NRO APPROVEb FOR 

RELEASE 1 JULY 2015 

0(< 

kee 

TABLE OF CONTENTS 

Memorandum 

TAB 1 

TAB 2 - 

Past Performance Evaluation 

(not used by MOL SSB) 

A. Boeing AF 

NASA 

B. Douglas AF 

NASA 

C. General, Electric AF 

NASA 

D. Lockheed AF 

NASA 
NRO APPROVED FOR 

RELEASE 1 JULY 2015 

••••• 

REPLY TO 

ATTN OF: AFSPD 

DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE 

HEADQUARTERS UNITED STATES AIR FORCE 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 

SUBJECT: Record of. Performance Selected Contractors 

TO: Memorandum for Record 

1, This memorandum summarizes the results of a two day inquiry 

as to the record of actual performance over the past five years 

of the following contractors: 

Boeing - Aero Space Division 

Douglas - Space and Missile Division 

General Electric - Missile and Space Division 

Lockheed - Missile and Space Division 

2. The basis for the evaluation is information furnished by: 

a. OSD Data Bank of Contractor Performance Evaluations 

b. AFPR offices of the respective plants 

c. NASA/AF project manager offices 

3. The areas of performance evaluated were: schedule, costs, 

and specification fulfillment. In addition, each of the agencies 

contacted were requested to provide an overall assessment of the 

performance of the contractor with whom they were doing business. 

4. In summary: • 

a. On the basis of overall performance, all four contractors 

are currently and in the recent past been performing satisfactorily. 

b. Schedules. In terms of meeting schedules, all have a 

good record overall in meeting schedules with individual 

exceptions. 

c. Costs. In terms of controlling costs, all four reflect a mixed performance of overruns and underruns. 

Underwrite Tour Country's t - Buy U.S. Savings Bonds 
41/ 

WILLIAM W. SNAWLY 

Colonel, USAF 

Deputy Director of Production and Programming 

DCS/Systems and Logistics • 

NRO APPROVED FOR 

RELEASE 1 JULY 2015 

d. Specification Fulfillment. All were judged to have 

generally done a good job in fulfilling the technical requirements of their contracts. 

e. Responsiveness. All have shown satisfactory to 

exoelleni 000peratiOn and responsiveness in their riplationshipm 

with the Air Force and NASA. 

f. Subcontract Management. All have satisfactory systems. 

In practice, performance has varied on individual contracts. 

On the whole, it is considered satisfactory. 

Specific comments covering each of the above points for 

each contractor are contained in Tab 2. Tab 1 reflects the 

results of the evaluation made by the Contractor Performance 

Panel in the first evaluation of the MOL Source Selection 

Board. This was not used by the Board in arriving at their 

conclusions largely because of the lack of depth and uniformity 

of the data obtained. It is included here because it provides 

an indicator, rough as it may be, which may contribute to 

formulating an overall judgment. 

(Note: The numerical data used was for the most part 

obtained by telephone and as a consequence may contain some 

errors. However, this would not affect the evaluation 

comments,) 
NRO APPROVED FOR 

RELEASE 1 JULY 2015 

TAB I 

CONTRACTOR PERFORMANCE 

A 

CONTRACTORS 

B C D 

3.1.1 Engineering 

3.1.2 Manufacturing 

3.1.3 Management 

TOTAL 

245 

210 

185 

181 

228 

185 

259 

162 

157 

259 

192 

189 

640 494 578 640 

SUBFACTORS * 

R M R M S R M S M S 

Eng 

Tech Data 6 6 36 6 6 36 6 6 36 6 6 36 

Configuration Mgt 7 5 35 8 5 40 3 5 15 7 5 35 

Safety Engineering 6 4 24 7 4 28 2 4 8 6 4 24 

Personnel Subsystem 6 4 24 6 4 24 6 4 24 6 4 24 

Reliability 5 7 35 7 7 49 3 7 21 6 7 42 

Test 7 7 49 8 7 56 4 7 28 7 7 49 

Systems Engineering 6 7 42 4 7 7 49 7 7 49 7 7 49 

Manufacturing 

Production 7 18 126 8 18 144 7 18 126 6 18 108 

Q.C. 7 12 84 7 12 84 3 12 36 7 12 84 

Management 

Estimating 5 3 J.§ 4 3 12 3 3 9 6 3 18 

Value Engineering 6 1 6 8 1 8 6 1 6 8 1 8 
NRO APPROVED FOR 

RELEASE 1 JULY 2015 

\ 

Management (cont'd) 

R M S R 

SUBFACTORS (Cont'd) 

M S R M S R M 

Cost Reduction 8 1 8 6 1 

• 

.6 6 1 6 7 1 7 

Property 6 2 12 6 2 12 4 2 8 6 2 12 

Cost Control 7 6 42 7 6 42 6 6 36 7 6 42 

Purchasing 5 5 25 7 5 35 4 5 20 6 5 30 

Subcontract Admin. 6 7 42 .5 7 35 6 7 42 6 7 42 

Logistics 7 5 35 7 5 35 6 5 30 6 5 30 

R = Rating 

M = Multiplier (weighting) 

S — Score (RXM) 

• 
Washington 

Comment 

16M underrun 

56M underrun 

6M underrun(esi'.- 

90M underrun(es 

15M underrun 

1=1 

NIRO APPRaVED FOR 

RELEASE 1 JULY 2015 

Contractor: Boeing, Aero Space Division, Seattle, 

Contract Subject: Minuteman Weapon System 

Contract Date, Number, Type, Amount, 

May 1960 -580(M2Prod) FPIF 419.6M 

June 1960' -289 (M2 Devel) CPFF 669.5M 

Jan 1962 -46 (M2 A&C) FPIF 94.1M 

Jan 1962 -107 (M2 AGE) FPIFV 546.2M 

Sept 1962 -266 (VI Dev) CPIFV 108.5M 

Sept 1963 -451 (Assy&Test) CPIFV . 50.0M 

Oct 1963 -431 (Prod) FPIFV 34.5M 

Apr 1964 -545 (Modern) CPIFV 27.4M 

Evaluation 

1. Schedules. Contractor has done very good job in meeting 

schedule requirements. Reflected in record of entire M2 program. 

2. Costs. Contractor has done very good job of controlling 

costs. In 1.5 billion dollars of work the contractor has had a 

20M overrun. This is over and above the contracts cited above. 

Taken together the contractor has substantially underrun the 

program to date. 

3. Compliance with specifications. The contractor's performance has been very good. 

4. Responsiveness. Cooperation and responsiveness to 

needs of program have been excellent. He has been an effective 

member of the associate team on the M2 program. 

5. Subcontract Management. Has had an approved purchasing 

system since December 1960. His management of subcontracts has 

been satisfactory. 

6. Appraisal of AFPR. Considers the contractor has done 

a good to excellent job in all the evaluated areas. He feels 

the particular strength of the contractor is the depth of strong 

management in nearly all functional areas of the company. 
NRO AQPROVE1) FOR 

RELEASE 1 JULY 2015 

July 1, 1965 

Contractor: Boeing Aero-Space Division, New Orleans, Ia. 

Contract Subject: Design, develop and furnish SIC Booster 

Stages, test and checkout equipment for 

the Saturn V Vehicle, and support MSFC. 

Contract Value: $667.4 million Contract No: NASB-5608 

Contract Date: January 1, 1963 (definitive) 

Contract Type: CPFF 

Status: In process; first stage to be delivered in latter 

half 1965, last delivery in 1968. 

Evaluation: 

1. SchedAles. Have had some problems primarily 

in delivery of subcontractor components for the first article. 

Inclination to accept with optimism very tight'schedules. 

Underestimated some vendor design and quality test problems. 

Were energetic, however, in correcting problems and obtaining 

fixes. 

2. .Costs. Up until 6 months ago there were problems, at 

which time the matter received company's top management attention. 

Several corrective actions taken including reorganization, 

and new accounting system. Large overruns had been forecast 

but appear to be under control now. 

3. Performance. (specification fulfillment). Adherence 

to specifications is not considered apropos here - stage 

still largely in development. 

4. Responsiveness. Cooperation and response to requirements has been good in all areas. Project manager has praise.. 

5. Subcontract Management. Boeing is considered a 

strong, tough buyer, and a good team leader. Company's 

President has taken hand when needed. Have used fixed price 

contracts when development problems were unsolved, necessitating fixes to pull out components on schedule. 
NRO APPROVED FOR 

RELEASE 1 JULY 2015 

July 1, 1965 

Contractor: Boeing, Seattle 

Contract Subject: Lunar Orbiter Space System 

Contract number: NAS1-3800 

Dollar Value: $80,637,182. 

Date of Contract: May, 1964 

Type of Contract: CPI' - fee 6.25% incentive on cost, performance and delivery 

Status: Not completed 

Evaluation: 

1. Schedules. Some slippage but trying to make up by 

concurrent testing. 

2. Costs. An overrun of around $22,000,000-is anticipated. 

Have run into some technical difficulties. Large part of 

overrun centers around subcontractors RCA and Eastman. 

3. Complicance with specifications. Too early to comment, 

definitely, but looks fairly good. 

4. Responsiveness. Quite responsible to requests and 

cooperation very good. 

5. Subcontract Management. Hasn't done very well; 

overrun traced largely to subcontractors. 
NRO APPROVED FOR 

RELEASE 1 JULY 2015 

Contractor: Douglas 

Contract Subject: Thor Production, Modification Launch Support 

Contract Numbers, Program, Type, Amount, Comment 

AF -63 Thor CPFF 10.8M .30M underrun 

-65 Thor CPFF 232.1M 11.25M overrun 

-81 Thor CPFF 9.48M .18M underrun 

-466 Thor CPFF 33.6M 2.13M underrun 

-527 Thor CPFF 6.55M .41M underrun 

-759 Thor CPFF 8.22M .11M underrun 

-114 Thor CPIF 166.46M 12.10M underrun 

-407 Thor FPIF 8.42M .84M underrun 

-25 Thor FPIF 5.25M .70M overrun 

-80 Thor 'FPIF 6.75M I.09M overrun 

-36016 Genie CPFF 6.44M ,370M underrun 

-19960 Genie FPIF 14.0M 1.04M underrun 

-20748 Genie FPIF 6.10M .139M underrun 

Evaluation 

1. Schedule. Contractor has maintained schedule on these 

contracts. Contractor has been adaptable to adjusting schedule 

to meet changing needs of Government. There have been delays 

in individual launch schedules but these have been for the most 

part controlled by the Air Force. 

2, Costs. As reflected above the contractor has been 

very close to meeting contract cost with an overall pattern 

of underruns. 

3. Compliance with Specifications. Compliance was considered good. There is a consistent and sustained record of 

successful launches of both Thors and Genies. The actual reliability of Thors has exceeded the specifications requirement. 

The contractor is, for the most part, earning his performance 

incentives on incentives contracts. 
NktrAPPktivEtiroTt' 

RELEASE 1 JULY 2015 

• 

4, Responsiveness. Contractor was considered satisfactory. 

5. Subcontract Management. Considered satisfactory. 

6. AFPR's Appraisal. Contractor has good procedures and 

within the last year has adapted them to meet the requirements 

of the Air Force 375 series regulation; His overall schedule 

performance has been 97% on schedule; he has an excellent record 

of successful launches of Thors and enies. Reliability achieved 

in firings has exceeded specification requirement. Contractor 

has an active, effective cost reduction program. 

r 

2 
Nik6AF5PROwts FOR 

RELEASE 1 JULY 2015 

Contractor: Douglas, Santa Monica 

Contract Subject: Skybolt Development and Production 

Contract Number 

AF-39587 

-8220 

Program Type Amount Comment 

Skybolt (Dev) CPFF 448M 44.3M overrun 

Terminated 

Skybolt (Prod) L/C 71.0M Terminated 

Evaluation 

1. Schedule, The contractor missed some development milestones during the life of the program. However, the several 

reorientations and dollar constraints created a difficult environment. At the time the program was terminated the contractor's 

performance was considered satisfactory. 

2. Costs. As reflected above the contractor had a 44.3M 

or 9.82% overrun on the development contract. Since the production contract was terminated in a L/C stage there is no 

assessment of cost performance. At the time of termination 

the contractor's efforts to control cost were considered satisfactory. 

3. Compliance with specifications. The initial technical 

approach proposed by Douglas was substantially altered. There 

were subsequent but more limited reorientation throughout the 

life of the program. As the program progressed, however, the 

contractor was, for the most part, meeting his technical milestones and was achieving the expected performance. This is 

reflected by the results of a detailed status report on the 

Skybolt program progress with particular emphasis on results of 

the first guided flight conducted 28 November 1962. Representatives of OSD were present at this meeting and agreed with 

Air Force personnel present that the program appeared technically sound. Further, the second flight launched 22 December 

was reported as completely successful. 

4. Responsiveness. After overcoming initial difficulties 

and establishing a strong project management organization, the 

contractor's cooperation and responsiveness was very good. 

5. Subcontract Management. After the initial adjustments 

which affected the entire program, the contractor's performance 

was satisfactory. 
NRO APPROVED FOR 

RELEASE 1 JULY 2015 

6. Overall Appraisal. Based on the evaluation of those 

knowledgeable on the Air Staff of the Skybolt Program, the 

following overall appraisal of Douglas' performance is provided. In the initial stages of the program, Douglas did a 

below average job. They had a weak project organization that 

was too low in the division structure to achieve effective 

overall program management or elicit required top management 

assistance. After these deficiencies were corrected early in 

the program, the contractor's performance steadily improved. 

By the time the program was terminated, Douglas was doing a 

very satisfactory job. The contractor's performance must be 

viewed in the context of the total environment. His performance 

was certainly affected by the dollar constraints and the reorientation of the program. 

2 
NRO APPROVED FOR 

RELEASE 1 JULY 2015 

Contractor: Douglas 

Contract Subject: Nike/Hercules/Zeus 

Contract Number, 

Army -983 

Program, 

Hercules 

Type, 

CPFF 

Amount, 

98.50M 

Comment' 

.62M underrun 

-149 Hercules CPFF 10.09M .43M underrun 

-1859 Hercules CPFF 8.83M .35M underrun 

-1082 Hercules CPFF 37.89M .67M underrun 

-1556 Hercules CPFF 14',29M .24M underrun' 

-1562 Hercules CPFF 100.19M .86M underrun 

-2235 Hercules CPFF" 31.68M .69M underrun 

-2309 Hercules CPFF 16.18M .20M overrun 

-1955 Nike-Zeus CPIF 309.03M 3.86M underrun 

Evaluation 

I. Schedules - Contractor's performance has been satisfactory. 

2. Costs - Performance has been very good. Generally there 

have beei-gaiht underruns. 

3. Specification Compliance Performance satisfactory. 

4. Responsiveness. Contractor was responsive. 

5. Subcontract Management. Satisfactory. 
NRO APPROVED FOR 

RELEASE 1 JULY 2015 

July 1, 1965 

Contractor: Douglas Aircraft Co., Inc., Santa Monica, Calif. 

Contract Subject: Delta space vehicles and launch services 

Contract Dates, Numbers, Type, Amounts, end Status: 

Dec. 1961 NAS 5-1681 CPFF $27,889,000 Completed 

Oct. 1960 NAS 7-220 CPIF 17,548,000 Completed 

July 1964 NAS 7-266 CPFF. 18,628,000 Not Completed 

Apr. 1959 NASw-38 CPFF 32,277,000 Completed 

Oct. 1960 NAS 7-265 CPFF 8,832,000 CoMpLeted 

Jan. 1965 NAS 7-335 CPIF 15,536,000 Not Completed 

NAS 7-336 FP Incen. 16,200,000 Not Completed 

Oct. 1960 NAS 7-221 7,468,000 • Completed 

Total $144,378,000 

Evaluation: 

Schedules. Has been'very good. Has never missed a launch 

date. At times, when NASA did not need delivery on schedule. 

and funds could be saved by later delivery, delivery has been 

beyond contract date. Delivered first development hardware 

three months after contract delivery date. 

Costs. Has been very good. Largest overrun was 8.8% of 

estimated cost. Of five completed contracts, there were no 

overruns on three. 

Compliance with Specifications. Contract specifications 

were quite broad. Contractor compliance has been good and 

results of program have been good. 

Responsiveness. Contractor has, been cooperative and 

responsive except for the incentive contracts. In those, it 

feels it must consider the incentive elements for its own 

protection. 

Subcontract Management. The business management elements, 

cost, schedule, etc., have been good. Technical control of 

. subcontractors started out with mediocre effect but later improved 

and is now good. 
NRO APPROVED FOR 

RELEASEJ JULY 2015 

July 1, 1965 

Contractor: Douglas Aircraft Co., Inc., Santa Monica, Calif. 

Contract Subject: Research, development and engineering for 

the S-IV stage of the Saturn I vehicle and 

the related S-IV-B stage of the Saturn I-B 

and Saturn V vehicles. 

Contract Nos.: NAS 7-1 and NAS 7-101 

Contract Value: NAS 7-1: $226.7 million 

NAS 7-101:. $354.8 million 

Dates of Contract: May 27, 1960 and April 2, 1960 (definitive), 

respectively 

Type of Contracts: CPFF 

Status: S-IV deliveries complete; S-IV-B nonflight deliveries 

began in 1964, flight deliveries to extend into 1968. 

Evaluation: 

1. Schedules. Improvement in last six months has reduced 

several months' forecast slip to essentially an on-schedule 

condition. Contractor has demonstrated ability to take effective 

corrective action when slippage is discovered, but in both S-IV 

and S-IV-B projects did not take early preventive measures. 

2. Costs. There are currently overruns in this program, 

something less than $100 million. Amount is obscured by outstanding change orders and preparations to convert NAS 7-101 

to an incentive. 

3. Compliance with Specifications. Evaluation on balance 

is that contractor does good job of meeting specifications when 

they are definite. Frequently requests deviations. 

4. Responsiveness. Has leen good in the past six months; 

not as good earlier. Company is strict about contract coverage 

and changes. Project people have been quite responsive, especially 

in recent months. 

5. Subcontract Management. Has good liaison and communications with subs. A tough buyer. Does well usually on technical 

management but on occasion has run into trouble:buying development 

hardware on fixed-price contracts. 

4( 
NRO APPROVED FOR 

RELEASE 1 JULY 2015 

Contractor: General Electric Company, Missile and Space 

Division, Valley Forge, Pennsylvania 

Contract Subject: 

Contract Dates 

Programs I and II 

Number Type Amount Comments 

11/28/60 -8 (I) CPFF 50.8M 16.1M overrun. 

32% of negotiated 

cost. Terminated. 

No date -98 (1) Ltr Cont Terminated 

No date B-I* (II) CPFF 29,0M 

12/1/61 -76 (II) CPFF 94.1M 7.5M overrun 

5/1/62 -155 (II) CPFF 14.5M .56M overrun 

1/1/64 -432 (II) CPIF 34.9M 2.5 overrun 

There are two other contracts totalling approximately 88.0M 

which have not matured sufficiently to be evaluated. 

*Fictitious designation. 

Evaluation: 

1. Schedules 

Program I. Contractor was 30 to 60 days behind 

schedule during development resulting in 30 to 45 day delay in 

each of 5 launches. 

Program LI. Minimum 60 day delay attributable 

to contractor during period of basic development. During 

period of manufacture and launch, average delay of 7 weeks 

per launch on first 6 flights. Contract schedule formally 

revised to match contractor's capabilities. Average delay of 

one week per launch on flights 7-16 based on revised contract 

schedule. In December 1964 there was a one-month program delay 

to the revised schedule attributable to additional contractor 

design and manufacturing problems. Contract schedule again revised to match contractor capabilities. 

-SEGRa__ 
NRO APPROVED FOR 

RELEASE 1 JULY 2015 

"SE6REL -*) 

2. Costs. On both programs, contractor has had a history 

of cost overruns. His cost control is considered marginal. 

3. Technical Performance 

Program I - Marginal in meeting specifications. 

Program II - Generally satisfactory in meeting 

specifications. Flight performance has, 

in general, showed an upward trend. 

4. Overall Appraisal. 

Program I. Performance has been below average, marginal 

in meeting specifications, general customer satisfaction and cost 

control. 

Program II. Performance has been generally satisfactory 

on an average with other contractors doing work of comparable 

complexity. 

"SEC-REL. 
NROAPPRdireD FOR 

RELEASE 1 JULY 2015 

Contractor: General Electric Co. Missile and Space Division 

Valley Forge, Pa. 

Contract Subject: Re-entry Vehicles ATLAS and TITAN and M2 

Contract Dates, Numbers, Type, Amounts, Comment 

3/1/57 -116 (MK 2) CPIF 35.5M 2.9M underrun 

9/23/58 -269 (MK 3) CPIF 101.6M 3.3M overrun 

7/2/59 -329 (MK 3) CPIF 15.9M .250M overrun 

8/22/60 -617 (MK 6) CPIF 70.0M Within target (est.) 

7/1/61 -20 (MK 6) FPIF 26.9M 1.0M overrun (est.; 

10/25/63 -473(MK 12) FPIF 52.9M Within target (est.) 

Evaluation 

haVe 

were 

1. Schedules - Performance considered satisfactory. Schedules 

been maintained. Problems encountered from time to time 

normal and did not affect schedules. 

2. Costs - Cost performance is considered satisfactory. 

Contractor has been prompt in meeting target dates for submission - of cost proposals. Negotiations are conducted by Program 

Manager. 

3. Compliance with Specifications - Contractor's record is 

considered satisfactory. He has been granted relief in some 

instances from specification requirements, conversely he has 

been required to tighten specification requirements. Technical 

performance is considered excellent. 

4. Responsiveness - Response has been excellent. Top 

management has shown interest and has participated actively 

in these programs. The cost reduction, value engineering and 

zero defects programs are active and meaningful. 

5. Subcontract Management - Contractor has a satisfactory 

subcontract management program in which subcontracts are 

effectively administered by business and technical personnel. 

6. OIC's Appraisal - Contractor has done a good job of 

meeting schedules for cost proposal submission. Contractor has 

an operating efficiency factor of 88%. (This means that DIRECT 

personnel spend 88% of their time on direct effort rather than 
NRO APPROVED FOR 

RELEASE 1 JULY 2015 

being diverted.) Subcontract management is effective. Cost 

performance is considered satisfactory. Technical performance 

,is considered good. Top management support and interest in 

programs is very evident. 

2 
NRO APPROVED FOR 

RELEASE 1 JULY 2015" 

July 1, 1965 

Contractor: General Electric Co., Missile and Space Vehicle Dept., 

Valley Forge, Pa. 

Contract Subject: Furnishing and testing of flight model stabilization 

and control sybsystems for the NIMBUS meteorological 

satellite 

Contract Number: NAS 5-1347 

Contract Value: $11.4 million 

Contract Date: April 11, 1962 (definitive) 

Type Contract: CPFF 

Status: Not Completed. 

Evaluation: 

1. Schedule. The contractor's schedule has been changed 

due to changes in component alterations. Contractor is considered to have done fairly well. 

2. Costs. .The contractor's cost control was not considered 

good. An overrun, the amount not yet determined, may run as 

high as $6,000,000 and is partly attributed to its cost management. 

3. Compliance with Specifications. The, contractor's compliance with specifications is considered fairly good. The 

control system was overweight and required major redesign to 

obtain the required accuracy. Its technical performance is not 

considered above average. 

4. Responsiveness: The contractor was responsive. 

5. Subcontract Management. There were no major subcontracts, 

so no comment is made on this factor. 
NRO APPROVED FOR 

-RELEASE 1 JULY-2015 • 

July 1, 1965 

Contractor: General Electric Co., Missile and Space Vehicle Dept., 

Valley Forge, Pa. 

Contract Subject: Integration and testing of NIMBUS spacecraft 

Contract Number: NAS 5-978 

Contract Value: $34.5 million 

Contract Date: March 28, 1962 (definitive) , 

Type of Contract: CPFF 

Status: Not completed 

Evaluation: 

I. Schedule. Certain changes, because of technical problems, 

required changes in schedule. Contractor is considered to have 

been responsive to needed schedule alterations and some schedule 

delay not considered the fault of the contractor. 

2. Costs. The contractor's cost control is considered 

average. An overrun in the neighborhood of $6,000,000 is about 

equally the responsibility of the contractor and other factors. 

3. Compliance with Specifications. Contractor's compliance 

with specifications was considered good and its technical performance considered about average. 

4. Responsiveness. Contractor was considered to have given 

good response to requests made to it. 

5. Subcontract Management. There were no major subcontracts 

under this prime so no comment is made on this subject. 
NRO APPROVED FOR 

RELE4 E j, JULY 2015 

Contractor: Lockheed Aircraft Corporation, Lockheed Missiles 

and Space Company, Sunnyvale, California 

AF Programs 

Standard Agena Aerospace 'Ground Equipment 

Gemini Satellite Control Network 

Snap Shot BIO Med. Satellite 

Vella Range Support 

Reflector Orbiting Experiments 

5 year Cost History (thru 1964) 

Type Amount Comment 

868.291M 74.3M overrun 

8.6% 

163.025M .878M overrun 

:5% 

37.118M 1.070 underrun 

2.8% 

CPFF 

CPIF 

FPIF 

Evaluation 

1. Schedules,;" Performance considered satisfactory. 

There has been variations in deliveries but this has been in 

response to Air Force direction. 

2. Cost. There has been a history of overruns but there 

has been a-la—Improving trend over the past three years where the 

percentage of overrun on CPFF contracts has decreased from a 

high in 1961 of 14.4% to 6% in 1963 and 3,1% in 1964. 

3. Compliance with specifications. Contractors compliance 

with specifications was considered good. His technical per—

formance on most contracts considered to be satisfactory. 

4. Responsiveness. Contractor has been cooperative 

and responsive. • 
NRO APPROVED FOR 

RELEASE 1.JULY 2015 

5. Subcontract Management. Contractor has good procedures 

and has maintained good surveillance over subcontractor. 

6. AFPR's Appraisal. Considers overall performance very 

good. He feels good progress is being made in improving cost 

controls and cost performance. Schedule compliance is regarded 

as good particularly in the light of the variations in Air 

Force requirements. Contractor's technical performance con—

sidered responsive to Air Force requirements. 

•i 
NRO APPROVED FOR. 

RELEASE 1 JULY 2015 

July 1, 1965 

Contractor: Lockheed Aircraft Corporation, Lockheed Missiles 

and Space Company, Sunnyvale, California 

Contract Subject: Reactor in Flight Test Vehicle Stage (RIFT) 

Contract Number: NAS 8-5600 

Contract Value: $14.952 million 

Contract Date: June 28, 1962 

Type Contract: CPFF 

Status: Terminated for convenience of the Government, 

February 1964. 

Evaluation: 

1. Schedule. Contractor's performance under the contract 

was very good. This was a study and technology effort and 

did not involve production. Contractor was required to meet 

milestones from a technology approach and his performance in 

meeting these milestones was very good. 

2. Costs. Contractor kept well within ceiling limits of 

the contract. . No overtime was required. 

3. Compliance with Specifications. Contractor was 

required to develop specifications under this study and technology effort. The results were very good and have led to a 

continuation of the technology effort under other contracts. 

4. Responsiveness. Contractor was cooperative and 

responsive to requirements. Even under termination proceedings, 

the contractor evidenced a cooperative attitude. 

5. Subcontract Management. Not applicable since the 

subcontractors under this contract were serving in a' consulting 

capacity. 
NRO APPROVE) FOR. 

RELEASE 1 JULY 2015 

July 1, 1965 

Contractor: Lockheed Aircraft Corporation, Lockheed Missiles 

and Space Company, Sunnyvale, California 

Contract Descriptions: (two contracts) 

a. NASA AGENA B Program, Space Vehicles for Ranger, 

Nimbus, Mariner, Comsat 

b. Modification of AGENA vehicle =Omission peculiars 

under Astronomical Program. Objective of program is, 

to place a stable platform above earth's atmosphere 

for the purpose of obtaining data relative to astronomical phenomena. 

Contract Numbers: a. NAS3-3800 b. NAS3-3801 

Contract Values: a. $99.9 million b. $5.126 million 

Contract Dates: a. February 6, 1961 (definitive) 

b. December 17, 1962 (definitive) 

Type of Contracts: a. CPFF 

b. CPIF 

Status: a. Estimated completion date, early 1967. 

b. Estimated completion date, mid-year 1966. 

Evaluation: 

1. Schedules. Contractor has performed well in meeting 

contract schedules and has demonstrated ability to take effective 

action to meet directed charges. 

2. Costs. There are currently overruns in these programs 

estimated at between 5 to 8 percent. Under Contract NAS3-3800 

the overrun is due primarily to a subcontract problem. Program 

costs have risen due to changes in directed spacecraft deliveries. 

Some cost elements have been considered high but company has 

shown evidence of improvements in this area. 

3. Compliance with Specifications. Contractor has been 

performing well in this respect. In its desire to comply with 

specifications, contractor imposed more stringent requirements 
NROAPPROVEDFOR 

RELEASE 1 JULY 2015 

• 

than were required. This resulted in the contractor not being 

able to meet these more stringent requirements, in some cases, 

and the requirements tretie waived. 

4. Responsiveness. Contractor has generally been 

cooperative and is showing consistent improvement in this area. 

There have been some problems with the contractor in the 

acceptance of technical direction. 

5. Subcontract Management. Contractor exercises good 

surveillance over his subcontractors and demands good patformance. It is continually aware of their status. One 

subcontractor went into bankruptsy. Contractor effected 

removement of material from subcontractor's plant and undertook work with minimum problems.