59 (b) Our committee noted that the publicly announced policy of the Defense Department, insofar as misisle production is concerned, is one of parallelism and multiple approach. It would appear that with this approach there is reason to suspect unwarranted duplication in missile pians, components, and testing, either within the Federal Government, as between defense contractors and the Federal Government or among defense contractors. (c) Our examination revealed that at one defense activity, Holloman Air Force Base, Alamogordo, N. Mex., employees of cost-plus fee contractors were paid per diem allowances varying from $8 to $15 per day. This action has often proved a negative factor on the morale of Government personnel, without the per diem allowances but working alongside of the contractor's employees. It is also a factor among contractor employees who realize that they are not getting the same consideration under similar circumstances. In raising the question, we feel that this personnel practice may be pertinent to other places, and therefore the overall policy and procedures are of sufficient interest for more complete development. (d) The practice of private businesses, especially those working on Government contracts, of employing retired military officers, seems to be on the increase. For a recently retired officer to merely move from one side of the desk to the other, still dealing with the same subject matter, tends to create a doubtful atmosphere, if not a violation, of the Federal statutes. We are concerned with the responsibility which these retired officers and Defense Departments have to themselves, and to the intent of the Congress, as expressed in several Federal statutes controlling the activities of retired or former officers dealing with the Federal Government. (e) Civilian employees of the Military Establishment are being recruited by the Government-subsidized contractors. The Government, as a result of its procurement policies, is competing with itself. A review of the personnel practices of some of these Government contractors, including recruiting and training expenses, would appear in order. Also, an investigation of the Military Department's procedures to monitor these features in the contracts would be appreciated. These are some of the items developed by our committee which have been a cause for concern to all the Members. It is the feeling of the committee that the defense of our Nation transcends a unilateral approach to our mutual objective, getting the facts, and making an objective appraisal of the situation. Therefore, we are asking your assistance in this matter. It is possible that your office has already developed information in some of these areas. Consequently, we would like to be advised from time to time as the facts are developed. We appreciate the fine cooperation of the General Accounting Office and its staff, especially in developing much of this information for the committee hearings. If more specific information concerning the several items raised is needed, our staff will be most willing to discuss it with representatives of your office. With kindest personal regards, I am Sincerely yours, JAMES C. DAVIS, Chairman, Subcommittee on Manpower Utilization. COMPTROLLER GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES, Hon. JAMES C. DAVIS, Chairman, Subcommittee on Manpower Utilization, House of Representatives. DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: Further reference is made to your letters of February 10 and April 27, 1959, requesting the General Accounting Office to obtain certain information in the course of the review of the Air Force ballistic missile proOn October 21, 1959, we forwarded a report covering item (c), relating gram. to supplemental payments to contractor employees at Department of Defense test facilities. We are enclosing a report covering items (1) through (8), and (a) and (b), together with additional information concerning item (c). No information is presented with respect to items (d) and (e), pursuant to discussions with the staff of the subcommittee. Much of the information contained in this report is similar to that contained in a preliminary draft of our report to the Congress, which was reviewed by the Air Force and the contractor engaged for the systems engineering and technical direction of the program, Ramo-Wooldridge Corp., now Space Technology Laboratories, Inc., a wholly owned subsidiary of Thompson Ramo Wooldridge, Inc. Therefore, we did not obtain their comments on the special report prepared in response to your request. To facilitate your review, we are quoting in our report the specific items contained in your request and are summarizing immediately thereafter the information obtained, followed by a detailed discussion. The table of contents identifies the location of each of these items in the report. We are also enclosing a copy of our initial report to the Congress on the review of administrative management of the ballistic missile program of the Department of the Air Force, released today. We hope that the information furnished will be helpful to the subcommittee in its continuing investigation of manpower problems connected with the ballistic missile program. We will be pleased to discuss our findings with you or your staff if you so desire. Sincerely yours, JOSEPH CAMPBELL, Comptroller General of the United States. о |