S&S JCSG 30 Minutes 12 Jan 05.pdf Page: 3 of 45
The following text was automatically extracted from the image on this page using optical character recognition software:
bad data \as one reason why the tcam had decided soine time ago to locus exclusi\ ely on
V ADM Lippert noted that analysis to address the seam between wholesale and retail
needed to include impacts to the A-76 process and opportunities for contractors. Mr.
Becrkson asked if the S&S JCSG could assert that the retail infrastructure would not
change based on S&S analysis, and/or if the S&S recommendations would impact the
infrastructure to the seam but not beyond. Mr. Aimone suggested that the S&S .JC'SG
conduct research about the scam, and that a legal analysis would he a prudent step. Mr.
Aimone agreed to lead the assessment. Mr. lBerkson su tested that any subsequent
analysis and language be speci fic about what the impact would be on the seam. Mr.
Aimone noted he would take lead on the action to review the seam issue and report back
to the group.
* Col King briefed the risk/time chart as it applied to the analysis conducted by his team.
Mr. Berkson asked where the risks were located. Col King responded that some of the
S&S JCSG ICP recommelicndations could result i creatiiig a "technical background
mismatch" with a subsistence person atte'pting to manage a component with siguilicant
ngincceering and technical requirements, as example. Mr. Berkson noted that the risk
assessment needed some degree of dis-aggrgcation since many of the logistics
commodity functions in place today would change dramatically over the next few years.
Mr. Berkson added that the technical skills base needed :o be orotectcd but that
sign.iticant savings could be had in other areas of acquisition such as p -ocurement,
coin ractiniig where business models were changing radically. Co Kiinm noted 0hat the
service experts in the supporting survey for the risk analysis were concerned about
breaking an important link between technical engineers and supplyvcontracting personnel.
VADM l.ippert suggested that the link bet een engineering and procurement was an
important one but concurred with Mr. Berkson that the risk picture needed to distin guish
between technical and other commodities.
M* s. Kinney depicted the discussion as analysis that attempted to create a work
breakdown structure of the ICP and asked if the S&S .(JCSG had cost data for IICP work
along work breakdown structure concepts. Major Champagne stated that the team did
gather this type of related data.
* Mr. Bcrkson asked if the DLR to )L.A option moved people or just changed flags,
systems and processes. VADM I,ippert noted that the processes envisioned were similar
to DMRI) 902 efforts where leadership changes preceded business changes.
* VADIM Lippert asked Col Kiing to explain thow the ICP mix scenario coulld demonstrate
little to no savings. C('I)R Larchcr noted that MilCon and transfer costs appeared to
counter any potential savings. RA[DM Thompson sucggested that the application of
COBRA standards would refine the analsis. Mr. Berkson asked if chances in
transaction costs savingss) were considered in the COBRA analysis. Major Chamnpagne
stated that COBRA did not assess transaction cost savings.
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 30 Minutes 12 Jan 05.pdf, text, November 3, 2005; (https://digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metadc24389/m1/3/: accessed April 18, 2019), University of North Texas Libraries, Digital Library, https://digital.library.unt.edu; crediting UNT Libraries Government Documents Department.