The counterplan conducts R&D through DOD programs without procurement. Solves the entire aff without increasing incentives
Marqusee 2012 – Executive Director of the Strategic Environmental Research and Development Program and the Environmental Security Technology Certification Program at the DOD (March, Jeffrey, Energy Innovation at the Department of Defense: Assessing the Opportunities, White Paper, “Military installations and energy technology innovation”, http://bipartisanpolicy.org/sites/default/files/Energy%20Innovation%20at%20DoD.pdf, WEA) *note a typo, this dude’s last name is actually spelled Marqusee…
DoD and Environmental Technology: A Successful Innovation Model
The impediments that new facilities energy technologies ¶ face today are very similar to those that confronted new ¶ environmental technologies in the mid-to-late 1990s—¶ namely, a highly distributed and risk-averse market in which ¶ technologies were judged primarily on their perceived ¶ costs, often in the absence of reliable data on actual costs. ¶ To overcome those challenges, DoD created two programs: ¶ the Strategic Environmental R&D Program (SERDP), which ¶ supports the development of technology to meet DoD’s highpriority environmental requirements; and the Environmental ¶ Security Technology Certification Program, which supports the ¶ demonstration and validation of environmental technologies—¶ including, but not limited to, technologies developed with ¶ SERDP funding.
SERDP and ESTCP have amassed a very successful track ¶ record in the last fifteen years of advancing environmental ¶ science and engineering, and also transitioning technologies ¶ across DoD. For example, they have transformed how DoD ¶ remediates its contaminated groundwater sites. Technologies ¶ developed and demonstrated by SERDP and ESTCP are now ¶ used across DoD, and have become the standard of practice ¶ across the country for Superfund sites. As discussed below, ¶ DoD’s efforts to foster innovation in facilities energy are limited ¶ to demonstration and validation because (in contrast to the ¶ environmental area) there is ample support for science and ¶ engineering in industry and the DOE. In other words, DoD’s ¶ facilities energy effort replicates ESTCP but not SERDP. However, ¶ because the two programs are so closely intertwined, it is useful ¶ to look at them together.
Environmental technologies developed and demonstrated by ¶ SERDP and ESTCP are deployed on almost every DoD weapons ¶ system platform, are used in almost every DoD cleanup, and are ¶ part of the management of most installations across the services. ¶ These innovative technologies do not lead to new acquisition ¶ systems (although they are contained in many), nor are they ¶ adopted by initiating a new procurement program. They are ¶ typically transitioned through the commercial sector and bought ¶ back as services for environmental management; or they become ¶ part of new standards, specifications, or installation management ¶ procedures; or they are included through upgrades to existing ¶ systems during depot-level maintenance. As with energy, ¶ environmental issues are ubiquitous; it is assumed they can be ¶ managed (or worked around) rather than addressed through ¶ technological innovation; and decisions to deploy technologies ¶ are driven heavily by cost considerations and regulations. Yet ¶ improvements in environmental performance have significantly ¶ reduced DoD’s costs and improved its mission performance, ¶ while allowing DoD to meet its environmental goals. Similar ¶ results are expected if DoD improves its energy performance.¶ SERDP’s and ESTCP’s effectiveness derives partly from ¶ structural factors (i.e., how the programs are organized), and ¶ partly from their approach to the problems and the linking ¶ of research and development investments to real world ¶ demonstrations. Officially, SERDP and ESTCP programs are ¶ structured as shown in figure 3.6.
This flow chart shows the classic one-way linear progression ¶ from basic research to implementation. Its roots date back to ¶ Vannevar Bush’s classic paper, Science, The Endless Frontier, which ¶ influenced the structure and funding process for many federal ¶ R&D programs. Many have noted that this model neither fits the ¶ way research and development actually occurs, nor necessarily ¶ supports a robust innovation system.¶ 84¶ Although the above is¶ the official structure for the program, it does not reflect how ¶ innovation is supported and fostered within SERDP and ESTCP. ¶ Structurally, SERDP and ESCTP have some unique elements, ¶ some of which were planned and some of which came ¶ about through circumstance rather than design. Having two ¶ programs—SERDP for the science and technology phase, and ¶ ESTCP for demonstration—under the same leadership has been ¶ important. The two programs are integrated in their goals and ¶ objectives but independent in their funding processes. Each ¶ program conducts independent reviews of proposals, but the ¶ reviews of active projects are conducted jointly, and findings are ¶ reported to a single director.
SERDP also has a unique authority in funding research and ¶ development. Although it is classified by DoD as a 6.3 program ¶ (which is typically associated with advanced development), it ¶ has statutory authority to address the full spectrum of science ¶ and technology development, from basic through applied and ¶ advanced development. This flexibility allows SERDP to avoid the ¶ artificial distinction between “basic” and “applied” research and ¶ development; SERDP does not subdivide the two activities. For ¶ the issues that SERDP and ESTCP address, fundamental science ¶ can and should be applied science. Even in the early stages of ¶ research, it is advantageous to be mindful of the likely “in-thefield” applications of the work and the technical and economic ¶ requirements, and structure a “basic” research project to address ¶ those “applied” concerns from the beginning. SERDP funds basic ¶ science, but in a way that ensures that key questions that relate ¶ to real DoD needs are addressed.
Share with your friends: