|
Items in cart [1] |
Questions? Call 888-624-8373 |
| Copyright © 2009. National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved. Terms of Use and Privacy Statement |
Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter.
Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.
Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.
OCR for page 5
Introduction
BACKGROUND
In 1994, then-Secretary of Defense William Perry issued a policy memorandum
directing the Secretaries of the military departments in the Department of Defense (DoD)
to take concerted action to increase access to commercial state-of-the-art technology and
adopt business processes characteristic of worId-ciass suppliers. In addition to affecting
many aspects of the DoD's procurement activities, the memorandum had a major impact
on specifications anal stanciards. The memorandum was interpreted by many as a
directive that would
Rescind military-unique standards and specifications.
· Establish performance-based specifications for new acquisitions and for system
upgrades and modifications.
· Adopt commercial or industry specifications when necessary.
· Make the cultural changes that would encourage manufacturers to move toward
the performance-based model.
In many areas of procurement, the results of this policy have been positive and
will, it is hoped, help to reduce the complexity and costs of the DoD purchase of major
weapon systems and their many support requirements. Many other aspects of the move
away from military and federal specifications to commercial or industry documents have
also been positive. However, in one particular area—specifications and standards for
materials and processes the changes introduced since 1994 have, as a result of various
interpretations of Secretary Perry's specifications and standards directive, caused some
concerns, which in turn lee! to the formation of this committee.
Even before the introduction of the 1994 Specifications and Standards activity,
there was considerable interest on the part of the DoD and the U.S. Congress in
considering the status and posture of commercial materials and process specifications and
standards in defense procurement. The military specifications (MilSpecs3 have been
recognized as being of paramount importance and, in fact, critical for the economic
design and procurement of DoD systems. Senate bills (e.g., S.3555, Voluntary Standards
and Certification Act of 1976) and Office of Management and Budget circulars over the
years have considered the many and complex ramifications of government use of the
voluntary consensus standards system. A voluntary consensus standard is a standard
developed or adopted by voluntary consensus bodies, both domestic and international.
These stanclards require that owners of relevant intellectual property agree to make that
intellectual property available on a nondiscriminatory, royalty-free, or reasonable-royalty
;.
OCR for page 6
6 Impact of Acquisition Reform on DoD Materials and Processes Specifications and Standards
basis to all interested parties. These activities are represented by the efforts of the
nongovernment standards bodies (NGSBs) in generating materials and process
specifications and standards. A nongovernment standard (NGS) is a national or
international standardization document cleveloped by a private sector association,
organization, or technical society that plans, develops, establishes, or coordinates
standards, specifications, handbooks, or related documents. In fact, a detailed study by a
previous National Materials Advisory Board (NMAB) committee in 1975 considered the
total output of the NGSB activities at that time and the role NGSBs should play in DoD
procurement. That committee's final report, "Materials and Process Specifications ant!
Standards," NMAB-330, was publisher! in 1977. One of its main conclusions stancis out
clearly today: The DoD should take advantage of the voluntary consensus standards
system.
This shows that the issue of the DoD adopting commercial anal industry
specifications and standards for the materials and processes area is not new. As a result
of the concerns previously mentioned and the historical interest in this topic, NMAB was
informally asked by the DoD Materials Panel of the Joint Reliance Group to conduct a
workshop that wouict explore the issues currently associated with the DoD's adoption of
commercial materials and process specifications and standards. The key issues raised in
the workshop are presented in this report.
OBJECTIVE AND TASKS
The objective of the workshop was to examine in detail the issues associates! with
adopting commercial materials and process specifications for DoD procurement. The
participants were asked to identify approaches that would ensure compliance with DoD
requirements while satisfying the intent of acquisition reform directives. The Committee
for the Workshop on Technical Strategies for Adoption of Commercial Standards in
Defense Procurement was formed to plan and conduct a workshop that would identify
barriers to the implementation of commercial materials and processing specifications and
standards for military systems. The committee, through the workshop, was to explore
ways to take advantage of the rapid development of commercial technology in a more
efficient and less costly manner. The specific tasks of the workshop included the
following:
..
· Discussion of military services' requirements and the status of acquisition
reform,
· Identification of applicable commercial standards and specifications, including
appropriate NGSs,
· Identification of barriers to the adoption of commercial standards, and
· Discussion of the role of the DoD in supporting the preparation, evaluation, and
implementation of commercial materials and processing standards and
specifications.
It was not the committee's assignment to develop independent conclusions or
recommendations based on workshop activities. Rather, the committee was tasked with
organizing and conducting the workshop and then preparing a report. This report
OCR for page 7
Introduction
highlights the important points of the presentations and resulting discussions, with
emphasis on the observations, recommendations, subjects of consensus and/or
disagreement, and suggestions made by the participants in the workshop.
COMMITTEE FORMATION AND ACTIVITIES
;;
The committee was formed in January 2000 as a result of invitations to participate
sent from the NMAB. It was intended that the committee would represent a cross section
of the technical community involved in the preparation and use of materials and process
specifications and standards for DoD applications. Included were representatives of
original equipment manufacturers (OEMs), their subcontractors, materials suppliers, and
inclepenclent consultants with significant experience in materials and processes and their
applications.
The first meeting of the committee was held on April 3, 2000, in Washington, D.C.
In addition to members of the NMAB staff, several technical representatives of DoD
agencies including the Defense Standardization Program Office, the Office of Defense
Directorate of Research anti Engineering, the Office of the Deputy Under Secretary of
Defense, the United States Air Force, the United States Army, ant! the United States
Navy attendee! and participated in the discussions. After introductory comments, the
workshop theme, objectives, and topics to be covered were discussed. A preliminary
agenda was established, and the group then considered in some detail who would be
asked to speak on these topics. At the conclusion of the meeting, individual committee
members were asked to contact the potential speakers. Since this was the only meeting
schedulecl for the committee prior to the workshop, members were also assigned to serve
as session chairs and session scribes; the latter would accurately record the comments and
observations made during the workshop. The date of October 11-12, 2000, was agreed
upon for the workshop, allowing the committee ample time to contact and confirm the
speakers.
The decision was made to howl the workshop in the Washington, D.C., area, with
NMAB staff to select the exact location and make the necessary arrangements. Since no
more meetings of the committee were scheduled, all subsequent activities inviting and
confirming speakers and other participants were to be handled by e-mail and telephone.
NMAB staff sent formal invitations to the speakers asking them to participate.
The remainder of this report presents the details of the workshop, inclucling
summaries of the major points made by the speakers in their presentations and detailed
descriptions of the questions asked after the presentations, as prepared by the session
scribes. Also included are descriptions of the panel discussions held at the conclusion of
each session, with the presenters serving as panel members. It was the committee's goal
to accurately record the results of the workshop without editorial comment.
\
OCR for page 8
Representative terms from entire chapter:
commercial materials
