CONTRACT REVIEW BOARD MEETING, 29 FEBRUARY

• Document Type: CREST
• Collection: General CIA Records
• Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): CIA-RDP74B00535R000100200031-8
• Release Decision: RIPPUB
• Original Classification: S
• Document Page Count: 4
• Document Creation Date: December 19, 2016
• Document Release Date: November 21, 2005
• Sequence Number: 31
• Publication Date: February 29, 1968
• Content Type: MF

Apgrov OR""pe OBVIO2106 : CIA-RDP74B00535R0001002000p1-8
rC
y 1~P %& do friu
yr~ly eu U f
(DATE)
FORM
AUGN 54 IQI WHICH REPLACES
MAYF BEM US10-101
ED.
Declassification Review by NGA
Approved For Release 2006/02/06 : CIA-RDP74B00535R000100200031-8
 ApproveO Fir Release 200/02/06 : Cl
wnanvSEanT311Rnmmr
Approved For Release 2006/02/06 : CIA-RDP74B00535R000100200031-8
 Approved For Release 2006/0 ~ -RDP74B00535R000100200031-8
see. p
29 February 1968
: Contract Review Board Meeting, 29 February
1. Two items from this morning's Contract Review Board may be
of particular interest to you. The contract being considered was one
for DDP with to provide support for the continued development of
WALNUT.
2. At a prior meeting I raised some questions pertaining to the
particulars on the 1. 8 percent allowance in the overhead for an in-
has granted royalty-free license to any patents or practices which
may result from this program, and I sense a consensus of the members
of the Contract Review Board that the Agency should press for this in
all cases. I think thelIdeliberations which we had earlier were
helpful in defining the pros and cons involved here.
dependent research and development program. It turns out that
3. The Board recommended further that the Contracting Officer/
Project Officer examine the independent R&D program to determine
its applicability to Agency needs. If not applicable, we recommend
that this charge against the contract be disallowed.
4. It becomes abundantly clear that in dealing with for
example, that total program with the Agency should be con-
sidered in arriving at a judgment as to whether their IRD program
makes sense to us, and whether we should participate at all or in
part. I suspect this may develop into an important function of R&D
coordination.
5. The second item which may be of particular interest is that
COMMO/Logistics have notified a contractor, who was
to produce some gear for them under an R&D contract, that the con-
tractor is in default, and not only will they pay no more but in fact
demand immediate restitution to the Agency of the which has 25X1
been paid thus far on the contract, and that interest will be charged
on this money pending return to the Agency. In this case the contractor
just couldn't make the gear work in accordance with the contractual
Approved For Release 2006/
I~ f;itoilP. ti
cn'ler^1 ter aufirma(lc
-RDP741300535110? O 10200 31-8
 Approved For Release 2006
Tok
i IA-RDP74B00535R000100200031-8
requirements. This suggests a situation in which a lack of
coordination internally could be extremely embarrassing. For
example, if some non-COMMO office were in the process of
soliciting an RFP or entering into a contract with this company
without knowledge of this action.
6. I am happy to see the Contract Review Board getting closer
to some really worthwhile problems.
:~~ ':5n~
Approved For Release 2006/02/6 : CIA-RDP74B00535R000100200031-8