Help wanted

Scientists and engineers at military laboratories have helped develop vital technologies such as the global positioning system and radar. But the labs' cutting-edge capabilities may be in jeopardy because of downsizing, limited recruitment and difficulty attracting world-class researchers, according to members of a panel studying personnel practices at the labs.

The panel of public- and private-sector executives and academics this spring hope to recommend ways to improve the military's ability to recruit and retain scientists and engineers to its research labs.

Without highly skilled staff in the labs, important projects can be delayed, or the Defense Department might be deprived of expertise it needs in new areas of technology, said Mike Marshall, executive secretary of the Naval Research Lab in Washington.

The military's three main research labs are the Air Force Research Laboratory at Wright-Patterson Air Force Base in Dayton, Ohio; the Army Research Laboratory in Adelphi, Md.; and the Naval Research Laboratory in Washington.

"It's to everyone's benefit to have smart, technically competent people in the labs," said Kenneth Lackie, executive secretary of the Science and Technology Community in Crisis panel. "The next time the Navy or Air Force or Army lets a contract to a big contractor, you'd like to think the guys who let the contract had good, unbiased advice inside to make sure the government isn't wasting its money and [that the system] works. [The Defense Department] cannot afford to make mistakes. Our systems have to work."

The Naval Research Advisory Committee, an independent civilian scientific advisory group, is conducting the study for the director of Defense Research and Engineering, with representation of the Army Science Board and Air Force Scientific Advisory Board. It's an undertaking that has been attempted numerous times with varying degrees of success.

"There have been so many studies ? a three-digit number of studies done over the past 20 years. It's hard to believe," said Gil Herrera, a panel member. He is deputy director of corporate business development and partnerships at Sandia National Laboratory in Albuquerque, N.M., a government-owned lab operated by Lockheed Martin Corp. of Bethesda, Md.

Some panel members who have participated in similar studies said past recommendations were implemented successfully. Others said changes have been limited by underlying assumptions that the government's personnel system could not be changed.

Mal O'Neill, vice president and chief technical officer of Lockheed Martin, said the Air Force implemented most, if not all, recommendations emerging from past personnel studies he has participated in. The recommendations included establishing an advocate for science and technology funding during budget reviews.

Herrera, however, said some previous studies were hampered because they did not consider that the civil service compensation system could be changed to reflect the demand for certain personnel.

"What I believe our board will suggest is that you shouldn't consider that as a constraint. If you assume it could be changed, the possibilities open up. If you say it can't be changed, I can see people saying the only way to save this [military research] is to contract it out," Herrera said.

The 15-member panel will examine past studies to validate or reject their findings and to determine why recommendations were or were not followed. The group plans to issue its recommendations this spring, which could be an opportune time for discussions about changes to the federal government's personnel systems.

Some government officials have recently indicated their support for practices such as pay-for-performance and pay banding. With pay banding, managers can set employees' pay within a range that is broader than the grades and steps of the General Schedule.

Rep. Tom Davis, R-Va., last month wrote to Office of Personnel Management Director Kay Coles James in support of bonuses for top government performers.

Mark Forman, associate director for information technology and e-government in the Office of Management and Budget, said the president's budget proposal for fiscal 2003 includes a performance bonus of several hundred thousand dollars for the two top e-government project teams.

And the federal CIO Council recently endorsed an independent study recommending pay banding and faster recruiting for highly skilled IT professionals in the federal government.

The panel has visited Army and Navy research labs and this month will visit Air Force lab personnel. Army and Navy personnel have reported increasing trouble competing with the private sector and increasing efforts to recruit, Lackie said.

The military's research labs compete for scientists and engineers with companies such as Microsoft Corp., Verizon Communications Inc., Lucent Technologies Inc., Lockheed Martin and the Boeing Co. The labs' annual compensation can be $5,000 to $200,000 less than similar positions in the private sector, Lackie said.

Panel participants also lament the months-long process of hiring new employees, which they say deters applicants who are already in scarce supply.

" 'As soon as we can' may be a year from now. There may only be 10 qualified U.S. citizens a year [for] these jobs, and few are interested," Lackie said.

Through the study, the group hopes to find new ways to compete for talent and determine what rules and regulation changes may be necessary to improve the labs' competitiveness with the private sector, he said.

Staff Writer Gail Repsher Emery can be reached at gemery@postnewsweektech.com.