Maintaining the program balance, volumes 1 and 2

Abstract

In March of 1990, the NASA Administrator asked the Academy to perform a study to address the following questions: (1) has NASA contracted too much of its technical work; (2) has NASA's in-house technical capability eroded over time; (3) is in-house engineering and scientific work important to the development of scientists and engineers; and (4) is NASA still able to attract quality scientists and engineers. A panel from the Academy addressed each question separately and came up with the following recommendations: (1) prepare and issue guidance on technical functional areas reserved for in-house performance; (2) convert contracted technical functions to in-house performance if critical to agency programs; (3) provide policy guidance to the centers to retain in-house projects; (4) examine the project mix at each center against agency goals and objectives; (5) institute an annual critical review for all technical disciplines; (6) modify the agency's contractor accountability process; and (7) seek opportunities for greater delegation of resources and technical decision making.