WORK SELECTED TO BE INITIATED

Programs selected to begin were those receiving the highest ranking through NBS' initiative (new work) review procedures. According to NBS officials, those selected to begin in the fiscal year 1979 portion of the reprograming required skills which closely matched the skills made available from the tasks terminated.

Initiatives originate primarily from NBS scientific and management staff ideas and are reviewed and approved by a Laboratory/Institute. The Program Office, under the Associate Director for Programs, Budget and Finance, then reviews the initiatives and presents them to the NBS Executive Board, which ranks them to select those to be included in the budget request to Commerce.

The Program Office is staffed with program analysts who are scientists and engineers selected from within NBS for 1- to 2-year tours. Although written procedures have not been issued for program analysts to use in reviewing initiatives or other work, the initiatives must meet certain NBSspecified criteria, such as:

--Problems' significance: economic or commercial importance, social value, scientific value, urgency.

--Match to NBS mission:

NBS mission.

how the proposal fits the

--Quality of work plan: how the work is to be done.

--Institutional health and competence building:
enhancement of NBS role or capability.

--Demand intensity:
problem.

the perceived importance of the

--Delivery mechanisms: a statement of existing or proposed delivery mechanisms.

In addition to these criteria, the program analysts said they use personal judgment and draw on their own extensive backgrounds in reviewing initiatives.

The program analysts' evaluations of initiatives often result in suggestions to the Laboratories/Institute staffs to combine smaller initiatives or otherwise improve them. The staffs generally accept these suggestions. After the Laboratories/Institute staffs make the needed revisions,

the staffs orally present the initiatives to the NBS Executive Board. The Board, chaired by the NBS Director, rates the initiatives on the extent that they meet each of the above six criteria.

We

Using the Executive Board ratings, the program analysts list the highest ranked initiatives, point out alternatives, strengths, and weaknesses in initiatives to the Board and recommend which should be included in the preliminary budget presentation to Commerce. Details of the initiative review process for fiscal year 1980 are shown in appendix V. Generally, the same process has been used in past years. were told that factors other than the NBS criteria, such as budget ceilings and what is politically acceptable, are also considered before initiatives are included in the preliminary budget request. (See app. VI for a listing of tasks discontinued and initiatives undertaken as a result of the 1979 reprograming.)

EFFECTS OF THE REPROGRAMING

Several members of the NBS Statutory Visiting Committee and evaluation panels interviewed during our review felt that the reprograming had terminated some very important work which would hurt NBS' ability to meet its basic responsibilities and would seriously lower the NBS scientific staff's morale. Some members informed us that they were perturbed because they were not consulted or otherwise involved in the reprograming.

NBS officials, however, feel that as a result of the reprograming, NBS has initiated economically and scientifically important programs under constrained budget conditions and that, in balance, the reprograming will result in a net economic and scientific gain. They also feel that since no scientific personnel lost their positions as a result of the reprograming and that those affected became involved in new high-priority work which offered new opportunities and scientific challenges, the long-term effect on morale would be positive.

CONCLUSION

Because the reprograming at NBS is so recent, it is too early to evaluate its effect on NBS' scientific output or on those who used or might have used the output of programs that were terminated.

CHAPTER 5

LEGISLATIVE AUTHORITIES FOR NBS ACTIVITIES

There are many statutes that provide NBS with authority to undertake programs of science, research, and technology. Included in appendix VII is a brief summary of these statutes. During our review, we found no inconsistency, conflict, or substantial duplication among them.

The organic act (passed in 1901), the principal legislation concerning NBS, provides broad authority for developing measurement standards. Under this act NBS has discretion to determine its scientific activities. The act places no mandatory requirements on NBS; it simply authorizes NBS to perform a variety of functions, including the development of testing methods and the definition of standard reference material. This authority is so broad that it could serve as the statutory basis for all major NBS programs.

Specific legislation, however, has been enacted to supplement this authority. These additional statutory mandates, also discussed in appendix VII, generally do not give NBS additional authority. Rather, they direct that certain activities within the scope of the organic act be carried out. For this reason, there is no conflict between the organic act and the many other statutes involving NBS.

With these mandated activities, NBS has lost some of its freedom to decide which programs are most important to the scientific community. The Congress, instead, has focused on national problems and made major policy decisions in the areas of science and technology. There is no inconsistency in this legislative scheme. It allows the Congress to direct NBS to undertake programs the Congress believes are necessary to solve national problems, such as reduction of air and water pollution or development of new sources of energy. At the same time, NBS still has discretion under the organic act to use its scientific expertise to investigate research areas that it deems important.

The statutes, then, do not in themselves pose any major problems of duplication or conflicting authority. Problems have arisen, however, in the implementation of NBS program activities, primarily because of the lead agency concept. These problems are discussed in detail in chapter 2; but one, probably the most important, deserves mention here. This problem is one of program funding. Many of the statutes that direct NBS to undertake specific tasks do not clarify whether funds for the mandated activity are to come out of NBS'

annual appropriation or are to be transferred from the lead agency. 1/ In appendix VII we discuss the appropriation authorization language, if any, in the statutes we reviewed.

1/Also discussed in chapter 2 is the problem of OMB's difficulty in identifying when NBS is the lead agency in the area of science and technology. As a result, NBS is rarely given the role of lead agency.