Navy had problems with UH contract
| • | PDF: E-mails and memos regarding UARC, released in response to a Freedom of Information Act request |
By Loren Moreno
Advertiser Staff Writer
Internal e-mails between senior U.S. Navy officials reveal that the Navy had problems with a "no classified research" stipulation set by University of Hawai'i President David McClain for a proposed university affiliated research center.
Both UH and the Navy say the negotiations have moved beyond that sticking point, but acknowledge it was an issue early on.
The UARC proposal has been mired in controversy for nearly two years, with outspoken opposition stemming largely from concerns over whether the work might involve classified weapons research. Proponents have argued that a UARC would attract millions of dollars in research funding and would bring prestige to the university.
The e-mails are among more than 100 pages of documents obtained by UARC opponents through a Freedom of Information Act request. They offer a rare glimpse into issues involved in closed-door contract negotiations between UH and the Navy for the first new Navy UARC in more than 50 years.
The documents were provided to The Advertiser, and their authenticity and completeness were confirmed by Navy officials. They were released on June 1 in response to a request from Kyle Kajihiro of the American Friends Service Committee and the Save UH, Stop UARC coalition.
They reveal that two senior-level Navy executives exchanged e-mails expressing concerns about the stipulation on Feb. 16, the day McClain announced his recommendation to the UH Board of Regents to move forward with a UARC contract without classified research.
'A DEAL BREAKER'
Pat Tamburrino, the executive director of Naval Sea Systems Command, who also serves as director of the NAVSEA UARC Management Office, writes that "if (the) Navy insists on classified work in the first three years, we will have a deal breaker."
In response, Michael McGrath, deputy assistant secretary of the Navy for Research, Development, Test and Evaluation, writes that "we could not agree to a ban on all classified work under the contract without defeating the purpose of the UARC."
While McGrath and Tamburrino are not directly negotiating the UH UARC contract, they are involved in "defining UARC requirements" for the Navy, said Patricia Dolan, a spokeswoman with Naval Sea Systems Command in Washington, D.C.
While the e-mails show the Navy officials were concerned with several new UARC stipulations requested by McClain, both UH and the Navy now say the negotiations have moved beyond those sticking points and acknowledge there has been "substantial progress" made in the finalization of a contract.
"The Navy and UH have continued negotiations/discussions since the dates of the e-mails," Dolan said. "Progress has been made to resolve the issues identified."
NO LONGER A PROBLEM
James Gaines, vice president for research at UH, said the stipulation may have been a problem for the Navy in the past, but it is not any longer.
"The Navy has said they could go along with the classified research clause for the first three years," Gaines said, based on the most recent contract talks between UH and the Navy about a month ago.
"When we take this to the Board (of Regents), hopefully in the next few weeks, I fully expect that the terms will say that UH will accept no classified task orders for the first three years," he said.
Gaines confirmed that if the Navy were to insist on classified research during the first three years of the UARC, the university would not be able to enter into a contract, based on McClain's recommendation to the Board of Regents. He also said the Board of Regents likely would not approve such a contract.
At the Feb. 16 regents meeting, McClain outlined four stipulations, which were later described as "problematic" by another senior-level Navy official:
Two months later, in an e-mail dated April 19, 2006, a UARC negotiation status report was attached for forwarding to another Navy executive, Delores Etter, assistant secretary of the Navy for research, development and acquisition. The report analyzes the precedent for a Navy UARC that handles no classified research.
The report says that Army-sponsored UARCs at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and the University of California at Santa Barbara handle only unclassified research. "(U.S. Department of Defense) models therefore exist for unclassified UARC contracts, although it is not the traditional Navy UARC model," the report says.
LESS FUNDING POSSIBLE
The report goes on to say that if the UH UARC performed only unclassified work, it would "result in fewer task awards and less UH UARC funding." It was originally estimated that UH could receive as much as $10 million a year for five years. That figure, however, has been questioned by UARC opponents.
Gaines said that even if the Navy funding would be reduced under an unclassified UARC contract, the university could still receive research money from other U.S. Department of Defense agencies.
"For the initial phases of it, we think we are going to be all right. We're going to be hitting our $10 million a year," he said. "It won't just be from the Navy; every DOD agency can use this vehicle," he said.
Gaines said that UH and the Navy have made significant progress in negotiating a final contract and that the university "is hoping to have this completed in the next few weeks."
"All of these issues have been problems, but I think we're close to having a resolution on this," Gaines said.
Kajihiro said the Navy documents are among the first FOIA responses he has received in regard to the UH UARC.
"There seems to be a lot of secrecy surrounding the establishment of the UARC. There are many questions that have been left unanswered. I am hoping we will be able to get much more in order to really understand the implications of the UARC," he said.
PROTESTS SPARK DELAYS
The documents, dating from 2004 to April 2006, also reveal several setbacks and delays in negotiations following heated protest on the UH-Manoa campus, he said.
For example, one e-mail, dated May 2005, when much of the visible protest began at UH, said that despite protests, the UH administration is "holding firm" in proceeding with the UARC contract. It later says that the "planned contract award date" would be pushed back to October 2005 to allow for more public discussion.
Kajihiro said the contract award date was then pushed back again because of the opposition.
"I think the opposition was critical to setting back the timeline. We were able to postpone the signing of the contract for more than a year," he said.
He said his group holds out hope that there are other avenues yet to be explored to keep the UARC contract from being signed.
"There are some formal internal complaints by faculty pending at the university," he said. His group is also looking into the legality of how UH was awarded the UARC contract.
Reach Loren Moreno at lmoreno@honoluluadvertiser.com.
