Present: David Duffy, Michael Garcia, Patricia Lorenzo, Jim Tiles (SEC Liason), Robert Bley-Vroman (MFS Chair),
Guests: Shirley Daniel (Business), Marianne Lam (ORS), Roy Wilkens (Hawaii Institute of Geophysics and Planetology), Gary Ostrander (V. C. Research)
Excused: Patricia Donegan, Jennifer Herring, Bruce Shiramizu.
Since no quorum was present, we conducted an informal discussion of the UARC Contract from what appear to be three under-represented perspectives: individual researchers, business, and grant management.
The major issue: Were there mortal flaws in the existing contract or were there problems that could be fixed, especially those that have not been previously addressed because of the lack of perspectives?
Results: The UARC business plan was found to be flexible and workable by the guest experts. It is not a perfect document but seldom is any contract perfect for all parties. This contract was considered viable for UH needs. It was also mentioned that the outside review by a local law firm made technical mistakes in their review.
UH has another major military contract for operation of the Maui super computer facility. This ~$36M over 3 years contract allows internal management of funds and is autonomous to RCUH. It seems to function well.
The discussion considered the review process for UARC and why it was not considered as a separate facility. One of the benefits was shared use of facilities at Manoa, which was allowed under the contract terms. Also, the UARC would streamline obtaining major federal grants. With the current contact system, it can take years to negotiate a contract.
It was concluded by the guest experts that there were NO MAJOR FLOWS in this contract, the upfront costs were minimal, there was little risk to UH Manoa identified and all issues appeared to be negotiable with the Navy. The issue of non-disclosure of information seems to have been addressed in section H5 (this item has not yet been approved). Task orders seem to allow flexibility and the nature of the work as classified or unclassified could be designated at the start of the task order, avoid researchers working on a project they did not know would be classified. In the business world, the practice is 'people acting in good faith can resolve issues as they arise'. Thus, this contract seemed workable to the experts.
Finally, it was concluded that the consultation process for the UARC was flawed. Faculty, Deans and Directors were not involved in the process early enough to help review the contract. UARC became mired in politics early and remained there through the Faculty Senate vote. This early lack of consultation by the Administration appears to have killed the UARC at Manoa.
Meeting adjourned at 5:10 PM
Minutes submitted by Mike Garcia <firstname.lastname@example.org>
February 6, 2006