GRILL FLAME (U)

CIA-STARGATE

PDF Scan: PDF

Open AI Summary

Text

Body:  Approved For Release 2003/0
 -007ll~L7tId19LE70
 FOi C:G J I ATIONALS
 INFORMATION PAPER
 DAMI-ISH
 12 Sep 80
 CT:   GRILI, FLAME  (U)
 P I? P0 SE,   (S/NO ORN)    To inform ACSI DA of a potential situation
 with regard to GRILL FLAME and offer recommendations that will
 prevent possible embarrassment to the Army.
 FACTS.
 1.   (5/NOFORN)   BACKGROUND:   In response to LTG Tighe' s 7 Aug 80
 letter to MG Thompson,      a GRILL FLAME Committee meeting was held
 on  18 Aug 80.   The purpose of the meeting was to approve the Joint
 Service GRILL FLAME Memorandum of Understanding and Objectives Statement,  and                          with  ,      Torr
 proposed contract t with SRI (TAB C).
 (U)   DISCUSSION:
 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 Inci) at TAB B.   Because LTC Watt was on leave,
 rr representative from his organization,  LT Fred Atwater,  was
 invited to attend the 18 Aug 80 meeting at DIA to present INSCOM's
 r ccomn-iended changes to the proposed draft documents.   After the
 m et.ing, MAJ Hay asked LT Atwater if he felt LTC Watt and INSCOM
 c'0uld concur with the proposed changes made at the meeting.
 LT Atwater replied he thought they would.
 1-).   (S/NOFOIIN)   MAJ Hay met with LTC Watt on 27 Aug 80 and he
 informed MAJ Hay that                                     he and INSCOM
 could not concur with. the MOU.   MAJ Hay and LTC Watt then drafted
 ns proposed MOU  (TAB A) which we plan to table at a proposed GRILL
 F"I,AMB Committee meeting at DIA during the next meeting, date unknown.
 C.     (S/NOFORN)    INSCOM's major objections,   and MAJ Hay agrees,
 are as follows:
 (1)   (`>/NOFORN)   INSCOM has $150K 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
 v,ra  /nn"~                             Reason:   2-301.c.3
 ~Ap rv@1 for,
 W2
 ftM
 00                 P96-(~b$$I6(1'0108117 -7
 Approved For Release 2003/09/16:  A-RDP96-00788 R001700280017-7
 NOT REL.EASACLE TO
 N Ei,GN rya
 ric,NALs
 I.I,M I - I S H
 :,UBJECT:   GRILL FLAME  (U)
 -  can be determined can meet INSCOM's requirements at the least
 I,c>ssi.ble c(ast.ZW~i
 iesi.r-?as_icSvO~'re.n.
 cc) ncc~?~t:xatiaaa. armetrs .  -Cost _ of- t                  -~-rzcrC'
 t~-'- ~~T.ihe .?   (NOTE:   DIA proposal states $120K from Array INSCOM
 :I.l to be  funded for an SRI effort.   DIA maintains that Army had
 I?a'eviousi.y agreed verbally to provide $150K,  then $120K and now
 possibly even less than $120K.   Both LTC Watt and MAJ Stoner
 (tis.agree and LTC Watt has a Memorandum for Record to back up
 $;{:.atement. )
 (2)   (S/NOFORN)   DIA Made a unilateral decision to send
 t.Tae DIA primary contract monitor to SRI, Menlo Park, CA on Thursday
 :'.l.st or Friday 22d of August.   This was done prior to the MOU being
 ,approved by Director, DIA;  Army,  and Air Force ACSIs.    NOTE::   DIA
 ates no one objected to the primary contract monitor going to the
 'lost  Coast at the 18 Aug 80 meeting.   Both LTC Watt and MAJ Stoner
 have gone on record. previously objecting to the need for the contract
 mt>n i for to physically locate himself at SRI for the following
 ea rotas .
 (a)   (/NOFORN)   If the GRILL FLAME Committee is in
 i wt   joint, t;he DIA has no right to make a unilateral decision such
 .13 they have prior to the MOU being signed.   NOTE:   DIA feels since
 5j ",a', is funding Salyer's move it is no one else's problem.   We feel
 t' this decision is critized, DIA, Army,  and Air Force will jointly
 held responsible since  we are a joint committee.
 (b)    (?,/NOFORN)   If the primary contract monitor is
 :,~c:',rt.ed on the West. Coast with SRI,  we question how he can best
 monitor all additional contract efforts elsewhere.    NOTE:   DIA
 t-elg since SRI'  is best qualified in this project they will now,
 .+ ad probably ccnt..irnue to receive most of t;Iie contracts, therefore,
 makes s,,nse to maintain the contract monitor at that location.
 (c)   (S/NOPORN)   The move of the primary contract monitor
 '.:> `CHI totally disregards the recommendation of the Department of
 ,e l\rmy 0111.1, PT 11MI} Scientific Evaluation Comrnit.tee Report,  dated
 iai>cOmber  79,  page 1.0,  para :3b.   "Dependence on the SRI approach
 anal r.I be phau.;ed out . "   NOTE:   DIA feels the Gale Report is biased
 ,Ad GRILL, FLAMES was doomed before it started,  therefore,  no one is
 e,:'ing to accept: it.,., recommendations  (especially when we are using
 ':-ogram III funds vice Program VI.
 i~ ro', r T
 DP96   -7P,&~P91,7O,Q SJPj17-7
 FORE Gil WA 'a 16 +ALS
 Approved For Release 200
 I).;MI-ISF!
 h'.7F3JECT:   GRILL FLAME  (U)
 P96-0c177
 FG1EGN NATIONALS
 (d)    (S/NOFORN)   The move of the contract monitor to
 S;,I potentially decreases the operational security of the project.
 Ii-tl.  Puthoff and Russ Tarq lire well known as so-called experts in
 tine PSI area.   To move a DIA contract monitor to work closely with
 Uiem makes it difficult to deny DOD interest in PSI.   NOTE:   It
 SG1 J      `:a'.'pe gars D1A believes both LTC Watt and MAJ Stoner "have it in"
 f -)r Dr.  Verona ` s office,  Spec'        Y                 and all of these
 SG1J       o.,;ect;ions are directed at                At Me  risk o : being accused
 of parochialism,  MAJ Hay does no   believe this to be the case.
 I3cxt is LTC Wat   and MAJ Stoner, believe that Salyer from the vt ry
 bec'nning con +tructed   imself a position at S I for perso ..l gains,
 ar,d  that  he s i.ll.fuil,/ sold the idea that he  hould be tty  "man" at
 :3 F? I .                    " co JJ_ I  U t    N % :i      rc U,~,          +, c 1             vo w3 A/ P,
 (U)   IMPACT:
 a.           (S/NOFOIRN)   If our proposed draft MOU is approved, INSCOM
 will    likely fund $70K for contracts with SRI.                            SRI initially felt
 I 'iat; it would be necessary to fund $500K to maintain an adequate
 proclram in PSI but; reduced that figure to $650K.   That figure was
 I'L.rt.her reduced to $39OK for FY 81 by the GRILL FLAME Committee.
 R , c?e'rd i ng to D'f.J1,     this will cause SRI to reduce the number of per--
 .: raraerl working the project.   If Army INSCOM further reduces the
 d~~l l ar figure         }t  SRI' may pull out of the program.   DIA firmly
 be I a eves SPI,  as configured with current personnel, is a national
 ls!-set.   MAJ Hay thinks that is stretching things a bit far,  but
 cI e ; believe SRI  efforts should continue if they can produce DOI.)
 requirements better than any other contractor at the least possible
 cost to DOD.      If SRI did pull out,  DIA's primary contract monitor
 wcOul d be left on the West Coast to monitor nothing,D,W-ssibly causing
 I he contract monitor to bring civil suit. against 13D for creating
 i  roily hardships,  loss of funds,  etc.   This would cause an embarrass-
 rlq situation for LTG Tighe and Dr,  Verona.   Although Army and Air
 I erce are riot formally a part of the Joint Services GRILL FLAME
 "cammlttee (no signed MOU) we have been very informally involved
 i nce 1978.   This could cause some embarrassment to Army/Air Force.
 I) .    (S/NOFOUN)     If  RI does not "pull. out"  and the DIA monitor
 remains at SRI,  there may be at a later date some question dealing
 i i t.b the objections listed in paragraph 2 (a) (b) (c) (d)  above.
 i',.cldi t.ionally,  there is the potential for questions to arise dealing
 t~Jth possible conflict of interest, e.g., other contractors question
 f ho D"CA pri.mar,r contract; monitor located at SRI offering work to
 I her contractors without bias.
 t~orlp`?   ~20~ _   ~Cfl
 bP96-0078 p1    m62$ '(   -A ()
 er GN  A IONALS
 Approved For Release 2003/09/1cp
 v.
 DAMI -I SH
 SSUBJECT:   GRILL FLAME (U)
 (U)   CONCLUSION:
 788R001700280017-7
 NOT RELEASABLE TO
 FOREIGN NATIOrALS
 a.   (S/NOFORN)   Dr. Verona is angry because he believes Army
 3-NSCOM is backing out of its commitment of $120K.   His main concern
 appears to be the loss of the $120K from Army to go with the SRI
 program for FY 31.      He feels strongly SRI will pull out if Army
 reduces the $12OK further.
 b.   (S/NOFORN)   The changing of the proposed MOU does not appear
 to 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.
 G1 ?
 (U)
 a.
 OPTIONS:
 (S/NOFOI?N)
 Advanta(les
 Army withdraw from the Joint Service Program.
 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
 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/NOFOHN)   Army remain in the Joint Service Program as it
 I      4J o  "*1&t n        v_
 $?'"cl /'V     dey ea A/ ltirtiU~
 Advant