NRO-MOL_2015

86 The Dorian Files Revealed: a Compendium of the NRO’s Manned Orbiting Laboratory Documents
the Corporation’s Manned Systems Division. Gen
Schriever objected to this arrangement, since it would
place the Technical Director at the fourth organization
level. He also noted that Aerospace had not adequately
defined the Director’s responsibilities. Emphasizing
the need for “vertical organization to totally support the
MOL program,’’ Schriever said that all elements of the
various corporate divisions “must be responsive to the
MOL Director commensurate with the unique Air Force
management structure.” 27
He asked General Berg to work with Aerospace to
provide a more acceptable organizational structure.
Subsequently the corporation took steps to reorganize
itself so that it paralleled the MOL Systems Office
and was “in line with the overall MOL management
concept.” On 14 October it established a MOL Systems
Engineering Office headed by Dr. Leonard, Aerospace
vice president, who would report directly to Dr. Donovan,
senior technical vice president of the corporation. 28
The Contractor Team
On 25 August 1965, the President in his announcement
named the two successful MOL contractors—Douglas
Aircraft and General Electric—contrary to the original
DDR&E plan, which had called for selecting one
contractor for Phase I definition. This decision to go
ahead with two industrial concerns had origins in Air
Force-DDR&E discussions which followed the award of
the 60-day laboratory vehicle study contracts on 1 March
to Boeing, Douglas, General Electric, and Lockheed.
Thus, on 18 March General Evans reported to McMillan
that he had found “there are arguments within the Air
Force and certainly within DDR&E against proceeding
with a single contractor.” These parties suggested
that by continuing with more than one firm during the
definition phase, a competitive atmosphere would be
preserved “from which, hopefully, will emerge better
cost and schedule information and perhaps new ideas.”
General Evans was opposed to this suggestion. He said
that “we cannot afford the luxury of another competitive
study period” and expressed the view that there were
more advantages to proceeding with a single contractor.
It would be cheaper, he said, the security problem would
be less with one contractor and the administration of a
single contract would be easier. 29
By late May and early June 1965, after the MOL Source
Selection Board had submitted its evaluations of the four
contractor proposals, a new rationale was offered for
proceeding with two of the firms which gained general
approval. That is, it was argued that the program could be
strengthened by integrating the two strongest contractors
into a single team. On 12 June General Schriever
formally proposed to General McConnell, the Chief of
Staff, that they adopt the two-contractor approach. He
explained that while “contractor A clearly offers the best
overall technical program and management approach,
the proposal of contractor D is superior in a few important
respects that bear on mission capability. This suggests it
may be particularly advantageous to the government to
include contractor D in the program in those areas where
his capabilities will strengthen the development team.” 30
The Chief of Staff thought this proposal worth pursuing,
whereupon a study was undertaken to identify “the
allocation of specific tasks” in the program between
the two contractors. It was quickly found that the tasks
to be done divided readily into three major categories
involving the laboratory vehicle, the sensor module, and
the payload of sensor package itself. In a memorandum
to General McConnell on 25 July, the AFSC Commander
described these as follows:
1. The laboratory vehicle contractor would be
the system integration contractor, responsible for
structural analysis of the entire system through
the launch phase and the successful operation
through the 30-day mission of all elements except
those actually contained in the sensor module.
2. The sensor module contractor would be
responsible for receiving requirements from the
sensor designer and Systems Program Office,
and would “define, assign, and engineer a
discrete structural carrier for the sensor package
and associated crew displays.” He also would
assemble and test the sensor module elements
and prepare them for launch, and provide interface
requirements to the laboratory vehicle contractor
for his own equipment as well as those from the
sensor contractor.
3. The sensor contractor would be responsible
for the design, fabrication and test of the sensor
elements and package. The sensor contractor
would interface principally with the sensor module
contractor. 31
The two-contractor approach was discussed further
on 30 June by Secretary Zuckert, Dr. Flax, and other
USAF officials. On 1 July additional information was
sent to the Chief of Staff and gained his endorsement.
Subsequently, in the management plan sent to OSD
on 24 August, Secretary Zuckert reviewed the Source
Selection Board results and reported that it had rated
the four competing firms in the following order of merit: