Standardization

The Importance of DoD Standards

to the NASA Standardization Program

GSA and the Standardization Program

Strategic Partnering to Meet Homeland 

Security Standards Needs

Civil Agency
Contents July/September 2006

1 Director’s Forum

3 Leveraging Standards in Support of Government Objectives

The Impact of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

on Federal Government Use of Voluntary Standards

9 The Importance of DoD Standards to the NASA 

Standardization Program

13 Environmental Protection and Defense

18 GSA and the Federal Standardization Program

Optimizing the Use of Voluntary Consensus Standards

23 Strategic Partnering to Meet Standards-Related

Homeland Security Needs

29 Keynote Address at the 2006 Defense Standardization

Symposium

33 2005 Defense Standardization Program Awards

Departments

37 Events 39 People

Gregory E. Saunders

Director, Defense Standardization Program Office

Timothy P. Koczanski

Editor, Defense Standardization Program Journal

Defense Standardization Program Office

8725 John J. Kingman Road

Stop 6233

Fort Belvoir, VA 22060-6221

703-767-6870

Fax 703-767-6876

dsp.dla.mil

The Defense Standardization Program Journal

(ISSN 0897-0245) is published four times a

year by the Defense Standardization Program

Office (DSPO). Opinions represented here are

those of the authors and may not represent official policy of the U.S. Department of Defense.

Letters, articles, news items, photographs, and

other submissions for the DSP Journal are welcomed and encouraged. Send all materials to

Editor, DSP Journal, J-307, Defense Standardization Program Office, 8725 John J. Kingman

Road, Stop 6233, Fort Belvoir, VA 22060-6221.

DSPO is not responsible for unsolicited materials. Materials can be submitted digitally by the

following means:

e-mail to DSP-Editor@dla.mil

floppy disk (Windows format) to DSP Journal

at the above address.

DSPO reserves the right to modify or reject any

submission as deemed appropriate.

For a subscription to the DSP Journal, go to dsp.dla.mil/newsletters/subscribe.asp

23

3

Front and back covers: Some images courtesy of NASA, GSA, and DHS.
dsp.dla.mil 1

Director’s Forum

Quick—how many Cabinet departments are

there? Can you name them? Can you name

their Secretaries? I couldn’t either, but I

looked it up on FirstGov.Gov; there are 15

departments. Also on the Cabinet are the

Vice President; the heads of the EPA, OMB,

and U.S. Trade Representative; the Drug

Czar; and the White House Chief of Staff.

Almost as interesting are those who are

not official Cabinet members: NASA, CIA,

FTC, GSA, OPM, SEC, CPSC, and USPS, just

to name a few of the most recognizable

organizations.

Each department, agency, commission, office, or

service has its own authorizing legislation outlining its mission and goals,as well as its responsibilities and authorities. In some cases, the mission

of one department leads it in a direction that

may create serious conflict with the mission of

another department or agency. Consider the possible conflicts among the Department of Energy

seeking greater oil exploration and drilling, the

Department of the Interior trying to protect precious federal lands,and the Environmental

Protection Agency trying to reduce opportunities for pollution, while the Department of

Transportation seeks to reduce our dependence

on oil.You can see that there is potential for

some potentially heated discussions. Or consider

the U.S.Trade Representative and the International Trade Administration (part of Commerce)

trying to enhance capabilities for U.S. companies

to do business abroad, while the Department of

State and the Department of Defense struggle to

restrict the distribution of vital national defense

technology.

You can go on and on making up your own

scenarios.The point is that we have a government full of departments and agencies that

sometimes pull in directly opposite directions—

so much so that you may wonder how we ever

achieve a unified federal government position on

anything.The tug of war is often healthy, the

varying opinions and missions provide a good

balance, and we hope that we usually come up

with positive solutions that respect each other’s

positions and ultimately do the best thing for the

American people.

Gregory E. Saunders

Director, Defense Standardization Program Office

A LITTLE CIVICS LESSON,

PLEASE
2 DSP JOURNAL July/September 2006

One area in which we have an opportunity to

diverge, but frequently find a way to work

together, is standardization policy.The needs of a

big buyer like DoD are dramatically different

from the needs of an organization responsible for

regulating an industry for safety or environmental purposes.And yet there are many times when

DoD’s standardization policy needs can be lined

up with those of, for example, the Environmental

Protection Agency through discussion and negotiation.Where and how does this happen? Well,

years ago, the Department of Commerce established a committee in which representatives from

all Cabinet departments,as well as independent

agencies, commissions, and other government

entities, can discuss standardization issues.The

committee—known as the Interagency Committee on Standards Policy (ICSP)—was formalized in the National Technology Transfer and

Advancement Act of 1995.

Chaired by the National Institute of Standards

and Technology (part of the Department of

Commerce), the ICSP meets at least twice a

year to discuss standards issues of interest to the

members.The ICSP’s goal is to promote consistent standards policy within governmental entities and to foster cooperation and communication among government, industry, and other

private organizations involved in standards

activities.

The ICSP members are representatives from

each federal executive branch agency.With very

good participation from the executive branches,

and under the able leadership of Mary Saunders

(a friend and colleague, not a relative), we find

that, despite our disparate mission responsibilities,

we often reach consensus on policy issues. For

example, the departments, commissions, agencies,

and other entities of the executive branch are

unanimous in believing that we need to participate with voluntary standards organizations and

use their standards whenever they meet our

needs. Historically, ICSP members have been

nearly unanimous in agreeing on numerous policy positions developed to advance the needs of

our standards community or address privatesector concerns.

When appropriate, ICSP members have been

instrumental in spearheading efforts to make our

public-sector views considered and most often

accepted in key standards-related legislative proposals. On numerous occasions, government and

legislative experts have worked together in close

cooperation to craft effective standards legislation

such at the National Technology Transfer and

Advancement Act.And while we all recognize

there is a formal process for seeking our departments’ or agencies’ official positions on legislation, it can be very helpful to those drafting

legislative proposals to receive input from a committee of government standards experts such as

ICSP members.

For several years, it has been my privilege to

represent DoD at the ICSP meetings.At these

meetings and in various working groups, I have

had the chance to discuss policy issues and challenges with many of my colleagues, sometimes

showing them how DoD solved a problem and,

at least as often, learning from them how they

approached an issue or solved a problem. One of

the most significant lessons I’ve learned from my

ICSP experience is that the bringing together of

divergent views, in the spirit of cooperation and

increased understanding, is one of the best

avenues for achieving standards policies that will

further our nation’s domestic and foreign goals

and create a universally supportive standards

environment.
dsp.dla.mil 3

By Mary Saunders

Leveraging Standards in Support

of Government Objectives

The Impact of the National Technology Transfer 

and Advancement Act on Federal Government 

Use of Voluntary Standards
4 DSP JOURNAL July/September 2006

V

Voluntary standards, developed through a consensus process led by the private sector, create substantial value for federal agencies in the conduct of regulatory, procurement, and policy activities. Federal agencies are directed by both law and

policy to rely on voluntary standards whenever feasible. Both the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA, Public Law 104-113), which was

signed into law on March 7, 1996, and Office of Management and Budget (OMB)

Circular A-119, Federal Participation in the Development and Use of Voluntary Consensus

Standards and in Conformity Assessment Activities, recognize the valuable contributions that private-sector standards make to enabling the government to carry out

its responsibilities. Equally important is the recognition in law and policy that close

interaction and cooperation between the public and private sectors are critical to

developing and adopting standards that serve national needs and support innovation and competitiveness.

The NTTAA directs the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST)

to coordinate these activities across the government, working in cooperation with

Standards Executives in executive branch departments, agencies, and independent

commissions—more than 25 in all. NIST leads the Interagency Committee on

Standards Policy (ICSP)—the committee that monitors compliance with the provisions of the act. The committee has been very active since the passage of the

NTTAA. Members have shared information on both practical and policy implications of the law and its implementation, and they have worked closely with OMB

to ensure full understanding of the resources that agencies bring to bear in carrying

out the direction of both the law and Circular A-119.

A Key Player

The federal government is a key player in the U.S. standards system.The more than

3,500 agency representatives who participate in the private-sector-led standards

development process have been instrumental in ensuring agency compliance with

the NTTAA and OMB circular. Even more important, government involvement

means that government users understand both the intent and the content of specific standards.The data collected over the last 10 years indicate real progress both

in active participation in the standards development process and in agency reliance

on private-sector standards. In 2005, government agencies reported using a cumulative total, since 1997, of more than 4,500 voluntary consensus standards in support of regulation.Agencies are also substituting voluntary consensus standards for

government-unique standards. Since the act went into effect, the cumulative number of substitutions exceeds 2,000.These totals do not include the Department of

Defense—the largest federal user of standards and probably the biggest proponent

and beneficiary of the transition to private-sector standards. By 2005, DoD had
dsp.dla.mil 5

more than 9,000 private-sector standards on its books to support the purchase of a

tremendous volume of equipment, supplies, and services. DoD case studies illustrate the substantial benefits, including millions of dollars in annual procurement

savings and more reliable supplies of essential equipment.

Government representatives participate in the activities of more than 400 standards-developing organizations, at both the technical and policy levels.This participation predates the implementation of the NTTAA, but it has been bolstered by

the act’s formal recognition of its importance. Many of the major standards-developing organizations, in terms of the number of standards in total and those used by

the government, have government agency representation on their governing

boards.These include the boards of organizations like the Society of Automotive

Engineers,ASTM International, and the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers Standards Association.The board of the American National Standards Institute (ANSI) includes nine government agency representatives, 21 percent of the

board’s membership.

Public-Private Partnerships

We are beginning to see more examples of the government working with the private sector earlier in the technology life cycle to identify and address standards-related needs.The Department of Homeland Security was a founding member, along

with NIST, of the ANSI Homeland Security Standards Panel. Such standards panels bring together stakeholders in key national priority areas to identify voluntary

consensus standards in existence and those that need to be developed.These panels

are vehicles for the government to make its standards needs known early and, thus,

bring the resources of the private sector to bear to address those needs.

The President’s call for electronic health records and a nationwide health information network led to the creation of another standards panel last fall.The Department of Health and Human Services, through its Office of the National

Many of the major standards-developing organizations, in terms of the

number of standards in total and those used by the government, have

government agency representation on their governing boards.
6 DSP JOURNAL July/September 2006

Coordinator for Healthcare Information Technology, commissioned ANSI to convene the Healthcare Information Technology Standards Panel in October 2005.

The panel is tasked with developing information technology standards necessary to

ensure that the healthcare system of the future is interoperable, robust, and secure.

The Departments of Defense,Transportation, and Energy have each contributed

to the development of standards strategies for technologies ranging from aerospace

to intelligent transportation systems to the hydrogen economy.The President’s Office of Science and Technology Policy has led the way in the nanotechnology

arena, working with private-sector interests to identify needs for nanotechnology

standards and the best venues for this work to be accomplished. Government and

industry representatives serve on the ANSI-accredited delegation to the new ISO

technical committee (TC 229) that is developing standards for nanotechnology.

Both public- and private-sector representatives also participate in the nanotechnology standards activities of ASTM International and the Institute of Electrical and

Electronics Engineers.

Looking Back and to the Future

Clearly, the NTTAA has been a catalyst for constructive change. As much as anything else, the act spurred a change in the culture of the federal government.That

change is very much a work in progress. Looking back over the past 10 years, we

can identify both key lessons learned and needed actions to take government standards-related activities to the next level.

One thing we have learned is that a number of federal agencies “get it” and are

making extensive use of standards in their activities.They have established internal

standards management systems and progressed beyond mere counting to more

strategic approaches to the development and adoption of standards. Not all agencies, however, have reached this point. And they will get there only if their senior

management commits to developing the necessary policies and to allocating adequate resources for agency participation in standards activities. However, senior

leaders are constrained by tight budgets requiring them to prioritize their investOne thing we have learned is that a number of federal agencies “get it”

and are making extensive use of standards in their activities.
dsp.dla.mil 7

ments.And the long-term value from standards participation is often poorly understood.

A job for NIST, working with ICSP executives, is to develop the high-level rationale to convince senior management that voluntary consensus standards advance

their agency’s mission—and that the benefit is much greater than the cost.The rationale must be supportable by hard data.To that end, NIST has held stakeholder

meetings to begin to develop the rationale for both procurement and regulatory

applications. NIST also is working to identify the most promising areas in which to

focus and to determine how best to communicate this information to senior leadership.This is still a work in progress.

A second lesson we have learned is that the ranks of federal standards experts are

being depleted due to retirements, reorganizations, and attrition. Losses of veteran

staff members drain “institutional knowledge” of the merits of using standards and

the somewhat arcane process involved in developing them.To begin to address this

issue, NIST recently developed and is now providing training for federal employees

who are engaged in standards. NIST is also in the process of developing a handbook for agency Standards Executives, so that they will have the information necessary at their fingertips to help make decisions about the use of standards.We are

also committed to improve information sharing within and among federal agencies

as well as with the private sector.To that end, NIST has created an Internet portal—standards.gov—to provide a one-stop, e-government location for information

related to the use of voluntary consensus standards.

A third lesson is that we need to enhance the types of data we are collecting if we

want to get at the real quantitative impact of the standards-related benefits realized

by agencies.Today we deal with anecdotes and single case studies.We do not have

the data necessary to support sound economic analyses to quantify the benefits of

greater use of private-sector standards. NIST is now laying the groundwork necessary so that relevant economic analyses can be conducted across the entire spectrum of government agencies.As a basis for determining the most relevant factors,

we have begun collecting existing economic analyses of the impact of standards.

Our goal is to have the tools and data in place within 3 to 5 years so that we can

produce the quantitative and objective analyses necessary to demonstrate the utility

of voluntary consensus standards for the government.

And finally—we are only beginning to scratch the surface on standards-related

needs, problems, and inconsistencies at the state and local levels.We have learned

that, in key technology areas, state and local officials are looking for federal guidance to help them with key purchasing decisions.
8 DSP JOURNAL July/September 2006

About the Author

Mary Saunders is the chief of the Standards Services Division at NIST. The division carries

out NIST’s responsibilities under the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of

1995 and provides policy support for standards and conformity assessment activities for

federal agencies. Ms. Saunders chairs the Interagency Committee on Standards Policy,

which is charged with coordinating federal agency standards-related activities. She is also

the government co-chair of the ANSI Homeland Security Standards Panel.t

The Picture in 2011

We have come a long way in the past 10 years in expanding and strengthening the

private-public standards partnership. And during that time, we have seen a fundamental shift in how the federal government develops and deploys standards.

Through greater reliance on voluntary consensus standards, the American public,

business, and the government have all benefited.

Now we need to raise the bar. Five years from now, if we are successful in further

embedding the principles of the NTTAA in government decision making, the

number of substantive standards-enabled accomplishments across the federal government will have multiplied. Following are several organizational achievements

that NIST and other ICSP agencies hope we will be celebrating in 2011:

❚ Each department, agency, and independent commission has a strategic management standards policy and implementation plan in place to ensure that

standards are integral to its decision-making process.

❚ Agencies increase their participation in voluntary consensus standards development efforts and, as a result, increase their effectiveness in meeting national

goals.

❚ Each agency actively coordinates activities related to evaluating conformance

to regulatory requirements to eliminate overlap and duplication and to minimize bureaucratic burdens on the private sector.

❚ State and local needs benefit from and are integrated into the practices of the

federal agencies so that the development of voluntary consensus standards

better address their technology needs.

Our successes should encourage us to do more—and to become more ambitious

in our collaborations. Over the next 5 to 10 years, we are likely to see more types

of strategic partnerships as both the government and the private sector identify

critical standards activities that will facilitate innovation and global competitiveness

while also meeting broad public needs at home for protection of health, safety, and

the environment.
dsp.dla.mil 9

The Importance of DoD Standards 

to the NASA Standardization Program

By Paul Gill and William Vaughan
T

10 DSP JOURNAL July/September 2006

The NASA Technical Standards Program periodically

gathers information about the usage of standards at

the agency. As its source, it uses the program’s NASA

Technical Standards System (http://standards.nasa.

gov), which supports the agency’s standards needs.

Over the past several years, about 54 percent of the

standards documents downloaded for use by NASA’s

engineering staff and supporting contractors have

been non-government voluntary consensus standards,

illustrating NASA’s compliance with Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Circular A-119, Federal

Participation in the Development and Use of Voluntary

Consensus Standards and in Conformity Assessment Activities, and the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (Public Law 104-113).

Another 20 percent of the standards being used at

NASA were developed in-house or by other civil

government agencies.The remaining 26 percent were

DoD standards.

DoD standards have played an important and key

role at NASA since its origin in 1960.The use of DoD

standards in the design, development, manufacture,

and operation of NASA’s satellites, launch vehicles,

and spacecraft has been particularly important. This

use of DoD standards continues today. The scope of

disciplines encompassed by DoD standards in use by

NASA is broad, as the following examples indicate:

❚ MIL-STD-810,“Environmental Engineering

Considerations and Laboratory Tests”

❚ MIL-STD-1522,“Standard General Requirements for Safe Design and Operations of

Pressurized Missile and Space Systems”

❚ MIL-STD-1553,“Digital Time Division

Command/Response Multiplex Data Bus”

❚ MIL-STD-889,“Dissimilar Metals”

❚ MIL-STD-1472,“Human Engineering.”

In addition to the current DoD standards, NASA is

continuing to use some standards that DoD has cancelled, for example, MIL-STD-973, “Configuration

Management.” NASA needs those standards for some

long-standing programs such as the space shuttle.

NASA also uses many handbooks produced by the

DoD standards program.The following are three examples:

❚ MIL-HDBK-217,“Reliability Prediction of

Electronic Equipment”

❚ MIL-HDBK-340,“Test Requirement for

Launch, Upper-Stage, and Space Vehicles,Vol. I:

Baselines;Vol. II:Applications Guidelines”

❚ DOD-HDBK-343,“Design, Construction, and

Testing Requirements for One of a Kind Space

Equipment.”

As with the DoD standards, NASA also is continuing to use some cancelled handbooks, such as MILHDBK-5, “Metallic Materials and Elements for

Aerospace Vehicle Structures.”

As is evident from this modest sample, the DoD

standards and handbooks used by NASA encompass a

rather wide range of disciplines—all applying to

NASA’s development and operation of satellites,

launch vehicles, and spacecraft.

The significance of DoD standards to NASA is further illustrated in a survey of NASA and military

standards on fault tolerance and reliability applied to

robotics.1 The survey noted that NASA TM-4322,

“NASA Reliability Preferred Practices for Design

and Test,” referenced the data in MIL-HDBK-217,

and it provided tables that further derated components for space use beyond the factors given in MILHDBK-217.

Another example of NASA working with DoD is

the use of MIL-STD-1553 in the design specification

of the NASA Flight Telerobotic Servicer project.
Another recent survey of standards downloaded

from the NASA Technical Standards System indicated

that NASA uses standards (including DoD standards)

for a variety of technical activities:2

Development of requirements for 

programs/projects 24 percent

Support of in-house research 

and development 29 percent

Verification of contractor processes 

on programs/projects 16 percent

Acquisition of parts and materials 9 percent

Proposal evaluation 3 percent

Education and training 13 percent

Other uses 6 percent.

In addition to surveying the uses of the standards in

its repository, the NASA Technical Standards Program

has identified engineering lessons learned and experiences with more than 120 DoD standards and handbooks. As a result, the NASA Technical Standards

System now has links from individual standards and

handbooks to the relevant engineering lessons

dsp.dla.mil 11

learned. This capability, implemented recently, has

proven to be of considerable interest among the

users of the NASA Technical Standards System.

Standards users can readily identify lessons learned

and best practices applicable to their needs.3 According to a survey, the lessons-learned information is

being used to support program requirements development, in-house research and development, and

development of education and training activities.

Standards users are also viewing the links to gather

information about the general content of lessons

learned linked to particular standards.

NASA’s use of standards can be illustrated by considering the recently completed Exploration Systems Architecture Study, which outlines NASA’s

approach to implementing the President’s vision for

space exploration. Key to this architecture are the

human and robotic lunar exploration operations for

the return to the Moon and subsequent missions to

Mars. The design, development, manufacture, and

operation of the Crew Exploration Vehicle (CEV)
12 DSP JOURNAL July/September 2006

and Crew Launch Vehicle are critical elements necessary to achieving the President’s vision. The first

flights of the CEV will be to the International Space

Station and are envisioned in the 2013 time period,

with the goal of returning humans to the Moon no

later than 2020.

All of this will entail dedicated engineering by both

NASA and its contractors and will require the application of many technical standards, both NASA and

non-NASA. Of the applicable documents identified

to address the technical standards to be used in the

CEV’s development, about 30 percent were DoD

standards and handbooks.They encompass disciplines

such as flight control systems, human factors, test requirements, explosive systems, logistics management,

electromagnetic compatibility reliability, system safety,

electronic parts, and environmental engineering.

Clearly, NASA and DoD will continue to maintain a

close relationship in the area of standardization, and

DoD standards and handbooks will be important to

the implementation of the President’s vision for space

exploration.This is noteworthy, but it is not surprising because NASA and DoD share many technical

interests.

NASA participates with DoD personnel on many

non-government standards-developing committees

sponsored by organizations such as Aerospace Industries Association, American Institute of Aeronautics

and Astronautics, Society of Automotive Engineers,

ASTM International, Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, and American Society of Mechanical Engineers.4 This enables both NASA and DoD to

fulfill the directives of OMB Circular A-119 relative

to government use of non-government standards. In

addition, both NASA and DoD personnel are involved in the development of the respective standards

prepared by each organization.Thus the exchange of

information on requirements and engineering experiences has benefited both NASA and DoD.This supportive relationship will continue in the future as we

move forward to meet the needs for the nation’s security and space exploration.

1

Joseph R. Cavallaro and Ian D.Walker,A Survey of NASA and

Military Standards on Fault Tolerance and Reliability Applied to Robotics (Houston,TX: Rice University, 1994).

2

Paul S. Gill and William W.Vaughan, Engineering Excellence and

the Role of Technical Standards, AIAA-2006-0573, Prepared for

NASA Marshall Space Flight Center (Reston,VA: American

Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, 2006).

3

Paul S. Gill,William W.Vaughan, and Danny Garcia, “Lessons

Learned and Technical Standards:A Logical Marriage,”ASTM

Standardization News,Vol. 28, No. 11, November 2001.

4

Paul S. Gill,William W.Vaughan, and Stephen Lowell,“Participation by Federal Agencies in Voluntary Consensus Bodies,”

Defense Standardization Program Journal,August 2001.

About the Authors

Paul Gill manages the NASA Technical Standards Program,

which functions under the direction of the NASA chief

engineer. Before becoming involved in the NASA Technical

Standards Program, he served as a lead engineer and as a

co-principal investigator in several engineering discipline

areas at NASA.

William Vaughan is a staff member with the NASA

Technical Standards Program. He has been associated

with the development, interpretation, and application of

technical standards throughout his career with NASA. He is

also a Research Professor on the faculty of the University

of Alabama in Huntsville.t
dsp.dla.mil 13

Environmental Protection 

and Defense

By Mary McKiel
14 DSP JOURNAL July/September 2006

H

How convenient it would be to have rules and standards so complete that adhering

to them would guarantee perfect health and a pristine environment, and would relieve us of the need to exercise continuous judgment, make difficult tradeoffs, and

keep up sustained action. As it turns out, of course, we have plenty of elaborate

statutes and rules—but reality confronts us every day in the form of new stresses

that challenge the health of individuals and even entire populations, along with

straining the Earth’s natural resources.

For that reason, there will never be an end to the need for reasoned action and,

especially, cooperation among government entities in a position to make a difference. That’s the approach being taken by the U.S. Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA) and DoD in tackling environmental issues. This article looks at a

few of the ongoing collaborative efforts by EPA and DoD to safeguard the environment.

The Environmental Protection Agency

An introductory word or two about EPA may be useful to readers of this journal

who are more familiar with DoD. EPA was established to consolidate in one

agency a variety of federal research, monitoring, standard-setting, and enforcement

activities to ensure environmental protection.The agency opened its doors in 1970

with a mission to protect human health and safeguard the natural environment—

air, water, and land—upon which life depends. That mission continues, and for

more than 35 years, EPA has been working for a cleaner, healthier environment for

the American people.1

On the occasion of its 35th anniversary, EPA issued a press release describing

some of the environmental advancements made in its short history. From 1970 to

2004, total emissions of six major air pollutants dropped by 54 percent.This is particularly impressive if you consider that the gross domestic product during that period increased 187 percent, energy consumption increased 47 percent, and the U.S.

population grew by 40 percent—proof that economic growth and environmental

protection are not mutually exclusive.Through restoration efforts, 600,000 acres of

contaminated land now provide ecological, economic, and recreational benefits.

Just last year alone, EPA and its partners took action to restore, enhance, and protect

nearly 830,000 acres of wetlands.

Defense and Environmental Protection Go Hand in Hand

EPA’s achievements are impressive, but we don’t work alone on all of this. States,

tribal nations, nongovernment organizations,and other federal agencies are among

EPA’s partners in working toward a cleaner environment. Right at the top of EPA’s
dsp.dla.mil 15

federal partnership list is the Department of Defense. DoD has a sophisticated and

proactive environmental program, the considerable scope of which is evident in the

department’s 2005 annual environmental report to Congress.2

ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS

Executive Order 13148, Greening the Government Through Leadership in Environmental Management, specifies goals that include full compliance with environmental

laws and pollution prevention as a strategy for compliance. EPA and DoD share the

obligation to implement the order, and both have provided leadership to other federal agencies on how and what to measure.

An Environmental Management System, or EMS, is a management guideline tool

for integrating, into planning and operations, goals that will reduce environmental

impacts and ensure compliance with laws.The idea is that if you don’t deal with

environmental matters systematically, you may be in danger of not complying with

laws, and you surely will miss out on most if not all prevention mechanisms that

can be a savings to the environment as well as your own resources. Pollution prevention and continuous improvement require the active and creative thought we

mentioned at the outset.There is no such thing as relying on the status quo in the

EMS world.

EPA is tasked with providing guidance to other federal departments and agencies,

as well as setting EMS in place for our own facilities. EPA is also tasked with tracking federal implementation. DoD has been an invaluable partner to EPA through

assistance in developing EMS implementation guidance and demonstrating

progress in its many facilities.

DoD has the lion’s share of federal facilities, so when EPA has to keep track of

EMS implementation, it would be impossible without lots of help from DoD.Metrics for reporting had to be devised, and here’s where DoD really contributed on

behalf of all federal agencies: in the interagency process that EPA set up, DoD

DoD has been an invaluable partner to EPA through assistance in

developing EMS implementation guidance and demonstrating

progress in its many facilities.
16 DSP JOURNAL July/September 2006

shouldered the burden of chairing the committee. This sounds deceptively simple—but remember that federal departments and agencies have different missions

and challenges, and that also goes for EMS implementation. Working with EPA

and various departments and agencies, DoD successfully steered the group to develop a rigorous and thorough system that agencies use for their own tracking, and

that EPA uses for the annual report to the Office of Management and Budget.

Numerous defense installations are reported to have effective EMSs in place. A

spokesman from EPA’s Office of Federal Facilities says that the metrics DoD

helped develop are more demanding than many initially thought possible, given

the huge variations among federal facilities.The result is that the Federal Network

for Sustainability highlights many DoD facilities as EMS success stories.3

COLLABORATIVE ENVIRONMENTAL TECHNOLOGY VERIFICATION

Another effective partnership between EPA and DoD is in the area of environmental technology verification (ETV).The purpose of ETV is to develop testing

protocols and verify the performance of innovative technologies that could improve protection of human health and the environment.A recent memorandum of

agreement (MOA) between EPA and DoD sets up coordination to facilitate environmental technology verification, reporting, technology transfer, and more, with

particular emphasis on environmental protection, pollution prevention, and waste

management technologies.4

EPA’s own Environmental Technology Verification Program is designed to accelerate the development and commercialization of improved environmental technology through third-party verification and reporting of performance. The Department of Defense is an ideal partner, because its Environmental Security Technology

Certification Program demonstrates and validates the most promising technologies

that target DoD’s most urgent environmental needs.
dsp.dla.mil 17

About the Author

Mary McKiel is the director of quality standards at EPA and, since 1997, has served as the

EPA Standards Executive. Before joining EPA, she was director of quality standards at the

General Services Administration for about 30 years. Dr. McKiel assisted with the development of Office of Management and Budget Circular A-119, Federal Participation in the

Development and Use of Voluntary Consensus Standards and in Conformity Assessment

Activities. She is a vice chairman of ANSI’s Board of Directors and a former chair of ANSI’s

Government Member Forum.t

The collaborative projects initiated under the MOA will be mutually beneficial.

The bottom line results will include improved effectiveness in environmental technology demonstration, validation, and verification, along with more widespread

communication and acceptance of the results of joint and separate projects.

OTHER AREAS OF COOPERATION

DoD and EPA have unique missions but work well together in many different

areas where our common goals include environmental protection and pollution

prevention. In addition to the areas of EMS and ETV, other mutual interests include “green” procurement, the environmental impacts of Chesapeake Bay activities (another MOA is in place), and environmental sustainability programs.

In terms of standards per se, one of the things DoD and EPA share is support for

the U.S. voluntary standards system. Both organizations are active members in the

American National Standards Institute (ANSI), its policy committees, and its Government Member Forum, currently chaired by Greg Saunders, who needs no introduction to the readers here.

Through ANSI and the many other standards organizations in which EPA and

DoD participate, our respective federal organizations help to translate environmental, technical, and emerging needs into language that becomes part of standards

used by the industries we work with or regulate. EPA and DoD are constantly

pushing forward in trying new and better ways to achieve our missions. Fortunately for the U.S. public and private sectors alike, we share at least one common

set of goals,and that is to improve the environmental and human health conditions

under our control.

1

For a more detailed account of EPA’s history, see http://www.epa.gov/history/.

2

See https://www.denix.osd.mil/denix/Public/News/OSD/DEP2005/deparc2005.html.

3

See http://www.federalsustainability.org/initiatives/ems.htm.

4

See the MOA on collaborative environmental technology verification at http://www.epa.gov/

etv/sitedocs/memo_agreement_estcp.html.
18 DSP JOURNAL July/September 2006

GSA and the Federal 

Standardization Program

Optimizing the Use of Voluntary

Consensus Standards

By Kathleen Baden
dsp.dla.mil 19

T

The General Services Administration (GSA) is responsible for administering the

Federal Standardization Program (FSP) by developing and disseminating government-wide standardization policies and procedures, and coordinating civil and military standardization functions to avoid duplication.The goal of the program is to

standardize items used throughout the federal government by optimizing voluntary

consensus standards or by developing Federal Product Descriptions (FPDs) and reducing the number of sizes and kinds of items that are procured. FPDs include federal specifications and related federal qualified products lists, federal standards, and

commercial item descriptions (CIDs).When used in procurement, these FPDs can

generate huge savings.

The origin of the Federal Standardization Program dates back to the recommendations of the Commission on Organization of the Executive Branch of Government, 1947–1949, also known as the Hoover Commission. A task force report on

the federal supply system addressed the subject of “standard specification.” It recommended that responsibility for federal specification activities should reside in a

“standards division” in the “central supply organization” in the Executive Office of

the President.

Those recommendations were implemented in the federal Property and Administrative Services Act of 1949, which created GSA and, within it, the Federal Supply

Service (FSS).This forms the basic authority for GSA’s management of the FSP.

Federal Supply Before GSA

Before the 1949 act, the military and civilian agencies maintained their own supply

and inventory programs.These agencies kept few if any records of what they stored

and issued from the numerous warehouses they individually maintained, creating

much duplication and posing a threat to both the national economy and security.

Reorganization studies, most notably the one headed by former President Herbert

Hoover, concluded that a central bureau of supply should be responsible for managing all government purchases.

Thus FSS was established as a central organization whose mission was to provide

an economically efficient system for the procurement, supply, and eventual disposal

of property. Its purpose was to eliminate duplicate functions, standardize product

offerings, and establish a professional resource that would leverage the government’s buying power in obtaining supplies and services.
20 DSP JOURNAL July/September 2006

To further define GSA’s role, the 82nd Congress, on July 1, 1952, approved Public

Law 436, the Defense Cataloging and Standardization Act.This law established a single catalog system and related supply standardization program, and it was instrumental

in establishing a uniform National Supply System. Section 11 of the law requires the

“Administrator of General Services and the Secretary of Defense [to] coordinate the

cataloging and standardization activities of the General Services Administration and

the Department of Defense so as to avoid unnecessary duplication.”

To further the National Supply System concept, GSA and DoD agreed in 1971 to

eliminate avoidable overlap between their respective supply systems.The “Agreement

Between the Department of Defense and the General Services Administration Governing Supply Management Relationships Under the National Supply System” divided the management of consumable items between GSA and the Defense Supply

Agency (now the Defense Logistics Agency, or DLA) and established the criteria for

this division. It assigned to GSA those Federal Supply Classes (FSCs) or commodities

that are commonly used by federal agencies, but are not predominantly of a military

nature, and are commercially available. It assigned to DLA the FSCs used in military

operations or weapon system support.

GSA was specifically assigned the responsibility to procure consumable items for the

executive branch agencies, including hand tools, paint, adhesives, office supplies,

cleaning supplies, furniture, kitchen supplies, and outdoor equipment. Most of these

products were procured using government-unique requirements included in military

and federal specifications.

Transition to Commercial Products

In 1972, the Commission on Government Procurement recommended in its report,

Acquisition of Commercial Products, that the government take greater advantage of efficiencies offered by the commercial market. Congress similarly directed improvements

to the procurement process by passing the Office of Federal Procurement Policy

(OFPP) Act in 1974. In May 1976, the newly created OFPP issued its Acquisition and

Distribution of Commercial Products (ADCoP) policy, which required agencies to

purchase commercial products and use commercial distribution systems whenever

such products or distribution systems adequately satisfy the government’s needs.

The focus of the ADCoP policy was to take advantage of the innovation and efficiencies of the commercial marketplace, to avoid developing government-unique

products when commercial products were available, and to prevent the use of government systems for distributing products when commercial distribution channels were

adequate. The policy emphasized the importance of knowing customers’ needs in
dsp.dla.mil 21

conjunction with the market conditions before drafting product descriptions. Upfront analysis and market research were key in determining the acquisition strategy.

Soon after the implementation of the ADCoP policy, the commercial item description was born. GSA and DoD identified thousands of detailed government specifications for review and recommended that they be either cancelled or converted to

CIDs. Converting them to CIDs resulted in many benefits. For example, when a federal specification was used to procure socket wrench sets, there was one bidder, and

the unit cost was $145.When the specification was replaced by a CID, seven companies bid and the unit cost was $85.The total savings for 3,000 units amounted to approximately $180,000.

Another outcome of ADCoP was the initiative to use voluntary consensus standards

in acquiring commercial products.This practice was strengthened in 1978 when the

Office of Management and Budget issued Circular A-119, Federal Participation in the

Development and Use of Voluntary Consensus Standards and in Conformity Assessment Activities. This circular established policy pertaining to both interaction with voluntary

standards bodies and the adoption and use of voluntary standards. Furthermore, it not

only stated a preference for voluntary consensus standards but also encouraged the

“participation by knowledgeable agency employees in the standards activities of voluntary standards bodies and standard-developing groups.”

Since 1978, the circular has been revised several times to include annual reporting

requirements and to strengthen the requirement to use voluntary consensus standards

and participate in developing them.

GSA captured the spirit of the circular by directing its standardization personnel to

use voluntary standards in whole or in part, whenever applicable. One such instance

was that GSA officially cancelled federal specification PPP-B-636,“Boxes, Shipping,

and Fiberboard,” in 1994. ASTM International Standards D1974 and D5118 were

cited as the preferred replacement standards for fabricating new fiberboard boxes, liners, and sleeves. Having a voluntary standard gave stakeholders, including commercial

industry, easier participation in the review process. Furthermore, the voluntary standard could be updated more readily to represent new developments and improvements in the packaging industry.

The National Performance Review (NPR) in 1993 and the Federal Acquisition and

Streamlining Act of 1994 reemphasized the importance of buying commercial rather

than government-unique products. (Many remember, during this period, the ashtray

that Vice President Al Gore smashed on national television to stress the absurdity of

buying ashtrays with a 10-page federal specification.) The NPR tasked GSA to in-
22 DSP JOURNAL July/September 2006

crease the use of commercial descriptions within procurements and to cancel and

eliminate documents that call out government-unique requirements. GSA responded

by directing its procurement activities to use more commercial standards and examine

the need to continue existing federal specifications. Before GSA’s NPR initiative, 54

percent of the documents cited in procurements were commercial; at its completion,

80 percent were commercial. GSA cancelled 30 percent of its federal specifications

and converted 36 percent to CIDs or voluntary standards.

During the 1990s, GSA continued to emphasize the importance of buying commercial off-the-shelf products, referencing voluntary consensus standards and CIDs, rather

than government-unique products. The advantages included greater affordability,

shorter lead-times, lower administrative costs, access to new technology, and a broader

commercial product line offering more choice and variety.

GSA’s Role Today

Today, GSA, as administrator of the Federal Standardization Program, promulgates

policies and procedures via the Federal Standardization Manual. The manual provides

guidance to executive agencies on developing, coordinating, approving, issuing, indexing, managing, and maintaining federal product descriptions. It also provides information on adopting and using voluntary standards. All executive agencies are

required to use this manual, which complements DOD 4120.24-M, Defense Standardization Manual.

GSA is also responsible for indexing, printing, and distributing all FPDs.Today, there

are approximately 6,500 such documents, including 4,943 CIDs, 793 federal specifications, 739 federal standards, and 28 qualified product lists. DoD prepares most of

these; GSA is the preparing activity for 287.

GSA continues to mandate the use of voluntary consensus standards when available

and encourages its standards developers to participate in voluntary standards groups.

When a voluntary standard does not exist, an FPD may be developed and used in

procurements. GSA’s goal is to provide the best value to its customers, by standardizing commercial consumable items.

About the Author

Kathleen Baden is the director of the Supply Standards Division of the Product Acquisition Center,

Office of GSA Global Supply. She is responsible for developing and promulgating governmentwide Federal Standardization Program policies and procedures. She is also responsible for

preparing and maintaining the Federal Standardization Manual. Before transferring to the Supply

Standards Division in January 2005, she was a market analyst in the Business Development

Center of GSA Global Supply. In this capacity, she was responsible for providing data analysis and

market research and for planning and implementing FSS marketing strategies.t
dsp.dla.mil 23

Strategic Partnering to Meet

Standards-Related 

Homeland Security Needs

By Mary Saunders
T

24 DSP JOURNAL July/September 2006

The American National Standards Institute (ANSI)

Homeland Security Standards Panel (HSSP) was

launched on February 5, 2003, in direct response to

needs expressed for standards and conformity assessment programs related to homeland security. The

HSSP’s mission is to identify existing consensus standards or, if none exist, to assist the U.S. Department of

Homeland Security (DHS) and those sectors requesting assistance with accelerating the development and

adoption of consensus standards critical to homeland

security. The panel also addresses related conformity

assessment issues.

The HSSP is a public-private partnership.As such it

has two co-chairs, one representing the government

(Mary Saunders, National Institute of Standards and

Technology) and one representing the private sector

(Dan Bart, Telecommunications Industry Association). Specific homeland security issues are addressed

via workshops.These workshops bring together subject matter experts to identify existing standards and

conformity assessment programs, to determine where

there are gaps, and to make recommendations for addressing these gaps. Further details on the HSSP

structure, participants,and documents are available on

the HSSP website (www.ansi.org/hssp).

This article summarizes the panel’s accomplishments

during its first 3 years of existence.These include the

production of workshop reports and recommendations, as well as less tangible items such as promotion

of the crucial role that standards play in the overall

homeland security effort and significant opportunities for networking between and among government

and private-sector security experts.

Accomplishments

FORUM FOR INFORMATION SHARING AND COORDINATION

One of the goals of the HSSP is to create a comprehensive cross-sector body of homeland security experts involved in standardization. Successful partnerships with various security initiatives have further solidified the reputation of the ANSI HSSP as the

place for high-level standards matters across the

broad spectrum of homeland security areas to be initially considered.The four plenary meetings held to

date have allowed HSSP participants and invited

stakeholders to meet, strategize, and share information on key homeland security standards issues and

efforts underway. Through the forum provided by

the HSSP, diverse groups were able to learn of complementary efforts and make contacts that lead to future collaboration and partnerships. Examples of

these collaborations are the combining of efforts for

security-related conferences and initiatives and the

participation in the work of the technical committees of standards developers.The HSSP also provides

DHS with a single forum to hear from, as well as address, the broad homeland security standards community. The HSSP secretary serves as a resource for

homeland security standards inquiries to provide answers or further contacts for specific standards questions and to connect people and groups working on

the same standards issues.

DATABASE AND CONNECTIONS WITH USER ORGANIZATIONS

The Homeland Security Standards Database (HSSD)

is a comprehensive source for homeland security

standards information.1 ANSI compiled this database

with input from HSSP members and support from

DHS.The HSSD contains more than 6,500 standards

categorized in a DHS-developed taxonomy. The

HSSP workshops continue to provide important data

to the HSSD in addition to submissions from standards developers and users. The information in the

HSSD will continue to evolve.

ANSI is also in the process of finalizing partnerships

with other homeland security online systems such as

the Responder Knowledge Base (RKB) to share and

leverage homeland security information.2 The RKB

is expected to provide critically needed guidance to
dsp.dla.mil 25

state and local first-response agencies that need standards for an overwhelming array of new security, personal protective, and communication products.

The September 2005 HSSP plenary meeting was

planned closely with the DHS Science and Technology Directorate to not only bring together the

homeland security standards community, but also facilitate contacts between organizations that identify

user requirements and standards developers.The user

requirements organizations that participated were the

Association of Public Safety Communications Officials, Biometrics Consortium, Interagency Board for

Equipment Standardization and Interoperability,

Council on Ionizing Radiation and Measurement

Standards, Process Control System Forum, and Federal Geographic Data Committee. This effort was

highly successful. Participants expressed a great appreciation for the meeting and the connections that they

made; they also expressed their desire to continue

working with the HSSP.

PROMOTION OF HOMELAND SECURITY STANDARDS

The HSSP strives to educate and promote the important role that standards play in the area of homeland

security. These key roles of the panel and homeland

security standards were cited in the Congressional

Research Service’s Report for Congress—Homeland Security: Standards for State and Local Preparedness. Panel

leaders have delivered presentations focusing on the

work of the panel and homeland security standards at

conferences, at smaller stakeholder meetings, and also

to individual organizations that are new to the

process or want to learn more.Through press releases

and inclusion in reports, the work of the panel has received nationwide press coverage in print and in online journals.

The HSSP newsletter and website are two means

for providing information about homeland security

standardization. The newsletter provides information

on homeland security standards and related news

items. The HSSP website contains resource pages

with links to further homeland security information,

including information on the panel and its workshops

and a meeting calendar to track and help promote

other events of interest to those in the homeland security community.

EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS AND BUSINESS CONTINUITY

In 2004, the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States,also known as the 9/11

The DHS Science and Technology Directorate has adopted a number of standards and guidelines to assist local, state,

and federal procurement officials and manufacturers. Included on this list are American National Standards from ANSIaccredited standards-developing organizations such as the National Fire Protection Association, which developed a

standard on personal protective equipment for first responders; the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers,

which developed a standard on radiological and nuclear detection equipment; and the International Committee for Information Technology Standards, which developed a standard on biometrics.

DHS Adopts Standards
26 DSP JOURNAL July/September 2006

Commission, asked the HSSP to identify an existing

standard, or create an action plan for developing one,

in the area of private-sector emergency preparedness

and business continuity. To address this request, the

HSSP organized a workshop involving stakeholders

from the private and public sectors. The workshop’s

recommendation regarding American National Standard NFPA 1600,“Disaster/Emergency Management

and Business Continuity Programs,” developed by the

National Fire Protection Association, was delivered to

the 9/11 Commission’s vice-chairman at an April

2004 event that received national press coverage.This

contribution was included in the recommendations

section of the final report published by the 9/11

Commission. NFPA 1600 has since been referenced

in national campaigns such as “DHS Ready for Business” and also in national legislation (e.g., U.S. Intelligence Reform Bill and the Private Sector

Preparedness Act).

In 2005, the ISO issued a call for a national body to

take the lead in the effort to develop an International

Workshop Agreement (IWA) on the subject of emergency preparedness. An IWA is an immediate ISO

deliverable that may be further processed to become

an international standard. ISO accepted the ANSI

offer to lead this effort, with the HSSP providing the

basis for this leadership.An international meeting was

held April 24–26, 2006, in Florence, Italy, to develop

the IWA. Meeting participants recommended that future work be done by the ISO’s Technical Committee

223 (Societal Security), with the proviso that the

common elements identified during the workshop

form the basis of an international family of standards

for emergency management and business continuity.

During the December 2004 panel plenary meeting,

the subject of enterprise power security and continuity was endorsed as an area to explore via a workshop.

The primary goals of the workshop were to identify

all the relevant standards and guidance documents in

the area of power security and continuity and to

make recommendations for addressing standards gaps

and conformity assessment needs.The workshop convened two meetings. Its final report, which includes a

series of key recommendations for this subject area,

was published in May 2006.

EMERGENCY COMMUNICATIONS

Communications in emergency situations are critical

for the safety of citizens and protection of critical infrastructure, as well as for response and recovery 

efforts.The HSSP emergency communications workshop convened meetings in December 2004 and December 2005. The workshop agreed to focus on

standards for emergency communications in three

categories:

❚ Communications from individuals or organizations to individuals or organizations (including

employer to employee, employer to employer,

and employer to customer)

❚ Communications from individuals or organizations to government

❚ Communications from government to individuals or organizations.

Government-to-government emergency communications are being addressed by other programs such as

DHS SAFECOM.

A breakout session on citizen preparedness, held in

conjunction with the December 2004 meeting, resulted in the creation of the citizen preparedness resource web page on the HSSP website. At the

December 2005 meeting, task groups were created to

identify the existing standards and gaps in each of the

categories listed,as well as necessary accreditation and

certification programs.
dsp.dla.mil 27

BIOLOGICAL AND CHEMICAL THREAT AGENTS

Biological and chemical threat agents are clearly an

important concern for the nation’s homeland security.Three workshop meetings were held on this subject. The workshop’s 400-page final report was

published in December 2004 and submitted to DHS.

The report contains a list of relevant published standards and projects under development in the areas of

biological and chemical threat agents categorized by a

subject-specific taxonomy developed by workshop

participants.

BIOMETRICS

Biometric technologies are key to homeland security

because they are becoming the foundation of many

highly secure identification and verification solutions.

In September 2003, a workshop meeting of subject

matter experts was convened to explore the area of

biometric standardization.The workshop produced a

report of existing standards and projects under development.The report also addressed five key issues related to biometric standardization and conformity

assessment and made recommendations for addressing

these issues.

DHS adopted American National Standard INCITS

385-2004, “Information Technology: Face Recognition Format for Data Interchange,” which was developed by the International Committee for

Information Technology Standards. The standard is

designed to be consistent with international standards

for biometrics used in such applications as travel documents.This standard will also be used to specify definitions of photographic properties and digital image

attributes and as a standard format for relevant applications, including human examination and computer-automated face recognition.

INTERNATIONAL SECURITY INITIATIVES

The ISO and International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC) Strategic Advisory Group (SAG) on

security oversees ISO and IEC standardization activities in the field of security, provides advice and guidance to ISO and IEC leadership bodies relative to the

coordination of work relevant to security, and identifies areas in which new standardization initiatives may

be warranted. ANSI provides the chairman for the 

SAG, and the HSSP steering committee serves as the

body to provide inputs to the U.S. representatives.

The United States plays an active role in this international body. Recently (November 2005 and April

2006), SAG met to examine key aspects of international security standardization.

Recognizing that security standardization is a global

effort, the HSSP has incorporated international outreach into its activities. In addition to the ISO/IEC

initiative,HSSP has forged a partnership with the European Committee for Standardization and its working group on Protection and Security of the Citizen.

Recognizing that security standardization is a global effort,

the HSSP has incorporated international outreach into its

activities.
28 DSP JOURNAL July/September 2006

Representatives of the European Telecommunications

Standards Institute have participated in HSSP plenary

meetings and workshops.

In 2005, the HSSP reached a formal agreement with

Australia’s National Centre for Security Standards

(NCSS) to cooperate on security standards issues.

Under the agreement, the HSSP and NCSS will collaborate to create an integrated security standards

framework that will help concerned parties find useful and relevant guidance materials. Providing for an

open dialogue between the two organizations, the

agreement allows for the exchange of information related to identifying industry and community needs or

trends for security standards.The HSSP has also had

representatives from other national standards organizations, such as Canada, Israel,and Japan, participating

in its work.

Looking Forward

Entering its fourth year of existence, the ANSI HSSP

expects to continue the momentum established during its first 3 years as it examines the vast landscape of

homeland security standardization. The importance

of this effort is evidenced by the reference in ANSI’s

United States Standards Strategy—an updated version

of National Standards Strategy for the United States and

approved by the ANSI Board of Directors on December 8, 2005—to the importance of standards coordination in areas of emerging national priorities

such as homeland security.

At the September 2005 ANSI HSSP plenary meeting, participants proposed a number of potential new

areas of exploration. It was agreed that in 2006, workshops would be convened in the areas of lessons

learned from Hurricane Katrina and the role for standards and conformity assessment programs in prevention, response and recovery, and mass/public

transportation security.

Much progress has been made in the area of homeland security standardization, but there is a great

amount of work left to be done as ANSI and the

HSSP continue to support this critical national priority.

1

For more information about the Homeland Security Standards Database, see www.hssd.us.

2

For more information about the Responder Knowledge Base,

see www.rkb.mipt.org.

About the Author

Mary Saunders is the chief of the Standards Services

Division at the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST). The division carries out NIST’s responsibilities

under the National Technology Transfer and Advancement

Act of 1995 and provides policy support for standards and

conformity assessment activities for federal agencies. Ms.

Saunders chairs the Interagency Committee on Standards

Policy, which is charged with coordinating federal agency

standards-related activities. She is also the government cochair of the ANSI Homeland Security Standards Panel.t
dsp.dla.mil 29

Good morning. It’s a pleasure to be here today to share some of my thoughts with

you on the importance of standardization and standards in the Department of

Defense now and in the future.

Standardization is something that we tend to take for granted. In our everyday

lives, we would be surprised to buy a hair dryer, television, or personal computer

and discover that the electrical plug did not fit into an outlet or operate off the

current coming from that outlet. But take that same item to Europe and try to

plug it in an electrical socket, and you quickly begin to appreciate the importance

of standardization.

While standardization has been important to the United States military since the

very beginning of our Nation, it has taken on new and heightened sense of

importance and direction during

the last five years during both

Operation Enduring Freedom

and Operation Iraqi Freedom.

The stunning success of both 

the military campaigns in

Afghanistan and Iraq will be seen

by historians as the first full scale

demonstration of the power of

information age warfighting

strategies and techniques. Such

success, however, would not have

been possible without the standards that you in this room have

helped develop.

During Operation Enduring

Freedom, the U.S. Navy’s

Commander Task Force 50 led

Keynote Address for 2006 Defense

Standardization Symposium

The following is the keynote address presented by Mr. James Hall, Assistant

Deputy Under Secretary of Defense (Logistics Plans and Programs) (Acting),

at the Defense Standardization Program Conference held on May 23, 2006.

James Hall

Assistant Deputy Under Secretary of Defense

(Logistics Plans and Programs)
30 DSP JOURNAL July/September 2006

by the carrier Carl Vinson was able to coordinate a

variety of operational actions among more than 50

coalition ships and numerous aircraft because of

commonly shared standards. Picture if you will:

❚ Canadian and Dutch frigates standing picket

guard for the U.S. guided missile cruiser

Antietam in the North Arabian Sea, while

❚ the Japanese supply ship Hamana refuels the U.S.

cruiser at sea, and off in the distance,

❚ British Royal Air Force tankers refuel U.S. Navy

Hornets returning to the carrier group from a

mission.

None of these seemingly routine, but essential

coalition operations would have been possible if it

were not for common fuel, coupling, and communication standards.

Another operational capability that will distinguish

Operation Enduring Freedom and Operation Iraqi

Freedom from past wars will be the widespread use

of guided bombs. In 1991, during Operation Desert

Storm, only about 9 percent of the bombs dropped

were “smart bombs.” In contrast, the majority of

bombs dropped in Afghanistan and Iraq were “smart

bombs,” and to a large extent this capability is due to

MIL-STD-1760. Compliance with this standard is a

requirement for all smart weapons developed in DoD

in order to standardize the software and the electronics interface requirements to enable target data to be

passed onto the smart weapons.

While it is largely the high-tech weapons and their

supporting standards that have been getting much of

the attention, some very ordinary standards have also

made significant contributions to our recent warfighting efforts. Eye injuries account for 16 percent

of all coalition casualties in Iraq.While flying shrapnel is the most dangerous threat to our soldiers’ eyes,

the hazards that cause most of the injuries are such

things as sand, dust, and debris from helicopters and

high winds.

Even though soldiers had been directed to wear

military-issue eye protection, according to one Army

surgeon in an article from the New England Journal of

Medicine, soldiers evidently found the Mil-Spec protective eyewear too ugly with some soldiers commenting that it looked like something a Florida

senior citizen would wear.To address the soldiers’

fashion complaint, the Army was able to quickly

approve several new types of commercial protective

eyewear through the Rapid Fielding Initiative

because there were American National Standards in

place to test glasses and goggles for safety and optical

protection. By providing soldiers with “cooler-looking” protective eyewear that still met the necessary

standards, the rate of eye injuries has decreased

markedly.

Standardization has proven itself as an important

force multiplier by allowing different coalition allies

and Services to work together, and by improving the

operational capabilities of equipment. But standardization is also drawing increased attention for what it

can do to make weapon systems more affordable.

Over 20 years ago, Norm Augustine, who at the

time was President of Martin Marietta, wrote a book

entitled,“Augustine’s Laws,” in which he took a

humorous look at some very serious problems facing

the defense industry.Augustine’s Law Number 16

predicted that:“In the year 2054, the entire defense

budget will purchase just one aircraft.This aircraft

will have to be shared by the Air Force and Navy 31⁄2

days each per week except leap year, when it will be

made available to the Marines for the extra day.”

While the reasons that Augustine gives for the dramatic rise in the cost of weapon systems are numerous and complex, one of the reasons is our insistence

on customization instead of standardization.

The importance of standardization as a cost savings

tool is gaining attention in the Department.A few

months ago during his confirmation hearing before

the Senate Armed Services Committee, Pete Geren,

the Under Secretary of the Army, had this to say in
dsp.dla.mil 31

response to a question on how the Army plans to

control its escalating acquisition costs:

The DoD cannot sustain the rate of increase

and cost overruns in major defense systems that

it has experienced over the last decade....The

Army plans to reduce costs through standardization, economies of scale, equipment standardization, requirement discipline and common

unit designs. More needs to be done DoDwide. If confirmed, I would seek to work with

the Congress in this critical area.

I can certainly affirm Under Secretary Geren’s

statement that standardization is one of the keys to

controlling costs. In a moment, I will be handing out

the 2005 Defense Standardization Awards, and just

among our five award winners, there is an estimated

life-cycle cost savings of over $800 million because of

standardization.

So what will be the future direction for standardization in the Department? The answer to this question

lies within the recently published Quadrennial

Defense Review, QDR, 2006 Report. If there is one

dominant theme throughout the QDR, it is jointness, jointness, jointness, and the jointness mandated

by the QDR is unobtainable without standardization. Over the last year, the Department has made

some significant strides in identifying strategies to try

to align standardization business processes to support

joint operations, joint requirements determination,

joint acquisition, and joint logistics support.

The QDR gives clear direction that future defense

challenges will require the United States to forge

stronger partnerships with our allies and friends

internationally to promote better operational and

materiel interoperability. Last year, the Joint Chiefs of

Staff revised their Joint Capabilities Integration and

Development System instruction and manual to

require the consideration of U.S.-ratified materiel

international standardization agreements when developing joint capabilities documentation.The addition

of this requirement gives a new upfront importance

to NATO and other international standardization

agreements as we identify and set future joint capabilities.

Another area where the QDR offers new direction

is a requirement for the Department to improve its

business processes to better achieve horizontal integration across the Services and Agencies to achieve

effective jointness.The QDR makes it quite clear

that the Service-centric approach must give way to

joint capability portfolios, and that those areas that

are joint capability areas will be the ones allocated

resources.

With the QDR’s emphasis on joint capability areas

in mind, the Defense Standardization Program is

launching eight initial Joint Standardization Boards to

improve standardization-making decision processes

among the Services and Agencies, with our allies, and

with industry, and to improve the visibility and support for top-level standardization needs and initiatives

identified by the Department. In some cases, such as

mobile electric power, the Joint Standardization

Board is simply a recognition and endorsement of

long-standing joint standardization efforts. In others,

such as tactical unmanned aircraft systems, the Joint

Standardization Board is a new entity intended to

achieve some of the joint standardization needs identified by the Under Secretary of Defense for

Acquisition,Technology, and Logistics in his 2005

Unmanned Aircraft Systems Roadmap.

As a point of trivia with an important underlying

message, this Roadmap uses the term “standards” 287

times to identify areas where standards exist that need

to be implemented across programs or where new

standards need to be developed to ensure jointness

and interoperability.The Under Secretary clearly

understands the critical role that standards must play

if we are to achieve the goals laid out in his

Unmanned Aircraft Systems Roadmap.

One topic that the QDR focused on that is near

and dear to my heart is logistics. On the whole, the
32 DSP JOURNAL July/September 2006

QDR had some very positive things to say about our

recent logistics initiatives.After some initial logistics

slowness and difficulties at the outset of our recent

operations in the Middle East, the QDR noted that:

❚ Lead times for stocked items dropped by more

than 45 percent since the peaks recorded in

2003;

❚ Better synchronization of transportation assets

allowed the Army to cut costs by $268 million in

fiscal year 2004; and

❚ On-time delivery rates are now at over 90 percent.

Despite these and other notable logistics achievements, the QDR laid down some significant challenges for the DoD logistics community to improve

visibility into the supply chain logistics costs and performance by building a foundation for continuous

improvement in performance. One capability that the

QDR specifically mentions is to improve visibility

into the supply chain logistics through the use of

active and passive Radio Frequency Identification, or

RFID. Of course, the key to RFID success will be

standards to enable the sharing, integration, and synchronization of vast amounts of information across

the supply chain. Right now, there are at least a

dozen standards organizations, including the International Organization for Standardization and the

Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers,

working on RFID standards that will play a key role

in achieving the Department’s vision for implementing knowledge-enabled logistics support to the

warfighter through automated asset visibility.

I mentioned at the beginning of my keynote that

standardization is something that has always been

important to the United States military. In a letter

that George Washington sent in June 1783 to the

governors of the 13 states of the newly formed

Republic,Washington highlighted four areas that he

considered essential to future survival of the United

States. Not surprisingly, one of the areas that

Washington emphasized was the need for a strong

militia to defend the Republic.What was surprising

perhaps was Washington’s emphasis on the need for

standardization of arms and equipment.Washington

wrote the governors that:

It is essential...that the same species of Arms,

Accoutrements and Military Apparatus should

be introduced in every part of the United

States. No one, who has not learned it from

experience, can conceive the difficulty, expense,

and confusion which result from a contrary

system.

Washington concluded his letter by stating that to

address the challenges and ideas he had laid out

would require the joint efforts of everyone. I’d like to

conclude my talk today by echoing a similar theme

that to support the warfighter defending our freedom, security, and way of life, and to bring about the

transformation of the Department’s business practices

will require everyone’s contributions. Over the next

few days, we will be hearing about some of the

efforts of the Joint Standardization Boards, international standardization initiatives with our allies, and

private sector and industry standardization directions.

I would ask that each of you give some thought as to

what you can contribute in these areas, and if there is

something I need to be doing, then let me know.

Thank you.
dsp.dla.mil 33

n May 23, 2006, Mr. James Hall, the Assistant Deputy Under Secretary of

Defense (Logistics Plans and Programs) (Acting), and Mr. Gregory Saunders,

Director, Defense Standardization Program Office, presented five awards to

honor two individuals and three teams whose standardization efforts have

made singular improvements in technical performance, greatly enhanced safety for DoD personnel, and avoided billions of dollars in costs.

2005 DISTINGUISHED ACHIEVEMENT AWARD WINNER

The 2005 Distinguished Achievement Award, which includes an engraved crystal Pentagon and a

$5,000 check, went to a three-member Navy team—Mr. David Restifo, Mr. James Conklin, and

Mr. Jimmy Smith—that achieved tremendous savings in the Virginia class submarine program

(PMS450) by turning to standardization initiatives to help reduce overall acquisition and operations

and maintenance costs of the program.These standardization initiatives were utilized as key tools in

the Virginia class program’s integrated product and process development (IPPD) strategy.The use of

standardization succeeded in minimizing the program’s overall logistics footprint, as well as reducing

the class parts library.The Virginia class submarine program used the innovative IPPD method to

ensure that integrated logistics support and part standardization considerations were built into the

design early in the process.

2005 Awards Defense Standardization Program

O
34 DSP JOURNAL July/September 2006

Pictured above are Mr. Greg Saunders, DSPO Director, presenting the award check to 

two members of the award-winning team, Mr. James Conklin and Mr. David Restifo,

and Mr. George Drakeley, Deputy Program Manager, Virginia Class Submarine Program.

One metric of success was the Virginia class program’s $27 million investment in parts standardization

that has led to a projected $789 million cost avoidance over the life of the Virginia class program.The

impact of this success has been experienced beyond the program; because of the lessons learned and the

extended application, cost avoidance is projected to be $72 million for the USS Jimmy Carter (SSN-23)

multi-mission platform program and $80 million for the SSGN program.

2005 DISTINGUISHED ACHIEVEMENT AWARD WINNER

ACHIEVEMENT AWARD WINNERS

Dr. Jose-Luis Sagripanti, of the U.S.Army’s Edgewood Chemical Biological Center laboratory, developed a

quantitative three-step method for determining the sporicidal efficacy of liquids, liquid sprays, and vapor or gases on

contaminated carrier surfaces.This method, recently approved as ASTM Standard E2414-05, addresses the longstanding need for a proven test method to assess products and procedures used for decontamination and disinfection

(DECON).Although methods applicable to materials and contamination levels are found in the clinical setting, no

standards existed for evaluating the effectiveness of products and practices intended for DECON of military assets—

until now.
dsp.dla.mil 35

Pictured above are Mr. Jim Hall; Dr. Jose-Luis Sagripanti, Award Winner; Mr. Jim Zarzicki, Supervisor;

Dr. Joe Corriveau, Supervisor; Mr. Ron Davis, Army Standardization Executive; and Mr. Karim Abdian,

Army Departmental Standardization Officer.

A Navy team with the responsibility for researching, visualizing, developing, testing, evaluating, procuring, and providing cradle-to-grave support for aircraft wiring support equipment and support systems was tasked to bring costwise technology and process reengineering solutions to the area of aircraft wiring support.As part of its task, the

team analyzed the specific operational impediments and cost drivers associated with aircraft wiring repair. By standardizing support equipment, design requirements, and engineering processes associated with aircraft wiring supportability, the team developed the Aircraft Wiring Information System.This comprehensive database allows the

standardization of repair tooling, specifications,and processes across all Navy and Marine Corps aircraft.The team’s

standardization effort has reduced the proliferation of tools and support equipment and realized a total cost avoidance

of $15.9 million.

Team members: Ms. Gail Edwards, Mr.William Peck, Ms. Leah Boise, Mr. Robert Petrie,

and Mr. Benjamin Yearwood

Picture above are, left to right, Mr. Robert Hubbard, Supervisor; Mr. Jim Hall; Ms. Leah Boise, Award

Winner; Mr. Robert Petrie, Award Winner; Mr. Benjamin Yearwood, Award Winner; Mr. Nick Kunesh,

Navy Standardization Executive; Mr. William Peck, Award Winner; and Mr. Jeff Allan, Navy

Departmental Standardization Officer.

The new standard fills the need to accurately and impartially assess the effectiveness of products and practices

intended for DECON of military personnel, vehicles, weapons, equipment, buildings, ships, plans, and other military

assets suspected of being contaminated after a biological attack.The three-step method provides a standardized and

validated test to ensure that the military services select DECON products and practices affording adequate protection to their personnel.
36 DSP JOURNAL July/September 2006

For many years, UHF satellite communications requirements have surpassed capacity by more than 300 percent.To meet

this challenge, Mr. Andreas Pappas of the Defense Information Systems Agency led an effort on UHF SATCOM

waveform standards and technology insertion to mitigate the TACSAT shortfall.As early as 2001–2002, it was apparent

that the UHF SATCOM demand assigned multiple access (DAMA) waveforms (MIL-STD-188-181-B, -182A, and 

-183A) were no longer technologically current, efficient, and effective to fulfill the UHF SATCOM operational

requirement. Efforts were initiated in accordance with DoD 4120.24-M policy and procedures to provide systems

enhancements that will more than double the present UHF SATCOM systems capacity.After a series of standards

updates and reviews, the integrated wavelength (IW) standards were approved and published in January 2004. Implementing IW into deployed software-programmable radios will provide tremendous operational and economic benefits

for the warfighter.

Pictured above are Mr. Jim Hall; Mr. Andreas Pappas, Award Winner; Mr. Richard Williams, Vice Director, GIG Enterprise

DISA; Mr. Alan Lewis, Chief, GIG Engineering Center; and Mr. Gerry Ring, DISA Departmental Standardization Officer.

An Air Force team, tasked with improving targeting accuracy across all Air Force imaging sensors, developed a

Community Sensor Model (CSM) that eliminated proprietary, technical, and political barriers across all DoD reconnaissance systems.The team’s work culminated in a breakthrough solution, substantially improving imagery intelligence

interoperability.As a result of this work, the CSM interface became an emerging standard through the DoD IT

Standards Registry Technical Working Group.With more than 21 models created and 4 more in development, armed

forces operators will be able to measure target quality coordinates at one-third the cost of previous systems.The team

carefully evaluated the current system, garnered the best ideas from both sensor builders and exploitation developers,

and worked closely with national experts engaged in the development of geospatial data and standards.The CSM

technical requirements document was submitted and unanimously approved by the DoD IT Standards Registry

Technical Working Group for registration as an emerging standard.At the completion of the time frame for emerging

standards, the CSM technical requirements document will become a defense standard.

Team members: Captain Ricardo Garcia and Ms. J. Lea Gordon

Pictured above are Mr. Jim Hall; Capt. Ricardo Garcia, Award Winner; Ms. Lea Gordon, Award Winner; Mr. Richard Sorenson,

Squadron Chief Engineer; Mr. Terry Jaggers, Air Force Standardization Executive; and Mr. John Heliotis, Air Force Departmental

Standardization Officer.
dsp.dla.mil 37

DoD Parts Management 

Reengineering Implementation

Kickoff

The Parts Management Reengineering Working Group (PMRWG) was

chartered in March 2004 by the Defense Standardization Program Office

(DSPO) to reengineer DoD’s parts

management program. Parts management focuses primarily on part selection during weapon system design,

part application, obsolescence mitigation, and standardization. Reengineering parts management will provide

multiple benefits, including improved

interoperability, increased operational

availability, reduced life-cycle cost, and

reduced logistics footprint.

On April 6, 2006, the director of

DSPO briefed the final recommendations of the PMRWG to the Total Life

Cycle Systems Management Executive Council. The council approved

moving forward into implementation

and requested periodic progress updates. The implementation phase of

the DoD parts management reengineering effort was launched on May

25, 2006, following the DoD Standardization Conference.

DSPO chairs the implementation

team.The team members are representatives from the military departments

and the Defense Logistics Agency. Parts

management experts from selected

companies and trade associations serve

as technical consultants.

The kickoff meeting accomplished

the following objectives:

❚ Formally initiated the implementation phase for accomplishing the

major recommendations contained

Upcoming Events and Information Events

in the PMRWG’s final report,

Better Serving the Warfighter, published in October 2005

❚ Reviewed and revised a draft charter for the implementation team

❚ Kicked off project teams to address

the top three recommendations in

the final report:

● Revitalize parts management

within the systems engineering

discipline

● Make parts management a policy

and contractual requirement,

including identifying effective

incentives

● Create a Parts Management

Knowledge Sharing Portal, leveraging the efforts of the Diminishing Manufacturing Sources and

Material Shortages Working

Group.

Full implementation of a reengineered parts management program

may take years, but the initial thrust is

expected to take about 12 to 18

months. The implementation team

will hold meetings as needed.

Joint Standardization Boards

Established

Interoperability within and among

weapon systems, among the services,

and with our allies is critical to our

readiness and capability to respond to

contingencies around the world. Interoperability is impossible without

standardization. To transform our approach to standardization and respond

to growing inventories of nonstandard

parts that affect operational readiness

and the logistics footprint in support

of the warfighter, Mr. James Hall, the

Defense Standardization Executive

and Acting Assistant Deputy Under

Secretary of Defense (Logistics Plans

and Programs), has established Joint

Standardization Boards (JSBs). Joint

commodity or technology groups that

already exist will simply be recognized

as JSBs, and their charters will remain

in effect but will be reviewed by the

Defense Standardization Executive and

Defense Standardization Council to

ensure that they address the goals and

objectives of the Defense Standardization Program. New JSBs will be chartered under the Defense Standardization Executive, overseen by the Defense Standardization Council, and

will address technology standardization issues and make standardization

decisions for the Department within

their assigned scopes.To date, the following boards have been established:

❚ JSB for Fuzes and Other Initiation

Systems (formerly, Fuze Engineering Standardization Working

Group)

❚ JSB for Intermodal Equipment

(formerly, Joint Intermodal

Working Group)

❚ JSB for Medical Materiel (formerly, Defense Medical Standardization Board)

❚ JSB for Microelectronics and

Semiconductors (formerly, Defense

Microcircuits Planning Group)

❚ JSB for Mobile Electric Power (to

be formed by the program manager for Mobile Electric Power)

❚ JSB for Power Source Systems

(formerly, Battery Technical

Working Group)

❚ JSB for Tactical Rigid-Wall, SoftWall, and Hybrid Shelters; Special

Purpose Covers and Shelter
38 DSP JOURNAL July/September 2006

Events Upcoming Meetings and Conferences

interactions between consumers and

industry and between the public and

private sectors.To pay tribute to these

vital relationships, the theme of the

U.S. celebration of World Standards

Day 2006 is “Standards Build Partnerships.” The 2006 U.S. observance of

World Standards Day will be held on

Wednesday, October 11, 2006, at the

Ronald Reagan Building and International Trade Center in Washington,

DC. The event will include a reception, exhibits, dinner, and presentation

of the Ronald H. Brown Standards

Leadership Award. The administrating

organization for this year’s event is the

Standards Engineering Society. For

more information, please go to

www.wsd-us.org.

October 24–26, 2006, Beijing, China

IFAN Members’Assembly Meeting 

and Workshop

The International Federation of

Standards Users (IFAN) will hold its

annual Members’ Assembly meeting

in Beijing, China, on October 24,

2006.In association with this meeting,

an IFAN workshop will be held on

October 25–26. The purposes of the

workshop are to use the opportunity

of being in China to achieve a deeper

level of understanding of Chinese and

non-Chinese standards, to exchange

views and information on the application of standards (benefits and 

challenges),and to study the standardization and technical regulation systems in China.The workshop is open

to all interested parties; membership

in IFAN is not essential. Attendance,

however, is limited and priority will

be given to IFAN members.

Accessories (formerly, Joint

Committee on Tactical Shelters)

❚ JSB for Tactical Unmanned

Aircraft Systems (to be formed by

the Tactical Unmanned Aircraft

Systems Group)

World Standards Day

Paper Competition

Recognizing the vital role that partnerships play in the development and

use of standards, the theme for the

2006 World Standards Day paper

competition is “Standards Build Partnerships.”Winners will be announced

and given their awards at the U.S. celebration of World Standards Day,

which will be held this year on October 11 at the Ronald Reagan Building and International Trade Center in

Washington, DC.

The Standards Engineering Society

and the World Standards Day Planning

Committee award cash prizes for the

three best papers submitted.The firstplace winner will receive $2,500 and a

plaque. Second- and third-place winners will receive $1,000 and $500, respectively, along with a certificate. In

addition, the winning papers will be

published in SES’s journal, Standards

Engineering, with the first-place winner

also appearing as a special article in

the ANSI Reporter, a publication of

the American National Standards Institute.

This year’s competition subject is of

interest to just about everyone in the

standardization community. The standards system in the United States is

complex, decentralized, and based on

effective collaboration between the

private and public sectors, between

standards users and standards developers, and between consumers and industry. Specifically, standards build

partnerships between buyers and sellers (facilitating communication and

market expansion), the public and private sectors (bringing together industries and their regulators), consumers

and industry (allowing consumers a

say in health and safety issues), as well

as among nations (by fostering trade).

Contest papers, along with an official

entry form, should be sent to the SES

Executive Director, 13340 SW 96th

Avenue, Miami, FL 33176.To be eligible for the competition, the papers

must be received by midnight, September 1, 2006. For more information, go to www.ses-standards.org and

click World Standards Day.

August 14–15, 2006, Cleveland, OH

2006 SES Annual Conference

SES will hold its 2006 conference at

the Wyndham Hotel at Playhouse

Square, in Cleveland, OH. This year’s

theme is “Standards Rock! Achieving

Business Harmony.” S. Joe Bhatia,

president and chief executive officer

of the American National Standards

Institute, will present the keynote address,“Standardization to Meet Stakeholders Needs.” For more information

about the conference or to register,

go to the SES website: www.sesstandards.org.

October 11, 2006, Washington, D.C.

World Standards Day

The U.S. standards and conformity

assessment system emphasizes positive
dsp.dla.mil 39

People in the Standardization Community People

Farewell

Anthony LaPlaca retired after more than 36 years of government service.At the time of his retirement, he was the Standards Executive for the U.S. Army Communications-Electronics Life

Cycle Management Command at the Logistics and Readiness Center,Tobyhanna Army Depot,

PA. In addition to his standardization duties, he was the Readiness Center’s top logistician and a

leader in the field of military command and control, surveillance, and reconnaissance systems. Mr.

LaPlaca is the recipient of numerous awards, including the Distinguished Executive and Meritorious Executive Presidential Rank Awards. Upon retirement, he received the Decoration for Exceptional Civilian Service and the Outstanding Service Award for Senior Executive Service

Members.

Michael Cantrell retired from the U.S.Army Edgewood Chemical Biological Center (ECBC)

after more than 30 years of federal service. He was a senior systems engineer and served as the

senior team leader of the ECBC standardization team assisting with the resolution of questions

and issues related to ECBC’s implementation of DoD and Army standardization documents. Mr.

Cantrell provided input to industry forums to improve non-government standards, including

EIA-649 and EIA-836, that were directly related to ECBC’s mission responsibilities. Mr. Cantrell

previously served at the U.S.Army Soldier, Biological and Chemical Command.

Daniel Iwanicki retired in February 2006 with 25 years of federal service. Mr. Iwanicki worked

on the Specifications and Standards Team at the U.S. Army Tank-Automotive and Armaments

Command. He was a mechanical engineer whose major responsibilities included the qualified

products list for tracks and track components.

Bashir Chughtai retired from the Defense Logistics Agency, Defense Supply Center Richmond

(DSCR) on June 2, 2006, after 30 years of service with the government. He was the Preparing

Activity (Standardization Management Activity Code GS2) for specifications on batteries, electrical equipment, power sources, electrical wire and cables, and electrical hardware. Mr. Chughtai

previously supervised the Item Reduction Team at DSCR.

Dave Robertson is leaving his job as chief of the Systems Engineering Division and Center

Standardization Executive at the Ogden Air Logistics Center, UT, to attend the Industrial College of the Armed Forces. He has been responsible for providing management-level advocacy

and support for the Standardization Management Activity, certifying defense performance specifications prepared by the center, validating the need to either create new defense detail specifica-
40 DSP JOURNAL July/September 2006

tions or maintain existing detail specifications as fully active, and approving center representatives

proposed for serving on national and international standardization bodies.We wish Dave well!

Promotions

On April 4, 2006, Belinda Collins was promoted to director of Technology Services at the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST). She had served as acting director since February 2004. Dr. Collins will continue to oversee the organization that provides U.S. businesses

and other organizations with measurements, tests, calibrations, technical data, and other resources

and services developed at NIST. She has served in various managerial and supervisory roles during her 32 years with NIST. She has also chaired the Interagency Committee on Standards Policy

and the board of directors of the American National Standards Institute. Dr. Collins replaces

Richard Kayser, who was named director of the NIST Materials Science and Engineering Laboratory.

Raymond Kolonchuk has been promoted to chief of the VQE Electronic Devices Team in the

Sourcing and Qualifications Unit at the Defense Supply Center Columbus (DSCC), OH. Formerly, he was the MIL-S-19500 semiconductor engineer in DSCC’s Qualification Activity

(QA). Mr. Kolonchuk takes over the position from John Raye who retired this past January. Mr.

Kolonchuk has worked in VQE for many years and has experience in both printed circuit boards

and semiconductors, two of the primary areas of interest within DSCC QA.

Welcome

The Aeronautical Systems Center (ASC), Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, OH, welcomes

Thomas Christian as the new Center Standardization Executive at ASC/Air Force Research

Laboratory. He is replacing Gary Van Oss, who recently retired from federal service. In his new

position, Dr. Christian has purview over all Defense Standardization Program documents. He

comes to his current position in ASC from the Agile Combat Support Systems Wing, where he

served as director of engineering. Previously, he provided expertise on multiple Air Force

weapon systems, addressing such issues as structures, avionics, and software, mostly while serving

at Robins Air Force Base, GA. He has served both the logistics side of Air Force weapon systems

and the acquisition/development side. In addition, Dr. Christian has served on several national

technical committees of the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics. Welcome

aboard!

People People in the Standardization Community
dsp.dla.mil 45

Upcoming Issues—

Call for Contributors

We are always seeking articles that relate to our

themes or other standardization topics. We invite

anyone involved in standardization—government

employees, military personnel, industry leaders,

members of academia, and others—to submit proposed articles for use in the DSP Journal. Please let

us know if you would like to contribute.

Following are our themes for upcoming issues:

If you have ideas for articles or want more information, contact Tim Koczanski, Editor, DSP Journal,

J-307, Defense Standardization Program Office,

8725 John J. Kingman Road, Stop 6233, Fort

Belvoir, VA 22060-6221 or e-mail DSP-Editor@

dla.mil.

Our office reserves the right to modify or reject

any submission as deemed appropriate.We will be

glad to send out our editorial guidelines and work

with any author to get his or her material shaped

into an article.

Issue Theme

October–December 2006 Joint Standardization Boards

January–March 2007 IT Standardization