USACERL Interim Report P-92/16

June 1992

US Army QxAD-A254 764

Research Laboratory

Establishing Links Between

U.S. Army Facility Attributes

and Mission Requirements

by

William H. Flickinger

Gonzalo Perez

Tanya Lee

Robert D. Neathammer ELECT E

While Army installation facilities actively help accomplish AUG 0 5 1992

Army mission requirements, it is sometimes difficult to

quantity their contribution. In the climate of shrinking S

Federal funding, it has become important to present Army

facility construction, maintenance, and repair programs in

a context that clearly shows their relationship to the

overall Army mission, as high-priority tasks. A facility's

mission and/or functional responsiveness can be seriously

compromised when facility requirements or unit missions

are scaled down because the relationship between wellmaintained facilities and the Army's "mission readiness"

has been downplayed or misunderstood.

This interim report establishes some of the relationships

between facility attributes and the Army's mission requirements. A literature search and survey of Army installation

commanders showed that a unit's mission readiness is

directly related to equipment maintenance and to personnel turnover. Mission readiness is indirectly related to

other maintenance and repair functions, and to "quality of

life" factors that affect pcrsonnel turnover.

Later stages of this research will devise a model to

quantify and measure the effects of facility attributes on

Army mission requirements to help properly prioritize

facility construction, maintenance, and repair projects.

92-2'1202

A ',provpd for public release; distribution is unlimited. 1 IIll! 92l21202 ill IIiI!iiIII 

..... I II IIIII ,=.. IrIs
The contents of this report are not to be used for advertising, publication, or

promotional purposes. Citation of trade names does not constitute an official

endorsement or approval of the use of such commercial products. The

findings of this report are not to be construed as an official Department of

the Army position, unless so designated by other authorized documents.

DESTROY THIS REPORT WHEN IT IS NO LONGER NEEDED

DO NOT RETURN IT TO THE ORIGINATOR
REPORT DOCUMENTATION PAGE Form Approved Public report;ng burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 1 hour per response, including the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources

gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information. Send onrsna regwding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this

collection of information, including suggestions for reducing this burden, to Washington Headquaters Servics. Directorate for information Operations and Reports. 1215 Jefferson

Davis Highway. Suite 1204. Arlington, VA 22202-4302. and to the Office of Management and Budget, Paperwork Reduction Project (0704-0188). Washington, DC 20503.

1. AGENCY USE ONLY (Leave Blank) 2. REPORT DATE 3. REPORT TYPE AND DATES COVERED

June 1992 Final

4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE 5. FUNDING NUMBERS

Establishing Links Between U.S. Army Facility Attributes and Mission PE 4A162734

Requirements PR AT41

WU SA-API

6. AUTHOR(S)

William H. Flickinger, Gonzalo Perez, Tanya Lee, and Robert D. Neathammer

7. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES) 8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION

U.S. Army Construction Engineering Research Laboratory (USACERL) REPORT NUMBER

2902 Newmark Drive, PO Box 9005 IR P-92/16

Champaign, IL 61826-9005

9. SPONSORINGMONITORING AGENCY NAMEIS) AND ADDRESS(ES) 10. SPONSORING/MONITORING

U.S. Army Engineering and Housing Support Center AGENCY REPORT NUMBER

ATr'N: CEHSC-FM-A

Fort Belvoir, VA 22060-5516

11. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES

Copies are available from the National Technical Information Service, 5285 Port Royal Road,

Springfield, VA 22161

128. DISTRIBUTION/AVAILABILITY STATEMENT 12b. DISTRIBUTION CODE

Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited.

13. ABSTRACT (Maximum 200 words)

While Army installation facilities actively help accomplish Army mission requirements, it is sometimes

difficult to quantify their contribution. In the climate of shrinking Federal funding, it has become important

to present Army facility construction, maintenance, and repair programs in a context that clearly shows

their relationship to the overall Army mission, as high-priority tasks. A facility's mission and/or functional

responsiveness can be seriously compromised when facility requirements or unit missions are scaled down

because the relationship between well-maintained facilities and the Army's "mission readiness" has been

downplayed or misunderstood.

This interim report establishes some of the relationships between facility attributes and the Army's mission

requirements. A literature search and survey of Army installation commanders showed that a unit's

mission readiness is directly related to equipment maintenance and to personnel turnover. Mission

readiness is indirectly related to other maintenance and repair functions, and to "quality of life" factors that

affect personnel turnover.

Later stages of this research will devise a model to quantify and measure the effects of facility attributes on

Army mission requirements to help properly prioritize facility construction, maintenance, and repair

projects.

14. SUBJECT TERMS 15. NUMBER OF PAGES

Quality of life 34

Facility attribute 16. PRICE CODE

17. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION 18. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION 19. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION 20. LIMITATION OF ABSTRACT

OF REPORT OF THIS PAGE OF ABSTPA., i

Unclassified Unclassified Unclassified SAR

NSN 7540-01-280-5500 Swxdard Fom 298 (Rey. 2-89)

Proswnbed by ANSI Std 239-18

29&102
FOREWORD

This research was performed for the U.S. Army Engineering and Housing Support Center

(USAEHSC), Fort Belvoir, VA, under Project 4A162734AT41; Work Unit SA-API, "Facility Mission

Relation." The USAEHSC technical monitor was Mr. Stewart Grayson, CEHSC-FM-A.

The research was performed by the Facility Systems Division (FS) of the U.S. Army Construction

Engineering Research Laboratory (USACERL). The principal investigator was Mr. William H. Flickinger.

The following USACERL personnel provided valuable input throughout the preparation of the initial

report: Mr. Gonzalo Perez, Ms. Joyce Baird, Mr. Douglas C. Heinen, Ms. Jane L. Solon-Wetmore, Mr.

Robert Neathammer, Ms. Tanya Lee, and Mr. Musaab E. At-Taras. Dr. Michael J. O'Connor is Chief,

USACERL-FS. Tle USACERL technical editor was Mr. William J. Wolfe, Information Management

Office.

COL Daniel Waldo, Jr., is Commander and Director of USACERL, and Dr. L.R. Shaffer is

Technical Director.

2
CONTENTS

Page

SF 298 1

FOREWORD 2

INTRODUCTION ................................................... 5

Background

Objective

Approach

Scope

Mode of Technology Transfer

2 RESEARCH FOCUS ................................................. 7

Direction

Historical Records

Maintenance of Equipment

Repair and Maintenance of a Facility or Build New

Human/Facility Interior Interaction

Quality of Life

Commander Input

Military Construction Project Data

3 CONCLUSIONS .................................................... 16

REFERENCES 16

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS 20

APPENDIX A: Survey of Installation Commanders 23

APPENDIX B: Extracts from the President's Budget to Congress

for Military Construction (FY91) 30

DISTRIBUTION . F

T!S LT; TAB

B yDittribyltioi ... .. .. .. . . . .. . . . . . . .. . /

Av lab:j!: (. js

3
ESTABLISHING LINKS BETWEEN U.S. ARMY FACILITY

ATTRIBUTES AND MISSION REQUIREMENTS

I INTRODUCTION

Background

The Department of the Army (DA) and Headquarters, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (HQUSACE)

recognize that, while Army installation facilities actively help accomplish Army mission requirements, it

can sometimes be difficult to quantify their contribution. As a result, when high-level DA decisions are

made to support and fund a spectrum of relatively important programs, this perception frustrates the effort

to give proper priority to facility construction, maintenance, and repair. As Federal funding programs

tighten and the total amount available to programs that support facilities also shrinks, it becomes

increasingly important for the DA and HQUSACE to present construction, maintenance, and repair

programs in a context that shows their relationship to the overall Army mission, as high-priority DA

interests. A facility's mission and/or functional responsiveness can be seriously compromised when

facility requirements or unit missions are scaled down because the relationship between well-maintained

facilities and the Army's ability to remain "mission ready" has been downplayed or misunderstood. There

is a need to clearly establish the relationship between facility attributes and the Army's mission

requirements.

Objective

The overall objectives of this project are:

1. To establish the direct and indirect links between installation facilities and the mission

readiness/accomplishment of Army units, and to document the relationships between the two

2. To design and conduct experiments to explain the qualitative and quantitative contributions of

facilities to Army mission object

3. To develop a knowledge-framework model that uses this data to analyze the facility-mission

relationship and to rank facility construction and/or maintenance and repair projects by priority.

The objective of this first portion of the study is to establish the direct and indirect links between

installation facilities' attributes and the readiness/accomplishment of Army units.

Approach

In this stage of research, the U.S. Army Construction Engineering Research Laboratory (USACERL)

conducted a literature search including, but not limited to, studies done by the following organizations:

USACERL, the Army Research Institute (ARI), the Rand Corp., the Walter Reed Army Institute of

Research (WRAIR), the Naval Postgraduate School, and the Army War College. The scarch reviewed

similar studies done to determine the direct and indirect relationships between facilities and mission. A

5
survey (Appendix A) was written jointly by USACERL and Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT)

personnel, and was sent to Installation Commanders to gain insight into important installation-level

concerns, and to gather data needed to develop an econometric model to help decisions to repair, renovate,

or tear down and rebuild deteriorating facilities.

This information will augment later work that will quantify facility contribution to its mission by

facility or facility grouping, for example, by maintenance facilities. Each facility or facility grouping will

be weighted in degrees of importance by its relative contribution to the mission and by other demands.

The relationship of the facility to the mission of the facility owner will be measured against factors such

as unit readiness, morale and welfare, vehicle and weapon upgrading, and other criteria.

A model will be developed that uses these weighted factors to measure a facility's physical and

psychological effects on the mission, and to document how well the facility supports mission requirements.

By setting the variables and ranking factors, the model will then compare an installation's available assets

with those required to meet its mission, and will rank deficiencies in order of greatest need.

Scope

Not all links are identified at this stage of research. The major areas considered were limited to the

relationships between:

1. Facility attributes and installation command objectives

2. Facility attributes and installation investment strategies

3. Human occupants and the facility

4. Facility condition and the mission.

Mode of Technology Transfer

It is anticipated that a formal technical transfer plan, to be developed in FY93, will incorporate the

results of this literature search into existing standard operating programs such as the Unit Status Report.

This incorporation would impact Army Regulation (AR) 200-1, Unit Status Reporting (Headquarters,

Department of the Army [HQDA], 16 September 1986).

6
2 RESEARCH FOCUS

Direction

Facility maintenance activities are vital to Army management. Stiff competition for scarce Defense

funds to support the entire Real Property program (planning, programming, designing, constructing,

revitalization, operating, and maintaining functions) can make it difficult to do needed maintenance. There

are many regulations and much guidance to help track the resultant backlog of maintenance and repair

activities. In fact, the whole area has become a major concern. These regulations and other guidance are

regularly updated and reviewed at the installation level to keep the proper emphasis on maintenance and

repair activities. Still, the Army and Department of Defense have had limited success in gaining the

funding necessary to keep facilities in good conuition. There is a need to balance th,, requirements of the

Army infrastructure against the expense of revitalizing it, and at the same time to keep that infrastructure

in satisfactory condition by construction, maintenance, and repair.

The primary motivation for funding the Department of Defense is to ensure that the United States

can defend its way of life, both domestically and internationally. A strong, "mission ready" U.S. military

is a positive influence for world peace. Mission readiness translates to the actual units that are trained and

capable of performing their missions in any contingency operation. Funding is allocated for equipment,

weapons and weapons systems, personnel, training, and all the logistics necessary to keep the services a

viable force.

In a sense, maintaining a strong military force is similar to operating any business with a defined

purpose. Any successful business (including the Army) must account for its costs. Army costs must be

traced to a product that visibly contributes to mission requirements. The costs of equipment, weapons and

weapons systems, personnel, training, and other "concrete" activities are measured and evaluated as part

of an audit trail that can be used to justify that funding. The "bottom line" demands a clear accounting

for the costs of each product, and for how that product contributes to mission readiness.

Maintenance and repair activities are not always clearly defined in terms of "mission readiness."

Many maintenance costs are invisible. In his 1988 Master's Thesis, Lieutenant Thomas S. Hollinberger,

Civil Engineer Corps, U.S. Navy states:

The facility maintenance function has a supporting role, as opposed to a line function, in most

businesses. As such, facility maintenance is often a weak competitor for limited resources, since the

functions that contribute directly to a company's bottom-line, such as production of sales, have a more

immediate claim on resources.'

In his opening discussion, he further states that:

Another roadblock to quantitative justification of facility maintenance budgets is the necessity for

accounting systems to keep a stable chart of accounts over the years. This necessity, coupled with the

tendency for output measurement emphases, produces a common disparity. That is, management needs

to evaluate output ... to make management, control, budgetary, and policy decisions. However, when

attempting to compare output to the resources that produce the output, often the accounting system does

Thomas S. Hollinberger, Maintenance and Repair of Naval Shore Facilities. Resources and Readiness, ADB130098L (Naval

Postgraduate School, Monterey, CA, December 1988).

7
not track costs by output categories. Instead, the accounting system is adequate for comparing expenses

from year to year in accounts that reflect areas and categories of concern at the time the accounting

system was built and, in most instances have not changed much since. The result is an unpleasant

choice of comparability over several years on one hand, and visibility of current areas of concern on

the other, i.e., outputs cannot readily be traced back to resource inputs and changes in inputs.

The facilities maintenance function ... faces such problems. Accounting systems cannot describe

resources spent by mission areas... where the right amount may be related to mission areas, it is often

not possible to show the effect of resources on readiness (bottom-line output).2

Though LT Hollinberger was arguing the case for the Navy, the thesis applies to the Army as well as the

other armed services. This research evaluates the impact of facilities on mission accomplishment and unit

readiness. In other words, if funds for construction and Operations and Maintenance (O&M) are cut, the

results of this study will evaluate how much mission accomplishment and unit readiness will be reduced.

The Base Structure Report for Fiscal Year 1989 states that:

Military installations are vital to the nation's security, and quality facilities greatly enhance the working

and living conditions of our military people and their families. . . . The worldwide military base

structure supports our defense population.... The investment that this country makes in its defense

facilities is an investment in its military people-an investment that is repaid in the form of improved

pride, greater performance, and better combat readiness?

The report further states that, "All base operating support, either directly or indirectly, contributes to the

performance of the military mission."' This report establishes the relationship that must be defined and

quantified to develop usable tools for HQUSACE, Office of the Chief of Engineers (OCE), Major Army

Commands (MACOMs) and others to defend the entire Real Property program (planning, programming,

designing, constructing, operating and maintaining functions) at the DA staff level and higher. Figure 1

shows the complex relationships that need to be clarified.

In its overview of Army base structure, the Base Structure Report for Fiscal Year 1989 describes

the Army's mission to organize, train, and equip for prompt and sustained combat coincident with

operations for effective prosecution of the war.5 The report points out that the Army supported that

mission from a fixed base structure: "The Army is basically tied to its existing installations to support

its current force structure."6 Due to the aging base structure and constrained land assets, the Army has

defined a base structure policy of maintaining the current facilities, correcting deficiencies, and replacing

or renovating the deteriorated facilities to provide the best mix of maintenance, construction, and

renewal.7 Given the present policy of maintaining existing facilities, and the recent demonstration of how

this fixed base structure successfully supported the mission in the Persian Gulf, it is apparent that adequate

facilities maintenance is directly linked to the Army's overall mission.

Thomas S. Hollinberger, p 1.

Base Structure Report for Fiscal Year 1989 (Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense, Production and Logistics, March

1988), p 1.

Base Structure Report for Fiscal Year 1989, p 3.

Base Structure Report for Fiscal Year 1989, p 13.

' Base Structure Report for Fiscal Year 1989, p 14.

Base Structure Report for Fiscal Year 1989, p 14.

8
Unit Mission Cm 

Comm

isr

• PX/BX

-~~ .... '" tn "" ac-i Theater

(Z Mai a Recreation Fac

Training ( Housing! Childcare

Equipment Personnel Billeting A FacSchools in!Family Services

Logistics WarehouseC

Storage Fac Services

Soldier/Family

Hospital Dental

Soldier Indirect Relations

Figure 1. Facility/Mission Relationships.

Historical Records

Various records show a unit's readiness and ability to complete mission requirements, including the

Annual General Inspection (AGI) Reports, the Army Training and Evaluation Program (ARTEP), and the

Unit Status Report (USR). The AGI report evaluates the unit's records, personnel, logistics, maintenance,

and so on to provide a "snapshot" of the unit. This report indicates to the commander if the unit can

perform its assigned mission based on standards set by the DA. The ARTEP is an annual training and

evaluation program that prescribes the unit mission and those collective tasks which the unit must do, "not

only to survive on the battlefield, but to win the battle." s The ARTEP links mission readiness to the

quality of training the unit has received. This link includes the size and number of training facilities. The

USR is a monthly report, summarized quarterly and annually. It gives a continuous record of the status

of vehicles, equipment, logistics, and personnel that affects the units' mission readiness.

ARTEP information may have limited application to a facility-level evaluation. The literature

indicates that ARTEP records have been studied to determine the level of readiness and training within

individual units. There was no significant finding that expanded on the ARTEP results related to facilities.

As a sidelight, a significant number of articles did link personnel turbulence (turnover) to mission

Engineer Equipment Companies, ARTEP 5-54 (Headquarters, Department of the Army IHQDA], 17 May 1983), p 1-1.

9
readiness: "The ARTEP evaluation loses its validity too quickly to be of use in the planning function

because of personnel turbulence." 9

Another point that was brought cut in the study on ARTEP's was maintaining unit readiness. For

a unit to be fully mission capable, it must be able to function as an effective force in all its assigned

missions. An ARTEP measures the level of proficiency at one point in time for the particular skills being

evaluated. However, the unit must continue to train at a higher level and develop into a more mature

organization to be an effective force. "If a unit's ARTEP evaluation is invalid because of personnel

turbulence, then the unit must begin training at the very basic level before it can move on to larger unit

or more specialized training""° This means that units declared mission ready must advance in their level

of proficiency. Facility attributes that contribute to this mission readiness are of interest in this research.

These facilities may be both directly and indirectly related to mission readiness. Overall, ARTEP

evaluations reinforce this observation:

There is a positive relationship between personnel turbulence and the validity of the ARTEP evaluation.

The evaluation is only valid as long as the unit retains [the] preponderance of personnel that

participated in the evaluation. When a unit experiences a high rate of personnel turbulence because

it loses its personnel in transfers to other unit or reassignments within the unit, the validity of the

evaluation is reduced. It has been assumed that a unit which successfully passes an ARTEP evaluation

will also perform well in combat."

ARTEP evaluations underscore the importance of establishing the link between facilities and their

effect on the soldier, as an indirect link between the facilities and the mi3sion. Captain David L. Bland,

USAF, in his 1990 thesis, highlighted the importance of personnel retention. He noted insights gained

from Captain Terry D. Kline's 1988 thesis:

In this day of reduced military budgets, the DoD must be more concerned with saving precious defense

dollars. The retention of trained and experienced personnel is one of the possible areas of such savings

... about 42 percent of the defense budget goes for manpower needs. A goodly portion is spent on

the recruiting, training, and retraining of personnel. While some recruiting, training, and retraining v ill

always be required, the military services must strive to maintain the proper balance between accessions

of new personnel and retention of trained and/or fully qualified personnel. "

This is discussed in more depth in the section on "Quality of Life." (p 12)

Maintenance of Equipment

Army manuals cover prescribed maintenance and repair of weapons, vehicles, aircraft-virtually any

equipment assigned to a unit. It is feasible to develop a database for specific Table of Organization and

Equipment (TO&E) units and the facilities required to support that TO&E. Data analysis may show

whether existing facilities are adequate to meet mission requirements, that is, to detennine if facilities are

"mission ready." (The same database can be used to recommend facility closure of excess facilities.) The

James A. Amcndolia, Training Management and Personnel Turbulen-e. , LDBO5955L (Army Command and General Staff

College. Fort Leavenworth. KS. June 1981). Amendolia, p 74.

Amendolia, p 75.

David L. Bland, An Analysis of the Effects Iousing Improvements IHave on thte Retention of Air Force Pcrsonnel,

AFIT/GEM/DEM/9OS-2/ADA229466 (Air Force Institute of Technology. Wright-Patterson AFiR, OH. September 1910), p 18.

10
relationship between the quantity of facilities and assigned unit equipment can directly link facilities to

mission readiness. The quality of those facilities indirectly links facilities to their missions.

The hypothesis, as applied to this portion of the project, is that mission readiness can be measured

by how well each piece of equipment in the inventory has been maintained, by whether its maintenance

schedule has been kept up. These schedules apply to everythi-.g from the primary weapons system such

as a tank in an Armor unit, to supply issue items such as blankets, boots, and helmets. By applying this

information to the total number of items requiring service and/or maintenance, the facilities required to

perform those services and/or maintenance, and then by developing a schedule that reflects the demand

on those facilities, a direct connection can be drawn between a facility and its mission requirement. By

factoring in unscheduled repairs, predicting backlog on services and maintenance, and their effects, it is

possible to project the future "availability" of needed equipment (in weeks, months, or years).

Consequently, a facility incapable of maintaining its equipment cannot be considered "mission ready."

The description above expands on an obvious relationship between the facility and the mission: that

certain facilities must be available to support the weapons and other equipment in the modem Army's

inventory. A less obvious relation exists between the deterioration of a facility and its mission readiness.

This important aspect is explored separately in the following section. The DIVISION 86 study briefly

discussed facility upgrades, an aspect summarized in the section, "Commander Input." (p 14)

Repair and Maintenance of a Facility or Build New

This work will relate general facility requirements to TO&E, and will focus on historical impact.

The relationship of the facility to the mission will determine whether to repair, enovate, or tear down and

rebuild deteriorating facilities. Analysis methods will include Econometric Modeling using statistical and

time-series analysis. The statistical analysis will use both analysis of variance and regression analysis.

Time-series analysis will employ a multivariate, auto-regressive integrated moving average (ARIMA).

Facilities become critical when new equipment is fielded. For example, during the DIVISION 86"

period of force modernization, a Facility Support Plan (FSP) for the fielding of the Field Artillery

Battalion, 8-in. Self Propelled/Multiple Launch Rocket System was generated that affected DA Pamphlet

5-25.'3 As is typical when fielding new equipment or restructuring the Army to meet a current threat,

a list of the facility requirements were identified, including both "organic" and "non-organic" facilities:

Organic facilities are those facilities normally allocated to a military unit by virtue of its mission and

operational requirements. 4

Non-organic facilities are those facilities normally provided by other military units or installation

activities necessary to support the mission of the units.'"

This will be covered in more detail in the final report (FY94).

DIVISION 86 was an Army-wide modernization program begun in 1981. 13 DIVISION 86 Field Artillery Battalion 8-Inch Self Propelled Multiple Launch Rocket System, Army Force Modernization

Facility Support Plan, OCE-FSP-83-032/ADBO73341L (Office of the Chief of Engineers [OCE), February 1983); DA PAM

5-25. Army Modernization Information Memorandum (AMIM) (HQDA, 1990).

Army Force Modernization Facility Support Plan, p 5.

' Army Force Modernization Facility Support Plan, p 7.

11
Human/Facility Interior Interaction

"Interior Interaction," or how well a facility's design meets its occupants' needs or comforts, is not

critical to this particular project; however, interior interaction does play a role in personnel performance,

which in turn relates to a facility's contribution to overall mission performance. Because its role is

remote, interior interaction will only be given a superficial review in this study.

Current investigations 16 of human/facility interior interaction and facility usage requirements focus

on improving the facility "delivery process," that "cradle-to-grave" planning for facilities: from concept,

through construction, to occupancy and eventual disposal. This research analyzes the programming,

design, planning, criteria, and any other pertinent areas that best represent the facility requirements. Some

of the investigations go further by looking at the programming, planning, and design having the best life

cycle capability. That is to say, an individual facility (an office building, for example) is likely to be used

for several distinct purposes throughout its useful life; its initial design should be flexible enough to meet

changing requirements. Consideration of the flexibility and ability to modify a facility or its interior space

is also covered. Significant to this study are those attributes that affect morale and satisfaction with the

work environment, and how those attributes contribute to mission readiness.

As yet there is no way to measure the relationship between Army missions, facility requirements

to accomplish those missions, and human welfare, satisfaction, and work performance within those

facilities. This research will address the interrelationship between human welfare and satisfaction, and the

physical attributes of a facility. Results of this effort will provide the implied indirect links between the

facility and mission readiness. As will be discussed in the following section, the morale and welfare of

the soldier is important in an overall assessment of readiness. Facilities affect the individual soldier's as

well as the unit's ability to perform the mission. A necessary and separate area of study is how a

facility's use of space and of its physical surroundings (facility/environment) affect mission readiness.

Quality of Life

Over the years, studies such as those cited in this section have investigated the relation between

military installations and the requirements of maintaining a standing Army. Past programs such as

"Communities of Excellence," "Year of the Soldier," etc., depended on the positive impact these programs

had as an indirect" force multiplier. Studies conducted in the early 1970s on the transition from a

"Draft" Army to a Volunteer Army (VOLAR) and attrition may help connect retention and mission

readiness to quality of life issues. The emphasis that has already been placed on quality of life and

concern for the appearance of the military communities does indicate a strong basis for linking mission

readiness with an installation's facilities. For example, the Army Communities of Excellence (ACOE)

described in DA PAM 600-45 makes direct references to the quality of the facility and mission

performance:

Douglas C. Heinen et al., Ilunman/Facility Interior Interaction, Concept Draft developed under the current work unit SA-X02,

"HurmanFacility/Mission Interaction," of Project 4A161102AT23, "Basic Research in Military Construction" (USACERL,

6 August 1991).

12
Excellent facilities constitute the physical environment in which services are performed and in whi,h

activities take place. Excellent facilities are force multipliers.... Traditionally, we have set our sights

far too low; we have not realized the impact facilities have on our people. 17

The quality of life issue appears to be significant. Since the ARTEP results show a direct

relationship between mission readiness and personnel turnover, it also becomes necessary to understand

the indirect relationship between facilities and mission readiness based on the facilities' affects on the

soldier. Assistant Secretary of Defense (Force Management and Personnel) Chapman B. Cox has stated

that concern for the quality of life of DOD employees pays off in retention, better morale and increased

productivity. 18 Mr. Robert P. Stone, as Deputy Assistant to Secretary of Defense (listallations), has

emphasized that quality of life is affected by the facilities in which the military personnel live and work:

Facility investment is critical, we can't afford not to invest more. Obsolete facilities are expensive

because they cost us productivity, quality, and pride-which means reduced mission capability. Industry

invests about three times as much, proportionally, as DOD. Major companies.., invest in quality

facilities to get and keep the best people, to get the best from their people, and to accomplish their

mission better .... These companies know that quality facilities repay their cost in the quality of work

done by people who use them. 19

More specifically, a 1988 thesis entitled An Analysis of Quit/Stay Decisions of Junior Army Officers

states that, "satisfaction with medical facilities .... recreation services, . . . commissary facilities .... and

a good environment for the family ... lead to increase in satisfaction with the military life." 20

An installation supports more than the unit and the mission of that installation. The facilities must

perform supporting, functional roles that include secondary, "implied" missions. While the primary

emphasis is to support the mission of the assigned unit, the secondary mission is to support the soldiers

and their families: "The installation is a living/working community of soldiers and their families. As

research during the past two decades has shown us, the phrase 'and their families' is increasingly important."2 1

Entries in the DD 1391, section 11, "Impact if not provided" commonly express a similar concern:

"If this project is not provided, the lack of adequate childcare at Fort Myer will adversely affect mission

readiness, retention, and service member morale." 22

17 DA PAM 600-45, Guidelines for Community Excellence (HQDA. October 1989), ch. 3-1, p 7.

18 Terry D. Kline, An Investigation Into the Predictors of Employment Intentions for Department of Defense Employees, MS

Thesis, AFITIGSM/LSR/885-14/ADA201493 (School of Systems and Logistics, Air Force Institute of Technology, September

1988).

19 Robert P. Stone, "'Excellent Installations', 1989 Annual Report of the Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense (Installations),"

Defense Housing (November-December 1989), Vol III, No. 6, pp 18-20.

20 Rashmi Lal, A Model of Employment Decision Making: An Analysis of Quit/Stay Decisions of Junior Army Officers,

ADA204414 (Engineering and Economics Research Inc., Reston VA, April 1988), p 22.

21 David A. Blankinship, The Role of Installation Leaders in Creating a Supportive Family Environment, Report No.

1558/ADA223799 (Research Triangle Institute, Research Triangle Park, NC, May 1990).

22 "Department of the Army Justification of Estimates for FY91 Submitted to Congress January 1990," ADA221870. Operation

and Maintenance, Army Justification Book (Washington, DC, 1990), Vol 3, p 342.

13
On this same note, a recent Garrison Commanders' Survey2 3 conducted by the Director of

Management at the Army Chief of Staff level (DACS-DME) cited that the most significant mobilization

problem is single-parent assistance.

A significant amount of the literature discussed effects of "quality of life" issues to mission

readiness. As mentioned earlier, historical records lose their usefulness if the unit they measured

experiences a high personnel turnover. For instance, the ARTEP cited earlier indicated that reduced

personnel turnover, outside of normal duty rotation, could extend the validity of the ARTEP. Factors that

help stabilize soldiers and reduce turnover are the "quality of life" issues such as housing, childcare

services and facilities, and other community services and facilities.

Discussion of direct links between facilities and their contribution to mission readiness must include

the effects of indirect factors. The indirect links are the quality of the facilities, the equipment, and the

working personnel and how that quality affects performance, in other Aords, how it affects mission

readiness. Inadequate or inferior facilities affect the soldier's morale and desire to work, thus reducing

productive time. Two entries in the DD 1391 section "Impact if not provided" highlight this point:

If this project is not provided, adequate and necessary recreational facilities will continue to be

unavailable to basic trainees and service enlisted personnel. There are no other facilities available that

can be used for recreation. Without a break from the hard grind of training, the morale and

performance of new recruits could suffer.24

and,

If this project is not provided, aviation training will continue to be hampered by limited resources,

safety and environmental constraints, and rising costs. The new trainer cannot be delivered until the

proposed building has been completed. Only limited training will be accomplished without the

AVCATT, it will be expensive in terms of all resources required, e.g., costs, training area usage,

aircraft, and pilots.25

While the quality of the equipment soldiers use and train with also affects personnel retention, and in turn

affects the unit's readiness, investigation of the quality of equipment is beyond the scope of this study.

Commander Input

Several installation Commanders were surveyed to identify perceived relationships between

Commander objectives and facility characteristics. The data taken from this survey will be analyzed to

determine, from the Commander's point of view, which facilities are relatively important to mission

readiness. The Commander must assume that his unit can perform its mission. Additionally, a copy of

the survey conducted by the Director of Management within the Army Chief of Staff was reviewed. The

focus of the survey sent out by DACS-DME was to solicit the Garrison Commanders' concerns.

23 Garrison Commanders' Survey Summary Report (Department of the Army Chief of Staff, Installation Management Division.

29 November 1990). 24 FY 1991 Budget Estimates: Military Construction, Family Housing, and Homeowners Assistance (Department of the Army

[DA1, 1990). 25 Department of the Army Justification, p 22.

14
In that survey the respondents were almost unanimous in stating that the most significant change

facing commanders is maintaining aging facility infrastructure. Declining resources is the second most

significant problem. The commanders noted that as Base Operations (BASOPS) resources continue to

decline, the potential future cost to facilities will be paramount. Garrison Commanders recognize

dwindling resources and aging facilities as inherent problems, something which came as no surprise to the

Director of Management at the Army Staff.26

Military Construction Project Data

Every year, the Department of Defense presents its budget to Congress for approval and funding.

The Army portion of that budget is partially fed by the "Green Book,"27 which consists of all Major

Construction, Army (MCA) projects requiring funding approval. This information comes from the DD

Form 1391. The Automated DD Form 1391 Processor System (1391 Processor) helps MACOMs,

Installations, and Headquarters, Department of the Army (HQDA) develop, submit, review, edit, prioritize,

and approve DD Forms 1391 Military Construction Project Data. At Army installations, projects are

developed, prioritized, and submitted electronically to Major Sub-commands and MACOMs, where they

are reviewed, edited, prioritized and resubmitted electronically to the DA Program Manager. U.S. Army,

Corps of Engineers (USACE) Districts and Divisions participate in the development/review process and

receive the 1391 documents as primary descriptions of projects to be designed. DD 1391s are the

principal statutory instruments for the Authorization and Appropriation of Military Construction. The

President's Budget to Congress for Military Construction is composed largely of these documents. Once

enacted into law, they become the governing documents for Construction control.

Paragraph 11 of the DD 1391 requires the preparer to indicate the "Impact if not provided." A

sampling of DD 1391's submitted to Congress for Military Construction for FY 199128 produced the

following entries. (Full text and content are provided in Appendix A):

If this project is not provided, the 87th Engineer Company will not have an adequate and functional

facility to perform maintenance and repair to their vehicles and will not be able to effectively perform

their mission in support of the NTC.

If this project is not provided, aviation training will continue to be hampered by limited resources,

safety and environmental constraints, and rising costs.

If this project is not provided, inadequate production now available cannot maintain current stockage

levels. Existing stocks will exceed useful shelf life without replacement. Unavailability of detection

paper will increase vulnerability of soldiers to chemical attack, with potential significant increase in

numbers and severity of chemical casualties thus affecting mission accomplishment.

The President's budget to Congress for Military Construction serves as a testimony to the

relationship between the facility and the mission it supports. In the budget, the justifications for the

funding requests are found in the Green Book. In most cases, the failure to support the facility has direct

or indirect impact on the mission readiness of a unit, and in most cases, support of the facilities is

expressed in support for their construction, maintenance, and repair programs.

Garrison Commanders' Survey Summary Report.

The "Green Book." or the Authorization and Appropriation of Military Construction, is a yearly budget document used to

develop the President's Budget to Congress for Military Construction.

Department of the Army Justification, various.

15
3 CONCLUSIONS

This research has established some of the direct and indirect links between an Army installation's

facilities and its mission readiness/accomplishment. It is concluded that the following relationships exist:

1. An indirect relationship exists between maintenance and repair activities and mission readiness.

The present policy of maintaining existing facilities, along with the successful demonstration of how this

fixed base structure supported the Army's mission in the recent Persian Gulf War, clearly show that

adequate facilities maintenance is linked to the Army's overall mission.

2. A direct relationship exists between personnel turbulence (turnover) and mission readiness.

A Review of the Army Training and Evaluation Program (ARTEP) records, which are studied to determine

levels of readiness and training, indicates that there is a positive relation between ARTEP evaluations and

personnel turbulence.

3. Factors that influence personnel turnover have an indirect relationship with mission readiness.

These are "quality of life" factors, which often involve construction and maintenance of those services and

facilities where military personnel live and work: housing, the workplace, childcare services and facilities,

and other community services and facilities.

4. A direct relationship can be established between equipment maintenance and repair, and

mission readiness. This relationship can be documented by developing a database for specific Table of

Organization and Equipment units. By tracking required maintenance schedules against actual records,

and factoring in unscheduled repairs, predicting backlogs on services and maintenance, and their effects,

it is possible to show whether existing facilities are adequate to meet their stated mission requirements.

It was noted that not all the studies performed on this subject exist in published form. Efforts

continue to locate unpublished investigations on this topic. Work also continues in analyzing data from

surveys sent to Installation Commanders and in collecting data for the development of an econometric

model. This model will become one of the tools needed to quantify and measure these relationships.

CITED REFERENCES

Amendolia, James A., Training Management and Personnel Turbulence, ADB059955L (Army Command and General Staff

College, Fort Leavenworth, KS, June 1981).

ARTEP 5-54, Engineer Equipment Companies (Headquarters. Department of the Army [HQDA]. 17 May 1983).

Base Structure Report for Fiscal Year 1989 (Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense, Production and Logistics, March 1988),

p 1 .

Bland, David L., An Analysis of the Effects Housing Improvements Have on the Retention of Air Force Personnel,

AFrT/GEM/DEM/90S-2/ADA229466 (Air Force Institute of Technology, Wright-Patterson AFB, OH, September 1990).

Blankinship, David A., The Role of Installation Leaders in Creating a Supportive Family Environment, Report No.

1558/ADA223799 (Research Triangle Institute, Research Triangle Park, NC, May 1990).

DA PAM 5-25, Army Modernization Information Memorandum (AMIM) (HQDA, 1990).

16
CITED REFERENCES (Cont'd)

DA PAM 600-45, Army Communities of Excellence (HQDA, October 1989).

"Department of the Army Justification of Estimates for FY91 Submitted to Congress January 1990," ADA221870, Operation

and Maintenance, Army Justification Book (Washington. DC, 1990), Vol 3.

Department of Defense Base Structure Report for Fiscal Year 1989, ADA201615 (Assistant Secretary of Defense [Production

and Logistics], Washington. DC, March 1988. )

DIVISION 86 Field Artillery Battalion 8-Inch Self Propelledi Multiple Launch Rocket System, Army Force Modernization Facility

Support Plan, OCE-FSP-83-032/ADB073341L (Office of the Chief of Engineers [OCE], February 1983).

Engineer Equipment Companies, ARTEP 5-54 (HQDA, 17 May 1983), p 1-1.

FY 1991 Budget Estimates: Military Construction, Family Housing, and Homeowners Assistance (Department of the Army [DA],

1990).

Garrison Commanders' Survey Summary Report (Department of the Army Chief of Staff, Installation Management Division, 29

November 1990).

Heinen, Douglas C., et al., Human/Facilily Interior Interaction, Concept Draft developed under the current work unit SA-X02.

"Human/Facility/Mission Interaction," of Project 4A161102AT23, "Basic Research in Military Construction" (USACERL,

6 August 1991).

Hollinberger, Thomas S., Maintenance and Repair of Naval Shore Facilities: Resources and Readiness, ADB130098L (Naval

Postgraduate School, Monterey, CA, December 1988).

Kline, Terry D., An Investigation Into the Predictors of Employment Intentions for Department of Defense Employees, MS Thesis,

AFIT/GSM/LSR/88514/ADA201493 (School of Systems and Logistics, Air Force Institute of Technology, September 1988).

Lal, Rashmi, A Model of Employment Decision Making: An Analysis of QuitlStay Decisions of Junior Army Officers,

ADA204414 (Engineering and Economics Research Inc., Reston VA, April 1988).

Stone, Robert P., "Excellent Installations, 1989 Annual Report of the Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense (Installations),"

Defense Housing (November-December 1989). Vol m. No. 6, pp 18-20.

UNCITED REFERENCES

Alley, William E., Effect of Air Force Recruiting Incentives on Volunteer Enlistments, AFHRL-TR-76-5/ADA025852 (Air Force

Human Resources Laboratory. Brooks AFB, TX, May 1976).

Barnes, C.T., United States Military Retirement Migration: Patterns and Processes, AFIT/CI/NR-84-57D/ADA 145432 (Air Force

Institute of Technology, March 1984).

Base Structure Annex to Manpower Requirements Report for FY85, ADA138302 (Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense

[Manpower Reserve Affairs and Logistics], January 1984).

Boesel, David, and Kyle Johnson, Why Service Members Leave the Military: Review of the Literature and Analysis,

DMDC/MRB/TR-84-3/ADA173559 (Defense Manpower Data Center, Arlington, VA, April 1984).

Bowen, Gary L., The Influence of Family Factors on the Retention Decision Making Process of Military Members, ADA226948

(Research Triangle Institute, August 1990).

Bower, Robert B., An Investigation of the Lifestyle of Coast Guard Lower Enlisted Grade Families Concerned Specifically With

Housing, Benefits, and Use of Related Coast Guard Programs, ADA024892 (Naval Postgraduate School, December 1975).

17
UNCITED REFERENCES (Cont'd)

Burnete, Larry R., The Army Family-A Force in Transition. Where Do We Go from Here?, ADA192577 (Army War College,

Carlisle Barracks, PA, March 1988).

Cavin, Edward S., Is There Such a Thing as Overall Satisfaction With Military Life? A Factor Analysis of Marine Corps Data,

CRC-578/ADB126246 (Center for Naval Analyses, Alexandria, VA, February 1988).

Cooper, Richard V.L., Military Manpower and the All-Volunteer Force, R-1450-ARPA/ADA044797 (Rand Corporation, Santa

Monica, CA, September 1977).

Dansby. M.R., A Proposal for the Revision of the US. Air Force Spouse Survey, ACSC-84-0645/ADB085574 (Air Command

and Staff College, Maxwell AFB, AL, April 1984).

Department of Defense Base Structure Report for Fiscal Year 1987, ADA164614 (Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense

[Acquisition and Logistics], January 1986).

Deponai, John M., III, et al., Facilities Readiness Quantification Model User's Manual, Technical Report (TR) P-1 24/ADA 113737

(U.S. Army Construction Engineering Research Laboratory [USACERLI, Champaign, IL, April 1982).

Dinkel, Ernest H., Jr., The Utilization of Civilian Prisoners in Support of Base Operation Functions, ADA207337 (Army War

College, January 1989).

Enhanced Preliminary Assessment Report: Bedford Army Housing Units, ADA213386 (Argonne National Laboratories, Argonne,

IL, September 1989).

Enhanced Preliminary Assessment Report: Beverly Army Housing Units, ADA213381 (Argonne National Laboratories, September

1989).

Enhanced Preliminary Assessment Report: Nahant Army Housing Units, ADA213387 (Argonne National Laboratories, September

1989).

Enhanced Preliminary Assessment Report: Topsfield Army Housing Units, ADA213382 (Argonne National Laboratories,

September 1989).

Etheridge, Rose M., Family Factors Affecting Retention: A Review of the Literature, ADA210506 (Research Triangle Institute,

March 1989).

Eskew, Henry L, Issues in the Measurement and Modeling of Shore Base Facility Readiness, ADB120816L (Center for Naval

Analyses, Alexandria, VA, August 1986).

Feliciano, Ivette, and Paula Rebar, Resource Estimating Relationships and Factorsfor Army in Europe, ADA215200 (U.S. Army,

Europe and Seventh Army, APO New York 09403, 1989).

Flannery. P.A., M.R. Dansby, and R. Mickey, USAF Family Survey: A Revision of the USAF Spouse Survey, ADA160088

(Leadership and Management Development Center, Maxwell AFB, AL, August 1985).

Gauntner, Donald E., An Analysis of Volunteer Soldiers' Perceptions and Expectations About Satisfaction With Army Life,

ADA042455 (Army War College, May 1977).

Haluski, John S., The Army's Future and the Gramm-Rudman-Hollings Law. ADA223592 (Army War College, March 1990).

Hawkins, Jeffrey A., William B. Moore, and Trevor L. Neve, Managing Real Property Maintenance: Meeting the Challenge

of Declining Budgets, LMI-AR906Rl/ADA223492 (Logistics Management Institute, Bethesda. MD, March 1990).

Hery, R., and R.R. Jacobs, Mobilization Studies Program Report. U.S. Army Single and Inservice Parents, NDU/ICAF-MPS-76-

84/ADBO93834L (Industrial College of the Armed Forces, Washington, DC, April 1984).

18
UNCITED REFERENCES (Cont'd)

Hicks. Donald K.. Preventive Maintenance Program: Evaluation and Recommendations for Improvements, TR P-90/16/ADA225-

884 (USACERL, June 1990).

Hughes, Gary, and Arthur B. Seney, Relationships of Attitude Factors to the Career Decision of First Term Military Members,

TR-73-5/ADA044570 (Wichita State University, Wichita, KS, October 1973).

Hunter, Cardell S., Measuring the Impact of Military Family Programs on the Army, ADA182778 (Army War College, March

1987).

Huston. Michael L.. Foreign Currency Strategies: Why Are Our Hands Tied?, ADA222930 (Army War College, April 1990).

Jackson, Jeffrey A., Facility Reliability and Maintainability: An Investigation of the Air Force Civil Engineering Recurring Work

Program, AFIT/GEM/DEM/89S-10/ADA215852 (Air Force Institute of Technology, September 1989)

Jones. James A., Naval Facilities Condition: The Annual Inspection Summary Report and the Shore Base Readiness Report,

ADA177434 (Naval Postgraduate School, December 1986).

Keller, Frederick D., An Investigation of Functional Deficiencies in Tactical Aircraft Maintenance Facilities, AFIT/GLM/LSM-

/87S-39/ADA191517 (Air Force Institute of Technology, September 1987).

Kleb. G.R., and C.J. Sollohub, Mobilization and Defense Management Technical Report Series. Effective Integration of Facility

Requirements Into Army System Acquisition Programs, NDU/ICAF-83/001, IR-3/ADA 137669 (Industrial College of the Armed

Forces, Washington, DC, May 1983).

Kriner, Richard E., Richard J. Orend, and Leslie S. Rigg, A Further Examination of Enlistment Motivation and the Disposition

ofArmy Applicants, HumRRO-TR-75-15/ADA012682 (Human Resources Research Organization, Alexandria, VA, June 1975).

Krueger, Walter A.. Jr., Military Families With Handicapped Children: The Reassignment Problem, HumRRO-TR-75-

15/ADA012682 (Air War College, Maxwell AFB, AL, February 1981).

Lalchandani, Atam P.. et al., Cost and Retention Impacts of the Navy's CONUS Recreation Program, ADA038654 (Control

Analysis Corporation, Palo Alto, CA, September 1975)

Lawson, Judith K., and Dianne J. Murphy, Attitude Survey of Military Family Housing Occupants, Hawaii 1985. Supplement.

Statistical Tables, NPRDC-TR-86-1-SUPPL/ADA162541 (Navy Personnel Research and Development Center, San Diego, CA,

November 1985).

Lawson, Judith K., et al., Department of Defense Survey of Living Conditions Overseas. 1984, Volume 2: Results., NPRDC-TR85-28/ADA159780 (Navy Personnel Research and Development Center, San Diego, CA, November 1985).

Martyn, S.A., Preliminary Study of Factors for Consideration in a Medium Density Housing Development in the Enoggera

Military Area, RN-10/8 1/ADAI 12216 (Australian Military Forces, Canberra Psychological Research Unit (1). Canberra,

Australia, November 1981).

Mather, Walter A., Tradeoff Analysis of Removing Dependents From USAREUR, ADA090695 (Naval War College, Newport,

RI, June 1980).

McAdams, Richard G., A Study To Determine the Impact of Medical Readiness Programs on FY 1987 Resource Utilization at

Tripler Army Medical Center, ADA212072 (Academy of Health Sciences Army, Fort Sam Houston, TX, October 1988).

McAfee, Richard J., Facilities and the Maritime Strategy. Volume 1: A Strategic Imperative, ADB 113886L (Naval War College,

April 1987).

Military Housing: Analyses of Overseas Housing Costs Are Misleading to Decision Makers. GAO/NSIAD-86-82/ADA169590

(General Accounting Office, Washington, DC, June 1986).

19
UNCITED REFERENCES (Cont'd)

Orthner, Dennis K., Paula Early-Adams. and David Pollock, Community Support Programs: Review of the Literature,

ADA227550 (Research Triangle Institute, September 1990).

Orthner, Dermis K., Family Impacts on the Retention of Military Personnel, ADA225084 (Research Triangle Institute, April

1990).

Pollock, David, and Anita Brown. Inventory of Community Satisfaction and Family Support Measures, ADA232974 (Research

Triangle Institute, February 1991).

Rice, Robert W., Work and the Perceived Quality of Life. A Final Report, ADA175406 (New York State University, Department

of Psychology, Buffalo, NY, December 1986).

Rider, Maradee W., Single Parents in the Military, ADA089934 (Naval Postgraduate School, June 1980).

Rosenberg, Florence R., The Wife of the First Term Enlisted Soldier. A Study of Socialization and Role, ADA210803 (Walter

Reed Army Institute of Research, Washington, DC, February 1989).

Ross, Thomas P., Determining the Impact of Family Programs Upon Retention: Why Successful Officers Stay, ADA170780

(Army War College, May 1986).

Schlenker, George J., Study of Maintenance Policy Alternatives for Inactive Ammunition Production Facilities. DRSAR/SA/N.

l/ADB066801L (Army Armament Material Readiness Command, Rock Island, IL, June 1982).

Small, Eric M., Paying for Improvements at On-Base Schools for Military Dependents: A Prototype, LMI-FP803RI/ADA210952

(Logistics Management Institute, Bethesda, MD, December 1988).

Van Meter, H.C., The Future of the Volunteer Army: A Projection, 6092/ADBO I1403L (Air War College, April 1976).

Vemez, Georges, Gail L. Zellman, Families and Mission: A Review of the Effects of Family Factors on Army Attrition,

Retention, and Readiness, RAND/N-2624-A/ADA189073 (Rand Corporation. August 1987).

Voetsch, John A., IV, A Study To Determine the Extent of Social Support and Burnout Among Nurses at Womack Army

Community Hospital, 105-98/ADA220170 (Womack General Hospital, Fort Bragg, NC, July 1986).

Williams, R., Feasibility Study To Determine the Most Cost Effective and Efficient Means for Distribution and Storage of

Subsistence for US. Army Commissaries, ADB094995L (Technology Management Corporation Virginia Beach, VA, June

1985).

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

ACOE Army Communities of Excellence

Al Artificial Inteligence

AGI Annual General Inspection

AMIM Army Modernization Information Memorandum

ARI Army Research Institute

ARIMA Auto Regressive Integrated Moving Average

ARTEP Army Readiness Testing and Evaluation Program

20
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS (Cont'd)

BASOPS Base Operations

DA Department of the Army

DD Department of Defense (abbreviation for forms); see also DoD

DoD, DOD Department of Defense

FS Facility Systems

FSP Facility Support Plan

FY Fiscal Year

HQDA Headquarters, Department of the Army

HQUSACE Headquarters, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

MACOMS Major Army Commands

MADS Mission Area Deficiency Statement

MCA Major Construction, Army

NTC National Training Center

OACE Offie of the Chief of Engineers

O&M Operations and Maintenance

PAM Pamphlet

PI Principle Investigator

RPMA Real Property Maintenance Activities

TO&E Table of Organization and Equipment

USACE U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

USACERL U.S. Army Construction Engineering Research Laboratory

USAENSC U.S. Army Engineering and Housing Support Center

USR Unit Status Report

WRAIR Walter Reed Army Institute of Research

21
22
APPENDIX A: Survey of Installation Commanders

Survey of Installation Commanders

Identifying the Relationship Between Commander Objectives

and Facility Characteristics

U.S. Army Corps of Engineer

Constnzction Engumernng Research Laboratory

and

Massachusetts Institute of Technology

23
INTRODUCTION

The relationship between commander objectives (i.e., readiness, quality of life, retention) and facility characteristics

(i.e.,facility type. quantiy"'amount, physical condition) is not well understood. There is no system for comparing the

achievement of commander objecuves und.zr different facility strategies. The purpose of this questionnaire is to

define the relationship between commander objectives and facility characteristics in a form that can be used in the

development of practical decision support tools. Ultimately, these tools will provide the capability to predict the

impact of facility management decisions on the achievement of commander objectives.

This questionnaire is directed solely towards installation commanders. It is meir experience 9nd opinions that

will make the results valid and useful. The Director of Engineering and Housing will be receiving a similar

questionnaire.

All responses will be handled in a confidential manner. No names of individual respondents or installations will

be used in the presentation of results.

Name:

Rank:

Installation:

Locnation:

POINT OF CONTACT

For additional information about this study or any specific questions concerning this survey, please contact

Ms. Joyce Baird. U.S. Army Construction Engineering Research Laboratory, 1-800-USA-CERL.

24
1. Given your installation's mission, rate the following types of OBJECTIVES in terms of their importance to you

as an installation commander. (Please circle the appropriate number for each item)

Less More

OBJECTIVES Important Important

Readiness 1 2 3 4 5

Training 1 2 3 4 5

Productivity 1 2 3 4 5

Quality of Life 1 2 3 4 5

Retention 1 2 3 4 5

Awards Programs 1 2 3 4 5

Statutory Compliance 1 2 3 4 5

Force Modernization 1 2 3 4 5

Profitability (i.e.. self-supporting MWR facilities) 1 2 3 4 5

Other (please specify) 1 2 3 4 5

Other (please specify) 1 2 3 4 5

2. Given your installation's mission, rate the importance of the fullowing types of MEANS in achieving your

overall OBJECTIVES as an installation commander. (Please c.rcle the appropriate number for each item)

Lew More

MEANS important Important

Land 1 2 3 4 5

Facilities 1 2 3 4 5

Equipment 1 2 3 4 5

Personnel 1 2 3 4 5

Funding 1 2 3 4 5

Other (please specify) 1 2 3 4 5

Other (please specify) 1 2 3 4 5

3. Given your installation's mission, rate the importance of the following ORGANIZATIONAL ELEMENTS in

achieving your overall OBJECTIVES as an installation commander. (Please circle the appropriate number for

each item)

Less More

ORGANIZATIONAL ELEMENTS Important Important

Headquarters Command (HQ CMD) 1 2 3 4 5

Major Subordinate Commanders 1 2 3 4 5

Resource Management (DRM) 1 2 3 4 5

Engineering & Housing (DEH) 1 2 3 4 5

Personnel & Community Activities (DPCA) 1 2 3 4 5

Plans. Training. & Mobilization (DPTM) 1 2 3 4 5

Security (DSEC) 1 2 3 4 5

Logistics (DOL) 1 2 3 4 5

Provost Marshal's Office (PMO) 1 2 3 4 5

Information Management (DOIM) 1 2 3 4 5

Reserve Component Support (DRCS) 1 2 3 4 5

Contracting (DOC) 1 2 3 4 5

Other (please specify) 1 2 3 4 5

Other (please spectfy) 1 2 3 4 5

25
INSTRUCTIONS FOR QUESTIONS 4A, 4B & 4C

Based on your current installation command, fill in your first, second, and third most important OBJECTIVES

Sin the appropriately marked red boxes in questions 4A. 4B and 4C, respectively. See example. A list of

possible commander objectives can be referenced in question 1, but please feelfree tofll in different

objectives using your own terminology.

In achieving each of these three OBJECTIVES, identify the 1st, 2nd, and 3rd most important FACILITY

TYPES available to you as an installation commander. Three responses are required in each blue column in

. questions 4A, 4B and 4C. See example. For further explanation of any one facility type please refer to the

inside back cover page.

Note that each facility type in questions 4A, 4B and 4C has a corresponding yellow row of facility

characteristics. Please identify the 1st, 2nd, and 3rd most important CHARACTERISTICS of each of the

three FACILITY TYPES you identified in each question. A total of nine responses are required for this

part of each question, three per facility type. See example. For further explanation of any one characteristic

please refer to the inside back cover page.

EXAMPLE- = The following example indicates that "Readiness" is currently your most important objective as an

installation commander. You believe that "Classroom Facilities" is your most important facility type for

achieving "Readiness" at your installation, with "Ranges & Training Grounds" and "Administrative Facilities" being

your 2nd and 3rd most important facility types, respectively. In your evaluation of how "Classroom Facilities"

help you achieve "Readiness" at your installation, you believe that it is most important to have an adequate "Amount" of

"Cassruoom Facilities," it is 2nd most important to have them in good "Physical Condition," and it is 3rd most important

for them to "Function Adequately." The same principal applies for the characteristics that are specified for "Ranges &

Training Grounds" and "Administrative Facilities."

(EXAMPLE)

FIRST OBJECTIVE FACILITY CHARACTERISTICS

Quantityl Fuincu'al Physical ManageAmnt Adequacy Conditon ability Flexibility E ~Ranges & Training Grounds .... 2.

Classroom Facilities L . 2

Maenaice Facilities

Medical Facilities______________

Adiinismuve Facilities Z I

26
4A. FIRST OBJECTIVE FACILITY CHARACTERISTICS

Quantity/ Futonal Physical Mage- Locaton/

Amount Adequacy Condition ability Flexibility Appearance Pmxinity

Ranges & Training Grounds

* Classrom Facilities

Maintenance Facilites

* Medical Facilities________

* Adminisuaive Facilities

*Operational Facilities

SStorage Facilities

Utility Systems

M. W. R. Facilities

Family Housing

Other Housing

R & D Facilities

4B. SECOND OBJECTIVE FACILITY CHARACTERISTICS

Quantty/ Functional Physical Manage- Location/

Amount Adequacy Condition ability Flexibility Appearance Proximity

Ranges & Training Grounds

Classroom Facilies

Maintenance Facilities

Medical Facilities

Administrave Facilities

Operamonal Facilities

Storage Facilities

Utility Systems

M. W. R. Facilities

Family Housing

Other Housing

R & D Facilities

4C. THIRD OBJECTIVE FACILITY CHARACTERISTICS

Qumity/ Functional Physical Manage- Location/

Amount Adequacy Condition ability Flexibility Appearance Proximity

Ranges & Trainig Grounds

Claoom Facilities

Maintanarice Facilities ____ ________

Medical Facilities

Adroinisuative Facilities ____ ____ ____ ____ ________

Operational Facilities ____ ____ ________

Storage Facilities___________________

Utility Systeas

M. W. R. Facilities

Family Homg__ _____

Other Homsing ___ ___ ___

R & D Facilities

27
5. Please evaluate the following statements:

(Please circle the appropriate number for each statement)

Strongly Mostly Mostly Strongly

Disagree Disagree Neutral Agree Agree

a. Real property decision making, on average, plays a critical part in

the overall performance of my installation. 1 2 3 4 5

b. I do not have sufficient information or methodology available to

clearly evaluate the physical performance or use effectiveness of my 1 2 3 4 5

installation facilities.

c. The "time horizon" or planning period that I typically base my

objectives on is defied by my tenure as installation commander. 1 2 3 4 5

d. My installation's investment in such facilities oriented programs

as "Communities of Excellence" is having a strong positive impact 1 3 4

on the achievement of my overall objectives as commander.

e. Many of the regulations that are in place are hindering me from

making better facility related decisions (i.e.. RPMF). 1 2 3 4

f. The method by which new construction projects are prioritized at

my installation can be improved upon to better support my objectives. 1 2 3 4 5

g. I am provided adequate information for assessing the 'npacts of

funding recommendations made by the Program and Budget Advisory 1 2 3

Committee (PBAC Process).

Thank you for completing this survey. We would welcome any additional comments that you feel might be useful to this study.

If you would be willing to answer additional questions, please provide your telephone number

All respondents will be sent a copy of the results of this survey for their reference.

28
REFERENCE OF FACILITY TYPES

CLASSROOM FACILITIES: (171 Series Category Code) Classroom and other special buildings in which instruction is given, or

the design of which limits their use generally to instrictonal and training purposes. EXAMPLES: Battalion Classrooms. Flight Simulator

Building. Covered Training Area. Applied Instructional Building, and Post Signal School.

RANGES & TRAINING GROUNDS: (179 Series Category Code) Training courses, ranges, maneuver areas, including training mockups,

and similar type facilities provided for or limited in use to training. EXAMPLES: Field Firing Range, Impact Area, Hand to Hand Combat Pit.

Confidence Course. and Parade and Drill Field.

MAINTENANCE FACILITIES: (210-218 Series Category Code) Facilities and shops in support of the maintenance repair operation function

at military installations. EXAMPLES: Aircraft Component Maintenance Shops, Vehicle Maintenance Shop. Small Arms Repair Shop.

Electronics and Electrical Maintenance Shop, Vehicle Wash Shop.

MEDICAL FACILITIES: (500 Series Category Code) Facilities providing for both in patient and out patient medical care. EX lkMPLES:

Hospital. Dental Clinic. Medical Laboratory. Morgue, Clinic Without Beds.

ADMINISTRATIVE FACILITIES: (600 Series Category Code) Headquarters and office type buildings to accommodate offices, professional

and technical activities, business machines, records, files, and administrative supplies for normal operation. EXAMPLES: Post Headquarters

Building. Division Headquarters Building, Provost Marshal & Military Police Administration Building. Civilian Personnel Administration

Building, Engineer Administration Building.

OPERATIONAL FACILITIES: (110-169 Series Category Code) All facilities for housing operations and operational types of activities and

equipment- Also includes airfield pavements, and waterfront operational facilities. EXAMPLES: Buildings for radio, radar, relay, and

telephon, operations; Liquid Fueling & Dispensing Facilities, Communications Center, Weather Station, Reception Station Processing Facility,

Company Headquarters Building.

STORAGE FACILITIES: (400 Series Category Code) Facilities for receipt of bulktyve storage. EXAMPLES: Liquid Fuel Storage Facilities.

Atmmunition Storage Facilities, Cold Storage Warehouse, Family Housing General Storage, Aircraft Pats Storage Building.

UTILITY SYSTEMS: (800 Series Category Code) Central plants, systems, buildings and exterior lines for the processing, generation.

distribution, and disposal of utility related resources. EXAMPLES: Power Plant Building, Electrical Power Transmission & Distribution

Lines. Sewage & Industrial Waste Collection. Incinerator Building. Water Supply-Treatment-Storage. Roads and Streets. Fire & Other Alarm

Systems. Telephone System.

M. W. R. FACILITIES: (740-750 Series Category Code) Athletic, recreational and resale facilities. EXAMPLES: Bowling Center. Cafeteria,

Library. Commissary. Child Care Facilities, Bank, Baseball Field, Golf Course.

FAMILY HOUSING: (711-714 Series Category Code) Buildings to be used as family quarners with appurtenant facilities. EXAMPLES:

Family Housing & Trailer Sites for Officer. NCO, Enlisted. and Civilian Personnel.

OTHER HOUSING: (720-725 Series Category Code) Public housing for unaccompanied personnel with appurtenant facilities. EXAMPLES:

Barracks & Dormitories for Unaccompanied Offices and Enlisted Personnel, Unaccompanied Personnel Housing Dining Facilities. Troop

Housing Emergency.

R & D FACILITIES: (300 Series Category Code) Buildings used directly in theoretical or applied research, development, and testing, operations

related to basic research. EXAMPLES: R & D Science Laboratories, R & D Aircraft & Flight Equipment Facility, R & D Weapons & Weapon

Systems Facility. R & D Communications Equipment Facility.

REFERENCE OF FACILITY CHARACTERISTICS

QUANTITY/AMOUNT: The gross square feet of a particular facility type, or the total land area of an installation's ranges and training grounds.

FUNCTIONAL ADEQUACY: On average, how well a facility type addresses the needs of its users.

PHYSICAL CONDITION: On avenge, the state of repair of a particular facility type.

MANAGEABILITY: On average, the level of expenditures required to maintain a particular facility type at acceptable standards over time.

FLEXIBILITY: On average, how well a particular facility type can adapt to changing requirements over time.

APPEARANCE: On average, the aesthetic quality of a particular facility type.

LOC 4TION/ PROXIMITY: On average, the geographic relationship of a particular facility type to other installation facilities.

29
APPENDIX B: Extracts from the President's Budget to Congress

for Military Construction (FY9l)

FY 1991 MILITARY CONSTRUCTION PROJECT DATA

1. Component: Army

2. Installation and Location: Fort Irwin, CA

3. Project Title: Hardstand/Tactical Equipment Shop

Description of Proposed Construction

Construct an organizational and direct support tactical equipment shop with 10-ton crane, dispatch office,

oil house, a fuel dispensing point with tanks, maintenance platforms and hardstands. Supporting facilities

include utilities, electric service, paving, walks, curbs and gutters, information systems, and site

improvements. Heating will be provided by a self-contained system. Evaporative cooling: 26,000 cubic

feet per minute (CFM). The high cost of the supporting facility results from the U.S. Army Information

Systems Command (USAISC) requirement to provide information systems to this facility from the closest

manhole connection 3600 feet from the project. Extensions of the water, sewer, and electrical utilities are

longer than normal as we are building utilities as we need them project by project and only what is

absolutely necessary.

Impact If Not Provided

If this project is not provided, the 87th Engineer Company will not have an adequate and functional

facility to perform maintenance and repair to their vehicles and will not be able to effectively perform their

mission in support of the NTC. The 87th Engineer Company troops are in the field approximately 238

days annually performing their mission. Nonavailability of equipment due to maintenance must be held

to a minimum in order to provide realistic and effective support to the NTC. Without this project,

engineer maintenance will continue to be performed on a dusty, sandy area in the desert because the

installation has no facility. Additionally, environmental problems are great, and troop morale suffers due

to having to perform maintenance operations in a hot and dusty environment.

30
FY 1991 MILITARY CONSTRUCTION PROJECT DATA

1. Component: Army

2. Installation and Location: Fort Rucker, AL

3. Project Title: Flight Simulator Building

Description of Proposed Construction

Construct a facility to house Army Aviation Combined Arms Tactical Trainer (AVCATT) flight simulator

system. Connection to the energy monitoring and control system (EMCS). Supporting facilities include

utilities, electric service, information systems, walks, fencing, curbs and gutters, security lighting, fire

protection and alarm systems, storm drainage, parking, and site improvements. Heating will be provided

by the central gas-fired plant. Air conditioning (125 tons) will be provided by a self-contained system.

Demolish two temporary buildings (5000 SF). Support facility costs are high due to site improvements

required at the project location.

Impact If Not Provided

If this project is not provided, aviation training will continue to be hampered by limited resources, safety

and environmental constraints, and rising costs. The new trainer cannot be delivered until the proposed

building has been completed. Only limited training will be accomplished without the AVCATI. It will

be expensive in terms of all resources required, e.g. costs, training area usage, aircraft, and pilots.

FY 1991 MILITARY CONSTRUCTION PROJECT DATA

1. Component: Army

2. Installation and Location: Pine Bluff Arsenal, AR

3. Project Title: Detection Paper Facility

Description of Proposed Construction

Construct a paper manufacturing, impregnating, and processing plant. Supporting facilities include

utilities, electric service, information systems, waste holding tank, fire protection and alarm systems,

paving, apron, walks, storm drainage, security fencing and lighting, and site improvements. Heat will be

provided form the self-contained boiler plant. Air conditioning (3 tons) will be provided by a selfcontained unit. Mechanical ventilation: 16,000 CFM.

Impact If Not Provided

If this project is not provided, inadequate production now available cannot maintain current stockage

levels. Existing stocks will exceed useful shelf life without replacement. Unavailability of detection paper

will increase vulnerability of soldiers to chemical attack, with potential significant increase in numbers

and severity of chemical casualties thus affecting mission accomplishment.

31
USACERL DISTRIBUTION

ChidofEareme, 41h wastry iv (MECH) USA Natick RD&E Coam 01760 l0dim. Lovacs Ar-oy

ATTN4: CHI02C-Th4-UI C2) ATTN: APZC-FE ATTN: STRNC-0T ATTN: DLA-WI 22304

ATTN: CEIEC-DM-L.P (2) ATTN: DRDNA-F

AflN: C10) Pon Pick"t 2324 Walter Road Amy Motikol Ct. 20307

ATTN- CIR-M ATTN:t AFZA-WP-E 1RADOC

ATTN4: CECC-Ps ATTN: DEH (13) US Miliary A.admy 10996

ATTN: (IRDw. Tobyr Amy Depot 18466 For Monroe 23651 ATTN: MAEN A

ATTN: (1CW-P ATTN4: SDSTOG-RH ATTN: ATBO G ATTN: Facilities E.Since.

ATrN- CECW-PU Carlisle larinacks 17013 ATTN: Geotgapay & 0... Eugg

ATTN: (IMP-8 US Amy Materil Comoodru (AMC) ATTN: ATZE-DIS

ATTN; C&MP-C R.41gunn Arme.d 35809 Fort Eusti 23604 416th Enroot Ciom-od 60623

ATTN: (CYIW-O ATTN:, DESMI-ICLF ATTN: DEN ATTN: Gibon, USAR Cm,

AMT: CECW Uffiesso Pmrog Giomd 47230 For Chaes 72905

ATTN: CR1 ATTN: STEJP-LD-FIIIH ATTN: ATZR-22F USA lopat. (USARI)

ATrN. CEMP Letaorbiny Amy Depot For Sill 7350 ATTN: APAY-EN-ES 96343

ATTN: CR312-C ATTN: SDSLR-ENN 17201 ATTN: AMZ-2 AMT: HONSHU 96343

AMT. CB1MP-M Pamblo Army De.pot 81006 ATTN: DEN-Okaiawsi 96376

ATTN: CEMP-i ATTN: SDSTE-PUI-F US Amy Memia Toab Lab

ATTN:. CERD-ZA Dugvray Proving Gmsod 84022 ATTN: SLCMT-DEH 02172 Naval Facilites Ea Cotumood

AMTN DARN ZCM ATTN. STEDP-EN ATTN: Feilia.,.E.p Cooioaad (8)

ATTN: DAEN-ZCR Too.]. Amy Depuot 8404 WESTCOM 96858 AMT): Diviaio. Officra, (11)

AM:N D)AEN-ZCI ATTN: 50310-ELF ATTN: DEH AM:N Public Works. Cente (8)

Yum. Pmoi.3 Grm..] 85365 ATTN. APEN-A ATTN: Naval Coos aua seli Co, 93043

CRNSC ATTN: STRYP-EH-E ATTN: Naval Civil Engr Laborttory (3) 93043

ATTN. CIRHSC-F 22060 Tobybamm Amy Depot 1846 SHAPE 09705

ATTN: CEHSC-TT 2206 ATTN: SDSTO-E4 ATTN: Istfrasam~a.um zb, Lm.NDA Bib US Amy Kort.

ATTN4: (IIIS-ZC 22060 Smem. Amy Depot 14541 ATTN: DEN (12)

ATMN DET M 79906 ATTN: S0550-HE Ama 0

ai~aaer. AEDC-s Oice.

Al Ide Prcring Gratd Arnold Ai. Farce Staion. TN 37389 US Amy HSC

US Amiy Baff itic ATTN: STEAP-OGH 21005 For S=m Homuston 78234

ATTN: Ub. 7 (40) Sharpe Ann, Depot 95231 HQ USEUCOM 09128 ATTN: HSLO-F

ATTN: SDSSH4I ATTN. EC4-LE Faazenon Amy Muld..] C-.

US Amy EW Divim For Mieah 07703 ATTN: 115102DEN 8005

AM-N Ubstu7 (13) ATTN: SELFM-EH-B AMMAC 02172

Savaese. Amy Depot 61074 ATTN. DIUTMR-AP Tysd.11 APRI 32403

US Amy Ramep ATTN: SDSIE-VAR ATTN: DRXMR-WE ATTN: AMISC Progmo.n MX

ATTN: ARN-1111 09014 Rock Island Amen.] AM:N Eg 8 A S-. Lab

ATTN- ARN-ODCS 09014 ATTN: 581091-EN CEWES 39160

V Carps ATTNI: SMCRI-TL ATTN: Likay Chanute AFR 61868

AM-?. 0531 (3) Warmlie. An .. 1 12189 ATTN: 3345 CB5/DE

V11cosps, AM;N SMCWV.EN CECRIL 03755

ATTN: DIII (11) Red Rive Amy Deapot 76102 ATTN: Libary USA TSARCOM 63120

29th. Ana 3 S rew ATTN: SDSRR40 ATTN: STSAS-F

ATTN- AERAS-FA 09034 Harry Diamomd Lab USA AMCOM

1001k Suapport Oroul ATTN4: Likexy 20783 ATTN.: Faciiie Eogr 21719 Araicon Public Works Asoc. 60637

ATTN, AETT4-0518F 09114 White Stela Missile Raog U8002 ATTN: AMSMC-UR 61299

222d Daf Deakh= ATTN: Lihary ATTN: Facilities EM. (3) 63613 US Amy 0.vr Hylpam. Ageocy

ATTN- ARTYI-11NA S1 09034 Carles Christ Amy Dqpo AMT: HS510-ME 21010

235db DBan Suppor Dojialsm ATTN: SDSCC-ECO 78419 USAARMC 40121

ATTN: Um&a21614 Ams~bh 09177 ATTN: ATZIC-EHA US Gov't P iti.8 Office 20401

29d 3mat Suppor 111.masm FORSCO84 AM:N Rec Soc/Depana Sec (2)

ATTN. ABUSG-MA-AST-WO-H 09066 ATM:. Paciliti. Eq. (12) Miliary Traffi Mgmt Commmad

409* Siappot asal.= (usm) For Brau 211307 ATTN: MTEA-GD-EHP 07002 Nil Intia.. o Standards & Toch

ATTN: AETI91-EGH 09114 ATTN: APZA-05 ATTN: MT-LOP 210315 ATTN: -ibrary 20899

4121b Dom Supes flamli 09630 Fmr Campbell 42223 ATTN: MTE-SU-FE 28461

ATM: Unit 31401 ATTN: APED-D&lI ATTN: MTW-IE Defesee Tech heio Carrier 22304

Pekea 3im Sapm Daeail..c Fen Meay 54656 AM:N DTIC-PAB (2)

AM-N Usti 25M2 0924 ATTN: AF23t-OE Fmn Laosard Wood 6S413

CWTC Neodeh 09173 Pan Stiart 31314 ATTN. ATSE-DAC-LD (3) 302

ATTN: AETTII-301 ATTN: AFZP-130F ATfl4. ATZA-TE-SW 06/92

Maists Gummey 09185 F1 Baasam 00934 ATTN: ATSE-09L0

ATTN-. 3D-MZ-E ATTN: E.. OffD.. ATTN. ATSE-DAC-FL

2eA Spp mead Pt Damn 01433

ATTN. DIII (10) ATTN: AMED Military Dot f WASH

US Amy Stel] For Dries, 13602 Fm McNar

ATTN: AEIDA-Bl 09235 ATTN:. APZS-EH-E ATTN: ANEN 20319

ATTN. AEDA-EN 09235 Ponlrie 92310

SETAP ATTN: AFZ7-RH USA Eo. Actiity, Capial Am.

ATTN4: ASKEN-D 09613 For Heed 76344 ATTN: Lirary 2211

ATTN: AESE-EN 09630 ATTN: APZ3-DE-AES Eap

Samoem AMic Caomeed Fan Meode 20755 Nioma APB 92409

ATTN: ACSOEU 0G70 ATTN: AP1CA.23-EH-A ATTN: ULifry

ATTN. SH111306C11A 09705

66 Tdrmsy DI'ojo... (Li09) US Amy ARDEC 07806

INSCOM ATTN: APYR-DE 99305 ATTN: SN9CAR-ISE

ATTN: [LOO,00 2206 ATTN APVR-WP-Di 99103

ATTN: lAV-DIN 22136 Chaime E Kelly Spi Acivity

Natia Giud Dma.u 20310 ATTN: DEM 13071

USA lACORO 40900 ATTN: hasullsose 0iv

ATTN: ANSTA XE Eno. Socrisan Librry

Fast B*Nmoi 22060 ATTN: Acqodawo.n 10017

WDer Ohe/bagee Ra~ms DEs ATTN: CEIEC.IM-T

ATrOE DESE-WI 17070 ATTN: CECC-R 22060 0Dfns Nuclear Agemy7

ATTN: Rali Sameap StAck. Ctr ATTN: NADS 20305

HIQ XVE Aisamo. Corp 2820 ATTN: Waer. Reao,.ooe Supa, Cor

AMTN AFZA-DIII-EE ATTN, Antralka Lismos Office

This publication was reproduced con recycled paper. U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE: 1992 - 645-313