Approved For Release 2003/01 -007fll@V FON'UH NATIONALS INFORMATION PAPE'R 1;UBJECT: GRILL FLAME (U) DAMI-ISH 12 Sep 80 PU111POSE. (S/NOFORN) To InForm ACSI DA of a potential situation with. regard tjo GRILL PLAMF and offer recommendations that will Prevent possible embarrassment to the Army. )"ACTS. 1, (S/NOFORN) BACKGROUND: In letter to MG Thompson, a GRILL, ori 18 Aug 80. The purpose of Service GRILL FLAME Memorandum a.-id Objectives Statement, an(] response to LTG Tighe's 7 Aug 80 FLAME Committee meeting was held the meetingrwas to approve the Joint of Understanding (MOU), Mission proposed contract with SRI (TAB C). (U) D I S C USSI 0 N a. (S/NOFORN) In order to ensure support of Army INSCOM's -interest in this matter, MAJ Hay provided the proposed draft documents at TAB C to LTC Watt's organization at Fort Meade for review and comment. This resulted in a response from MG Rolya (letter with 1 Incl) at TAB B. Because LTC Watt was on leave, ij representative from his organization, LT Fred Atwater, was i@-ivited to attend the 18 Aug 80 meeting at DIA to present INSCOM's r@--(--@.omaiended changes to the proposed draft documents. After the i 11. -,:2eting, MAJ Hay asked LT Atwater if he felt LTC Watt and INSCOM ('01.11d C01-ICUr wi-,Lh the proposed changes made at the Ineeting. ur Atwater replied lie thought they would. 1-). (S/NOFORN) MAJ flay met with 1,TC Watt on 27 Aug 80 and he i@iformed MAJ Hay that he and INSCOM COUld not concur with the MOU. MAJ Hay and LTC Watt then drafted ii proposed MOU (TAB A) w@iich we plan to table at a proposed GRILL F[.,AME Committee meeting at DIA during the next meeting, date unknown. C1. (S/NOFOF?N) INSCOM's major objections, and MAJ Hay agrees, are as follows: (1) (S/NOFORN) INSCOM has $1-50K total to fund the FY 81 GRILL FLAME effort. INSCOM needs $30K to fund the operational effort. This would leave $120K for external contracts with whomever Classified by DIA-DT Review 12 Sep 2000 Reason: 2-301c.3 fl r If: PA @3 @:b o r,,J)Q f200 FO' A NA 0 iN A LS ,3( L L Approved For Release 2003/09/16 : CIA-RDP96-0078BROO1700280017-7 61F F 1_f@) @R=l NOT RELEASACLE TO FUfiE,GN NATIONALS J11%M I - I S H ,,HBJECT: GRILL PL,AME (U) can be determined can meet INSCOM's requirements at the least jiossit)le cc-@st. .-ol- . -Cost @,@@tritlcTTTT _e. (NOTE: DIA proposal states $120K from Army INSCOM rll to be fi.,inded for an Snl@ effort. DIA maintains that Army had previously agreed verbally to provide $150K, then $120K and now pos!;,,ib1y even less than $120K. Both LTC Watt and MAJ Stoner 6.isagree and LTC Watt has a Memorandum for Record to back up @J-.atement. ) - (2) (S/NOFORN) DIA Made a unilateral decision to send 1-he DIA primary contract monitor to SRI, Menlo Park, CA on Thursday 21.st or Friday 22d of August. This was done prior to the MOU being ,tpproved by Direct;or, DIA; Army, and Air Force ACSIs. NOTE:: DIA ,.--ates no one objected to the primary col@tract monitor going to the Vlost Coast at. the 18 Aug 80 meeting. Both LTC Watt and MAJ Stoner h-,ve gone on record. previously objecting to the need for the contract ii@ionitor to physiclally locate himself at SRI for the following (a) (,S/'NOFORN) If th(.,.@ GRILL FLAME Committee is in t'.wt joint, tfie D'1A has no right to make a unilateral decision such ,-is they have prior to 'the MOU being signed. NOTE: DIA feels since is funding Salyer's move it is no one else's problem. We feel ii- this is critized, DIA, Army, and Air Force will jointly held responsible since we are a joint committee. (b) (cl/NOFORN) If the primary contract monitor is ,ited on t..he West. Coast with SRI, we question how he can best nonitor all additional contract efforts elsewhere. NOTE: DIA F-els since SRI* is best qualified in this project they will- now, ,iM probitbly cc,nt.inuo to receive most, of' -1 'he contracts, therefore, makes sense -to maintain the contract monitor at that location. (c) (S/NOFORN) The move of the primary contract monitor 1'@) SIHI totally disreqards the recommendation of' the Department of :!,e Army C1111.1, V1J\MJ;' Scientific EvaluaL.Aon Committee Report, dated lwcember 79, page 1.0, para 3b. "Dependence on the SRI approach be phaE.-ed out." NOTE: DIA feels the Gale Report is biased ,Atid 0,RILL FLAIVIb" was doomed before it started, therefore, no one is (@,,-,)ing to accept its recommendations (especially when we are using 1:-ogram III funds vice Program V1. 2 q@l 7-7 A7P 0*7" e2 DM@q ql@ 3 C@ q FORE'. i I Approved For Release 200' CFV67 FOREGN NVIONALS DAMI-IS11 SIJBJECT: GRILL FLAME (U) (d) (S/NOFORN) The move of the contract monitor to S,l .@T potentially decreases i-he operational security of the project. 11-il. ]-)tithoff and Russ Targ i@tre well known as so-called experts in tho PSI area. To mc@ve a D.1A contract monitor to work closely with Lhem makes it difi."icult to deny DOD interest in PSI. NOTE: it SG1J i_10pears DIA believes both LTG Watt and MAJ Stoner "have it in" f -)r Dr. Verona's of -rice, speci f J r-Al I y I land all of these SG1J o..,jections are directed a I At Lne r!sR--oT- being accused () f1-1 1 not arochialism, MAJ Hay d5es believe this to be the case. LTG Wat * and MAJ Stoner believe that Salyer from the vk.@ry 1.) e I1-in"llig COn -tructedAimself a position at S I for perso .1 gains, that he s -illfull,& sold the idea should be t "man" at a"d that lie r@ V :3 1? 1 \/OfLft A/ t,@" C_@Owlwut (13) IMPACT: a. (S/NOF011N) If our proposed draft MOU is approved, INSCOM v@i.ll likely fund $70K for contracts with SRI. SRI initially felt 1,iat it would be necessary to fund $500K to maintain an adequate pi-oclraai in PSI but-. reduced that figure to $450K. That figure was f'u.rther reduced to $39OK for FY 81 by the GRILL FLAME Committee. A, cording to D'F.A, this wil L cause SRI to reduce the number of per- :,ni .1 work _ -- -ie Ang the project. Army INSCOM further reduces the d@_@Ilar figure SRI' may pull out of the program. DIA firmly 1)c.lileves SPI, as e-orifigured with current personnel, is a national @@!-_.set. MAJ Hay thinks that is stretching things a bit far, but believe -9111 efforts should continue if they can produce DOT) rc-quirement.s better than any other contractor at the least possible ,--r-st to DOE). If SHT did pull out, DIA's primary contract monitor wc,o.ld be left on the West Coast to monitor nothing ,,possibly causing I 1--te contract monitor to bring civil suit against L3-&E`for creating I omily hardships, loss of funds, etc. This would cause an embarrass- ;Ilq situation fc.*>r LTG Tighe and Dr. Verona. Although Army and Air I erce are riot formally a part of the Joint Services GRILL FLAME ommittee (no signed MOU) we have been very informally involved iz-ice 1978. This could cause sonic embarrassment to Army/Air Force. 1). (S/110FORN) If '.AII does riot "pul I out" and the DIA monitor ?,cmairis at SHI, tl@iere may be at a later date some question dealing t0t.h ttie objections listed in paragraph 2(a)(b)(c)(d) above. i',.dditionally, there :is the p(-.1tential for qliestions to arise dealing t@Jth possible conflict of interest, e.g., other contractors question it@e DI-A primar)i contract monitor located at SRI offering work -to h e r conti,actors without bias. ) , @' b 6 @ 20 -0078@wo F o bP96 2 UALS 0 GN NATIGi t 9 Approved For Release 2003/09/W01 3. 788ROO1700280017-7 n NOT RELEASABLF TO K@7[, M9.C71i FOREGN tIATIONALS DAMI -ISH "@';UBJECT: GRILL FLAME (U) 'e; (U) CONCLUSION: a. (SI'NOFORN) Dr. Verona is angry because he believes Army YNSCOM is backing out of its commitment of $120K. His main concern @ippears to be the loss of -the $120K from Army to go with the SRI program for FY @31. lie feels strongly SRI will pull out if Army reduces the $120K further. b, (S/NOFORN) The changing of the proposed MOU does not appear I'o bother Dr. Verona, except he does not feel, as program manager, he has to clear through the GRILL FLAME Committee before talking with CongreSs or anyone else about the program. r-. (U) OPTIONS: J X a. (S/NOFORN) Army withdraw from the Joint Service Program. Advantakles Disadvantages (1) Freedom to spend Army money (1) We get less for our money when and where we desire. as Joint Service contracts provides benefits fro-m.DIA/USAF programs, i.e., exchange of information. (2) Manage our program without (2) Prevents duplication of coordination/approval of DIA. effort. (3) If SRI as presently staffed should be considered a very valuable asset to Army, the program would suffer if there is no joint service contract. 1). (S/NOFORN) Army remain in the Joint Service Program as it At Or Advantij