APEX - NFIB DISCUSSION OF START-UP DATE (Sanitized))

• Document Type: CREST
• Collection: General CIA Records
• Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): CIA-RDP85T00788R000100120012-8
• Release Decision: RIPPUB
• Original Classification: S
• Document Page Count: 4
• Document Creation Date: December 15, 2016
• Document Release Date: July 8, 2004
• Sequence Number: 12
• Publication Date: November 14, 1980
• Content Type: MF

Approved For Release 2004/08/16 : CIA-RDP85T00788R000100120012-8
SECRET
25X1
25X1
25X1
25X1
25X1
25X1
MEMORANDUM FOR: Director of Central Intelligence
THROUGH: Deputy Director of Central Intelligence
FROM:
SA to the DC1 or ompartmentation
SUBJECT: APEX - NFIB Discussion of Start-Up Date
0
1. This memorandum discusses setting a new APEX start-up date and
is for your background use at the 18 November deliberations leading to
your setting that date. It recommends, in paragraph 10, selection of
1 October 1981 for start-up.,Paragraph 11 contains a suggested procedure
for use at the NFIB meeting. F21
2. The data provided by the APEX Steering Group members on the ...
three tasks (completion of manual, access review and APEX indoctrination)
for the 18 November discussion was surprising. For example, I had con-
sidered the Navy close to ready to go, but Naval procurement people in
recent days have presented a less optimistic view. Each of the contribu-
tors of data has a rational backup to its submission. COMIREX, DIA, NSA
and SAFSS have some form of PERT-like approach. DIA apparently has
endeavored to keep all of DoD in step with Navy's new estimate on
contracts resulting in the three nine-month estimates in DoD for access
review and indoctrination. I
3. The data presented leads to 1 March 1982 as the APEX start-up
date. In my view, that wait would be excessive. I have no hard data
with which to defend my view however, and I doubt that NFIB members
will -willingly : cut-::it- back. ~..
4. You .'should expect that the DoD organizations will fully adhere
to the posit- on that APEX irm.lementation requires .new resources and that
it :Ca-uriot be ii,lole:Tiented without theiii. Doll spokesmen will talh of
"Phasing APEX," meaning; that the rules can stand but, as with present
s?tsn ri3es,..:3ti311.flt be:_orced`unie:ss _and until added resources are
OS O 2L38,
Approved For Release
004/08/16 : CIA-RDP85T00788R000100120012-8
 Approved For Release 2004/08/1 % - RDP85T00788R000100120012-8
F~r
5. You should expect at least two issues not directly relevant to
the start-up date. COMIREX may raise a desire to keep satellite film in
an Operational Subcompartment despite the Final Report decision that
film will be Imagery Product. SAFSS, Navy and NSA may be expected to
raise a similar desire to modify the Final Report by retaining the
ability to compartment codewords and project indicators.
6. I believe that the APEX rules will have to be relaxed. SAFSS
contractors alone, for example, want about $15 million each year to
classify paragraphs. Even if that figure can be reduced, any multi-
million dollar outlay to mark paragraphs will be very difficult to
defend. The atmosphere at the 18 November meeting may improve if you
indicate a willingness to reconsider possible routes for relief of some
of the perceived major difficulties in APEX. ISOO and National Archives
cooperation would be required for such relief, especially if annual
inventories--alleged to consume about two-thirds of the DoD perceived
resource impact--are to be relaxed.
. -7. The 2nd Parties do not wish to be irrevocably committed to a
total APEX system until they see the manuals for the various products
and, as relevant, operational compartments. In addition, thel
o not think that they will be ready to make such a commitment
be tore 1 July 1981.~s being very quiet but appears to hope for
maximum lead time.
8. Again, I now believe that start-up prior to 1 July 1981 is not
possible even with full and enthusiastic support from all parties. A
1 October 1981 start-up date appears to have benefits in the contracting
area. Not all contracting officers and like people, however, are agreed
that starting with the beginning of a fiscal year is of major significance
for converting from existing systems to APEX. The individual contracts
must be reviewed, one by one, a process that is not very far along in
any agency. Although 1 October holds less magic than I have probably
previously claimed, it has benefits as contracts come up for renewal or
refunding. 0
9. Again, given less than total Community support for APEX and the
fully prepared to implement APEX. An arbitrary start-up ~datevcontinues
to be necessary. Any such date ,.:ill face resistance; if not now,
when it approaches. I also believe that if start-up is too long delayed,
implementation efforts will tail off until the date is again too close ..
25X1
25X1
25X1
Approved For Release 2004/DBCIA-RDP85T00788R000100120012-8
 SECRET
Approved For Release 2004/08/16 : CIA-RDP85T00788R000100120012-8
for comfort. In sum, no totally satisfactory date falls out of an
examination of the state of APEX. Pre-1 July 1981 seems totally unrea-
sonable. A 1 October 1981 date has some advantages for dealing with
contractors. (The APEX Central Access Registry (4C) should by then be
far enough along to be of limited help.) A 1 March 1982 date seems far
enough away to kill APEX.
10. Recognizing that opposition will be widespread throughout DoD,
I recommend 1 October 1981 as the "hard" start-up date. Meeting it will
require major efforts by many people, strong support from NFIB principals,
affirmation of White House approval and probably relaxation of some of
the rules that are perceived to require large additions of resources.
11. I suggest that on 18 November you proceed as follows:
a. Indicate that you are prepared to either take the lead in,
or support, efforts to have ISOO and/or Archives waive some of
their costly requirements, e.g., paragraph markings for industry.
(If FOIA is amended, perhaps the industry data could influence the
rules for government as well?) lul
b. Ask if anyone wishes to modify the data contained in the
APEX Milestone Chart.
c. Ask if there are any points to be raised relevant to the
establishment of an APEX start-up date and not covered in the
-chart. (N.B. The question opens up what could be an endless
discussion of APEX rules, resource requirements, and decisions
contained in the Final Report, various manuals, and other papers
already approved. You probably will have to intervene repeatedly
to keep the discussion on the target--when does APEX begin. In
this discussion, one or more NFIB members may push a concept that a,
single start-up date is not required; that is, implementation could
proceed piecemeal as individual agencies are ready to conduct
various portions of their business under APEX. I ur e that this
approach, leading to chaos, be flatly rejected.) I
d. Ask for an explanation of critical data:
_ ( )~; ~~~ -."Can t_ e- s stem... descr~gti.4~ m~ua
comp1et-ionate be, pushed back to 1 April 1081?
25X1
25X1
25X1
25X1
25X1
25X1
Approved For Release 2004/08/16 : CIA-RDP85T00788R000100120012-8
 Approved For Release 2004/08/16 : GI P85T00788R000100120012-8
(2) Army, DIA, Navy - Can the nine-month period for
access review and indoctrination be reduced to six months?
e. Ask, perhaps by show of hands, for start-up day
preferences:
-- 1 July 1981;
-- 1 October 1981; ^
-- A date later than 1 October 1981
f. Either set 1 October 1981 as the date or announce
(with due consideration for what has occurred at the meeting)
ed to set the date at 1 October 1981. Close
that you are incli
n
the discussion.
25X1 SA/DCI/ cah
Distribution:
Orig - DCI
1- DDCI
(- DCI APEX Security Officer
1 - DD/Community Affairs
1 -
1 - SA DCI C Subject file
1 - SA/DCI/C Chrono
1 - Executive Registry
Approved For Release 2004/08/16 ::,%H&P85T00788R000100120012-8
25X1.
25X1
25X1
STAT