Mr. COURTNEY. So far as guidance and so far as the authority contained in them with reference to policy, they have each the same force and effect? General ENGLER. They do. Mr. COURTNEY. They differ only in the length or duration of their effectiveness, is that it? General ENGLER. That is correct, sir. The directive-the force of the directive would be written into the directive itself. The effect of the ASPR is automatic, since Mr. COURTNEY. I was concerned primarily with nomenclature and the source of material of these contracting officers and the force and effect of these different articles. Mr. KINTISCH. May I answer that? Mr. COURTNEY. Go ahead. Mr. KINTISCH. In the Department of the Army, these Department of Defense directives and memorandums which come out from the Office of the Secretary of Defense are not given to the contracting officer. They are implemented in the Department of the Army either through the Army procurement procedure or through some interim procedure, until they are printed in the APP. Mr. COURTNEY. In other words, there is no direct flow. The Army then takes the direction which it receives in these three documents and handles it according to Army procedure, internal procedure. Mr. KINTISCH. Exactly. General ENGLER. The only point Mr. Kintisch is making there, sir, is that the ASPR goes directly to the contracting officer. Mr. COURTNEY. Yes. General ENGLER. Whereas a directive normally goes through command channels. Mr. COURTNEY. That is right. That is the distinction I wanted to make. General ENGLER. Yes. Mr. COURTNEY. And the same answer would be true with respect to memorandums, whatever force and effect they might have. General ENGLER. That is correct, sir. Mr. COURTNEY. So these latter two, although, so far as the Department of the Army is concerned, when issued, have the same effect as an ASPR, actually do not manually or physically go to the contracting officer, and he does not have to depend on them for a source, but does depend on internal operations and methods within the Army itself? General ENGLER. That is correct. Mr. COURTNEY. Is that right? General ENGLER. You have stated it correctly. Mr. HÉBERT. Thank you, gentlemen, very much, for your testimony and cooperation. Mr. COURTNEY. We have the Navy Department, Mr. Chairman, and Air Force ready for tomorrow. Now, much of this will not be repeated. That is, the story of the Department of Defense committee will not be repeated. The Department of the Army has made that explanation. So that the other two services will undoubtedly be shorter and directly to the implementation within their Departments. Mr. GAVIN. Yes. Mr. HÉBERT. The committee will stand in recess until 10 o'clock tomorrow morning. (Whereupon, at 11:55 a. m., the subcommittee adjourned to reconvene at 10 a. m. Thursday, July 17, 1958.) STUDY OF THE ARMED SERVICES PROCUREMENT REGULATIONS AND DEPARTMENTAL IMPLEMENTATION THERETO THURSDAY, JULY 17, 1958 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, SUBCOMMITTEE FOR SPECIAL INVESTIGATIONS, Washington, D. C. The subcommittee met at 10 a. m., Hon. F. Edward Hébert (chairman of the subcommittee) presiding. Mr. HÉBERT. The committee will be in order. Mr. Kuhn. Mr. KUHN. Mr. Chairman, you will recall we did not complete with the Department of the Army yesterday. We still have a witness concerning Army procurement training. We have Col. Bernard S. Waterman, who has a prepared statement on that subject. With your permission, he may go ahead. Mr. HÉBERT. All right, Colonel. Mr. MILLER. Mr. Chairman, before we start Mr. HÉBERT. Yes, Mr. Miller. Mr. MILLER. May I say I had the pleasure of visiting Colonel Waterman's installation, and I want to pay my compliments to him for doing a great job down at Fort Lee, Va. Mr. HEBERT. It is in your district, Mr. Miller? Mr. MILLER. No, sir; it is in Virginia. Mr. HARDY. Mr. Chairman, it is not in my district either, but I have heard some very fine reports on what Colonel Waterman is doing down there. Colonel WATERMAN. Thank you very much. Mr. HÉBERT. All right, Colonel. STATEMENT OF COL. BERNARD S. WATERMAN, COMMANDANT OF U. S. ARMY LOGISTICS MANAGEMENT CENTER, FORT LEE, VA. Colonel WATERMAN. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee; I am Col. Bernard S. Waterman, commandant of the United States Army Logistics Management Center at Fort Lee, Va. Mr. Johnson has discussed the military-civilian team concept which is used in negotiations and consummation of military contracts. In order to have an effective and competent team, we must provide the skills that are required, both as to depth in specialized fields, and as to breadth of experience in supply management. The military members of the procurement team provide the broad supply-management experience which is necessary to the general direction of the procurement operation. The civilian members provide technical knowledge relating to such specialties as pricing and financial analysis, legal guidance, engineering, commodity specialization, and in 29137-59 dustrial know-how. They also provide continuity of operation and uniformity of approach. In order to insure that we have available the kind of people, both military and civilian, who will be capable of performing the functions I have just mentioned, the Army maintains several career programs. For the military there are career programs which look to the development of officers who are well rounded in the skills required by their particular technical service, including the supply and procurement fields. To insure that we will have officers capable of directing the Army's extensive logistics systems and activities, we also maintain a logistics officer program which is under the supervision of the Deputy Chief of Staff for Logistics. There are some 250 positions in the Army Establishment which have been classified as "key logistics positions" under this program. Included in these positions are such important procurement positions as Chief, Procurement Division, Office, Assistant Secretary of the Army (Logistics); and, within the Office of the Deputy Chief of Staff for Logistics, Department of Army, the Chief, Procurement Inspections Branch; the Chief and the Deputy Chief, Procurement Division, and the Chief, Contracts Branch of that Division. Selected officers enter this program in which their school and duty assignments are monitored by the Deputy Chief of Staff for Logistics to insure the development of logisticians fully qualified for assignment to such positions as those I mentioned. We also maintain a civilian career program. Within this program there are various career fields including those of procurement officer, contracting officer, and acceptance inspector. These fields include the business and industrial specialists, and the pricing analysts whom I mentioned earlier. These civilian career programs are designed to assure effective selection, assignment, and development of civilian personnel in procurement and related positions by providing a planned and systematic program of continuous development for each employee from the trainee level to executive status. They integrate Army's procurement training and development activities into a systematic program which results in an individual career plan and an individual training plan for each employee engaged in procurement activity. These individual plans are based on the specific needs of the employee. They extend over a long period of time and are modified throughout the employee's career to bring him to the highest level of accomplishment his interests, abilities, and potential will allow. In order to maintain these career programs we must have training vehicles to develop the individuals participating. The Army has a procurement work force of about 500 officers and 8,000 civilians. To insure the competence of this work force, it is essential that we provide the kinds of education that are necessary to supplement the practical experience of this force. The Army recognizes three levels of training which are required to meet these needs. They are the fundamental, the advanced, and the refresher. Looking at the first chart you see the five ways in which we are conducting procurement education in the Army. First, there are courses conducted at the procurement installations. These include on-the-job training and off-the-job training groups, and workshops which are actually conducted on the premises. During 1957, approximately 3,000 civilian procurement personnel received this kind of instruction covering all aspects of procurement from fundamental to refresher. Second, there are special conferences and seminars such as the field procurement panels conducted by Secretary Higgins and other seminars and discussions which are held from time to time in various places, and these address themselves to the advance and refresher phases of training. Third, there are correspondence courses developed and conducted by the military schools. These courses include fundamental procurement material in courses relating to the general duties of the officer's branch of service. Advanced procurement material is provided in courses developed and conducted by the United States Army Logistics Management Center, and they cover such subjects as procurement methods, contract clauses, contract administration, legal principles, and industrial mobilization. Fourth, there are courses in civilian institutions of learnings, both for military and civilian personnel. In the coming fiscal year we will send 133 officers to full-time graduate business administration courses. The subjects which they will take will have a direct relationship to the procurement operation, although they do not concern themselves exclusively with procurement. Čivilian personnel attend courses both |