s difficulties in obtaining major MILCON funding. We benefit greatly from the committee’s willingness to extend and enhance the 219 authorities. 

We have not, as yet, been able to take advantage of the authority 

to provide the 2014 NDAA capabilities that have been written into 

law to accrue funds over multiple years for larger infrastructure activities. We are working on processes that would allow us to accrue 

these in an accountable, sustainable fashion. 

In conclusion, I invite you to visit ERDC at any time to see firsthand why we come to work every day. We make a difference. We 

save lives. We safeguard our military and civilians at home and 

abroad. And we protect and enhance the environment around us. 

Mr. Chairman, this concludes my statement. I look forward to 

the opportunity to answer questions from you and the other members. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Dr. Holland can be found in the Appendix on page 65.] 

Mr. WILSON. Dr. Holland, as a grateful dad of a member of the 

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Thank you for your service. 

Dr. HOLLAND. Thank you, sir. 

Mr. WILSON. Dr. Franchi. 

STATEMENT OF DR. EDWARD R. FRANCHI, ACTING DIRECTOR 

OF RESEARCH, NAVAL RESEARCH LABORATORY 

Dr. FRANCHI. Chairman Wilson, Ranking Member Langevin, and 

distinguished members of the subcommittee, I thank you for this 

opportunity to talk about the Naval Research Laboratory’s work, 

how it performs its S&T mission, and some of the challenges it 

faces to the successful execution of that mission. 
7 

NRL was borne from an idea conceived in 1915 by Thomas Alva 

Edison. The idea became a reality on July 2, 1923. At its most elemental, Edison’s idea was that NRL, working with industry and 

academia, and knowledgeable of naval needs, would help build 

American seapower through long-term mission-related research 

and development. For more than 90 years, NRL has fulfilled that 

inventor’s idea and vision. 

I would like to give you just a few examples over that time period. In the early years leading up and including World War II, 

NRL invented the first U.S. radar and we developed the first operational U.S. sonar. During the Cold War, NRL provided America’s 

first intelligence satellite, launched 52 days after the downing of 

the U–2 aircraft over the Soviet Union. NRL also developed the 

original concept and two prototype satellites for what is now the 

Global Positioning System. 

As we go forward into regional conflicts and the current uncertain future, we are focusing on key technologies that encompass the 

third offset strategy. As one example, the laboratory is making important contributions to laser weapons and railguns. NRL scientists were the first to prepare and simulate the use of incoherently combined, high-power fiber lasers as the architecture for the 

Navy’s new Laser Weapon System. NRL’s railgun program began 

in 2003 and has since become a critical element in the efforts to 

development hypervelocity electric weapons. 

Rapid prototyping and experimentation is an important mechanism in transitioning science and technology to demonstrations of 

operational capabilities. One mechanism is the Navy’s rapid prototyping process, where fleet needs are identified through the 

OPNAV [Office of the Chief of Naval Operations] and Secretariat 

organizations to energize the entire Naval Research and Development Enterprise to develop solutions for demonstration and evaluation. 

The reasons for NRL’s success in providing science at the cutting 

edge through patents and publications and delivering value to the 

fleet and Nation through technology development and transitions 

depends on two fundamental imperatives: a high-quality workforce 

and satisfactory facilities. These are our two main challenges 

today. 

NRL’s most serious challenge is the need to remodernize our 

aging infrastructure. NRL facilities and laboratories are experiencing excessive infrastructure failures. While this is to be expected given the average age of the buildings at NRL’s main campus is 59 years, it is further compounded by inadequate investment 

in new facilities and major repairs of existing facilities. 

NRL continues to work with Navy and the Department of Defense to address these issues, as it is critical that facilities be improved so we can attract and retain qualified personnel to work at 

NRL and deliver state-of-the-art research and technology solutions 

in facilities adequately suited not only for our current requirements 

but our future requirements. 

The second challenge, which we have done, I think, very well 

with the help of this subcommittee, is in workforce. We have a 

world-class workforce of about 1,600 scientists and engineers, with 
8 

more than 870 of them having Ph.D. degrees. This high-quality 

workforce is the biggest reason for NRL’s sustained success. 

But we must constantly renew this workforce. We use three primary vehicles authorized by Congress: the Naval Innovative 

Science and Engineering Program, part of section 219; the Laboratory Demonstration Program; and direct hire authority. 

Section 219 is primarily used in workforce development, where 

we have established the Karles Fellowship Program, which provides funding to new hires within a year of their graduation at any 

degree level with a grade-point average of 3.5. The fellowship provides for 2 years to conduct their own proposed research, and we 

typically fund 25 to 30 of these new fellows each year. 

The Laboratory Demonstration Program began in 1999, and I 

will say it is working very well, and high satisfaction from the 

workforce. We are also working with DOD’s Laboratory Quality Enhancement Program to achieve other authorities that have been 

granted. 

And, finally, direct hire authority has, since its beginning, enabled NRL to hire almost 500 people in the science and engineering 

disciplines. 

I invite each of you to visit the Naval Research Laboratory, located a short drive from the Capitol. Thank you for your time 

today, your interest in NRL’s work, your concern for defense 

science and technology, and support of the DOD laboratories and 

their missions. I look forward to answering any questions you have. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Dr. Franchi can be found in the Appendix on page 83.] 

Mr. WILSON. Thank you, Dr. Franchi. 

We now proceed to Dr. Perconti. 

STATEMENT OF DR. PHILIP PERCONTI, ACTING DIRECTOR, 

UNITED STATES ARMY RESEARCH LABORATORY 

Dr. PERCONTI. Good afternoon, Chairman Wilson, Ranking Member Langevin, distinguished members of the subcommittee, and 

Congressman Turner. Thank you for inviting me to speak about 

Army science and technology in support of military operations. I 

am truly honored to be here and to represent my colleagues. 

Army Chief of Staff General Mark Milley has made readiness the 

Army’s top priority. As the world’s preeminent ground combat 

force, the Army’s definition of readiness must include meeting today’s urgent operational needs while ensuring decisive overmatch 

for the future force. 

As the Army’s corporate research lab, ARL performs foundational 

research to discover, innovate, and transition technological developments geared toward acting on opportunities in power projection, 

information, lethality and protection, and soldier performance. 

ARL is a part of the Research, Development, and Engineering 

Command [RDECOM], the Army’s lead for technology integration 

and the Army’s enabling command in the development and delivery 

of unprecedented capabilities for the warfighter. 

The RDECOM’s strategy for understanding emerging threats and 

the operational requirements that next-generation systems will 

face are shaped by the strategic guidance from the Office of the 
9 

Secretary of Defense [OSD]; the technical and programmatic oversight of the Office of the Assistant Secretary of the Army for Acquisition, Logistics, and Technology; the Army Materiel Command; 

and various members of the Army requirements and acquisition 

communities. 

The uncertainty and complexity of future warfare necessitate innovation across a broad range of science and technology, which requires a research culture that is agile and effective, with an emphasis on collaboration that enables the continuous flow of people 

and ideas between government, academia, and the private sector. 

ARL is piloting a new business model to create an S&T ecosystem emphasizing mutual reliance and interdependent, collaborative 

research as a critical element of national security. This new business model, which we call ‘‘Open Campus,’’ focuses on three major 

initiatives: modern workforce management and policies, shared facilities with our partners, and fostering an entrepreneurial and innovative culture. 

Through the Open Campus, ARL scientists and engineers work 

side by side with colleagues from academia, government, and industry at ARL and our partner facilities. Over the last year alone, 

the number of Open Campus agreements with academia and industry has more than doubled, from 60 to over 180, with 170 more in 

negotiation. These agreements have leveraged over $23 million 

from our Army partners. 

Early in 2016, we opened ARL West in Playa Vista, California. 

As part of the Open Campus initiative, ARL is hiring scientists and 

engineers on the West Coast in order to gain access to subject-matter experts, technical centers, and universities not well represented 

east of the Mississippi. By the end of this year, ARL will have similar hubs established in Chicago and in Austin, Texas. 

RDECOM enables readiness for today’s Army and is now developing capabilities for the Army of the deep future. RDECOM scientists and engineers were intimately involved with developing 

concepts for the DOD’s third offset strategy, as leading members of 

the two long-range research and development planning studies. 

The third offset strategy places major emphasis on technologies incorporating unprecedented levels of automation and integration, 

and ARL is concentrating on research areas that are essential to 

enabling this third offset. 

ARL has greatly benefited from the authorities this committee 

has worked so intensely to provide. In particular, section 219 authority gives ARL the ability to quickly plan and execute leadingedge research in support of strategic land power dominance. 219 

authority for facilities revitalization enables ARL to maintain 

world-class laboratories. 

This authority, when combined with the direct hire authority, 

gives ARL the ability to attract, train, and then retain the best 

workforce our country has to offer, permitting us to provide competitive starting salaries and benefits on par with universities and 

most of the private sector. So, on behalf of my nearly 3,000 colleagues at the laboratory, thank you for these vital efforts. 

Within fiscal constraints, the Army is investing in modernization 

while rebuilding readiness and producing a more capable, leaner, 

and globally responsive Army. We will continue working with our 
10 

partners to rely on our S&T to develop the technologies that support the Army’s priorities. We will focus S&T investment priorities 

to provide the innovative technologies that close capability gaps, 

address emerging threats, reduce acquisition and sustainment 

costs, and change the nature of the fight. 

There are many opportunities to take advantage of, and there is 

more hard work ahead, but I believe ARL is winning the innovation challenge placed before us. But we need your continued support as we continue to evolve as the Nation’s premier lab for land 

forces. 

Thank you. And, along with my colleagues, I would like to extend 

an invitation to you to visit ARL, which is just up the beltway. 

Thank you very much. 

[The prepared statement of Dr. Perconti can be found in the Appendix on page 101.] 

Mr. WILSON. Thank you, Dr. Perconti. 

And thank each of you. This is remarkable; each of you were 

within the 5-minute rule. And now Kevin Gates is going to make 

sure that Members of Congress stay within the 5-minute rule, beginning with me. And so we will begin immediately. 

And for each of you, could you name one problem or impediment 

that you see keeping the labs from being more effective at supporting the science and engineering mission of the Department? 

Beginning with General McMurry. 

General MCMURRY. I think that our biggest impediment, when 

we talk to our customers, has actually been our ability to put 

things on contract in a timely manner. That feedback came back 

resoundingly from internal customers and external. 

We have taken steps to bring an external team in to look at our 

processes and figure out what we have to do to make that work. 

And we have begun that process of really trying to capture the endto-end, kind of, if you will, engineering or industrial process of getting things on contract. 

That said, things like Direct to Phase II for SBIR [Small Business Innovative Research] and those authorities that we have to 

allow us to bring small-business contracts in place quickly have 

been very useful, but the one biggest complaint from customers has 

been our ability to put things on contract and retaining contracting 

officers and keeping people. 

It is more than a problem of just contracting officers. They are 

key, but we also have to find a kind of a survivalist level of training for acquisition. Because it doesn’t matter that you are a lab; 

you are really focused on trying to make the same kind of quality 

decisions and preparations to put something on contract. 

Our researchers need to be competent at that, but we really need 

them to be better at—you know, to be researchers. So we need to 

get them to a level of competence to support that process well in 

a low-overhead manner. And so we are working that through a 

multiple set of programs. 

Mr. WILSON. And, General, if there is any legislative initiative 

that we need to follow up—because we have constituents come to 

us frequently with extraordinary innovation that would be helpful 

to small businesses, and however we can expedite them working 

with you, please let us know. 
11 

General MCMURRY. We will do that. 

Mr. WILSON. Doctor. 

Dr. HOLLAND. Mr. Chairman, I would say that you have heard 

an allusion to the issues of facilities, and modernizing our facilities, 

I would say, is a major issue for us. The ability to fund those, given 

the extraordinary priorities that we have for readiness elsewhere 

within the services and across the Department of Defense, the relative priority that science and technology would have against 

those, is a major, major issue for us. 

The Department has extraordinary issues associated with readiness and modernization of its installations in and of itself. So we 

have not been able to, thus far, crack the nut, if you will, sir, on 

issues of military construction, for major military construction. We 

have been successful, in my organization, getting some unspecified 

minor MILCON activities thus far. 

And that does put the importance of the opportunity to possibly 

aggregate 219 funding back in the game as a major source of possible funding for modernizing and recapitalizing facilities. 

Mr. WILSON. And we want to back you up too. 

Dr. Franchi. 

Dr. FRANCHI. Yes. First, I would like to add to Dr. Holland’s comments about facilities and ways to be able to do more both the 

minor and major construction at our facilities. 

As another example, as NRL works under the Working Capital 

Fund, that means we are a coin-operated operation, 100 percent 

customer-funded. And while I think we do world-class science and 

technology and engineering and we have a very dedicated workforce to that, there is a lot of frustration in being able to do the 

business operations, not from the competency of the people, but it 

is very difficult to retain contracting officers, supply officers, accountants, budget people. And that really slows the process down. 

And I think General McMurry alluded to that in one sense, but 

that is also part of our difficulties, as an example. 

Thank you, sir. 

Mr. WILSON. And we appreciate your acting leadership on that 

too. 

Dr. Perconti. 

Dr. PERCONTI. Yes, sir. So I think my colleagues have really hit 

on something that we all experience, and that is this frustration 

with speed and agility in the system. 

When you think about hiring, we have lots of authorities from 

DHA, direct hire authority, but now we get to hire people into the 

system only to be caught by things like security, delays for security 

processing, delays for hiring through the human resources, things 

of that nature, which causes you to lose, you know, very, very highquality candidates oftentimes. 

So I think, across the board, what you are seeing is, if we could 

streamline processes along a number of different opportunities, 

that would be very, very helpful. 

Mr. WILSON. We look forward to working with you on that. 

Thank you very much. 

Mr. Langevin. 

Mr. LANGEVIN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 
12 

Again, thank you to all of our witnesses for your testimony and 

for the work that you are doing. 

I have several questions, but let me get right into it. For all of 

our witnesses, please describe how warfighting needs and future 

requirements have driven investments and priorities. And, in particular, how are our lab enterprises closely connected with the customer? 

Dr. HOLLAND. Sir, I would say that the defense labs are remarkably connected to their customers. I will use my organization as an 

example. We meet routinely, perhaps monthly, quarterly, annually, 

with a variety of different customers of different echelons to understand what their requirements are, even going to the point of placing people directly in line with customers to understand their requirements very closely. 

We attempt very strongly to balance the short-term requirements 

that they will bring to us with the long-term requirements of 

science and technology to be sure that we are ahead of the requirements gristmill, if you will, sir, so that we are not working on today’s problems alone all the time. There is a strong connectivity inside the Army for long-range assessment planning within the Assistant Secretary of the Army for Acquisition, Logistics, and Technology, as well as the Long-Range Research and Development 

Planning process, LRRDP, that is ongoing at present at the OSD 

level. 

So there are multiple levels of planning. We work our plans each 

year against each of those requirements, working to align ourselves 

with those annually. 

Gentlemen. 

Mr. LANGEVIN. General, you are next. 

General MCMURRY. I think we are aligned very carefully through 

strategic planning documents all the way down. We have also 

maintain an outreach process with our major commands [MAJCOMs] where we are talking to them through acquisition 

sustainment reviews, also advanced technology councils. 

And then we link almost all of our projects to the core functions 

support plans that those MAJCOMs put out and the gaps that are 

identified in those. Beyond that, it is joint needs and urgent needs 

that we are really heavily focused on in the near term. 

Mr. LANGEVIN. Thank you. 

Dr. Franchi. 

Dr. FRANCHI. Yes, for our science and technology, our basic research, early technology development, we are well-aligned with the 

Naval Science and Technology Strategy, and that derives from 

higher level strategies. We have divisions that represent over 15 

different disciplines, and that means that we are working on problems that are part of and will be important to the third offset strategy, just as we have done in the past. 

What the challenge is for us is to see where are those areas 

where we have sufficient expertise, sufficient people power to do it, 

and emphasize those areas more, such as in cybersecurity expertise, synthetic biology, people who know about autonomy and cognition and autonomous and manned interactions and things of that 

nature. 

So I think we are well-positioned to address that in the future. 
13 

Mr. LANGEVIN. Okay. Thank you. 

Dr. PERCONTI. Yes, sir. So we work very, very closely with the 

Army’s Training and Doctrine Command [TRADOC] to look at future requirements together, both near-term and far-term. And 

much of what we do for the command is to really understand what 

the Army future warfighting challenges are and how we can bring 

technology to bear to support those challenges. 

We are also very much involved with TRADOC’s new Big 6+1, 

as they call them, the new capabilities that have come out of the 

Army Operating Concept Framework. ARL and the Research and 

Development Engineering Command has been a very, very important player in developing the technologies that will go into those 

capabilities. 

So it is a very, very tight relationship. We very much love to 

have TRADOC soldiers in our organizations to work with us side 

by side to really teach our scientists and engineers about what 

warfighting means and what capabilities mean. 

Thank you. 

Mr. LANGEVIN. Thank you. 

And for all of you very quickly, I think collaboration is very important in understanding what other capabilities are out there, 

what is commercial, off-the-shelf technology that you can leverage. 

What is your respective services’ current conference attendance 

policy? And, more specifically, who is the final approval authority? 

How have the last few years of limitations on conference attendance impacted the workforce, the lab, and, ultimately, innovation? 

Dr. FRANCHI. Yes, sir. Right now, conference travel still requires 

approval by the Secretary of the Navy’s office. 

We have worked to streamline the process in the sense of shortening the lead time involved. We have expanded the qualifications, 

if you will, for conference attendance from just being presenting a 

paper at a conference to presenting posters, being on committees, 

for technology managers being able to go and see what the state 

of the art is. 

And all of that has been successful, and we have had a very high 

approval rate from the Secretary of the Navy’s office. 

What it requires is—still requires a fair amount of paperwork to 

be submitted, and that is probably the one frustration that our scientists and engineers have. But we are able to go to conferences. 

That number of people is growing again. And so just deleting some 

of the additional paperwork would be most helpful, from the Navy’s 

point of view, or at least my personal opinion, sir. 

Mr. LANGEVIN. My time has expired, but if each of you could respond to that in writing, I would appreciate it. I know the vote has 

been called. 

[The information referred to can be found in the Appendix beginning on page 115.] 

Mr. LANGEVIN. I yield back. 

Mr. WILSON. Thank you, Mr. Langevin. 

And we have had votes called. We will proceed for Congressman 

Lamborn of Colorado, and then we would recess, with the goal of 

coming back around 3:20. 

Congressman Lamborn. 
14 

Mr. LAMBORN. Mr. Chairman, I am going to yield the balance of 

my time to Representative Turner, but I do have one quick question for Dr. Holland. 

Which of your four locations does the tunnel research? 

Dr. HOLLAND. Vicksburg, Mississippi, sir. 

Mr. LAMBORN. Okay. I would like to come see that one of these 

days. Thank you. 

Dr. HOLLAND. Very good. 

Mr. TURNER. Thank you, Mr. Lamborn. This is a just-in-the-nickof-time delegation of time. Thank you. 

General McMurry, you and Dr. Holland have both given very impressive commercials, if you will, for the importance of the 219 provision that allows you to use up to 3 percent of your laboratory’s 

budget toward revitalization and recapitalizing facilities infrastructure. 

Dr. Holland, you even state that you have not had a project funded with MILCON in recent memory, which I think gives us the 

stress of the need for looking for investment in our laboratories. 

General, you talked about the current opportunities of where you 

are trying to advance knowledge being in autonomy, UAS [unmanned aerial systems], hypersonics, directed energy, nanotechnology—all areas that it would seem would require both investment 

in labs and investment in technologies to advance that research. 

So my question to the panel is: We have, really, two aspects of 

this—one, obviously, to continue and strengthen the authorities 

that you have in 219, which has given you some flexibility to direct 

funds to these types of investments. But, secondly, how can we increase the competitiveness or your success rate in the MILCON 

process? 

And if you would, please, give us your thoughts on ways that the 

MILCON process perhaps has criteria or a process that does not 

give you an advantage, that disadvantages you, and ways in which 

we might be able to improve it, and your additional thoughts on 

219. 

If General McMurry and Dr. Holland could respond on that. 

General MCMURRY. Congressman Turner, good seeing you again. 

I would say that—let’s start with the 219. The project limit increase would be significant capability. I believe that moves from $4 

million to $6 million. That would change what we can do there. 

Otherwise, 219 is the—I mean, that is the crowd-pleaser within the 

lab. Everybody is very happy with the capabilities that that brings. 

With respect to MILCON, we have had some success. We had a 

project at Kirtland on our space vehicles lab that has been underway from last year. And we are—well, we have a submission that 

should happen in 2017, all things being equal, down at Eglin for 

a munitions, advanced munitions, capability. 

To improve our capability, it appears that the closer you are to 

the flight line and the more you are to hazard response, the better 

chance you have. What I have been trying to explain to people is 

that, for the labs, the facilities are our runways. You know, they 

are the things that allow us to do our mission. So I think we are 

trying to educate ourselves to better explain how the facilities impact mission. 
15 

And the reason I didn’t highlight that as the number-one issue 

is because, currently, our rating of what our facilities are capable 

of doing is pretty—it is okay. We can get the mission done; we have 

support issues. But as we look down the way, that is when we start 

to see them tail off in capability and the need to upgrade them. 219 

helps alleviate that a lot. MILCON will help more. 

Dr. HOLLAND. Certainly, the opportunity to implement the process of aggregating and, if you will, rolling over 219 funding to be 

able to bring funding from certain years forward, to be able to fund 

larger projects, would help this process. It would provide for an additional funding source. The actual legislation does exist. Our implementation process has not yet come to fruition for us. 

As for the actual MILCON process, I would say that the process 

as it exists today, for the sake of the Department, is not particularly flawed. There are enormous sets of issues in the Department 

that require aspects of military construction. 

Rather, if we are going to be able to make inroads for, in the case 

of Army—and I would not propose to speak for the Navy, but in 

case of the Navy’s issues, we would be in a situation where we 

would almost have to have a separate set of criteria or funding opportunity that would be specific to the laboratories to be able to 

cause that to happen. 

The Air Force has actually been somewhat more successful than 

I have been able to be, thus far, for funding MILCON projects. 

Mr. TURNER. Thank you both. 

Mr. WILSON. Thank you very much. 

And we are in recess. 

[Recess.] 

Mr. WILSON. Ladies and gentlemen, we will call the subcommittee back to order. And my other colleagues, I am confident, are racing across Capitol Hill as we speak. 

And as we are awaiting others to proceed, a question for each of 

you that would be important: Could the labs play a bigger role in 

training future workforces for emerging technologies like cyber, autonomy, or quantum technologies? 

General. 

General MCMURRY. I think that we can contribute to a training 

environment; I don’t know that we are the best training ground. I 

think that there is no doubt that we can contribute to doing that. 

I do think that, as we move into those new technologies, we will 

likely draw on lab expertise to figure out how to set up education 

and training and build that expertise. That is more across the 

force, but that is kind of where I come down on that, sir. 

Mr. WILSON. And Doctor. 

Dr. HOLLAND. Mr. Chairman, I believe that if we could set the 

right conditions, I believe the answer is very much ‘‘yes’’ to that. 

Within the work that we are able to do within the science, technology, engineering, and mathematics communities, particularly for 

K through 12 activities and even within the college realm, if we 

were able to continue to get some funding for these activities to 

work with younger students to get them engaged in these efforts, 

to hold summertime activities with them to introduce them to the 

types of opportunities and facilities that we have, many of our people are remarkably passionate about having the chance to share 
16 

these types of opportunities. And so, at that level, I think we could 

be extremely successful. 

Mr. WILSON. And you are probably already doing this, but I am 

really grateful the Savannah River National Laboratory is in the 

district I represent. And they have internships and programs with 

the local technical college to provide opportunities for shadowing— 

and I am sure you all probably already do that, but I—and then 

promoting STEM programs, as you mentioned, at every level. 

So thank you very much. 

And Dr. Franchi. 

Dr. FRANCHI. Yes, at NRL, we have several programs. We have 

the Science and Engineering Apprenticeship Program for 10 weeks 

in the summer. A very diverse community comes to that. We have 

the Naval Research and Engineering Internship Program, which is 

sponsored by the Office of Naval Research—similar. We engage 

with high schools in the area very much to encourage regular students coming in. 

I think two things. I think one is for management to encourage 

more of our workforce to be mentors, because it does take time. 

And, secondly, to perhaps have a source of funding for that mentorship, since we are working for customers on reimbursable orders, 

and I think a lot of our scientists and engineers give more than 

their—way more than their 40 hours as it is. And it is not that 

they don’t want to do it, but they feel sometimes it is difficult to 

trade that off over what our customer is working for. 

Mr. WILSON. Thank you. 

And Dr. Perconti. 

Dr. PERCONTI. Yes, sir. So it is absolutely vital for us to bring 

students in at the earliest age, K through 12 in particular. If you 

can hook them when they are young, then they want to move into 

S&T as a profession. So we work very hard to make sure that we 

have programs available for—STEM programs available for K 

through 12. 

The Army has a wonderful program called eCYBERMISSION 

that allows students to compete in computer sciences and cyberrelated kinds of activities. So, very, very fortunate for us to have 

programs like that to continue to train the workforce. 

Mr. WILSON. And I am delighted to hear about the eCYBERMISSION. There is no question that the younger the person is introduced to these issues, the better and then the more proficient 

as they grow older. So I wish you well. 

And then a final question from me, and you have all touched on 

it, and it is regarding the sustainment and repair of existing infrastructure. And I am concerned to hear the age of 59, as to the age 

of the buildings. What more can we do to help each of you address 

this? 

And this time, we will reverse this way, with Dr. Perconti going 

first. 

Dr. PERCONTI. Well, sir, SRM [sustainment, restoration, modernization] is a big problem for us because of the reductions in the 

Army SRM budgets in general. I think that one thing that people 

need to do is recognize the difference between services or, say, laboratory operations versus the difference in services that are provided for generalized offices and the things like that. It is a very 
17 

complicated space that needs lots of planning and lots of maintenance and requires sustained investment to keep those facilities 

operating in a manner that is proficient for all of us. 

So I think that is a recognition that those services need to be increased, or perhaps we can then use other financial resources to 

perhaps use—if it is a mission-related problem, perhaps to use 

some of our RDT&E [research, development, test and evaluation] 

mission funds to actually take care of some of those problems. 

Mr. WILSON. And Dr. Franchi. 

Dr. FRANCHI. Yes. First of all, regarding SRM, we collect SRM 

in our overhead, I think, sufficient to do a lot of our maintenance 

and some modernization. It would very much help if we could do 

that with minor construction authority levels raised. I understand 

that is under consideration. As Dr. Holland said, being able to accumulate funding for facilities over years and then use it, that 

would be very helpful. 

And we are working very seriously in the Department of the 

Navy to look at ways to put more attention and perhaps funding 

into the military construction process. NRL in the last 15 years has 

been, I guess, fortunate, because that 59 years has been decreased 

by two very significant military construction projects—one, an Institute for Nanoscience, which has really put us on the leading 

edge of nanoscience and quantum. That was about 15 years ago. 

And 4 years ago, we opened the Laboratory for Autonomous Systems Research, which gives us facilities that simulate, emulate all 

of the environments that our warfighters—Navy, Marine Corps, 

compatriots in the Army and the Air Force—could take advantage 

of. 

So it is really continuing down that road as we move into these 

emerging areas where we have to put more emphasis would really 

be helpful. 

Mr. WILSON. Thank you. 

And Dr. Holland. 

Dr. HOLLAND. Sir, just to reiterate, the opportunity to have a 

greater understanding of the total cost of laboratory space and 

what it actually costs to maintain that versus a standard barracks 

or a standard office space would be a very helpful piece of information to understand. 

Secondly, anything that is done that increases our opportunity to 

modernize will very much decrease the cost of maintaining these 

extremely old facilities that we have. So, for example, even though 

I have not given a number, inside ERDC, our average building is 

over 41 years old. And that includes the construction of three new 

facilities in the last 5 years that we have been able to build not 

off MILCON but off of other resources available through the Corps 

of Engineers. 

Mr. WILSON. Thank you. 

And we conclude with General McMurry. 

General MCMURRY. First, Mr. Chairman, I would say that on the 

previous question regarding the training, I think the STEM aspects 

I wholeheartedly support, and I probably misinterpreted your question slightly. 

As we go forward on this, I really think the ability to do projects 

outside of MILCON is huge. I think anything that would raise the 
18 

level of—allow us to use 219, R&D, anything. The deferred maintenance budget within the Air Force is a big deal. I mean, we have 

really squeezed facilities in order to deal with the ongoing fight and 

modernization. So I think anything that gives us a little flexibility 

is fine. 

We are not the only ones feeling the squeeze on facilities and 

maintenance. And we know that the resources to do just routine 

maintenance are very stretched. 

So I will leave it at that. I think the others have talked very eloquently about it. 

Mr. WILSON. Well, thank each of you for your response. 

And we now will be concluding with Congressman Langevin. 

Mr. LANGEVIN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

If I could go back to when I was asking about transition of technologies to the warfighter, can you describe examples of successes 

in rapidly delivering game-changing technologies or capabilities? 

For example, a capability to protect against improvised explosive 

devices. What enabled you to ultimately deliver these game-changing technologies? Was it things like funding, for example, or authorities? What precludes transitioning such technology into systems or platforms on a more routine and rapid basis? 

General MCMURRY. Well, sir, I would say that the thing that enables us to solve that is actually putting the focus on it. That is 

generally the first thing. We resource it, we put it into—for us, we 

use the Center for Rapid Innovation, and they tear that problem 

apart and look at it as what is the real problem, not what is your 

preferred solution. I think that is a key step in how we deal with 

it. It is really back to that strategy-based look, but what are we 

really trying to solve. 

Examples that we have is providing ISR [intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance] assets—that is of Silver Fang—or the 

LEAP [Long Endurance Air Platform] aircraft that is flying over 

there now are pretty good examples of things that we have been 

able to put out. And we end up providing capabilities that meet the 

need as opposed to capabilities that meet the expected solution. 

And when we do that, we tend to do it at a lower cost and a shorter 

rate. 

The thing that prevents transition, it is hard to say, but I think 

it is really just getting the agreement that we are going to transition and how we are going to bring that into the operational fold 

and which service will pick that bill up and when. Because, usually, the bills aren’t that big, but everybody is so tight on money, 

just trying to figure out how to plan for that and a timeline is a 

challenge. And part of what I am trying to do is get that agreement 

up front. 

Mr. LANGEVIN. Anybody else want to comment on that? 

Dr. HOLLAND. Yes, sir. The funding aspect of it I think could perhaps be best shown by the extreme emphasis that we put on 

counter-IED issues through the Joint IED Defeat Organization during its existence. Because we had a very dedicated pot of money associated with that and an extraordinary need in theater, we were 

able to, across the Department, come together to bring a variety of 

technologies together very quickly compared to what we might 
19 

refer to as normal means, many times bringing very basic research 

into application in as little as 24 months. 

Admittedly, in doing that, we were also identifying levels of risk 

that we were taking that were levels of risk that are not normal 

for a normal program of record. But the requirement, that joint urgent need that we had, mandated that we take those risks at that 

time. And we were able to field a number of capabilities that we 

brought to theater that met a requirement for the short term that 

we had in theater, particularly in Afghanistan. 

Now, transitioning those over the long term then falls back to 

the process of working within our program of record to ensure that 

we are able to do that. And that goes back to the process, the triedand-true process, of working that through the system to achieve 

that transition within those programs. But we are fully capable of 

developing that integrated capability when the opportunity arises. 

Mr. LANGEVIN. And how do you coordinate to reduce our redundant investments amongst the enterprise, as well as to leverage 

lessons learned and investments made? 

Do either of the other two witnesses want to comment? 

Dr. FRANCHI. Yes, sir. I can add a few things here. 

I think it is at the bench level, principally, when we have our scientists and engineers across the DOD Laboratory Enterprise engaging with industry, engaging with academics at conferences, 

meetings, other venues. That is where we learn what the capabilities are. 

And then it is incumbent on them and their managers to say, 

okay, are we doing the same type of work? And, if so, if it is complementary or even duplicative in the sense of taking a different 

approach, that is good, because that is how we learn. And so I 

think that is one way to reduce the concern about redundancy. 

I would also like to comment on your first question, if I may, 

Congressman. 

Mr. LANGEVIN. Sure. 

Dr. FRANCHI. You asked what enables, sort of, rapid responses to 

capabilities. I think it is the sustained investment over many years 

of science and technology at your defense laboratories. Because we 

often have the technology on the shelf, but not until there is an urgent need for it does it come forward. And it is either a technology 

we have or a technology that we can adapt in a reasonable amount 

of time to meet a need. 

And so, in that sense, it is transitioning to today’s warfighting 

needs, the urgent needs. But I think processes that would allow us 

to look further into the future and transition warfighting capabilities from our science and technology that may not be as urgent 

today but might be in 5 or 10 years. 

Dr. PERCONTI. Sir, if I may add, I think that the Department has 

the communities of interest, which is run by ASD(R&E) [Assistant 

Secretary of Defense for Research and Engineering], where the 

three services come together to really look at our programs across 

a number of disciplines to ensure that we are aligned, to ensure 

that redundancies in those programs are reduced or eliminated, 

and to ensure that we are leveraging the resources to the best of 

abilities across our program. 
20 

This has been very, very effective in bringing the three services 

together to make sure—everyone has slightly different requirements, but many times, particularly at the component level, those 

technologies are leveraged. 

Mr. LANGEVIN. Very good. 

Well, thank you very much. With that, I will yield back the balance of my time. I appreciate you all being here and the work that 

you are doing. 

Mr. WILSON. Thank you, Mr. Langevin. 

I would like to thank Kevin Gates again for his leadership on the 

committee. We have a terrific professional staff that are available 

to you. And, each of you, thank you for your service on behalf of 

our country. 

We are now adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 4:00 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.] 
A P P E N D I X 

SEPTEMBER 28, 2016 

PREPARED STATEMENTS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD 

SEPTEMBER 28, 2016 

(25) 
26 
27 
28 
29 
30 
31 
32 
33 
34 
35 
36 
37 
38 
39 
40 
41 
42 
43 
44 
45 
46 
47 
48 
49 
50 
51 
52 
53 
54 
55 
56 
57 
58 
59 
60 
61 
62 
63 
64 
65 
66 
67 
68 
69 
70 
71 
72 
73 
74 
75 
76 
77 
78 
79 
80 
81 
82 
83 
84 
85 
86 
87 
88 
89 
90 
91 
92 
93 
94 
95 
96 
97 
98 
99 
100 
101 
102 
103 
104 
105 
106 
107 
108 
109 
110 
111 

WITNESS RESPONSES TO QUESTIONS ASKED DURING 

THE HEARING 

SEPTEMBER 28, 2016 

(115) 

RESPONSES TO QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MR. LANGEVIN 

General MCMURRY. AFRL conference attendance is now delegated to supervisory 

level approval. June 2016 Guidance empowers leadership to make the best decision 

at the optimum levels for employees and members to attend science and technology 

conferences. AFRL has experienced a savings of over 700+ man-hours due to not 

having to complete travel packages each time someone wants to attend a conference. 

Quicker and more appropriate approval authority—now at the level in which the 

approver is very aware of the benefits to the organization. In addition to the obvious 

benefit of giving our S&Es a chance to excel at their jobs, a significant secondary 

benefit is the re-establishment of some level of trust that our S&Es and their supervisors are able to figure out for themselves which conferences they should and can 

afford to attend. This in turn supports the organization’s mission and allows for professional growth of S&Es. Our S&Es and their immediate supervisors can again 

manage to their budgets and requirements. An additional benefit to the government 

is the S&Es ability to book travel earlier, which in some cases allows them to take 

advantage of lower travel costs, leading to cost savings to the government. Attendance by our AF SMEs at these S&T conferences is necessary in order to maintain 

and advance the leading/cutting edge of technology to support the AF warfighters. 

However, despite the tremendous improvements made to attend Non-DOD Hosted 

conferences, the approval process for DOD-Hosted conferences over $100K continues 

to be burdensome and time-consuming. AF Conference Business Rules added that 

all co-sponsored conferences that have 50% or more government speakers be approved by SAF/AA. This policy has no dollar amounts, making any interchanges 

with industry and academia with a registration fee and scheduled agenda impossible. The approval packages takes months for the many coordination’s before it 

reaches SAF/AA. Small and low cost local events sponsored with non-profit organizations, industry, and universities should be approved (if at all) at the local leadership level based on the value to the local community as well as to the local military 

organizations. [See page 13.] 

Dr. HOLLAND. The current Army policy on conference attendance is ‘‘Army Directive 2016–14 (Army Conference Policy)’’ dated 4 May 2016. This policy establishes 

the final approval authority for attending conferences hosted by non-Department of 

Defense organizations (non-DOD conferences) based on the estimated total Army expenditures in support of the conference. 

This Army policy permits any General Officer or SES in the chain of command 

to approve participation in a non-DOD conference where total Army expenditures 

are less than $100,000 and fewer than 50 personnel within his or her purview are 

attending. This authority cannot be delegated further. Non-DOD conference attendance where Army expenditures are in excess of $100,000 or more than 50 personnel 

from a single organization are participating must be approved by the Secretary of 

the Army (SA), Chief of Staff of the Army (CSA), or the Administrative Assistant 

to the Secretary of Army (AASA) as appropriate. Attendance at non-DOD conferences exceeding $500,000 in costs to the Army are generally prohibited, although 

the SA may grant a written waiver. 

The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) conference policy supplements the 

Army conference policy and provides further guidance impacting Engineer Research 

and Development Center (ERDC) attendance at non-DOD conferences. At this time, 

the Corps policy is in draft form but is the operating policy as directed by USACE 

HQ 8 August 2016. The USACE policy requires me to approve all conference attendance of ERDC personnel (SES lab Directors do not have approval authority) and 

limits my approval authority to $50,000 total expenditures and less than 50 

attendees. The USACE Commanding General (CG) must approve conference attendance when we exceed $50,000 in total expenditures. The CG must also approve any 

OCONUS conference attendance. 

Prior to the May 2016 update to conference policy, the procedures for attending 

non-DOD conferences were considerably more stringent. For example, under the policy dated 8 July 2015, the USACE CG was only authorized to approve attendance 

at non-DOD conferences with costs less than $20,000. Requests with higher costs 

had to be routed to the AASA (up to $75,000) or the SA. In addition, previous poli-
116 

cies required lengthy request packets and record keeping requirements even for 

events with very low costs to the government. 

The limitations on conference attendance over the last few years significantly reduced the numbers of scientists and engineers attending conferences. The goal of reducing conference expenditures and conference participation was accomplished. Unfortunately, those restrictions had a significant negative impact on our ability to 

share and learn information from our colleagues in the scientific community. 

The lengthy, convoluted process, effectively limited participation of Scientists and 

Engineers who were invited as speakers or panel members. Our scientists were discouraged by the amount of time, preparation and paperwork needed to obtain approval to attend a conference. As a result, our conference attendance dropped dramatically. While our most senior and accomplished members were approved to 

speak at conferences, our new and young scientists and engineers had almost no opportunity to hear them or any other top people in their field. Non participation left 

a feeling of uncertainty within the Science and Engineering community and our status and recognition as subject matter experts and ability to grow innovation was 

jeopardized. Where we once were chairing scientific panels and had younger scientists ‘‘waiting in the wings,’’ our inability to commit to attendance in advance led 

conference organizers to seek other scientists and engineers to fill those panels. 

The Army policy that came out in May simplified the conference approval process, 

even with the additional restrictions of the Corps. Our scientists and engineers are 

now encouraged to participate in more conferences and they are eagerly accepting 

these opportunities. We have seen a significant increase in conference attendance 

requests since the release of the May Army guidance and those requests are being 

approved in a much timelier manner. I believe, with time, our scientists and engineers will be back to attending those conferences that will keep them on the cutting 

edge of technology and as recognized subject matter experts in their fields. [See 

page 13.] 

Dr. FRANCHI. A. Non-DOD conference attendance that cost $100K or less requires 

Department of the Navy/Assistant for Administration approval. Requests for conference travel are signed and submitted by the Naval Research Laboratory (NRL) 

Director of Research (DOR) to Department of the Navy/Assistant for Administration 

(DON/AA). Each conference travel request submitted to DON/AA for approval by the 

DOR requires: 1) Conference Request Memorandum—A required document by DON/ 

AA signed by the DOR certifying that the conference attendance/participation is essential to NRL’s mission 2) Conference Attendance Request (brief sheet)—Overall 

conference/travel details with a cost analysis (i.e. purpose of conference, value to the 

organization and how it advanced the DON mission, impact if disapproved, cost estimates and dates of travel) 3) Agenda—if available, or an abbreviated conference 

agenda. 4) In keeping with SECNAV policies and the ALNAV 046/16 (Ref. (a)) to 

be fiscally responsible, NRL requires that participation at conferences be limited to 

those with an active role. An active role is defined as: a. A traditional speaking or 

responsibility role at a conference (ex. Invited speaker, poster presenter, conference 

chairperson, etc.), and/or b. Participants will be attending relevant technical/scientific sessions in order to capture cutting edge scientific/technical information paid 

for by others for the benefit of the Navy and to more effectively shape the directions 

of their research, and/or c. Participants will be reviewing the research presented by 

other researchers in their field and will be seeking qualified peer researchers for potential collaboration as means of amplifying the products of the Navy’s research investments, and/or d. Participants manage large research portfolios and it is imperative that the individuals understand the state-of-the-art in the research fields for 

which they are responsible. They can benefit from research conducted by others so 

that they may more effectively direct their research programs to the best benefit of 

the Navy, avoid duplication, and identify potential collaborators or highly qualified 

candidates for hire. 

B. Non-DOD conference attendance exceeding $100K requires both Secretary of 

the Navy (SECNAV) pre-approval and approval. The SECNAV conference approval 

process consists of: 1) A conference pre-approval data call by DON/AA for preliminary attendance and exhibit costs. This is due approximately three quarters before 

the start date. The exact due date is listed in the Monthly Upcoming SECNAV/ 

UNSECNAV Conferences List issued by DON/AA. 2) Commands submit formal requests to attend the pre-approved conference (90 days in advance of the conference 

start date). 

C. Current DON Conference Guidance: 1) ALNAV 046/16, dated 27 June 2016 2) 

DOD Conference Guidance Version 4.0, dated 26 June 2016 3) OMB Memo M–12– 

12 of May 11, 2012, Subj: Promoting Efficient Spending to support Agency Operations 4) Conference Management SECNAV website: https://portal.secnav.navy.mil/ 

orgs/DUSNM/DONAA/CPEM/SitePages/DON%20Conferences.aspx 
117 

SECNAV is responsible for conference policy for the DON. DUSN (M) is responsible for implementing the policy and will issue operating guidance for conference 

management within the DON. [See page 13.] 

Dr. PERCONTI. The Army’s most recently published policy on conference attendance was put in place May of 2016, permitting the first Senior Executive Service 

supervisor in an employee’s chain of responsibility to approve conference participation outside of the Department of Defense for Army expenditures of less than 

$100,000 when fewer than 50 employees will be attending. When the expenditure 

exceeds the $100,000/50 employee ceiling, it requires the approval of either the Secretary of the Army, Chief of Staff of the Army or the Administrative Assistant to 

the Secretary of the Army, as appropriate. This new policy has greatly improved 

RDECOM’s overall participation in scientific and technical conferences. 

The last few years of limited conference attendance has significantly reduced 

ARL’s ability to lead and influence the scientific community in support of Army priorities, and has had similar impacts on other parts of RDECOM as a whole. Within 

ARL alone conference publications went from a high of 1,497 conference papers published in 2012 to a 43 percent decline after restrictions in 2013, with 848 papers 

published. Only 20 percent of these papers were presented by ARL staff as a result 

of the strict conference attendance guidelines. Several years of limited conference 

attendance has kept leading experts away from discussions about cutting-edge research that came out during that timeframe; it impacted the natural synergy among 

colleagues that boosts scientific discovery and it impacted ARL’s influence in industries where the laboratory typically leads. The drain on innovation is something that 

we are working hard to overcome using the Open Campus Initiatives to foster closer 

collaborations with academia and industry at the earliest stages of research. The 

most recent policy changes have made approvals for conference attendance quicker 

and easier, with more lead time for those participating. This has significant impact 

on Army readiness, both current and future, by allowing RDECOM to better drive 

the national research and development agenda to address Army and joint Warfighter needs. [See page 13.] 

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MEMBERS POST HEARING 

SEPTEMBER 28, 2016 

(121) 

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MR. WILSON 

Mr. WILSON. Can you tell us for the past three years what your time-to-hire is 

for each of the various types of direct hire? How does that compare in the same 

timeframe for traditional government hiring processes? 

General MCMURRY. AFRL utilizes the legislated Direct Hire authorities for most 

of our Scientist & Engineering (S&E) hiring, which does not require job posting. The 

Direct Hire authority has enabled AFRL managers to hire scientists and engineers 

in less than 3/4th the time of traditional hiring methods. In order to provide a comparison between Direct Hire and conventional hiring, we measured the date a hiring 

request arrived in the personnel office to the date of tentative offer to a candidate: 

• Direct Hire—11 days 

• Conventional Hire—44 days 

RPAs—Request for Personnel Actions 

DHA—Direct Hire Authority 

DHA–Adv—Advanced Degree 

DHA–Bach—Bachelor’s Degree 

DHA–Vet—Veteran 

EHA—Expedited Hiring Authority 

Others—Conventional Hire 

AFRL Direct Hire Timelines (FY14–16) 

FY14 

Hiring 

Authority 

# of RPAs 

Submitted 

Average # Days 

from RPA Initiated 

to Tentative Offer 

Average # Days 

from RPA Initiated 

to Effective Date 

DHA-Adv 80 28.9 65.6 

EHA 44 31.9 66.7 

Others 125 64.6 87.2 

FY15 

Hiring 

Authority 

# of RPAs 

Submitted 

Average # Days 

from RPA Initiated 

to Tentative Offer 

Average # Days 

from RPA Initiated 

to Effective Date 

DHA-Adv 114 20.7 60.6 

DHA-Bach 68 22.0 55.8 

DHA-Vet 2 16.0 60.0 

EHA 42 21.8 68.0 

Others 151 56.9 83.8 
122 

FY16 

Hiring 

Authority 

# of RPAs 

Submitted 

Average # Days 

from RPA Initiated 

to Tentative Offer 

Average # Days 

from RPA Initiated 

to Effective Date 

DHA-Adv 111 15.6 63.9 

DHA-Bach 53 17.2 60.9 

DHA-Vet 3 34.2 63.3 

EHA 40 37.5 76.1 

Others 136 66.3 87.4 

Mr. WILSON. This committee has sponsored and the Congress has passed numerous personnel management authorities for the laboratories. The implementation of 

many of these authorities, such as the direct hire for students from the FY15 

NDAA, are still undergoing administrative review and have not been implemented. 

From your perspective, what is causing such long delays in implementation? 

What impact are these long delays having on lab operations? 

The office of the Under Secretary for Personnel and Readiness P&R is responsible 

for implementing these workforce authorities. Do you feel like P&R is placing sufficient focus or attention on these laboratory workforce issues? What more could or 

should they be doing? 

General MCMURRY. We appreciate the work of Congress to provide continued improvements in personnel authorities. These authorities allow AFRL to be as competitive as possible with industry in attracting top scientists and engineers. AFRL 

is working with OUSD(P&R) to use all of these authorities provided us to their full 

extent. Unfortunately there have been very long delays in obtaining many of our 

legislated authorities. The reason appears to be the fact that OUSD(P&R) no longer 

has a dedicated office to manage the alternative personnel systems (demonstration 

projects).. This coupled with significant internal review, to include Office of General 

Counsel review on most actions, and conflicting guidance, has hampered timely implementation of these authorities. 

The delay in approving the legislated student direct hire authority delayed 

AFRL’s plans to establish a robust student hiring plan during the CY16 student hiring timeframe. Past STEM student hiring has been minimal due to quality of applicants, missing documentation that disqualifies qualified applicants, inability to target specific schools, etc. associated with the Pathways program. Through our K–12 

STEM Outreach efforts we are establishing an apprenticeship program that will 

place high school students with technical mentors to accomplish STEM projects. The 

Student Direct Hire would provide an effective mechanism to continue these students through their college careers. 

AFRL had an individual who retired from Google, and was instrumental in establishing Google Maps, that wanted to volunteer with us. Our current Federal Register Notice (FRN) allowed for retired military and civilians to volunteer but not private citizens. The lack of approval on a minor modification we requested in November 2016 resulted in a loss of this valuable, free asset. 

The lack of approval of the AFRL FRN for flexible term appointments and temporary promotions has prevented us from using these flexibilities. Considering the 

requested publication of the aforementioned AFRL FRN for flexible term appointments and temporary promotions was sent to OUSD(P&R) in November 2015, the 

AFRL minor modification to our Voluntary Emeritus Corps authority was sent in 

November 2016 and the FY15 and 16 legislated authorities have yet to be approved 

by OUSD(P&R), I would prefer the system was more responsive. A dedicated staff, 

a definitive determination when a FRN is needed and a clear, concise process for 

approval of demonstration project and legislative authorities would be helpful. 

Mr. WILSON. Can you tell us for the past three years what your time-to-hire is 

for each of the various types of direct hire? How does that compare in the same 

timeframe for traditional government hiring processes? 

Dr. HOLLAND. For the past three years, the U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development Center (ERDC) has been able to use its Direct Hire Authorities (DHA) 

to reduce the time it takes to successfully recruit in the Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics (STEM) fields by over 50 percent. The majority of ERDC’s 
123 

new Direct Hires are graduating students in the science and engineering fields, and 

an important factor in the successful recruitment of these students is getting a job 

offer commitment early in the academic year before graduation. Therefore, the most 

telling measure of the positive DHA impact is the ‘‘Initiation to Commit’’ time, 

which is a measure of the time between the first steps in the recruit action until 

the recruit accepts a tentative job offer (pending their graduation in good standing). 

The average commit times for the last three fiscal years are 21.3 days for ERDC’s 

DHA actions and 44.6 days for our traditional Competitive actions. This critically 

important 21 day commit time compares even more favorably to the U.S. Army 

Corps of Engineers (USACE) average of 62 days and the Army average of 81 days 

over the past three years for Competitive hires. It is clear that the DHA allows the 

ERDC to target and successfully recruit the best and brightest candidates available 

in the very competitive STEM fields. 

Mr. WILSON. This committee has sponsored and the Congress has passed numerous personnel management authorities for the laboratories. The implementation of 

many of these authorities, such as the direct hire for students from the FY15 

NDAA, are still undergoing administrative review and have not been implemented. 

From your perspective, what is causing such long delays in implementation? 

What impact are these long delays having on lab operations? 

The office of the Under Secretary for Personnel and Readiness P&R is responsible 

for implementing these workforce authorities. Do you feel like P&R is placing sufficient focus or attention on these laboratory workforce issues? What more could or 

should they be doing? 

Dr. HOLLAND. Management responsibilities in the Office of the Under Secretary 

of Defense for Personnel and Readiness (P&R) for Alternate Personnel Systems, 

which includes the Laboratory Demonstration Programs in the Science and Technology Reinvention Laboratories (STRLs), are not assigned to any one office in P&R. 

Previously, there was one office which focused entirely on Alternate Personnel Systems. This was of great benefit to the STRLs to expedite the publishing of Federal 

Registers, when needed. The current plan for utilizing personnel demonstration authorities, Department of Defense Instruction 1400.37, includes specific timelines for 

review of actions by the Components and P&R and is satisfactory to allow Laboratory Directors to utilize the authorities. We are encouraged that P&R is now reviewing this plan and hopeful of positive results to improve and streamline processes to 

meet Demonstration Project objectives. 

Direct hire for students is a very beneficial authority that will allow us to immediately hire students without going through the cumbersome, time-consuming, and 

restrictive national advertising of these positions. We have robust outreach programs with local schools in four states and Educational Partnership and Cooperative Research and Development Agreements with over 80 colleges and universities. 

The ability to directly hire students will afford us the opportunity to promote early 

interest in Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM)-related 

fields to bring to bear the best talent to solve the interdisciplinary problems that 

we address. 

The NDAA 2016 includes provisions to assist in the reshaping of the workforce; 

specifically, Voluntary Separation Incentive Payments (VSIP). Not having this results in our inability to be able to quickly eliminate skills that are no longer needed 

and acquire new technical capabilities in response to evolving requirements. We are 

extremely grateful for the support provided by P&R to expand the scope of this flexibility to ensure full utilization of these authorities. 

Mr. WILSON. Can you tell us for the past three years what your time-to-hire is 

for each of the various types of direct hire? How does that compare in the same 

timeframe for traditional government hiring processes? 

Dr. FRANCHI. The average time for Direct Hire for Advanced Degrees to receive 

a tentative offer from date of receipt of RPA in the NRL Human Resources Office 

(HRO) is 2 calendar days. To receive a firm offer is 15 calendar days from date of 

receipt of RPA in the NRL HRO. 

The average time for Direct Hire for Bachelors to receive a tentative offer from 

date of receipt of RPA in the NRL HRO is 2 calendar days. To receive a firm offer 

is 13 calendar days from date of receipt of RPA in the NRL HRO. 

The average time for Direct Hire for Veterans to receive a tentative offer from 

date of receipt of RPA in the NRL HRO is 13 calendar days. To receive a firm offer 

is 34 calendar days. The reason for delays include waiting for veterans documentation. 

Direct Hire authorities waive the requirement to publish individual vacancy announcements, evaluate candidates, and issue certificates of eligible candidates; 

whereas direct hire authority allows managers to submit name requests immediately after identification of a qualified candidate. NRL HRO reviews selection 
124 

packages to ensure eligibility requirements are met and makes tentative offers within three calendar days of receipt of the RPA. 

For traditional delegated examining used to fill NRL positions, it takes on average 

97 calendar days from date of receipt of RPA in the NRL HRO to give a tentative 

offer and 120 calendar days from date of receipt of RPA in the NRL HRO to give 

a firm offer. The length of time is increased because of the time it takes to prepare 

job analysis, advertise the position, evaluate the candidates, issue the certificate of 

eligible candidates, and interview the candidates. 

Competition for high-quality S&T candidates in private industry is fierce. Industry is often able to make job offers to candidates on-the-spot. Under traditional hiring methods, it could take 85 plus days to advertise the position, wait for a certificate, and make an offer and by then, candidates may have decided to accept a position elsewhere. With Direct Hire, NRL is able to give a tentative offer within three 

days of receipt of a hiring action in the Human Resources Office, and a firm offer 

is typically made within 15 calendar days of receipt of the hiring action which allows NRL to be more competitive with private industry. 

See below for S&T hiring statistics for NRL. 

FY 2016 EXTERNAL S&T HIRING STATS 

Type of Recruitment # Less 

than BS 

# BS 

Hires 

# MS 

Hires 

# Phd 

Hires 

Total # 

Hires 

*Avg # 

days to 

Tent 

offer 

**Avg # 

days to 

Firm 

Offer 

Direct-Hire Authority 

Advanced Degree 

N/A N/A 18 50 68 2 15 

Direct-Hire Authority 

Bachelor’s Degree 

N/A 17 1 1† 19 2 12 

Direct-Hire Authority 

Veteran’s 

1 0 0 0 1 29 67 

Delegated Examining 4 0 0 0 4 97 111 

† PhD was in different field than BS/MS (nonqualifying for position) 

* Average time from date recruitment action is received in HRO to tentative offer 

** Average time from date recruitment action is received in HRO to tentative offer 

FY 2015 EXTERNAL S&T HIRING STATS 

Type of Recruitment # Less 

than BS 

# BS 

Hires 

# MS 

Hires 

# Phd 

Hires 

Total # 

Hires 

*Avg # 

days to 

Tent 

offer 

**Avg # 

days to 

Firm 

Offer 

Direct-Hire Authority 

Advanced Degree 

N/A N/A 16 43 59 2 15 

Direct-Hire Authority 

Bachelor’s Degree 

N/A 28 N/A N/A 28 2 15 

Direct-Hire Authority 

Veteran’s 

1 0 2 1 4 6 22 

Delegated Examining 3 0 0 0 3 72 87 

* Average time from date recruitment action is received in HRO to tentative offer 

** Average time from date recruitment action is received in HRO to tentative offer 
125 

FY 2014 EXTERNAL S&T HIRING STATS 

Type of Recruitment # Less 

than BS 

# BS 

Hires 

# MS 

Hires 

# Phd 

Hires 

Total # 

Hires 

*Avg # 

days to 

Tent 

offer 

**Avg # 

days to 

Firm 

Offer 

Direct-Hire Authority 

Advanced Degree 

N/A N/A 18 41 59 2 15 

Direct-Hire Authority 

Bachelor’s Degree 

N/A 2 N/A N/A 2 1 10† 

Direct-Hire Authority 

Veteran’s 

0 4 3 0 7 4 12† 

Delegated Examining 0 4 3 0 4 121 162 

† Implemented 8/8/14 at NRL 

* Average time from date recruitment action is received in HRO to tentative offer 

** Average time from date recruitment action is received in HRO to tentative offer 

Mr. WILSON. This committee has sponsored and the Congress has passed numerous personnel management authorities for the laboratories. The implementation of 

many of these authorities, such as the direct hire for students from the FY15 

NDAA, are still undergoing administrative review and have not been implemented. 

From your perspective, what is causing such long delays in implementation? 

What impact are these long delays having on lab operations? 

The office of the Under Secretary for Personnel and Readiness P&R is responsible 

for implementing these workforce authorities. Do you feel like P&R is placing sufficient focus or attention on these laboratory workforce issues? What more could or 

should they be doing? 

Dr. FRANCHI. Thank you for granting these authorities in the past. Since 2009, 

NRL has hired 459 scientists and engineers and committed to an additional 43 hires 

this calendar year using Direct Hire for Advanced Degrees (405 hired/26 committed), Bachelors (48 hired/16 committed) and Veterans (6 hired/1 committed). 

When DOD STRLs received the authority for Direct Hire for Advanced Degrees, we 

were able to use the authority within five months of NDAA passage using DOD ‘‘implementation guidance’’. A Federal Register Notice (FRN) was not required to begin 

using this authority. 

When DOD STRLs received authority for Direct Hire for Bachelors and Veterans, 

we were able to use this authority within eight months of NDAA passage using a 

FRN. This FRN was drafted by DOD STRLs and together DOD STRLs and the Defense Civilian Personnel Advisory Services (DCPAS) finalized the FRN. DOD OGC 

determined that a FRN was required for these new authorities; therefore, the Direct 

Hire for Advanced Degrees was included in this FRN. 

The NDAA FY2015, Section 1105, signed into law December 19, 2014, gave DOD 

Science and Technology Reinvention Laboratories (STRLs) a STEM student direct 

hire authority (DHA). Over the past 23 months, OSD, in conjunction with the Laboratory Quality Enhancement Program (LQEP) Personnel Subpanel Lead, and Components, have been working towards issuing a FRN for this DHA. Currently, OSD 

is working with the LQEP Personnel Subpanel Lead and DCPAS to reconcile language regarding probationary periods and removal of student interns. Once a final 

version of the revised language is mutually agreed upon by the STRLs and OSD 

the revised final FRN will be sent to the Component and STRL POCs and the FRN 

will begin formal coordination for approval and publication in the Federal Register. 

Without Direct Hire for STEM students, NRL has experienced a significant decline in our student programs. In FY12 (the last year we were under the Student 

Career Experience Program (SCEP)/Student Temporary Employment Program 

(STEP)), we hired 171 students, compared to this Fiscal Year in which we hired 92 

students (a 46% decrease in hires). Student participation decreased by 62% (we had 

429 STEP/SCEP participants in FY12 and 161 Pathways Intern participants in 

FY16). Pathways requires an announcement and the ability to select the candidate 

from a certificate, causing a significant delay between the time a hiring manager 

finds a candidate until the individual may be hired, if the candidate is still available 

and within reach on the certificate. 
126 

Unfortunately, I cannot provide insight into the operations in OSD. All I would 

say is that the additional workforce authorities would be helpful for us at NRL and 

we are working closely with DOD and DON offices. 

Mr. WILSON. Can you tell us for the past three years what your time-to-hire is 

for each of the various types of direct hire? How does that compare in the same 

timeframe for traditional government hiring processes? 

Dr. PERCONTI. The average time to make a job offer to a candidate during these 

last three years using Direct Hire Authorities is 30 days, compared to a historical 

150 to 180 day-average using traditional hiring mechanisms. The time-to-hire decrease has significantly helped us to bring on student interns and post-doctoral candidates who bring fresh perspective and ideas to the programs at ARL. 

Mr. WILSON. The Army Research Lab has been advocating an open campus concept to try to better bring together commercial and academic innovators to work collaboratively with Army scientists. 

How is that effort coming along? 

Do you have the right authority and funding to support academic faculty to come 

to the lab and conduct collaborative research with government scientist and engineers? 

For the others, are any of you looking at a similar concept to help spur publicprivate collaborations? 

Dr. PERCONTI. ARL’s Open Campus business model has begun to foster a dynamic, cooperative science and technology ecosystem that links government assets 

with the global research community. Collaboration is centered on mutual scientific 

interest and investment by all partners. The goal is to lay out the technical program 

and invite experts in the community to interact, create transformative projects and 

reach shared goals. Open Campus started as a pilot program. The concept has since 

morphed into a new business model for Defense science and technology. 

Interest in ARL’s Open Campus continues to grow. This is made evident by the 

more than 634 researchers from academia and industry, including 53 from 20 countries, who have moved into and out of the Laboratory under the umbrella of Open 

Campus. One hundred ninety-five Cooperative Research and Development Agreement projects are active, and 195 additional projects are in staffing. ARL estimates 

that approximately $40 million of in-kind research has been performed by our open 

campus collaborators. 

The authorities granted through this committee help ARL to accelerate innovation 

by facilitating closer partnerships derived from Open Campus initiatives. ARL continues to pursue opportunities for Open Campus improvements at Adelphi, Maryland and at the Aberdeen Proving Ground (APG). At APG, initial plans are being 

explored for new Open Campus facilities for unclassified high performance computing, and facilities for Human Sciences, Sciences for Maneuver, and Materials 

Sciences. These new facilities are needed to establish a research park-like setting 

that provides a strong pull for collaborative foundational research at an APG location specifically supporting freedom-of-movement. The Open Campus vision to accelerate Army innovation, facilitated by proximity, using collaborative partnerships between government, industry and academia will not happen unless MILCON funds 

become available. 

Mr. WILSON. This committee has sponsored and the Congress has passed numerous personnel management authorities for the laboratories. The implementation of 

many of these authorities, such as the direct hire for students from the FY15 

NDAA, are still undergoing administrative review and have not been implemented. 

From your perspective, what is causing such long delays in implementation? 

What impact are these long delays having on lab operations? 

The office of the Under Secretary for Personnel and Readiness P&R is responsible 

for implementing these workforce authorities. Do you feel like P&R is placing sufficient focus or attention on these laboratory workforce issues? What more could or 

should they be doing? 

Dr. PERCONTI. ARL does not have sufficient insight into the office of the Under 

Secretary for Personnel and Readiness to report for the record what challenges 

might hinder the implementation of personnel management authorities for personnel systems such as the laboratory demonstration projects in the Science and 

Technology Reinvention Laboratories (STRL). 

However, certain circumstances and choices do impact the laboratory’s personnel 

readiness. The first is the lack of dedicated P&R staff to manage STRL personnel 

demonstration projects. This leads to a lack of institutional knowledge about the 

unique flexibilities and features permissible under the demonstration projects, 

which makes it difficult to hire technical staff in a competitive job market. There 

are also multiple layers of management oversight involved in staffing the implementing guidance. 
127 

Second, the implementation process guidance needs more clarity as it concerns 

the Federal Register Notice requirement. According to USD (P&R), Civilian Personnel Policy Office, a Federal Register Notice is required in order to implement 

personnel management authorities granted through legislation, rather than a 

memorandum that delegates authority and provides implementing guidance. These 

two documents are similar on the surface, but it may take around two years to implement a Federal Register Notice, while the memorandum may take only two 

months. It is unclear why a Federal Register Notice, versus a memorandum of instruction/implementation is required to implement legislation. Definitive and written guidance on this requirement will aid in the implementation of legislation. 

ARL has been also been negatively impacted in relation to student hiring. Authorities granted by the FY14 (manage workforce to budget) and FY16 (flexible 

length, renewable term appointing authority and other work force shaping authorities) NDAA, would lift existing personnel restrictions, and allow ARL to begin hiring 

a larger portion of the federal STEM workforce into flexible-length, renewable, timelimited appointments. Incorporating the speed and agility that would come from 

fully implementing personnel management authorities for the laboratory would improve the ability of the workforce to match its technical skill set with changing technological trends, missions, and threats, as well as to efficiently manage budget-driven reductions in workforce. It would also enhance the innovative capacity of the 

ARL by promoting flow of talent between the federal government and academic and 

industry partners. 

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MR. NORCROSS 

Mr. NORCROSS. Please explain how you separate the ‘‘inherently governmental 

work’’ you do in the government labs from work industry should do and how this 

provides for any competition in accordance with Better Buying Power? 

General MCMURRY. AFRL does not award contracts for inherently governmental 

services (IAW FAR 7.503). The degree of government involvement and expertise necessary to keep sufficient oversight and control of government operations varies by 

function and situation, depending on such factors as delegation of approval authority, complexity of operation, geographic dispersion of the activity, regulatory authority, and consequence of default. To preclude ceding governmental control and authority of Inherently Governmental functions to the private sector, AFRL conducts 

a risk assessment on activities proposed to be accomplished by the private sector. 

This risk assessment for the activity considers such factors as a need for informed, 

independent judgment, government oversight and the exercise of substantial discretion when applying Federal Government authority. This assessment results in a 

manpower certification which ultimately determines the activity as inherently or 

non-inherently governmental. The manpower certification is required, prior to contract award, for all activities performed by the private sector. Once the activity has 

been determined to be non-inherently governmental, the activity is competitively 

awarded via a contract. AFRL fully embraces the Better Buying Power competition 

initiatives, specifically in the areas of market intelligence, fair opportunity competition on Multiple Award Indefinite Delivery Indefinite Quantity contracts and reduction in the reliance of sole source bridge contracts. Through these initiatives, AFRL 

achieved a 96% competition rate in FY15. 

Mr. NORCROSS. Please explain how you separate the ‘‘inherently governmental 

work’’ you do in the government labs from work industry should do and how this 

provides for any competition in accordance with Better Buying Power? 

Dr. HOLLAND. The Office of Federal Procurement Policy Letter 11–01 of 2011 defines inherently governmental work and is the guiding policy that separates what 

we do from what Industry should do. The Engineer Research and Development Center (ERDC) contracts with the private sector and academia to support its Science 

and Technology (S&T) mission, in areas that do not constitute inherently governmental work. 

ERDC has a stringent review processes in place, with government management 

and oversight, of all service contracts, to promote healthy competition in line with 

the Better Buying Power 3.0 program. These business processes, in conjunction with 

its overarching S&T strategy, allow ERDC to ensure fiscal responsibility while 

meeting mission requirements today and into the future. 

Mr. NORCROSS. Please explain how you separate the ‘‘inherently governmental 

work’’ you do in the government labs from work industry should do and how this 

provides for any competition in accordance with Better Buying Power? 

Dr. FRANCHI. As the corporate laboratory of the Department of the Navy (DON), 

the U.S. Naval Research Laboratory (NRL) conducts basic research, translates the 
128 

1 Better Buying Power (BBP) 3.0 reflects the ‘‘commitment to continuous improvements in 

the defense acquisition system. Under the overarching theme, Achieving Dominant Capabilities 

through Technical Excellence and Innovation, we are strengthening our efforts in innovation and 

technical excellence while also continuing the Department’s efforts to improve efficiency and productivity that began under BBP 1.0 and 2.0’’ [ref: USD (AT&L), ‘‘Better Buying Power Fact 

Sheet’’, 2015. http://www.acq.osd.mil/fo/docs/BBP3.0FactSheetFINAL.PDF]. 

results of this research into technologies, and assists in the transfer of these technologies to other DON, Department of Defense (DOD), federal, and industrial organizations for incorporation into effective operational military systems. The successful transition of these technologies supports NRL’s corporate philosophy that a sustained and well-managed investment in multidisciplinary research and development 

(R&D) leads to continual improvements to the nation’s defense, helps prevent technological surprise by potential adversaries, and can lead to revolutionary and worldchanging capabilities, such as NRL’s pioneering contributions that led to sonar, 

radar, satellites, GPS, and, maybe soon, laser weapons and railguns. 

As a government laboratory, NRL is a part of the DOD’s internal technical capability—the cadre of government S&Es who perform R&D. Their hands-on expertise 

distinguishes them from the much larger acquisition workforce, which is the primary focus of the DOD’s Better Buying Power initiatives.1 These S&Es provide authoritative advice to the acquisition workforce, which is in turn responsible for managing procurement programs. The two communities serve a common purpose, but 

they operate within different environments, with different requirements and skills. 

Specifically, the DOD’s laboratories represent a critical and unique resource for 

solving the scientific and engineering problems, deficiencies, and needs of the Military Departments. They exist to achieve—in cooperation with universities and industry—a level of technological leadership that shall enable the DOD to develop, acquire, and maintain military capabilities needed for national security. This collaboration with industry and academia is productive and has resulted, from FY11 to 

FY15, a cumulative total of 75 new Cooperative Research and Development Agreements, 21 new licenses, 513 invention disclosures, 546 patents issued, 7,600 publications, 4,193 refereed journal articles and 40,857 citations. 

In particular, this degree of collaboration is vital because industry will not take 

on the full range of necessary work because many areas hold limited opportunities 

for profit, and specialized defense technologies often have little or no applicability 

to commercial products. In addition, R&D is expensive, the time to achieve success 

is long, the work is often very risky, and the payoff (especially from research) is usually not immediate. 

Mr. NORCROSS. Please explain how you separate the ‘‘inherently governmental 

work’’ you do in the government labs from work industry should do and how this 

provides for any competition in accordance with Better Buying Power? 

Dr. PERCONTI. As it applies to the U.S. Army Research Laboratory (ARL), the Office of Federal Procurement Policy Letter 11–01 of 2011 defines inherently governmental work as those items that guide program priorities. As it pertains to 

RDECOM, government officials take a leading role in managing, overseeing and performing research in areas that are critical to Army mission requirements, e.g. 

armor, advanced energetics, etcetera. Often, ARL leads in technology areas that 

have limited market potential or return-on- investment for the private sector. In 

such areas, the Army must perform in-house research to enable new warfighting capabilities and to counter emerging threats. ARL has developed a technical strategy 

influenced by the near-, mid- and far-term needs of the Army as outlined in strategic documents such as the Army Operating Concept and in the Army Warfighting 

Challenges. Within this S&T strategy, ARL has identified research areas in which 

it will lead, and those which are addressed either by collaborating with or following 

research occurring in industry and academia. Through ARL’s Open Campus business model, the organization is working even more closely with industry and academic partners to leverage resources and focus efforts towards Army-specific applications at early stages of technology development. ARL offers a variety of collaboration mechanisms promoting competition consistent with Better Buying Power 3.0. 

By focusing the Army’s S&T resources with this strategy, ARL ensures fiscal responsibility while shaping the technology investments necessary for the future force 

Æ