General: Meeting began with a welcome to everyone by the Chairperson (Dorothy Sirk). She went briefly over of the agenda and introduced Barbara Appel from ASD. B. Appel is part of the AMS Evaluation Team and stated they are getting ready to start the third year evaluation. She said her purpose for attending the ASAG meeting was to ask for the ASAG’s assistance with personnel for a 240 day detail of about 10 people to perform the third year evaluation. B. Appel stated they were looking for three elements in any detailee: (1) people who know the AMS and why it is in existence; (2) how to do evaluations; and (3) people willing to work hard to produce good product. She provided a copy of the broadcast message which went out August 20^th announcing the detail and reiterated the closing date of September 15^th.

D. Sirk stated the FAA Acquisition Executive (FAE) has been designated as Steve Zaidman. He has been designated this; however, the Administrator has not signed the memorandum as of today.

D. Sirk stated the Charter is waiting for communication with ARP and then approval by the Administrator. The ASAG Guidance and the Initiator’s Guidance are both out in draft in FAST. They will be put into FAST in their final version with the next FAST update. In addition, the Charter will be going into FAST once the discussion with ARP is completed and any discrepancies are worked out.

These change requests were signed by the Administrator and closed 8/13/98. They will be in the next FAST update.

98-09: Work Breakdown Structure. Is "draft" in FAST as of the August update with the following paragraph:

This change request has been approved by the Director, Office of Acquisitions as appropriate through the minor change process. The document will remain in "draft" until further notice.

98-15: Telecommunications IPT Template. Doug Carpenter provided a short briefing on this change request, providing two handouts (1) briefing slides and (2) suggested changes to FAST templates. He went over the briefing slides and addressed the reason for the change request. He stated the change request recommends the insertion of the TIPT’s role in a more definitive way. The idea is to reduce telecommunication costs by better identification and planning pertaining to telecommunications. He said the handout which addresses the suggested changes to FAST templates are the specific item the TIPT would like approved by the ASAG at this time. D. Carpenter stated that they are still working on the hyper-link to the template and will come back to the ASAG once that is completed. P. Walker asked if this had been worked with ARR. D. Carpenter stated it had and that were working on integrating the telecommunication requirements with ARR where necessary. P. Walker stated she was not comfortable because of possible conflict between ARR requirements and telecommunication requirements.

The ASAG got into a discussion in reference to the TIPT Charter, which was mentioned in the briefing slides. It was determined that any issues an ASAG member may have with the TIPT Charter are outside the scope of the ASAG and should be handled off—line.

ARS & AVR non-concur with this change request because they want to ensure this fits with other requirements.

ACTION: (1) ARS & AVR will provide comments to the TIPT prior to the next ASAG meeting. (2) J. Long put this change request on the SEPTEMBER agenda for approval.

These change requests were discussed simultaneously. A. Harball brought Bob Fenton, SETA, with her in regards to these change requests. A. Harball stated they had received very few comments; however, there are still at least two sets of comments, which are still outstanding. These are from Dave Woodson, who sent his comments to the ASAG at the time he sent them to A. Harball, therefore, the ASAG discussed some of them during this meeting. Also, ASU-140, Real Estate Policy Branch, had comments, which have not been resolved. B. Fenton provided a summary handout of the ASU-140 comments and discussed where they stood with them. AVR noted they had comments, which didn’t make it to A. Harball by the deadline. They will ensure she gets them.

It was requested that we get a brief update as to what each change request is about. ASU-140 wants to have structures added to the Economic Service Life table. One element brought up by J. Trenholm was that buildings need to be included in the table (e.g. 100 year old buildings) and that "industry standard" should be the basis for funding the service life.

In these two change requests when there are COTS items they identify the type of funding and the starting point for depreciation (service life). It was mentioned that systems which are not COTS should also be factored into these as well.

These change requests have gone through a lot of coordination and it is the way the agency is going. This guidance is to help the IPTs. It is recognized in the Investment Analysis phase. There is a lot stronger analysis for COTS to be used than not used, i.e. does COTS meet our needs.

It was asked if the SEOAT has been briefed on these. They have not been as a group; however, the IMT’s have and a number of SEOAT members are IMT members. At one of these briefings segmentation of money was requested to be included and it has been incorporated.

It was asked if the JRC needed to be briefed on this as well — for awareness purposes not approval purposes. B. Fenton stated he believed most of the JRC was aware of it but wasn’t sure.

These documents have been used as interim guidance (informal guidance) for the past year. These change requests are to formalize it. For both of these, the impact will be seen in the APB out of the Investment Analysis phase.

ACTION: (1) AVR provide comments to A. Harball within next two weeks. (2) A. Harball get with D. Woodson and ASU-140 reference their outstanding comments, invite S. Hodges when get with D. Woodson. (3) A. Harball setup a meeting for all those who have concerns/comments/questions within the next two weeks. (4) A. Harball make applicable changes to the documents and provide to the ASAG prior to the next meeting. (5) A. Harball report back at the next meeting status of these change requests. (6) J. Long put these change requests on the SEPTEMBER agenda for approval.

98-37: Enhanced & Expanded Lessons Learned Database. Willie Wilson, ASU-120, provided an overview of the enhanced and expanded lessons learned database. He provided a handout which is an outline of the main screens in the database. W. Wilson stated this database is similar to the procurement lessons learned database; however, it is expanded to include the entire acquisition lifecycle. He said the idea behind the database is to share what does and does not work in the acquisition lifecycle. The question was asked as to who submits information to be included in the database, as well as is there a screening process for inclusion into the database. W. Wilson said anyone can submit information for the database and yes, there is a screening process. ASU-120 reviews and screens all submissions for the database, as necessary getting with the submitter, to ensure they are valid prior to inclusion in the database. He said currently, he or Malinda Battle, also from ASU-120, get the information is from the IPTs and primarily have to ask for it. However, anyone can submit lessons learned. L. John asked if the information receives a legal review prior to being included in the database. W. Wilson stated he believed there was. She asked that there be a way to note in the database verification of a legal review.

ACTION: (1) ASAG members try out the lessons learned database. The site is http://www.asu.gaa.gov/lesslrnd/. (2) ASAG members provide comments to Willie Wilson (7-8489) or Malinda Battle (7-8557) on the database by the next meeting.

98-39: Policy/Guidance Definitions. G. Sweger briefed this change request and indicated the purpose for it is to articulate the difference between policy and guidance. He stated there is a demonstrated need for clarity of these terms. He stated at the FAST homepage there is a site which leads you directly to the definitions of policy and guidance and it is readily obvious. He indicated there are definitions out there now; however, they are in draft. G. Sweger stated AMS is a system of policy and guidance — it is not just the policy. What he provided the ASAG with are the definitions, core terminology, identification as to where to find them in FAST and where you are in FAST. G. Sweger indicated the statements reference policy are mostly from the policy itself. The core terminology adds clarity for the terms "shall", "should", and "may". He stated if this change request is approved as the definitions are written, then we will need to do a global search of these three terms and determine if the term is used correctly each time it occurs in the guidance — as defined by this change request.

D. Lakeman mentioned that there is an agency order on writing orders which has a definition of these terms. D. Lakeman stated he felt the two definitions should be the same. The group got into a long discussion as to the definitions and consistency. They agreed that maybe there should be consistency and if it is determined that the proposed definitions only apply to the AMS then there needs to be a notation as such. L. John stated from a legal standpoint we have to be clear on "shall", "should", and "may" as they are used and defined in the AMS because it is not a regulation but is a policy. She also stated the definitions proposed are the legal standard. Another issue discussed is the level of discretion, which is a key element of the AMS.

The question was raised that assuming these terms apply AMS-wide how does a person putting an SIR together work with them. L. John stated the same rules apply. She also mentioned the same system was used for the clauses as well.

G. Sweger stated FAST now flashes either "policy" or "guidance" at the top of the screen now so you know which type of document you are in as you "surf" around in FAST.

ACTION: (1) G. Sweger reword the second sentence of the "shall" definition. (2) G. Sweger reword and add examples to the "should" definition. (3) G. Sweger find and compare any definitions of these terms that exist currently in the FAA. If they differ, mention there are others and state that the definitions in FAST apply specifically to the AMS. (4) G. Sweger and L. John meet off-line with those who have issues, specifically D. Lakeman. (5) J. Long put this change request on the SEPTEMBER agenda for approval.

Options for Meetings: Due to the number of change requests to be addressed at ASAG meetings and the amount of time each one takes, it was determined by D. Sirk that we need to make an adjustment to the meeting schedule. With the agenda an options list was sent out which included the following:

• Regularly extend the length of the meeting on the day it is currently scheduled. Either starting earlier or ending later (possibly including time for lunch). Suggest at least a four hour meeting from 9:00-1:00. Allows for a minimum of 7 change requests to be discussed at 30 minutes per.

• Have an all day meeting when the agenda dictates. When the agenda is going to be very full, determine an all day meeting is required for the day of the regularly scheduled meeting instead of the shorter meeting.

• Have an extra meeting during the months the agenda dictates. When the agenda is going to be very full, divide it into two shorter meetings during the same month.

• Every other month regularly schedule a second meeting for two or three hours. This second meeting would be one or two weeks prior to the current meeting.

• Once a quarter, regularly schedule a second meeting for two or three hours.

Questions were raised as to whether it was a problem with the schedule or the process. It is some of both. It was determined that a lot of the discussion is on the comments provided on change requests at the meetings themselves. Therefore, the following was proposed: (1) make the regular meetings one hour longer; (2) when comments are provided all ASAG members send them to the initiator as well as everyone in the ASAG; (3) resolutions to comments need to go to the entire ASAG as well; (4) establish deadlines for comments and resolutions; and (5) keep to the deadlines. Proposed items 1, 2, and 3 were readily agreed to by the ASAG. Proposed items 4 and 5 are still up for debate, it is felt that each change request will make the determination as to how these will work. It was also requested that any initiators providing briefings to the ASAG incorporate both the impact their change request has and that they don’t assume the ASAG members know anything about the change request. It was also requested that each primary member have an alternate and that the primary member keep the alternate up to speed, so when they have to attend they are not behind the power curve.

ACTION: (1) ASAG members put on their calendars that the ASAG meetings are from 9:00 am to 12:00 pm for the remaining meetings in 1998. (2) ASAG members provide any comments to the initiator as well as all ASAG members in a revision format of the original document, remember to use Word 6.0, Excel 5.0 or PowerPoint 4.0 not Office ’97 — not all ASAG members have that. (3) All resolutions will be sent to all ASAG members by the initiators, J. Long will inform them of this requirement. (4) J. Long inform initiators of the requirements for briefing the ASAG. (5) Primary ASAG members designate an alternate and provide J. Long with their name, phone, organization symbol at the next ASAG meeting. (6) Primary ASAG members ensure their alternates attend in their place and keep them up to speed as to what is going on.

Next Meeting: (NOTE THE NEW AGREED TIME SCHEDULE)