ENGINEERING & PLANNING BRANCH FUNCTIONS AND ACTIVITIES

• Document Type: CREST
• Collection: General CIA Records
• Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): CIA-RDP83B00823R000700020026-1
• Release Decision: RIPPUB
• Original Classification: C
• Document Page Count: 17
• Document Creation Date: December 9, 2016
• Document Release Date: March 9, 2000
• Sequence Number: 26
• Content Type: OUTLINE

} w c. iii
Approved For Release 2000/O g'C1A -DP83B00823R00070002OD 6- , > 25X1A
ENGINEERING $ PLANNING BRANCH
FUNCTIONS AND ACTIVITIES
I. FUNCTION
Manage a program which looks to the development of
new equipments needed for the technical security programs
of the Division.
ACTIVITY
For equipment developed in-house:
A. Write the Request for Proposal.
B. Evaluate proposals.
C. Aid in negotiating the contract for the
equipment.
D. Serve as the Contracting Officer's Technical
Representative.
E.. Monitor the performance of the contractor.
F. Perform the acceptance testing for the
equipment.
For research,development and engineering tasks done
in our behalf by ORD and OTS:
G. In conjunction with ORD or OTS, identify
needed equipments.
H. Together with ORD and OTS serve as contract
monitors and observers.
Approved For Release 2000/09/02 : GIA~k1bFP 700020026-1
 Approved For Release 2000/09/02 CIA-RD.pc3aO00?3R000700020026-1
ildl~I I If k'
II. FUNCTION
Provide budget and planning functions for the Division.
ACTIVITY
A. Prepare Program Calls Annual budget and
related papers.
B. Prepare special studies such as a Technical
Threat Assessment or a five year projection of technical
equipment needs.
III. FUNCTION.
Perform special technical liaison.
ACTIVITY
A. Serve as an observer to the Technical Security
Countermeasures Subcommittee's R&D Working Group.
B. Serve as a member of the R&D Working Group's
Threat Assessment Task Force.
C. Serve as a member of the Special Reading
Group.
Approved For Release 2000/09/02t'C1A4Ik6~$ 3 l 00700020026-1
 I DENT Wp akv'Ibtl( Qr eIq sT fqq(/g9/02 : CIA-RDP83B00823R000700020026-1
The Tecil.lical Security-Division component
that writes the proposal Request 4e.-
developej in house new equipment needed for
the techn?cal security programsof the Division.
ACTIVITY CODESII, B (b); 1 COMPONENT 0
S
EVALUATION:
What is
/PTOS/Techni.cal Security
Division/EPB
DATE:
our reference(s) for this activity? Date(s)?
Is (are) the reference(s) still in force? Yes
Who is (are) the beneficiary(ies) of this activity x No
Do you feel the activity is still necessary? Yes X No
Do(es) the beneficiary(ies) feel it is still necessary? Yes )( No
Can the activity be done more efficiently or less costly? Yes No
If so, how?
Do you feel that responsibility for the activity should be transferred
to another OS component or to another Office? Yes No
If so, where and why?
Can another component do the activity more. efficiently? Less costly?
More properly? Yes No If so, which component and why?
Does the activity include anything questionable in the light of
Watergate? Yes NoY If so, what?
Can this activity be reduced in scope/size or discontinued without
significant effect on overall Agency security? Yes No_
If so, how? j
Is there any activity not now being pursued by OS that you feel is more
important than this one? Yes No_ If so,_ what?
Approved For Release 2000/09/02 : CIA-RDP83B00823R000700020026-1
 .IDENTIFICATION OF ACTIVITY: The Technical Security Division component
Approved For Release 2000/09 :tCIA P O82 -RO& 1OQ@20J26-Reque s t s to
develop,in house new equipments needed for
the technical, ..security program of the Division.
ACTIVITY CODESII, B, (b); 2 COMPONENT: OS PTOS Technical Security
Division/EPB
EVALUATION: DATE:
What is (are) our reference(s) for this activity? Date(s)?
Is (are) the reference(s) still in force? Yes No
Who is (are) the beneficiary(ies) of this activity?
Do you feel the activity is still necessary? Yes A No
Do(es) the beneficiary(ies) feel it is still necessary? Yes No
Can the activity be done more efficiently or less costly? Yes No
If so, how?
Do you feel that responsibility for the activity should be transferred
to another OS component or to another Office? Yes No
If so, where and why?
Can another component do the activity more.efficiently? Less costly?
More properly? Yes No If so, which component and why?
Does the activity include anything questionable in the light of
l;atergate? Yes No If so, what?
Can this activity be reduced in scope/size or discontinued without
significant effect on overall Agency security? Yes No_
If so, how?
Is there any activity not now being pursued by OS that you feel is more
important than this one? Yes No_-)~- if so,. what?
Approved For Release 2000/09/02 : CIA-RDP83B00823R000700020026-1
 IDENTIFICATION OF ACTIVITY: The Technic 1 Security. Division component
fiat aids tne contracting Officer in negot
Approved For Release 2000/09/Q t Rpp8 80.08 2 OOO 2OC(2W the development
of in-house designed equipments needed for
the technical security programs of the Divisio
ACTIVITY CODEIII, B, (b
EVALUATION:
COMPONENT: OS/PT08/Technical Security
Division/EPB
DATE:
What is (are) our reference(s) for this activity? Date(s)?
Is (are) the reference(s) still in force? YesX No
Who is (are) the beneficiary(ies) of this activity?
Do you feel the activity is still necessary?* Yes x No
Do (es) the beneficiary(ies) feel it is still necessary? Yes__No
Can the activity be done more efficiently or less costly? Yes No
If so, how?
Do you feel that responsibility for the activity should be transferred
to another OS component or to another Office? Yes - No _
If so, where and why?
Can another component do the activity more.efficiently? Less costly?
More properly? Yes No K If so, which component and why?
Does the activity include anything questionable in the light of
If so, what?
Watergate? Yes No
Can this activity be reduced in scope/size or discontinued without
significant effect on overall Agency security? Yes NO
If so, how?
Is there any activity not now being pursued by OS that you feel is more
important than this one? Yes No_ If so,-what?
Approved For Release 2000/09/02 : CIA-RDP83B00823R000700020026-1
 IDENTIFICATION OF ACTIVITY: The Technical Security. Division component
9tcl~`a4* }iqtY g Officers
Approved For Release 2000/0 e he development
of in-house designed security equipments.
ACTIVITY CODE aII, B, (b);4 COMPONENT: OS/PTOS/Technical Security
Division/EPB
EVALUATION: DATE:
What is (are) our reference(s) for this activity? Date(s)?
Is (are) the reference(s) still in force? Yes_k No
Who is (are) the beneficiary(ies) of this activity?
Do you feel the activity is still necessary? Yes K No
Do(es) the beneficiary(ies) feel it is still necessary? Yes~ No
Can the activity be done more efficiently or less costly? Yes No
If so, how?
Do you feel that responsibility for the activity should be transferred
to another OS component or to another Office Yes No_
If so, where and why?
Can another component do the activity more.efficiently? Less costly?
More properly? Yes No_ If so, which component and why?
Does the activity include anything questionable in the light of
Watergate? Yes No If so, what?
Can this activity be reduced in scope/size or discontinued without
significant effect on overall Agency security? Yes No
If so, how?
Is there any activity not now being pursued by OS that you feel is more
important than this one? Yes If so, what?
Approved For Release 2000/09/02 : CIA-RDP83B00823R000700020026-1
 .IDENTIFICATION OF ACTIVITY: The Technical S, c vision component
Approved For Release 2000/09/02 tI&RPE3iP33F~~`1 n.ce of the
contractor in the development of in-house
designed security equipment.
ACTIVITY CODE III, B, (b) ; 5 COMPONENT: OS/PTOS/Technical Security
Division/EPB
EVALUATION: DATE:
What is (are) our reference(s) for this activit ? Date(s)?
Is (are) the reference(s) still in force? Yes ?. No'
Who is (are) the beneficiary(ies) of this activity?
Do you feel the activity is still necessary? Yes Y No
Do(es) the beneficiary(ies) feel it is still necessary? Yes K No
Can the activity be.done more efficiently or less costly? Yes No-K
If cn hnw?
Do you feel that responsibility for the activity should be transferred
to another OS component or to another 0f.fice? Yes No
If so, where and why?
Can another component do the activity more.efficiently? Less costly?
More properly? Yes No If so, which component and why?
Does the activity include anything questionable in the light of
Watergate? Yes No If so, what?
Can this activity be reduced in scope/size or discontinued without
significant effect on overall Agency security? Yes No
If so, how?
Is there any activity not now being pursued by OS that you feel is more
important than this one? Yes No -A If so, what?
Approved For Release 2000/09/02 : CIA-RDP83B00823R000700020026-1
 IDENTIFICATION OF ACTIVITY: The Technical Security- Division component
Approved For Release 2000/09/bP IR-RUP8r31AP0 PR0~ 6e testing of
new equipmen s eve ope in- ouse for the
Technical Security Programs of the Division.
ACTIVITY. CODES II, B, (b);6 COMPONENT: OS/PTOS/Technical Securit
Division/EPB
EVALUATION: DATE:
What is (are) our reference (s) for this activity? Date(s)?
25X1A
Is (are) the reference(s) still in force? Yes K No
Who is (are) the beneficiary(ies) of this activity?
Do you feel the activity is still necessary? Yes X No
Do(es) the beneficiary(ies) feel it is still necessary? Yes X No
Can the activity be-done more efficiently or less costly? Yes No
If so, how?
Do you feel that responsibility for the activity should be transferred
to another OS component or to another Office? Yes o
If so, where and why?
Can another component do the activity more. efficiently? Less costly?
More properly? Yes No_ If so, which component and why?.
Does the activity include an thing questionable in the light of
Watergate? Yes No If so, what?
Can this activity be reduced in scope/size or discontinued without
significant effect on overall Agency security? Yes No
If so, how?
Is there any activity not now being pursued by OS that you feel is more
important than this one? Yes No__ If so, what?
Approved For Release 2000/09/02 : CIA-RDP83B00823R000700020026-1
 IDENTIFICATION OF ACTIVITY: The Technical Security- Division component
at works in con1unction with-ORD and/or
Approved For Release 2000/09 5 CM RPFPt39gF3, AP9_W09QWAients .
ACTIVITY CODEZII, B, (b); 7 COMPONENT: OS/PTOS/Technical Security
/EPB
i
i
i
on
v
s
D
EVALUATION: DATE:
what is (are) our reference(s) for this activity? Date(s)?
25X1A
Is (are) the reference(s) still in force? Yes ~ No`
who is (are) the beneficiary(ies) of this activity?
Do you feel the activity is still necessary? Yes X No
Do(es) the beneficiary(ies) feel it is still necessary? Yes X
Can the activity be-done more efficiently or less costly? Yes
If so, how?
Do you feel that responsibility for the activity should be transferred
to another OS component or to another Office? Yes - No1<
If so, where and why?
Can another component do the activity more,efficiently? Less costly?
More properly? Yes NoIf so, which component and why?
Does the activity include anything questionable in the light of
Watergate? Yes No _K If so, what?
Can this activity be reduced in scope/size or discontinued without
significant effect on overall Agency security? Yes No___ _
If so, how?
Is there any activity not now being pursued by OS that you feel is more
important than this one? Yes No If so,. what?
Approved For Release 2000/09/02 : CIA-RDP83B00823R000700020026-1
 IDENTIFICATION OF ACTIVITY: The Technical Securit Division component
Approved For Release 2000/09/02 :tQIAtRD 0$2i3F9WJQ MrPr1with ORD and
OTS in monitoring contracts-for new equipment
ACTIVITY CODE ZII, B, (b); 8 COMPONENT- OS/PTOS/TechnicalSecurit
FVAT TTA'PTn?.i. Division/EPB
what is (are) our reference (s for this activity? Date(s)?
25XIA
Is (are) the reference(s) still in force? Yes K No'
Who is (are) the beneficiary(ies) of this activity?
Do you feel the activity is still necessary? Yes X. No
Do(es) ,the beneficiary(ies) feel it is still necessary? Yes ,< No
Can the activity be.done more efficiently or less costly? Yes No,
1
If
o
ow?
Do you feel that responsibility for the activity should be transferred
to another OS component or to another Office? Yes No
If so, where and why?
Can another component do the activity more. efficiently? Less costly?
More properly? Yes No If so, which component and why?
Does the activity include anything questionable in the light of
Watergate? Yes NoIf so, what?
Can this activity be reduced in scope/size or discontinued without
significant effect on overall Agency security? Yes No _
If so, how?
Is there any activity not now being pursued by OS that you feel is more
important than this one? Yes No
If so,.wwhat?
Approved For Release 2000/09/02 : CIA-RDP83B00823R000700020026-1
 IDENTIFICATION OF ACTIVITY: ' he- T-.e_chnical Security Di li-~component
Approved For Release 2000/094Tz CW1F1,60, 6rlion oz tine
Divisions P am a
25X1A
- < _ 3 ~ yn amt. 7 S
ACTIVITY CODESII, B, (b); .9 COMPONENT: OS/PTOS/Technical Securit
Division/EPB
EVALUATION: DATE:
',that is (are) our reference (s) for this activity? Date(s)?
Is (are) the reference(s) still in force? Yes No'
Who is (are) the beneficiary(ies) of this activity?
Do you feel the activity is still necessary? Yes No
Do(es) the beneficiary(ies) feel it is still necessary? Yes No -
Can the activity be done more efficiently or less costly? Yes No
If so, how?
Do, you feel that responsibility for the activity should be transferred
to another OS component or to another Office? Yes - `o
If so, where and why?
Can another component do the activity more. efficiently? Less costly?
More properly? Yes No If so, which component and why?
Does the activity include anything questionable in the light of
Watergate? Yes No If so, what?
Can this activity be reduced in scope/size or discontinued without
significant effect on overall Agency security? Yes No
If so, how?
Is there any activity not now being pursued by OS that you feel is more
important than this one? Yes \o If so,- what?
Approved For Release 2000/09/02 CIA-RDP83B00823R000700020026-1 -
 IDENTIFICATION OF ACTIVITY: The Technical S
Approved For Release 2000/09/02rC$*6NM[3@
Division nual budget.
ACTIVITY CODESII, B, (b); 10. COMPONENT: OS/PTOS/Technical Security
Division/EPB
EVALUATION: DATE:
What is (are) our reference(s) for this activity? Date(s)?
Is (are) the reference(s) still in force? Yes No
Who is (are) the bene'ficiary(ies) of this activity?
Do you feel the activity is still necessary? Yes No
Do(es) the beneficiary(ies) feel it is still necessary? Yes No
Can the activity be.done more efficiently or less costly? Yes No
If so, how?
Do you feel that responsibility for the activity should be transferred
to another OS component or to another 0ffice? Y;s No
If so, where and why?
Can another component do the activity more. efficiently? Less costly?
More properly? Yes No If so, which component and why?
Does the activity include anything questionable in the light of
Watergate? Yes No If so, what?
Can this activity.be reduced in scope/size or discontinued without
significant effect on overall Agency security? Yes No
If so, how?
Is there any activity not now being pursued by OS that you feel is more
important than this one? Yes No If so, what?
Approved For Release 2000/09/02 : CIA-RDP83B00823R000700020026-1
 ID-r; NT,IFICATION OF ACTIVITY:
Approved For Release 2000/09/0eeCIX-%Fl P-82 bbi6db2b6y6LI iQn component
sponsib e or preparing Special Studies
such as a Technical threat assessment or
a five year projection of technical
equipment needs.
ACTIVITY CODEZII, B, (b); 11 COMPONENT: OS/PTOS/Technical Securit
EVALUATION:
What is
Division/EPB
DATE:
our reference(s) for this activity? Date(s)?
Is (are) the reference(s) still in force? Yes No
Who is (are) the beneficiary(ies) of this activity?
Do you feel the activity is still necessary? Yes ,K No
Do(es) the beneficiary(ies) feel it is still necessary? Yes, No
Can the activity be done more efficiently or less costly? Yes No
If so, how?.
Do you feel that responsibility for the activity should be transferred
to another OS component or to another Office? Yes No
If so, where and why?
Can another component do the activity more.efficiently? Less costly?
More properly? Yes No__)( If so, which component and why?
Does the activity include anything questionable in the light of
Watergate? Yes No If so, what?
Can this activity be reduced in scope/size or discontinued without
significant effect on overall Agency security? Yes No_
If so, how?
Is there any activity not now being pursued by OS that you feel is more
important than this one? Yes No____ If so,. what?
Approved For Release 2000/09/02 : CIA-RDP83B00823R000700020026-1
 IDENTIFICATION OF ACTIVITY:
Approved For Release 2000/0
ACTIVITY CODE III., B, (b); 12 COMPONENT: OS/PTOS/Technical Security
EVALUATION: Division/EPB
DATE:
,What is (are) our reference (s) for ` 'ty? Date(s)?
Is (are) the reference(s) still in force? Yes No'
jWhi
i
o
s (are) the beneficiary(ies) of this activity:
Do you feel the activity is still necessary? Yes X No
Do(es) the beneficiary(ies) feel it is still necessary? Yes K
Can the activity be.done more efficiently or less costly? Yes
If so, how? _
No
No
K
Do.you feel that responsibility for the activity should be transferred.
to another OS component or to another Office? Yes No
If so, where and why? -K-
Can another component do the activity more. efficiently? Less costly?
More properly? Yes No If so, which component and why?
Does the activity include anything questionable in the light of
jWatergate? Yes No If so, what?
Can this activity be reduced in scope/size or discontinued without
si
nifi
t
ff
g
can
e
ect on overall Agency security? Yes No
If so, how?
X
Is there any activity not now being pursued by OS that you feel is more
important than this one? Yes No A- If so,.. what?
Approved For Release 2000/09/02 : CIA-RDP83B00823R000700020026-1
 -
.+cLLt`11 1 l
1 Vt,l 1 V1Y VT lil,1 1 Y 1 1 1 : The Tech
ion component
Approved For Release 2000/09/(tea(jlNPO9 (t s82' F~~ 6 h6-R&D Working
Group's Threat Assessment Task Force.
ACTIVITY CODE III, B, (b), 13
EVALUATION:
COMPONENT: OS/PTOS/Technical Security
Division/EPB
DATE:
What is (are) our reference (s) for this activity? Date(s)?
25X1A
Is (are) the reference(s) still in force? Yes X No
Who is (are) the beneficiary(ies) of this activity?
Do you feel the activity is still necessary? YesX No
Do(es) the beneficiary(ies) feel it is still necessary? Yes X No
Can the activity be.done more efficiently or less costly? Yes No
If so. how?
Do you feel that responsibility for the activity should be transferred
to another OS component or to another Office? Y;s No
If so, where and why?
Can another component do the activity more.efficiently? Less costly?
More properly? Yes No If so, which component and why?
Does the activity include anything questionable in the light of
Watergate? Yes No If so, what?
Can this activity be reduced in scope/size or discontinued without
significant effect on overall Agency security? Yes No
If so, how?
Is there any activity not now being pursued by OS that you feel is more
important than this one? Yes No X If so,. what?
Approved For Release 2000/09/02 : CIA-RDP83B00823R000700020026-1
 IDENTIFICATION ,9F ACTIVITY: The Technical Secur' y~~ i n component
Approve For Release 2000/0~/1Qat q P,?3 P08d23 0u u Special
Reading Group.
ACT4--6AT IViITY CODE Z I I , B, (b) ; .14 COMPONENT: OS/PTOS/Technical Security
1: Divisi on/EPB .
EV ION: DATE:
What is (are) our reference(s) for this activity? Date(s)?
Is (are) the reference(s) still in force? Yes) No
Who is (are) the beneficiary(ies) of this activity?
Do you feel the activity is still necessary? Yes X No
Do(es) the beneficiary(ies) feel it is still necessary? Yes )( No
Can the activity be.done more efficiently or less costly? Yes No
If so, how?
Do you feel that responsibility for the activity should be transferred
to-another OS component or to another Office? Yes - No If so, where and why?
Can another component do the activity more.efficiently? Less costly?
More properly? Yes No, If so, which component and why?
Does the activity include anything questionable in the light of
Watergate? Yes No )( If so,-what?
Can this activity be reduced in scope/size or discontinued without
significant effect on overall Agency security? Yes No
If so, how?
Is there any activity not now being pursued by OS that you feel is more
important than this one? Yes No__>