May 5 , 1995

Alan J. Dixon Chairman Base Realignment and Closure Commi: sion 1700 North Moore Street Arlington, Virginia 22209

Dear Chairman Dixon:

The undersigned are former United States Air Force Chief Scientists. In our prior capacities as the Air Force's senior scientific representatives, we have had the opportunity to work with and appreciate the military value of Rome Laboratory to the Air Force, the Department of Defense, and the counrry. Therefore, we are driven to write you this letter, expressing our grave concerns regarding the Department of Defense recommendaition to relocate most of Rome Laboratory to Hanscom Air Force Base and Fort Monmouth.

We understand that the Department of Defense must operate in ax1 environment of shrinking resources, and is under considerable pressure to downsize. Notwilbstanding those pressures, this proposed action is a judgment call with which we disagree. Our reasons for disagreement are set forth below.

1. R A ~ a b o r a t o r v n c i Irreulaceable Resource; Movement Will Severely Damage That Resource

Rome Laboratory is an important Command, Control, Communications, Computers, and Intelligence (C4I) resource. The proposed movement will severely damage that resource. The Lab undertakes some unique and outstanding activities that ought to be preserved. For example, the Intelligence directorate, in addition to conducting research, develops devices and systems that are critical to the Air Force. The Photonics laboratory conducts "leading edge" research with a fine collection o f personnel ranging from e~rperienced scientists, to recent recipients of doctoral degrees, to doctoral candidates. The latter are students at Cornell Unjversity and Syracuse University.

The greatest strength of a laboratory is its people. Any move of IRome Laboratory will cause senior people -- who provide the Laboratory its leadership -- to take retirement. Some key junior people, like those ar the Photonics laboratory, are likely to opt to stay at their respective universities to pursue their doctorates.

DCN 82

2 . The Move Will Damape the Lalloratorv's Central Mission

The core mission of Rome Laboratory Is the advancement of the research and development of C4I. The very existence of the ten3 "C41" implies the integrated nature of this field of inquiry. Yet the Depanment of Defeaqe recommendation proposes the breakup of Rome Laboratory's C41 team. For instance,the recommendation contealplates such dislocations as the move of the Space Communications unit to Hanscom, while the rest of the Communications department is to go to Fort Monmouth. Modern military communications networks depend on the ability of ground, radio, and space communications systems to "talk to each other. " Ensuring that that happens depends on the ability of scientists working in these related fields to exchange infomqtion regularly, share laboratory space, and exchange personnel. This will be prevented if the proposed move occurs.

The implications for the Air Force are profound: no other function ranks as highly as C4.I in the eyes of senior military and civilian leaders, as evidenced by the repeated statements to that effect made by the Commanders in Chief of the unified comniands, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the Secretary and Undersecretary of Defense, and the Director of .Defense Research and Engineering, as well as in resolutions made by both houses of Congress. Indeed, the Department of Defense's recommendation to break up the Laboratory acknowledges the importance of the b boratory's mission: the rec:ommendation was not made for the purpose of reducing excess capacity, otherwise the Department would not have suggested moving the capability.

3. Damaec Done Will Take Years to Rebuild

The Department of Defense has suggested that any difficulties enclountered will be justified by a reduction in administrative costs and by the benefit of new synergies that will develop among the services and with the universities surrounding the Hanslcom and Fort Monmouth sites. We believe this is an inadequate justification for these reasons:

w There is IittIe logic to breaking up an organization that works very well to see if it will work better in a different configuration. In our experience, the break up and movement of technical organizations is rarely successful and often leads to the loss of capabiIity .

Scientific synergies -- whether between services or between. the academic and industrial laboratories -- take years to develop, because they are highly dependent on personal relationships and the growth of a sense of professional respect among researchers. Thus, even if research collaborations are possible in the new locations, they will take years to develop.

* We are told that the costs and savings attributable to this proposed action have been incorrectly calculated. In our experience, out year cost savings estimated for such moves are rarely achieved.

Evidence of the truth of the above statements includes the Navy's declining to participate in the proposed action, and both the Army and Navy declining to participate in other pre-recomm~ndation proposed relocations of C41 capability.

Figally, movement of the Laboratory will have a devastating impact on the Rome community.

Our recommendation is to keep Rome Laboratory in Rome, New York. Rather than undertake the proposed action, we suggest that the nation would be better served if the Commission were to challenge the New York State Technology Einterprise Corporation and the Rome community to find a method w h e ~ b y existing administrative costs could be reduced to a level where the Deparbneat of Defense would not feel compelled to recommend this drastic action, and the Laboratory could function efficiently, supplying the Air Force . .

with useful advanced technology systerns.

Sincerely ,

Dr. George R. Abrahamson Dr. Joseph V. Cbaryk

Dr. F. Robert Naka Dr. H. Guyford Stever

Dr. Michael I. Yarymovych

I

iS U RVIVORS """"' IN" I

4659 S. 36th St, Suite A 1 Arlington, VA 22206

I FAX COVERPAGE 1 To; Dick Helrner From : Paul G. Freund

Fax Nurnber : 696-0550 Company : Survivors Group, Iric.

For Information Call: 703-578-9715 Date : 6/7/95

1 I

Subject :

Time : 9:05:40

Fax Number : 703-578-3586

From: Paul O. Freund To: Dick Helrner Dale: 6/7/05 Tlme: 08:08:03 1111 1: 13'3"l:.l::: ::51 11.01 1 0

Page 4 of 5 T'a~:,c 1114

Rornc Labratory estimates lncludcd migration to rhctl five year standard bhu <Uchitec[un: plan that has nor been achieved at Rome. NY. The certified cstin?ar(: inclucks the costs to achleve the current capnbiltttcs nl

the existing systems at ltome. NY. Thus. thc ccni! icd estimate dcxs not include upgracling dl cornpurcn. harrlwcue. sofrwm, network systems (including all nctv fiber optic cabling),and video capabiliry for all dc5krop ucen. it ikm, however, include mnnccrion to rhr. existing Hanscom .4FB network backbone (as opposed co n flew backbone specifically for Rome Lab). In addir~on. adminisuative and R&D LAN requirements wcrc reduccd to Ihc projcctcd pcrsonncl authorizztions r~ loat lng rarhcr than thc pmscnt Rornc Lakorarory pcrsonncl authori7ations. Finally, ISDN tclephonc lmc\ pmjcctcd at Hanrchm AFB are consistcat wlth ESC' curtorner usage and fntcmal acccss is available at

Hanxom AFB at no cost ---

Request 3 A detail of the 65 positions remaining at Rome laboratory after the closure action is cornpletcii.

Dc

5.1

Cornmdty

- Communicationz

Initial Cost

10 135

- --

Answer 3 Thc dctailcd brcakout of the 65 positions rcrnaining at thc Rornc. NY fai ibty 1s

as follows: -

Certified Cost

4.939

- - - -

Pcnonnel Type

Mission

Tcst Sites ( 5 Sites) -----.

Mission Support Staff

Sccwity

Mdcl ing & Fabrication

Other*

Number of Pcrsonncl'

18

* Other includes Supply, Contract main^. CE Tcch Support, etc.

From: Paul 0. Freund To: D~ck Helmer Date: 8/7/95 T~rne: 09:06:39 131{1"la3'3' 21: 4:s - -

; lj351t.0110 Page 2 of 5

PnliE [I:

DEPARTM E N T OF THE AIR FORlCE HeADPUARTl US UNITED STATES AIR FORCE

NASHINGTCJN. DC

MEMORANDUM FOR ROME LABOI ATORY COMMUNITY TASK FORCE (Mr Frnnco) -

FROM: HQ USAF/RT

SUBJECT: Rome Laboratory Questior s from 01 Jun 95 Meeting

Thank yo3 for the opportunity to clarify the Rome Laboratory closurc action. Y ~ w r rcquests and the associated answers we 1 +rovided below:

Request 1. Breakout of specific J tositions eliminated in the refined CORRA (93 itinn^) inn^)

Answer 1 In order to understand Rome Laboratory manpower authorizations, it is necessary to undcrstmd thc context frvrr which they evolve. At the time of the 1993 BRAC'. Romc Laboratory was operating under tt e spccific rules governing h o ~ t (Griffiss Am) 2nd tennnt (Rome Laboratory) manpower authoriza ions. Tenants arc required to use those functions ~ h t t - h

are available on t l ~ c host facility and the icnant's workload is thcn includcd in thc calcular;frns 6~ the host's manpowcr for common functilas (c.g., Military Pcrsonrx:l). Wherc the tenan( generates unique workload (c.g., R&D c ~ntracting, specialized accountinghudgetinp systcrn\) . the tenant must provide its own manpow :r. Thus. Romc Laboratory, whilc using somc accounting. Icgal. and procurement servi :cs provided by the host bomb wing. also had its own procurement, legt~l, and fmancittl organizations tu handle the workload specifically rcquuctl ro support the R&D mission.

In somc cascs. thc spccializcd lat oratory support manpower requirement is minimal (c.g . -5-in.!AG_, 2 in -Sa fc t~ . 4 in PA). Howcvt r, some of the laboratory support staff requirements art

rclativcly large (c-g.. 23 in ~orn~t.&ller, 71 in Contracting, 20 in Laboratory Supply (LCMA)) The 93 pcrsonncl authorization savings f 7r Rome Laboratory is profited to result from moving Rome Laboratory From a "stand alone" c ~nfiguration that includcs significant manpower for b ~ r h base 0pcration.g and support (BOS) and I iboratocy support staff at Rome. N Y into existing haw &-- with . . - an - - - - - infrastructure -- - alrcady configurcc - - to support laboratory R&D missions.

As a result of the laboratory's sp .cia1 suppcrt requircmcnts, the Laborawry makcs a distinction between tra(iitionaJ BOS and laboratory support, Thcsc distinctions arc nut uniformly acccpted. nor are they particularly imp01 tant outside of their role in ensuring proper suppon for the laboratory. Thc manpowcr savings r ccur.s because of consolida,tion of stand done operatiilnx/ onto bases that have "normal" and labor; tory spccific support functions in placc. As a rr:sult, some previously rcquind staff operation:. can bc rncrgcd into thc cxisting functions at thc p i r u n g

mv bases. The manpowcr officcs 3t Rome Laboratory and Electronic system^ Center devcloprd an cstimatc of 93 pcsitions climinatcd due t 1 this consolidation. Recognizing the magnitude of rhe,

From: Paul 0. Freund To: Dlck Helrner Dale: 6/7/05 T~rne: 08:07:24 1 : . ; 1 , 1 '2 " - - -1: 4:: ; 1 ~ 2 5 1 C.01 10

I I I - 7 : ' J - : 1 ' crhr I I I F R 1 I 1 [ 3 T l l

pcrsonncl reductions throughout DoD, tl c clirnination of 93 positions against a personnel baseline of 955 i r a relatively conservati\ e estimate.

7hc BOS qavings wcrc cstimatcc by subtracting thc BOS required to be moved In xupport thc Rome Laboratory functions (63) fro1 1 thc stand alone BOS of 107 projected for 97/3 rn the Unit Manning D~xulncnt (UMD). Thc rojcctcd requirement represents a 9% BOS tail for ~>ouitions being rcalipncd to Hanscorn A 1 3 and Ft Monmouth. This culculation yiclds n 5.?Ll?p5 A/- of 107-63 or 43 130s positions eliminate d clue to the proposed realignment.

Thc support staff savings due to ( onsolidation cfficicncies were estimated based on the nurnbcr of laboratory support staff (not 1 OS or mission) positions that will be clirninatctl [frnrr! thosc slated to gn to Hanscom AFB and 3 Monmouth) to support anticipated civilian pcrsol~nl-l rcductions. This cstimatc is currently 49 positions. Thc cstimatcd nurnbcr of Ro~nc Laboratmy support staff positions projectcd for 9714 from the Unit Manning Document (UMD) is uell o b c r ,/ 200, so this is a reduction of about 25%. Considering the availability of Iaborarory support . ,~stf at Hanscom AFB and Ft Monmouth, a s: vings uf this magnitude is attainable.

Request 2: Thc diffcrcncc and rationale for the reduction of communication and equipment costs :IS provided by Rome Lt boratory and as scrubbed by APMC ultimately use(l in the refined COBRA?

Answcr 2 . Thc tables below sho- v the cliffcrcnccs bctwccn thc cquipmcnt and communicatic>ns cost(; initially subrnjttcd by Rornc hboratory and the data certified by the ESC Tnspcctnr Gcncral for usc by the Air Furc c Basc Rcalignmcnt and t31osurc Office WQ USAF!RT) to estimate thc closurc costs.

Rationale

-

Rome Laboratory idendfietl fhe rcquircrncnt to cornm~c! 3 fabrfcation and modcling sflop at both Hanswrn AFB ant! Ft Monmouth including COSLT for new equipment at each loc~tion. Boll locations have cxidng labrlcation :md v modeling ,shops with capabilities to s u p r t the Rome / Laboratory mpl nmcnts. In addition, the Rome Laboratory cstjrnatc included purchasing full sets of nrpport etppmcnr rather than supplementing the e x h ~ g equipment yrn,tr a(

- , cach locatior~ -

Cmmodi ry

Equipment

-

lnirid C'osr --.

I 0 186

Certified cat

7.429

v

Delta

- 2.757"

-

From: Paul 0 . Freurid To: Dick Helrner Date: 8/7/85 T~rne: 00:08:33 l;,1;12;1~3~32 -, - 1 : 4 ::: - :uf:51 - C.01 10

1 TOTAL 1 - 5 4 I trust thcsc rcsponscs will prove 'Iclpful. My p i n t of confact for this actiorl is Cripr;lin R

~ u n i s McNcil. AF/RT, DSN 225-6766.

/&ME. IR.. Maj Gen. U S A F

/ Special Assisnnt to the CSAF for R c a l i g n ~ x n t 8~ Transition

?AL .PR 18 '95 12: 4 8 F R O M D B C R C R-Q

X , . 8- I: *; /, P Q G E . 0 2 . -2 -

I I I I DEFENSE' BASE CLOSURE

AND REAL~GNMENT COMMISSION

V Suite 1425

1700 North Moore Street . ~r l ington, Virginia 22209

FAX COVER SHEET

TO: C ~ L . . ~ ~ / C / L / A ~ L G. JBmES:

NUMBER OF PAGES (including cover): 3 . .

CONTENTS: @ ( J E S ~ , O / ( / ' , /nA/L -

. - RPP 18 '95 12: 4 9 F R O M DBCRC R - A . . P Q G E . 0 2 2 _ . , . -

, - ' . . ', '-,. '..- .'. , .. . . . . . . .. . . /- 7

DEFENSE BASE CLOSURE AND REALIGNMENT COMMISSION 1700 NORTH MOORE STREET SUITE 142!j

ARLINGTON. VA 22209 703-696-05M

April 18, 1995

Colonel Michael G. Jones . Director, The Anny Basing Study 200 Army Pentagon Washington, D.C. 203 10-0200

Dear Colonel Jones:

The Cross S a v i a Team has completed its visit to Fort Momouth New Jersey, as pan of reviewing the Secretary of Defense's decision to close Rome Labora~toy md realign certain of its firnctions and related personnel positions there. I would appreciate your responses to the foUowing questions raised during the base visit and data review by May 2,1995.

c Technolop Device Laboratorvl Research Laboratom

V The 1991 Base Closure and Realignment Commission directed the Electronic Technology

Device Laboratory (ETDL) to move &om FOR Monmouth to Adelphi, Maryland, to establish the Combat MataieI Technology Laboratory [(renamed the Army Research Laboratory (ARL) in 19921. The Air Force is planning to relocate Rome Laboratory to space currently occupied by ETDL in the Myer Cater.

1. What are E'LIIL's fbnctions, including all C41 finctions and the reIiability function, by directorate*and the number of authorized personnel positions that are to be transferred from Fort Monmouth, as part of BRAC 199 I?

2. How much space (gross and net square feet per authorized personnel position) will E D L vacate at Fort Monmouth and how much of it is in the My er Center?

3. How much total excess space (gross and net square feet) wig there be in the Myer Center after ETDL leaves?

4. When will ETDL have vacated its space in he Myer Center?

5. How much space (gross and net square feet) does the Army plan to provide Rome Lab ar Fort Monmouth by location?

. , u P R 18 ' 9 5 1 2 : 4 9 F R O M D B C R C R - Q .

6. . \!'ha1 Amlv and/or DoD C1l rcscirch and dcvciopmcnt fu~~crions. including 111c: rcliahili~!. function, uill remain at Fon Monnlouh aficr ETDL lcavcs and bcfo:rc Romc Laboratory rnovcs w in?

7. Whal C4l joint cross service ful~clions will reside a[ Fort Mo~:ul~outl~ if 111~ rcaligniacnt 01'

Ronlc Lab is implcmentcd as rcconln~cnded by t l~c Secretary of Defe:;lse?

S. How much space (gross and net square feet) ,is being providctj for ETDL for how many personnel at ARL in Adclphi in ncwly cor~structed facilities vice renovalcd facilities, and at wl~a: cost for wch? W h e n will these faciiitics be available for ETDL to move in?, . . -

9. What is the currenl estimated cos; to build and equip ARL's new Microclectro~lics ' . . Laboralory-at--Adeiplii aiid how much space (gross and nct square fee:^ per person) will it

providc?

. If you nccd any clarification of these questions, please contact Dick Hclmer, thc Cross . . ; . . . Se'ivicc. Team Analyst. . . . . . . .

I appreciate your assistance and cooperation.

Sincerely,

TI-It 1 OE.''35 15: 5'7

Rotnc Lab Directorate of Operations. 3,h E!ectro~iic\ P k . Korne. NY 1 3 4 1 1-45 1 J

FAX

-

To :

Dlck Hclrner

Vefense Base Closure and Realignment Conulussiorl

1700 N Mwrc Street

Suile 1-125

Arlington. VA 22209

Phone 70; 696-004

Fas phot\c. 701 6')6-0551)

CC

Date: 6/6/95 - Xurnber of pages irtcluding cover slleet. 1 0

L

From:

Darl Rollans

Phone Comm i 15 3 3 0 J 3 2 1

F a Comt~i 3 15 330-3909

Phone: DSN 587-432 1

Fax pllonc: DSN 587-3909

c-mail address: I~tlani~d(@rl.af.n~il

L

REMARKS: 0 Urgent a For your re\icw 0 Reply ASAP C] Please conltr\ant

Mr. Helmer.

As \be spoke, attached IS itlrorrrl:rtlon on modeling/fabr~catloll shop. off-bast sttes. lrrcurrulg cost\. and personnel ~ l o c a t ~ o r t \

If vou have any ~ I J C F ~ I ~ ~ S 01 need addltlonal ~nfotrnatton. please call elthcr rrtc or sea11 Isdo ( 3 15-liO-34n2).

. 6 Jun 95 JJick.,

Thanks f'or the updated package on tlie AF program budget estimate. 1 still don't understand the rational on the Geophysics people, where they're going to and how the space could be used? I noticed on tlie maps that they (ESC) have now separated the lab into 7 facilities on Hanscorn AFB as opposed to 5 previously. The manpower impact worksheet doesn't make sense either without any back-up. As far as we could gather is this:

Rome Lab was allocated, by AFMCIST, a reduction of 220 positions between 1994 and 2001 as result of Defense Progrnrn Guidance (DPCj)/96 POL4 reduction and the "Dorn" reduction. Rome Lab has already taken 43 cuts through FY95 and will take an additional 5 in '96 (this is reflected in our 955 personnel numbers). I bclieve they have not give11 the Lab credit for these previous 48 cuts.

Rorne Lab was also allocated, by AFMC/ST, 172 "Dorn" reductions to be taken between '97 and '01 of'which 39 is to be taken for '97. According to ESC pidance, Rome Lah was required to take 39 cuts in FY97 for developmenl: of the Progra~n Budget Estirnate for base closure. For costing purposes, we have assunled that all 39 will be BOS positions if the Lab 1s apl>rc>ved for closure. Ko other cuts shoulcl be taken according to AFMCIST guidarice: "await the FY96 President's Budget and BBliAC 95 decisions beforc allocating the remaining Dorn Cut for FY97-0 1 via a non-pl-orata approach". A~lother issue is that The Dorn reductions afikct all of :Rome Lab including the portion cun-entfy at Hanscom AFB. ESC: has allocated all the cuts to Rome Lab at Rome, NY and none t o Rorlie Lab Hanscom.

It dso looks like they have triple booked the cuts against BOS positions if you count BOS cuts in the 39 number, the 93 number and the 50 person efficiency reduction, but yet have applied these reductions against our total stand-alone authorizations of 83 1 civiliarl and 124 military (955 total). No one has seen any back-up to the conversion of 1 14 military positions.

On the Unit Manning Docurnent dated March 95, Rome Lab will have a workforce of 955 authorizations in the 4th quarter 1996. Tll.1~ is comprised of:

Mission R & D Civilians 508 Mission Suppol-t Civilians 206 ModEab Mission Support Civilians 3 6 Security Police Mission Support Civilians 2 1 BOS Civilians 60

TOTAL Civilians S3 1

Missiorl R & D Military Mission Support Military BOS Military

TOTAL Military

'1'0-IAL Aut liorizat~ons 955

Just a note on the attached spreadsl~eets,

I broke out the projected Ron-re Lab stand ~lcme recurring cc~sts between Sitcs and Non- Sites associated positions and costs. The Sites associated recurring costs include. r~~odelitig and fabrication, security police, and facilities and logistics ROS f~nctions. Keep in mind that the lab rcceived only S B O S positions and that did not include t h e 2 security police and 36 - Modeling/Fabricatit,n positions which were in direct support of the R Rr 1) mission.

We're fine tuning the recurring cc.)st estimate as we lenrn about the actual people being FUF'd into the Lab and their salaries, but a budget figure between $1 1 and $1 1.5 n~illion looks good. Originally we were using an average salary of $3Uk (includes benetits) per man-year fhr estimating. This was based upon the 4 16th Bomb Wing's average of $38k. Because of the Reduction In Force, we're getting the more senior people and tl~erefore. higher salaries.

Attached a l s ~ is a Fabrication and Modeling Shop equipment list. Costs were taken oft'the filnction's equipnierlt account (CACm) list.

E LABORATORY - STAND ALONE RECURRING SUPPORT COSTS BREAKOUT OF SITES AND NON-SITES ASSOCIATED COSTS

NOTE: All costs include salaries and operationslmaintenance supplies and services

BUDGET 1 .XLS -c

1 COMMENTS FUNCTION RL TOTAL - RL BASE

Page 1

. - --

1-0 6 Jun 95 0 ,

I r l [[I

-- - -- . - -

---- ---.

POSITIONS - - .- -- POSlTlONS - -

RL SITES

$K I CIV MIL s K CIV '-MIL SK I c ~ v MIL ! I

.- - -- -. . -. - - -- : COMMUNICATIONS 4 -- 697.7 4 2 150.0: 0 0 cum R 8 D charges not incl CONTRACTING

- . 300.0 7 - . -. . 1 0.0 i 0 0

COMPTROLLER - - - - -. -- -- - - . . 134.01 4 0 0.0 O \ 0 CIVIL ENGlNEERllNG 2,752.51 .-.. -- 23 5 740.5 8 I . t . .~

0 PERSONNEL - 105.41 1 0.0 0 i 0 -- -- -- LOGISTICS ~ 2,733.8 -. 1,259.1- . - - . -. 27' 0 36 ModlFab are not BOS

0 300.0 0 0 ~

GCURIN POLICE .. . . - - -. . -- -. - - -. - 0 - 538.0 21 . 0 21 positions are not BOS -. .----

SAFETY .. -. 0 ~ 0 0.0 0 0 -

I -- -- -

0.0 0 0

,-

0 0 .-- . . -- - 0 61.4 -- .- . -- - - - 0 0 - --

-- ~. 0 15.4 0 1 (I

CABLE SERVICE -- -- 0 0.0 0 0 -

~

0 0 0-

i -.--- -- 1

GRAND TOTAL 11,202.0 1271 16 7,828.4 7 1 16 3,373.6 56i 01 .-

-- - - .- - - - -. . BUDGET SUPPORT s u o c ~ i l ~ G F p 0 R T ~ - -. -

G, six ' 1133ana

.suo!]!sod w!lod 12 Pue uo!1e~wej/6~!1apow 9c 'a'! 'suo!le~ado auole-puels ~ o l 6u!~!nbe s! q e i awoa suo!lez!loylnB SOB-uou asow sapnpu! ,groddng a 9 a,, :310N

O'ZOZ' 1 L I IS'ZZC i8'SPp' L - L'6PO' -- L 9'SSS S'ZLZ . . . -- . -- - SEZS'P ; 1 'ZS9 1 Z ' O ~ P ' Z ---- { - - 7 ~ 1 0 1 aNw3 - - - -

I I I I i

.

-- -. N0113310kJd ~ ----. 3UlJ -

. .- . - -- . 1'668 --

. .-

0'0 0 0 6'66

~ - - . . 0'0 0'0 0'8CS .- ! - .- 0'0 0'00s j - - -- -. 13 . - W d . 6'WS' 1 --- 8'18 i 0'0 0 '0 -- - -- - -. - . . -. . L'6E --- -~ 33NVN31NIVW ~- --

O'ELS I 0'0 - 0'0 . - - -- - -- - 0'0 0'0 l ' P 8 P 0'0 0'0 0'9 L'W 1

--.---. ~pp -. ..~.~ - S311S1301 ---- ~ -

;TO 1 0'0 0'0 '0.0 . . 0'0 --A -- . . 13NNOSU3d . - - -- - - --- O'SP8 0'0 V W d 8 -- 0'8W'Z .--- 0'0 0'0 O'OZE . ~ VWdtl-NON - .- . .-

- O'PE 1 . 0'0 - .- 0'0 . 0'0 - 0'0 0'0 10'0 0' 1Z 1 . -.-.- ~ - E I l l O ~ i d W 03 O'OOE .-

L'LP8

n$

.

- - - - - 0'0 0'0 - 0'0 -- 0'0 0'0 - 0 '0 -a I O'OZ - .-- 0'081 ~ 3 N 1 1 3 W l N 0 3 ~

0'0 0'0 . 0 OSL 0'0 0'0 IO'LZS -. ~- L'QL 1 SNOIlV31NnWW03 ~

. . .-- 0'0 -.

I

ltlOddnS Q % tt ltlOddnS a 3 tl l W l . 0 1 i S311S 8'61 3WOtl 3SV9 NO 8 V l 3 W O Y N0113Nnd

/C i LABORATORY - STAND ALONE SUPPORT POSITIONS AND SALARIES

BUDGET1 XLS 5..

-

Page 3 I--

6 Jun 95 in

LO !it

- - - FUNCTION - . - ROME LAB ON BASE - - - - - -- ROME LAB SITES

. -- - -- - - - - - - - - - -- - - - -- - --- - SALARY- %K

320.0

R L D S U P ~ R T BOS BOS -- -

C IV

0 0 o 0

-- - - - - - - C tv

- - - MIL $ K C IV --

~- COMMUNICATIONS - - - - - 0 - 0 176.7 0 -- - -- -. - E ~ N T ~ I NG- - - 0 0 280.0 0 COMPTROLLER- o o 121.0 o CIVIL ENGlNEERllNG

- --- - -- - -- 0 0 1,131.8 8 -- PERSONNEL - o 0 105.4 0 --- OGISTICS -. - . -- - - - - -- --- --

SUPPLY . -- 10 3 0 0 348.9 3 -

TRANSPORTATI~N - 3 o - - - - --A

0 136.8 2 MAINTENANCE - 1 1 - 0 0 0 39.7 1

- -

-- - ..

MIL

0 0 o 0 o

104.7

MIL

0 ..

0 o 0 o

0 0 0

0 0

O / O - - - 2 1 2 1 - 0 0 -

4 2

,t--- MODFAB - - - -- - -- - , - - -- - - 0 15

- - 0 652.1-

0'-- SECURITY POLICE 0 0 0 -- -- ---A- - - . - 0 SAFETY * 1 0 0 99.9 - ,- - - - - .

JUDGE ADVOCATE 0; 1 -- . -- - 0

- 01 91 .T- 01 39.7

- 01 0 01 0 -- 0 ,, 0 .

0 0

.-- .

0 0

0

912.8 533.0

2.001.4‘ ~

A - - -- - . - - TOTAL 56 16 151 0 3,092.3

.i

14: - 3

Roine Lab Directorate of Operations, 26 Electronics Pkwy. Ftorne, NY I 344 1-45 14

-

FAX

L -

To:

Dick Helrner

Defeasc Base Closure and Realignment Colillllission

1700 N. Moore Street

Suite 1425

Arlingron. VA 22203

Phone: 703 696-0504

Frix phnile: 703 696-0550

CC :

Date. 6/7/SbS

Number of pages i~~cluding cover sheet 19

I

C

FI-om:

D m Bollana

Phone i'ornm . i 15 330-432 1 .. . Fax Cornm 31.5 330-3909

Phone DSN 587-332 1

Fax phone DSN 587-3909

e-rnail address hollanadfij!rl.af.nii1

REMAWS: 17 Urgent fX1 For your review Reply ASPS 0 Please comment

Mr Htlmer.

Per our d~snixsiotl. attached is ~nforruation on the manpowcr seductions back-up jou requested I had our rnanmwvcr p c ~ s o n Barbara Acchno. gather what she had and any notes on the wlb~ec1

3%43 Lf you have any questions or need additio~lal ~llformatiotl. please call elther trle or Barbara A c ~ h ~ n o (1 15-3-30-SZ&)

MANPOWER TR.Ai'KlNG

Attachnier~t 1. Certified Marlpower Numbers. Versron 1 1 . 4 Apl 95 = 955

Attachment 2 , Baseline Urlil Mmpo\\ler Document, 3 M.u' 95 for FJ'96.I - 955

Attachment 1 : ESC'/MO Ltr, 8 Jul 54; depicts FYIIJ-Ill reductioas of 24 1 Rzductiorrs eanrtnwked for FY9-I-96 ONLY

Attachment J I-Iq AFMCJST Ltr, 13 Jul 91. pen itrrd itlk changes to rediiction hop:cy

Attachment 5 . Hq AI;MC/ST Ltr, 15 Jul 94, \vid~ hlanpnwer 1-.aboriiton Reduction Chart = 238 (ESC Added 3 to o w bogey) Total Redllclio~l Bogey = 24 I

Attachment 6 . Hq AFMC/ST Ltr. 27 Sw 94 n ith "Putb;~ck" C'hw '41-24 = New Redtlctrorl Bogey = 217 PEC 3 Reduction - 3 = Total Rcductiol~ Bogey = 120

Reductions; FY9J - 1 1 (already Fy95 -32

taken) Total -43 (220-43 = 177)

Reductions. FY!J6 - 5 ( 177-5 171)

172 rcrnaillirlg reductions FY97-0 1 ; spread among A.1 .L Romc Lab I-esources, r\ot jus t NY

FY97 -39 (RL's population should be 955- X7 = 868 by eird of FY) FY98 -41 FY99 -53 WOO - 1 1 no1 -18

ROME LABORATORY DlSTRlBUTlON OF PERSONNEL

BRAC 96

Page 1

V, .... . ---

OFFICERS -ENLED CIVILIANS AUTHORIZED POS~TIONS ........ --... .- -

UMD AS - 3MAR95 - FY 96 4 A ~ T H . .-

SPT STAFF - ........ ....... 803 STAFF

........

-*_ ........ ....

- r.s TO MOVE TO HANSCOM--'.-

-A

MISSION DIR .- .....

SPT STAFF ---.--.--. BOS STAFF

..................

MISSION DIR ....... .-

.*-.--.- ...........-....

- - ..- - ....... - - - .. .....

-.---.-...-..--.- GRAND TOTAL

.--. -

2. DORN reductions -- - ... of 172 yet to be allocated onmou mouth . -..-,..- ..--- = 45, New RL to Hanscom = 93, . . . . .-

As of 4 Apr 95

dtc14, I

RL exlsllng Hanswm = 22, Sites = 12) - - . -

-

..............

---.... .-.

BARBARA ..* ..... .-.- K. ACCHINO'-^"-..- Manpower Mgmt Analyst OL-G-,"ESC/MO ----

. - -.,-. -- -

-"."..-. .- ..- -..-A -

...

.-L-...

- .. - ....... ....

1:-

--

....

REMARKS: -----.....-. Version update due - to - ....... refinement - of contractor allocat tions; n o t K c l u , d e ' - ' .... --

-- - - -. - .- . .-

,additional 50 civf50 confractots for ESC in 96POM for Joint Integrated Testing Fac

.-

-- ------ .-.-

-- ....

........

...

- .. .-. .-.--

- ..

I, mt- r ID a * t -7

m a C

r U-l W . + A . cn-

ni I.. ID W 0 J

DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE uEAOQUMTERS BLCCfRONIC 4 Y L S M I CFNIIZR W C )

W 3 C O M AIR F O M C f3A13C, WAbWOl )US-

MEMOUMJUM FOR MSUCC W C C

SLTBECT. Out Year Unit Manpower Dmmenr W ) Cbangec, R % POM

1. Command had originally laskcd us lo p~+oddt UMD cbango requeets mlating to tbe FY% POM redwtions by 15 Augun 1994. They understand rhe mdty in addressing b e oa-ycars (FY97411, erpdctally since there an aiu maoy unkmwm-particularly BRAC'95 dsddians. In ao ef701-I to minlmiv ih d9Scu&, thy have givul US d d on submitting UMD changes for the out-yuub (FY97.01) by 15 Augwt 1994.

2. ~.mm,ad tasking of 7 July 1994 ta w 1- the h o w Elemenr Code6 (PEC) of all positions N9441 by 12 Jay 1994, bnt to subsnit UMD change4 for positlorn ..... FY90-96 ody by 15 August 1'-

3. -you prwvidc to ESUMO by COB 1 2 July 1994 (be PECs for rU p a ~ i h u s PY94-01, and poridoru numbers for U I ~ o M ~ I v ~ ~ Q ~ ~ Y L & ~ ~ FY94-96 psitiom r~rcdom k submittEd by 15 &gu% 1994, the rcnlatnder ofthe Mlfoat Mu bt " ~ h " coded to idaanty tnt &r are p o j d u

b u ~ will rc& on y w r f IMD. T ~ c I PECt and totab W! firm

4. A ~ b m t n r I 1s a )Inmy d y ~ u t ~o~trr's cham nf the rwru) 1 & 2 duodon - dl trhr(li~d. 6 h 0 ~ by m, num- art cumufativb. Positlorn to be rn rnw be pob through N 999.

5 . We trust this relwtion in UMD detail for out-year requLmnents will help and appnda@ your contlnubd mpport. M y PCK3 are Ms Maric McClanahan arrd Mr. A1 Tucker, DSN 478-2093M18.

Atlafhmant: Civ&n Manpower M u d o n ( R 6 C a ~ M 1 8 . 2 )

M96 POM ROUND I AND 2 REDUCTIONS (NUMBERS ARE CUMULATIVE)

ROUND FY94 FYQ5 M98 FY99 FYOO M01 1 11 23 2 8 3 8 6 0 6 1 61 8 1 2 0 41 4 1 141 162 180 9 9

TOT 11 84 1 0 8 ' 149 202 213 24 1

'.- - --

ESC/MO, (PAD), 8 JUL 94

E : E - - - L 3 a / S 3 W ZE3SSx I d e I S O : E O V 6 '80 ' L O

UNCLASSlFiED

4376 Chldlaw Rd, Ste 6 DSN 787-6877/6434

I

UNCLASSIFIED

Datdflme: .- - I : HOAFMUST( 4375 Chldlaw Rd, Ste 6 DSN 781-69TTIB434 Wrlght-Patternon AF B OH 454336008 FAX: 51 3-476-1367DSN 986-1307

IQ: - Office Symbol:

I Subject:

'@ DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE UUSOUARY-K*I AfR mxs MATanJu W P

m 4 W rrnrrson AIR POCCC LICL OmO

hw

MI FIQ m / S T 4375 Chidlaw Rd, Ste 6 Wright-Patterson M I 3 OX 45433-$006

SUBJECT: Ljbar.tory Portion of Unpowrr Rcductionr

1. 1 recant ly forwarded the r t t r c h r d rarmo t o Gsn Yktar regrrd lng t h e SbT Hisrion Elemant 8 6 r r d ' l racomnd*t ;on f o r d e a l i n g w i t h the laboratory port lon of both thr D P C / 9 6 POH and Dora manpower r e d u c t l o n r . Grn Y a t o s ha* approved our rpproach, which ir c o n s i r t e n t with prrviour AIMC/ST ID-r t o you rtgardlnq alloertion of tho DPG/96 P O n rsduct ionr, r r well r r your current afforta reg8rdiag 4 1 l o u t i o f i o f tho Don ~ m n o r e d u c t i o n l .

2 . To caprul iae t h e bottom l i n r t

a . Tho to t81 Ida " f a i r sbarov of b;anpau.r reduct . lonr i r 2068 poeltionrt 1086 from the bPt/96 POX owarcirr , m d ui r d d i t i o n a l 902 from the Dorn naao.

b. ha a l locr t ioa (by Irb) of the 1086 pasf t ioar r r s o e i a t e d with tha DPc/96 PW war wrk,d i n A non-pro-rrtr farh lon ualnp t h e Laboratory Wnpower nodal duriag a pt tv lour octrcire and approwd by t h e I W C Cotporate Board. That rllocrtlon i r runmarired in prtrgsiph 2 of #a r t t rchmant .

e. The al locat ion iby l r b ) of the 992 port t ion8 ~110ClatOd with t h e Porn memo hbvr been' d ir tr ibuted on r pro-rat. brair c o n r i r t u l t w i t h the h W C / X ? mtrno dated 22 Jun 94. Herr, thr S4T WU has racbb~arndod a tuo-prong cpptoachr (I) idrat i fy reduction. by pori t ion nulabar for the Tr'95-96 portion (411) of the t o t a l 1.b " f a i r rharea (9821, urd (21 rubmit t h e brlanc. fox -97-01 (571) r r 4 -wadg.* without p o r i t l o n numberr. Ihr I c T WW d,ll than drtrnniae b w thrro 571 poritionr rhould be rpmcil icrl ly n l locrtrd by lab (frea 8 hor izontr l 3aT Marlon trulunr perrpmetivm) a f tor wo know thr out:comd of D M - 9 5 and h a w a IT96 ?r*ridonttr Budget.

d . f i e d r t r i b u t i o n by i n d i v i d u a l fiscal year o f arch I&'# t o t a l reduction. (pPG/96 PCQ( snd born) w i l l ba l e f t t b ths d i s c z e t i o n of cacb product centerllab,

3 X will do owrythlnq possible co work with you on t h l a p a i n f u l axmrclre, rnd want to korp you f u l l y i n f o m a d r r g a r d n g our 5 6 7 KEB r a c o ~ n d a t i o n ~ . P l e ~ s . lat mr h o w if you want t o d l # c u # a .

aiclwb R. PAWL Brig tha, USXT D i r e c t o r , Science 4 Technolopy

cea w/AQ/AuT RQ A M C / X ) AL/CC PWCC RL/CC WL/CC ISOf R/CC

1 Ateb AIWC/ST Herno, 6 Sul 94

MEMOUNDVM FOR AFMUCC

FROM HQ AJWCISf

SUBECT: Manpower Cuu In S&T M!.dbn Elemat

1. T h e S&T M3 bu daaft with i o m a ofmaapmu m r tbir yeu. T b 4% pm year mprrpowcr d u c d o n rpedaed in the FY95 ~drmeFhmhg avjdaaca d t a d In I 1086 l r b o ~ o r y dvillr, thmvgh FY99 u prrt o f b PY96 WM a a d u Tb. P o r n Cut' mounts to m additional 982 hboratory & d h a rtdadm~ b m Pl95-01.

2. T h e S&T Kt33 worked tba POM cut in 4 mngro-fais (LC., n o n - p a w WK) W o n using t h ~ ST -devdoped Idontory manpower model which tiM manporn to projaed out+yat b ~ d g n r no d u of thu ccvxdta (camp& to a pmnu rolue'on) hm btks dlaributcd to

the ctnkr wmrnatlden and rra u f d o ~ :

w POM Cut l p u r a p r o - R a r s ~ ) 2~ in 293 1st 439 1086

2 (04 PLts pmpoldonuely largu ~ W O of rcductim b r d t of r dndcllfy d u e a d B M M ) technology budgc~ plus ~ O U 130 CHRMS posittom (rrhnburuble rlcu fbr a i p d d rime period) thac lvvr now apirsd RL'r pmpom'onualy 1- sham of radustion, L a m d t of risnificurt budget ~ Q W U ~ projected in rhr oufyws.

3. We dm orighdy iaeadcd to work the Dcm Cut fn nm-pmmfa m ~ ~ o r u d by,*% r p d c ibc -om to PY96 POM budgtt d6idcau. Howsvs, sn ~ J W t&aaly I d cb.l the Air Force Round 3 POM for &%I (which Is lo aon-oomphca arib ths DPG) wiU& chrllangcdbyOSDd+thoPBDcyJa hh~,BRAC95Qdrloru~ddltIklcbshb murpower PIU and wiIl v ~ t be idhbb undl Fd 95. Ibaratbrr, fb ibd Lb LBir dtho Dorn rtduca'onr, ths S&T MflB concluded tb WB h d d take p r e t r fdud6nt h r f q FY9S uld FY96, md tu4t the FY96 P r c s i d d r Bud@ adse BRAC 95 &him bafbtb aJf& tho rwminhg Dom Cur for FY9791h a non-pnwbt. n p p r o d 9- rO br t m h q p m m rcdudon cvca h s mn-pro-rata approach, &JU &a ;FY9S bad FY96 will nuf be ~olmtcr pradudvh MI*

_... I . . . - . . . . . -

d L 1 2 B I , x L lQl&

F Y ~ S a PY96 DO^ 18 37 eib 73 PmW rbhn xflP( wf

Bss-bdonfecdbackbmthc,lrbwmmrrpldar,dthb~ct~coawslldurua~In with W fairam nductiont for their map&# Mq svgn though the AFMC Council did mt make thht L m& in hr mtaction to tho amtm. Add j t ;ody , f h v e dons r prt4mhy of tho sp~cilic nanm of the FY9S md Dom nductionr talcea by ctcb hb to ~srurc t h y arc not iacompatibla with wurFY96 S&T POM injti& Evcrythfng liooh o k q through FY93-96.

826 3. With mprrt lo om r s d u d o a ffom N97-01 @* podtiom), Lbe S&T MEB ~u~ tGt w p d d o r r r be submfnsd u 8 without ip5 .8~ podtion xumbllrr if^ 9 pouibla Submitting lhps nducdom u a wsdp will ururs wa htvo tho fkibihy to .Iloato thm m n g the Irboraton'et in r non-pro-ndr fbdtion buad on a IT% P m ' M a Bud@ and DRAC95& h a u r ~ r u w i t h t I Q t S E M C 3 [ P w e r L h s p a r t ~ d a y t , ~ ~ the othar MEBI mdtho ~ c n haw the poition numbert u this point in time. ~ u r ~ l c a c r t t

RICE?ARD R PAUL Bn'gdcr G M m J , US# D b , Sbm* and Tschnofom

L A 2 4 s S L A M .f * ~ l t -

DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE r(LAWV&)TTtlrS Atn CORCC MATKRICL COYYAWZI

wrrlcm-r*mnmn ma rowr w r .

FRQHr HQ m C / ST 4 3 7 5 Chidlru Rd, 3tr 6 Wright-Patterron AI3 OH 45433-5006

9UBJECT: Laboratory P o r t i o n o f Kanpowrr Reductions

1, Thi* 1ett4r rupercsdar lay 13 Jul 9 4 rnm t o you (which c o n t r i n t d acronrous d a t a ) , and provider an accurate rynopr ia of the S&T Kel'd psrrpectivs on the a u b j e c t manpower reducclanr. To capmulize t h e bottom liner

4 . Total Reduct ienr . Tho total lab "fr l r ahare' of mmpo&r r ~ d u c e i o n . Is 2068 poritionsr 1086 f r o m t h e DPG/96 POX exerciss, and ah a d d i t i o n a l 9 8 2 from - . the Dorn mnm.

b. = / 9 6 POH Portlon. ~ b s rllocerion (by l a b ) of the 1006 p o a i t l o n r arroclrted w i t h tha L I P C I ~ ~ POW war worked in r non-pro-rrtr f&rhion during a previour exercise usin9 tho L a b o r a t o r y Manpovqr Hodel, and r r s rubaoquent ly approved by the A M C Corporate Board. That allocation fs rutmarired In paragraph A of the attachment.

c. born Portion. Thr allocatlon (by l a b ) of the 982 poritionr a r t o c i 4 t e d with tho Dorn m u e 4 have been d i ~ t r l b u t t d on rn pro-ratr brrir conr isccnt w i t h the N H C / X P memo dated 22 Jun 9 4 . Hera, the 3rT NEB ha, recomandmd a two- prong rpproach: (11 i d e n t i f y rrductionr by poo i t i on number for tha n 9 5 - 9 6 p o r t i o n 1156) . o f the t o t a l I& " f a i r share" (9821 , and (21 subitnit thr balance fox fY97-01. ( 826 ) ma a *uedgom without pos i t ion numborr. The J l T MEb w i l l then d t t o d n o how theam 126 pomitionm ahauld bm ~ p m c i f i u l l y allocated by I& after. we h o w the outcomr of BRAC-95 and have a TY'96 Prrridanc'. Budgat. Tho Dorn a l l o c a t i o n i r r u m m r i t e d In paragrrph I, of t h a rttrdhmsnt.

d . Distribution. The dirtribution by LncUvlQu~l f i s c a l year of e&ch lab's t o t a l raducrionr ( D P G / 9 6 P W and Dorn), v i t h 5 a tho &bov8 c o n s t r a i n t # for t h e Dorn toductionr, will be l e f t to tha dircretioa 02 each product center/l&. Each l a b v * tot.1 reduction ifi summarized i n prrrgrrph C of tha attrchnnnt.

2 I r i l l do rverything porribla t o vork w i t h you orr thir painful exmrcire, and want to keep you fully infounad ragrrding our Sky HE8 t e c m c n d r t i o n r . P larrr let me know i f you want t o discurr . -

I t I C W R. PAUL br ig Ccn, U S M Diractor, Science i Technology

cc : SM/AP/AQT RQ A M C / X P AL/CC t t / c c U / C C wt/cc m s w c c

8 . Dorn Raduction (1) R95-96 ( 2 m97-01 ( 3 ) Jubt0 t l l

C. Total ( l i n e 26 A + line b ( 3 )

DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE UEADOUARTERS AIQ FORCE MATERIEL COhrMArJO

WRICHT-PAlTERSON 41R FORCE B A S E OHIO

2 7 SEP 1994 hEM0RANDUh.I FOR ASC/CC

ESC/CC HSCJCC SMC/CC

FROM: I-IQ AFMUST 4375 Chidlaw Road, Suite 6 Wright-Patterson AFB OH 45433-5006

SUBECT: Dorn Manpower Putback Allocations

1. As a result of the Defense Review Board approval of the Air Force request to remove manpower reduction exenlptions from medical, Special Operations Forces, reserves and guard units, AFMC was allocated a nurnber of Dom "putbacks," with the Science and Technology Mission Element receiving 187 of these "putbacks." The net effect to the Science and Technology community is 187 Jess rnanpower reductions in FY95 than otiginaliy planned and enough "putbacks" in FY96 to keep the FY96 m,mpower lcvel ever1 with the FY95 adjusted

w level.

2. We allocated the 187 authorizations among the four labs based o n a pro rata share. with each lab getting back 57 percent of its original FY95 Dorn cut. Since wr: were constrained to "no growth" in authorizations for each lab between FY95 and FY96, each lab was then given enough putbacks in FY96 to level its programmed authorizations with the FY95 level.

3. Details of the putbacks we provided in the attached charts. My ;point of contact on this issue i s Mr. Chris Remillard, HQ AFMWSTOD, who can be reached at DSN 787-5594.

RICHARD R. PAUL. Brigadier General, USAF Director, Science & 'Technology

Attachment: ,

Dorn M'mpower Putbacks

w PUCC W C C

DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE HEADQUARTERS UNITED STATES AIR FORCE

WASHINGTON, DC

13 0 MAY 1995

MEMORANDUM FOR BASE CLOSURE COMMISSION (Mr. Francis A. Cirillo) /d& FROM: HQ USAF/RT 750.5~6 -/o SUBJECT: Rome Laboratory Site Survey Data for COBRA Analysis

Attached is the supporting data from the site survey for the Rome Laboratory COBRA analysis. The site survey, along with the incorporation of the Phillips Laboratory Geophysics Directorate downsizing at Hanscom AFB, identified additional spact: available for incoming missions. In addition, a slot by slot review of the personnel authorizations identified additional support staff that will be eliminated by this consolidation.

My point of contact for this action is Captain R. Curtis McNeil, AF/RT, (703) 695-6766.

@A/ . BLUhIE, JR., Maj Gen, USAF

cia1 Assistsmt to the CSAF for / w Realignment &: Transition

Attachments: 1. Personnel Data Sheet 2. MILCON Data

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

BRAC95 MANPOWER IMPACT WORKSHEET

BASE: Rome Lab (Griffiss AFB)

OFF AMN Clv ACTIVE DRILL TOTAL UMD MANPOWER (as of Mar 95) 84 40 831 955 0 955

MlUClV CONVERSION -74 -40 114 0 0 0 DORN REDUCTIONS (prior to closure) 0 0 -6 1 (61 0 (61 )

ADJUSTED MANPOWER BASELINE 10 0 884 894 0 894

MANPOWER IMPACTS Move lab functions to Hanscom -1 0 0 -447 -457 0 -457 BOS tail 0 0 -43 (43) 0 -43 Move lab functions to Ft Monmouth 0 0 -21 6 -21 6 0 -21 6 BOS tail 0 0 -20 (20) 0 -20. Remain in place at Griffiss 0 0 -60 (60) 0 -60 BOS tai! 0 o -5 (5) o - 5

Estimated closure savings 0 0 93 93 0 93

I

- SHERWOOD BOEHLERT

230 DISTRICT. NEW YORK

COMMITTEES.

SCIENCE SUBCOMMITTEE O N BASIC RESEARCH

SPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE

WATER RESOURCES AND ENVIRONMENT SUBCOMMITTEE O N RAILROADS

U S DELEGATION. NORTH ATLANTIC ASSEMBLV CHAIRMAN. MTHEAST AGRCULTURE CAUCUS CHAIRMAN. MINOR LEAGUE BASEBALL CAUCUS

WASHINGTON OFFICE:

2246 RAYBURN HOUSE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON. DC 20515-3223

(202) 2253665 Fax: (202) 225-1891

€-Mail: BOEHLERT@HR.HOUSE.GOV

CENTRAL OFFICE:

ALEXANDER PlRNlE FEDERAL BUILDING 10 BROAD STREET

UTICA. NEW YORK 13501 (315) 792-8146

Fax: (315) 79S-4099

TOLL FREE: 1-800-2352525

March 17, 1995

The Honorable Sheila Widnall Secretary Department of The Air Force SAF/OS 1670 Air Force Pentagon Washington, DC 20330

Dear Madam Secretary:

In earlier correspondence I have requested information and data concerning your recommendations to close Rome Laboratory at Grifffis AFB, New York. I need this data to rationalize how the Air Force could determine that this course of action was in the best interest of the Department of Defense and the Nation.

I have serious concerns regarding the development of this recommendation especially in the light of a nurnbeyr of relevant facts. Please answer the following quesitons:

(1) The Air Force rated the Rome Laboratory :in its military value analysis as a Tier I installation. I was told thi~t the Air Force has not recommended the closure of any Tier I installatiolls in previous BRAC rounds. Is this correct?

(2) In the hearing before the BRAC 95 Commission on March 6, 1995, you stated that the Air Force recommendation to close Rome Lab was based on the recommendation of the Laboratory Joint Cross Service Group (LJCSG). I understand that the LJCSG alternative,, that affected Rome Lab, was to consolidate all C31 acquisitions and research and development at Fort Monmouth, NJ. Contrary to the OSD recommended alternative, the Navy proposed to move its function to San Diego. I fail to see how relocation of only a part of the Department of Defense C31 function could foster a significant "increase in the inter-service cooperation and common C3 research. The proposed recommendation is not even collocation, as the Army's "Reliabilityn effort will not be in New Jersey, but relocated to its research complex in Maryland. Would you please explain how the Air Force envisions increased interservice cooperation under this arrangement?

(3) The Army recommended in its BRAC 95 report to "Relocate the Military Transportation Management Command 04'TMC) Eastern Area Command Headquarters and the traffic management portion of the 1301st Major Port

(IJcormnand to Fort Monmouth, NJ. " Army planners project a military construction effort costing approximately $30 million to house these administrative and storage functions (u0,000 square feet of administrative space and 23,400 square feet of storage). By contrast,

THIS STATlChEiiY PRINTED O N PAPER MADE CF RECYCLED FIBERS

the analysis supporting your recommendation states that the Rome Lab research/laboratory functions for approximately half the number of personnel (677 personnel from Bayonne versus 374 from Rome Lab) can be housed for only approximately $6.2 million at the same installation. Please explain to how you can accomplish a move of half as many personnel for about a fifth of the cost for a much more sophisticated research and development operation?

( 4 ) As another basis of comparison, the Army recommended the consolidation of a number of research functions into the Army Research Laboratory (ARL) at Adelphi and Aberdeen, MD in 1991. After almost four years of planning and execution, its budget for consolidation (from the FY 1996 President's budget submission) indicates a radical difference in cost from what you project, even though it involves almost the same number of personnel positions moving. While these are not the same exact functions, the scale of the actions is similar and involve research activities.

(a) The ARL total package cost is $330.8 million, less the environmental clean up, and your recommendation for Rome Lab estimates a total cost of $52.8 million. You have projected a cost of only 16% of the Army action. Other funding consistencies are shown below:

ARL Rome Lab 1SM) 0

Military Construction 162 21.9 O&M and Other (includes moves 173 30.1

and procurement)

(b) The ARL action moves approximately 877 positions, and the Rome Lab closure moves 883. However, the Armyfs consolidation eliminates 774 positions and the Rome relocation only 50.

(c) Without a significantly better understanding of your cost and saving projections, you can see why I have questions about the cost-effectiveness of your recommendation to close Rome Lab. Therefore, would you please explain the specifics of your recommended relocation in light of the above?

(5) Your COBRA analysis indicates the Air Force will have annual recurring savings of approximately $11.5 from the closure of Rome Laboratory. However, in this package, you will close three buildings, relocate (not consolidate) research functions, eliminate a small number positions (50), and move most, if not all, of the Rome Laboratory research functions. Additionally, these functions will move to areas that have a significantly higher cost of living than the Rome, NY area. Was this "higher cost of livingt1 included in your analyses? If not, could you please explain why not? Moreover, how was locality pay applied in your computations?

Considering the basis of your recommendation, I cannot accept the conclusion that this action will save money and have a Return on Investment in 4 years.

I look forward t o your quick and t imely r e p l y t o my concerns, but w e q u e s t t h a t I r e c e i v e your responses and answers -to my ques t ions by 23

March.

With warmest regards ,

S incere ly ,

~ e m b g o f Congress

SB: ew

SHERWOOD BOEHLERT 230 DISWICT. NEW YORK

COMMITTEES

SCIENCE IBCOMMIlTEE O N BASIC RESEARCH

~ C N s p o R T A T , o ~ F . A s r n u c n m CHAIRMAN. SUBCOMMllTEE O N

A T S O U AND ENVIRONMENT Congre$$ of tb e IEIntteb s t a t eti SUBCOMMllTEE O N RAILROADS

Bour le of PRepreSentatibee' U.S. DELEGATION. NORTH ATLANTIC ASSEMBLY CHAIRMAN. NORTHEAST AGRICULTURE CAUCUS WIRMAN. MINOR LEAGUE BASEBALL CAUCUS mae'fiington, Ba 20525-3223

WASHINGTON OFFICE:

2236 RAYBURN HOUSE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON. DC 205153223

1202) 225-3665 Fax: 1202) 225-1891

E-Mail: BOEHLERT@HR.HOUSE.GOV

CENTRAL OFFICE:

ALEXANDER PlRNlE FEDERAL BUILDING 10 BROAD STREET

UTICA, NEW YORK 13501 1315) 793-8146

Fax: (3151 798-4099

TOLL FREE: 1-8OC-235-2525

March 1 7 , 1995

The Honorable Sheila Widnall Secretary Department of The Air Force SAF/OS 1670 Air Force Pentagon Washington, DC 20330

Dear Madam Secretary:

My previous correspondence has addressed a number of questions and requested information in the COBRA analysis for the closure of Rome Laboratory. My staff has been able to secure a copy from the Base Closure Commission of the run that reproduces the $52.8 million one-time cost for the scenario that would close Rome Lab and move portions to of the lab to Hanscom AFB, MA and Fort Monmouth, NJ. This run was made with COBRA version 5.08 and data updated as of 13:04 hours on 02/20/1995.

A cursory review for this analysis raises serious questions about the assumptions made and data used. To understand: this data and adequately respond to BRAC commissioner questions, I need data and answers for the following:

(1) The Personnel Summary Report lists a tota.1 of 883 (873 civilian and 1 0 military) positions realigning out of Rome Lab and 50 being eliminated (for a total of 9 3 3 ) . Your report to the Secretary of Defense l is ts a t o t a l o f 1 , 0 6 7 direct j o b s t o be l o s t .

(a) What causes this discrepancy in numbers?

(b) What types of jobs did you assume are going to be lost at the laboratory? I find it difficult to imagine that these positions are all related to the Operation and Maintenance function for the three Rome Laboratory buildings (as page 2 for the Appropriations Detail Report indicates a recurring savings in O&M civilian salaries beginning in 1998 of $2.3 million) .

( 2 ) The One-Time Cost Report lists a total military construction cost of $21.85 million ($6.27 million at Fort Monmouth and $15.58 million at Hanscom AFB). The Military Construction Assets Report does not list any type of detail on facility category for either receiving installation, but refers at both locations to "CE (estimate 2 /3 /95 . " Since I do not have access to the estimate your refer, I'm requesting a opy of the details of these estimates for both Fort monmouth and Hanscom FB. I would like to receive copies of any and all worksheets or computer analyses used in developing the construction estimates.

THIS STAT:ONERY PRINTED O N PAPER MADE OF RECYCLED FIBERS

(3) The small magnitude of the military construction in your estimate was a crucial factor in the calculation of the Return on Investment (ROI) period of four years in this run as noted in your

-report. I have been informed that requirements for laboratory construction are difficult to estimate since the test equipment and functional placement of this equipment is not standard. Please explain why these MILCON estimates are so small, particularly since site surveys have not been performed by personnel who are familiar with the facilities requirements for these research functions. Please provide any assumptions made or engineering decisions that were relevant in your final MILCON numbers.

(4) I could not find in this run, or anywhere else, any indication that the locality pay differential for civilian en~ployees for the Hanscom AFB and Fort Monmouth areas versus Rome, NY had been taken into account as more correctly contributing to higher future operating costs. It did appear that the higher Variable Housing Allowance for military personnel had been included. Please explain why the civilian locality pay was or was not factored in the calculation; and if so, where; and if not, why not?

(5) Please provide a detailed scenario description which enumerates all assumptions, facts, or other considerations used in this scenario and in the AF "level playing field1' COBRA run.

(6) The Laboratory Joint Cross Service Group (LJCSG) COBRA -indicates an RPMA cost for Rome Lab of approximately $8.1 million. Could

you please provide a detailed breakdown of these c:osts and their specific application to the stand-alone Rome Lab?

(7) This same run depicts no RPMA increase at: either Hanscom AFB or Fort Monmouth. Could you please provide an explanation for the rationale for not increasing the RPMA-when additional constl:uction at both installations is required?

(8) The run also depicts a steady state cost at the gaining installations of approximately 72.4% of the savings from closing Rome Lab. Could you please provide an explanation for this differential given the complete transfer of functions and negligible manpower reductions?

(9) Please provide the following information:

(a) a list of all laboratory and support: equipment that must be moved or replaced and delineated (by category);

(b) detailed descriptions of the configuration of or other factors and methods applied in determining space and facility type requirements at each location (by category);

(c) the cost estimates for replacing equipment damaged in move or equipment that cannot be moved (by category); and

(d) a detailed list of items comprising the one-time move costs of $6.823 million.

( 1 0 ) Are any of t h e r e l o c a t i n g c i v i l i a n personnel p a r t i c i p a n t s i n t h e Career Management Program? I f so , how many a r e t h e r e ? How was t h i s

ww number accounted f o r i n your ana lys i s?

I would l i k e t o thank you i n advance f o r your coopera t ion and expedi t ious response t o my reques ts . It is imperat ive t h a t you provide t h i s information t o m e no t l a t e r than 23 March 1995.

ember-f Congress

SB: e w

DEPARTMENT OF T H E AIR FORCE: WASHINGTON DC 20330- 1000

OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY

March 24, 1995

SAF/LLP 1160 Air Force Pentagon Washington, DC 20330-1160

The Honorable Sherwood L. Boehlert House of Representatives Washington, DC 20515-3223

Dear Mr. Boehlert

This is in response to your letters of March 17, 1995, to the Secretary of the Air Force requesting additional clarification on data provided concerning Rome Laboratory, New York. Responses to your questions are as follows:

QUESTION l(a): What causes this discrepancy in numbers?

RESPONSE l(a): The total number of positions shown as being realigned out of Rome Laboratory and being eliminated reflect total number of Government authorizations being affected by closure of Rome Laboratory. The total number of direct jobs to be lost is a description of economic impact and also includes the man-year equivalents for contractors servicing the installation. In the case of Rome Lab, this equates to 134 contractor man-year equivalents.

QUESTION l(b): What types of jobs did you assume are going to be lost at the laboratory? -

ANSWER l(b): The total of 50 positions to be eliminated by &'

the clos~~re of Rome Lab can be broken into two types. A total of 22 positions will be eliminated from consolidation savings.

E Another 28 positions will be eliminated from Base Operating Support (BOS) savings.

QUESTION 2: I'm requesting a copy of the details of these estimates for both Fort Monmouth and Hanscom AFB. I would like to receive copies of any and all worksheets or computer analyses used in developing the construction estimates.

ANSWER 2: The requested information is attached and is based (Y on a preliminary site survey conducted in January 1995. We plan to perform a detailed site survey on April 10-14, 1995, at which time we will identify the square footage, building types, and locations of areas where industrial elements now at Rome Lab are to be located at Hanscom AFB and Fort Monmout:h. This information will be forwarded to your office upon receipt:.

QUESTION 3: Please explain why these MIILCON estimates are so small, particularly since site surveys have not been performed by personnel who are familiar with the facilities requirements for these research functions. Please provide any assumptions made or engineering decisions that were relevant in your final MILCON numbers.

ANSWER 3: Rome Lab provided laboratory facility requirements in their data call. These requirements were then given to Hanscom AFB and Fort Monmouth after refinenient for space requirements to BRAC target year of Fiscal Year (FY) 97/4 manpower levels. It was also assumed space inefficiencies built into existing Rome Lab facilities would be eliminated when buildings at the receiving location were to house Rome Lab requirements. This resulted in a 20 percent reduction of lab and SCIF space based on the manpower and space reductions. Finally, any SCIF space occupied full time by personnel should have a commensurate reduction in the engineering support space. The preliminary site survey was - conducted in January 1995 by Air Force Civil Engineering (AF/CE) and Air Force Realignment and Transition (AF/RT) personnel to validate these responses.

QUESTION 4: Please explain why the civilian locality pay was or was not factored in the calculation; and if so, where; and if not, why not?

ANSWER 4: Screen Four of the COBRA run includes the "area cost factor8* for the static base. The factors are 1.10 for Rome, 1.19 for Fort Monmouth, and 1.29 for Hanscom. This factor is used in the calculations for Civilian Housing, Purchase Cost, Family Housing Construction Costs, Homeowners Assistance Program, Information Management Account, Military Construction Costs, Project New Construction Costs, and Project Rehabilitation Cost.

QUESTION 5: Please provide a detailed scenario description which enumerates all assumptions, facts, or other considerations used in this scenario and in the Air Force "level playing fieldw COBRA run?

ANSWER 5: The level playing field COBRA assumes that Rome Laboratory, Rome, New York, is relocated from the Department of Defense (DoD) retained area to Hanscom AFB, M<assachusetts. The level playing field COBRA run included $95.1 :million in MILCON, $3.3 million in personnel costs, $1.5 million in overhead costs,

1)111 $31.3 million in moving costs, and $2.4 million in other costs. Total cost was $133.6 million. Manpower eliminations to offset these costs were five spaces.

The BCEG was briefed on December 15, 1994, on the sources of differences between the level playing field estimate and a preliminary focused COBRA run where Rome Lab was relocated to Hanscom AFB. This briefing is attached for your convenience. In a subsequent cross-service analysis, the Air Force analyzed the recommended alternative to relocate portions of Rome Lab to Hanscom AFB and Fort Monmouth. This analysis reduced one-time costs, allowed for greater utilization of existing space for MILCON, increased steady state savings, increased position eliminations, and resulted in a four-year return on investment. Additional information on the COBRA run is attached under Item 9.

QUESTION 6: Could you please provide a detailed breakdown of these costs and their specific application to the stand-alone Rome Lab?

ANSWER 6: The RPMA cost of $8.1 millioil is not broken down J further. The installation budget office through its budget process has authority to use this money on any RPMA task.

QUESTION 7: Could you please provide an explanation for the rationale for not increasing the RPMA when additional construction at both installations is required?

d ANSWER 7: There is no increase in RPMA at Hanscom or Fort Monmouth because there is no increase in square feet. The amount of square feet is what drives this cost.

QUESTION 8: Could you please provide an explanation for this differential given the complete transfer of functions and negligible manpower reductions?

ANSWER 8: The final COBRA run for Rome Laboratory reflects the fact that the RPMA and BOS budgets at Rome Lab will be a savings which is offset by the increased BOS costs at either nscom AFB or Fort Monmouth. The personnel savings reflect the

50 manpower authorizations that are no longeic required because of is closure. Q

QUESTION9(a-d): (a) a list of all laboratory and support equipment that must be moved or replaced and delineated (by category); (b) detailed descriptions of the configuration of or other factors and methods applied to determine space and facility type requirements at each location (by category) ; (c) the cost estimates for replacing equipment damaged in move or equipment that cannot be moved (by category); and (d) i3 detailed list of items comprising the one-time move costs of $6.823 million.

ANSWER 9(a-d): The requested information used in support of the COBRA run is attached.

QUESTION 10: Are any of the relocating civilian personnel participants in the Career Management Program? If so, how many are there? How was this number accounted for in your analysis?

ANSWER 10: Yes. The number of employe,^ at Rome Lab as of March 1995 who are registered in the Air Force Career Programs was 468. The analysis does not treat a civilian registered in the Air Force Career Program differently from those who are not in the program.

Response to questions in your second March 17, 1995, letter.

QUESTION 1: Is this correct?

ANSWER 1: It is certainly unusual, if not unprecedented, for the Air Force to recormtiend the closure of an installation placed in the top tier in the preliminary analysis. We should point out that this is not a ''military valuew assessmei?t, but rather an assessment under all eight selection criteria.

Also, unprecedented is the Joint Cross-Service Group process, which substantially impacted the 1995 BRAC analysis process. After the Laboratory Joint Group recommended the Air Force consider a closure of Rome Lab, we found sigilificantly cheaper closure options than those considered in the level-playing field analysis that formed the basis for the preliminary tiering. The dramatic difference in costs, savings and return on investment led the Air Force to reconsider the closure of Rome Lab.

QUESTION 2: Would you please explain how the Air Force envisions increased interservice cooperation under this arrangement?

ANSWER 2: While the relocation of some Navy C31 R&D activity to either Fort Monmouth or Hanscom AFB was examined by the Laboratory Joint Cross-Service Group and the services, that specific action was not required in order for the Air Force and A m y to increase interservice cooperation and common C3 research. The collocation of selected Air Force and Arnny activities will permit the two services to rely upon one another while conducting C3 research in areas of common interest. Research areas such as reliability and photonics have applicability to both Air Force and Army weapon systems. Additionally, the opportunity exists for these activities to share relatively expensive electronic facilities (i.e., anechoic chambers) and test: equipment when they are collocated. For these reasons, the Air Force and Army chose to proceed with the benefits of collocation, even without the Navy's participation.

QUESTION 3: Please explain how you can accomplish a move of half as many personnel for about a fifth of t:he cost for a much more sophisticated research and development operation?

ANSWER 3: While we cannot speak to the Army recommendation you mentioned, we can address the estimate of approximately $6.2 million to house Rome Lab at Fort Monmouth. The Army provided us with a unit cost figure per square foot for each facility type as

w certified data. We elected to use the Amy's certified units costs for our cost estimate. We then accomplLished a preliminary site survey in January 1995 to validate their response.

QUESTION 4(a-c): Therefore, would you please explain the specifics of your recommended relocation in light of the above?

ANSWER 4: Again, while we cannot speak to the Army recommendation of 1991 you mentioned, we have attached the focus COBRA run conducted after the preliminary silze survey conducted in January 1995 for both Hanscom AFB and Fort Monmouth. We have also included the February 3, 1995, MILCON estimal:e, the portion of the Army certified response dealing with-square-footage requirements and costs, and the certified one-time movement costs to provide additional insight.

QUESTION 5: Was this @@higher cost of living@@ included in your'analyses? If not, could you please exp:Lain why not? Moreover, how was locality pay applied in your computations?

ANSWER 5: Yes. Screen Four includes the "area cost factor1' for the static base. The factors are 1.10 for Rome, 1.19 for Fort Monmouth, and 1.29 for Hanscom. This factor is used in the calculations for Civilian Housing, Purchase Cost, Family Housing Construction Costs, Homeowners Assistance Program, Information Management Account, Military Construction Costs, Project New Construction Costs, and Project ~ehabilitation Cost.

We trust this information is useful.

STE EN D. BULL, I11 Colael, lJSAF Chief, Programs and Legislation Divisiol?

Office of Legislative Liaison

Attachments

Item 2

of

Mr. Sherwood Boehlert9s 17 Mar 95 ]Letter

CLOSE HOLD - B jjCEG Staff Only

Galnlng Bare: F o n Monmouth OpUon: 400

Drill: 1 Dab: 1/19/95

Scenario: Rome Lab from GrlMsr to Fotl Monmouth

0.41 Space ava~lable in Meyer Center Arrny arrcjlllcrrs provided unit cost Added 5% support. 10"/0 conr, b"., SIOH. 5% BOS and 9% planning.

.

Light Lab

MEDIUM LAB 1 32 Space avallablo In Meyer Conler Ariny erigliic-er:. provlded unll cosl Added 5% supporl 10'/0 conl G , L

SIOH. 5% BOS and 9% planning

Total

HEAW U B

LIGHT SClF

coder Tltler Unlt Ratlo Unlt Factor Rome Lab Capaclly Scope Scope UM ($MI Remarks Other Rsqulremenls 610123 AF P U N T ADMINISTRATION OFFICE 0 40238 SF 1.18 Space available in Meyer Cenler. Army englncers

provided unit cosl. Added 5% support, 1Oo;o con!. 6':'" I SIOH. 5% BOS and 9% planning.

0 2 Space availablu In Meyer Cenler Arrny eimijiileurs provlded unlt cost Added 5'/u support 10% conl 6 - SIOH, 5% BOS and 9 % plann~ng

Currant Cat

0.26 Space available in Meyer Center Arrny ri iyinrcrs pr~vlded unit Wst. Added 5% support. 10% conr. 6 % SIOH, 5% 0 0 s and 9% planning.

HEAW SClF

OTHER

Excsrr SR for

I n 0 Acft Debl'g # o f

0.79 spa^ availabl~ in Meyer Cenler. Army erlylrleers provided u n l cosl. Added 5% support. 10% conl. 6 % SIOH. 5% 8 0 s and 9% planning.

Prog'd Sq Unit

1.32 Army engineers d ~ d no1 lnclude systems fuinilure in t r i i t ~ r

estlmale. Exlst~ng fum~ture IS used and mrsmalched AFMC Included system furn~lure In the Rome lo Hanscom esllmate Include here also

5 48 Dorms 721.312 E l -€4 ESE7

Requirement Dlnlng Halls 722-351

DORMITORY

AIRMEN DINING HALL (DETACHED)

Mllcon: BOS

r . ,. ,.,, CLOSE HOLD - BCEGIBCEG Staff Only

BRAC Milcon Esimate Worksheet ,, ,,tdve Rome Lab to Hanscom (AF-09)

Gaining Base: Hanscom Option: 400 Drill : 1 Date : 02-03-1995 Sheet 1 of 1 for Scenario: ROM36201c Rome Lab to Hanscom (AF-09)

CATEGORIES I I Titles Identified

AF PLANT ADMINISTRATION OF Light Lab MEDIUM LAB HEAVY LAB LIGHT SClF HEAVY SClF OTHER

' ~ i l i t a r ~ Family 1 1 0-000 FAMILY HOUSING

Milcon: 12.99 BOS 1.30

Subtotal 14.29

I

Subtotal 14.29 Planning 1.29

TOTAL 15.58

Close Hold - BCEGIBCEG Staff Only

Notes ror Worksheet 1 of 1 for Scenario: ROM36201c kame Lab to Hanscom (AF-09)

610-123: Cost based on AFMCIXPICE site survey. Original: renovate facilities 1607 (46,700 SF) and 1605 (7,000 SF) at 70% of new construction costs. No renovations required for Facilities 1302F (28,000 SF) and 1302FA (13,300 SF). Phillips Lab space available = 64,000, therefore, NO scope provided. Total to Hansom is 54,762 SF. Total admin rqmt = 95,000 SF.

31 0-924: Cost based on AFMCIXPICE site survey. Original cost based on renovation of facilities 11020 (12,300 SF) and 1607 (16,500 SF). Used 70% of new construction costs. Phillips Lab has 100,000 SF available for light lab, therefore no renovation required. Total Light Lab requirement = 28,800 SF. Total to Hanscom is 16,602 SF.

312-477: Cost based on AFMCIXPICE site sumvey. Cost based on renovation of facility 1614 (30,436 SF) - space available from PL (13,200 SF). Use 70% of new construction cost = 17,236 SF. Adjust program amount to 12,065 SF. Total Medium Lab requirement = 52,800 SF.

31 0-91 1: Cost based on AFMCIXPICE site survey. Cost based on renovation of facility 161 4 (2,121 SF). Use 70% of new construction cost. Adjust program amount 1,485 SF. Total Heavy Lab requirement = 3,680 SF.

610-000: Cost based on AFMCIXPICE site survey. Cost based on renovation of facility 1614 & 1st floor 1302F (1 1,990 SF). Use 70% of new construction cost. Adjust program amount 8,393 SF. Total Light SClF requirement = 11,990 SF.

131-132: Cost based on AFMCIXPICE site survey. Cost based on renovation of facility 1614 (13,373 SF). Use 70% of new construction cost. Adjust program amount 9,361 SF.

935-000: Total rqmt is 656 units. Hanscom rqmt is 378 units.

Item 5

of

Mr. Sherwood Boehlert's 17 Mar 95 Letter

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY - BRAC SENSlTNE

Lab & Product Center DECISION BRIEFING

W E G )

?.!ezl:.a

15 Ik 94

FOR OFFICIAL. USE ONLY - BRAC SENSITWE I

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY - BRAC SENSITIVE

Pumose

LJCSG Analysis - Approve RL, Rome Decision Dab - Approve AL, Mesa Decision Data

AF Tier IVIII Bases - Review SMC Analysis Status - Review PL Analysis Status - Approve Brooks AFB Decision Data

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONI,Y -- UUAC SWSITT\'E

WROEFlCULUSEONLY - BRAC S m

. Rome Lab COBRA Costs w 96s MI

Total: 133 78 55

- - ~ c . a u m i n s d D c ( l d m e n b ( s . g . ~ ~ ) c Q N d m

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY - BRAC SENSlnVE 3

FOR OFR<IAL USE ONLY - BRAC SENSITIVE

Sources of Difference

Prior: $95M Current: UOM

Alsumotion: Rebuild Rome Assumotion: Accomodate Rome New c~tldmdon Modify existing rtrudura

h v i d e Admin Space for all pasonncl Use SCIF ud Admin Space for paxwuIcl NO E f f i Radudion ZO?? S p a Effiicncy Redudon ( s t adad )

No BOShign Add BOS/Daign &st

Validntion AFICEP validated using different mefl~odology LRss Ulan 5% difference in estinlate

FOR OFRCIAL USE ONLY - BRAC SENSlTNE

Sources of Difference JZecurrin~ Costs

Prior: $7.2M/yr Current: $119M/yr

FOR O F R M L USE ONLY - BRAC SEXQllVE

FOR OFRCUL USE ONLY - BRAC S E N S I N E

Criteria IV & V Rome Lab, NY to Hanscom AFB, MA

Rome Lab (prior) 133 111 1 100+ 5 Rome Lab (current) 78 (15) 8* 11 26

FOR OFRCIAL USE ONLY - DRAC SENSlTn'E

item 9

of

Mr. Sherwood Boehlert's 17 Mar 95 Letter

'II MEMORANDUM FOR HQ USAFmTR

29 Dec 94.

SUBJECT: One Time Movement Costs - Rome Lab West

FROM: HQ USAF/XP 4375 Chidlaw Rd/ Suite 6 Wright-Patterson AFB OH 45433-5006

1. The following equipment move to the new location if Rome Lab West is relocated. This is based on the assumption that only the equipment at Rome Lab will move and that the equipment at the test areas will stay.

&In Total C B ~ Cryogenic Chamber $1,630.000K Large Anechoic Chamber $2,450.000K RF Shielded Enclosure $1,375.000K

Total One Time Moving Cost $6,823.000K

" Point of contact is myself at DSN 787-2622.

WI certify this data is accurate to the best of my knowledge and belief

Senior Logistics Analyst HQ AFMC/XPX, DSN 787-26:22

1 Atch BRAC '95 USAF Base Questionnaire, Section IVN, Part B

I certify this data is accurate to the best of my knowledge and belief.

T*Y L. BALVEN, Colonel, USAF Chief, Plans and Programs Integration Directorate of Plans HQ AFMCIXP, DSN 787-7 100

ROME LABORATORY Section N N

A, Non Payrnll Budget

R. Large, Unusual Items Inteeral to the Mission

Docs the base have large, unusual items which are integral to the unit mission, but which cannot be moved as r c y l a r frclght, e.g., flight slmr~lntnrs?

Yes

Docs the value of all the ahove equipment exceed S500,000? Yes - I --

/,'L/ '1f yes to both the above questfons, identify the piece(~) of equipment. 12 ~ircrafi used for R & D 1.-. --

If yes to both the above questions, what is the estimate to TEARDOWN this equipmelrt ant1 prepare it for movement? . $ 1,025.000 K

I f yes to hoth the above two questions, what is the estimate to MOVE thfs equipment 1000 miles? $369.000 K

I f ycs fo I)otl~ the above two questions, what is the estimate to SETUP this equipment? $ 1,100.000 K

Total cost to teardown, move, and setup each item. $2,494.000 K

, ' I f ycs to both the above questions, identify the pfecc(s) of equipmcnt. /I- 22 Towcrs - 50 - 180 fi length

If yes to both the ahovc questions, what is the estimate to TEARDOWN this equipment and prepare it for movement? . $500.000 K

If ycs to 110th the above hvo questions, what is the estimate to MOVE this equjpment 1000 milts? $ 57.000 K

I f ycs to both the above two questions, what is the estimate to SETUP this equipment? $940.000 K

Total cost to tcardo~vn, move, and sctup each Item. $ 1,497.000 K

- ROME LABORATOlZY

If ycs to 110th the above questions, identify the piece(s) of equipment. Cryogenic Chamber

If ycs to both thc above questions, what is the estimate to TEARDOWN this equipment and prepnre it for movement? $ 750.000 K

I f yes to both thc above two questions, what is the estimate to MOVE this equipment 1000 miles? $ 80.000 K

I f yes to botli the above two questions, what is the estimate to SETUP this equipment? $800.000 K

Total cost to teardotvn, movc, and setup each item. $ 1,630.000 K

If yes to both the above qucstions, identify the piece(s) of equipment. Large Anechoic Chamber

1f ycs to hoth the above questions, what is the estimate to TEARDOWN this equipment and prepare It for movement? $ 1,100,000 K

If yes to both the abovc two questions, what is the estlmate to MOVE this eqllipment 1000 miles? $ 150.000 K

If ycs to I~otlt the above hvo questions, what is the estimate to SETUP this equipment? $ 1,200.000 K

Total cost to teardotvn, move, and setup each item. $2,450.000 K

1 /[: L G s to bath the ahovc questions, identify the piece@) of equipment. LF/HF Tower - 1200fl

11 ycs to both the abovc questions, what is the estimate to TEARDOWN t11ts equipment ~ n t l prcpnrc it for movement? $ 1,100.000 K

If ycs to hoth the above two questions, what is the estimate to MOVE this equipment 1000 nrilcs? $200.000 K

I f yes to 1)olll t l ~ c al)ovc two questions, wlrnt is the estimntc to SETUP this equipment? $ 1,100.000 K

Total cost to tcartlown, move, and setup each item. $2,400.000 K . ] --'

, . / I f yes to both the ahovc questions, identify the piece(s) of equipment. L_------

Microwave Tower System

. . 11 ycs io i,oili t : i ~ ;iho;'c c;u2s!icns, tvha! is !he estimate 10 TEARDOWN this equipment nnd prcparc it for movement? S G00.000 K

J f yes to hotli the above two questions, what is the estimate to MOVE this equipment 1000 miles? $ 49.000 K

I f yes to hoth the i i h ~ \ ~ e ttvo questions, what is the esfimate to SETUP this eqnipmcnt? $600.000 K

Total cost to tcnrtlowti, move, and scttrp each item. $ 1,249.000 K

4 7 1995 AIR FORCE B A ~ QUESTIONAIRE

ROME LABORATORY

I f j,cs to hoth the aho\te.qucstions, identify the piece(s) of equipment. RF Shielded Enclosure

If ycs to botll the above questions, what Is the estimate to TEARDOWN this eqrllpn~cnt and prepare it for movement? $60o.n00 K

If ycs to both the above two questions, what is the estimate to MOVE this equipment 1000 miles? $75.000 K

I f gcs to both the above two questions, what is the estimate to SETUP this equipment? $700.000 K a

Total cost to tcardown, move, and setup each item, $ 1,375.000 K

If yes to both the above qnestions, identify the piece(s) of equipment. Small Anechoic Chamber

If yes to both the above questions, what is the estimate to TEARDOWN this equipment ant1 prepare It for movement? $600.000 K

If gcs to !loth the above two questions, what is the estimate to MOVE this equipment 1000 miles? $68.000 K

If yes to both the ahove two questions, what is t h e estimate to SETUP this equipment? $700.000 K

Total cost to teartlown, move, and setup each item. $ 1,368.000 K

Total cost to teardown, mottc, and setup all items. S 14,463.000 K

w CERTIFICATION

1. According to 3 0 Nov 94 PCN SB004-024, Vehicle Master List, Rome Lab (RL) currently has 53 vehicle equivalences in its inventory.

2. RL's one time moving cost is the equipment moving cost. This was in rough order of magnitude estimate based on previous Phillips Lab Consolidation Study. This was a grass roots effort accomplished during the 1991 round of base closures. Our office is currently trying to obtain a copy of this estimate. The cost of moving heavy research equipment was analyzed based on similar types of disassembly, transport, and reasremble costs. Contracts for test and caliitation were not specifically addressed in this study under the assumption that govenunent researchers would perform these functions as their first task befbre they could begin using it. This cost does not include the costs of relocating the 9 off base research sites in the surrounding areas of Griffiss AFB NY. Previous RL estimate for moving equipment was $14.4M.

I certify that the above information is accurate and complete to the best of my knowledge and belief

/ Date: 27 Dec 94 , HQ AFMUSTCP, DSN: 787-6561

11ClE-21-1935 15 : 43 FEOtl COIIIIRI~D SECT IO14

Laboratory space was categochd u n h AFMC 21 as Engineering Support; Liglu Lab; Medium Lab; Heavy Lab; Light SCLF and Hcavy SCIF. Fadlity definitions are attached Initial square footage requirements wen: provjded by Rome Labs. Bclicvc to be based on existing spc:e at Rome Lab. No detailed descriptions of the configurations were provided

Some assumptions were made to AFMC 21 square footages.

- Manpower reduction from peak work year to BRAC larget y c u of FY 97 equated to a reduction of sf-==

- Spa& inefficiencies built into existing RL facilities to be m a t e d when buildings are converted at Hanscom to house RL requirements - A 2.0% xedu~on of lab and SCIF space was based on thc manpower and space inefficicndes reductions

- That SCW space wns occupied fuII time by personnel and there should be a reduction in the engineering support space

Based on the BRAC realignment d functions where manpower split 60% to Hansconl and 40% to R Monmouth, the space was split proportionately for planning purpases. RL space requirements are suxnmadzed. Space requirments will be finalized upon completion of site .surveys the week of 10.14 April 1995.

RL SPACE REOUIREMENTS

LlEMc&l RRAC HANSCOM FT MONMOUTH

ENG SUPPORT1 ADm LIGHTLAB M E D M HVYLAB LIGHT SCF HVY SCIP

EXEC SERVICES

ENGINEERING SUPPORT SPACE

- AFM 86-2, CHAPTER 13 - COMPRISEBOF THREE TYPES OF FLOOR SPACE

-- NETOFFICE AREA (USABLE AREA FOR DESK AND PERSONAL WORK FILES, ETC., PER EACH BUILDING OCCUPANT)

'

-- ADMIN SUPPORT SPA,CE (TYPICAL ADMTN RQMTS SUCH AS AREAS FOR CENTRAL FILES, CONFERENCES, STORAGE, MAIL HANDLING, AND REPRODUCTION) -- SPECIAL PURPOSE SPACE (SUCH AS SMALL AUDITORIUMS, DRAFTING ROOMS, ELECTRONIC DATA PROCESSING EQUIPMENT, AND HOLDING SPACE FOR CONTRACT MAINTENANCE EQUPMENT)

- 162 SF MAX RECOMMENDED FOR SUM OF NET OFFICE AREA AND ADMIN SUPPORT SPACE

..(, . : i'

\ !

P r

r LIGHT LABORATORY

rn REQUIRES MODEST INCREASE LN POWER OR AIR CONDITIONING

>: rri (-I

OVER ENGINEERING SUPPORT SPACE. IT MAY BE COMPRTSED OF m m a C -

WORK AREAS WITH SEVERAL PERSONAL COMPUTERS OR C) m cn

WORKSTATIONS AND NETWORK EQUIPMENT.

MEDIUM LABORATORY

REQUIRES SUBSTANTIAL INCREASE IN POWER, AIR CONDITIONING AND/ OR PL-UMBING, CHEMICALS,. VOLATILE OR TOXIC GASES (SUCH AS A TYPICAL EDUCATIONAL CHEMISTRY LABORATORY) OVER

HEAVY LABORATORY

REQUIRES SIGNIFICANT CONSUMPTION OF POWER, AIR CONDITIONING AND/ OR HOODS/SPECIAL VENTILATION FOR TOXIC/EXPLOSIVE GASES, AND/ OR SPECIAL STRUCfl:URES FOR F R ~ G B L E ROUFS/DOORS, HEAVY FLOORS AND WALLS, AND BRIDGE CRANES.

UNIQUE FACILITIES

FACILITIES TKAT ARE DIFFICULT TO CATAGORIZE AS LIGHTMEDTCIM ~

/HEAVY LAB~A.TORJES OR LIGHT/MEDIUM SCFs ' I

LIGHT SCIF

m x Dl n

ADMINISTRATIVE OR STORAGE AREAS REQUIRING A SECRET/ m m a

COLLATERAL VAULTED ENCLOSURE

HEAVY SCIF

AREAS REQUIRING EITHER SPECIAL COMPARTMENTED INFORMATION OR LARGE POWER, RED/BLACK POWER FILTERS, AND/ OR LARGE AIR CONDITIONING, AND/ OR RAISED COMPUTER FLOOR

CLOSE HOLD - B 3 Staff Only

ERA C '95

Galnlng Basr: For l Monrnouth -0pUon: 400

Drlll: 1 Data: f f f M 6

Scenario: Rome Lab from GrlMsr to Forl Monmoufh

~ l g h t Lab 0 4 1 Space available In Meyer Cenler. Army engineers

provlded unil cost. Added 5% support. 10% conl, b: , . SIOH, 5% BOS and 9% plenn~ng

1.32 Space available In Meyer Conler. Army enyllieers provlded unk cosl. Added 5% support. 10% conl. G s : a SIOH. 5% 8 0 s and 9% plannlng.

Othrr Rsquiremenlr 610-123 AF PLANT ADMINISTRATION OFFICE 0 40238 SF 1.18 Space available In Meyer Center. Army engineers

provMed unil cost. Added 5% support. 10% con(, 6:: SIOH, 5% BOS and 9% planning.

Total ((MI

MEDIUM LAB

HEAW LAB

LIGHT SClF

HEAW SClF

Remarks Prog'd Scope

Exceac Scope

0.2 Space avallabls In Meyer Cenler Army engl!ieers prwlded unil cosl. Added 5% support. 10% con(, 6% SIOH. 5% BOS and 9% plann~ng

UM C u m n t

Capaclty

0.28 Space available in Meyer Cenler. Army engineers provlded unR cost. Added 5% supporl. 10% conl, 6% SIOH. 5% 80s and 9% plannlng.

0.79 Space avallable In Meyer Cenler. Army englneers provlded unfl cost. Added 5% support. 10% con1 bO/, SIOH, 5% 80s and 9% plannlng

Sq Ratlo

1.32 Army engineers aid noi iheiudi $ j j i? iT i$ ?iiiililii:c i;i !he:: esllmate. Exlstlng Iumnure Is used end rnlsmalched AFMC Included system lumlture In the Rome lo Hanscom estimate. Include here also.

5.48

SR lo r In0 AcfI

Rome Lab # o f Unlt

[ h t r f g Unl l

Cat Codes

OTHER

Unlt Factor TIUel

Dorms 721.312 El-E4 ESE7

Requirement Dlnlng Halls 722.351

DORMITORY

AIRMEN DINING HALL (DETACHED)

Mllcon: 80s

I 3 ~5 4 4 1 PM CLOSE HOLD - BCEGIBCEG Staff Only

BRAC Milcon Esimate Worksheet ,, e Rome Lab to Hanscom (AF-09)

Gaining Base: Hanscom Option: 400 Drill : 1 Date : 02-03-1995 Sheet 1 of 1 for Scenario: ROM36201c Rome Lab to Hanscom (AF-09)

,Other Require I

Titles

I 610-123 I

AF PLANT ADMINISTRATION OF '31 0-924 Light Lab 312-477 MEDIUM LAB 310-911 HEAW LAB 6 10-000 LIGHT SClF 131-132 b HEAW SClF 35-000 OTHER

~00.000 poo-000 poo-000

,Military Family /7 10-000 FAMILY HOUSING I

Questionnaire Identified

Excess Scope

Mllcon: BOS

Subtotal

Subtotal 14.29 Planning

Program,d SCOPE

! TOTAL 15.58

Close Hold - BCEQIBCEG Staff Only

"IM 6% SlOH ($K)

TOTAL ($MI

Esimate Worksheet t o Move Rome Lab t o Hans0 '9)

Norksheet I of I for Scenario: ROM36201 &me Lab to Hanscom (AF-09)

610-123: Cost based on AFMCIXPICE site survey. Original: renovate facilities 1607 (46,700 SF) and 1605 (7,000 SF) at 70% of new construction costs. No renovations required for Facilities 1302F (28,000 SF) and 1302FA (13,300 SF). Phillips Lab space available = 64,000, therefore, NO scope provided. Total to Hansom is 54,762 SF. Total admin rqmt = 95,000 SF.

310-924: Cost based on AFMCIXPICE site survey. Original cost based on renovatlon of facilities 11020 (12,300 SF) and 1607 (16,500 SF). Used 70% of new construction costs. Phillips Lab has 100,000 SF available for light lab, therefore no renovation required. Total Light Lab requirement = 28,800 SF. Total to Hanscom is 16,602 SF.

312-477: Cost based on AFMCIXPICE site sumvey. Cost based on renovation of facility 1614 (30,436 SF) - space available from PL (13,200 SF). Use 70% of new construction cost = 17,236 SF. Adjust program amount to 12,065 SF. Total Medium Lab requirement = 52,800 SF.

31 0-91 1: Cost based on AFMCIXPICE site survey. Cost based on renovation of facility 1614 (2,121 SF). Use 70% of new construction cost. Adjust program amount 1,485 SF. Total Heavy Lab requirement = 3,680 SF.

610-000: Cost based on AFMCIXPICE site survey. Cost based on renovation of facility 1614 & 1st floor 1302F (11,990 SF). Use 70% of new construction cost. Adjust program amount 8,393 SF. Total Light SClF requirement = 11,990 SF.

131-132: Cost based on AFMCIXPICE site survey. Cost based on renovation of facility 1614 (13,373 SF). Use 70% of new construction cost. Adjust program amount 9,361 SF.

935-000: Total rqmt is 656 units. Hanscom rqmt is 378 units.

Close Hold - BCEG/BCEG Staff Only

'OR OFflW USE ONLY (1J Dcpas-tment of thc Air Force S w l t i o Devdqmeet Data Call Tadring

5 . O C h ~ G w J & ~ l n ~ ~ \ ? i a 0 ~ d Q I P l r i a u14d%Cfdlou(n~ublcloCduuir~."y&mrr c i a w ~ n c u m a t d u e ~ x m vrirh this tranrk. ~ w c a ~ proriats brief- - .

d ~ ~ ~ ~ i .

FOR 9 ~ 3 ~ ,yqr.y

V MEMORANDUM FOR HQ USAF/RTR

29 Dec 94

SUBJECT: One Time Movement Costs - Rome Lab West

FROM: HQ USAF/XP 4375 Chidlaw Rd/ Suite 6 Wright-Patterson AFB OH 45433-5006

1. The following equipment move to the new location if Rome Lab West is relocated. This is based on the assumption that only the equipment at Rome Lab will move and that the equipment at the test areas will stay.

ftJ;m lk.tUh3 Cryogenic Chamber $1,630.000K Large Anechoic Chamber 32,450.000K RF Shielded Enclosure $1,375.000K %all Anechoic Chamber $1 -368.000K Total One Time Moving Cost $6,823.000K

int of contact is myself at DSN 787-2622.

3. I certify this data is a m a t e to the best of my knowledge and belief.

Senior Logistics Analyst HQ AFMC/XPX, DSN 787-2622.

1 Atch BRAC '95 US AF Base Questionnaire, Section NN, Part B

I certifL this data is accurate to the best of my knowledge and belief.

T&Y L. BALVEN, Colonel, IJSAF Chief, Plans and Programs Integration Directorate of Plans I-IQ AFMCIX', DSN 787-7 100

ROME LABORATORY S c c t i o n IVN

A. Non Payroll B~idpct

n. Large, Unllsual Items Integral to the Mission

Docs the basc have large, unusaal items which a r e integral to the unit mission, but which cnnnot be moved as regular freight, ag., flight slmr~lntol.~?

Yes

Docs thc value of all the above equipment exceed SS00,000? Yes

I / ! If yes to both the above questions, identify the plece(s) of equipment. 12 ~ i r c r a f l used for R & D

1--

If yes to both the above questions, what Is the estfmate to TEARDOWN this equipment and prepare it f w movement?

I f ycs to 1)oth thc nbove hvo qucstions, what is the estimate to MOVE thls equipment 1000 mllcs?

I f ycs to both thc abovc two questions, what is the estimate to SETUP this equipment? S 1,100.000 K

Total cnst to teardown, move, and setup each item. $ 2,494.000 K

to 110th the above questions, identify the piece(s) of equipment. 22 Towers - 50 - 180 A length

I f ~ , c s to 110th the nbovc questions, what is the estimate to TEARDOWN this equipment and prepare it for movement? $ SOO.000 K

I f ycs to 110th thc above two questions, what is the estimate to MOVE this equipment 1000 miles? $ 57.000 K

I f ycs to both tllc ahotlc hvo questions, whai is ihe esiimaic i o SETu. flits cqiiipiiieiit? c . oqn ".--- nnn K

Total cost to tcnrd6\vn, move, and setup each item. $ 1,497.000 K

-i ---------------" 1995 AIR FORCE BAS& - JESTIONAIRE e! - ROME LABORATORY

I f yes to I~oth the ahovc questions, identify the piece(s) of equipment. Cryogenic Chnmber

I f gcs to both the above questions, what is t he estimate td TEARDOWN this equipment and prepare ft far movement? $750.000 K

I f yes to both the above two questions, what is the estfmnte to MOVE this equipment 1000 miles? $80.000 K

If yes to 110th the abovc two questions, what is the estimate to SETUP this equipment? $800.000 K

Total cost to teardown, r n o ~ ~ e , and sctup each item. $ 1,630.000 K

l f j.cs to both the a b ~ \ ~ e questions, identify the piece(s) of equipment. Large Anechoic Chamber

If yes to both the above questions, what is the estimate to TEARDOWN thls equipment and prepare it for movement?

I f yes to hot11 thc nbovc two qtlestions, what is the cstlmate to MOVE this eq111pment 1000 miles?

I f yes to both thc above two questions, what is the estimate to SETUP this equipment? $ 1,200.000 K

Totnl cost to teardown, movc, and setup each item. --.

$2,450.000 K I -

'i / h j c s t o i)otll the al)ovc questions, identify the piece(s) of equipment. LF/HF Tower - 1200ft

I I ycs to both the above qucstions, what is thc estimate to TEARDOWN this cq~iipmcnt ant1 prcpfire it for movement?

If !,cs to both the ahove two questions, what 1s the estimate to MOVE this equipment 1000 nliles?

I f yes to both thc abo\?e two questions, what is the estimnte to SETUP this equipment? $ 1,100.000 K

Total cost to teartlown, move, and setup each item. $ 2,400.000 K

i, /I:,' G ' t o liolll thc above questions, identify the pieee(s) of equipment. Microtvave Tower System

I f ycs lo I ~ o t l i the ahol'c qrlestions, tvhat is the estimate to TEARDOWN this equipnlcnt nnd prcparc it for movement? $600.nclO F:

If yes to botll the af)o\v. two questions, what is the esiirnaie io ivi0'v'E ibis eqiitfiiiiciit 2030 ziflcs? w Q A Q .-.--.. nnn K

If 1 . c ~ to hotll tfle ahovc two questions, what is thc estimate to SETUP thls equipment? S 600.000 K

Tntnl cost to fc~t. t lo\v~r, move, nncl sctap each item. .6 1,249.000 K

1995 AIR FORCE BAS ESTIONAI RE

- -- ROME LABORATORY

I f ),CS 10 both the above questions, identify the piece(s) of equipment. RF Shielded Enclosure

1 f ycs to both the above questions, what Is the estimate to TEARDOWN thls equipment and prepare it for tnovement? $600.000 K

I f ycs to 1 ~ 1 t h the above two questions, what is the estimate to MOVE this equlpmcnt 1000 miles? $75.000 K

I f ) cs to both the above two questions, tvhat is the estimate to SETUP this eqatpmcnt? $700.000 K .

Total cost to teardown, move, and setup each item, $ 1,375.000 K

If gcs to both the above qt~estions, identify the piece(s) of equipment. Small Anechoic Chamber

Jf j,cs to both the above questions, what is the estimate to TEARDOWN this equipment and prepare it for moverncnt? $600.000 K

I f ycs to I)otli the above two questions, what is the estimate to MOVE this equipment 1000 miles? . . $ 68.000 K

If ycs to botli the ahove t ~ v o questions, what fs the estimate to SETUP this equipment? $700.000 K

Total cost to tcartlown, move, and setup cach item. $ 1,368.000 K . .

Total cost to fcardolvn, move, nnd setup all items. $ 14,463.000 K

CERTIFICATION

1. According to 30 Nov 94 PCN SB004-024, Vehicle Master Lisf Rome Lab (RL) currently has 53 vehicle equivalences in its inventory.

2. RL's one time moving cost is the equipment moving cost. This was a rough order of magnitude estimate based on previous Phillips Lab Consolidation Study. Tfris was a grass roots effort accomplished during the 1991 round of base closures. Our o.Ece is currently trying to obtain a copy of this estimate. The cost of moving heavy research equipment was analyzed based on similar types of disassembly, transport, and reassemble costs. Contracts for test and d i t a t i on wwe not specifically addressed in this study under the assumption that government researchers would perform these findons as their £irst task before they d d begin using it. This cost does not include the costs of ]relocating the 9 off base research sites in the surrounding areas of Grifiiss AFB NY. Previous RL estimate for moving equipment was $14.4M.

I ce- that the above information is accurate and complete to the best of my knowledge and belief

/ Date: 27 Dec 94 , HQ AFMC/STCP, DSN: 787-656 1

CLOSE HOLD - B EG Staff Only

Galnlng Bas@: F o n Monmouth OptJon: 400

Drlll: 1 Dab: 1/19/96

Scenrrlo: Rome Lab from Grlff lu to Fort Monmouth

. -- .., SIOH, 5% 00.5 and 9% planning

310-924 Llghl Lab

Total

312-477 MEDIUM LAB

Pmg'd

310-911 HEAVY LAB

Exccaa

6 10-000 LIGHT SClF

131-132 HEAVY SClF

Othtr Requiremrnu 610-123 AF PLANT ADMINISTRATION OFFICE 0 40238 SF 1.18 Space avallable In Meyer Cenler. Army engineers

~rovlded IJnn WSl. Added 5% support, 10% rnnl 6%.

Scopr

SR lor InB Acfl

935-000 OTHER

Remarits UM Scope Currvnt # o f Sq Cat

DORMITORY

OM1 Unll Dl t r tg

Dorms 721-312 El-E4 ESE7

Requlrernenl Dining Halir 722-351 AIRMEN DINING HALL (DETACHED)

Rome Lab

0.41 Space available In Meyer Cenler. Army engineers provlded unH cost. Added 5 % support. 10% conl. 6% SIOH. 5% BOS and 9% planning.

Capaclty Unlt RaIIo

1.32 Space available in Meycr Conlar. Ariny ellyincers provided unn cosl. Added 5% supporl, 10X Lon[, L .: SIOH. 5% 8 0 s and 0% planning

Factor Unlt Coder

0.2 Space svaiiable In Meyer Cenlcr Army c:~rji~!-c!s provided unn cosl. Added 5% support. 10% con1 G% SIOH, 5% BOS and 9% plann~ng.

TlUea

0.26 Space avallable In Meyer Cenler. Army engineers provlded u n l cost. Added 5% support. 10% conl. 6% SIOH, 5% BOS and 9% planning.

9827 SF 0.19 Space avallable kl Meyer Center. Army engineers provlded u n l cost. Added 5% support. 10% conl. 6% SIOH. 5% BOS end 9% planning.

278 €A 1.32 A m y engineerr did n ~ i inciuiic2 5ysieii;i :imi:i;:o I:, !he;: ertlrnate. Exlstlng lumkure Is used and mlsmaiched AFMC hdudad system furniture In the Rome lo Hanawm estlmale. Include here also.

Mllcon: 6.48 80s 0.27

2 , 3 1 9 5 , 4 41 P M CLOSE HOLD - BCEGIBCEG Staff Only

CLOSE HOLD - t 2G Staff Only

Mlllury Family Houslng 715000 FAMILY HOUSING

Ofu Amn BRAC: 10 0

Sublotrl 6.75 Planning 0.62

Subtot~l 6.76

Total ( $MI UM

TOTAL 6.27

Ramrrks

Total SF: 94,995 SF

Curro~lt Capaclty

Exce l8 Scope

2 1 ~ ~ 9 s 4 4 1 PM CLOSE HOLD - BCEGIBCEG Staff Only

Prog'd S c o p

SR for InB Acfl

Romo Lab #of Unlt

Sq RaUo

Cat Codes

Unlt Factor Tltles

Detrr'g Unit

BRAC Milcon Esimate Worksheet rb e Rome Lab to Hanscom (AF-09)

Gaining Base: Hanscom Option: 400 Diill : I Date : 02-03-1995 Sheet I of 1 for Scenario: ROM36201c Rome Lab to Hanscom (AF-09)

CATEGORIES I I Titles Identified

Other Requlre b10-123 AF PLANT ADMINISTRATION OF 1310-924 Light Lab

1;; Z: MEDIUM LAB HEAW LAB

p::;:; LIGHT SClF HEAW SClF

j935-000 OTHER 000-000 000-COO boo-000

' ~ i l i t a r ~ Family - . A * FAMiii' "O"Siiu'i; ; I IU-UUU

Milcon: 12.99 BOS 1.30

Subtotal 14.29

Subtotal 14.29 Planning 1.29

TOTAL 15.58/

I i I_

Close Hold - BCEGtBCEG Staff Only

f .' Esimate Worksheet to Move Rome Lab to Hanscv 59)

r Worksheet I of 1 for Scenario: ROM36201 ome Lab to Hanscom (AF-09)

610-123: Cost based on AFMCIXPICE site survey. Original: renovate facilities 1607 (46,700 SF) and 1605 (7,000 SF) at 70% of new construction costs. No renovations required for Facilities 1302F (28,000 SF) and 1302FA (13,300 SF). Phillips Lab space av6ilable = 64,000, therefore, NO scope provided. Total to Hansom is 54,762 SF. Total admin rqmt = 95,000 SF.

310-924: Cost based on AFMCIXPICE site survey. Original cost based on renovation of facilities 1102D (12,300 SF) and 1607 (16,500 SF). Used 70% of new construction costs. Phillips Lab has 100,000 SF available for light lab, therefore no renovation required. Total Light Lab requirement = 28,800 SF. Total to Hanscom is 16,602 SF.

312-477: Cost based on AFMCIXPICE site sumvey. Cost based on renovation of facility 1614 (30,436 SF) - space available from PL (13,200 SF). Use 70% of new construction cost = 17,236 SF. Adjust program amount to 12,065 SF, Total Medium Lab requirement = 52,800 SF.

310-91 1: Cost based on AFMCIXPICE site survey. Cost based on renovation of facility 1614 (2,121 SF). Use 70% of new construction cost. Adjust program amount 1,485 SF. Total Heavy Lab requirement = 3,680 SF.

610-000: Cost based on AFMCIXPICE site survey. Cost based on renovation of facility 1614 & 1st floor 1302F (1 1,990 SF). Use 70% of new construction cost. Adjust program amount 8,393 SF. Total Light SClF requirement = 11,990 SF.

131-132: Cost based on AFMCIXPICE site survey. Cost based on renovation of facility 1614 (13,373 SF). Use 70% of new construction cost. Adjust program amount 9,361 SF.

935-000: Total rqmt is 656 units. Hanscom rqmt is 378 units.

Close Hold - BCEG/BCEG S t a f f Only

Item 4

Mr. Sherwood Boehlert's Second 17 Mar 95 Letter

COBRA REALIGNMENT SUMMARY (COBRA v 5 . 0 8 ) - Page 712 D a t a A s Of 16:15 02/04/1395. Report Created 16:18 02/04/1995

>artment : A i r Force i o n Package : Rome Lab t o F t Mnmth

enario F i l e : C : \ C O B R A \ L A B ~ ~ \ F I N A L \ J C S G \ R L - W . C B R w@' Std Fc t rs F i l e : C:\COBRA\LAB~~\FINAL\JCSG\OEPOTFIN.SFF

Star t ing Year : 1996 Final Year : 1999 ROI Year : 2003 (4 Years)

Met Costs (.$to Constant Ooltars 1996 1997 - - - - - ---

M i 1Con 4.370 5.462 Person 0 -664 Overhd 378 -591 Yo*f ng 0 4.050 ui8sio . O 0 Other 0 343

TOTAL 4.748 8,602 5.938 18.873 -11 .SO9 -11 .SO9

---- - - - - - - - - ---- ---- - - - - ,

WSITIONS ELIMINATED O f f 0 0 0 0 0 0 En l 0 0 0 0 0 (1 C i v 0 50 0 0 0 (1 TOT 0 50 0 0 0 0

POSITIONS REALIGNED O f f 0 0

0 0 En 1

S u a r y : -------- Closure o f Rome lab i n four years and move C3 and E lec t ro lRe l d i rec to ra te t o F t Mormouth. Other d i rec to ra tes t o Hanscom (plus some p u t s and takes) op t ion 4 (was opt ion 4.2)

Tota 1

Tota l - - - - -

Beyond

Screen 4 data i s from Army response Use j n f l a t e d Aray MILCON numbers (from AFICEP) O t h e r assumptions s im i la r t o AF run (consol idat ion savings on Hanscom move) Army upgrade numbers modified as appropriate. No savings taken due t o force s t r u c t u r e reduct ion a t Hanscom (geophysics)

COBRA REALIGNMENT SUWRY (COBRA "5.08) - Page 212 Data AS Of 16:15 02/04/1995. Report Created 16:18 02/04/1995

r tnen t : A i r Force ion Package : Rome Lab t o F t Mnmth u -

Scenario F i l e : C:\CO~RA\UB~~\FINAL\JCSG\RL-HM~Z.CBR Std F c t r s F i l e : C:\~RA\LAB95\FINAL\JCSC\DEPOTFIN.SFF

Costs (SIC) Constant Oot lars 1996 1997

M I lCon 4.370 5.462 Person 0 502 Overhd 378 780 Uoring 0 4.050 M i s f 0 0 0 Other 0 343

TOTAL 4.748 11.138 12.542 28.740 2.926 2,926

S.v{ngs ($to Constant 1996 ----

M i LCon 0 P e r w n 0 Overhd 0 -ing 0 M i 8 4 0 0 Other 0

00 1 t a r s 1997 ----

0 . 1.166 1.370

0 0 0

TOTAL 0 2,537 6,604 9.867 14,435 14.435

Tota 1

Tota 1

Beyond

Beyond

TOTAL ONE-TIME COST REPORT (COBRA "5.08) Data As O f 16:15 02/04/1995. Report Created 16:18 02/04/7995

tmen t : Air Force on Package : Rome Lab t o F t Mnmth Y

Scenario F i l e : C:\COBRA\LAB95\FINAL\JCSC\RL-HM~~.CBR Std Fct rs F i l e : C:\COBRA\LAB~~\FINAL\JCSG\OEPOTFIN.SFF

( A l l values i n Ootlars)

Category

Construction U i l i t a r y Construction F u i l y Housing Construction Information Managerent Account land Purchases

Total - Construction

Putoclne 1 C i v i l i a n RIF Civt l i a n Ear ly Retirecwnt Cfvt l l a n New Hires Eliminated Mi t i tory PCS Umr(, loyaent

Total - Personnel

Overhead P r o g r u P tanning Support ~ o t h b a l l 1 Shutdown

Total - Overhead

Wving C iv i l i a n Moving Clv l l i a n PPS Mi l i t a r y Wving

-eight - T h e Moving Costs - Moving --

- 2

Othar HAP / RSE Environmental Mit igat ion Costs One-Tire Unique Costs

Total - Other

Cost Sub-Total - - - - - - - - - - - - -

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Total One-Time Costs 52,805,976 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - One-Time Savings

M i l i t a r y Construction Cost Avoidances F u l l y Housing Cost Avoidances Ml l f ta ry Moving Land Sales One-Time Moving Savings Environmental Mit igat ion Savings One-Time Unique Savings

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Total One-Time Savings 15.700 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Total Net One-Tire Costs 52.790.276

TOTAL MILITARY CONSTRUCTION ASSETS (COBRA v5.08) Data As Of 16:15 02/04/1995, Report Created 16:lB 02/04/1995

tment : Air Force on Package : Rome Lab t o F t Mnmth V,

scenario F i l e : C:\COBRA\LAB9S\FIHAL\JCSC\RL-HM42.CBR Std F c t r s F i l e : C:\COBRA\LAB95\FINAL\JCSG\OEPOTFIN.SFF

A l l Costs i n SK Total I MA Land Cost

Bue N u e M i icon Cost Purch Avoid --------- ------ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - FT Y)NIY)UTH 6.270 0 0 0 ROK LAB 0 0 0 0 t4wSCOM 15.580 0 0 0 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Totals : 21.850 0 0 0

Total cost

- - - - - 6.270

0 15.580

, - - - - - - -

21.850

TOTAL APPROPRIATIONS OETAIL REPORT (U3BRA ~5.08) - Page 113 Oata As Of 16:15 02/04/!995, Report c r e a t e d 16:18 02/04/1995

r t m e n t : A i r F o r c e t i o n Package : Rome Lab t o F t Mnmth w

S c e n a r i o F i l e : C:\COBRA\LAB~~\FINAL\JCSC\RL-HM~~.C~R S t d F c t r s F i l e : C:\COBRA\CAB~~\FINAL\JCSG\OEPOTFIN.SFF

OM-TIME COSTS -----($-q----- CWSTRUCTION uILQn( F u H o u s i n g bnd P u r c h

oa4 CIV SALARY

C l v R I F C l v R e t i r e

C I V W I N G P u Diem POV M i 10s H a e P u r c h fwc M i s c W s o Hunt PPS RITA FREIGHT P ~ k l n g F r e i g h t V e h i c l e s O r i v i n g

Uneep L o p e n t OTHER

P r o g r a P l a n Shutdown Maw H i r e

P e r O i e a POV M i l e s t(HG

M i s c OTHER

E l l a PCS OTHER HAP 1 RSE E n v i r o n m e n t a l Info Manage 1-Time O t h e r

TOTAL ONE-TIME

T o t a l - - - - -

TOTAL APPROPRIATIONS OETAIC REPORT (COBRA ~5.08) - Page 213 Data As Of 16:15 02/04/1995. Report Created 16:18 02/04/1995

ar tment : A i r F o r c e i o n Package : Rome Lab t o F t Mnmth

Scenar io F i l e : C:\COBRA\LAB~~\FINAL\JCSG\RL-HM42.CBR S t d F c t r s F i l e : C:\COBRA\LAB95\FINAL\JCSG\OEPOTFIN.SFF

RECURRINGCOSTS -----(W)----- FA(I m u s E OPS om

RPUA BOS Unique Opera t Civ S a l a r y O(AYWS b r o t a k e r

M I L PERSONNEL O f f S a l a r y E n 1 S a l a r y House A l l w

OTHER M i s s i o n MI= Recur U n i q w Other

TOTAL RECUR

T o t a 1 - - - - -

0

Beyond - - - - - -

0

TOTAL COST 4.748 11.138 12.542 28.740 2.926 2.926

ONE-TIME SAVES 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 -----(a) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - COMSTRUCTION

MILCON 0 0 0 0 0 0 F n Housing 0 0 0 0 0 0

OW --Time Move 0 0 0 0 0 0

T o t a 1 - - - - -

Land Sa lcs 0 0 0 0 0 0 E n v i r o m e n t a L 0 0 0 - 0 0 0 1-Time Other 0 0 0 0 0 0

TOTM ONE -TIME 0 0 3 12 0 0

REUJRRINGSAVES -----(W)----- FALl HOUSE OPS a t 4

RPUA 80s Un ique Opcra t C i v S a l a r y CHAMPUS

MIL PERSONNEL O f f S a l a r y En1 S a l a r y House A 1 low

OTHER Procurement M i s s i o n M i s c Recur . Un ique Other

TOTAL RECUR

T o t a l - - - - -

0

Beyond - - - - - -

0

TOTAL SAVINGS 0 2.537 6,604 9,867 14,435 14,435

TOTAL APPROPRIATIONS OETAIL REPORT (COBRA ~5.08) - Page 313 Oata As Of 16:15 02/04/1995, Report Created 16:18 02/04/1995

rtment : Air Force ion Package : Rome Lab to Ft Mnmth *

Scenario File : C:\COBRA\LAB95\FIHAL\JCSG\RL-HM42.C8R Std Fctrs File : C:\COBRA\LABSS\FINAL\JCSG\OEPOTFIN.SFF

OWE-TIME NET - - - - - (* ) - - - - - CONSTRUCT1 ON MILCON F u Mousing om

Cfw Retir/RIF C l w Moving Other MIL PERSONNEL

Mi 1 Moving O W E R W / RSE Emlroruenta 1 In fo Manage 1 - T i m Other Land

TOTAL ONE-TIME

Tota 1 - - - - -

Beyond - - - - - - 0

RECURRING NET ----- (W) - -- -- FAY HOUSE OPS 0&4

RPMA BOS Unlque Operat Caretaker Civ Salary W U S

Tota 1 - - - - - 0

PERSONNEL

. . I Salary % House A1 low

OTHER Procurement Mission Misc Recur Unique Other

TOTAL RECUR

TOTAL NET COST 4,748 8,602 5.938 18,873

INPUT OATA REPORT (COBRA 6 . 0 8 ) Data A s O f 16:15 02/04/1995, Report c r e z t e d 16:18 02/04/1995

tment : Ai r Force on Package : Rome Lab t o F t Mnmth u

Scenario F i l e : C : \ ~ B R A \ L A B ~ ~ \ F I N A L \ J C S G \ R L - M ~ ~ . C B R Std F c t r s FiLe : C:\COBRA\LAB~~\FINAL\JCSC\DEPOTFIN.SFF

INPUT SCREEN ONE - GENERAL SCENARIO INFORMATION

Model Year One : FY 1996

Model does Time-Phasing o f ConstructionIShutdwn: No

Strategy: --------- Realignment Closes i n FY 1999 Realignaent

S u r u r y : -------- Ctwcrro o f R a e Lab i n four years and move C3 and ELectrolRel d i rec to ra te t o F t Uonaouth. Other d i rec to ra tes t o tianscor (p lus soae pu ts and takes) o p t l o o 4 (was opt ion 4.2) Screen 4 data i s from Army response U w I n f l a t e d Army MILCOW numbers (fror AF/CEP) Othor u r u p t i o n s s i m i l a r t o AF run (consol idat ion savings on lianscom move) Army upgrada n u b e r s modi f ied as appropriate. No u v i n g s taken due t o fo rce s t ruc tu re reduct ion a t H a n x a (geophysics)

INPUT SCREEN TWO - DISTANCE TABLE

From Base: ---------- R Y)((MWTH, NJ

'F M. MY

To Base: - - - - - - - - R O E LAB. NY HANSCOM, MA

T SCREEN THREE - MOVEMENT TABLE 7s

Transfers from ROME LAB. NY t o FT MONMWTH. NJ

1996 - - - -

O f f i c e r Positions: 0 E n l i s t e d Positions: 0 C i v i l i a n Positions: 0 Student Positions: 0 Uirm Eqpt (tons): 0 Suppt Eqpt (tons): 0 Mi l i t a r y L ight Vehicles: 0 HeavyISpecia 1 Vehicles: 0

Transfers from ROME LAB. NY t o HANSCOM. MA

O f f i c e r Posit ions: E n l i s t e d Posit ions: C i v i l i a n Positions: Student Positions: Uissn Eqpt (tons): Suppt Eqpt (tons): Mi l i t a r y L ight Vehicles: HeavyISpecial Vehicles:

Distance: - - - - - - - - -

276 m i 276 m i

INPUT DATA REPORT (COBRA ~5 .08 ) - Page 2 D a t a As Of 16:15 02/04/1995. Report Created 16:18 02/04/1995

: A i r Force ion Package : Rome Lab to Ft Mnmth

Scenario F i l e : C:\COBRA\CABgS\FINAL\JCSG\RL-HM42.c8~ Std Fctrs F i l e : C:\CO~RA\LAB~~\FINAL\JCSG\DEPOTFIN.SFF

INPUT SCREEN FOUR - STATIC BASE INFORMATION

Tota l Off icer Employees: To ta l Enlisted Employees: Tota l Student Employees: Tota l C i v i l i an Eqloyees: M I 1 F r i l i e s L iv ing On Base: C I v i l I a m Not Wi l l ing To Move: Off fcer Housing Units Avai 1: Enl is ted Housing Uni ts Avai 1: Tota l Base Faci lit iar(KSF): Of f icer YtU ($/Month): Enl fsted VHA ($/Month): Per 01- Rate ($/Day): Freight wt (S/Ton/Mi le) :

Mama: ROUE LAB. NY

To ta l Off lcer hployees: Tota l Enlisted Employees: Tota l Student Employees: Tota l C iv i l i an Employees: Ui l F u i l i e s Lf ving On Base: C i v i l i ans Not Wi l l ing To Move: Off icer Housing Units Avail : Enl is ted Housing Uni ts Avai 1: Tat& l Bare Faci lit ies(KSF) :

f icer V'tU ($/Month): i s ted VHA ($/Month):

a O l a Rate ($/Day):

Freight Cast (SITonlMi le) :

To ta l Off icer Employees: Tota l Enlisted Eaployees: Tota l Student Eaployees: Tota l C iv i l i an Employees: MI 1 F u i l i e s L iv ing On Base: C i v i l ians Not Wi l l ing T o Wove: Of f i cer Housing Units Avai 1: Enlfsted Housing Units Avai 1: To ta l Base Faci li ties(KSF) : Of f icer VHA ( t l h n t h ) : Enl is ted VHA ($/Month) : Per O i e m Rate ($/Day): Freight Cost ($ITon/Mile):

RPMA Non-Payroll (%/Year): Coaunications (SXJYear): BOS Won-Payroll (%/Year): BOS Payro l l (%/Year): F u i l y Housing (SKIYear): Area Cost Factor: CHALlPIlS In-Pat ($/Visit): CHAMPUS Out-Pat ($/Visit): CHAMPUS S h i f t t o Uedicare: A c t i v i t y Code:

Hoaeorner Assistance Program: Unique Ac t i v i t y Information:

RPMA Non-Payrol l (%/Year ) : Caaunications (WYaar): BOS Non-Payroll (S lyear ) : BOS Payrol l (%/Year): Fami l y Housing (SKIYcar) : Area Cost Factor: CHALlPUS In-Pat ($/Vis i t ) : CHAMf'US Out-Pat ($/Visit): CHAMPUS S h i f t t o Medicare: A c t i v i t y Code:

Homeowner Assistance Prograrn: Unique Ac t i v i t y Information:

RPMA Non-Payroll (%/Year): Coamunications (%/Year): 80s Non-Payroll (%/Year): BOS Payro l l (%/Year): Fami l y Housing (%/Year) : Area Cost Factor: CHAMPUS In-Pat ($/Visit): W U S Out-Pat ($/Visit): CHALIPUS Sh i f t t o Medicare: Ac t i v i t y Code:

Hweowner Assistance Program: Unique Ac t i v i t y Information:

Yes No

Yes No

INPUT DATA REPORT (COBRA ~ 5 . 0 8 ) - Page 3 Oata A s Of 16:15 02/0411995, Report Created 1 6 ~ 1 8 02/04/1995

rtment : A i r Force Package : Rome Lab t o Ft Mnmth

Scenario F i l e : C:\COBRA\LAB95\FINAL\JCSG\RL-W42.c~~ Std Fctrs F i l e : C:\COBRA\LAB~~\FINAL\JCSG\DEPOTFIN.SFF

W w : FT MOHMOUTH. NJ

1-TIM Unique Cost ($lo: 1-TIM Unique Save (a): 1-Tima Moving Cost ($lo: 1-TIM Moving Save ($Yo: Em Won-Uf I a n Reqd(%): Ac t lv Mission Cos t (a): Act iv Mission Save ($to: Wrc Recurring Cost($?o: Mire Recurring S.ve(S): Land (+Buy/-Sales) (S): Construction Schedule(%) : Shutdown schedule (%): MI 1- Cost Avoidnc(B(): F r Mousing Avoldnc($lo: Procurement Avoidnc(%) : CHMPUS In-PatientslYr: -US Out-Patients/Yr: F a c i l ShutOam(KSF):

1997 1998 1999 2000 ---- ---- - - - - - --- 88 118 386 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

25% 25% 30% 0% 0% 0% OX 0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Perc Family Housing ShutDom:

W-: ROME LAB. NY 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 - - - - ---- ---- - - - - - - - -

1-Time Unique Cost ($lo: 0 89 119 389 0 ' -Time Unique Save (W): 0 0 0 0 0

'im Moving Cost (S):

1V 0 1.023 1,364 4.436 0

ire Moving Save (W): 0 0 0 0 0 '-4 nv Won-Mi lCon Reqd(B() : 0 0 0 0 0

Act iv Mission Cost (SK): 0 0 0 0 0 Act iv Mission Save ($40: 0 0 0 0 0 U i t c Recurring Cost(%): 0 0 0 0 0 Mirc Recurring Save($io : 0 0 0 0 0 Land (+Buy/-Sales) ($lo : 0 0 0 0 0 Construction Schedu la(%) : 100% OX 0% 0% 0% Shutdown Schedule (X): 0% 33% 33% 34% 0% Mi LCon Cost Avoidnc(W) : 0 0 0 0 0 F u Housing Avoidnc(B() : 0 0 0 0 0 Procurement Avoldnc(SK): 0 0 0 0 0 W U S In-PatientslYr: 0 0 0 0 0 W U S Out-PatientsIYr: 0 0 0 0 0 Faci I ShutOown(KSF) : 177 Perc Family Housing Shutown:

Ware: HANSWM. MA 1996 - - - -

1-Time Unique Cost ($lo: 0 1-Time Unique Save (.$lo: 0 1-Time Moving Cost ($lo: 0 I-Time Moving Save ($to: 0 Env Non-MilCon Reqd($K): 0 Act iv Mission Cost ($to: 0 Act iv Mission Save (a): 0 M i x Recurring Cost(%): 0 Misc Recurring Save($K) : 0 Land (+Buy/-Sales) (SK): 0 Construction Schedule(%): 20% Shutdown Schedule (X): lOOX Mi [Con Cost Avoidnc($U) : 0

m Housing Avoidnc($K) : 0 curement Avoidnc($K): 0 MPUS In-PatientsIYr : 0

CHAMPUS Out-PatientslYr: 0

1997 1998 1999 2000 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 0 0 - 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

. 25% 25% 30% OX 0% 0% 0% 0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Perc F a m i l y Housing ShutDown:

INPUT DATA REPORT (COBRA v5.08) - Page 4 Data A s O f 16:15 02/04/1995, Report Created 16:18 02/04/1995

: A i r Force on Package : Rome Lab t o F t Mnmth

: C : \ C O B R A \ L A B ~ ~ \ F I N A L \ J C S C \ R L - ~ 4 2 . c ~ ~ Std F c t r s F i l e : C:\CO~RA\LA~~~\FINAL\JCSC\DEPOTFIN.SFF

INPUT SCREEN SIX - BASE PERSONNEL INFORMATION

---- O f f For- St ruc Change: 0 En1 Force Strue Change: 0 Cfv Force Struc Change: 0 Sta Force Struc Change: 0 O f f Scenario Change: 0 En1 Scenario Change: 0 Clv Seafurlo Change: 0 O f f Ch.nge(No S a l Save) : 0 En 1 Ch.nge(No Sa 1 Save) : 0 . Civ Ch.nga(No Sa l Save): 0 C.retakers - Mi l i t a r y : 0 Caretakers - C i v i l ian: 0

XWeUT SCREEN SEVEN - BASE MILITARY CONSTRUCTION INFOWTfON

Ooseript ion Categ New Mi LCon Rehab Mi [Can To ta l Cost($K) ------------ - - - - - ---------- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - UWI YILCMl OTHER 0 0 6,270 CE EStimat 2/3/95

x r i p t i o n Cat eg New Mi lCon Rehab Mi [Can Tota 1 Cast (a) -------- ----- ---------- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ------------ i o n Faci li t i e s OTHER 0 0 15,580

CE Estimate 2/3/95

STANOAR0 FACTORS SCREEN ONE - PERSONNEL

Percent O f f i c e r s Married: 76.80% Percent En l i s ted Married: 66.90% E n l i s t e d Housing M i 1Con: 80.00% O f f i c e r Salary($/Year): 78.668.00 O f f BAQ w i t h Dependents($): 7.073.00 E n l l r t e d Salary(S/Year) : 36,148.00 En1 m a 4 t h Dependents($): 5.162.00 Avg Uneq~ loy Cost($/Week): 174.00 Uneeployrant E l l g i b i Lity(Weeks): 18 C l v l l l a n Salary(S/Year): 46,642.00 C i v i l i a n Turnover Rate: 15.00% C i v i l i a n Ear l y R e t i r e Rate: 10.00% C l v i l i a n Regular R e t i r e Rate: 5.00% C i v i l i a n RIF Pay Factor: 39.00% SF F i l e Oesc: F i na 1 Factors

STANOARO FACTORS SCREEN TWO - FACILITIES

RPMA Bu i ld ing SF Cost Index: 0.93 80s Index (RPMA vs populat ion): 0.54

(Indices are used as exponents) Program Management Factor: 10.00% Caretaker Admin(SF/Care): 162.00 Mothbal l Cost ($/SF): 1.25 Avg Bachelor Quarters(SF): 256.00 Avg Family Quarters(SF): 1,320.00 'OPOET-RPT I n f l a t i o n Rates:

Civ Ear l y Re t i re Pay Factor: 9.00% P r i o r i t y Placement Service: 60.00% PPS Actions Invo lv ing PCS: 50.00% C i v i l i a n PCS Costs (S): 28.800.00 C i v i l i a n New H i r e Cost($): 4.000.00 Mat Lkdian Home Price(S): 114.600.00 W e Sale Raimbursa Rate: 10.00% Max Home Sale Reiaburs($): 22,385.00 Hocw Purch Reimburse Rats: 5.00% Max Home Purch Raimburs($): 11.191.00 C i v i l i a n Homeowning Rate: 64.00% MAP Home Value Reimburse Rate: 22.90% HAP Hoaeowner Receiving Rate: 5.00% RSE Home Value Reimburse Rate: 0.00% RSE Homeowner Receiving Rate: 0.00%

Rehab vs. New MiLCon Cost: I n f o Management Account: Mi [Con Design Rate: Mi lCon SIOH Rate: MiLCon Contingency Plan Rate: MilCon S i t e Preparation Rate: Discount Rate for NPV.RPT/ROI: I n f l a t i o n Rate fo r NPV.RPT/ROI:

INPUT DATA REPORT (COBRA vS.08) - Page 5 Oata As O f 16:15 02/04/1995. Report Created 16:18 02/04/1995

: A i r Force on Package : Rome Lab t o Ft Mnrnth

: C:\COBRA\LAB~~\FINAL\JCSC\RL-HM~~.CBR Std Fctrs F i l e : C:\COBRA\~A~~~\FINAL\JCSC\OEPOTFIU.SFF

STANOARO FACTORS SCREEN THREE - TRANSPORTATION

M a t e r i a l l ~ i g n e d Person(Lb): 710 WO Per Of f Family (Lb): 14.500.00 HHO Per En1 Fmi l y (Lb): 9.000.00 W 3 h r U i l S i n g l e ( C b ) : 6.400.00 WO Per C i v i l imn (Lb): 18.000.00 Total Hm; Cost (SIlOOLb): 35.00 A i r Transport ($/Pass Mile): 0.20 M i u Exp (S/Oirect Employ): 700.00

Equip Pack & Crate($/Ton): 284.00 M i 1 Light Vehicle($/Mi le) : 0.43 HeavylSpec Vehicle($/Mile): 1.40 POV Reicbursement($/Mile): 0.18 Avg M i l Tour Length (Years): 4.10 Routine PCS($/PerslTour): 6.437.00 One-Ti- O f f PCS Cost($): 9.142.00 One-Time En1 PCS Cost($): 5.761.00

StU(OARO FACTORS SCREEN FOUR - MILITARY CONSTRUCTIOH

l b r i t o n t a l W t o r f ron t A i r Operations ap.r.tlon.1 Ad. ia i* t rat ive &hoot Buildings Maintenance Shops behe lo r Quarters F u i l y Quarters Cav.red Storage Ofning Faci l i t i e s Rocreation Faci L i t i e s Corunfcations FaciL shipyard Maintenance

& E F a c i l i t i e s Storage n i t i o n Storage

Medical Faci l i t i e s Envi ronaenta 1

Category UM $/UM -------- - - - - - - other (sf) 0 OptionalCategoryB ( ) 0 Optional Category C ( ) 0 . Optional Cdtegory D ( ) 0 Optional Category E ( ) 0 Optional Category F ( ) 0 Optional Category G ( ) 0 Optional Category H ( ) 0 OptionalCategoryI ( ) 0 Optional Category J ( ) 0 Optional Category K ( ) 0 Optional Category L ( ) 0 Optional Category M ( ) 0 Optional Category H ( ) 0 Optional Category 0 ( ) 0 Optional Category P ( ) 0 Optional Category Q ( ) 0 Optional Category R ( ) 0

03,'?0:95 17:50 22s 1891 . I - COSG BOEHLERT

SHERWoOD BOEHLERT 230 D~srnrcr. NF* yoq*

COMMITTEES.

SCIENCE SUSCOMMITTEE ON BASIC RESEARCH -

~AKSPORTATION Ah.0 INFRASTRUCTURE CHAIRMAN, SUSCUMMITEE Oh.

WATER RESOURCES AN0 ENVIRONHE%T SUICOMMfllEE ON RAILROADS -

U.% XUG4n0N. NOR34 A;UNnC IS-IW WA7IW. NORWLPSr XrnC~lwK CIUCYS CM*CIU.Y. WAYW CEM;UE W U L L CAUCUS

WASHINGTON CFFICE:

2240 R*WUFIN HOUSE OFFICE BUILOIKG WASHINGTON, OC 23515-3213

(202) 225-36s Fax: (2021 Z!5-1881

E.IJa;t: BOEHLERT@HR.HOUX GGV

CENTRAL WEE:

A L W N O E R PlRNlE FEOEUC BUILDING 10 BROAD STREET - -

UTICA. NEW YORK 13541 (315) 7-614

Fox: (315) 7~6-4099

TOLL FREE: 1-WO-23WU5

March 20, 1995

The Honorable Sheila Widrzall Secretary Department of The Air Force s w / o s 1570 Air Force Pentagon PTashington, DC 20330

Dear Madzm Secretary:

I appreciate your attent:.ve ard timely responses to my inquires on R o m e Lab. I need mors infom.tion to fully aaalyze the military construction estima~es used i ~ . your analysis.

(1) How much excess space was identified as available at Fort Monmouth for receiving R0n.e Lib functions?

(2 ) Was this space evaluz ted fcr specific utility for the relocating w Zunctioas, or wzs ic idantifie d only as square footaye by category of space?

(31 Did the Secretary of the Azmy or his staff certify the availajility 02 the space, zpgarerily identified as excess, at lort Monmouth? And, is ii certifi~d tht this space was not required for other uses, including the radrctioc o f off-post leased space in accordance with Department of Defense policy?

(4 ) Were the constructior estimates at Fort Monmouth provided by Fort Monmouth or were they prepared by Department of Army staff?

( 5 ) Did the Secretary of the Army o r his staff certify the construction estimates at Fort Monmouth? Did the Secretary of the Amy certify the informarion used in accordance with the services' internal control plans and, i f so, please provide rne copies of the data with the appropriate certifications?

On a similar note. the dzastic change from the Air Force's assessment in the level playing field COBRA analysis and the final recommendation analysis is sigaiticant . Apparently. a large amount of facilities not previously identified as available at Hanscom AFB nust have been subsequently identified. Please provide me with the certified data showing the space identified at Hanscom as available and an explanation of how and when this space became available.

Qlu" And finally, I would like copies of the certified data that shows how any excess facilities at Hanscorn AFB were assessed f o r compatibility with the Rome Lab functions pr2posed in the move.

THIS STATIONEW 21 NTEO OW P I l K R MAOE OF REC(CLE0 FI8ERS

COSG BOEHLERT @003.'013

I realize that the labor- t tory issue was a very difficult one to address. I also understand t ! i a t you and your staff are very busy right now, but I need answers to thltse questions quickly so that 1 can have them by 29 March 1995 in adva:rce of the ~ p r i l 5th Defense Base Closure and Realignment omm mission vi::it to Rome Lab.

I look forward to your rrtply and appreciate your cooperation.

With warmest regards,

SB: ew

Member of vongress

DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE: WASHINGTON DC 20330- 1000

OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY

SAF/LLP 1160 Air Force Pentagon Washington, DC 20330-1160

The Honorable Sherwood L. Boehlert House of Representatives Washington, DC 20515-3223

Dear Mr. Boehlert

This is in response to your letter of March 20, 1995, to the Secretary of the Air Force requesting additional information concerning the Department of Defense (DoD) recommendation to close Rome Laboratory, New York, and relocate its functions to Hanscom Air Force Base (AFB), Massachusetts, and Fort Monmouth, New 111 Jersey. Responses to your questions are as follows:

QUESTION 1: How much excess space was identified as available at Fort Monmouth for receiving Rome Lab functions?

RESPONSE: The excess space was identified by the Army Basing Study (TABS) Office (Attachment 1) as follows:

Administrative - 95,000 SF Light industrial Laboratory - 36,0800 SF Medium industrial laboratory - 66,000 SF Heavy industrial laboratory - 4,600 SF ~ight specialized Compartmentalized Information Facility (SCIF) - 26,000 SF I m Heavy Specialized Compartmentalized Information ~acility (SCIF) - 29,000 SF

QUESTION 2: Was this space evaluated for a specific utility for the relocating functions, or was it identified only as square footage by category of space?

RESPONSE: The space was identified by the Army as square footage by category. However, the Air Force sent an Air Force Civil Engineering (AF/CE) and Air Force Realignment and Transition (AF/RT) team to perform a preliminary site survey to ensure the credibility of the Army response. We plan t:o perform a detailed site survey on April 10-14, 1995, to identify the square footage, building types, and locations of areas where industrial elements now at Rome Lab are to be located at Fort Monmouth. This information will be provided to your office upon receipt.

QUESTION 3: Did the Secretary of the P~rmy or his staff certify the availability of the space, apparently identified as excess, at Fort Monmouth? And, is it certified that this space was not required for other uses, including the reduction of off- post leased space in accordance with Department of Defense policy?

RESPONSE: This space was certified by the Army Basing Study (TABS) Office (Attachment 1). In addition, the Commander of Fort Monmouth certified that all of the requirements for Air Force use of Fort Monmouth facilities were met (Attachment 2).

QUESTION 4: Were the construction estimates at Fort Monmouth provided by Fort Monmouth or were they prepared by Department of Army Staff?

RESPONSE: The parameters for the construction estimates were prepared by Fort Monmouth and reviewed and certified by Department of the Army staff (Attachment 1). The actual construction estimates, using the Army certified parameters, were prepared by AF/CE (Attachment 3).

QUESTION 5: Did the Secretary of the Army or his staff certify the construction estimates at Fort Monmouth? Did the Secretary of the Army certify the information used in accordance with the Services1 internal control plans and, if so, please provide me copies of the data with the appropriate certifications?

RESPONSE: The parameters for the construction estimates were prepared by Fort Monmouth and reviewed and certified by Department of the Army staff. The actual construction estimates, using the Army certified parameters were prepared by AF/CE (Attachment 3). The certifications of the Fort Monmouth Commander (Attachment 2) and the Department of the Army (Attachment 4) are attached.

QUESTION 6: On a similar note, the drastic change from the Air Force's assessment in the level playing field COBRA analysis and the final recommendation analysis is sig.nificant. Apparently, a large amount of facilities not previously identified as available at Hanscom AFB must have been subslequently identified. Please provide me with the certified data showing the space identified at Hanscom AFB as available and an explanation of how and when this space became available.

RESPONSE: The significant reduction in military construction w (MILCON) for the Rome Lab closure is primarily attributable to a change in the primary assumptions and the relocation of the personnel to two installations. The level playing field estimate assumed that the Rome Lab facilities would have to be rebuilt in their entirety at the receiving site (new construction) while the current assumption is that they must be accommodated with either existing facilities or new construction. A preliminary site survey was conducted in December 1994 to chec:k the facility availability. The AF/CE estimate for the rec:ommendation COBRA (Attachment 5) shows space identified and MI1,CON requirements for Hanscom AFB. In addition, approximately 40 percent of the Rome Lab personnel and the associated space requirement, is currently projected to be housed at Fort Monmouth.

Lastly, your request for copies of the czertified data that shows how many excess facilities at Hanscom PLFB were assessed for compatibility with Rome Lab functions proposed in the move will be provided upon completion of our site survey referenced in Question 2.

We trust the information provided is useful.

Chief, Programs and Legislation Division

Office of Legislative Liaison

5 Attachments

W '5 TUE 13:16 fWXL-PE-IF/BRAC - FAX NO. 908 532 93M P. (Is

w FOR O F m m us ONY . Dqa~t rnen t of thc ~ i r Force Scenario D e ~ ~ c p m e n t Data Tasking

Jkl'l It3 '95 12:431

'-19-35 1Q-43 FROM -IT,. . .-

-85FRI 15:11 . - m-PE - .F/BWiC.'

. O ~ ~ ~ O F ~ A R M Y . tru\DQuARiiRS- US ARMy COMMUNIa-CS CO-M)

AND FDRTMONMOUTti f&lT ~0NMOUTt-f. NEW JERW OTzO2-XUJ

: MSlDRANDnM TDR -at=, U.S. A m Xatedel C~UJQUI.& X T X : AHCEID-IT, i (Janet Bcnskh) , so01 biaenhawcc ~ v e . , =uandri.a,

VA 22333

I 9WS6CT: aRAC 95 IMta Call for AF-101 Pome Cmb G-ba ML Forcr Bass i - t

i 1. 3defe+w 18 zaa+ to che follouinpr t

b. / ~ h s a y -ing study (TAM) oface rqyest co 1.2 an 95 for I cpcar t* -1 *a b z l p . g . 2 of it* prcviouu -cat&on to d i F T f y iirsue Fdantified by the Alr Force.

I f ' 2. .The &-cad CKQH aubab.sioa sddreaaed the dais clU raqrrest'sd

<-. '?r rbe Air- S-0 AF-16. The af? call kl&fZd a 02 2S6,WO squm fee= of spece pccdrd for the zelecat.lou of Xazt Nosmourh. 9asw qutS3.a~~ was QiSad -cj tho thc rtieranced curc5ficatiorr, lea., CECGH's abLlitg to mstt

I - . . -3. All' of tbc IUL- add.nhcraES.wc Idboxacoq & unique spa- 1 r~~ identified by * Afr rake i n the data cdll ior2Kr Ebrw

' 4 Soeaario -10 ace wst. a d d f t i o ~ - - &a the wriqclr - - 1 i M t q mipirema3tcs i & t ~ . ~ ~ o d i n ~ h + C I Z L ~ c a ~ ( w a a i c -ax,

machoie &mabex and RF sh iddod epclosuro).

4. , X e y that: the ido-ation wntzlpad herein is 8a3Lrrk 7 4

comptate ;to Hae k t of m y lcnaulsdgs and balLaf. I . - . 1 5. . PD&C of contact Lor this actlaq i. ??zank 5. Oulffo, 038 992-5937-

V FOR OmCIAL USE OItiL'i!*

@ nEMmu6Nt OF THE ARILlY ~ ~ U S . A R W I ~ C O Y Y I W O

ddQI-=-(IIIZtrraaan- @ = -OF

Az!lcRD-fi 11 January 1995

HEm)- FOR C O ~ HICffAEt G- JONES, DIRECTOR, Tff& ARMY BASING S-Y OPFfCE, 200 ASW PENTAWN, ---- -.

WASEIHGTON, D.C. 20310-0200

Stl8JECP: Base Realignment and closure (BRAC) 95 Department of the A k FotC0 (AF) Scana2do Development Data Tasking AFlO (Revised)

-

2. As requested above reference, AF data farms hisve been annotated to prooide appropriate certifid data (and) . As . w i t h the previously submitted Laboratorios Joht Cruoo-sexvice C K N ~ BRAC 95 data subdssions, we have m a h t d n s d auditable record5 at a11 levels of the command, which are on f f le in the IXsaaSUarkc;uc, U. S. Material Cormnand (HQ AHC) , RDTE In-ion Division. The data vas certifiad .by appropriate elements vitI13.B each subordine& cammand and revie- by appropriate w i a * each subardinate cammand and .~v fewed by HQ AHC senior level.

. officials. 3- The following exceptions and comments apply:

a. !Chis command has recently prcwida8 similar data far a scenario to potentially relocate/collocate a Navy d s i o n to Fort Momouth4 If both the N a v y and Air Force scenarios are approved as BRAC 95 adoris, Fort Monmouth would be able to ac=commodate both missions, but in separate locations, w i t h modif.icstions for office or lab space.

b. The AF submission also provides for the relocation of the Rome Lab into the hyer Centex , which currently is a U.S. Army C O m m d c a t i o n s - E l e c t r o n i c s Command Research and Development facility. The majority of the space requirements are met utilizing w p n c e w h i c h will be vacated by the U.S ~ r ~ n : y R ~ f 3 e a r c h Laboratory's Electronics and Power Sources Directorate in FY97, as a result of a HRAC 91 action, Although the cost of space requircmants to accclmmodata unique equipment ( i -e . , large and small anechoic chambers, cryogenic chamber and RF shielded enclosure) have been included in the cost estimates, t h e cost estimate could be raduced significantly if'the use of those same types of facilities/equipment currently in existence at F o r t Momouth were to be shared w i t h the ~ i r Force laboratory. Additionally, shared use of those existing facil it ies would reduco the relocation cost for t h a t unique equipment-

m - d

'W.I-11-1995 89:30 FROM W1CRD-IT w

AMCBD-XT SU+TEcT.: Base Reali-at and closure (BRAC) 95 R e p r t m e n t of the A i r Force (AF) Saenario Oenrelopment Data Tasldng Arlo (~evised)

c. Ala-qugh we have presmmblp: included space for the 76 BASOPS personnel in.our cost esthates, the rehabilitation cost could be reduced if the BASOPS support personnel were to be wnsolidated and collocated w i t h existing BASOPS personnel.

4, I c d f y that the information contaiaed in this submiss%os is &xurate and q l e t e to the best of my knowledge and belief,

S. The point of contact for this action is Ms. Janet Benskin, ~CRD-IT , (703) 274-9862, - 6- AHC -- AmericaOs Arsenal for the Brave, . . .

2&5& G e n d , USA Chief -02 Staff .

BRAC Milcon Esimate Worksheet d Rome Lab to Hanscom (AF-09)

Gaining Base: Hanscom Option: 400 rill : 1 Date : 02-03-1 995 Sheet I of 1 for Scenario: ROM36201c Rome Lab to Hanscom (AF-09)

CATEGORIES I

Titles Questionnaire Program,d 6% SlOH TOTAL 1 SCOPE / '''1 i lK1 1 ISM) I

,Other Require 1 AF PLANT ADMINISTRATION OF 64009 Light Lab 0 MEDIUM LAB 0 HEAVY LAB 0 LIGHT SClF 0 HEAW SClF 0 OTHER 0

0 0 0

I Military Family '71 0-000 FAMILY HOUSING

Milcon: 12.99 BOS 1.30

Subtotal 14.29

Subtotal 14.29 Planning 1.29

TOTAL 15.58

I I I

. . - - - --- -- A Close Hold - BCEGIBCEG Staff Only

. . I Esimate Worksheet to Move Rome Lab to Hansc -09)

Worksheet 1 of 1 for Scenario: ROM3620 .ome Lab to Hanscom (AF-09)

610-123: Cost based on AFMCIXPICE site survey. Original: renovate facilities 1607 (46,700 SF) and 1605 (7,000 SF) at 70% of new construction costs. No renovations required for Facilities 1302F (28,000 SF) and 1302FA (13,300 SF). Phillips Lab space available = 64,000, therefore, NO scope provided. Total to Hansom is 54,762 SF. Total admin rqmt = 95,000 SF.

310-924: Cost based on AFMCIXPICE site survey. Original cost based on renovation of facilities 1102D (12,300 SF) and 1607 (16,500 SF). Used 70% of new construction costs. Phillips Lab has 100,000 SF available for light lab, therefore no renovation required. Total Light Lab requirement = 28,800 SF. Total to Hanscom is 16,602 SF.

312-477: Cost based on AFMCIXPICE site surevey. Cost based on renovation of facility 1614 (30,436 SF) - space available from PL (13,200 SF). Use 70% of new construction cost = 17,236 SF. Adjust program amount to 12,065 SF. Total Medium Lab requirement = 52,800 SF.

310-91 1: Cost based on AFMCIXPICE site survey. Cost based on renovation of facility 1614 (2,121 SF). Use 70% of new construction cost. Adjust program amount 1,485 SF. Total Heavy Lab requirement = 3,680 SF.

610-000: Cost based on AFMCIXPICE site survey. Cost based on renovation of facility 1614 & 1st floor 1302F (1 1,990 SF). Use 70% of new construction cost. Adjust program amount 8,393 SF. Total Light SClF requirement = 11,990 SF.

131-132: Cost based on AFMCIXPICE site survey. Cost based on renovation of facility 1614 (13,373 SF). Use 70% of new construction cost. Adjust program amount 9,361 SF.

935-000: Total rqmt is 656 units. Hanscom rqmt is 378 units.

Close Hold - BCEG/BCEG Staff Only

SHERWOOD BOEHLERT 230 Dlsrl~cr. NEW Van*

COMMITTEES:

7 R 4 N ~ A T ) O N AND INFRASTRUCTURE CIUIIIMAN. SUBWMMIrnE ON

WAfER R€SOUIIaS A N 0 ENYlRONMtN? SUBCOMMImE ON UlCROaOS

VS. DCLLWIIW. N M W A N U T C eSS€UOIV CnAIIUU*. NoRrkEM 4CUCULlUeI CALCUS O(IRULII. YlNDI ULGUE M Y W I L L CAUCUS

WASHl%GYON OFFICE

22dU RAYBURN H3USE OFFICE i~UI;OING WASWlNCIOX. DC 10515-:1:21

(232) 22S1665 Fa*: (202) 22Cl.991

€-Mail: B O E H L E R T @ I . ~ A . M O ~ ! ; ~ , ~ ~ Q ~

UNTRAL OFFICE:

ALEXANDER PRNIE FEDERAL El i l l DING 10 M O M STREET

UTlu NEW YORK 1 l S 0 1 (315) 793-0148

Cer: 13151 nb*w9

TOLL FREE! 1-95-2?~25

FACSIMILE TRANSMISSION COVER SHEET

1-

FAX NUM3BR: 7 ~ 3 * 97r45 3% PHONE - m E R :

FROM : Off ice of Congressman Sherwood Eoehlert 2246 Rayburn Eouse Office Building Washington, D.C. 20515 (202) 225-3665 (phcne) (202) 225-1891 (fax)

' - Dean D' Aiore - Leslie Caudle - - Siobhan Dugan - Marcia Frenz

- Tina Hanonu

- Julie Phillips

- Kevin Wheeler - J i n Rogers

DATE: - 3 122 NUMBER OF PAGES: <z) I (exc d n g cover s k e c ~ l

COMMENTS :

THIS STAT1ONC:LIV CRICl I D O N PIPCR MADC OI: WC~CI.EI)~IYCRS

113. 2 2 9.5 1 6 : 47 '!32112 22.5 1891 1. US(; BOEHLERT

DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE: WASHINGTON DC 20330- 1 000

March 22, 1995

OFFICE OF THE SECREICRY

SAF/LLP 1160 Air Force Pentagon Washington, DC 20330-1160

The Honorable sherwood L. Boehlert House of Representatives Washington, DC 20515

Dear Mr. Boehlert

This is in response to your letter of March 7, 1995, to the Secretary of the Air Force regarding excess capacity at Hanscom Air Force Base (AFB), Massachusetts, and Army CEcoM, F o r t Monmouth, New Jersey.

Our preliminary estimates of excess capacities (by facility type) a t Hanscom AFB and Meyer Center, Fort Monmouth, are as follows :

'flanscem -WB, Massachusetts

a. Administrative and light industrial laboratory - 141,300 SF (Facilities 1302F, 1302FA, 1105A, 11058, llOZF, and 1107)

b. Medium industrial laboratory - 52,800 SF (Facility 1614, and space available elsewhere from Phillips Laboratory)

c. Heavy industrial laboratory - 3,68C1 SF (Facility 1614) d. Light Special Compartmentalized Information Facility

(SCIF) - 20,800 SF (~acility 1614) e. Heavy Special Compartmentalized Infomation Faci l i ty

(SCIF) - 23,200 SF (~acility 1614) Meyer Center, Port nonmouth, Bew Jersey

b. Light industrial laboratory - 36,000 SF c. Medium industrial laboratory - 66,000 SF d. Heavy industrial laboratory - 4,600 SF e. Light Special Compartmentalized ~ n f o r m a t i o n Facility

(SCIF) - 26,000 SF f. Heavy Special compartmentalized Information Facility

(SCIF) - 29,000 SF

A detailed site survey is scheduled for April 10-14, 1995. During the site survey, we will identify the square footage, building types, and locations of areas where industr ia l elements now a t Rome Laboratory are to be located at lianscom AFB and Fort Monmouth. W e also w i l l identify a l l leased or rented space. This information w i l l be provided to your office upon receipt.

We trust t h i s information is useful.

S~EPHEN D. BULL, 111 Colonel, USAF Chief , Programs and Legis1int:ion

D i v i s i o ~ n Office of Legislative Liaison

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT SECRETARY

INSTALLATIONS LOGISTICS A N D ENVIRONMENT 110 A R M Y PENTAGON

WASHINGTON DC 20310-01 10

March 2 4 , 1 9 9 5

Honorable Alan J. Dixon Chaiman Defense Base Closure and

Realignment Commission 1700 N. Moore S t ree t , Sui te 1425 Arlington, VA 22209

Dear Senator Dixon:

Thank you for the recent opportunity t o t e s t i f y before the Commission regarding the Army's 3.995 base closure and realignment recomendations.

I n response t o your request t o the Secretary of the Army, dated March 9 , 1995, enclosed are answers t o your questions f o r the record. The information i.s accurate t o the best of m y knowledge and be l i e f .

The Army hoaes t o continue i ts good working re la t ionship with the Commission i n the mont-hs ahead. Please l e t me know i f you need any fur ther a.ssistance.

qCd/ Robert M. Walker Assistant Secretary ccf the Army

(~nsta~lations, Logistics & lkvironment)

Enclosures

COMMODITY

w 1. The Air Force has proposed moving functions from the Rome Labs in.New York to the Army's Fort Monmouth, New Jersey. Is there sufficient capacity at Fort Monmouth to accommodate the proposed move?

Yes. There is sufficient capacity at Fort Monrnouth. The Amy expects to use space vacated by the U. S. Army Research Laboratory's Electronics and Power Sources Directorate in FY97, as a result of a decision of the 1991 Commission to realign the Army's laboratories.

2. Did you incorporate the effects of this Air Force move when ranking Fort hlonmoutb against other commodity instdations?

No. The Army's rankings are based on a pear long study which concluded last fall. These rankings, combined uith operational requirements, provide a measurement of the installation's military value as specified by DoD selection criteria 1 thru 4. The Army's rankings were used to identifjl installations for hrther study for closure or realignment. AD installations were eligible to be considered as receiving sites.

INPUT DATA REPORT (COBRA v5.08) - Page 6 Da ta As Of 13:04 0212011995. Repor t Crea ted 18:28 0313011995

Department : A i r F o r c e O p t i o n Package : Rome Lab t o F t Mnmth

j S c e n a r i o F i l e : C: \COBRA\DATA\ROME-C.CBR wi S t d F c t r s F i l e : C:\COBRA\DATA\DEPOT.SFF

EXPLANATORY NOTES (INPUT SCREEN NINE)

1 . C i v i l i a n p e r s o n n e l pay a d j u s t e d f o r l o c a l i t y pay d i f f e r e n t i a l s a t

F t Monmouth and Hanscom AFB ( 5 . 5 % o f avg c i v pay X # c i v s r e l o c a t e d )

2. One t i m e u n i q u e c o s t s and one t i m e moving c o s t s r e f l e c t f u l l AF

e s t i m a t e s f r o m l e v e l p l a y COBRA.

3. Rome Lab RPMA i n sc reen f o u r a d j u s t e d down t o AF e s t i m a t e f rom l e v e l

p l a y COBRA.

4 . MILCON a d j u s t e d t o r e f l e c t t h e fo l low ing : - ._

a. T o t a l space r e q u i r e d based on c u r r e n t Rome Lab admin p l u s Lab o n l y

b. C u r r e n t warehouse, Ops & T r a i n i n g , Au to and o t h e r Maintenance requ i rements

w i l l b e absorbed a t new l o c a t i o n s i n e x i s t i n g c a p a c i t y .

c . Cos t o f new MILCON i s $289.53 p e r square f o o t (avg o f AF e s t i m a t e d c o s t )

d. Cos t o f r e n o v a t i o n i s 70% o f new MILCON (AF methodo logy) .

e . Renovated space e q u a l s space i d e n t i f i e d f o r r e n o v a t i o n i n DoD f i n a l COBRA

f . New MILCON based on 302 o f t c t a l space r e q u i r e d ( a c c e p t s DoO's assumed

3 e f f i c i e n c i e s ) m inus r e n o v a t e d space: (615,803 X . 8 ) - 210,950 = 281,692 SF.

COBRA REALIGNMENT SUMMARY (COBRA v5.08) - Page 1 /2 Data As Of 13:04 02/20/1995, Report Created 18:44 0313011995

"aoartment : A i r Force 'on Packaae : Rome Lab t o F t Mnmth a r i o F i l e : C:\COBRA\DATA\ROME-C.CBR F c t r s F i l e : C:\COBRA\DATA\DEPOT.SFF

S t a r t i n g Year : 1996 F i n a l Year : 1999 ROI Year : 100+ Years

NPV i n 2015($K): 95,261 l -T ime Cost($K): 155.533

Net Costs ($K) Constant 1996 - - - -

Mi lCon 24,863 Person 0 Overhd 393 Mov i ng 0

- Miss io -- - 0 Other 0

D o l l a r s 1997

TOTAL 25,256 - 35,004 35,133 55,576 -3,290 -3,879

1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

POSITIONS ELIMINATED O f f 0 0 0 0 0 0 En 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 Civ 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 TOT 0 5 0 0 0 0 0

POSITIONS REALIGNED O f f 0 0 2 8 0 0 En 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 Kt u 0 0 0 0 0 0

Summary: - - - - - - - - Closure o f Rome lab i n f o u r years and move C3 and ELectro/Rel d i r e c t o r a t e t o F t Monmouth. Other d i r e c t o r a t e s t o Hanscom ( p l u s some pu ts and takes) Opt ion 4 (was o p t i o n 4.2) Other adjusmtents made - see exp lanatory notes. Screen 4 Rome data r e f l e c t s same data as DoD FINAL COBRA. Higher cos t s L i ke l y ARMY & AF MILCON ad jus ted t o r e f l e c t DoO FINAL COBRA est imate o f renovat ion o f e x i s t i n g space PLUS es t ima te o f NEW MILCON t o meet t o t a l space requirement not covered by renovated space and as i d e n t i f i e d i n Rome Lab quest ionna i re .

T o t a l .---- 124,313

-7,561 - 44

24,321 0

2,770

T o t a l - - - - -

Beyond - - - - - -

0 -2,296 - 1,784

0 0 0

DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE WASHINGTON DC 20330- 1000

OFFICE OF THE SECRtITARV

SAF/LL 1160 Air Force Pentagon Washington, DC 20330-1160

The Honorable George E. Pataki Governor State of New York Executive Chamber State Capitol Albany, New York 12224

Dear Governor Pataki

This is in response to your letter of February 22, 1995, to the Secretary of the Air Force concerning Rome Laboratory, Rome, New York. Specifically, you urged continued Air Force support of Rome Laboratory.

The base closure process is very difficult and challenging and we regret the impact this process has on the surrounding communities. As you know, the Secretary of Defense included Rome Laboratory in his recommendations for closure and realignment tc the Defense Base Closure and Realignment Commission (DBCRC). Rome Laboratory was recommended for closure, with its components relocated to Hanscom Air Force Base ( A F B ) , Xassachusetts, and Fort Honmouth, New Jersey. The Air Force's recommendation reflects the work of a Department of Defense Joint Cross-Service Group for Laboratories. That group reco~nnrended the Air Force consider the consolidation of Rome Laboratory activitie~s at other locations which we found would produce several benefits across the Department of Defense and the Air Force. :First, the consolidation would save money by reducing overhead expenses associated with the two Air Force labs, Hanscom and Rome. Second, moving a considerable portion of the work to the Army lab activity allowed the productive use of their excess capacity, and more importantly provides an opportunity for increased joint Service work in this critical area. Third, both of these moves will increase the quality of the combined research activity by pooling talented people, equipment, and related missions.

Further, the DBCRC will conduct a separate analysis of the DoD recommendations and will make its recommendations to the President on July 1, 1995. Although Rome Laboratory is included

in tha D o D racommendations, this does not precluda the Couirrion from removing bases from its listing if their analyses support such recommendations.

We appreciate your interest in this mat:ter and trust the information provided is useful.

Sincerely

Director ,,

February 22, 1:995

Dear Madam Secretary:

As you develop your recommendations to the 1995 Base Closure and Realignment Commission on closing military in~tallations, I want to express my strsng support for continuing current operations at the Rome Laboratory at Griffiss A i r Force Base.

The 1993 round of base closures h i t the State of New York extremely hard. The State experienced reallsnment and closing of A i r Force Bases a t Griffiss ( i n Rome) and Plattsburgh. In sum, the citizens of New York State are doing more than their fair share to reihce the number of nilitary bases.

Following is a summary of t h e L a b r a t o r y .

Rome La4oratorv

Located i n Central New York and surrouded by five A i r National Guard flying units sad the loth Mo~~tair! Division at Fort D r u m , Rome Lab cffere a aeographical benfsfit . ~r .ava l lak le t.o other bases. With a "supporting castn of different military services, the lab offers young officers the oppcrt;tr.lty to observe t he n l i l i t a ry ir, aczioz as w e l l as the capacity co test emerging t e c h n o l q i e s from t;he lab ir, an operational ~?vizonment at t>.e l o c a l level.

Through carrier consolidations, g a m e L a b is one of Four Air Force ~6perlaboratories. In the most rezent 300 stadiea regarding consolidation cf labs, Rome Lab scored at the top of the list in areas of expertise, commacd, control, comrcunications, computers and intelligence.

As noted ir, the 1,093 Base Rtalig~raent and Closure repor t to the President, "the Rome Lab has a large civilian work force and is located in adequate facilities that can be separated from the rest of Griff iss A m . It does no t need to be closed or realigned as a result of reductions in the rest of t he base ." In that same report, Mr. James Boatright, Deputy Assistaat Secretary of the Air Force for installations, is quoted as stati~g, HThe Air Force has no plane to close or relocate the Rome Laboratory within t h e next five years."

FES 2 3 --' 5 A z!i6.rpt

12 additicn t c providing first claes research and developtxent to the Air Force, the lab alsc i s crea~ing new p a r t n e r s h i p s w i t h universities and private f l z -ms in technology t r a m s f o r and dual use tcchnologiee. Approximately 80 percenc of i ts a.nnua1 budget 19 contracted our. New York State alone receives $132 million from theee contracts creatiag 3,500 r i ew jobs in pr imn,r i ly s m a l l high technology bcsinesses.

Rome laboratory is a critical part of the C!entral New York economy. The l a k has 850 jobs and scpp3rts a n o t h e r 2 , 2 0 0 jobs i n New York S t a t e .

The community of Rome, a l o ~ g with t h e S t a t e a£ New York , and its partnershi28 wich our corporations axd great universitiee, is creating a foundation around the Rome LaSoratory that foxges a promising f u t u r e f o r the Air Force as well as the community.

Y y administration has cornrr-i~ted funds i n c h i s year's budget for the support of Rone Lab and t c assist the redevelopment of Griffiss. New York State is funding the creatio~ cf the Technology Enterprise Corporation. The state has set aside $4.1 million as a down paynent t o expand techr-ology transfer and dual use applications of military technology.

In additioa ey judget a l s s commits $3.2 clllioc, if necessary, to subsidize ~verhead c o s z s a= -he lab, r.akizg it less expersive for t h e federal government t 2 operaze. Fcrcher, a-other 1.2 r r i l l i c n is earnarked for G z i f f i s s Loca l 3evelopnent Z o z p r a t l o n f c r ac t iv i t i e s c o Inpleae~t its base r 5 u s e szratozy.

2 urge tke Air Fcrce a23 t h e Se?arzrnenz cf 3 e f c n ~ c tz honar irs conni:nent to keep Rane LaL o2sn.

Clear ly , the rfiilitary Sases w : ~ k i : r . :he S-.ace o: New York play r v i t z l rc le to ~ c r na=ror-a1 defense. " h e Rone La5oratory has m t d e s - a b s ~ a z t i a l concrLbutror.s to zke defense of the greacest n a t i o n on ear th .

I urge your continued suppcrt for the 2one Laboraccry as you prepare your final recornrnend&tione.

Very c r u l y ycur,e,

The Honorable Sheila E. Widnall & F & Secretary of the Air Force The Pestagon Waehizgton, D. t. 20330-1000

cc: General Charles E. Franklin

STATE Ob Flw YORL EXECUTIVE CHAMBER

KBun 1- "

PLEASE DELIVER THE F O W W ( Z TO:

NAME:

FROM

TOTAL NUMBEX OF PAGES 4 MCZUDING COVER lSITW

DATE OF TRANSMISSION:

COMMENTS:

FOB OFFICE USE ONLY:

SENT BY: TIME:

SAFLLF/MAJOR SNYDER/CFM/77950/30 MAR 95

Q U moyer/bases95/romeVaceo

SAF/LLP 1160 Air Force Pentagon Washington, DC 20330-1160

Mr. Dennis C. Vacco Attorney General State of New York The Capitol Albany, New York 12224

Dear Mr. Vacco

This is in response to your letter of February 22, 1995, to the Under Secretary of the Air Force expressing your support for the New York military installations. As you know, on February 28, 1995, the Secretary of Defense submitted his recommendations for closures and realignments to the Defense Base Closure and Realign- ment Commission (DECRC) which included the c:losure of Rome Labore- tory and the transfer of the minimum essential airfield support for the 10th Infantry (Light) Civisicn from Griffiss Air Force Base (AFB) tc Fort Drum, New York.

Rome Laboretory was recommended for closure, with its compo- nents relocated to Hanscom AFB, Massachusetts, and Fort Monmouth, New Jersey. The Department of Defense (DoD) recommendation reflects the work of a DoD Joint Cross-Service Group for Laborato- ries. That group recommended the Air Force consider the consoli- dation of Rome Laboratory activities at other locations. We founc this action would produce several benefits across the DoD and the Air Force. First, the consolidation would save money by reducing overhead expenses associated with the two Air Force labs, Hansom and Rome. Recent reductions at Hanscom provided relatively inex- pensive opportunities for that consolidation. Second, moving a considerable portion of the work to an Army laboratory activity allowed the productive use of their excess c:apacity, and more im- portantly provides an opportunity for increased joint Service work in this critical area. Third, both of these moves will increase the quality of the combined research activilzy by pooling talented people, equipment, and related missions.

COORD AF/RT DBCRC

We share your view of the exciting and important work per- formed by Rome Laboratory employees, and are confident this new arrangement will enhance that work. The decision was not based on subjective judgment, but reflected evaluation based on certified data against the eight selection criteria. While we regret the impact on the local Rome, New York, communit.y, we believe this action will increase efficiency and producti.vity in the important research performed by these facilities.

Concerning the DoD recommendation affecting Fort Drum, the 10th Mountain Division is one of the most active military units in the nation. By moving their mobility support closer to the sup- ported units, we will cut response time, avoid lengthy and some- times hazardous travel, and save significant expenses associated with the on-call airfield called for under the 1993 BRAC process.

We cannot address decisions concerning Fort Drum and suggest your staff forward your concerns to the Depairtrnent of the Army. We appreciate your comments and trust the irlformation provided is useful.

sincerely

SCOTT B. McLAUTHLIN Colonel, USAF Deputy Chief, Programs and Legislation Division

Office of Legislative Liaison

February 22, 1995

Hon. Rudy DeLeon Undersecretary of the Air Force AF Pentagon Washington, D.C. 20330

via Fax: 703-693-4303

Dear Undersecretary DeLeon:

I am writing to express my strong support for continuing current operations at military facilities locatled in New York

'2 State, including Rome Laboratory, Fort Drum and Fort Hamilton.

v Each of these facilities is indispensible t-o our nation's defense and serves as an important economic asset to the state and regional economies.

Rome Lab, in Central New York, provides critical technology research with both military and civilian applications. In this era of government cost-cutting, the Lab's recent expansion into joint partnerships with universities and private businesses represents the type of dual-use prc3grams that we should encourage.

As a former federal prosecutor committed to the fight against violent crime, I am especially excited about the planned co-location of a national forensics lab at Rome Lab.

The forensics lab represents a promising opportunity to find high-technology solutions to the very serious crime problem facing our state and the entire Northeast region.

Fort Drum, in Northern New York, is the most modern military facility in the nation, and home to one of our nation's most active military units, the 10th Mountain Division.

Recent significant investments of federal and state resources to upqrade Fort Drum have made this facility an even

..I( more valuable :;set to our nation's still-developing, global military role.

Hon. Rudy D e L e o n February 22, 1995

lllryr Page 2

Fort Hamilton, in Brooklyn, is an importa,nt recruitment facility serving the largest metropolitan area of our nation.

Federal base-closing actions in 1993 have already required significant sacrifices on the part of New York.ers. Additional substantial restructuring could significantly impact the state's effort to improve our economy.

I urge your continued support for these facilities.

Sincerely,

DENNIS C. VACCO ATTORNEY GENERAL

OFFICE CF * W E SECRETARY

DEPARTMENT O F THE AIR FORCE2 WASHINGTON DC 203 30- 1000

April 3, 1995

SAF/ LLP 1160 Air Force Pentagon Washington, DC 20330-1160

The Honorable Alfonse M. DfAmato United States Senate Washington, DC 20510

Dear Senator DfAmato

This is in response to your joint letter of March 29, 1995, to the Secretary of the Air Force with Senator Moynihan concerning Rome Laboratory. Specifically, you requested information regarding the figures used and the assumptions made in the analysis of the closure of Rome Laboratory, Rome, New York.

Concerning the square footage figures, you asked for an explanation of several different numbers for square footage related to Rome Lab activities. The 974,628 number is the amaunt of capacity at the present facilities at Rome. It does not represent required capacity. The level playing field COBRA figcre of 177,000 was an error. Because this figure was not used in calculating construction costs, its use did not create a significant error. The 328,459 figure was provided by Rome ~ a b as the space required to support their mission at another installation, and was used in the COBRA cal.culation for the level playing field analysis.

For the focused analysis, on which the recommendation was eventually based, a figure of 224,280 square feet of space was used as the requirement. This number represents reductions for a number of factors. Using a standard factor for administrative space, the required administrative space reduced from 166,859 to 135,000 square feet. A 20 percent reduction was also used in lab and SCIF (area used for classified 0pe:rations) space based on planned manpower reductions and elimination of "double countingw space in SCIFs in which administrative functions are located full time. This 224,280 figure was split betwelen Hanscom AFB and Fort Monmouth based on 60 percent at Hanscom and 40 percent at Fort Monmouth, and renovation or construction requirements were based on this figure.

With regard to the Geophysics Directorate, the Secretary of the Air Force did direct that the move into Hanscom AFB assume that space would be available from the reduction of personnel assigned to the Geophysics Lab at Hanscom, with the exception of the Air Force Space Command (AFSPC) support activities. She did not direct a move of the unit to Kirtland AF'B, or any other location. No such plan exists. Rather, the Geophysics activity at Hanscom AFB, with the exception of the AF'SPC support activities, will simply cease. The space vacated by that portion of the Geophysics Directorate was assumed to be used in part, for the move of a portion of Rome Lab to Hanscom AFB. In the event a contingency requires the continued operation of the Geophysics Directorate at Hanscom AFB, it appears that the current recommendation can be effectively accomplished.

We are scheduled to perform a detailed site survey on April 10-14, 1995. During this survey, we will identify the square footage, building types, and locations of areas where elements now at Rome Lab are to be located at Hanscom AFB and Fort Monmouth. The portion of Rome Lab which is proposed to be relocated to Hanscom AFB will be placed in space currently or projected to be available by renovating existing facilities. Depending on the results of the detailed site survey, there may be a need to construct a new facility. The site survey results will be briefed to the Base Closure Executive Group (BCEG) for approval in late ~pril and provided to your office upon approval by the BCEG.

Wv We appreciate your interest in this matter and trust the information provided is useful. A similar letter is bein9 provided to Senator Moynihan.

S ~ P H E N D. BULL, 111 Co onel, USAF Ch k ef! Programs and Legislatior' Divlsion

Office of Legislative Liaison

OFFICE OF T H E SECRET4Rv

D E P A R T M E N T OF THE A I R F O R C E WASHINGTON DC 20330- 1000

April 3, 1995

SAF/ LLP 1160 Air Force Pentagon Washington, DC 20330-1160

The Honorable Daniel Patrick Moynihan United States Senate Washington, DC 20510

Dear Senator Moynihan

This is in response to your joint letter of March 29, 1995, to the Secretary of the Air Force with Senator DtAmato concerning Rome Laboratory. Specifically, you requested information regarding the figures used and the assumptions made in the analysis of the closure of Rome Laboratory, Rome, New York.

Concerning the square footage figures, you asked for an explanation of several different numbers for square footage related to Rome Lab activities. The 974,628 number is the ancunt of capacity at the present facilities at Rome. It does not represent required capacity. The level plaiying field COBRA fiqure of 177,000 was an error. Because this figure was not used ir! calculating construction costs, its use did not create a significant error. The 328,459 figure was provided by Rome Lab as the space required to support their mission at another installation, and was used in the COBRA cal-culation for the level playing field analysis.

For the focused analysis, on which the recommendation was eventually based, a figure of 224,280 square feet of space was used as the requirement. This number represents reductions for a number of factors. Using a standard factor for administrative space, the required administrative space was reduced from 166,859 to 135,000 square feet. A 20 percent reduction was also used in lab and SCIF (area used for classified operations) space based on planned manpower reductions and elimination of ttdouble countingw space in SCIFs in which administrative functions are located full time. This 224,280 figure was split between Hanscom AFB and Fort Monmouth based on 60 percent at Hanscom and 40 percent at Fort Monmouth, and renovation or construction rlequirements were based on this figure.

With regard to the Geophysics Directorate, the Secretary of the Air Force did direct that the move into Hanscom AFB assume that space would be available from the reduction of personnel assigned to the Geophysics Lab at Hanscom, with the exception of the Air Force Space Command (AFSPC) support activities. She did not direct a move of the unit to Kirtland AFB, or any other location. No such plan exists. Rather, the Geophysics activity at Hanscom AFB, with the exception of the AFSPC support activities, will simply cease. The space vacated by that portion of the Geophysics Directorate was assumed to be used in part, for the move of a portion of Rome Lab to Hanscom AFB. In the event a contingency requires the continued operation of the Geophysics Directorate at Hanscom AFB, it appears that the current recommendation can be effectively accomplished.

We are scheduled to perform a detailed site survey on April 10-14, 1995. During this survey, we will identify the square footage, building types, and locations of areas where elements now at Rome Lab are to be located at Hanscom AFB and Fort Monmouth. The portion of Rome Lab which is proposed to be relocated to Hanscom AFB will be placed in space currently or projected to be available by renovating existing facilities. Depending on the results of the detailed site survey, there may be a need to construct a new facility. The site survey results will be briefed to the Base Closure Executive Group (BCEG) for approval in late April and provided to your office upon approval by the BCEG.

We appreciate your interest in this matter and trust the information provided is useful. A similar letter is being provided to Senator DtAmato.

Col nel, USAF Chi I f, Programs and Legislation Division

Office of Legislative Liaison

2Cnifeb Sfabs Senafo WASHINGTON. D.C. 20610

m r c h 2'9, 1995

The Hunorable Sheila Widnall Secretary of the Air Force 1660 Air Force Pentagon Washingtun, D.C. 20330-1660

Dear Madam Sec re t a ry :

O u r staffs have spent much time reviewing t.he data related to the BRAC 95 recommendation to close the Rome Laboratory. However, questions have arisen which require addressing as quickly as possible so that we may resolve key i s s u e s involved in this decision. Therefore, we request answers and comments to the following questions:

lY I . The certified Rome Lab questionnaire identifies 974,628 squars feet of space in facilities at Rome Lab. However, the amcur,t of spzce used Ln a vzriety of other documents, and in support of the recommendation, does not appear t:o match either t h e total square f o ~ t a g e or the type of space identified in the questionnaire.

a. For example, in screen four of the Air Force "level p lay ing field" COBRA and in the final recommenda.tion COBRA run, the Air Force stipulated a figure of 177,000 aquarca feet of space at Rome Lab. In the same COBRA run, t h e Air Force identified 3 2 8 , 4 5 9 squaye feet of new cunstruction as its estimate of additional space required at Hanscom AFB. In its final recomnendation COBRA. nn square footage is identified, but supporting documents indicate a total requirement of 2 2 3 , 4 8 0 square feet of renovat ion and e x i s t i n g space that will be used without renovation at IIanscom AFB and Ft Monmouth for the Rome Lab functions. Then, i n a March 22, 1995 response to earlier questions, SAF/LLP stated t.hat 262,080 square feet of excess lab/industrial f a c i l j ties had :been identified as available at a combination of Hanscom AFB and Ft Monmouth. The condition code of these facilities was not provided.

b. Please explain w h a t data the Air Force actually used in preparing its recommendations and provide an explanation of the disparities in the numbers, especially the difference between the

projected space that will be used and the cur ren . t ly occupied space aL Rome Lab a8 reported in the questionnaire.

2 . I n a aeparatc but related area, several documents have ref erxed to a relocation of the Geophysics Directorate f ram IlanSCom AFB to Kirtland AFB. The move of the Geophysics Directorate does not appear to be an Air Force o r DoD BRAC recommendation. However, the references t o t h i s move r a i s e several quentl.ons. a. Is the Geophysics Directorate relocating to Xirtlnnd ATB? b. When is t h e move planned to occur and when was the decision to relocate it made? c. Is any uf the space considered in either or both of the COBRA estimates? e. If the Geophysics Directorate move is planned as a non-RRAC action, has it been programmed and budgeted for, to include all the XILCON or reconfiguration c o s t s ? f . Has the environmental impact analysis p r o c e s s (EIAP) required by the NEPA been initiated? If so, does the action require an Environmental Assessment or a complete Environmental Impact Study? g. When is the EIAP expected t o be completed? h. Does the move require facilities current1.y occupied at Kirtland to be vacated? i. What is your plan for the Geophysics D i r e c t o r a t e in t h e event that either the Kirtland AFB BRAC realignment is rejected or the EIAP j s not favorably reviewed? And, whaL is your plan if the s p a c e needed f o r Rome Lab does not become. available in the right time? j. And, if any BRAC action is tied to or dependent upon a move of the Geophysics Directorate, why was it; not inc luded i n t h e BRAC recommendations?

b. F i n a l l v , i f t h e Geo~hvsics Directorate is not relocating, * - can you identifi'what activities and f u n c t i o n s have o r w i l l vacate space at Hanscom AI'B that will make t h e space avzilable f o r the ~ 6 m e Lab move?

I am aware that your staff has a great many i r iqu i r i es t o answer, b u t a r ep ly by April 3 is essential so that our: staffs will h a v e time to review the information prior to the base visit by the RRAC Commissiun. We look forward to your reply and your coopera t ion .

Sincerely,

I

e M, D'Amato tlnited S t a t e s Senator

04/14/95 FRI 0 8 : 4 3 FAX 315 330 3172 RL/SUR

REVIEW COMMENTS

FOR

BRAC 95 MILCON PROJECTS - HANSCOM APB

We cannot over emplmbe the fact that the facility programmers do not undemmd our facilities requirements. It is obvious from the SF 1391'5, Programming Documents, that Rame Lab will not adequately function as a unified organization once we relocate to Hamcorn AFB due to ill-programmed facility modifications and placement of Rome Lab functions scattered about the b e .

Sigruficant Space Issues are as follows:

-- OC mission directorate is being split up (BIdgs 1105A and 1102D) contra^^ to baseline assumption #l.

-- IR requirement for Mass Storage Lab (MSL) and Joint Integrated Test Facility (JITF) not included in requirements. (100 positions currently funded)

- Contractoxs identified in RL are Scientists and Engineers and as such should be allotted Engineering Support Space and not Admin Space (1 82 =/per vs 162 SFlper).

- Due to ESC assumption to place Rome Lab within existing facilities strengthens the argument against the 15% NET to aROSS factor used by Hanscom. This factor only holds true for NEW faciIities, and a fiictor of 2030% should be used when wmking with an existing building configuration far renoaiorr. (fhtter to compare "apples to apples")

- No mention ofavaW1e BOS facUties during HAFB site visits, yet now able to absorb personnel. Not all BOS are "blue collar " types, many nquin &ce space as well as supporting facilities.

-- RL hasn't identified to Phillips Lab what our workload is for Mod/Fab. Cannot assume able to absorb.

- No security systems are programmed into these facilities. (eg. card access, etc)

-- RL has own requirements for Shipping~Receiving and Technical Library. Current PL space and workload has been programmed current requirement, can't asmune to absorb RL funotions.

-- Total square foot requirement not satMcd.(Total, 10,833 sf)

Admin/Engr Spt(0C) -2412 A d m n g r Spt@O,XP,PK) 30,022 & 29,400 sf - 622 Lab Space(DO,XP,PK) 21,739 sf 18,000 sf -3739 Storage(DO,XP,PK) 200 sf O s f -200 Contr Support Space 3,860 sf O s f -3,860

These figures do not include a total of 70,439SF of required space to accommodate the CC, BOS, ModificationlFabrication Shop and the JITF Facility

04/14/95 FRI 08:44 FAX 315 330 3172 RL/SUR

SignXxant Cost Issues are as follows:

- No corn for ElcctricaI or Cammunications systems i-c~re expansions (Substations, duct banks, raceways ... etc). In existing fficilities such as the Commissary, adequate electrical and communication infrastructure is not expected to exist.

-- Cost factors are low, based upon actual construction of similar facilities at RL. These facilities are being replicated under similar conditions as at Grifflss APB. OU. costs don't include locality cost Eactors)

,' RL Historical HAFB est AFMC 21 Engr Spt $ /sf"* $ 5Olsf $ 1381sf *Phillips Lab cost $75/@ Lab Space $ 153/sf $llO/sf $180,266,433/sf(light, med, hvy) SCIF $ 312/~f . $155/sf S190,455/sf (light, hvy) Tower Fdn S lOk each S 2.5keach Workstations S 4,368 each $3,510 wch $4,368 cach Storage $ I#+ $ 5lsf (** No direct comparitivc costs available)

- No asbestos removal costs idcxuified in any facility. Roof removal will require extensive asbestos remwal. (Approx. S3.67Isf /$38,535 for remwal of asbestos/mafing Bldg 1105A)

-- The directorates will have a total of 508 govt and 193 contractor pemmel requirement. Only 583(vs 701) prewircd work stations have been identified to be bought. D~ifference of $ 5 15,424 using current RL estimate per unit. DifFcrence of $414,180 using current HAFB estimate per unit (Delta of additiod $374,244 RL to Hanscomb costs.)

Other Issues to Consider:

-- Associated Radars G,C, & S Bands) must have adequate "clear shot" across base buildmgs while maintaining proximity to associated labs (max dist restrictions). I 105A is currently in a confined area between other facilities, may pose problem for tower locations. No associated costs for JammerICalibration sites/towers/structures. Connectivity to other RL :Mlitics i.e. IR & C3 Labs, NYS Research Sites. Angle between building 1 IOSA. Steam pIant $;tacks, and proposed CAL site is not great enough to maintain useful performance radars. Per :Mike LittIe OC

-- Accommodation for Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA): Handicapped access, Personnel elevators (up through Second Floor addition), bath oom... etc.

-- Bldg 1 lO5A will require a freight elevator, adjacent to a minimum of 81W)sf of vehicle bay, for staging and vertical tranportation of largeheavy research equipment housed in the labs.(Approx cost per elevator HAFB $100,000.00)

- The requirements shown for the tawer for C3 appear inadeqate comprued to historical costs for tower foundations at mss and the IR rooftop radars have apjmentljr been left out of estimate.

- Project for $2,150,000 to renovate facility was CANCELED due to unknown reasons

-- No back-up p l ~ n has been addressed should the MnCON for construction of thc new Commissary falls through Currently programmed for FY 97, no definite rnoney will be available. Earliesl possible time alterations to building 1614 coutd occur would be late CY 97 or early CY 98. Follow on construction for RL will take at least one year with occupancy around rmmmcr 99.

BRAC 95 MILCON PROJECTS - HANSCOM AFB REVIEW COMMENTS

12 APR 95

g

1. OC mission directorate i s being split up (8ldgs 1105A and 1102D) contrary to baseline assumption #1.

2, Support Dirtnorates XP. FM, PK and DO arc being spLit into two fadtics (1 102 and 1302F). Unknown which divisions go where.

3. Dl requirement for Mass Storage Lab (MSL) and Joint Integrated Tcst Facllit:y (TITF) not included in nquirements.

4. AccepbWc assumption.

6. Contractors idenrnd in RL are Sc i~ t i s t s and Engineers d should be allatcd Engineering Suppon S p m and not Adnun. Space (182 SFIper vs 162 SFlper).

7. Nb mention of available BOS facilities during HAFB site visits, y ~ t now able 16 absorb personnel. Not all BOS are "bluc collar * typcs, many require allice space as wcll as supporting facilities.

8. Need ta Idcnhfy open narage location.

9. Aoccptablc assumption.

10. Acceptable assumption.

11. RL h n ' t identicied ~o P u p s Lab what our worklaad i s for ModiPab. Cannot aaoume able to absorb.

12. RL has awn requirements for ShippinglRcccivirtg and Technical Library. Current PL space and workload has been p r o m e t i current fcq~iiremeut, can't assume to absorb RL functions.

BRAC 95 MILCON PROJECTS - HANSCOM AFB KEVIEW COMMWY"Y'

PSQJJj$T MxaD 95nO76A Bide-

1. Lab Space is J1 categorized under one heading, can't distinguish different ctost facurs for s-c requiremtals. Similar comment for SCW space.

2. No costs for Communications system infkaslhlcture (duct banks, raceways ... ctc.).

3. Firc suppression for labs not mentioned, heactiorl systems, sniffer systems fix high valuc areas. Water pressure must be reviewed for facility expansion.

4. Accommodation for Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA): Handicapped alnss, Pcrsannel elmators (up t b g h Second Floor addition), bathrooms ... etc. 5. Associated Radar &,C, & S Bauds) must havc adequate "clcar shot" m s s basc buildings while maiiltaini y proximity to associated labs (max distance restrictions). 1 l05A is currently in a confined area behveen olhw facilities, m y pose problem for tower locations. No associated costs for Jammer/CalBration siles/towerS/shuctures. Connectivity to othcr RL facilities i,c. IR & C 3 Labs, NYS Research Sites.

6. Cost factors are low, bascd upon actual construction I$ similar facilities at RL,. These facilities art king replicated under similar conditions as at C M b s AFB. (RL costs don't includc 1 1 d i t y cost factors)

RL Historical HAFElest. AFMC 2 1

Enkr SF % /SF $ 50lSF % 138tSF Lab Spa~c $ 153/SP $ 11OISF $ 180, 266,433lS.F (light, med., hvy) SCIF $' 312/SF $ 155/SF $ 190,455lSF (light, hvy) Towcr Fdn $10k $2.5k each Workstations $4,368 each $3,510 each $4,368 cach

7. No asbestos removal costs idenmed. Old roof will conlain asbestos within felts and mastics. Existing building i s similar in age and construction to RL's Bldg 240, expea h g e quantities of Asbcslos Containing Makrial (ATM). Cmstmcted in 1934.

8. NO costs a s s a W with cxtcrior upgrades are included, i.e. fire &ts, card access system^, site devclopmenr, signage, etc.

9. No costs associated with sccond floor exp,vlsion: substructure, superstructure, roofing, or exterior closure.

10. Progmmmers arc not accounting for losl area on bolh floors dedicated to providing vertical circulalion (stairs and elevator shafts). Should not be absorbed in Admin./Eng~ Spt space alllotments.

11. Facility will require a freight elevabr for venical circulation ~f heavy lab and rescarch equipment.

12. Inside storagc is requirtd in this facility (800 SF) now programmed for Bldg L102D. Storage must be co-located with lab space and direct amss to a freight eIevator. This is requircd fbr assembly of rcscarch devices.

13. h g l c between Bldg 1105A steam plant stacks, and proposed CAL site appears not s e a l cnough to maintain usdul performance of radar.

BRAC 95 MILCON PRUECTS - HANSCOM AFB REVIEW COMMENTS

1. Lab Spacc is id categorized under onc heading, wn't distinguish different cost factors for specific requirements.

2. No costs for Communications systcm infrastructure (duct banks, raceways ... etc.).

3. Pire supprwim for labs not mentioned Prsaotian systems, sniff~cr systems for high value areas.

4. Accommodation far Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA): Handicapped access, Personnel elevators, bathrooms.. .etc.

5 . OC Directorate split up between two facilities (1 102D & 1105A). Total square fool requithnent not satis6ed. Comadicts programmcr'a assumptions foi not splitting up Mission Directorates.

Admie/Engr Spt 24,512 SF 22.100 SF - 2412 Lab Space 23,472 SF 24.000 SF + 528 S m g e W O S 8MSF 0

6. Cost Fitctors arc low, bascd upon actual cons~uction of similar fhcilities at RL>. These lcilities are being repliwted undcr similar conditions as at Grir]Bss AFB. (RT, costs don't include I~Jcality cost factors)

RL Historical HAFB est. AFMC 2 1

EW S P ~ S /SF $ 5 W F S 138lSF Storage $ 2SlSF S SISF +-

Workstations $4,368 cach $3,510 each $4,368 tach

7. No asbestos removal costs identified. Existing building is similar in age and andccmxruction to RL's Bldg 240, eqcct large quantities of Asbestos Containing Material (ATM). C o n s m a in 1956.

8. OC will have 90 gm. and 46 contractor personnel rcquiremmr. Only 123 (vs 136) prewired work stations have been idenfled to be bough^ Difference of % 45,500 using nrrrem HAFB esdmate per unit ($3,500).

9. Inside storage (800 SF) now programmed for tllis hility is rcquired in bldg 11.02D. Storage must be co-locattd with lab space and dircct access to a freight elevator. This is required for assembly d research devipes.

RL/ IMA

BRAC 95 MILCON PROJECTS - HANSCOM AFB REVIEW COMMENTS

12 APR 95

PROJECT 950082 Bldr1614 - W C 3 Directorates

1. Lab Space is dl cakgorized under one hcading, can't distinguish different a)st factors for specific requirements. Simil;hr comment for SCIF space.

2. No costs f i r Electrical or Communications systcms i m c t u r e expansions. (Substations, duct raceways.. .etc.), Current facility is a Commissary, adequate d&caI and cormxlunication infrastructwc is mt expck'ltd lo exist.

3. Fin suppression for facility not costed, will require complete upgrade. Prcactiw systems, &er syslans for high value areas. Water pressure must bc reviewed for increased kility expansion.

4. Accommodation for Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA); Handicapped ac.xx~s, Persoanel elevators (up through Second Floor addition), bathrooms ... etc.

5. Associated Radar must have adcquatc "clear shot" across basc buildings while maintaining proximity to associated labs (niax. distance rcstricQns). Connectivity to othcr RL facilities i.e. Sweillancc Lab. NYS Research Sites. No associated wtr with JammerICalibration sitesrt~wcrshilruc~cs~

6.1R and C3 facility rcquirunentS are compared below. No accommodation for spwial purposo spaces (sec~ve conference rooms, brcak rooms, equipment pools) are includcd in RL rrquirement under the awumption thc all of RL would be somewhat collocated.

RL Rqt Programmed Delta

Admin./Engr Spl 53.331 SF 60,000 SF + 6669 Lab Space 44,622 SF 48,100 SF + 3435 SCIF 31,828 SF 34,000 SF + 2172 Storage 5,5 19 SF 5,700 SF + 181

6. Cost factors &.re low, bnscd upon actual c o n ~ o n d similar facilities at RZ.. Them facilities arc being replicated under similar conditions as at GGriffiss AFB. (RL was don't include Irnlity cost factors)

RL Historical HAFB est. AFMC 21

Engr Spt $ /SF $ 50/SF $ 138ISF Lnb Space .$ 153/SF $ 1 lO/SF $ 180,266,433/SP (light, med., hvy) SCIF S 312/SF $ I6USF S 190,455lSF (light, hvy) Tower Fdn S 10k ylch $2.5k each -- Workstations $4,368 each $3,510 each $4,368 each

7. No asbcstos rernanl costs identilied. Old roof will contain asbestos containing fdts and mastics. Exisdag building buiIt in 1955, expect largc quantities of Asbestos Containing Material (ATM).

8.1R and C3 will have 280 govt, and 147 contractor persollnel quiremenl. O4.y 3 12 (vs 427) prcwired work stations have beu ikntified to bc bought. Difference aC S 402,500 wing current HAFB estimate per unit ($3,500).

04/14 /95 F R I 08:45 FAX 315 330 3172 RL/SUR

9. No costs associated with exterior upgrades are included, i.e. fke cxtts, card atzess systems, site development, signage, etc.

LO. No costs associated with second floor expansion: rmbstructure, superstructure, roofing, or exterior closure. The cost for a roof addition is absorbed into the second floor cost at $32 /SF. A cost for this similar item on bldg. 1105A was $2IO/SF.

11. AF 71 15 Real Property Report shows the commissary portion of bldg. I614 to ompy only 83,926 SF of space, approximately 25,000 SF is two story warehouse space and 59,000 SF ws single story space, yet second floor construction consists of 68,000 SF. Programmers are not accounting for lost area on both floors dedicated to providing vertical circulation (stairs and elevator shafts). S h d d not be a b s m in Admin./Engr Spt space allotments.

12. IR and C3 have communication antenna and tower requirements not identified.

13. Parking appears inadequate on site plan to accommodate all sWvisitors/ delivery etc. requirements.

0 4 / 1 4 / 9 5 F R I 0 8 : 4 5 FAX 315 3 3 0 3172

BRAC 95 MILCON PROJECTS - HANSCOM AFB REVXEW COMMENTS

PROJECT MXRD 9500834 BIdp1302F - DO. PX, XP. li'M Directoratq

1. Apparently this facility is to serve as the Rame Lab Headquarters facility, although it makes no accommodations for the Command Section. This facility is programmed to receive NO RENOVATIONS. There are no accommodations for conference rooms, 1obbyMsitor area, bid rooms, or any other special purpose areas. Associated computer rooms for specific organizations: PK, SC (no building computer room), LG are not accounted for or placed in another facility (bldg. 1102F). This projects assumes facility is in move-in condition with the installation of prewired work stations and additional 450 parking spaces o*.

2. No costs far Plumbing, HVAC, Electrical or Communications systems infrastnlcture modificationdwrpansions (substations, duct banks, raceways.. .etc.).

3. Accommodation for Americans with Disabilitia Act (ADA): Handicapped accl:ss, Personnel elevators (up thmugh Second Floor addition), ba throoms... etc.

4. CC, DO, PIC, XP and FM Edcilily requirements are compared below.

RL Rqt Programmed DeIta

Admin./Engr Spt 30,022 SF 29,400 SF - 622 Lab Space 24,442 SF 18,000 SF - 6,442 Storage 200 SF 0 SF - 200

6. Cost Mars are low, based upon actual construction of similar kilities at RL. These facihties are being replicated under similar conditions as at W s s AFB. (RL costs don't include locality cost factors)

RL Historical HAFBest. AFMC 21

Admin.Eqg Spt $ /SF $ 5OlW 3 138lSF Lab Space $ 153lSF $ 110lSP % 180,266,433iSF (light, med., hvy) Workstations S 4.368 each $3,510 each $4,368 each

7. No asbestos removal costs identified. Existing building built in 1952, expect large quantities of Asbestos Containing Matcrial (ATM). This facility has also been known to fail air quality standards in the psst.

8. CC. DO, PIC, XJ? and FM will havc 172 government personnel requirement. Ody 154 prewircd work staliona have been programmed for. Difference of S 63,000 using current HAFB estimate per unit ($3,500). Programmen havc not accounted for any contractors for the Command Section OT Support s M , have assumed none of them require an office or workstation.

9. No costs assoclatcd with exterior upgrades are included, i.e. fire exits, card access systems, site development, signage, etc.

BRAC 95 MIIICON PROJECTS - HANSCOM AFB RlEVlEW COMMENTS

PROJECT MXRD YSUU83B ,BIdnl302FA - DO. PIG XP, FM Directorat=

1. Projecl for $2,150,000 to renow kility was CANCELED duc to unknown reasons.

BRAC 95 MILCON PROJECTS - HANSCOM AFB REVIEW COMMENTS

I2 APR 95

PROJECT MXlUl950083C Bld~l l02F - DO. PK. XP. FM Directorates

1. Apparently this facility is to serve as the Rome Lab SWDirectanltcs' assoclatod computer/lab facilily. This ki l i ty is pmgmmrncd to receive NO RENOVATIONS. This projects assunla fadlity is in move-in condition with thc instahtian of prewircd work stations only. No provisions have be11 for m l s t ~ t i o n of Photo Lab, Oraphics Lab, cornpum Science and Technology Center, Nchvorks Operations Cmler, PK Consolidated Computcr Facility, or LG computer mom

2. No cosls for Plumbing, HVAC, Electrical ar Communidons systems inlrastmcturc modificationslexpansions (chemical drains, h e hoods, substations, duct banks, raceways ... etc.),

3. Accommodation for Americans with DisabiLitics Act (ADA): Handicapped ac:cws, Pasonnd elevalors (up through Second Floor nddition), bat hmms... ctc.

4. CC, DO. PK, XP and PM facility reqhmcnts are sllown on project MXRD !350083A review comments.

5. No asbestos r t k d costs identified. Existin8 building built'in 1956. e m large quantities of Asbestos Conwining Material (ATM).

6. No costs associated with exterior upgrades are included, i.e. fire wits, card access systems, site dcvelopmmt, signage, etc. Sik visit of W B showed available space in the basemcnt of this facility for RL,

04/14/95 08:03 S 3 1 5 330 3909 RL/IhIA @0lO

0 4 r s p r bp / LLC ID:617-377-7955 RPR 12'95 11:59 N o . 0 0 7 P.02

LRI, MOVE: ?) baaeline

1. Keep each scientific directorate TOGETHER.

2. Mission Support Directorates can be separated, if necessary.

3. bid Not in~lude kbtura Requirements - Gen F &pace ror I R p (I M L (40Osfl 6 J I T P (14935SF & 8000~E;) Is

not Anal uded, could add l a t e r

4. Aamin space - 162 affperson (basis is conventional furniture)

5 . Engr Support Space - 102 sr/person ( d i t t o )

6 . Contraatora 162 sf/pcx person o r currently available apsce, AP less

7 . No special apace ror RL BOS - move in with counterparts 8 , No special space for "Open Storage" - w i l l work whcn they m v e here

9. Manpower ( f o r space calcs) - 595 govCt ,/ 193 contactor (approved by ESC/MO on 29 Marl3 Apr 95)

10. No RL-unique auditorium space (5772sf) provided - schedule use of cxisting a t HhFB . b.

11. No special MoD/FAR Shop space for RL at HAFB - PL says they car1 haidle extra workloaci easily

12. No speaial space IDDd tor RL S h i ~ i n g / R a c e i v i n g / ~ t o r a g e (25k) or Tech Lib (3689sf) - ehare PLrs space for this

k of 12 Apr 95

ROME U B O U M R Y - HANSOM

BRAC PROJECI8

950476A 1105 AddlAhrforRU13C .5,RlO.0 BRAC 0

9M076B 1M2D RcmowtcbbRLI1DC 170.0 BRAC - 0

93- lM2FA ikaaefirRUIK) 2.lSa.0 BRM: 0

9E001#C llW ~ o t 8 f o r R V D O 310.9 BRAC 0

11. CON-I 12, DATE I 1 1 PY 1995 MILITARY CONSTRUCTION PROJECT MT4 1 I

J I 917-311 950076A I 6,000 9: cop: cs%Tm

L

I I I I

I UNIT, I COST 1

j ~ # r u m # p g ~ $ m SF i L ~ , , w j so i 1 L a SPACg (OF 1 13,HK1 1 110) 1 8GIF SPACE (SF ( 1,700 1 1551 I nOOPToP AmXTItM (SF 1 10,500 ( 2101 ( P J U C - m YQRK STATZONS lm 1 91 ( 3,5101 I SUPHlRTINo FACTLITIBS I RAMa ~ T I a # s

I I I I I = I f I

i. { 10. Demorlpbion of Proposed Conitruc t I lineluQo: admin./eng. support areas, laboratortes, SCIF areas, and special I \rum areas. Suppor~Lng faci'litisr include 811 required t z t i l i t i a s , I 1-icrrloru, fin pmmotlon, alarm ry reeu , p r a - w b d work rWtione , I

ay.~lsh/8hOYCra, archnut b o d r , hrndtoap rcmrrr, a d rrbcnrga I r.wv.1.

I I

j ~ i r Conditionins: - 210 Tons, .I_- Ill, RPxlUTREMEnT: 42.200 SF ADEQUATE: 0 SUBS TAN DAD^ 31.700 SF - - - -

jmarmi SIEO CIOSU; edd t o and 'rtear B ~ I O S A t o ~ ) ~ o n e L&, I-,: ?tits BRAG 95 project La requlred t.0 pruvlde faailitiee for Ithe Ranr Lab Survetllame Directorate (OC) being relocated frarn Griffisa IAFB. The projmct %I nnceaorry t o continua research and developnont (pro~rws i n c l d n g thm dmvolopmenr o f new tcohnolo~isr and technical 1-ment o f prograw . l.- spWATIOls: This Rome laboratory orgsnfoatfcm fa currently Locstad )at Grtfflnr Ma. The organiaetioa 11 required to reloarte ce Wlnrcom APB J&r the 1995 BEAG r a c ~ n d a t i o n s . J_IXPACT XP .p ?ItOVIDED; If rhil projaot i s not pravided the Survoltlmnca (D;LreoWr&te of Ram hbaratory r c C t i f f i o r AFJl a 1 L be unable t o relocat. )to 8.nraorr API). 1n Witfan, rerearch md development: proBram ln Iadvancd rurrrc%l5lan- k c b l o w w i l l be dolryed or: cancelled. T h m cost t m f remmsrob md developwne pregraw w i l l b a ~h-ntce~~arlly high and t h m Jrccurecy snb corpletenees o f e x p ~ r l ~ n t s rill not be optgmal, (AMIITrOW: Th. fundhg for thir prejeef will ooac f i a m the Base 161.&ll&nment and Clasure Account. T)se project meets the oxiterfa/scope of IPart 11 Hilicnry Handbook 1190, "IFaei l i t ia~ Planning and Design Guide* and J A i r Force 1 ~ t r u c t ; f ~ n (+PI) 32-1081. wSC~p,4p&g-Faciliw Reuuirearonrru . Bb WM 1391, D W 76 Prwlow edlrions are obsoleze. Page No

.I. a* *. 9 . P & b.. 9 ' .. *' a . . b .,, , . .

RPR 12'95

-. I IrY 1995 F R W V COST gSTInATE SUMMARY Chmuter-Generated2 111. PDC mMI5ER 12. PWW TIT= 13. DATE I ~ 9 ~ 0 0 7 6 A I BC M A L ll~J_IOC) RL I 950412 (4. LUIcW I 5. BAsE/STATe/INST COD# ( 6 . ACF I nTC 1 , . MSC;on M B HA I 1.29 17. CONST STAILTI@, m s OF C O S J S T ~ ~ . PG D;~TE I l o . CIXR&IOT PC) j l l . EXCHANGE UTE J .9S0400 I 12 - I 9610 I I . 0000 112. PRIMARY PACILITIES ' - ' . 1 13. CAT I~L,SAF~~S,(;GHI 16. 117. SGOPgl 18. UNITl 19. COS' 1 co 1 u 42.2001 COST (oao) lEIvGxsseaum i i i . -97 G i 6 . q s0.w; 82, JLAb SPACE 1 917-321 1 1.00 1 .97 1 SF 1 13,5001 110.001 1.48: 1 s c r ~ SPACE - 1 . .97 I S F I 1,70111 SSS.~MI 26 jaoo~ TOP mr~rolr I 317-311 I 1-00 1 .97 1 SF 1 10.5001 210.00i 2.20: 1 Pi lE-WXRPD ~ T A T I O I O S 1 - 1 1 1 1 -97 1 gA I 911 3,500.001 91' I 1 I I I I I

I I I I I I I I I

I I 1 t 1 I I I - b

J20. PBZlURY PAaITY S-L 5,091 121. SUP#)RTXNG PUIUTIES ( ~ P . C C F I 23. 124. SMPBl 25. WIT; 26. Cosr I I msT I (ODQ) (R4MR POUNPrrTIolsS I t 1( I PAvIW ( - 9 7 1 I I 2! I I I I I I

I I I

I I I

1 I 1

I I I

I I I

1 I I I I

I I

I I I f

I I

t I

I I I

I I I I I

I I

I I I I 1 I .

I I I

I I

I 1 I 1

I I

1 I I

I I i I I

I I

I I

I 1 I

I 1

I I

I I

I I 1 I I 1 I

i I I I 1 I I

I I

I I I I

I I

1 I 1

I I

I I 1 I I I I I I

I I I I i

04/14/95 0 8 : 0 6 S 3 1 5 330 3909 RL/IMA @I 015 b4f S p t Gp f CEC

. .. ID:617-377-7955

. . .... - RPR 12'95 12:Oi No.007 P.07 "- --. . . - 9

I. CaUgwLWr : D * T ~

AIR FORCE F Y 1995 MIL I TARY CONSTRUCT ION FROJE:CT DATA I --

X#rutlwr ~&maw I

I HANSCOM AFB. MA I

04/14/95 08:07 W315 330 3909 RL/IMA @I 016 uvr 3 ~ 1 up I LLL 1U : b l t'-3f (-(955 RPR 12'95 12:02 No.007 P.08

(1. CoHPONrn( 12. M'II 1 I FY 1995 HJLlTABY CONSTRUCTION PRCJWT DATA I

I 1

I I I . I I I. 317-313 MXRD9-500760 170

9. COST ESTIHAW I I I I

ITm l u / n l m I WrT I I

TYI I ($000) IBG RENOVATE 1102P (OC) RL ( Anl41~msm2;BG

1u I I I '144 I ISP 1 5,600 1 51 i 2 8 ) I

I S-QE I S P I @MI I ~ - V ~ WQIUc smrrws

51 C 611

( SUBT01AL lm 1 3 2 1 3,5001 ( D ) l I I I I 144 1

( C O # T I B l Q m (1M) 1 I I I 2 I IT0TA.L CfSTRMT COST I I I 1 158 1 ISUPEaVXSXW, INSPECTION AND OVEPHgAD (6a) 1 I I I -2 1

-T I I I I 167 1 ITOTAL ZLEQUBST (ROUNDED) I I r I 170 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I

I 1 I

I I I I I I 1 I I I I 1 1 I I I 1 I I I I 110. Doscrl~+lon of Proposed Consrructlon: Renovate e x f s t i n i f i c i l i t v to f i tnclue a&ln. jmn~lnesrircg rupport and storage areas, 8uppo~tin8

.. lircillte* includes all rehulrmd u f i U t i e e , col~.unicatiaw, firs protecttan.

i i Mac Gloours renovate 61102~ (OC) Roae tab. e

IltmIRm: This BUAC 95 project is required t o prmide facilities for lche Rome Lab Surwillarrca Dirttctorrce {OC) belng ralocated from Gri f f ins INS. Ths project i a necessary t o conttnue research urd develapmant Iprograa inaluding the developanent af n e w technologfaa and kchniaal 1 arriagemnr of pre&raari, ( C m SITUATION: This Rotma Idbratory ofganieation fs cutrmtly located a t G r i m . The argani%ation fa requited to re1ocat.i to Han~coa AFB IWL: the 1995 BRhC r a c ~ e n b r i o n r , I IMPACT I? W3T PnovTDBDr Zf the projsct: is not p r m l d d tbe s ~ i 1 1 ~ - ~bimotoxrtw of Roma trboratary Grlfinae AFB will be unable to relocate to Jbnscam APB. In additien, rerurch and davelopmunt prog1:- in advanced 1auruelllurce technalogy will be belayad or cancelled. The w a t of Ira&nrok .rsd davalopwnr progrpoa will bm un-necessarily high and tba fracurrey d complmt.wss 02 axperlr#nre wl1L not be optfrrl. IADDITl[WAL: nte fumiiw Ear chis pr@J-t wfll cum f m m rh. hme IRulimat m d Clorure Aooomt. The projeat r e u thn crlmrh/acope af (Part IT Kilitrry Handbook 1190, wFacllities Phnning md Design G a l d a m m d J A l r Force Za~thleeion (APT) 32-1086, n5ean&rd F a c i l i q ? Biupuirementew . I I

t& WIU( 1391, DEC 76 F Z ~ V ~ O U S edit ions are absolate. Page No . ' *. . . - I . * r e * . . .

w I PY 1995 PaWgCT COST CSTX-NJTE SUilMkY ~Ccmuter-Osnrra~crd2. 11- ?ac bmbaek 12. PROJBCt TITLE I S . DATE

I HCG I S W -. AFB #h I L. 29 17. ctrsrm STNlTJ8. W S OF mSTI9, Po 1.i6:" GURR~~NT PA 111. EXQUNCE RATE I 956400 I . 12 96lO I .OOOO 112. -Y FACILITIES 1 13. CAT l . S A F l 5 C F l 16. I ~ ~ . M X I P E I 18. 101121-19: C O S ~

I I I I I I 427. -1 128- P & ~ + SUtmllT lUbTpTu (20 + 27) I 144 1 J29. UWTINGRHGY ( l a I O I ) I 14 J30. TOTAL COZ&&ACT COST (28 + 29) I $58 1 J31, s~Ok <&Or) 1 . 9 ~ J32, TuTAL k6pUlyT (30 + 31) ____. 1 167 L 133. TOTAL mZIEST ROUNDED ---.---l 1701 I 34. RQU.XPEIENT FROM OTHER A P P R O ~ ~ A T S O W S .. AF Form 1176, NOV B8.

L

: '

I - I -4. m m c ~ VIIK'-

" .-- i BC-

1 . m W T

A I R F O R C E r &"ik~~rm m L & A T ~ "I-- ".-

HAhSCOM 4F8. MA

FY 1995 M I L lTARY CONSTRUCTION ??OJECT DATA 0.011C

..l*.LII...

11- fXH===l 12. DATE 1 f l 1995 MIUTAIlY CONSTWCTION PROJEm DATA I

I I I I

ear neneratodl 14. PIRwgCT TI= u

j BASE CLX)EUEIE ADD/ALTER 81614 I

I I

I I I I 31)-331 lWtD950982 20,000

t I, I, 9,PST RSTIKATW .J I I I 1 wr'r GOST 1

TTEH IUFI.fQUANTI'l!Yl COST 1 (SOOQ) I 1 ~ 8 ~ GLQ~URE MD/UTIZR ~1614 (xR/c~$ RL I I I } ls,o22 I I unmo/rrwoIrWERING IS#' 1 60,000 ) sol ( WQO)I I Ur, SPACE IS? 1 48,100 1 1101 ( Sg2Pl)l I ~ C Z F SPACE ISP ( 34,000 1 165) ( S,~IO)I t s- !SF I 5,760 I I Pole-WIRED WRK STATIONS

51 C 2911 Islr I 312 I 3bSOOl ( L,O92)1

lgPPPOXTUQ BACUITIBS I f I I 2 , m I I SBCCWD FLOOR C019STRUmlON !SF 1 68,000 1 321 ( 8,175)l I W A T O R I= I I I ( .lW)l I RAMR B W U r u r I O N I= 1 I I SDI)T07AL

5) I I I I I ( R Y E I

lcammmcy (lor) p m ~ camurn COST

I I I I 1.790 I I I I ( 19.032 (

ISUPEPvrSJOH, INSPgCT3COW AND OVEW&AI) (6P) I ( I 1 -1 m I I I 1 20.174 1

I =ALL W@lEIST (WIQlDEDI I I I 20,000 1 I I I I I I I I I u I . Rescri~tion of Propooed C o n a t ~ c t i o n : ~dd, ia l ter exic tin= fac i l i tv to I i include ; s&in./eng. suiport areas, l~boratorib's . sCZF areas k d L I ~ I C I ~ ~ i I'uua armas. 8uppostLq faeiZltimm include a l l requited u t i l f cism, I I ccuruniwW8na. fire pt!eeectlon, alrm aymUIDIn, pro-witad vark atatfattat, 1 (mrgmnay ey.w.ah/aborrre, exhaust hoods, aabamtas rclcwal urd bndicap 1 acoa~8.

I I

Air ConditLaniru: 750 Tana. - .- .- - 1 ~ U 1 B B n C ; R T : I47.800 SF ADEQUATE: 0 SUBSTANDARD: 80, WO SF I

IPJWECT: laem Closure Add/alter b1614 (IR/C3) Roam - h l r , I IRRQUIPIIWENT: Tblr .BRAG 95 projmct: i. raquired t o prwllda faollftfee far ( Iche Rome Lab Computer, Control & C-unicaLlons (C3) wtd Intelti~enoe and I IRccennr1ssancr (IB) Directorates bmlng r*locatmd frsm drfffira AFB. Tho 1 Iprojeet LB nraeasary to contitrue research and devalopent in C3 and IR end j lib the developnwnt of uew technologies and technical aruugmmant programs. 1

1-3 SITWATXON: %a&. Rome laboratory or&anf.@tlonr arm e - ~ ~ t l y I llocr at C r i f f i r r Am. Tbnra orpnisations are required t o rslocatm to I 1Ummcam AFb uadcr tbe 1995 O W r ~ c o ~ n d a t i m s . I

1P NOT PROVIDED: If t N r project $6 n o t providhd the C3 and IS I I.bl0 to r e l ~ a t e to H l r u c o m AFB. In addstLon, resoarah m d d.ualqmant:

I

I p q r m tn ~~b C3 cnd XR tmcbnolo~ will be delayed or cancellad, I ~'Llur cacrt of remarch and dmmlapmt programs will be un-ntcorrarily high 1 ( a d t)w rccurwy a d completmes+ of axperhenrs will not be eptfmal. IfimITTw: The funding for thn project wf 11 c- f+orn the Bats

1 1

IRmrl i - t urd Olonrro Acoourt. The project mccta otitttia/roope o f Part I 111 wilrtnry Hanaboak 1190, ' R c i l i t i e n Plsnnii~g and Deaign Guideh and Air ) mrcr Instruccian (MI1 32-108*, wStanhrd Facility Repuiramentsw. I

DO FORH 1391, ?EC 76 Previous sdi tions &re obsolete. Page No - I r . .... . I . - # * . . .. '.

@a21

RPR 12'95 12:06 No.007 P.13

13. DhTE 1 MXRI?9S.0082 I Bd MV/ALT 1614 (,(IR/C3) RL l.950412 14. W C O S I I 5. MSE/STATE/ INST CODE ( 6 . ACF f I HMlSCOH A n nA 1.29 (7 . -ST sTAIITJ8, WTHS OF GONSf(9. PG DATE 110. CWhtENT PA ' -Ill. EXClWl.DE RA&- I 95oriOO I 12 9610 .000Q 112. PRUUaY PACIWTIH I I$~*w l 1 4 ' ~ S A F ~ l S . b 0 ~ 1 6 . . 117. -SCOPII~ 18, WITl 19; c%? 1 . 1 CODE f I U f i 1 147.800 1 . CQS.Z I (Ooo> ( ~ / B W C I U S ~ 1 1 7 - 1 1 1.0 1 9 1 SF 1 .60,'000( 5O.WI 3,001 )LAb SPAOI ~ 3 ~ 7 - ~ 1 1 1 1 - 0 0 ~ , 9 7 1 S F 1 48,100) 110,001 5,291 1 SCXP erscrs 1 317-311 1 1.00 1 .97 I SF 1 34,0001 165.~01 5 , ~ ~ 1 ~l!r~mcs 1 3a7-911 1 1.00 1 -97 1 SF 1 s,7001 s.001 2! ( P Z 1 B - w WQRK6TATIOPIB 1 317-311 ( 1.00 ( .97 1 Bh 1 3121 S,HK).OO) 1.09: I I I t I I I I I I I I 1

I

I I I

I I I I I I -

i20, PRUUIRY F~CIUTY SUETOTAL I J

I 15.02: -* - 1 21. SuPPORTXUG FAOILITLEI 122.CGFI 23. 121. SCOPE1 25. UMITI 26, Cost

4%. 1 I U/M I I W T I (000) IELEVAm ( .97 1 L! I . I I lo[ (IUDAP. m w 1 w 1 .97 ) 1 I I ! 1s- PUXIR CONSTRUCTION I .97 1 SF ( 68,0001 32.221 2,191 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I

I I I

I I

I 1

I 1

I I I I

I I

I I I 1 I

I

f I I

I 1 1 I

I . I

I I I I I

1 1 I I I I 1 I I 1 I I I I I I I i I 1 I

I

1 I

1 I I I I

I I I I I I

I I I I 1 I I

i I

f I I I I

1

I . I t

I I I I I I

I

I I I I I I . I

I 1 I 1 I I

SUBTOTAL I 2.294- 1T SUBlVl'AL (20 + 27) I 11.318

I 1,732. ST (28 + 29) I 19.02

* . a.m...- I 1 ;I43 ,! + 31) +-..,,--- I 24,193 --IDED ... I I.. ... . . -_- . ..... - - . . _ . I 20,000

I

RL/SUR 04/14/85 FRI 1 0 : 0 4 PAX 315 33Fu!lp'12r-3rr-Cy33 v - 0 v r r up r ~ C L

0 4 / 1 4 / 9 5 0 8 : 1 5 S 3 1 5 330 3909 u w r 3p .c up / LLL

RL/IMA @lo25 . .. LU ; O l , ~ - a ~ f - t ' Y S ~ , _ _ . _ _ .-.... - . - HYK 12'95 12:09 Na.007 P.17

L c o w ' w s m A I R FORCE FY 1995 M I L I T A R Y CONSTRUCTION PROJECT D A T A

-, U.8

I J.YTMLA1ION r(P L O O W

PROJECT LOCATION 4'

7 &-

S1T.E PLAN SCALE I 1 "400'

11. corrPblaEmrrl 12. DATE I 1 I FY 1995 IUWTARY CONSTRUCTION PRdJECT DATA I 1 . JAIR FORM I ( c ~ u t a ~ generated) J I (3 . f108'uuA~a A#D IMIATION 14.. PRQllEI tlm5 I i INIZ crnsuur RE-- 01302 1

i i I I I . 1 317-711.

I 1 HXRP950083A 460

J 9 . COST ESTIHATBS ." L I I I I I I

IU/nlQU&WTI ITEn T Y I . COST I ($000) I :BAS% CWUWS RWONPLGUBE B1302 P (W) RL I I I I 350 1 I A p m ~ I H ~ I M G ISP 1 28,400 1 I ( . 11 I a - h W C D SaTIOWS 1 1 100 I s,sW( ( 3 W ( jllttPPORlIW PMILITIRI I I I I 0s I J PARKrUC I = ( l O O 1 4501 (*)( I SInrZWIAL I I I I 395 I (cxw!RNQrnGY (101) I I I I A!! 1 JTOTAL CONTUCT COST I I 1 I 435 ( 1 SVPB6NISIOZO. I W s P ~ ~ ~ r n m t6r) I I I I 26 I IW11l. m r 1 I I I 461 1 ]TOTAL L L E Q U ~ t-) I r . I I 460 1

r I I I I I I I I

I I I I I I I I I

I I

I I I I I I I I I I I 1 110. Descrlpclon of Propaaad Corutruccion: Renavatr mxi8tin6 faoLlity to ( lincludc: adniniatrative and eheineerfw #upport arm&#. Supporting ( iacllitles lncLu& a l l required ut l l f ti.8, communicat i~ , f i r e

I I

~proccrotfoa, alarm mystear, pre-vind mrk statlaam, pwkiw a d handtcrp 1 Jrece.. . L Ill. -: 29.400 SF A D W T E : 29,490 SP .sUBSTNDARD: 0 (PROJECT: Broe Clomurs roconfigwe 813028 (00) Rome blr.

I I

I-: Tnls BIUC 95 project is required t o provide facilities for ( lthe Ume Lab mission support which includes the Dfreckrratea of Operations I )(bO), PIC, %P, md FM p e t ~ o a n e l beine rslocaced from Grtffiss APB. The I lproJrrct 1s necessazy t o continue the support for research and deveLoprnent ( (progemma inaluding the drrvelQpiw3nt o f new tmchnologies and tcohnlcal pf#~geEeX&t o f program. l,WRRWT SIntATION: Theom RbDLO Laboratory o ~ g a n i ~ a t i o n s are currentIy

I I

~Loaatad r e Crfffirra AFB. Tkraa 8r6wdrrrtSonr are required co rmlwrre ta I )Irlrrum 4Pb d r the 1995 #RAC r~omamndrtlonr. IUWACT f P HOT PROVIDED: Xf t h i o project ia not pravlded the do#&-

1 I

laupport part ef ka=s Laboratory, currently locrated a t G t i f f i a a AFB, will 1 1-f be able to raloeate t o Lbnmm APE. In addit$~n, research and

- Idovalop-ent progtrrrr aupportad by rlwn d i ~ t o r a t e a d l1 be delmysd a+ I

(-.%lad. T h u0.t of rarmaroh and danlopwnt prop- Will ba I I

lun-mac.sslrlly high and the accurmcy d calrpletmmom o f .xprr$wnts ~ Z Z I lnot be opt-1. J m I T I W W . 4 : The funding for the proJmct w i l l CQPK from die Brrr

I 1

f h a l i y r ~ o n t and CLonurp Aeaount. The projsct Peers rho crtite#i~/scops of I lPart 11 Military Handbook 1190, "Facility Planin& and Desigh Duiden, and ( J&r Force In#tnzce%~n (Am) .32-1064. .Stand,n9~d Faciility Repl?irementsm . 1 PD FOWn 1391, DEC 76 Prevlouo editions are obsoleite . . *- * a -

Page No . . * . C 9 e ;

I PY 1995 PROjsCT OOST WTUlhTE SUMWkY (Camputor -Genereto& 11. PPC #IR(BeR (2. PROJECT T I T U ' (1. MTE

nxft0950083A I M; -RWONFIGUR& El302F (DO) pL l , O S O 4 1 2 ( 5 MSk/STAlZ/TNST CODE 16. ACF

J . m I I On U S UA 1 1.29 17. CONS2 8!WtTl8. MT~~I'OF iXMSTl9, PG MT& f 10. Cmmm'r PA

-Ch.

Ill. BlrcHANGE U T E

~ ~ 2 ~ * * 1 W 12 I 96 10 1 I .. 0000

1 13. CAT J~~.SAFI~~.CGPJ 16. 117. SCOPE1 18.' WIT( 19. WST . I . COPE I 1 t U/W f 29.5001 COST I COOcl)

z~/mcr~zanrao I $17-311 I L . O O ' ~ .97*1 $F 1 29,4001 I PaE-WIRW UO5UCSTAZIWS 1 317.331 ( 1.90 ( .97 1 SF I lOO( 3,500.001 350

f

I I I 1 I I I I I i i i I I I I I I I

I

I I I 1 I

I I I I I I

I I I I

I I I I

I I I I 1 I I

1 39. PsunAnv FACXU - I '??iT

(22.CGPI 23. 124. SCOPE1 25. UNIT1 26. Co*tl I I IIl/nI I COST 1 1000) 1 l P m i .97 1 EA 1 lo01 4~0.001 I I f I

451

I t I

1 I 1

I I I I

1 I 1 ' 1 I I I

I I I I 1 I I f I I

I . I

I I I 1 1

I I I I I

I t i I I I I U I 1 1

I

I I I

I It I I I t I

I I

I I I

I 1

I I I I

I I 1 I

I I 1 I

J

I I I I I I 1

'I I I

I f I I

I I I 1 I I

I I

I I

1 I

I I I I I I

I

I I I

1 - 1 I I

I I I

I I I I I f I

I I

I 1 1 I I

I I I I I I I I I

I ., 45 1 I - 3951 I a I 435 L I . 261

-__1__. 1 461 1 139. TOTAL REQUEST ROUND&D .a- I 134. .*rnPKkNT mcm OTHER APPRDPRI[AJlpNS

450

' A F Pot4 1178, IW 88. ~

04 /14 /95 08:18 S 3 1 5 330 3909 RL/IMA @ 029 lD:617-377-7955

-- , "'t 2yJ-6 Up / LtL RPR 12'95 12:12 No.007 p.21

+ 1

w I i r 4. PROJLCT M t C .

- .. -. w

i ec-

L-T

A I R F O R C E *-.-. x rstu1*tloN ryp C q C c t c w

HANSCOM AF8, MA - .

FY 1995 MILITARY CONSTRUCTION PROJECT DATA -

Z.D*TC

I I I I I I- -. 317 - 311 MXRD95OOS)C 1 . 220 1 _I 9, COST ESTIHATBS I I I I 1 1)NXT 1 cosi" I

ITm l U / X l Q ~ I ' F P 1 W T 1 C8600) ( W E R m C t f R E Dl102 P (W) EUI I I I I 189 1 ) TAB SFACE I8F I 181- I I ( ) I I P R L - W D aTATIO#5 I = I % I 3,smI (=)I 1-a l ~ l g g & I r m t (104)

I I 1 189 I I I

JTOTAL rXnmhm C06T I I I 208 1 I 1

I A , (811P6RVIBXW. lUSPECTI0W A#D WERHMD (6aj 1 I 1 I 121 p T A L ReQUEST I I I I 220 1 1 TOTAL REQUEST (ROUNDED) I I I I 220 1 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 I I

I I I I I

I I I I I I I I I I

I I

I I I I

I I

I I I I

I 1 I u 110. Descripcian o f Prapocied Csnat;rucrlon: Renovcta existing f a e i l i v r~ ] / include mdminiatrative and angineering epece and l ight labaratory space. I (Supporting facilftier hclude a l l reauirad utilicies . (t~muniaatlana, firm I

(PRWEcT: Bane closws nconfiptm B l l O l F (DO) Rame hb,wch laboratory. I ( ~ U L ~ : This BRAG 95 pmjeot Is rbquixed to p~0W.d. facilities for 1 1 the R w m LBb mLeaioz~ support LrhLeh includes the Difccterates o f Operalions 1 ((DO), PK, W , eK personnel baiw rolocat~d from O r i . f f L s s chFB. The I iproject LI mceesary t* continua the support for reeeetch and dewlopment j (ptogrums including tha dewtlapment o f mw tochnolagian and technical I I-mmtcnt of pro&r-ai. I-WTI-ON: Thass Rome Laboratory organizrtions are ourrwtly

I I

(loaatmd a t Qrlffirm AFB. Theae organisations er r raquired t o rcloeate t o I (Lkrucom M8 under ths 1995 BRAC rmcamendations. IIWPAt?T IF ROT PRDVIDPD: . If r id6 project: fm net provWd

I I

(Directorates of Rome Laboratory, currently Iscrated a t G r l f f i s s AIPB. will I (bm unrble t e rslacatu ta Ha~com AFB, 1x1 rddirion, rerearch ud I Idmmlaprront pfOgrm# airy suppart v i l l be delayad m cmccrlled. The coot I 19f =&marah and dwvalopwnt progrru w i l l bo rm-nsasrnxlly bf* urd tke ( Irccur4uy rab carpletemor of erprrriaurta v i l l not b a p t i u l . ( ~ T T X O N A L : Tbs f&hg for the project dl1 cors fror the b e

I I

IRuJignmnt and Clonurc kwwe. fh* project meets h e erftarSa/~mp~ of I IPert I1 Hilitrry Randbook 1190, wFaclLity Planning and Ueaip\ Oulde*, and ) IAL+ Force lnrttuctiah (Am) 52-1084, .Stmdard Feoiliry Requir+menmm. I

t I

DD FORH 1391, DEC 76 Previous editlom are lbb901et:e. Page No

- PY .I995 PWUECT CdST CSTIHAm S w (ibiwwr-prqrted)

1. PlX M W M R 12. PllQlECT TITLE 13. DATE J WtRD95008SC I BG -PECQNFICURE B 1102F (DO)RL I 950412_ 14. WOW 15. BAsE/STAT~/T#S~ COD# (6. ACF

me 1 HANSCOM .Am #A 1 1.29 (7. OQNST START 18. NTH# OF OONST(9, PG MTt 110- FA 11%. gKQUNC;O; UATB

112, PIUNARY FACLLXTX&S I cab^ I I i urn 1 1s .mar mar . I (0001

' - 1 317-311 1 1.00 1 -97 1 $,F 1 116,000 I=-utsrsP -TATIONS 1317-311 11.00 1 .97 } eh J Shl 3,500-00) $81

1

I I 1 - . I I I '

J27. SU?PORTI#O FAcnrTY SUBTOTAL . 1

I PR + SUPPORT BItsTOTAL (20 + 27) . I

1 189J

BO.. mAL COtmA I .. - 19.1

dT GOST 128 + 29) I 131. SIoH (6.01)

208 1 I 12 1

3 . TOT l D

I 220 1 r 33. w - u e s t IU#RJI)E --.. ... 22JJ u4. E Q U X v PROM OTHER APpPRIATIONS --J- ..- -. . - - ,...s..s.--~ .

AF Form 1178, ROV 88.

*I, W W ~ K W 2 DhrC

A IR FORCE FY 1995 M I L I T A R Y CONSTRUCT ION P3OJECT DATA I . . - "0--

$ . - W T ~ A I ~ LocATCW -I--

HANSCOM AFB* MA

-. -. . - .- . . . .. ARMY

. - . - . - - . - - I - .

George AS&*& . I Mr- . SARD

--

-. -. .. 4 D r . --Cha i t .. PENTAGON SARD- ZT -- LTC Thomas - .- PENTAGON AMC . Steven B a l i n t - - - - . . - -

..

T A X -

- -- -- -- -+ - - SAF /AQ - IMr. ~ i m Mattlce ASAF ( ACQ ) PENTAGON

I - - - - I- -- -- - -- !Mr. Matt Mleziva .- HANSCOM-ESC HANSCOM -. AFB 7 APSO-ASC - --

- M r . T a n Frysinger I WRIGHT-PAT AFB -- -

~Mlke - Binion I AWSTRONGAB I-- ~~001(S AFB .- I --I-- - --

. ./..- . t-- BSAT . . - - -. . . ASN(I&E) - - [ . .

. -1 . .+=$&E) . . PENTAGON .-

ASN . (RD&A) ASN ( RD&A) -- -- I-. . _ ___ ASN (RD&A) . __ . . . . PENTAGON . - .

I

ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF DEFENSE

3300 DEFENSE PENTAGON WASHINGTON DC 2030 1 -3300

ECONOMIC SUiCWITY

Honorable Alan J. Dixon Chairman, Defense Base Closure

and Realignment Commission 1700 N. Moore Street, Suite 1425 Arlington, Virglnla 22209

A p r i l 10, 1995

Dear Mr. Chairman: -

Thank you for the opportunity to testify on March 1, 1995, regarding the Department's closure and realignment recommendations and pr-ocess. In response to your request, enclosed are answers to your questions for the record.

I trust this information will be helpful, please let me know if there is anything else we can provide.

Sincerely,

[oshha Gotbaum / I

Enclosure

COMMISSION QUESTIONS FOR THE RECORD Mr. Joshua Gotbaum

Question 1: What is the annual cost of the excess infrastrt~cture in the Joint Cross- Service areas remaining after the 1995 round?

Answer: I have asked the Comptroller to gather the data necessary to estimate the cost of maintaining excess infrastructure remaining after BRAC 95. I will forward a response as soon as we have been able to assimilate the data.

COMMISSION QUESTIONS FOR THE RECORD Mr. Joshua Gotbaum

Question 2: The Defense Science Board (DSB) recommended a 20 percent cut in the laboratories' Civil Service personnel, in addition to the 4 percent per annum cut directed by Defense Policy Guidance 1995 through 1999. According to a senior Do0 official, these cuts will result in a 35 percent reduction in these personnel by the turn of the century.

How much of a reduction in DoD laboratory infrastructure is contained in your recommendations?

. -

How and when is Do0 going to eliminate the excess infrastructure?

Answer: Most laboratory reductions -- the 35 percent you mention -- will come from the allocation of workload reductions rather than from BRAG actions.

The DoD recommendations for laboratory closures and realignments eliminate a relatively small amount of our excess capacity. However, there were noteworthy laboratory reductions including Naval Air Warfare Center Divisions at Lakehurst, NJ, and Indianapolis. IN, among others.

COMMISSION QUESTIONS FOR THE RECORD Mr. Joshua Gotbaum

Question 3: The Joint Cross-Service Review Team provided two options, both resulting in the closure of 8 depots. These options would eliminate between 30 million to 35 million excess hours from a total excess capacity of about 40 million hours.

The flnal DoD recommendation would close 3 depots and realign 7 others. How many hours of excess capacity will be eliminaled if these recommendations are approved?

-

Answer: If the DoD recommendations are adopted, excess capacity will be reduced by just over 20 million direct labor hours, or by about 50 percent of the total excess capacity. The Department believes this to be a significant accomplishment.

COMMISSION QUESTIONS FOR THE RECORD Mr. Joshua Gotbaurn

Questlon 4: What are the bases that were not recommend~?d for closure by the Navy to the Secretary of Defense for economic reasons?

Which, if any, installations were substituted for these omitted closures?

Answer: Because of a concern over total job losses in the State of California and Territory of Guam, the Department of the Navy did not close the following activities. even though it otherwise, through its analytical process, could have arrived at a conclusion to recommend closure;

Fleet and Industrial Supply Center, Oakland, CA

Western Division, Naval Facilities Engineering Command, San Bruno, CA

Supewisor of Shipbuilding, Construction and Repair, San Francisco, CA

Naval Warfare Assessment Division, Corona, CAI and Public Works Center, Guam

These actions reflect stand-alone decisions; there were no substi?utions for these activities.

COMMISSION QUESTIONS FOR THE RECORD Mr. Joshua Gotbaurn

Question 5: What do your recommendations do to merge medical facilities across the Services in each region7

What possibilities were analyzed (cover by region)?

Answer: The Medical Joint Cross-Service Group looked at overlapping catchment areas in their analysis of the Medical Health Services System infrastructure. The group aggressively sought out opportunities for consolidation of inpatient services. Six of sixteen of the alternatives were based on the evaluation of potential mergers ac:ross the Services. These included Fort Meade and Fort Belvoir in the National Capital Region, USAF Academy Hospital in the AcademyIFort Carson area, Shaw AFB Hospital in the ShawIFort Jackson area, Langley AFB Hospital in the Tidewater area, and Wilford Hall Medical Center in the San Antonio area.

Of these alternatives, the hospital at Ft. Meade was recommended for downsiz~ng by the Secretary of the Army, as was the hospital at Ft. Lee, Virginia. The Army also recommended the closure of Fitzsimmons Medical Center in Colorado, and both the Army and Air Force have agreed to realign their respective hospitals at Ft. Carson and the Air Force Academy to ensure adequate and cost efficient health care services remain to serve beneficiaries in the area. The Ft. Carson and Air Force Academy actions, along with the elimination of duplicate health care services in the San Antonio, Texas, Shaw AFBIFt. Jackson, South Carolina, and the Virginia Tidewater areas will take place outside of the BRAG process. The Department is also implementing TRICARE, a congressionaIly-mandated regional health care program. TRICARE is designed to increase access, improve quality an~d curb the rising cost of health care, while providing a uniform benefit for eligible beneficiaries. TRICARE will also serve as an incentive to further reduce duplicate services and share resources across Service lines.

COMMISSION QUESTlONS FOR THE RECORD Mr. Joshua Gotbaum

Question 6: How did Do0 view the benefits of regional (medical) complexes?

Answer: The Department believes there are significant benefits to pursuing and evaluating consolidation of medical services and training. Through the base closure and Defense Health Program processes, the Department will continue to aggressively pursue these benefits. At the same time, the Department is implernentlng TRICARE, our congressionally- mandated regional managed health care program. TRICARE is designed to increase access, improve quality and curb the rising cost of health care, while providing a uniform benefit for eligible beneficiaries.

COMMISSION QUESTIONS FOR THE RECORD Mr. Joshua Gotbaum

Questfon 7: NAS Meridian received two looks -- one at the service level and the second look at the joint level. If the joint ranking was higher, why didn't DoD take action based on the joint ranking, rather than accepting the Service recommendation?

Answer: The two "looks" are not the same. The Joint Cross-Service Groups were established by the Deputy Secretary of Defense to provide a DoD-wide evaluation of their respective areas - undergraduate pilot training (UPT) in this case. They were further empowered to provide altematives for subsequent analysis by the Military Departments which would reduce capacity and associated functional infrastructure. While the analyses conducted by the JCSG on UPT established a site value for each function (e.g., strike, helicopter, airliWtanker, etc.), it did not rank sites by an overall average functional value. In producing its alternatives, the JCSG analyses utilized military values, functional values, and capaclty resources. The Military Departments looked at the military value of installations based on all of their missions. Therefore, the evaluation conducted by the JCSGs was not a substitute for, but rather a component of, the Military Department analysis. In the case of Meridian, the Navy decided, and the Secretary of Defense agreed, that it did not need the training capability at NAS Meridian.

3i\ I C i . L~.IJU , ;&L ' I . L5Ci ,- l u - 2 5 . it,, 11 . U.-kb ~t '&Ll 1 . k5C.L- ;l.J3t9bu,35U. = 3: 1"

COMMISSION QUESTIONS FOR THE RECORD Mr. Joshua Gotbaum

Question 8: I f implemented, will the Department's recommendations to the Commission reduce a major portion of the excess capacity in any or all of the five cross-service functional areas? Please discuss those areas in detail where large amounts of excess capacity remain?

Answer: With the exception of Laboratories and Test & Evaluation, the DoD recommendations contain significant cross-service actions which generally achieve overall cross-service and excess capacity goals. In the Laboratories and Test & Evaluation areas, we will continue programmatic efforts to deal with remaining excess capacity, such as downsizing in place.

COMMISSION QUESTIONS FOR THE RECORD Mr. Joshua Gotbaum

Question 9: In May 1994, the Deputy Secretary of Defense stated that "Core is the capability maintained within organic Defense depots to meet readiness and sustainability requirements ... Core depot maintenance capabilities will comprise only the minimum facilities, equipment and skilled personnel necessary to ensure a ready and c:ontrolled source of required competence." (emphasis added)

If DoD's recommendations are implemented, will any of the Services retain capacity above their core level?

If so, what are the reasons for retaining this capacity?

Answer: Although we have achieved a substantial depot maintenance capacity reduction all of the Services will retain some capacity above the core level. Furttler reductions will require developing a better sense of cross- service and private sector capabilities.

Question: Will DoD's base closure list result in the minimum number of facilities to ensure readiness and sustainability?

Answer: No. The goal is to reduce capacity, not merely the number of facilities. With regard to depots, the goal was to reduce c?xcess capacity in a cost effective manner while retaining sufficient capability to meet critical readiness capabilities and requirements.

Question: If not, what means will the Department use to implement the Deputy Secretary's direction?

s - Answer: The definition and quantification of core requirements must be separated

from the sizing of the infrastructure to support those requirements. It is impossible and undesirable to attempt to exactly match capacity and requirements. With that in mind, the Departmertt believes that the proposed closure and realignments achieve the objectives set forth by the Deputy Secretary.

COMMISSION QUESTlONS FOR THE RECORD Mr. Joshua Gotbaum

Question 10: In 1993, the Defense Base Closure Commission realigned part of the Defense Information Service Agency (DISA) into 16 information processing megacenters. At that time, all officials concluded there would be excess capacity even w~thin these rnegacenters. Some have suggested that DISA actually requires only 5 rnegacenters. To realign, DISA would have to come to the Commission 10 change the 1993 recommendation.

Given that there is excess capacity within DISA, why are there not recommendations for further consolidation?

Ans wer: The current megacenter migration resulting from BRAC 93 began in FY 94 and is scheduled for completion through FY 98. Due to the ongoing establishment of these megacenters and their changing workload, meaningful capacity requirements are extremely difficult if not impossible to determine at this time. Before major changes can be made, the operating environment of this relatively new organization needs to stabilize.

1 ~ 1 8 D I , i - \ ~ i s L I ALL . 4-LU-85 . i 1- . . L I BCL- 7 ~ 3 b 9 b U 5 5 ~ 1 1 .! ' 12 4 > *

1095 AIR FORCE IMSE QUESTIONNAIRE

- --- - - - - - - - - - - llnme 1,ab - AFMC

-- ---

2. Operational Effectiveness A. Air Traffic Control

ATCA1,S - Air Trnflic Control ancl l , n l ~ t l i l ~ p S j s f r n ~ . ; NAS - Nationnl Airspace Systrrn

1.2.A.1 None of the base A'I'CAIS nre onicinlly p:wf of t11r PIAS.

I.2.A.2 Base has No ATC facilities.

I.2.A.4 I h e base d m not have a r~lurvny.

B. Geographic Location

1.2.B.1 Nearest major primary airlift customer: 170R'r' DRlJM

Nearest major primary airdrop customer: FORT DRUM

I.2.B.2 Distance to foward deployment Air Bases:

Lajes AB: 2202 NM

Rota AB: 3196 NM

IIickam AFD: 4315 Nhl

RAF hlildenhall: 3079 NM

distance

distance

- A - a - - - ,

UNCLASSIFIED 1.02

-- - -- - -- - - ---

1995 A1 H FORCE IIASE QUESTIONNAIRE

- - - Itotne -- . - Lab - - - - - - AFMC

---- -- - - - Distance from

Class of Airfield: . - . - - --. - - . Narne

- - - Military airfield, runway >= 3,000R GR1FI;ISS AFB - -- 0 Military airfield, runway >= 8,000R GRIFFISS AFE- 0 ~lili~-ry-airfieL~d_,runway >= 10,00011 GRII:I:ISS AFB -- o I.e - - - I --

C. Training Areas (Special Use Airspace (SUA), Ranges, Military Training Routes (MTRs), Drop Zones (DZs), Military Operatirlg Areas (hlOAs))

Military o r civilian airfield, runway >= 3,000fl Milita~y . - ---- o r civilian airfield, runway 7= 8,000fl Milita o r civilian airfield, runwny >=l&OJ!cc Civilian airfield, runway >- 8,000R for capal)le of conducting short term operations -- - - -- - --

Civilian airfield, runway >= 10,000R for cnpnhle of conducting short term operations

Supersonic Air Combnt Training (ACBl') MOAs nr~cl warninglrestricted areas, with a minimum size of 4,200 sq NM, within 300 NM:

- --

- . -- -. 297 NM

- - --

There are No MOAs or warninglreslrirfrcl arras ( r ~ ~ i t l i r n ~ t r r l sizf of 2,100 sq Nhl and an altitude block of at least 20,000 ft) within 2M Nhl,

I=- Other runways - on base - can be used - . for enlrrgency Ianclir~gq.

Low altitude MOAs and warning/restricfed nrens, uilh a rl~init~lurn size of 2,100 sq NM and a floor no greater than 2,000 11, within 600 NM:

Distance - - - - -

267 NM -- -- 269 NM -

297 NM - - - - -

346 NhI 4 19 NM -- - 492 NM

-- 539 Nhl - -. - - -- - - - - -

UtlCLASSlFlED 1.03

- -

Area - - Name - - .

W- 105 A,D,D,E,G W- lg7 A,D,E,F

- - Distance - - - Area - - Name --- - -- Distance -

268 NM W-155 A,B,D,E,G 268 NM 269 NM W-105A - 2!9%

W-102 LOW -

W-387 12.0 -

W-72 A,II - - -- - - . - --.

W- 122 I) -

W- 122F - -

310 NM W-386 A,BLC,D,E - -- 345 --- NM 386 NM W-387A 386 NM . 444 NM W-72B 460 NM 525 NM W-122E 525 NM - - -- - - -

553 NM W-122 A,B,C,D,E,F,G,II,I, 565 NM- -- - - - - - - - --- - -

- - - - - . -

1995 AIR ICOHCE IJASE QUESTIONNAIRE

Rotne Lab - AFMC

1.2.C.4 Scorable range complexes / tnrget arrays (cnpahlr of or hnvir~g tactical targets, conventional targets, and strafe), within 800 NM:

- -

-- - -- . - - - -- - .- -

Nearest electronic combat (KC) range nnd tlistnrlrr froni hnse:

WARREN GROVE L I 219 N M I Nearest Air Combat hlnneuvering l n s l r ~ ~ m c ~ ~ f n t i o ~ ~ (ACh11) rnrlge and distance from base:

Nearest full-scale, heavyweight (live drop or inert) rnnge and distance from base:

I~+DR_UM- - -- - I 61 N M J I'otnl number of slow routes (SR)/vist~nl rolrtes (VIt) / i r~ s l r~~r~ icn t routes OR) with entry points within:

l ~ y ~ e of Route: - 1 100 Nhl (

VR-725 64 K G VR-707 121 NM SR-900 122 NM

.--

SR-901 155 NM SR-905 168 NM -- VR-841 205 NM VR-842 205 NM VR-704 209 NM VR-705 209 NM VR-708 225 NM SR-844 226 NM SR-806 253 NM SR-808 253 NM SR-817 258 NM IR-716 268 NM SR-815 293 NM SR-835 293 Nh4 VR-1758 298 NM VR- 1624 320 NM IR-800A 333 NM 1R-E.FO 338 NM VR-1627 311 NM SR '?O.% 341 N M

Track I)istlir~ce - I'vcnts -- - 'I'rack Distance Events Track Distance Events AK-2061, 100 N M 20AR-204 163NM 319AR-212 163NM 356 AR-205 298 NM - 13 AR-455 483 NM 372 0 I AK-109 546 NM 2 13 AR-2 16 _ _ 583 NM 64 Racoon 659 NM 1829

- - ---- -

r w >'

- .- - . ASSlFlED

- - - - -- 1995 AI Jt FOIlCE IIASE QUESTIONNAIRE

-- - . - Itorne Lab - AFMC

- - -- -

I.2.C.10.a Routes and distance to route's control point:

1.2.C.10~ The nearest concenlrntcd receiver arcn (A11 trnrk 17 it11 n t lrast 500 events) is 659NM From the base."

Refueling Route 1)istance

AR-609 39 NM AR-212 NORTlIGAST 163 NM

AR-2 18H 238 NM AR-204 SOUTlIWES'T 298 NM

AR-6 12 322 NM AR-608 353 NM AR- 107 430 N M

1.2.C.lOd Percentage of tanker demand in region: 0.2 Percentage of tankers based in region: 0.3

1.2.C.lOb The total number of rcf~~eling ever~ts n ilt~in:

500 NM -- - 7(K) NM

(1 s_li- ~4005 - - --1

Refuelir~g Rot~te I)i$tance -- - AR-20611 100 NM

AR-631 165 NM

AR-2 181, 256 NM AR-212 SO1 11'1 IEAST 298 NM

-.

AR-616A 336 NM

AR-636 395 N M h R - 4 5 5 \IrI:'i 1 183 NM

Tanker saturation witl~ir~ the region l ~ n s hccn clnsrifird n s lnr~ker Rich

Refueling Route Distance

AR-206L 100 NM

AR-217 276 NM AR-205 298 NM

AR-777 339 NM AR-632B 396 NM AR-328 491 NM

Refueling Route Distance

AR-204 NORTIEAST 163 NM

AR-6 16B 282 NM

AR-632A 347 NM

AR-020 NORTHEAST 407 NM

1.2.C.11 Drop zones (DZs) listed in AhlC rnmphlrt 55-57 (9 .Inn 9d'l within II! NM ~ t h 8 mlnimum size u f 7 E by iOw yards: 7 -- -

Name - - - - AEGIS ---- - - -- - -

ANDREWS -

CHUTE (CIR) -- -

JERSEY DEVlL -- -- - MCLEAN --- - - - - - - MEACHAM LAKE

-- - - -

MOUNTAIN -- -- - -- - - - - -

PANTHER - --.

PUDGY - - -

-- . - - - - -- -- - --- - - - - - -- - --- - -

15-Feb-95 UtJCLASSIFIED 1.06

I>i5fnnre 229NM

274 NM

SNM

197 NM - - --

177 NM

93 NM

GNM --

56NM

197NM

- .

Night? - - -~

"d -

- - fid -- tnd

-- - fid -

- fnd

hd

L"d -- -

Personnel?

~.

-- -

--

-

-- Equipment? Lac/

r3v ~ a c /

tsc/

bc/ -- - -.

bc/

fid - -

-Route Count -

1R --- -- SR 0

- --

0

o 0

0 0 - 1

1 0

- - -

1

1

1

5 0

0

0 0

5 -

-- -- -- - -- .- -- --

1995 A1 I t li'OllCE 1IASE QUESTIONNAIRE

I<olne Lab - AFMC - - - - - -- - - -- - . --

W A N CREEK - -

/ 229 I.IM

TATER EAST -- - .- TURNER

- .- . - - - -- - - WOODLAWN BEACl I 154 NM

ZIMMER -- - MbIM Ond

- -- 0

Ilrop - - . Zone - -- - -__ _ Servicing ln s t r~ i r~ne~ i t

IAEOIS_- . -. lsp-coo I

MOUNTAIN- - IR-801 IlR-801 I

ANDREWS CHUTE (CIR) -

JERSEIDEVIL

3 r d Slow Flootes C $ s and SRs I I

SR-820 SR-801 -- SR-801

- - TURNER

ZIMMER

1.2.c.12 Closest primary landing zone (LZ) listed in Ah1C 1':lrnphlet 55-57 (9 Jun 94) with a minimum size of 3000 by 60 ft: MARTINSBURG 258 NM

. -

Sit-805

- -

SR-801 SR-904 SR-825

.1~-801

CAMP GRAYLING 10'7 NM

SR-805 SR-905

1.2.C.13 Nearest full scale drop zor~e(s) (minim~in~ sire I!H)O I)y 1 5 0 yd%) which can be used for personnel drops or night equipment drops:

---- -- - - - - - -- ---- -- -

15-Feb-95 UNCLASSIFIED 1.07

- .

- - - PANTHER - - -- - - . -- - - -

I.2.C.14 Name and distance to ground force installntion (US Army, US!!?C) with a resiricirri airspace capable of supporting tactical aircraft employment (noor no higher than 1 0 ft ACI,, ceilirig no lower than 3,00 fl AGL, minimum area 25000 sq NM>

Ilistnnre 56NM

--- -

Route Count Night? -

"d -.

- - - - - -- -- - -- .

1995 AIR FORCE BASE QUESTIONNAIRE

-- - - . -. - - . - Rome Lab - AFMC

-- - -- - --

D. Ranges Ranges (Controlled/managed by the base)

1.2.D. 1 The base Does not control or manage any ranges, qilestiorls 1.2.D.2 to 1.2.D.17 skipped.

Ranges (Used by the base) I.Z.D.18 The base does Not uses ranges on a regr~lar basis

I.2.D.19

The missiodtraining is Not impacted by trair~irig area airspace encroachment.

The missionltraining is not impacted by training area airspace noise abatement procedures.

The missiodtraining is not impacted by training area traflic procedures.

1995 AIR FORCE BASE QUESTIONNAIRE

Rome Lab - AFMC

G. Composite 1 Integrated Force Training I.2.G.1 Nearest Active Duty or Reserve gro~~ntl coml~at unit where joint training can be accomplished and that has impact areas capable of

tactical employment:

WEST POINT MII,ITARY R I 3

51 NM from the base.

IIELETED Nearest Naval unit where joint training can I)c act~omplishcd:

NAVY OCEANA

390 mi from the base.

Nearest Active Duty Air Force or ARC unit svl~cre clissin~ilar training can be accomplished:

FT DRUM, NY

60 mi from the base.

I.2.G.5 DELETED

II. Missile Bases (AF Space Command) Applies to missile hnses only. Responses are classified.

I. Technical Training (Air Education and 'I'raining Command)

1.2.1 No technical training mission.

J. Weather Data (AF Environmental Tecl~nicnl Applications Center)

1.2 5.1 .

75.0 7 1.4

1.2 J.2 Crosswind component to the primary ntnrvng:

I.2J.2.a Is at o r below 15 knots 98.0 percent of the time

I.2J.2.b Is at o r below 25 knots 99.8 percent of the time

I.2J.3 98 Days have freezing partcipitntion (mean per year).

e

I I 2 a

Z Z l 0 g [ c'

' 1 w m * ,

- 2 @ a;,,

I u u E w

10 2 I

Pdrr

-

jSSIFIED - - - - - - -

1995 AIR FORCE BASE QUESTIONNAIRE

-- - - Roxne Lab - AFMC

- -- --

Section I1

1. Installation Capacity & Conditiorl A. Land

II.I.A.1 II.I.A.2 1 1 . A 11.1.14.4 II.I.A.S I . 11.1.A.7 A - . 11.l.A.O 11.1.A.11

- --

Site - - -

AYA - - - - - - -- FBRESTPQRT NEWPORT 1 _ _ _

.NEWPORT 2 - . - _ Y U B ~ K I I I L C ____ -__ - - -

.WMMUAB-- _ _- - _ - STQCKBRIDGE - _ TYMMVNDSI11L1, - - .YERW!K..-- . - - - VIENNA - .- - Y~.L!Nd~O.V!N-- - -

B. Facilities II.1.R.I From real propcrty rcrorcls:

II 1 f3.l .a.i

I!.? , ~ , f . ~ - i i - - - 11.1 B.1.b

11.1 .B.l .c -- - - - 11.1 .B.l .c.i

- -- - --

TOTALS.

- .--.

1)escription - - -

REMOTE RESBAKCI I SITE- REM-0:I.E RESEAKII SITE -

___.REMOIE RESEARCILSII L L REMQIE RES~~AR_ClISI1~E--

Total Acreage

297,

37 41.

Acreage Presently Developed

297 184--_____18_4

-- 37- - _- __- 41.

- .- - Faclllty Category Code - 121-122

a n - I L I- --- ~ u a 131

14 1 -

~ e ~ s ~ 0 . n r i :ouo~!rgs I: RLTAINED ON (;RIIT;lSS__ .- -- REMQ'IIZ RESEARCI I SI1-B LEASED REM R I:SI I SflE- REM-Q 113RESEARClI SITE 1,EASIIII I1 IEOI)OLI'I'E ST _-

REMO'I'Ii RESIiAKCI I SI'1 E-

--- -- - Acreage Suitable for New Development

1,528 1 - - 1 9523 ,__-- --l- -- I

Category Descrlptlon Hydrant Fueling System PIIS

-- - - - . - --

i;onsoiiaated Alrcrafl Support System -- Communications-Buildings

-.-A--

Operations-Buildings -- -- - - -

- - - - -- -- - -. - - - - --- -- -- -- -

15-Feb-95 UrlCLASSlFlED 11.12

SF

SF

SF

SF

s F

SF - SF

Squadron Operations - -- -

Air Freight Terminal - --

Air Passenger Terminal -

11.1 .B.l .c.ii - - -- 11. 1 .B.l .c.iii

II. 1 .B. 1 .c.iv - -

.

-- -.

---

- 7

Units of Measure

E A

E A

SF - --

SF

141-232 -

141-753 - - -- 141-782

141-784 -

70 293

2~ 493

3 99

(A) Requlred Excess Capaclty

0 -- - --

0 - ~-

0 0.0 --

NIA 0 0.0 .

-- NIA 7,917 100.0 0.0 0.0 NIA - - -- - - - - --

SF Aerial Delivery Facility - -

- 0

0

0 - -

0 --

NIA -

- 0

- - 0

II.1.B.l.c.v - - - - --

II.1.B.l.d

_ _ - 70. .

_ _ _ 2 9 5 . . - -- 2

- - 493 - 3

.-- -- - 99-

0 - - -

0

0

0

141-785 - - -- - 171

-

Fleet Service Terminal - -- - -- -- - Training Buildings - - -

0

-----

Flight Training -- - Combat Crew Trng Squadron Faciltty -- - - - . -

II.1.B.l.d.i

II.1.B.l .d.ii

0.0 0.0' - - -4- . 0

0.0 .-

0.01 - -- - .- - - -- - -

0

0.0 0.0 0

0.0 0.0 - - - - - - - - - - 0

0

171-211

171-21 la - --

0 0.0

-- - - NIA

0.0 - - - -

0.0 10.197

0

0

100.0 -~

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0

- - . - - - - -- - 0

EL'II - -- -- - --

~ ~ I J I S S V - I ~ I J ~ - - S6-9WSI - - - --- - ---- ---- -- -- -

- - "IN - - -

VIN

0 - 0 - -

0'0 .- -

0.0

0'0 - 0'0 -

--

0'0

0.0

0'0 -- 0'0

0 - - --- -. -

0

0 --

0'0

0.0

0'0

0'0 . - -

0.0

0'0

0 0 --- 1 s / i i ! lpu~ - a6elols/doys ~uaurd!nb-j voddns U ~ J ~ J ! V z1L8Lz !-Y.c.E.~.II 0 0 4 s -- - - -- - - - -- - ~ ~ ~ J O I S Pue dolls Pod N 3 3

0 0 4 s Nt j l lNW eZlL-LCZ !!'tl*~'l.ll -- - - -. -- - - - - -- -

0.00 1 -- 0'00 1

0 0'0 0'0 0 0 4 s - - dolls s !uoyv ZCL-LIZ !,t L-E.L+II - - - - - - - - - -

0'0 - 0 V/N AS d111b3 . suo!ge~!unuruo3 - -- pue s3!uolpal=~-iu!e~ -- .

0'0 0 0 doys suo!yunyy leuo!lua~uo3 zpg+~z !. 1.E. I 21 -- 0'0 - --- 0 0

- - Y' L'a'l'II 0'0 - o o d o q ~ ep!qaA Su!lanjat( - - - - - - - LSP-PLZ - - - ~ 6 . 1 E.L.II -

- - - -- S98'C -- VlN -- -. -- - 4 -- S --- sqel - - aauaps - -- -- - - - - - - OO~'L01 VIN . AS sdo pue 'l!edalj 'uo!)ellepul-a3ueua~u!e~ -- - - - -- BIZ 0 3 -- ~

AS qal luaud!nbg i u a u a ~ n s e a ~ uo!s!m~d egg81z !!!.y 1-a.1-11 - - ---- - -- 0 0 4 s - - (awq~eled) - - dolls luaurd!nba leA!NnS

--

-

- -- - 0 0 At1113ej ~ ~ U ~ U O I L I ! ~ Y J luaud!nb-j/lal!e~l - - - -- - - ~ 2 ~ 1 2 - - !.6.l'a.l.11 - - - - -

ZLZ'88 V/N -

0 -- 0 0 -

0 0'0 - ? . - - -- 0 0

- - JS

-IS

9 s

is SS

J S

3s

3s -

_IS

JS

J :; JS

16

J S

.IS

JS

3s J S

J S

is JS

o --- o

a~!jouoinv-a3ueualu!efi - Ai1113ej e3ueualu!ey( pale~6aiul

-- .- - - - - cIo11~ a3ueualuleyy allss!ly le3!pel

(LGI!~~IW as!ri~3) AI I IP~~ i 3 ~ e u a l t i & ~ pa~e~ljaiul - --

dolls (dn-p~!ne) ~ l q ~ a s s v ~I!SS!W - -- - sal~ss!fl paping-lu!er~ - --

1133 i s a l yma a3ueuaiu!e~ u a i d s \an j - -

3x0 a~ueualu!eyy U E J ~ J ! ~ llews - -

y3ou a3ueualu!e~ ( ~ J ~ J ! V un lpar~

y x a aweualu!eyy I ~ E J ~ J ! ~ 0 6 ~ ~ -- - lafiuetl lo~luo3 uo!sollo3 I J ~ J ~ J ! ~

Aidcin~ aseg u!eyJ palelado lopelluo3 -- - -- - --a o~~l~uolu!ely pue uolpasul au!6u3 lay - - -

llun a.~ueuaru!e~ HBJ~J!V - --

clu I (~(IN) uolwdsul aA!prllIsaa-uoN - -

LZ HSVa - - - - -

d.xtuuditrrely J ~ ~ J ~ J ! V asodlnd lelauas - - -. ~a6uet( asueualu!eyy

. -- U ~ J ~ J ! V aaueualu!eyy

Aill!3eA 6u!u!e~l plZ4 - -- - - - - u1ej6old 6 u 1 uo!ueduo3

0.0 , -

0.0

0 -- - - --

3&q# - (113'-1 alllcbt]

-- --- ' ~ R I I V N N O I ; L S ~ ~ ~ ~ 3SVt13DU Or1 21 1V S66 1

-

- ZLZ-LLI

PlZ -- .fj.l.a.l.ll

0.0

0.0

V/N

0 --

! 1 ! . ~ . ~ . ~ . 1 . ~ ~

OZZ-ZLZ - -- - - - -

-. - ECZ-zcz - - -

ezlz-21.2 - - - - ZIZ-ZIZ -

ZLZ -

- CBI-LIZ -

~LI-1 IZ - .

~ 1 - L I Z

PLL-1 IZ -

CLL-CCZ - -

6 s ~ - L 12

~LSI-1 IZ

L S L - ~

~ - L I Z -. -

S L - L ~ Z --- - -

WSL-I IZ

0'0 - --

0'0 --

o - (Aeu tlb!hl) IIU!LI!~J~ ~o le lnu l !~ 1i6i4 0'0 - -

0'0 - - - - - - - - - --

A!.J.L.Q.L.II -. --

. !!!.I. . - 1.a.1.11 - -

!!.j.1.8.1.11

- ! j.1.a.5.11 - - - - l-l.a.131 --

!!!x a ~ q . 1 11

!!x.a-l.g.~.~l - -

!x-a'1~8'1~11 -- - -- x ~ a ~ l ~ a ' i ~ l l

x! a '~ 'g ' ) ' l l

II!A a 1.g.1.11 IIA a 1.g.1.11 -

!xa l.g.l.11

A'a'i 0.1'11

~ ! . a - ~ . g 1-11

!!!.a. l'E'l'11

o -

o 0'0 - - - - - 0'0 - -

- - - - -- - . - - o - - --

-- o ---- o

0

0 -

-

0 0'0 0.0 --- --

-- VlN --- 0

- 0

291-1 LZ - --

I L L - I CZ

111

819-ILL -- - - ~ZIZ-ILL

0 -.

!!.a.l.g.l.ll

!.a 1.a.1.11

a l'a.1.11

A.P. 1.8' I .II . - -. --

A! p' ~ ' a 1.11

0 - 0 -- - 0

0 -. -

0

0 -- 0 - 0

-

0 - - 0 - 0

0'0

-------

-

VIN

0 - 0

0.0

0 0.0

0

0

0

0'0

0

0 - - V/N --- 0

-

0

~ 0

- 1- -

- -- -- -

- - -- -.

0'0 - 0.0

0.0

0 -

0 -- 0 - -- 0

- -

0'0 . - - - -- 0'0 - - -

0'0

0 - --

0 - 0

--

0'0 - -- - -- 0.0

0'0 ---

0'0 - -- -- - 0'0 - --- - 0'0

-

0 - 0

0 ---

0 -- - 0

0

0

0

- --- --

- - - - -

0 -- 0

0 - --

0'0 -- - - - 0'0 - - 0'0

0.0

0'0 -. - -

0'0 - - 0'0 .- -- - - - -

0'0 ~

0.0

0'0 - - .- -

0'0 0'0

II.l.B.2 From in-house survey: -- 15-Feb-95

- - - -- -- - -- -- -- 1995 AIR I'OHCE llASE QUESTIONNAIRE

- ------ . - IIotne Lab - - AFMC

--- -- -- - - --- -- .-

UNCLASSIFIED

II.1.B.l.n

11.1.8 1.0 .

II.1.B.l.p

II.1.B.l.q - ll.l.B.l.r - - - - - - II.1.B.l .s.i

i i . l .~ . l . t - - - --- - ll. 1 .B.1 .t.l

- -- - II. 1 .B.l .t.ii . - - - - - - II. 1 .B.l .t.iii

.

II. 1 .B. 1 .t.iv

311

312 -- 315

317 . - - - - -

318

411-13~~-

422 - - - - - - 422-253 - - --- -- 422-258 - - - - -- - 422-264 -- 422-265

Aircrafi f1DTBE Facil~t~es

Missile and Space RDTBE Facs - - - - - -- -

Weapons and Weapon Syst RDTBE Fac~l~ties ~ i e c i comm & Elect Equip RDT&E Faalihes -- - - -- -- Propulsion RDTLE Facil~ties - - - - - - - -- Jet Fuel Storage

- - - Ammunition Storage Installation 8 Ready Use - -- - -. - - - -- --- Multi-Cubicle Magazine Storage - -- - - Above Ground Magazine - - - - - - --

Igloo Magazine - --

Spare Inert Storage (Alternate Mlssion Equipmen 11.1 .B. 1 .t.v - - - . - - Il.1.B.l.u

-- - - - -- II.1.B.l.v

11.1 .B.l .v.i - - - - -

II. 1 .B.l .v.ii - - - - - - Il. 1 .B.l .v.iii - -- - - II.1.B.l.v.i~

-

Ancillary Explosives Fac~lity oldin in^ Pad) - - --- -- Storage-Covered Depot 8 Arsenal - - - storage-covered-installation & Organ

Hydrazine Slorage - - - - - - -- - LOX Storage - Rase Warehousing Supplies and Equiprnent - - - - -- - - Base Warehousing Supplies and Equipment (W

- - - --- - Warehousing Supplies and Equipment (AGS Par - - - - - - - -

Medical Center and/or Hospital - - - - Medical Laboratories - - - - - --- - -- - Dental Clinics

- Dispensaries and/or clinicsw-- - - - Administrative Buildings - - . -- - - -

Munitions Maintenance Administration -- - - - - ---- Munitions Line DeliverylStorage Section

Unaccompanied Enlisted (UEPH 8 VAQ)

Unaccompanied Enlisted Dorm

Dining Hall -- - - -- -

Airman Dining Hall - -- - -- -

Unaccompanied Officer Housing (00 S VOQ)

Personnel Support and Services Facil~ties -

422-275 - - - - -- 441 - - - - - -- 442

442-257a - - - - - -

442-258 - - - - -- 442-758 - - - - - -- 442-758a -~

SF

SF -- -

SF

SF

SF

BL - -- - SF

SF

SF

SF - SF

SF

SF

SF

II. 1 .B.l .v.v -- - - -- II.1.B.l.w - .-

11.1.B.l.ff

II. 1 .B.l .gg

- - NIA - - NIA

NIA - NIA

- NI A

- --

0

NIA -- 0

SF ---

SY - -

442-758b -- - -- -

510 --

740

852-273

0

0

0

497,957

0

0

0 -

0 --

- - -- 0

NIA

NIA

I - _L- .1.01-- - - 01

II.1.B.l.x -- -- - II.1.B.l.y

11.1 .B.l.z

II.1.B.l.aa - - - - - Il.1.B.l.aa.i -- - II.1.B.l.aa.ii

II.1.B.l.bb --

Morale, Wellare, and Rec (MWR)-Interior -

Acft Support Equipment Storage -- - - - - -

0.0 - -

0.C -- -

0.0

530 - --

540

550 - -- 610 - - ---- -- -

610-144 - - - -- -- 610-144a

721

NIA .-

I _ _ 0

-- -- _ - -

0.0 - -- 0.0 - - 0.0 --

0 . 0

0

0

SF

G A .

SF

SF

0

0

0.0 -- 0.0

0

- -- 0

---

~

0 .o

0.0

3,085 -- 0

147,954

3,085

0

147,954 -

ll.1.Bl.bb.i -- II.1.B.l.cc

11.1 .B.l.cc.i

II.1.B.l.dd

n.i.8.l .ee -

-- NIA

- - -- 0 0.0 0

0

0

-- 0

NIA

100.0

100.0 -

0.0 - -

0.0 -- - - ---

-- 0.0 -

721-312 -

722

722-351

724

730

- _ NIA

NI A

NI A

_ - _ _ _ - _ ---

0.0 0.0

0.0

-- . -- - - 0

0 - - - -

- - 0

0.0

0.0 -

- SF

---- ,

-

NIA

-- 0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0 -- --

SF

0

0

0 --

-- 0

0.0

. 0

0

_- _ _ 0.0

0.0

0.0 -- 100.0 -

0.0

. 0.0

NI A

- - -

SF -- SF

-

SF

0.0 -

0.0 . -

0.0

0.0 - - -

NIA ---A-

0

NI A 0 -

NiA 0 - NIA 0

-- 0

- -- - - 0

. NIA

- SF _ .. c K ,

- SF

PN - -- --

PN -- SF

SF -- PN

SF

0.0

0.0 .-

::I NIA - T,A---t 1 - +-- -- -

- -- ---- 100.0 - N/A ..

0 0 - - - 0.0 0.0 0

. -- - 0 0 0.0 0.0 0 --

NI A 0 - 0.0 N/ A

0 0 0.0 -- - 0 NI A 0

- 0.0

-- N/A

0 0 0.0 - 0

NIA 0 0.0 - p~

0.0 - - - -- - NI A

NIA 0 0.0 --- - 0.0 -~ - - - - -- - - NI A

0.0

NIA

0.0 -- --

0

NIA - -

- - 0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0 - -- - - - NIA

0.0 0.0 tVA --

1995 AIR FORCE BASE QUESTIONNAIRE

1l.olne Lab - AFMC

II.l.C.l Capacity (housing Inventory)

-- - - - - - - --

~ac i l l t y - Category

-

II. l.B.l .h 842

11.1.8.1 .i 843 II.1.B.l.j 85 1

II.l.B.l.k 852

-

II.1.C.l.a luurr?her sl.n.dequatc iiiilk fiiiiii ciii-rent ijij For111 L410, l ine 18d: ir-7 II.l.C.l.b Number of substandard units from current DI) Form 1410, line 1%: [O II.1.C.l.c Current deficit (-) or surplus units in validated hlnrket Analysis: 1 0 7 (includes E-1 - E3 requirements)

II.1.C.l.c.i A Market Analysis was Not used to answer tlie questions in Section II.l.C.

Notes for -. specific - Cat Codes: II.l.B.l.e [

- 812)1ncludes only remote researcll facili~ics rlvt facilities o n Griffiss AI;B, ownership yet to be determined I1.1.B.l.g I --I.- 83211ncludes only remote sites II.1.B.l.h 1- 842]1ncludes only remote sites II.1.B.l .j I 85 1)lncludes only remote sites 11.1 .B.l.k 85Aincludes only rerllote sites 1

C. Family liiousing (Facility Category Cotle 7 11)

11.l.C.l.d FY95/4 projected net housing deficit (-) or srlrplus of units:

-- - -

11.1.C.2 Condition

--

Percentage P'4

Cond Code 1

100.0

100.0

-

Unlts of Measure

SY -

S Y -- SY

-

- SY

LF - - LF

10 1 (includes oficers and enlisted extrapolated to FY95 if necessary, uses validated market analysis corrected to include realignment actions)

-- - -

Current -- Capacity - -.

0

0

- 0

0

77.501

0

- - - - - -- - - -

UNCLASSIFIED 11.15

Percentage ("/.I

Cond Code -. 2

-

Percentage ("/.I

- Cond Code 3

LF - -

LF

LF SY

-

0.0

13.204 - -- - 21.127

- -- 0 --- --

145,258

100.0

0.0

0.0

SY 24,104 -. - - -

0.0

0.0

0.0

-- 100.0

100.0

0.0 0.0

- - 0.0 0.0

2

-- - - - -- - - .-

1995 AIR FORCE BASE QUESTIONNAIRE

Rome Lab - AFMC - -- - -- - -- -

II.l.C.2.a Number of adequate units meeting current \thole-liouse stnndards of (includes projects programmed through accommodation and stnte of repair: 7 . 1 FY954. Units meeting whole-hour

standards are those that were programmed affer EY88)

II.l.C.2.a Number of ndequate units req~riring ml~ole-horrsc rcr~ovntion or , (Units meeting whole-house standards are replacement: L J those that were programmed/ renovated

affer FY88).

Il.l.C.2.a Number of new housing units projected to nlcet ctirrmt tleficit. d 11.1.C.3 Percentage of military families livir~g or1 base ns cori~parcd to the total number of families (omcer and enlisted) assigned to the baw

II.l.C.3.a 0.0 percent of officer families live on base.

II.l.C.3.b 0.0 percent of enlisted families live on hnse.

II.l.C.3.a 0.0 percent of all militnry families live on bnsc.

1 4% +- at ,ranEo - -- - - - - ----

1995 AIR FORCE BASE QUESTIONNAIRE

€ - - - -- --- - - Rome . Lab -- - AFMC

-- 3. Utility Systems

II3.A The overnll system capacity and percerlt ci~rrerlt lrsnge for utility system categories:

II.3.B Characteristics regarding the utility systeiil that sho~llrl be considered:

Utility System Cnpacity ._. - llll-. -.? Unit of Measure Percent Usage

The values listed represent the total capacities of tllc current Griffiss AFB utility systems (on site). It has yet to be determined who the responsibility of ownership will fall tipon once CiAI:l3 is realigned. Remote sites usage is not included.

II3.A.1 Water: I13.A.2 Sewage: 113.A3 Electrical distribution: I1.3.A.4 Natural Gas:,

4. Aircraft Maintenance Itallgar I?acililics Specifications for general niaintennnce Iinrignrs : ~ r ~ t l rinse t l ~ k s , excluding Depot and Test & Evaluation facilities.

.................. .._ 2.25 MGID - j MGlD - million gallons per day ,---- --.- 2.25 ,,---__.a MGID ---.----.. 438.0 --.-,.--- M W j MW - million watts

........ 100.00 ............. MCF/I>: e ........... MCFID - million cubic feet per day L

5. Unique Facilities

I13.A.5 Iiigh temperature waterlsteam .... - ..- generatioddistrih~ltion:[ . ." .- . 360.0 ..- . . . MI171.UFI .- ......... Mll lUl l - million British thermal ' - - - ' T I %

units per hour

II.5.A Unique (one-of-a-kind) Air Force facilitaties nl~ir t i m\ist be replaced if the base is closed: - - - - - -

A.1 Name or type of facility - -- - -

Ava Remote Research Site I-- - -. - - -- - - - -

antenna systems. Propagation sounding systems. 297 Acres are

- I power, High Frequency and Very High Frequency transmitter and

- - - _ associated -- with the site. -

ForcstpOltRemote Research Sit - ~

- - - 116,264 - SI; l~~lulti -. High Power, Very Low Frequencyhw Frequency .- Communications Research. 184 Acres are associated with this site.

~ ~ ~ ~ r ~ e ~ e Research - Site -- - - -- - - - - 3 - - Inlulti ~ Antenna and antenna systems research for on-aircraft evaluation.

-

Available test be airframes are: F-4, F-111, A-10, F-15, F-16, F- 22, RF-4, B-1B sections and AGM-86 cruise missle. 80 Acres are associated with this site. - > -

A.2 Total square footnge

- -

12,306 SF:

- -- - - - - - -- -

A.3 Catcgory rncle A.4 Present use

- - - - - - - --

n l~~ i t i - - High Frequency Over-the-Hnrizsr! 9acksca::er Xesexch. High

d

UNCLASSIFIED -

1995 AIR FORCE BASE QUESTIONNAIRE

. -- - - - -

[stockbridge - Remote - - - - - Research - Si

- - - - - - - - -

[~e rona Remote Research Site - - -- -- - -

---- - Rome Lab - AFMC

- -- - - - -- FGI~ SF /mllti Antenna system performance and ECM threat response on large airframes (B-52, KC- 135, C- 130, and B-1B) and to evaluate [airborne reconnaissance and targeting sensors. 295 Acres are

data processing and software development 513 Acres comprise site.

-- -- -- - - - -. -

-.

I68.926 SF ltnlllti -

associated with this site. - - - --- -- --

Multi use research facility for ground and air-borne experiments, evaluations and demonstrations of advanced communication techniques, radar system evaluations, ECMIECCM techniques,

CLASSIFIED - - - a

1995 A l l < ICORCE RASE QUESTIONNAIRE

- - -- -

Railheads within 150 NhI:

- - - - - - -

The base is over 150 NhT from a port.

111.1.11 The base does Not hnve a ddicntetl ~ ~ n s s e r l g ~ r tcrlr~irlnl.

111.1.1 The base does not have a dedicated dcploynlcnt facility rnpnl)lc of handling DoD standardized cargo pallets.

11I.l.J Vie bnqe nledical trcntrr~ent facility cloes Not ro~llirltly reccivo referral patients.

III.1.K No military rnedical fnrility in the catrllrnrr~t n r w ( 8 1 0 rlrilc r:~clills) have been designated for closure or realignment.

The base medical facility perfornlsNo rrniclrrr rrli.;sior~s.

Unique medical missions include aeroniedical st:igirig fncililics, environmental health laboratories, area dental laboratories, physiological training units, ~vartime tnskings,

III.1.M Base medicnl facilities have No facilities projcrls planned to bcgin before to 1999.

Facilities projects include military ronsruction progrnrn (h1CP) or Operations and Mairitenence (O&M) alterations.

-- - - - -- - - - - - -- - - - -- -- --

1995 AIR FOItCE BASE QUESTIONNAIRE

III.l.N Base facilities have No excess storage capacity. III.l.N.l Base facilities have n total covercd storage capacity o f 147,954 sq R.

III.l.N.2 Breakout of the total covered storage capncity:

Supply (warehoesing, Individual Equipnlcr~t Unit, Tool Issue, nase Service Store): Mobility storage: War Readiness Support Kits (WRSK) starngr:

No light military vehicles are on base.

No heavy military and specinl vehicles are on h n v .

-- - ---

1995 AIR FORCE I'ASE QUESTIONNAIRE

- - .- Itotne .- L Lab - AFMC Section IVN Level Playirlgficld COBRA Data

One time closure costs: 134$sM

Twenty year Net Present Value 112$sM

Steady state savings l$sM per year

Manpower savings associated with closrlre 5

Ret11r-n on Investment (years): 1 0 t-

1995 AIR FORCE BASE QUESTIONNAIRE

- Rorne . Lab - AFMC Section VI Econon~ic Inipact

Economic Area Statistics:

Utica - Rome, NY MSA Total population: 318,000 (FY 92) Total employment: 154,638 (FY 93)

Unemployment Rates (FY9313 Year AveragcflO Year Average)

6.4% 17.0% / 6 3 %

Average annual job growth: 1,022

Average annual per capita income: $16,870

Average annual increase in per capita income: $5.1 %

Projected economic impact:

Direct Job Lass: 1,64 1

Indirect Job Loss: -- - ..- 1 -9 633 -.-

Closure Impact: 3,274 ( 7.. 19'0 of rnqdoyment total)

Other BRAC Lowes: 7,070

Cumulative Impact: 10,344 ( 6.7% of tmployrnent total)

%+ 2

ASS1 FlED -- -- --- - - -

1995 AIR FORCE JIASE QUESTIONNAIRE

-- -- -- - -- - -- a ]tome Lab - AFMC

- - Section VII

1. Community Infrastructure

Describe the off-base housing situation.

VII.I.A.1 Off-base housing is allbrdable

VII.l.A.Z Units are available for fnmilies

VII.l.A.2 Units are available for single rneml~ers.

VII.l.A3 15.0 Percent of off-base housir~g wns rnted ns urls~ritnhle in the Intest VIfA survey

V11.1.A.4 Median rno~~thly cost of on-basc housitrg bnsecl on lntest VIIA srlrvey:

Describe the transportatioll systems.

VII.1.B.l The base is Served by REGULARLY SCIIEI)UI,ICI~, public transportation. The following services are available:

VIP Transportation.lnc.

VII.l.B.2 Distance to the nearest municipal airport wit11 srl~rtlrrlccl, ron~rllercial air tralfic:

VII.l.B.2 Airport name: Oneida County Airport

VII.l.B.3 Number of commercial air carriers available nt thc n i rp r t : I

VII.l.B.4 Average round trip commuting time to work: 33 minutes

Off-base public recreation facilities:

12 miles

- - - - -- - - - - . - - - -

- - - -- - - - - - - - 1 [ ~ i s t ONLY THE NEAREST facility for each sahcategory. - ,

Facility Subcategory ~ y p e Name of Nearest Facllity Distance to: Drlve Tlme -- . - - - - -- - - -- -

Swimmlng pool Tosti Park Hrs. 10 in. Movie theater Capital lheatey

-- -- - - - - - - -- 15 Min. Public golf course Sleepy Hollow -- - - - -- - - -- - - -- -- - - Hrs. 20 MK' - Bowling lane King Pin Lanes - - - - -- - -- - Hrs. - .- 01 - Min. - - Boating Lake Delta Hrs. 15 Mln.

- - - .-A-

Fishing --- Lake Delta -- - - Hrs. 15 Mln. - -- --

Zoo -- Utica Zoo Hrs. 25 MK --- . - -- - -- - - - - -- - Aquarium Niagara Falls Aauarium - - - - - -- - -- -- -- -- -. . - - - - - Family theme park Enchanted Forest

.- - - Hrs. 50 Min. Professional sports - - Rome Free Academy Stadium -- . --- - - Collegiate sports State University of New YO& ~ 6 c a -- - -- -- - . -- 20 - -- -. -- - -- - -- - -- - -- -- -- -- -

UNClASSlFlED

1995 AIR FORCE IJASE QUESTIONNAIRE

-- - --- - - - - -- - -- - - Itoine Lab - AFMC

-- -- - -- -

Lake Della Lake Delta Woods Valley - -

VI1.I.D Nearest Shopping facility (two major nnchor stores plrls sr~~nller retail outlets):

Riverside Mall 25 min (22 Miles)

VII.1.E Nearest Metropolitan center (population in exccas of 100,OO):

Syracuse 45 min (35 Miles)

Local area crime rate:

VII.l.F.1 Violent crime rate (per 100,OO) in the lwnl area: (Mote: The most current annual FBI Statistics .i7eport used as the source document. Violent crime is defined as the strm of holnicide, rape, robbery, felony assault, and simple assault) 244

VII.l.F.2 Property crime rate (per 100,000) in the Iocnl nrrn: (Note: 'The most current annual FBI Statistic Report used as the source document. Property crime is clefii~ecl as thc SIIIII of n111o theft, burglary, theft, and arson.) 3374

2. Education

VII.2.A The highest maxi~num allowed pupil to teacher cl:~.~sr.~~om ratio, based on grades K - 12 and using local area ratios: 30 to 1

VII.2.B Local high schools offer a four-year Englisl~ progranl.

VII.2.B Local high schools offer n four-year Math progr:lnI.

VII.2.B Local high schools offer four-year Foreign 1,angunge progrnms.

VII.2.C Local high schools offer an IIonors program.

VI1.2.D 82.4 percent of high scliool students go on to citlirr n two- or for~r-year college

VII.2.E There are nppwllr?unI!~:% fsr sff-br;se ediiciiiiurr wiiiliii 25 ~niies of the base.

VII.2.E.l Opportunities for off-base VOCATIONAUrECI1NIC:AL 'I'HAINING provided by the following institutions:

Mohawk Valley Community College, Board of Cooperative Elucaton Services

VII.2.E.2 Opportunities for off-bnse UNDERGRADUATE CO1,LEGE provided by the following institutions:

Mohawk Valley Community College, State University of New York Institute of Technology at Utica/Rome, Utica College of Syracuse University

VII.2.E.3 Opportunities for off-base GRADUATE COLI,E(;IS provided by the following institutions:

Utica College of Syracuse University, State University of New York lnstitute of Technology at Utica/Rome, State University of NY, Cortland (classes held at SUNY UticaIRorne), Elrnira College (classes held in Rome)

UNCLASSIFIED

1995 AIR FORCE BASE QUESTIONNAIRE n.orne Lab - AFMC

V113.A 86.0 percent of spou.ses are able to find employnrent (within 3 rnonths) in the local community.

VI1.3.B 78.0 percent of spouses find crnploynlcnt commensurate with job skills, work experience, and education.

VII3.C 6.4 percent unemployment in the local arca (I)el,arttnent of 1,nhor Statistics)

VII.3.D 0.9 percentage rate of job growth in the local arcn (ISepnrtrnent of Labor Stastics)

4. Local Medical Care

VII.4.A Current ratio of active, non-federal pl~ysiciar~s i i ~ fllr ro~~i r~ i r~ni ty :

VII.4.B Current ratio of hospital beds in the co~~i r~~rr r~ i fy :

2.0 physicians1 1000 people

3.0 beds/ 1000 people.

1995 AIR FORCE IjASE QUESTIONNAIRE

Rome - Lab - AFMC Section VIII

1. Air Quality - Clean Air Act

VIII.l.A Air Quality Management District for the base: CIINTRAL NEW YORK AIR QUALITY MANAGEMENT DISTRICT - REGION 6

VIII.l.B The base is located within a maintenance or non-attninmetit area for specific pollutants.

VIII.l.B.1 No pollutants in maintenance

VI11.1.B.2 Non-attainment area regulated pollutnnt(s) and severity: lozone I~ode ra t e 1

VIII.1.C 'I'here are critical air quality regions within 100 kilonieters of the base

(Critical air quality regions are non-attainment areas, national parks, etc.)

VIII.l.D On- or off-base activities have NOT been restricted or delayed due to air quality considerations.

(Restrictions or delays may he imposed by a Metropolitan Planning Organization or similar organization and include restrictions to construction permits, restrictions to industrial facilities operating hours, High Occupancy Veh.cle (HOV) rush hour procedures, etc)

VIII.l.D.1 The base has NOT been required to impliment emissions reduction through special actions

(i.e. carpooling o r emissions credit transfer)

VIII.l.E Restrictions placed on operations by state or local nir quality regulatory agencies:

VIII.E.l Aerospace Ground Equipment (AGE):

E.?.a Xo staie or iocai air quaiity regulatory agency Regulates or conditionally exempts the operation of portable internal combustion engine equipment, to include AGE.

E.1.b No state or local air quality regulator; agency Requires permits for such units.

E.1.c No state or local air quality regulatory agency Requires the base to nlodify the hours of operation of the AGE.

E.1.d No state or local air quality regulatory agency Requires retrofit controls for AGE. VIII.E.2 Infrastructure Maintenance /Public Works

E.2.a No state or local air quality regulatory agency Regulates or contlitionnaly exempts small activities or engines used for infrastructure maintenance (i.e., sewer cleaning, wood chipping, road repair, etc.).

E.2.b No state or local air quality regulatory agency Limits the llours of these activities. E.2.c No state or local air quality regulatory agency Requires periodic fuel analysis or emission testing of equipment used to support these activities. E.2.d No state or local air quality regulatory agency Requires emission offsets for these activities.

- - - .- -- -- . - - -

15-Feb-95 UNCLASSIFIED V111.29

1995 AIR FORCE BASE QUESTIONNAIRE

- -- - - Itome - . Lab - AFMC

VIII.E.3 Open Burnlopen Detonation

E.3.a The state or local air quality regulatory agency Prohibits open burn 1 open detonation (OBIOD) or training

E3.b No state or local air quality regulatory agency Regulates or conditionally exempts OBtOD operations or training.

E.3.c No state or local air quality regulatory agency Limits the number of detonations to keep an exemption.

E.3.d No state or local air quality regulatory agency Requires periodic emission testing.

VIII.E.4 Fire Training

E.4.a The state or local air quality regulatory agency Specifies requirements which exceed the fire training andlor controlled bum requirements for local public fire agencies where fire training activities tlial produce smoke are regulated or conditionally exempted.

E.4.b No state or local air quality regulatory agcncy I'rohibits lire training activities that produce smoke.

VIII.E.5 Signal Flares E.5 No state or local air quality regulatory agency Proliibi~s tlic use of signal flares for search and rescue training or operations.

VIII.E.6 Emergency Generators

E.6.a No state or local air quality regulatory agcncy Reg~rlatcs or contlitionally exempts emergency operation of generators or engines.

E.6.b No state or local air quality regulatory agency Limits the hours of emergency operation of generators.

E.6.c No stale or local air quality regulatory agcncy Requircs periodic fuel analysis or emission testing of emergenct generators. E.6.d No state or local air quality regulatory agcncy Recl~rirrs n n air qrrality operating permit if the emergency operation of the generators exceeds an

exemption threshold. E.6.d No state or local air quality regulatory agency Rrqoircs crnission offsets.

VIII.E.7 Short-term Activities

E.7.a No state or local air quality regulatory agency Regulatc~ or conditionally exempts short-term (12 months or less) activities (i.e., air shows, exercises, construction, or emergency actions).

E.7.b No state or local air quality regulatory agency 1,irnits tlie operation for short-term activities.

E.7.c No state or !ma! air q~uz!i!y .-egiilaioi-y agency Requires pcrlodic fuel analysis, emission testing, or emission offsets.

E.7.d No state or local air quality regulatory agency Prohibit.$ any short-term activities.

VIII.E.8 Monitoring

E.8 No state or local air quality regulatory agency Ilas continrous ernissions monitoring requirements for sources at the base which exceed the Federal New Source Performance Standards requiremenrs.

VIII.E.9 I)ACT/LAER

E.9 The state or local air quality regulatory agcncy lIas 13A(vJ'II,AER emissions thresholds (excluding lead) that exceed !he Federal Clean Air Act requirements.

2. Water - Potable

VIII.2.A Tlle base potable water supply is Local Cor~rrl~rrr~ity ~ n t l tllc sarlrce is:

- - -- -.

1995 AIR FORCE BASE QUESTIONNAIRE

ltorne Lab - AFMC Municipal

VIII.2.B Ihe re are no constrnirlts to the bn~e wnter supply.

VIII.2.C The base potable water supply does not constrain olwrations

(Contarnininants or lack of water srlpply mny rc~t r ic t construction activities or operations through: facility siting options, well usage, construction, etc.)

3. Water - Grorlnd Water

VII13.A Base or local comrnt~nity groundwater is contnn~ir~atcd.

VIII.3.A.l Nature of contamination. Organic solvcncs, nielals, asbestos. PAIl's pesticides, PCB's oil and grease, and fuels.

VIII3.A.2 The contaminated gror~ndwater is Not a potable water source.

VIII3.B The base is Not actively involved in grnonclwnlcr rcn~cdintion activities.

VII13.C 134 water wells exist at the base.

VII13.D 32 wells have been abandoned for the follorvir~g rc:lsmns:

unacceptable for sampling

4. Water - Surface Water V111.4.A The following perennial bodies of water nre locntrtl or1 Itnw.

-- - - - -- - - ---

\surface area size1 Base Pond

-

Diversion channel - -- -- --- Six Mile Creek

- - - - - --

'Ihree Mile Creek 1

-- - - - - - - -1 VIII.4.A.2 These bodies receive water runoff or treated wnstewnter discharge from the base.

VIII.4.A.3 The base is located within a specified drainage basin.

VIII.4.B Special permits are Not required

1995 AIR FORCE BASE QUESTIONNAIRE

Ikome Lab - AFMC (Special permits may required to conduct training/operntians, or for construction projects on or near bodies of water)

V111.4.C There is No known contamination to the I)nse or l ~ : 1 1 cornrnunity surface water

5. Wastewater VIII.5.A Bnse wastewater is treated by Local Corrirnunity fncilities.

VIII.5.C Illere are No discharge violations or outstantling opc3ri c~lforcernent actions pending.

6. Discharge Points 1 Impoundments V111.6.A Describe the National Pollutant Elinlitlation Systcm pcrnrits in effect:

State Pollutant Discharge Elimination Systenl I'crn~it (SI'I3ES) issued by New York State in compliance with the Clean Water Act as amended. Permit held at tile 416 RW .

VI11.6.B The base currently discharges treated wastewater ON-R~se. 1)esrription of treated wastewater discharge location:

Discharge from the coal pile leachatc filtration i l r ~ i t n t tlie [lase steam plant

VIII.6.C The base has No dischnrge irnpoundme~its.

V111.6.D There are no discharge violations or or~tstnncling cli.;c.Iiarjie nlwn enforcemen! act lo~s pendi3g.

7. HAZARDOUS MATERIALS - Asbestos

VIII.7.A 70.0 percent of facilities have been surveyed for asl~eslos.

VIII.7.A.l 63.0 percent of the facilities srlweyed are identifietl as havirlg nsbestos.

VII1.7.A.2 0 facilities are considered regnlated areas or have rrsfrictcd use due to friable asbestos.

- - - - . - - - -- - - - - - - - --- - --- --

15-Feb-95 UNCLASSIFIED

1995 AIR FO JlCE BASE QUESTIONNAIRE Xto~ne Lab - AFMC

8. Biological - Habitat

VIII.SA Ecological or wildlife management arras O N t l ~ i ' 1rn.i~: There are No ecological or wildlife management areas ADJACENT TO the base.

Mohawk Pond

VIII.S.A.l Natural areas on or adjacent to the 1)s.w are no( rcrc~gnizetl as important ecological sites.

VIII.8.B No criticaVsensitive habitats have bee11 idcntifictl f l r t I~nse . VIII.8.C The base does not have a cooperative agreen~ent for rorlcl~rctir~g a hunting and fishing program.

Cooperative agreements are between the base with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the Stat\? Fish and Game Department.

VIII.8.D The presence of these resources does not constrain CURIIENT construction activities/operations.

The presence of these resources does not cotistrnin li1JITlR15 construction activitiesfoperations.

9. Biological - Threatened and Endangered Species

VIII.9.A Threatened and/or endangered species identifiecl on the I~nqe:

Spec'- ---__ _ _- _ _ - Kingdom _ _ _ _ -___---- _ _ -- - l~~cnanthemum verticillatum ]Plant [state I~isted (ll~reatenec) 1- - I-:- - - - - .- -- -- 1 lvariety verticillatum - mountain ( mint I L .- _-. - ._-I

VIII.9.B There are No Special Concern species itlentifiecl on l l ~ e haw.

VIII.9.C The presence of these species dcws Not constrnirl r r~ r r e~ l t or f~ilrrre construction activities or operations. I 10. Biological - Wetlands

VIII.1O.A Wetlands, estuaries, or other special aquatic features present on the base: I VIII.lO.A.1 Identification and type of wetland:

- - Approximate acreage:

(NewYork State freshwater wetland - --- - - - - 7 2 8 4

VLII.lO.A.2 The base is Not involved in jointly-managed progrnrrls for protection of these resources.

VILI.lO.B The base has been surveyed for wetlands in accordance with established federally approved guidelines.

VIII.lO.B.1 Survey wac completed in Sep 94

VIII.lO.B.2 100 percent of the base was included in the s ~ ~ w e y .

--- - - - - - - - --

15-Feb-95 UNCLASSIFIED

1995 AIR FORCE IjASE QUESTIONNAIRE

1to.me Lab - AFMC VIII.lO.B.3 Method used to silrvey the llase (e.g., Corps of I!:rr~in~crs 1)clincntion Manual, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service National Wetlands

Inventory):

Corps of Engineers delineation rrlanual

VIII.lO.C Part of the base is located in a 10-year flc~~lplnin.

VIII.1O.D Il le presence of these resources does Not constrnin r ~ ~ r r e n t or future construction activities or operations.

11. Biological - Floodplains VI1I.Il.A I'here are No floodplnins on the hase.

12. Cultural VIII.12.A No historic,prehistoric, archaeological sites or othcr cultural resources are located on the base.

VIII.12.B 1 percent of the buildings on base are over 50 years old.

VIII.12.C No IIistoric LandmarklDistricts, or NRIIP properties are located on base.

VIII.12.C.1 No properties have been determined to be or may I)e eligihle for the NREIP.

VLII.12.C.2 Buildings and structures have not been suweyecl for Cold Wnr or other historical significance.

VIII.12.D The base has Not been archeologically sorveyed.

VIII.12.D.1 Not Applicable.

VI11.12.D.2 No archeological sites have been found.

W1.12.D.3 No archeological collections are housed on base.

VIII.12.D.4 No Native Americans or others uselidentified sacred Rreas or burial sites on or near base.

VIII.12.E The base has no agreements with historic preservation agencies.

Agreements include Programmatic Agreements arid Memorandum of Agreements. Historical preservation agencies inclrrde State llistoricnl Preservation Officer or the Advisory Council on IIistoric

Preservation.

-- -. -- - - -- - - - - -.a-

15-Feb-95 UNCLASSIFIED

u& TIED

... a. 1995 AIR FORCE B%~E QUESTIONNAIRE Rome Lab - AFMC

13. Environmental Cleanup - Installation Restoration Program (IRP) and Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA)

VIII.13.A A preliminary assessment of the Insldlation hns been ~wrformed.

VIII.13.A.1 36 IRP sites have been identified

VIII.13.A.2 2 IRP sites extend off base.

VIII.13.A.3 All on-site remediation is estimated to be in place in 2010

VIII.13.B The installation is a National Priority List (NPL) site or has been proposed as an NPL dte.

T'III.13.C Federnl Facility Agreements to cle& up the base are in place.

Federnl Fncility Agreements Include Interagency Agreements, Administrative Orders of Consent, and other agreements.

VIII.13.D There reported or known uncontrolled o r unregulated occurrences of specific contaminate types and sources.

Contaminate types and sources include landfills, medical wastes, radioactive wastes, etc.

VIII.13.E No sites or SlVMUs are currently being investigated and remediated pursuant to the RCRA.

SWMU - Solid Waste Management Units RCRA - Resource Conservation and Recovery Acl

VlII.13.F The IRP currently restricts construction (siting) activi(iesfoperations on-base.

14. Compliance / IRP Costs ($000) VlII. 14.A Ex~endlture Category - -. -. - - Current F Y F Y + 1 M + 2 FY + 3 FY + -- 4

IGRIFFISS AFB COST: UST Manaaement I $465.000 Kl 1 I I 1

GRlFFlSS AFB Cost : Air Compliance 1 $1 57.500 K 1 $165.500 K I $2,374.000 K GRIFFI.SS .AF,R CQST: !.9P $i I,586.300 ii j $6,372.000 K ] $2,275.000 K ~GRIFFISS AFB COST: PCB Manaoement $403.000 K I I

$75.000 K $2,650.000 K

GRlFFlSS AFB COST: Wastewater Compliance GRlFFlSS AFB Costs : Asbestos Abatement l~azardous Waste Dls~osallRemediation

15. Other Issues

$75.000 K $10,000.000 K

-. - I *

Natural Resources I Permits $35.000 K

VIJI.15.A There are no additionnl activities which mny corlstrnir~ or enhance base operations.

$157.500 K $135.000 K S839.400 K

- -- -- - - A -- - - 15-Feh-95 UNCLASSIFIED Vll l 36

$175.000 K $25.000 K $836.000 K

I

1 1 $35.000 K I 1

'ala 'sajmd alc!l~.~o!ps~ 'sajss~i luxpaw ' s l l~~pus l apnpu! s a ~ ~ n o s pun saddl alsu!wquoa

-sluamaa&s Jaylo pus ')uasuoa JO wapJo a a ! j n ~ ~ s ~ u ! r u p ~ 6 s l u a m a a ~ 8 ~ b3ua8e~aju1 apnpui quamaa.18~ bl!lped p a p a d

*a>uld U! a - ~ u asuq all1 dn uoap o) s)uamaaDy X1!1!~eg lompag ~ 'E I ' I I IA .a)!s ?a un m pasodold uaaq suq JO aj!s ( ~ J N ) IS!? ~]!.IO!JJ Isuo!laN 6 sf uo!jel(slsu! ayJ, a q ~ t e l l l ~

Pall!luaP! uaaq ahell sl!s dXI 9E I'V'EI'IIIA - p a u ~ ~ o j ~ a d uaarl suy uo!jc[lslsu! aqjJO lualllssasss Itruu!ru!la~d v v e ~ [ - l j l ~

1995 AIR FORCE BASE QUESTIONNAIRE lltolne Lab - AFMC

- .. - -- -

16. Air Quality - Clean Air Act VI11.16.A Air Oualitv Control Area (AOCA) geogra~hic reeion in which the base is located:

Central New York portion of the Ozone Trar~sport Region

VIII.16.B Air quality regulatory agency responsible for the AQCA:. New York State Department of Envirorlmental Conservation, Region 6

VIII.16.B Name and phone numher of the AQCA progra~n rrlnrlagcr for issues pertaining to the base:

David Prosser 3 15-785-25 13

The EPA has designated the AQCA (or tlle sprcific portion of the AQCA containing the base) to be:

VIII.16.C.1 In Non-Attainment for Ozone VIII.16.C.2 In Attainment for Carbon Monoxide

VII1.16.C.3 In Attainment for Particulate matter (PM- 10) VI11.16.C.4 In Attainment for Sulfur Dioxide

VII1.16.C.5 In Attainment for Nitrogen Dioxide (Not NOx) VI11.16.C.6 In Attainment for Lead

VII1.16.C.7 The EPA has Not proposed that any AQCA pnllrlt:~nt in ATTAINMENT be listed as NONA'ITALNMENT

VIII.16.E.l

VIII. 16.E.2

VIII.16.E.3

VIII.16.E.4

VIII.16.E.5

Ozone daily maximum hourly design value for tile portion of the AQCA in which the base is located: 0.00 ppm

Carbon monoxide 8 hour design value for the portion of the AQCA in which the base is located: 9.0 ppm

Ozone Design value is 0.0% of NAAQS

Carbon monoxide Design value is 100.0% of NAAQS

The EPAdesignated severity of nonattainment Tor OZONE is Moderate

Central New York portion of the Ozone Transport Region

Multi-state ozone transport region for the base: Central New York

The base is Not in a rural transport area

The EPA has Not proposed that the AQCA severity of nonilttainment for OZONE be redesignated

V111.16.G. Specific ozone precursor (Volatile organic compounds(V0Gs) and nitrogen oxides (NOx)) emissions for the base: - _ _ _ _ _ I > _ _ _ . . _ . - A . *-a_. .. - - 1 11 - . n u - - -

15-Feb-95 UNCLASSlFlED

1995 AIR FORCE BASE QUESTIONNAIRE

Rome Lab - AFMC - -- - -- -- - - .-- - .- -

~ a s e a on tne AUGA IYYU nasellne ANU In tne requrrea artalnment year inventory.

\ iocs NOX v o c s Mobile Source Including Aircraft G.1.a 360 G.1.d 145 G.2.a

NOx G.2.d

Military Aircraft Associated with the Base G.1.b 330 G.1.e 76 G.2.b G.2.e

Stationary Source G.1.c 52 G.1.f 165 G.2.c G.2.f

Amount of reduced annual emissions of VOCs and NOx resulting from permanent reductions in base activity levels, process changes, or any other measures implemented at the base since 1 Jan 1990

VOCs NOx Mobile Source Including Alrcraft G.3.a G.3.c

Stationary Source G.3.b G.3.d

Amount of increased annual emissions of VOCs and NOx resulting from increased activity levels, facility expansion, process changes, or other means implemented at tlae base since 1 Jan 1990

Mobile Source Including Aircraft G.4.a G.4.c

Stationary Source G.4.b G.4.d

Computed allowable growth VOCs NOx Mobile Source lncluding Aircraft G.5.a Missing data G.5.c Missing data

Statlonary Source 0.5.b Missing data G.5.d Missing data

TOTAL 0.5.8 Missing data G.5.f Missing data

- - - - - - . - - -- -- -- 15-Feb-95 UNCLASSIFIED V111.38