REVISED VERSION OF Q'S AND A'S

• Document Type: CREST
• Collection: General CIA Records
• Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): CIA-RDP90-00191R000100050005-3
• Release Decision: RIPPUB
• Original Classification: S
• Document Page Count: 21
• Document Creation Date: December 23, 2016
• Document Release Date: October 24, 2013
• Sequence Number: 5
• Publication Date: October 21, 1986
• Content Type: MEMO

Declassified in Part- Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/10/24: CIA-RDP90-00191R000100050005-3
Ike)
STAT
STAT
MEMORANDUM FOR:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
CLAS Team Members
21 October 1986
Revised Version of Q's and A's
Fa-v,
1. Attached is a revised version of the questions and answers we
went over last week. I have indicated changed portions by
sidelining the new material in red. After receiving your comments
on both versions, I will produce a final copy.
2. Thanks for your cooperation and patience.
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/10/24: CIA-RDP90-00191R000100050005-3
Declassified in Part- Sanitized Copy Approved for Release-2013/10/24 : CIA-RDP90-00191R000100050005-3
D-R-A-F-T
21 October 1986
Questions and Answers Concerning CLAS Evaluation
The responses to the first 27 questions were obtained at a
meeting with the CLAS team leaders and the entire Inventory team
25X1 held on 15 October.
CATALOGING
1. How does the description of stocked items in the ITEM
DEFINITION file differ from the description in the ITEM MASTER file?
The ITEM DEFINITION file contains a number of data elements
unique to the purchasing process just as the ITEM MASTER file has a
number of data elements unique to the inventory process but both
files have a number of data elements in common. The common data
elements have identical characteristics, i.e. same name, length, etc.
2. Is there a corresponding category in the current inventory
system for what MSA calls recurring items? Could stocked and
recurring items be described in the same fashion?
Yes, the current system would categorize virtually any item that
was carried in the federal stock catalog as a "standard" item.
Under the current system, however, it is not customary to set up a
regular schedule for making direct purchases of non-stocked items,
which is the nature of the recurring items in the MSA system. Both
stocked and recurring items are described in the same fashion under
the current system because both are listed in the federal stock
catalog, as indeed are many "generic" items as well. (Some 70
percent of the present activity within ICS is represented by
one-time buys.) (Under the current system, a "WASH" number is added
to every item based on the federal supply class. This is apparently
to wash the transaction through the financial system using the 1711
stock account.)
3. Does the GENERIC description offer advantages over the
current system of describing nonstandard items that are not stocked?
Yes, to the extent that such descriptions can be of any length
and are incorporated in the system and so can be recalled without
having to do any rekeying. (Presumably this feature would make the
system more "user friendly" although, by itself, it would not
provide any safeguard against having the same item described in two
different ways).
SE .ET
1
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/10/24: CIA-RDP90-00191R000100050005-3
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Rere-aise- 2013/10/24: CIA-RDP90-00191R000100050005-3
L,)U.
4. The example is not clear to me: Does the first entry "PRT
250 914 1 00 A" include the LSAC? If not, where is the LSAC carried
in the current system?
Yes, the entry "914 1 00 A" represents the LSAC. In the
proposed new LSAC the location portion would be reduced from three
characters to a single character (there are only two warehouse
locations currently)
5. What additional features, if any, would be needed in the MSA
system to accommodate the Federal Stock Number as well as the LSAC?
The Agency has no interest in adopting the Federal Stock Number
(FSN) as the master control number for its stock because only about
15 percent of the items that are handled by the present system
(based on the activity of the past 12 months) are listed in the
federal stock catalog. It is planned, however to include the FSN in
the record of every item that has one. Logistics does not plan to
seek a modification of the MSA STOCK NUMBER field -- by extending it
from 15 to 18 characters so that it could accommodate the present
ICS stock number of 13 characters plus the LSAC of five characters
-- because that would obviously require a change to virtually every
module in the MSA system.
6. Could MSA standard reports be easily modified to include the
free text description if it were specifically requested? Do ICS
standard reports provide for the 300-character item description?
Yes. Using the Information Expert language to generate reports,
any information included on any screen can be easily incorporated in
a report specified by the requester. Most ICS standard reports use
an abbreviated form of the item description, usually either a
20-character version or a 60-character one.
SECRET
2
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/10/24: CIA-RDP90-00191R000100050005-3
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/10/24: CIA-RDP90-00191R000100050005-3
7. Is this SHORT NAME LOOKUP feature seen as a significant
advantage or is it simply a nice-to-have?
The SHORT NAME LOOKUP feature is a definite advantage because it
allows the user to express his needs pretty much in his own terms.
The tables that contain the synonyms or definitions that the user
must eventually use to make his request will, of course, have to be
built so that the users' argot is included but this is a process
that continues indefinitely, and once a term is added to the system
it will remain there until purged. This feature is an essential
element of the MSA system which transfers responsibilities as well
as capabilities from the logistics professionals to the users.
8. Why would the GENERIC description feature be used for
recurring items? (See 2 and 3 above)
As noted in the answer to Question 2, the current practice is to
check the federal catalog first to see whether the item has a
standard description. Under the MSA system, the user would be able
to ask for items using his/her own term to describe the material and
situations could arise where the same item was described by two
different names. (I am not sure that I have this right. If so, it
seems to me that the SHORT NAME LOOKUP could be designed to detect
duplications and provide a means for eliminating them in instances
where a search for recurring demand is made.)
9. Is the cataloging of entries by cognizant offices an
advantage and would it reduce the workload for Logistics?
The cataloging of entries by cognizant offices would surely
reduce the workload for Logistics because it would transfer a job
that is now done by the Logistics officer to the user. Having the
cognizant offices do their own cataloging for items that they
control could have at least two beneficial effects:
a) it would force the cognizant offices to monitor their
own logistics activities more closely.
b) it might give the cognizant offices a sense of being
more responsible for their stock.
10. Are technical offices different from cognizant offices? Who
is included in each category?
For all pracitical purposes these two terms are synonomous in
this paper. There are some 38 cognizant "offices" in the current
system, many of them of branch size. The principal major operating
components that have cognizant elements are Logistics, Commo, OTS,
OMS, and PINS.
SECRET
3
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/10/24: CIA-RDP90-00191R000100050005-3
c-ron'em
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/10/24: CIA-RDP90-00191R000100050005-3
General: Has the MSA manufacturing system been used by any other
federal government agency for cataloging a large inventory of
diverse material?
No, however there are a substantial number of state and local
governments that use the MSA system and several members of the CLAS
project will exchange views and experiences with these people at a
convention in Denver the week of. 20 October.
SECRET
4
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/10/24 : CIA-RDP90-00191R000100050005-3
. Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/10/24: CIA-RDP90-00191R000100050005-3
REQUISITIONS
11. Is this interface between manufacturing and purchasing
embodied in the modification proposal #1 on page 35? if so, why not
cross reference it?
Yes it is. No cross referencing to the proposed modifications
was done because the teams were not asked to include such
information in their individual submissions.
12. Is it correct to assume that under the current system any
requisition data can be changed after procurement action has been
initiated?
Once a procurement action has been started under the current
system, a formal amendment process must be invoked in order to make
any changes but making an amendment is less cumbersome than
cancelling and re-entering the data.
13. How would this proposal to modify the requisition number
affect the effectiveness of the current material requisition system?
Modifying the requisition number would make the system somewhat
simpler to operate. The reduction of two'characters in the
requisition number field would be achieved by using only one digit
to represent the calendar year and shrinking the sequence number
field to two digits. (There was some discussion as to whether the
year was calendar or fiscal but it would seem more logically to be
the former. In any case it might be wiser to reduce the customer
number from four to three characters rather than to have just one
position for year which limits the timespan to a single decade.)
14. Has there been any estimate requested or made to extend the
MSA transaction code?
The MSA transaction code does not support financial adjustments
at all and has a much more limited ability to effect inventory
adjustments. While there has been no attempt to determine what type
of modification that MSA would have to make in order to approximate
the transaction codes in the current system, it seems clear that it
would involve a major change to the system.
SECRET
5
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/10/24: CIA-RDP90-00191R000100050005-3
? Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 6.13/10/24 : CIA-RDP90-00191R000100050005-3
15. Is it possible to use a "standard default" for the customer
to identify the appropriate purchasing organization? Is this the
same point addressed in the final sentence on page 6 of the
evaluation?
Yes, and Logistics has already considered having such a feature
incorporated in the MSA system. The identification of the Logistics
element that would serve this function is still under consideration
by Logistics senior management. This point is addressed under
Policy/Responsibilities on page 6 of the evaluation.
16. Is the SHORT NAME LOOKUP feature of the MSA system judged to
be more efficient than the research tools available under the
current system?
Yes, by a wide margin. (See the answer to Question 7.)
17. Is the comment in 4A covered by the proposal #6 on page 36
of the evaluation?
Proposal #6 actually addresses only the first of the two
solutions mentioned in paragraph 4A on page 7, namely the
"modification to allow changes to the buying entity code...."
18 What must the link between requisition and inventory alluded
to in comment 4B accomplish and why can't it be defined as yet?
At the moment MSA has no link between the inventory and
purchasing packages and there is a need for some type of "black box"
to connect these two modules. There has been no attempt yet by the
CLAS project team to define Agency requirements in this area.
SECRET
6
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/10/24: CIA-RDP90-00191R000100050005-3
. Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/10/24: CIA-RDP90-00191R000100050005-3
19. Are the proposals for additional information noted in
comment 4C all incorporated in the proposals listed under #2 on page
35 of the evaluation?
Only the initial segment of Proposal #2 (the part labelled
"Requisitioning") is related to the comment 4C on page 7.
20. Does comment 4D relate directly to proposal 08 on page 36 of
the evaluation?
Proposal 08 focuses only on the capability of having requisition
vice line-item approval whereas the comment in paragraph 4D appears
directed to the issue of providing for approval by more than one
authority.
'SECRET
7.
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/10/24: CIA-RDP90-00191R000100050005-3
? Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/10/24: CIA-RDP90-00191R000100050005-3
INVENTORY
21. Is the present system of placing stock issues in process
more "automatic" than the MSA system, i.e., does "manually
allocating" mean that the item manager must take some specific
action to select a substitute stock item or release back orders when
a stock item is received?
Yes, the current system does appear to have default conditions
that relieve the item manager of manually substituting allocations
every time an item in the primary stock has been depleted. (It is
not clear whether the MSA system could be modified rather easily to
have that same capability.)
22. Where does the item manager get the information under the
present system? is the "Information" referred to the description of
what is already in the inventory?
The MSA system would be much more efficient and rapid because
the information that the item manager now must gather from assorted
forms and hard copy references would be available on-line in real
time. The tools like the SHORT NAME LOOKUP and the inquiry screens
that provide access to all the forms used in the cataloging,
inventory, and requisitioning process (not to mention receiving and
distribution) would all be literally at the item manager's
fingertips via his CLAS terminal.
23. Is it correct to assume that the track of stock by warehouse
location provided by the MSA system is an advantage over the present
system of simply tracking total quantity on hand?
Yes, the identification of stock by precise location would be a
significant advantage over the current system. (It should be noted,
however, that the current system is not used to its full
effectiveness now because the data are not kept completely current.)
SECRET
8
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/10/24: CIA-RDP90-00191R000100050005-3
-- --
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/10/24 : CIA-RDP90-00191R000100050005-3
24. Is Is it possible to estimate the net effect on the Inventory
Manager's workload? Does the impact noted in 3A(1) directly relate
to the proposal #7 on page 36 of the evaluation?
The net effect on the Inventory Manager's workload is almost
certainly to reduce it although it is not possible to make a
quantitative estimate without running some test cases. Proposal #7
directly responds to the suggestion noted in paragraph 3A2 on page 9.
25. If cognizant offices took on the work of requisitioning
replenishments, would this result in a net reduction of workload or
would it simply be a transfer of work from Logistics to the
cognizant office?
While it would of course reduce the workload for Logistics, it
would also reduce the net workload simply because there would be an
elimination of the rekeying of data and much less verification by
all elements that are now comparing documents that have been
recreated.
SECRET
9
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/10/24: CIA-RDP90-00191R000100050005-3
_
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/10/24 : CIA-RDP90-00191R000100050005-3
RECEIVING
26. What other purposes than receiving do the Supply Action
Files serve? Is there some function served by the Supply Action
Files that the MSA system cannot perform?
The Supply Action Files contain all the hard copy documentation
associated with the procurement of the item being handled by the
depot personnel. Most of this information would be available in
elctronic form under the MSA system. (It appears that there are a
few items of information in the Supply Action Files concerning item
handling that are not available in the current CLAS configuration
but I am not certain what these are.)
27. How are purchases for incorrect material detected using
today's receiving process? What additional check is available?
Under today's procedures, the receiving clerk compares the
original requisition with the purchase order, the vendor's invoice,
the packing slip, and the item itself. If the purchase order is
different from the requisition, he/she can attempt to make an
adjustment at that point. Under the CLAS system, the receiving
clerk will match the vendor's packing list against only the purchase
order so there will be no double check against the original
requisition. If the purchasing official alters the requestor's
order incorrectly, the receiving official will not be able to detect
that error.
SECRET
10
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/10/24: CIA-RDP90-00191R000100050005-3
? Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/10/24: CIA-RDP90-00191R000100050005-3
The answers to questions 28 through 49 were obtained at a
follow-up meeeting with the same cast held at Page Building on 17
October.
DISTRIBUTION
28. Why is a hard copy document needed to track an item through
distribution? Could some type of bar-code identifier be affixed to
an item and the tracking be accomplished by terminal?
If there are sufficient terminals at the depot and there is some
means of affixing an identification to the item being tracked, it
would be possible to track any item through distribution without
utilizing the moving document that now accompanies all material as
it transits the warehouse. (At the moment, however, there does not
seem to be any satisfactory alternative to the relatively bulky
movement document. The current plan is to affix a bar code to the
movement document itself.)
29. Is there some form of "indirect" tracking and, if so, what
is it?
No, there is no tracking of any type (neither indirect or
direct) for non-stocked items once they have passed the point of
receipt inspection.
30. Isn't the system modification mentioned in comment 4B
covered under proposal #2 on page 35 of the evaluation?
Yes. 1
SECRET
11
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/10/24: CIA-RDP90-00191R000100050005-3
. Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Releases 2013/10/24: CIA-RDP90-00191R000100050005-3
POLICY HIERARCHY
31. Strictly speaking, isn't this topic not a "function" of
logistics activity but rather a methodological approach used by MSA
to build its system? It would be clearer to me if the section were
used as an introduction to show the overall philosophy of how the
MSA system is designed to operate and how that compares to the
present system.
32. The explanation of major differences is fine as far as it
goes but it does not address all the points covered in the MSA
policy hierarchy.
The policy hierarchy is the heart of the MSA System concept of
defaulting to the norm. In order to take advantage of this feature
for the procurement process, there must be an effort to normalize as
much as possible the procurement actions. MSA tracks line-item
rather than total action. The software application is applicable to
simple types of actions for the entire procurement function.
The current system, CONIF, is for the storage and retrieval of
the total history of an agreement, a contract, and/or a contractor.
Total history would include basic data (selected in total, or in a
combination of selected data elements appropriate to a particular
information requirement) concerning a contractor, basic agreement,
or any type of procurement instrument.
The current system restricts access to data relative to the
organization to which the user is assigned, therefore even though
the user may have access to a screen, he can only input and/or
update information concerning the organization he is assigned to.
The MSA System allows the update of any organization data if the
user has access to the screens used for input and/or update. OIT
has to explore this restriction capability because of the
sensitivity of our work.
The current system, CONIF, has daily batch interfaces with GAS
and ICS. The following data are transferred between systems:
a. CONIF receives commitment data from GAS.
b. CONIF validates present commitments and sends obligation
data placed in a hold file until GAS sends a commitment to
CONIF. Obligations are based on properly executed
unilateral and bilateral purchase instruments including
amendments.
c. CONIF sends expenditures to GAS.
d. CONIF receives line detail ordering/receiving
information from ICS.
e. CONIF sends line detail payment information to ICS.
CONIF also has EFT for the payment of vendors
SECRET
12
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/10/24: CIA-RDP90-00191R000100050005-3
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/10/24: CIA-RDP90-00191R000100050005-3
. (Is there any way that the MSA system can be manipulated to
provide information on a procurement-instrument rather than a
line-item basis? At least for history purposes, could you establish
a separate file that had an identifier for the contract or
contractor and then associate each line item to that unique
identifier? For that matter doesn't the MSA hierarchy allow you to
operate fairly easily at least at the contract level if not the
contractor level?
It seems to me, based on a conversation I had some time ago with
Bob Hunt, that the MSA security structure ought to be able to
accommodate our requirement for need-to-know, at least by allowing
us to use security packages like ACF2 to supplement the MSA
features. I"11 admit, however, that I don't have a very clear
picture of this issue.)
33. I don't understand the point of the second portion of
paragraph 4A on concerns. Has it been explored with MSA whether or
not a mechanism could be developed to link a number of addresses and
even names to a single vendor? Are there no corollary cases in the
commercial world for obtaining goods from a specific branch or plant
of a large corporation?
Yes. This has been discussed but not in detail with Ladd Shinn
and he seemed to think it was feasible to have multi-addresses by
adding a new file with a link to the main file.
34. Is this proposal for storing multi-addresses for vendors the
same as the one numbered 5 in the proposals section on page 36 of
the evaluation?
/
Yes. There is some idea of using the Small Purchases Branch as
the testbed for seeing how well this type of procedure would work.
SECRET
13
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/10/24: CIA-RDP90-00191R000100050005-3
? 'Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/10/24: CIA-RDP90-00191R000100050005-3
PREAWARD
35. When does a buyer create a vendor quotation without first
creating a Request for Quotation? Which is the more usual case in
the Agency?
This was looking at a short cut for telephone RFQ's and price
comparisons. The aim at looking at this was to be able to track
results of RFP's. Because of the proposal for decoupling the word
processing for all documentation, except for SPS actions, until such
time as the MSA software has the download/upload capability to PC.
Host often RFP's are based on a memo from the COTR followed by a
requisition.
36. What additional capability is needed for the complex RFQs
and what is the ratio of complex to non-complex?
FY86 55% of the competitive proposals (Series 1 and 2) were
complex and represented a total value of $800 million.
FY85 38% of the competitive proposals were complex,
representing a total of $400 million.
This does not include SPB actions
37. How many quotations are normally received from a vendor in a
single call? How are they recorded now? Are they recopied onto
another form under current practice?
There is no real tracking capability as the process is manual
and to give an accurate quantitative answer would require an
extensive research effort, but based on negotiators' experience the
average would be 5.
38. Is the proposal in Comment 4A reflected under #3 on page 35
concerning the requisition document?
Yes. This is reflected under 3 and 4 of the possible/probable
modifications. CSAD currently has a proposal tracking system that
requires a "cradle to grave" capability to follow all proposals and
this system incorporates multiple addresses for a single
contractor. In a number of cases, MCD has a similar requirement
for this information.
39. Is the proposal in Comment 4C covered by 06 on page 36?
Yes.
SECRET
14
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/10/24: CIA-RDP90-00191R000100050005-3
- Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Rele-a-s-e-f0-13/10/24 : CIA-RDP90-00191R000100050005-3
PREPARATION OF DOCUMENTATION
40. Why is it necessary for the Agency to be able to split the
line of a requisition among different buying entities?
This is being covered under #5 on page 36 of the modifications.
I called ICS to get the statistics on how many requisitions they
received for FY86 that had more than one buying entity per
requisition. They were unable to give me these statistics.
(According to one of the Inventory Team members, it is a fairly
frequent occurrence to have more than one buying entity per
requisition.
41. I don't understand why an original copy cannot be printed if
receiving is done before the procurement instrument is printed.
What can be printed and how is it labelled?
When an item is received, it closes the line on the purchase
order. The logic of the system is:
a. When you create a purchase order, you change the status
to PRINT (code 5). The printing of the purchase order is a
batch process and is done at night when the system is down.
b. If receiving is done the same day the purchase order is
sent to print, it automatically changes the print status to
closed (code 9).
c. In order to get a copy of the purchase order, you have
to return an item to reopen the purchase order. You can
then change the print status to reprint (code 6). Once the
purchase order is closed and you do a reprint, it is never
the original, even though the purchase order was never
originally printed. The reprint status is done at night
and the next day you have to receive the item again so the
purchase order status will become closed again.
(In discussion of this topic on 17 October, it became clear that
the labelling of an "original copy" refers to the markings placed on
the output by the MSA programs, which presumably could -- if
necessary -- be modified according to some user-specified rules. Mr
Wallace pointed out, however, that the receiving of an item is
unlikely to occur before the purchase instrument is printed when the
ordering is done on-line.)
42. Is there a net increase or decrease in the input job using
the MSA vice the current method?
In time there would only be one system requiring input, thereby
/
eliminating the input to CONIF and WANG. (This would result in a
substantial decrease in the input job.)
SECRET
15
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/10/24 : CIA-RDP90-00191R000100050005-3
? Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/10/24: CIA-RDP90-00191R000100050005-3
43. How large is the AF contract number? Why not get an
estimate from NSA of the cost of making a change in the size of the
procurement instrument number?
The AF number is 12 digits and the decision of whose contract
number to use for classified contracts has not been made. It is
still being studied.
SECRET
16
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/10/24: CIA-RDP90-00191R000100050005-3
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Releases 2013/10/24: CIA-RDP90-00191R000100050005-3
44. Why is the ability to track cost type actions an unknown at
this time?
(Finance is still working out the procedures for tracking cost
type actions. It is thought that the MSA system could probably be
jury-rigged to accommodate the Agency's accounting requirements, but
more work must be done in this area before a definitive answer can
be given.)
SECRET
17
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/10/24: CIA-RDP90-00191R000100050005-3
. Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/10/24: CIA-RDP90-00191R000100050005-3
POSTAWARD
45. The lack of a complete history of the changes made to a
procurement instrument does appear to be a significant weakness.
Has a proposal been made to MSA to see what the cost would be of
adding such a capability to the system?
(The proposed modifications listed on page 35 -- the items
titled Purchasing and Payment under #2 and all of #4 are designed to
increase the history capabilities of the MSA system.)
SECRET
18
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/10/24: CIA-RDP90-00191R000100050005-3
nrnnrm
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/10/24: CIA-RDP90-00191R000100050005-3
VENDOR PAYMENT
46. The menus listed add to 41 vice 40.
1 The total should read 41 but this is a moot point given the
enhanced capabilities of the 5.0 version of the Accounts Payable
module.
47. Is the difference of level at which the data are collected
in CONIF and the MSA system viewed as a plus or minus for the MSA
system as far as Finance is concerned?
IAgain, this is a moot issue in light of the later version of the
Accounts Payable package.
SECRET
19
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/10/24: CIA-RDP90-00191R000100050005-3
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/10/24: CIA-RDP90-00191R000100050005-3
APPROVALS
48. It is not clear that hard copy is necessary for either
coordination or approval if a secure password system is used
instead. Also audit would not require hard copy so long as a
complete history file is maintained in electronic form.
(This is a comment rather than a question and calls for no
response from the CLAS team.)
49. Again, it is not clear that hard copy is required for
execution of a legal purchase instrument.
/ This, too, is an Audit comment that needs no response.
/
SECRET
20
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2013/10/24 : CIA-RDP90-00191R000100050005-3