AREAS FOR IMPROVED COORDINATION BETWEEN THE NATIONAL PROGRAMS CONTRACT REVIEW BOARD AND THE AGENCY CONTRACT REVIEW BOARD

• Document Type: CREST
• Collection: General CIA Records
• Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): CIA-RDP85B01152R000600730025-7
• Release Decision: RIPPUB
• Original Classification: K
• Document Page Count: 3
• Document Creation Date: December 21, 2016
• Document Release Date: June 11, 2008
• Sequence Number: 25
• Publication Date: August 12, 1983
• Content Type: MEMO

Approved For Release 2008/06/11 :CIA-RDP85B01152R000600730025-7
1 2 AUG iy~3
MEMORANDUM FOR: Associate Deputy Director for Science
and Technology ~ ~ ' ~`'
Deputy Director for Administration
. ~.~~~,,
Daniel C. King
Director of Logistics
SUBJECT: Areas For Improved Coordination Between the
National Programs Contract Review Board and
the Agency Contract Review Board
1. I have reviewed Al Montefusco's draft "Agreement Between
Chairman, National Programs Contract Review Board (NPCRB) and
Chairman, Agency Contract Review Board (ACRB)." I note that in
addition to the issue of production contracts handled by the
ACRB which may have developed from R&D efforts handled by the
NPCRB, Al expanded the draft to include accommodation procure-
ments. Accommodation procurements, in the context of Al's
memorandum, refers to purchases made on behalf of other govern-
ment agencies rather than for a foreign government as defined in
I would like to use this opportunity to provide my
thoughts on both subjects.
2. Regarding those situations where a system or piece of
equipment was developed using national funds and subsequently
placed in production using Agency funds, I am more than prepared,
on a ease-by-case basis, to solicit ACRB approval to waive
jurisdiction and have that production action presented instead to
the NPCRB. To the best of my knowledge, only one such case has
occurred in recent years. Although I had originally suggested
that our thinking in this area should be put in the form of a
written agreement, the cases appear to be so few in number that
it is probably not worth the trouble involved. However, both
boards should be aware of our feelings in this matter. It is
also likely that in those eases where ACRB jurisdiction is
waived, the ACRB may still insist on some involvement. Such
involvement might concern the type of contract or audit advisors
who have extensive production contracting experience advising the
NPCRB when any such ease is being considered. In short, I think
that common sense and what is best for the Agency should govern
in such cases and that a mutually agreeable procedure can easily
be reached on a case-by-case basis.
OL 0054-83
Approved For Release 2008/06/11 :CIA-RDP85B01152R000600730025-7
 Approved For Release 2008/06/11 :CIA-RDP85B01152R000600730025-7
SUBJECT: Areas for Improved Coordination Between the
National Programs Contract Review Board and
the Agency Contract Review Board
3. With respect to contracting for other federal
agencies, there is some indication in Al's draft of a desire on
your part to become more actively involved in acquisition eases
where the S&T is deeply involved, as in the case of the equipment
purchased by the Agency using monies provided to us from NSA in
support of third party operations. As you are aware, such pro-
curements are the responsibility of the ACRB since the funds
involved become Agency funds once they are transferred, and the
procurement authority of the DCI is the basis for any resultant
contract. There is, of course, already a SST representative on
the ACRB. However, should you desire more direct involvement, we
would be glad to add an additional observer (perhaps from OSO) to
our deliberations who would have the opportunity to contribute to
the process. While I would expect that this would be a non-
voting member, the reality is that the board rarely decides on
votes alone, but rather discusses each action until a consensus
is reached by the entire board.
4. I am not certain if my comments address specific concerns
you may have since we have not directly discussed Al's draft. If
these are not the same issues of concern to you or if there are
others you would like to discuss, perhaps we should arrange a
meeting. I seem to sense that the NPCRB is moving closer
philosophically to the approach taken by the ACRB with respect to
focus and approach, and there may be a number of areas where we
could help one another or make things move more quickly. Let me
know if you would like to pursue any of these points.
JS/ Daniel C. King
Daniel C. King
Approved For Release 2008/06/11 :CIA-RDP85B01152R000600730025-7
 25X1
Approved For Release 2008/06/11 :CIA-RDP85B01152R000600730025-7
Next 2 Page(s) In Document Denied
Approved For Release 2008/06/11 :CIA-RDP85B01152R000600730025-7