NASA: Guidance for October 12 SRR Meeting

National Aeronautics and

Space Administration

Office of the Administrator

Washington DC 20546-0001

OCT 9 2001

TO: Directors, NASA Centers

Director, Jet Propulsion Laboratory

FROM: AI/ Associate Deputy Administrator

SUBJECT: Guidance for October 12 SRR Meeting

The President’s FY 2002 Budget Blueprint calls for us to minimize infrastructure such that we are able to support current and future core missions, and focus on a select, sharply defined set of world-class core capabilities that cannot be provided outside of NASA. The prospect for NASA programs to be funded at greater than current levels is negligible: we can expect that funding will be flat-lined at FY 2002 levels, with any argument for increased funds to be made on the grounds that such spending will benefit areas other than specific NASA sites. According

ly, we assume that we will be frozen a current spending levels for work done on-site or near-site.

We are asking each of you to provide an analysis of the problem we face, based on the following guidelines:

• The point of departure for your analysis excludes Space Shuttle and Station development and operations, because the spending for these two programs must decrease – the case of Station, quite dramatically – to enable increased spending on Administration priorities, particularly Space Science and he Space Launch Initiative.

• Although it is understood that OMB’s projected rate of inflation in 2.5 percent per year, for the purposes of your calculations, assume a 3 to 4 percent inflation rate per year between 2002 and 2006; these figures are based on projected increases in civil servant and contractor salaries.

Because our on/near-site spending is manpower-intensive, a freeze at current spending levels translates into a 15 to 20 percent drop by 2006 in the on/near-site employment, again exclusive of Shuttle and Station. We will obviously need to determine how to accomplish that 3 to 4 percent annual drop by some combination of decreases in civil service and on/near-site contractors. We need your analysis of what the ratio for that combination should be, and which specific transformational concepts will be implemented and which additional/secondary responsibilities will be transferred or eliminated. At several Centers, these actions may not be sufficient, and you will have to redefine priorities in executing primary responsibilities.

In any event, provide us with your analysis of how you will accommodate a 15 percent and a 20 percent reduction in your civil servant and on/near-site contractor staffing levels, exclusive of Space Station and Space Shuttle program staffing. The elimination of corporate responsibility assignments is not to be proposed. Ms. Sue Garman will electronically forward a chart on which you should reflect changes for a 15 percent reduction and a 20 percent reduction. Please revise these charts, adding footnotes or backup information so that the changes you are making are understood, and forward them to Sue (sgarman@hq.nasa.gov) by noon Eastern Time on Thursday, October 11. You should ensure that your response has been coordinated with your Enterprise Associate Administrator.

We will continue our Strategic Resources Review discussions on Friday, October 12, from 8:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. in ACR-2 at NASA Headquarters.

Daniel Mulville