S&S JCSG 25 Minutes 09 Dec 04 Page: 2 of 37
The following text was automatically extracted from the image on this page using optical character recognition software:
Draft I)eliherati'e I ociiuimnt-For Discussion Purposes ()111~ Do Not l ease Itdruer F i)CN: 11437
* (Charts 4 -- 12 ) Col Neeley briefly reviewed the calendar, and noted the universe
of scenarios provided as an inventory of the teams' work to date.
* (Chart 13) 'Col Ncclcy noted the effect of the OGC review and hox this and other
requirements had the effect of moving the submission timeline to the left for the
team. This is a challenge. Col Neeley then indicated what Principals can expect
at the offsite. Scenarios would be briefed. Each team will present analysis, show
how the analysis was arrived at and have supplemental items data available. The
()GC will receive the required materials on the 4t ' of December and has
advertised a three day turn around. Another re iew opportunity is available at a
Principals meeting on December 16 ' with a read ahead to the ISG on the 17'h
Final delivery is planned on I)ecember 20)'' as discussed in VADM Lippert's
* Charts (14-15) Col Neeley indicated the format that the recommenctdations would
follow including the summary report, supporting information and Quad Chart.
Principals achieved a general understanding ,o hohw material would be presented
at the 13 December offsite. Col Neeley indicated how missing information, such
as insufficient payback analysis caused by a lack of COBRA data, would be
handled in the process. Col Neeley noted that the team would present the best
material available with an "as of' late.
* (Chart 16-17) RADM Thompson asked how much flexibility It1e group would
have during the of fsite and other downstream events to make changes to scenario
considerations. As example. he noted that if an alternative recomm endation
would allow a service savings by closing a facility., it should he considered.
VADM Lippcrt concured and noted that he believed the process could
* Bob Meyer noted that if the analysis was not complete. OSD did not desire the
scenarios but acknowledged that the team would have to go with the best it had
for nowv. VADM Lippert noted that Mr. Wynne has stated that "quality trumps"
in the scenarios over a rushed job. But if the data is insufficient to get to the 2)0"'
V ADM Lippert would take that brief, but this is not the preferred course.
* RADM I'homnpson noted that Navy and DLA m y be the components likely to
slow doxxwn the dclixerable. VADM Lippert noted that if we are talking a day or
two of slip that nay be acceptable. He asked that all componentct s work to mrcct
* C'ol Neelcy asked OSD if tlhec quad chart could run to two pages. Bob Meyer and
Jorhn Desidcrio noted that t,wo was acceptable, and that the team should do Lwhat it
needed to do to communicate theC issue. But that only so much could be handled
in the format. The candidate recommendation template, with supporting
documentation is the key back up.
Draft )DeliberatiV Do)Cunett-For ID)iscussion lurlposes ()l\ -. I)Do Not Release I tinder F1I \
Here’s what’s next.
This text can be searched. Note: Results may vary based on the legibility of text within the document.
Tools / Downloads
Get a copy of this page or view the extracted text.
Citing and Sharing
Basic information for referencing this web page. We also provide extended guidance on usage rights, references, copying or embedding.
Reference the current page of this Text.
United States. Department of Defense. S&S JCSG 25 Minutes 09 Dec 04, text, November 3, 2005; (digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metadc24384/m1/2/: accessed January 17, 2019), University of North Texas Libraries, Digital Library, digital.library.unt.edu; crediting UNT Libraries Government Documents Department.