CURRENT SAFE ISSUES

• Document Type: CREST
• Collection: General CIA Records
• Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): CIA-RDP83T00573R000600070031-8
• Release Decision: RIPPUB
• Original Classification: K
• Document Page Count: 4
• Document Creation Date: December 12, 2016
• Document Release Date: November 20, 2001
• Sequence Number: 31
• Publication Date: September 14, 1977
• Content Type: MF

Approved For Release 2002/01/08: CIA-RDP83T00573R600600070031
ODP 1854-77
14 September 1977
.MEMORANDUM FOR: Acting Deputy Director for Administration
FROM Clifford D. May, Jr.
Director of Data Processing
SUBJECT Current SAFE Issues
In anticipation of your scheduled 15 September 1977
meeting with Mr. Blake and Dr. Stevens relative to SAFE,
I have identified some current issues and talking points
which may be useful to you.
Issue 01 - DCI Reply to the 30 August memo from the Director,
DIA
Dr. Stevens appears to have some uneasy or uncertain
feelings about going ahead on a joint CIA/DIA effort on
SAFE/ADISS. Off the record he has been quoted as saying that
the "DCI does not understand the problem." I am not sure
what the "problem" is that he refers to, but I do know that
he has offered no constructive alternative to the joint
effort. If we want a "SAFE", the joint program appears to
be the only feasible way of getting it. Harry Eisenbeiss
reluctantly agrees with this. The good communications,
harmonious relationship, and mutual trust that currently
exist between CIA and DIA have grown out of a one year effort
on the part of the project people of both organizations. The
currently agreed management plan developed by these organiza-
tions is responsive to the direction of Congress and the ex-
pressed desires of Admiral Turner. I strongly recommend that
the DCI concur in the D/DIA proposal and submit a response
along the lines of the draft I sent you on 12 September. ?`.,
joint effort can produce a successful system and save money
in the process. All we need is an agreement and a commitment
from both agencies.
Issue #2 - Awarding the SAFE Competitive Dcsi Contracts
In response to the direction of the SAFE Steering Com-
mittee (chaired by Dr. Stevens), we completely revamped our
approach to SAFE development last spring in order to loan
more heavily on contractors for system design. We were
Approved For Release 2002/01/08 : CIA-RDP83T00573R000600070031-8
 Approved For Release 2002/01/08 : CIA-RDP83T00573RQ00600070031-8
INTL
directed to contract with two contractors for a competiti~JATINTL
system design. We have since solicited proposals from 27
suppliers, received proposals from 3
and have gone through a comprehensive evaluation of these
three proposals. We have now selected the two best proposals
and are prepared to negotiate a contract with these two.
We have the money and OL is prepared to move, contractually.
Some months ago we questioned whether we should proceed
on this contract because of two significant events. 1) there
was a substantial reduction in SAFE funding in FY-79 (this
was the year that the development contract was to have been
awarded; 2) it began to look like we would end up with some
kind of joint development with CIA. In response to these
questions, the SAFE Steering Committee met and reaffirmed the
need to pursue the development of SAFE, but on a stretched
schedule. However, there still was a question of whether
the SAFE development effort could be merged with an ADISS
development should we be directed to go in that direction.
We have been studying this question since.
Presently the SAFE Project manager and the STATINTL
ADISS Project Manager have an agree schedule of
how the outputs of the ADISS contract (requirements definition)
can be folded into the SAFE competive design contracts. he
timing is such that this would occur about March of 1978.
The SAFE contracting officer has assured us thatATINTL
expanding the scope of the SAFE contracts at that time to
include the ADISS input would not be a problem. There is
no danger of getting "ripped off" by expanding the scope
because we have two contractors involved in a highly competitive
effort.
The formal request for negotiation of the two contracts
is now "hung up" in the DDI's office. It is my understanding
that Dr. Stevens will insist that the provision for handling
ADISS requirements must be incorporated in the initial con-
tracts. If this is done, we will have to start over on the
solicitation and evaluation, thus losing the $1.5M in FY-77
money that is set aside for this purpose.
I recommend that we proceed on this contract with the
commitment to modify it to incorporate ADISS requirements
if the joint development program is agreed to by all parties.
Otherwise we would continue as a SAFE-only contract until
the joint program issue is resolved.
Approved For Release 2002/01/08 : CIA-RDP83T00573R000600070031-8
 Approved For Release 2002/01/08 : CIA-RDP83T00573RU00600070031-8
Issue #3 Should the Responsibility for SAFE Project manage-
ment be Transferred to the DDS&T
There are apparently closed-door discussions taking
place between Dr. Stevens and Mr. Dirks on transferring
SAFE project responsibility to OD&E. I do not know whether
anyone from DDA has participated. we initiated the discus-
sion of this issue at the last SAFE Steering Committee because
we are tired of being sniped at by Mr. Dirks who constantly
challenged our approach and cast doubt on the competence of
my people. By raising the issue, we had hoped for an open
discussion of the pros and cons of the current project
management arrangements. Instead, we apparently prompted
secret talks between Dr. Stevens and Mr. Dirks. Apparently
they have already decided that DDA/ODP is not in the zone
of consideration.
In my opinion, the current project management arrangement
is highly effective. We have competent professionals and
managers who have planned, organized, and carried out the
SAFE development activities thus far in a fully satisfactory
manner. We have established good working relationships and
communications channels with DIA, OCR, OL, OC, OS and the
other elements of ODP, which were difficult to establish
and are producing good results. It is this kind of open,
participative, cooperative team effort which will produce
a successful joint SAFE system. I see nothing to be gained
by changing this.
From their past record, we know how OD&E would go about
the development. "Tell us what you want then go away and
leave us alone and we'll deliver the system five years from
now." I can guarantee you that this approach would fail.
Even if they chose to take a participative approach with
the other components, it would be disruptive and time con-
suming to reestablish the working channels that are currently
being effectively employed by the present project office.
There does not seem to be any justification for introducing
this perturbation.
Finally, I would like to point out that the ODP mission
is to build hardware/software systems for use by Agency
components. I see no difference in SAFE than building
GIMS, VM, TADS, or any other system we currently have except,
perhaps, in scale. SAFE is a large project. But SAFE is
basically an extension of Interim SAFE and other systems we
have built for OCR. I see no reason for ODP not to be
Approved For Release 2002/01/08 : CIA-RDP83T00573R000600070031-8
 Approved Fox.Release 2002/01/08 : CIA-RDP83T005730000600070031-8
Clifford D. May, Jr.
INTL
responsible for bringing SAFE into the world. I would like
to point out that we are properly using the services of the
DDS&T in SAFE-related R&D areas that are appropriate to
their mission. At our request, they are doing Y.&D work
on rapid search machines, soft copy viewing stations, and
Bus communications.
I strongly recommend that we resist transferring respon-
sibility for SAFE development to DDS&T.
Distribution:
Orig - adse
1 - ODP Registry
1 - O/D/ODP file SAFE
1 - O/D/ODP file DDA
1 - O/D/ODP chrorio
O/D/ODP/CDMay:ee/9-14-77
Read by:
Approved For Release 2002/01/08 : CIA-RDP83T00573R000600070031-8