« PreviousContinue »
Mr. SANDWEG. We have one in a similar area that might even be answered in much the same manner, I suppose.
It also refers to an area that seems to have been available through the regular Government channels. That is a contract with one Franklin Leerburger-L-e-e-r-b-u-r-g-e-r—in the amount of $9,000.
Description of the contract is as follows:
Engineering analysis and reports for evaluation and analysis of natural gas rates relating to possible conversion from coal, fuel, and propane. The results are reflected as a final report with recommendations as prepared by the contractor. These recommendations are being considered by the Government.
(The contract data not read is as follows:)
Description: Engineering analysis and reports for evaluation and analysis of natural gas rates relating to possible conversion from coal, fuel oil, and propane.
Results: A final report with recommendations was prepared by the contractor. These recommendations are being considered by the Government.
Mr. SANDWEG. Now who do we have to speak to that?
Secretary IMIRIE. Mr. Duncan, who is from the Directorate of Civil Engineering at the Air Force Systems Command Headquarters.
Mr. SANDWEG. Mr. Duncan, could we have an explanation of the purpose of that contract, the reviewing authority on it, and was this the type of information that was available through Government sources, or other readily available sources ?
Mr. DUNCAN. The gas company--the Elk River Public Utilities District submitted a proposal to the Arnold Engineering Development Center to supply gas for fuel.
Mr. NORBLAD. Where is this located, geographically?
Prior to the construction of the Arnold Engineering Development Center gas was considered as an auxiliary fuel, in order to have all types of fuel available in the case of any eventuality.
So the engineers at the Arnold Engineering Development Center made an economic and feasibility study of this conversion. That was submitted to Air Force. And they decided they wanted an outside, third party, survey of these particular rates. Because it involved in the first instance, there is a little history concerning the Elk River Public Utilities District.
They originally were the Tennessee Natural Gas Distribution System, who were supplied by the Tennessee Transmission Unit Corporation.
So the funding operation--there was a tremendous connection charge in connection with this, and the funding operation required Air Force money to meet this obligation. Of course it would be paid off in a period of 10 or 15 years.
So this all had to be evaluated—their books, their financial setup and everything else.
So the Air Force directed that we have a third party survey. And negotiations were made with three other architect engineers. And their prices were so outlandishly high-they only authorized $9,750 for this project; that is, the AFSC authorized this.
So they finally settled on Frank L. Leerburger_after they had explored the Air Training Command at Randolph Field, to get this rate specialist to do this work.
And the Air Force still wanted the third, disinterested party, and not Air Force people.
So the result was Leerburger was employed at $9,000, instead of the $9,750, on authority from AFSC, reviewed by AFSC and approved.
Mr. COURTNEY. Mr. Duncan, is this any more than a personal service contract? How does this come under the category of research and development?
Secretary IMIRIE. It doesn't.
Mr. DUNCAN. Not a research and development contract, as such, sir.
Mr. COURTNEY. Well, what is it?
Mr. COURTNEY. And the authority to enter into this contract is delegated out to where?
Mr. DUNCAN. It is delegated to the command.
Mr. COURTNEY. No. I understand. But does it come within the $100,000 ceiling? Is this the governing
Secretary IMIRIE. This follows the procurement rules.
Mr. Sindweg. Let's revert back to the contract with the American Institute for Research, of Washington, D.C. Air Force Contract 01 (600) 2611, in the amount of $37,150.
Subject matter of the contract was “Data and analysis to systematically evaluate efforts of AFROTC curriculum.”
And the results were a report, the nature of which we don't know?
Secretary I MIRIE. Dr. Kenneth Groves, who is Chief of the Evaluation Service of the Air University, is here to speak to that point.
Dr. Groves. This program is part of an overall evaluation program of our AFROTC 4-year curriculum. That, in turn, is part of an overall evaluation program of the entire Air University, which is the officer education center of the Air Force.
This contract is part of what is left over after we have done everything that we can with our own resources. It produces recommedations for changes in our instructional techniques, recommendations for changes in our textbooks, recommendations that can be used in placement of appropriate staff members in the proper detachment hroughout the country.
The program was conceived in 1954. We never got it off the ground until about 1956. At that point we did everything we could with our own resources for about 2 years. And other programs came in, such as our extension course program, which raised the requirements that were placed upon the command.
Therefore, about 1959, we began to contract out certain portions of the entire evaluation program.
This $37,100 was the amount that was spent in 1959.
Mr. SANDWEG. Well, what particular capability does the American Institute for Research have that the Air Force itself didn't have to warrant this contract?
Dr. GROVES. In quality they have a greater number of professional people than we do.
Actually, the whole evaluation program of ROTC was conducted by one man and one sergeant, for about 4 years. And they did surprisingly well.
My office at the headquarters of the command helped them for a number of years, and our own data processing center helped us.
But our equipment and the number of professional personnel that we had to do this job was simply too limited. You can't do this kind of a job with one man.
Mr. COURTNEY. Does this have anything to do with accreditationthose studies?
Dr. GROVES. No, sir; not in this contract at all.
All it does is tell us what the cadets learn, what kind of effect did we have on them over the 4-year period, are they going to stay with us for a career in the Air Force later on.
We check them after they get out to seedid they learn what we wanted them to learn, so that they are successful in the early years of their career.
Mr. COURTNEY. Is this a questionnaire proposition?
Dr. Groves. It is construction of comprehensive examinations. I think this particular contract called for the construction of 1,000 test questions covering a 4-year curriculum period.
Mr. COURTNEY. Which was circulated among the
Dr. GROVES. Yes. It was administered in 180 detachments in colleges and universities throughout the country.
Mr. SANDWEG. Was it decided to contract this out because of lack of capability within the Air Force, or lack of manpower?
Dr. Groves. Lack of equipment. Not enough professional manpower and programers at that particular time.
We have been in the process of converting our electronic data processing equipment since about 1958. We inherited a Univac I from the Air Force which helped our situation some. This is being used primarily for Extension Course Institute, which has over 300,000 airmen and officers enrolled throughout the Air Force.
Mr. HÉBERT. Does this have anything to do with the curriculums of the Air Academy?
Dr. GROVES. No, sir: nothing.
Dr. Groves. No, except as some of our findings might be applicable to the Air Academy.
Mr. HÉBERT. This only relates to the ROTC?
Mr. HÉBERT. Mr. Secretary, the Air Force doesn't have a contract like West Point does, to find out how to get finer talents into the Air Academy.
Secretary I MIRIE. No, sir.
Mr. HÉBERT. It seems like West Pointers are the only ones not satisfied, that they are not getting the best.
We spent $10,000 to find out we have to attract better young men to West Point.
Dr. GROVES. No, sir. We are satisfied.
Mr. HÉBERT. A better grade of men, a finer grade-I forget what the expression was.
Mr. HARDy. In connection with this contract, Doctor, couldn't you have employed people to conduct this survey with just as much competence as you are contracted for?
It sort of surprises me that the Air University
Dr. GROVES. The man we lost—the man who developed and designed the contract we lost only a year ago. We have been trying, shaking the bushes to find somebody ever since.
Mr. HÉBERT. I think it is interesting here, and well to point out, that during the conflict-of-interest investigation, this committee expended itself to the extent of two young lawyers to do that job, and I think they did a very fine job.
And what did it cost us? Two months' salary for each one, I think, Mr. Courtney ?
Mr. COURTNEY. Well, summer salaries.
Mr. HÉBERT. Summer salaries. It didn't cost us anything like $37,000 to find that out.
I would like to have that kind of money to operate this committee. We would probably be in hearing afternoons, mornings, afternoons, mornings, and nights.
Mr. NORBLAD. We are, Mr. Chairman.
In the whole area of evaluation, it is about the only money that we spent outside.
I guess our overall evaluation program involves close to half a million people, in courses that go from a few weeks to a year in length. It is a large operation.
Frankly, my personal opinion is we are operating it in this particular aspect of it-we are operating on a bare minimum level.
Mr. HÉBERT. We can understand that.
Mr. SandwEG. We have two others that we might consider together, since they seem to be the same type of contract.
They are Air Force contracts AF 30(602)2109, and AF 30(602) 2206.
They are identical contracts, one with the United Aircraft Corp., Missile and Space Systems Division, for a total valuation of $170,812, half of which cost was paid by the contractor. The other with the