ASSESSMENT OF HOW WELL THE CONTRACTOR FILLED THE CONTRACT STIPULATIONS AS PROVIDED FOR IN STATEMENT OF WORK ESU 83-134.

• Document Type: CREST
• Collection: STARGATE
• Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): CIA-RDP96-00792R000100140071-4
• Release Decision: RIFPUB
• Original Classification: K
• Document Page Count: 3
• Document Creation Date: November 4, 2016
• Document Release Date: October 28, 1998
• Sequence Number: 71
• Content Type: SUMMARY

Approved For Release 2003/09/10: CIA-RDP96-00792R000100140071-4
1. (U) The following is an assessment of how well the
contractor filled the contract stipulations as provided for in
Statement of Work ESU 83-134. Numbering corresponds directly to
the format of the original statement of work. Page numbers in
parentheses refer to pages in the draft final report.
Section 1.2, MAJOR GOALS
a. (S/CL-2/NOFORN) PHASE I: Met only partially. CENTER
LANE personnel were not considered in determining the testings
profiles finally concluded upon as identifying personnel with RV
aptitude. Testing profiles arrived at are of debatable worth in
screening for prospective RV personnel.
b. (S/CL-2/NOFORN) PHASE II: Met only partially. Only
one "self-report" test was used (MBTI-J), which was contrasted
against the '"still--under-development" (p. 7) PAS personality
profiling system. Results were inconclusive, but indicated
little direct correlation. The second part, applying identified
profiles against at general test population (Omni psi test
respondants) appears not to have been clone.
c. (U) PHASE III: Apparently not met. At the very least,
INSCOM personnel were not tested against randomly selected
targets. Only slight indications exist in the report (see
paragraph 4.4b below) that any other personnel were ever tested
in this manner; no indications exist that personnel showing "no
talent" were tested against these same targets as control.
d. (U) Evaluation: Delivered in draft final report.
Evaluation was equivalent in quality to first 2 phases.
Recommendations were brief, and one--selecting all new
psychoenergetic participants on the basis of the PAS
guidelines--is questionable, based on the incompleteness of the
research performed.
24 (U) Specific Tasks
2.1 (U) PHASE I
a., b., c., d., and e. (U) Accomplished. Personality
profile was collected from identified personnel, and the
extended Wechsler was administered as stated by individuals
listed. Data was analyzed using the PAS concept, results were
employed to designate certain "profiles of interest," ano these
were then used in extrapolation.
f. (TT) A satisfactory interim report was not provided.
Approved For Release 2003/09/10: CIA-RDP96-00792R000100140071-4
 Approved For Release 2003/09/10 : CIA-RDP96-00792R000100140071-4
2 . 2 (TI) PHASE 1.1
a. (U) Accomplished. Self-report data was collected
as stated.
h. (U) Partially accomplished. Only the MBTI form J
was used in obtaining self-report information.
C. (iU) Unknown. No detailed summary of analysis
procedures or results was provided in report.
d . (U) Accomplished, but relevance was doubtful.
e. (U) Accomplished, but methodology, and the results
and their implications, if any, were not clearly reported.
f. (U) No satisfactory interim report received.
2.3 PHASE III
a. (S/CL-3/NOFORN) Not satisfactorily accomplished.
Possible profiles were suggested as indicating likely psi.
ability, but negative profiles were not specifically indicated.
Rather, it was left to assumption that profiles not designated
as positive indicators were by default indicators of negative
ability. This despite the fact that 69 of the thus-far
established 80 PAS reference groups were not represented, and.
therefore not tested for presence or absence of psi ability.
b. ((J) At best only partially completed. INSCOM
personnel were not so tested, and little data is presented in
the final. report indicating that anyone else was so tested,
either (see paragraph 4.4h below).
c. (S/CI_,-3/NOFORN) Probably not accomplished. No
indications exist: in the final report that either a) criteria
were developed to determine personnel. lacking RV potential, or
b) that such personnel were run against the set of targets as
specified in 2.3, b., above.
d. (U) Not accomplished. No comparison of this nature
is referenced in the final report, nor are results from such a
comparison presented or discussed.
C. (U) Indications are that no reliable determination
for personality testing-based selection of potential RV
personnel was arrived at in Phases I and II. According to the
stipulations outlined in this paragraph, the contract should
have been terminated before Phase III.
Approved For Release 2003/09/10 : CIA-RDP96-00792R000100140071-4
 Approved For Release 2003/09/10 : CIA-RDP96-00792R000100140071-4
3.
(U)
Security (N/A)
4.
(U)
Deliverables:
4.1 (S/CL-3/NOFORN) Delivered. What was presented in the
draft final report probably does represent state of the art for
RV personnel selection. However, it would have been reasonable
to expect a much more thorough and professional package than was
actually delivered.
4.2 (U) Not delivered. A letter dated 21. December 1983,
and signed by Dr. Ed May, may have been. intended as the Phase I
progress report. If so, it was not only not labeled as such,
but did not in any way meet the requirement as delineated in the
statement of work.
4.3 (U) Not delivered.
4.4 (IJ) Not delivered. None of the specified three copies
of the final. report had been received as of 4 February 1985.
a. (U) Partially delivered. Test evaluations and
comparisons were brief and inconclusive.
h. (S/CL-3/NOFORN) Not delivered. The only remote
viewing results provided were listed in Table 3 (p. 21.), for a
total of seven trainee personnel. These "results" consisted of
numerical factors representing "1RV Learning" and "RV Figure of
Merit" categories, but included little useable information as to
how these figures were arrived at. No results whatsoever were
provided for those "not identified as talented," who were to
have been run. against the selected random targets.
c. (UJ) Unsatisfactorily met. The summary and
recommendations provided were sketchy and easily arrived at
through common sense and an elementary knowledge of
psychological screening vehicles. Some recommendations were
questionable based on a thorough analysis of the research
performed (See 1.2d, above), and some were actions that should
have been accomplished in the course of the study in question.
(See pp. 28-29)
Approved For Release 2003/09/10 : CIA-RDP96-00792R000100140071-4