New Member(s):

Ken Ward AND-210, replacing Steve Hodges

Converting FAA Orders to Guidance. D. Sirk asked the status of Orders. No one made any comments at this time on them, therefore, D. Sirk is assuming there are no problems and that they are being taken care of.

Fee-For-Service. Norman Bowles, AML-1, presented this for information purposes and it doesn’t deal strictly with acquisitions. This is not viewed as a policy or guidance change, however, it needs to be linked somehow with the AMS/FAST. He stated this is about how ATC makes it’s decisions and how they get stuff. It changes the way services flow. This has an affect all the way back to ARA. Currently there is "no-value" on anything that goes out. The only value is that the system either works or it does not. The current system is considered a free issue system. The monetary impact is not felt by the orderer/purchaser. The free issue system is labeled a "communist system". We have empty shelves of things we need and lots of what we don’t need.

Fee-for-service is scheduled to go into place October first or sometime during this calendar year. Fee-for-service will have logistics responsibilities going to the field. The money for stuff goes to the field and they order from the logistics center and are immediately charged for the item. This would create a buyer/seller relationship between the field and the logistics center. All costs become visible with this system. The field will have to make trade-offs between the value of what they have and whether to fix it or not. It was asked what level the money would go to in the field. N. Bowles stated the lower it is pushed the more savings achieved. However, initially expect to put the money at the regional levels. In the future, they want to put it at the technician level. Also, at this time only OPS is under fee-for-service.

From a clean financial audit perspective L. Bowles stated they see the field taking parts off the shelf instead of just ordering them when a part is needed. The Navy converted to a fee-for-service system and found things were managed better under the system.

Benefits to a fee-for-service system include drop in the number of demands, and return rates on repair and return items increases. This increases as credit is given for returning these items. Also, the availability of operational systems increases. In the future, the customer will decide whether to go to the logistics center for their item or not. The logistics center will be expected to be competitive with other sources. Fee-for-service will also improve the quality of the NAS. Conversion to this system increases maintenance of the NAS – they know where to put the dollars.

The question was asked whether there would be a surcharge for every shipment from the logistics center. N. Bowles stated they have to recover their costs. It was also asked what if a location runs out of money. He indicated the money would be allocated quarterly and that if there is a misallocation (dollars will be initially based on past usage) some money will be held in reserve to take care of this.

A discussion was held in reference to budget authority and this system. N. Bowles stated this year’s budget authority has designated the logistics center as a line item. In the briefing packet there is a chart which explains the authority.

It was asked that for the first two years could the customer go outside the system (not use the logistics center) for stuff. N. Bowles stated for the first year they will have to get things from the logistics center and in the future certain items will only be available from the logistics center. The authority says the logistics center has to be competitive and they can’t stop the customer from going outside the logistics center.

Contractor Depot Level Support (CDLS) Template, Darryl Thompson, AML-20, presented this for information purposes and it doesn’t deal strictly with acquisitions. Once we get a statement of work together on this we will come back to the ASAG and make this an official change proposal to make this part of the FAST tool. He said CDLS is one way of getting/doing lifecycle support. It is an extremely convenient way of contracting, however, it can be expensive. Sometimes contract structures are not driven by FAA needs. The cost of CDLS contracts are squeezing operational support dollars.

It was asked if we knew why this was chosen to do. D. Thompson stated the issue is not necessarily why this instead of in-house. The majority of COTS equipment is part of this. It is to improve contracts that we have rather then new ones. He stated that currently there are 27 different contracts and 27 different ordering processes. For these 27 contractors we’re generally paying them for 24 hours a day 7 days a week. Because of that the AF technician needs to understand what they all are. It was asked what if all orders flowed through the logistics center – did you look at this? D. Thompson stated they did and he thinks that is the way they’re heading.

We need a standard way of doing this and make it easier on the AF technician. CDLS is a good contract vehicle, it just depends on how it is used/implemented. D. Thompson stated there was a team meeting May 25^th to create a template to address the issues for new contracts and if appropriate for old contracts as well. One of the objectives of CDLS is when we can and it makes sense buy the data rights.

For the clean financial audit we must have a physical inventory of parts. We need to do a quarterly reconciliation with the inventory and general ledger. The initial intention of CDLS contracts was to not buy spares. This is important because we can’t capture cost by LRU and site at this time and that is needed for fee-for-service.

The next step is to take these objectives and any ASAG input and try to put templates together for inclusion in FAST. D. Thompson said they are looking for a flexible template that would be a guide. Also, they’re trying to get IPTs to put more focus on contracts before they go to the logistics center.

ACTION: ASAG members provide any comments, concerns, etc. to D. Thompson.

IPLT versus/with the ASAG: Martin Phillips, ATQ-1, mentioned that we need to clarify the long-haul relationship of the ASAG and the IPLT. Also, a session like today’s meeting needs to happen more often. He stated it was envisioned that the ASAG could deal with changes from the whole spectrum perspective. Changes could come from the field and the ASAG would work/develop the change. Also, ASAG can do a "scrub-down" of the change. If a suggestion comes in there needs to be some balance of input for those who come with a better change. He also mentioned the IPLT is energized to make sure changes have been scrubbed and some coordination has happened. For example, Human Factors, this is an issue the IPLT is working on to come up with a process and procedure and once this is developed the ASAG needs to review and challenge it, if applicable.

An ASAG member mentioned though that when we take a product from a higher level the ASAG is thrust into a different mode than what they are in normally. It was suggested the ASAG get involved from the start. It was asked who exactly was "we". "We" is an ASAG member and/or someone knowledgeable of the AMS to provide input. M. Phillips stated we don’t see the policy organization as being separate, but we can be more direct/sensitive within the IPLT. The ASAG agreed this would be very helpful.

It was mentioned that when the ASAG receives a briefing with the presenter saying it’s gone through the IPLT and they have approved it, we wonder what value the ASAG provides. Also, the presenter wonders why do they have to come to the ASAG.

M. Phillips stated they look at a member being responsible from a functional perspective and the ASAG representative. However, we may need to consider having a representative for each – functional and ASAG. The ASAG stated they need to have a linking member on these activities and have a discussion with the ASAG toward the beginning of a project. If the ASAG is involved with IPLT issues we may be able to either work with the IPLT or do the work for the IPLT.

M. Phillips asked if there were any other ways the ASAG was not being used by the IPLT. The only comments were that we need a better working relationship and we need to make sure cooperation/coordination is done between the two. He stated the IPLT has a lot of things going on, most of which are not mature and now would be a good time to review what’s going on. M. Phillips also stated he would like to come to any ASAG meetings the ASAG feels he needs to be aware of.

ACTION: D. Sirk provide IPLT with an ASAG link proposal.

99-18: AMS & IPDS Regional Implementation. Steve Zaidman, ARA-1, provided additional information on this change. He stated the IPLT level is working on AMS and how it works for the whole agency. He said the duties currently require him to do quality control for the entire agency. He feels that some can be delegated to the field. S. Zaidman stated they are trying to get the AMS to be more consistent and he is concerned that when we spend big dollars for non-national programs there are no guidelines for this. S. Zaidman stated he didn’t think that all programs which should be baselined are. He stated we need some integrity in the system. He is concerned if there is a trail after the program gets a budget. Also, whenever he is visited by GAO, they as about regional baselines.

It was questioned that S. Zaidman recognizes in Headquarters there are program offices which projects go through the process and the regions execute them. S. Zaidman indicated he recognizes this and stated the JRC approves the budget, but that’s not AMS.

This is a two-part issue – small dollar procurements and Headquarter/regional responsibility. Section 2 of the AMS talks lifecycle and the need for dollar amounts. S. Zaidman is looking for a JRC-like process for the regions. We make a little mistake separating/distinguishing Headquarters and the field. We need to make sure everything goes through the steps. He is suggesting some local acquisition delegation of authority. He also wants to see some structure/criteria for this.

S. Zaidman stated could impact regions/field drastically and need to get their input for this. He also mentioned he doesn’t want to create a lot of work. It was mentioned that we may have to do it by example to the ground level so people understand it. Cathy Routon from the Aeronautical Center stated her concern is if we are only legitimizing what we are currently doing that’s okay, However, if you’re requiring the 6 documents it’s different from what we do now. We need to fix it in Chapter 1 & 2 and leave Chapter 3 alone if anything needs fixing.

There is a need for a dollar threshold which should address field concerns. Also, we need to make sure $100,000 doesn’t allow for Headquarters stuff to "sneak" through.

Based on the discussion between S. Zaidman and the ASAG members, it was determined that the change needs to be reworded.

ACTION: D. Sirk coordinate working with the IPLT workgroup to re-word the change.

99-31: FAA iCMM Process Improvement. Linda Ibrahim, AIO-200 presented this change to the ASAG. She stated this is a model which has been in use since June 1997 and was published in November 1997. The model was developed to map to AMS, but there wasn’t any guidance or policy in AMS for iCMM. Policy was created and this is what we want incorporated into the AMS. iCMM was reviewed by a corporate group and they approved it, this was done prior to it being proposed as an official change to the AMS.

It was asked what benefit or value is gained by adding this to the AMS. L. Ibrahim stated to have process improvement it is important to have a policy statement in AMS. This is across the AMS lifecycle. With a policy statement that says they (FAA) will use iCMM otherwise they are writing their own policy.

She provided a handout which described the change (this was electronically sent out as change 99-31 previously), in which section 1.14 is the actual policy statement they want incorporated into the AMS. There was a lot of discussion on the two paragraphs. The bottom line is that the ASAG feels the first paragraph is policy and the second paragraph is guidance. It was asked for the overarching policy does the first paragraph address that. L. Ibrahim stated it does and the second paragraph is more detail. It was determined that FAST can link to the iCMM guidance, which will in essence address the second paragraph.

It was asked that from an IPT perspective what difference do you expect to happen with this in the AMS. L. Ibrahim stated without this policy everyone is writing their own process. If this policy existed then they would only need to write the details.

The discussion turned to resources. The ASAG mentioned we cannot write policy to ensure adequate resources. L. Ibrahim stated she believed with this policy the people resources to carry out a plan would be available. Also, that the resources for the programs is not the intent of this.

L. John said that typically we say in policy that it should be used, do you want to mandate this be used without variation? L. Ibrahim said the point of this is to get the agency together and that this model doesn’t dictate.

ACTION: D. Sirk coordinate working with L. Ibrahim off-line to come up with verbiage acceptable to the ASAG.

99-xx: Mission Analysis / Investment Analysis. Comments were due to A. Harball May 10^th. This change will be presented to the ASAG again in the future.

ACTION ASAG members review the MA / IA change proposal and send any additional comments to A. Harball.

DATE	LOCATION in FOB 10A
June 28	5AB
July 26	5AB
August 30	5AB
September 27	5AB
October 25	5AB
November 22 (c)	5AB
December 13 (c)	5AB

ACTION ITEMS