DCN 1315TENANT ORGANIC CONTMCT MILITARY TOTAL TENANT TO DISESTABLISH DLA SUPPLY DEPOT-DDLP 449 4 453 DISESTABLISH TOTAL 449 0 4 453 TENANTS TO RELOCATE SYSTMES INTEGRATION & MANAGEMENT ACTIVITY EAST 209 37 246 LOGISTICS SUPPORT ACTIVITY-MAJOR ITEMS MANAGEMENT CENTER (MIIC) 127 8 1 12 220 PUBLIC WORKS CENTER 1 83 183 DEFENSE MEGACENTER (DMC)- CHAMBERSBURG 149 10 15 1 74 TEST MEASUREMENT & DIAGNOSTIC EQUIPMENT (TMDE) SUPPORT 58 58 DEFENSE FINANCE AND ACCOUTING SERVICE 78 78 TOTAL RELOCATION 804 128 27 959 TENANTS TO BE ELIMINATED TEST MEASUREMENT & DIAGNOSTIC EQUIPMENT -REGION 1 16 16 ARMY AUDIT AGENCY 13 13 HEALTH CLINIC 15 15 DEFENSE REUTILIZATION & MARKETING OFC (DRMOI 27 27 DEFENSE PRINTING 6 6 MANAGEMENT ENGINEERING ACTIVITY (MEA) 15 15 T O T A L ELIMINATION 92 0 0 92 GRAND TOTAL 1 345 128 31 1504 Page 1 Page 1 5 APR 95 SIMA FACILITY INVESTMENTS: SIMA - CHAMBERSBURG LOCAL AREA NETWORK GENERAL DESCRIPTION: THICK-NET ETHERNET BACKBONE WITH HUBS TO THIN-NET ETHERNET SEGMENTS TO DESKTOPS. PACKET DRIVERS USE ETHERNET-11. NUMBER OF USERS SUPPORTED: 250 APPROXIMATE COST: ORIGINAL COST (1990) - $300,000 REPLACEMENT COST (1 995) - $425,000 (INCLUDES LABOR TO INSTALL) 5 Apr 95 SUBJECT: MIIC Facility Investments 1. Classified Terminal Room: Building 10 contains a classified terminal room and work area essential for accessing and operating severai classified automated information systems that support Army/DOD logistics, readiness, equipment distribution and planning missions. This termina-1 room was constructed in the mid-1980s at a cost of approximately $300,000. It provides an environmentally controiled and tempest certified secure site for online terminal and PC access to the classified systems and data bases. 2. Major Item Information Center (MIIC) Network: This network is currently being installed in Building 10 at a cost of approximately $ 1 ~ : It will provide a "state of the art" NOVELL NETWARE 4.1 network using ethernet technology to provide centralized software, operational support and communications connectivity for assigned personnel. The network establishes a virtual 56KB link to our parent organization in Huntsville. AL. It will also provide access to major item information to a worldwide user community via INTERNET, the Defense Data Network and normai telephone 1 inks. Document Sepal-atol- , . TENANT MISSION IMPACT FOR: Systems Integration & Management Activity East MISSION: Provides integrated automation support to the U.S. Army AMC installation, industrial, and financial business processes. Critical to AMCIArmy Future Power Projection and Force 2 1 Missions such as Strategic StocksIWar Reserves worldwide, Central Asset Visibility (CAV)/Single Stock Fund (SSF) Army-wide implementation, Integrated Sustainment Maintenance initiative, and extension of Automated Time, Attendance and Production System (ATAAPS)/Standard Industrial Fund System (SIFS) Army wide. SIMA-EAST employs 209 organic staff in addition to 37 contractor staff The organization operates with an annual budget of $20 million. WHY LOCATED AT LETTERKENNY? SIMA East's original mission was to develop the standard automated systems to support depot operations. Letterkenny as a multimission depot was designated to serve as the prototype installation for all the applications developed by SIMA. This userldeveloper partnership has significantly contributed to the high quality systems fielded by SIMA over the years. The secondary reason for Army decision makers locating SIMA East at Letterkenny was the cost effective means of maintaining currency of functional knowledge of the business processes the automated systems are required to support. Because of the close working relationship between designer and end user, SIMA developed systems have automated and integrated business processes in such a way that depot operations have become both efficient and effective. In order to retain the mission effectiveness of both SIMA East and its end user customers, it is essential that SIMA be located at a multimission depot. MISSION IMPACT IF ELIMINATEDIRELOCATED? SIMA East applications are unique within the Army. The applications developed by this organization are absolutely critical to the Army in both peace time and national emergency. The functional business process systems analysts in SIMA East are totally unique within the Army. Many of the automation personnel within the organization also have skills that are unique to the Army. Within SIMA East automation professionals become productive in their first year; however, they do not achieve full performance levels for approximately three years. In the case of hnctional systems analysts, it takes about three years to "grow" a functional analyst to the point they understand their assigned functional applications and how their functions interface with other SIMA East applications and interfaces with external business processes/systems. It is the professional opinion of those most familiar with the mission and unique skill of this organization that relocation of SIMA East will cause a total mission failure for a period of three years. PLANNED DISPOSITION, IF KNOWN? SIMA East workforce has been told that IOC has been directed to prepare a contingency planning package which will be part of Letterkenny BRAC 95 Implementation plan. That package will reflect a relocation of SIMA East to the Rock Island Arsenal consistent with BRAC 95 milestones. The basis for the move is supposedly the Army's interpretation of BRAC 91 and BRAC 93 law. SIMA East was directed to move to Rock Island in BRAC 91. BRAC 93 law reversed the BRAC 91 decision based on the fact that SIMA East (as a central design organization would transfer to DOD based on DMRD 918). DISA said it made no sense to move SIMA East to Rock Island based on the small amount of resources expended on Industrial Operations Command (Rock Island) business and the organization could better serve its customer base from Letterkenny. In 1993 DOD reversed its decision to transfer central design organizations to DOD and the Army is now saying that decision puts SIMA back to the BRAC 91 decision (move to Rock Island) even though the GAO BRAC 91 comments on that proposal said it makes no mission or economic sense to move SIMA. DISA (and the Secretary of Defense) in BRAC 93 said based on the customer base of SIMA East they should remain at Letterkenny. Current and fbture projected workloads for SIMA East confirm it still makes no sense to move SIMA off Letterkenny Army Depot. Page 1 SIMA EAST TYPE COSTS NOS. EMPLOYEES IN CATEGORY SEVERANCE ENTITLEMENTS SEVERANCE PAY -$I7691 PER EMPLOYEE UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION- 30WKS@$375 LUMP SUM ANNUAL LEAVE PAYOUT344 HRS aS22.04 RETRAINING SEVERED EMPLOY EES-$5,000 - GOVT -FICAMEDICARE CONTRIBUTIONS FOR FERS(7.6574) EMPL GOVT -PICAMEDICARE CONTRIBUTIONS FOR CSRS(1.45%) EMPL PCS COSTS COBRA MODEL $33,044 PER EMPLOYEE DARSE COST (DESCOM EXPERIENCE-$43,000 PER EMPLOYEE ADDITIONAL AL COSTS BASED ON UNLIMITED LEAVE BALANCE LAW-160 HOURS@22.04 EXTENDEDHEALTHCARE@ $285 AVGMOS FOR 18 MOS. -~ VSIP OPTION NON PEOPLE COSTS EMPLOYEES SEVERED 30 $530,730 $337,500 $220,841 $1 50,000 $6,767 $6.41 3 $105,792 $1 53,900 EMPL OPT RET 19 $2 13,750 $139,866 $67,002 EMPL EARLY RET 37 $4 16,250 $272,370 $1 30,477 VSIP OPTION 0 $0 EMPL ACCOMP MISSION 83 $2,742,652 $3,569,000 EMPL FIND OTHER GOVTJOB 20 $660,880 $860,000 PPS PLACE MENT 20 $660,880 $860,000 OTHER COSTS TOTAL 209 $530,730 $967,500 $633,077 $150,000 $6,767 $6,413 $4,064,412 $5,289,000 $303,270 $1 53,900 $0 1 Page 2 SIMA EAST TYPE COSTS COSTS TO TEAR DOWN, PACK, MOVE AND REINSTALL EQUIPMENT ROCK ISLAM) ARSENAL CONSTRUCTION COST FOR SIMA EAST-TBD COST OF PRODUCTIVITY LOSS-SEE ATTACHED ANALYSIS GRAND TOTAL EMPLOYEES SEVERED $1,511,943 EMPL OPT RET $420,617 EMPL EARLY RET -~ $819,097 VSIP OPTION SO EMPL ACCOMP MISSION $6,311,652 PPS PLACE MENT $1,520,880 EMPL FIND OTHER GOVT JOB $1 ,520,880 OTHER COSTS $600,000 $600,000 TOTAL $600,000 $0 $1 2,705,069 ' TENANT MISSION IMPACT FOR: Logistics Support Activity-Major Item Information Center (MIIC) MISSION: MIIC serves as the Army's key source for all logistics information relating to major (e.g., tanks, helicopters, rifles, radios, etc.) and selected secondary items of equipment. MIIC is the only organization that has visibility of all Army owned equipment worldwide. Its comprehensive and integrated databases and business processes allow soldiers and civilians from the Pentagon to troops in the field to plan for and execute critical logistics missions. These missions include equipment requirements, force modernization, weapon system management and mobilization and contingencylcrisis planning and execution. MIIC also directly supports U.S. commitments to conventional armaments treaties and agreements, to include technical support of 53 other countries. WHY LOCATED AT LETTERKENNY? MIIC was established at Letterkenny in 1955 and has been retained at this site throughout various organizational realignments. One of the principal reasons for locating MIIC at Letterkenny and a contributing factor to its successful mission accomplishment for 40 years was the proximity of Chambersburg, PA to Washington, D.C. This allows MIIC quick access to and continuous interaction with the proponents for our information systems, databases and processes; i.e., the Office of the Secretary of Defense and Headquarters, Department of Army. This facile communications channel allows MIIC to be responsive to the Departments' priorities and requirements in accomplishing MIIC's national and international missions. MISSION IMPACT IF ELIMINATEDIRELOCATED? Relocation of MIIC will be very mission destructive. It is estimated that only 40% of our current staff would actually relocate, and these would be our less experienced and knowledgeable employees. MIIC personnel are the c& subject matter experts on major item information and processes. To train new individuals to a fblly fbnctional level required for MIIC missions would take from 3 to 6 years. This significant loss of MIIC institutional knowledge and expertise will pose a real threat of mission failure with major impacts as follows: a. Army loses its sole source for major item information and thereby its ability to effectively plan for and meet critical national logistics responsibilities. b. U.S. commitments to conventional arms control treaties and agreements placed at risk. c. Total Asset Visibility (TAV), a technological leap forward in inventory management, will not become a reality. PLANNED DISPOSITION, IF KNOWN? Headquarters, Army materiel Command, proposes to consolidate MIIC with is parent organization, the USAMC Logistics Support Activity, in Huntsville, AL. Page 1 - LOGISTICS SUPPORT ACTIVITY-MIIC TYPE COSTS NOS. EMPLOYEES IN CATEGORY EMPLOYEES SEVERED 19 EMPL OPT RET 6 SEVERANCE ENTITLEMENTS SEVERANCE PAY -$I7691 PER EMPLOYEE UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION- 30WICS@$375 LUMP SUM ANNUAL LEAVE PAYOUT-344 HRS aS22.04 RETRAINING SEVERED EMPLOYEES-$5,000 GOVT -FICA/MEDICARE CONTRIBUTIONS FOR FERS(7.65%) EMPL GOVT -FICAIMEDICARE CONTRIBUTIONS FOR CSRS(1.45%) EMPL PCS COSTS COBRA MODEL $33,044 PER EMPLOYEE DARSE COST (DESCOM EXPERIENCE-$43,000 PER EMPLOYEE ADDITIONAL AL COSTS BASED ON UNLIMlTED LEAVE BALANCE LAW-160 HOUR!3@22.04 EXTENDED HEALTH CARE @ $285 AVGiMOS FOR 18 MOS. VSIP OPTION NON PEOPLE COSTS $67,500 $44,168 $2 1,158 $336,129 $213,750 $139,866 $95,000 $6,767 $6,4 13 $67,002 $97,470 EMPL EARLY RET 14 -- $157,500 $103,059 $49,370 VSIP OPTION 0 $0 EMPL ACCOMP MISSION 50 $1,652,200 $2,150,000 EMPL FIND OTHER GOVT JOB 10 $330,440 $430,000 PPS PLACE MENT 28 $925,232 $1,204,000 127 $336,129 $438,750 $287,093 $95,000 $6,767 $6,413 $2,907,872 $3,784,000 $1 37,530 $97,470 $0 OTHER COSTS TOTAL Page 2 LOGISTICS SUPPORT ACTIVITY-MIIC TYPE COSTS COSTS TO TEAR DOWN, PACK, MOVE AND REINSTALL EQUIPMENT HUNTSVILLE CONSTRUCTION COSTS COST OF PRODUCTIVITY LOSSSEE ATTACHED ANALYSIS GRAND TOTAL EMPLOYEES SEVERED --- $962,396 EMPL OPT RET $132,827 EMPL EARLY RET $309,929 VSIP OPTION $0 EMPL ACCOMP MISSION $3,802,200 EMPL FIND OTHER GOVTJOB $760,440 PPS PLACE MENT $2,129,232 OTJ3IC.R COSTS $500,000 $500,000 TOTAL $~oo,ooo $0 $0 $8,597,023 28 Mar 95 SUBJECT: Major I tem Information Center (MIIC) Tenant Data A. Total number of employees today: 127 B. How many people would be separated: 19 C. How many people would take optional retirement: 6 D. How many people would take early out: 14 E. How many people would move to Huntsville, AL: 50 F. How many would find other government jobs before forced move (on their own) : 10 G. How many would be placed through Priority Placement: 28 Number of onboard contractors: 81 Loss of productivity (worksheet attached): S11.6M Cost of equipment move: $500K Estimated construction/facilitization costs: $1M Projected FY 95 expenditures in this geographic area: S14.6M ISA - S1.2M government payroll - S6.8M contractor payroll - $6.6M TENANT MISSION IMPACT FOR: Public Works Center MISSION: The Public Works Center (PWC) is the organization that has responsibility for the facilities and grounds infrastructure at Letterkenny Army Depot. Several years ago the Department of Defense identified an initiative which was designed to reduce the costs associated with managing installation infrastructures. The Letterkenny Directorate of Engineering and Logistics . . organization was designated as a Directorate of Public Works (DPW). The DPW was to provide support to other Defense activities in this region when it became the US Army Central Penn Regional Public Works Center. The PWC was to remain an entity on the Letterkenny TDA for a period of time and it was then to become a DOD TDA organization. To date, that has not happened, the PWC remains a Letterkenny TDA organization with an organizational title of the Public Works Center (PWC). The BRAC 95 package for Letterkenny treats the PWC like it has completed its transition to become a DOD DPW Regional site and the PWC is therefore treated as a tenant identified to move to site x. WHY LOCATED AT LETTERKENNY? Although the PWC concept identified in the previous paragraph would have greatly expanded its mission, the primary customer of the PWC is to manage the Letterkenny installation intiastructure which supports the Ammunition, Depot Maintenance, DLA DDLP, and all tenant missions on post. MISSION IMPACT IF ELIMINATEDJRELOCATED? The principal impact would be the loss of professional labor forces, and the institutional knowledge of the physical plant intiastructure. The very professional skills needed to plan and establish the PWC fbnctions are the ones which will not relocate and will therefore not be available to reconstitute operations at another site. If Letterkenny is reduced in scope, it is' assumed this function is one of the last functions that would be relocated since they will be heavily involved in the orderly shut down of the industrial area of the depot. Because many of the skills in the PWC are marketable in the private sector, it is anticipated that many of the master craftsmen will abandon their positions to accept employment elsewhere. This will have a definite impact on any orderly transition of the depot idi-astructure to an "Ammunition" mission only. PLANNED DISPOSITION, IF KNOWN? The only guidance contained in the BRAC 95 package for this organization is it would relocate to site x. There is no indication where site x is located. Even if the depot maintenance mission and DDLP are gone, there will be a requirement for an "enclave" of resources to provide infrastructure base operations support to the residual missions remaining at Letterkenny. It is assumed that enclave will be responsible to the PWC scheduled to be move to site x. PUBLIC WORKS CENTER TYPE COSTS NOS. EMPLOYEES IN CATEGORY SEVERANCE ENTITLEMENTS SEVERANCE PAY 417691 PER EMPLOYEE UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION- 30WKS@S375 LUMP SUM ANNUAL LEAVE PAY OUT-344 HRS @$22.04 RETRAINING SEVERED- EMPLOYEES-$5,000 - GOVT -FICA/MEDICARE CONTRIBUTIONS FOR FERS(7.6S0/o) EMPL GOVT -FICAIMEDICARE CONTRIBUTIONS FOR CSRS(1.4S0/o) EMPL PCS COSTS COBRA MODEL- $33,044 PER EMPLOYEE DARSE COST (DESCOM EXPERIENCE-$43,000 PER EMPLOYEE ADDITIONAL AL COSTS BASED ON UNLIMITED LEAVE BALANCE LAW-160 HOURS@2.04 EXTENDED HEALTH CARE @ E285 AVGIMOS FOR 18 MOS. VSIP OPTION VON PEOPLE COSTS EMPLOYEES lEmL OPT 1 EMPL EMPL IVSIP 1 ACCOMP -- EMPL FIND OTHER GOVT JOB 1 PPS PLACE OTHER MENT 1 COSTS Page 1 Page 2 PUBLIC WORKS CENTER (Pwc) TYPE COSTS EQUIPMENT MOVING COSTS GRAND TOTAL EMPLOYEES SEVERED $72,260 $2,283,625 PUBLIC WORKS CENTER IS A LETTERKENNY ORGANIZATION ENTITY AND NOT A TENANT THIS ORGANIZATION WAS ORIGINALLY TO BECOME A TENANT IDENTIFIED AS DEFENSE PUBLIC WORKS (DPW). THE ORGANIZATION HAS REGIONAL PUBLIC WORKS RESPONSIBILITIES, BUT THEY ARE PART OF THE LETTERKENNY TDA. THE DOD BRAC 95 PROPOSAL TREATS THIS ORGANIZATION AS A TENANT AND SHOWS THEM MOVING TO SITE X. FOR CONSISTENCY IN TREATMENT, THEY ARE TREATED EMPL OPT RET $66,413 AS A TENANT IN THIS PACKAGE. I EMPL EARLY RET $575,582 VSIP OPTION $0 EMPL ACCOMP MISSION $5,931,432 EMPL FIND OTHER GOVT JOB - $1,140,660 PPS PLACE MENT - $1,292,748 OTHER COSTS $0 TOTAL $72,260 $0 $1 1,290,460 TENANT MISSION IMPACT FOR: Defense Megacenter (DMC) - Chambersburg MISSION: DMC Chambersburg provides information processing support and services to war fighters and their supporting organizations 24 hours a day 7 days a week. The support includes providing our world wide customers on-line access to the mainframe computers. The Megacenter has three large capacity AMDAHL computers that are capable of executing 498 million instructions per second and the Defense Information System Network (DOD's primary world-wide telecommunications and information transfer network) node at DMC Chambersburg provides the users throughout the world the access to the mainframe computers. The Megacenter processes 2000 batch jobs a day and over 3 1,000 users have real-time access to their data stored on DMC Chambersburg's Robotic Tape Libraries and Direct Access Storage Devices. As part of the DOD Data Center consolidation, DMC Chambersburg has migrated workload fiom a Navy site in Arlington, VA and workload from an additional Navy site located in New Orleans, LA and a DOD site located in Cleveland, OH. The migration of that workload is scheduled to be completed by September 1995. DMC Chambersburg's workload will be increased by 2,000 daily batch jobs and 10,000 on-line users upon completion of the workload consolidation. In addition to providing supply, maintenance, finance, on-line logistics queries, and payroll support to Army and DLA customers, DMC Chambersburg is currently supporting the Army Materiel Command's War Reserve initiative with connectivity to Italy, Japan and Korea and will be supporting the payroll and manpower assignments for the entire U.S. Navy and Navy Reservists and processing pay for all DOD retirees. WHYLOCATEDATLETTERKENNY? A number of years ago the Army Materiel Command designated the computer facility at Letterkenny as one of its regional processing centers. In 1993 DMRD 9 18 transferred the services business computer processing centers to the Department of Defense (DISA). DISA redesignated the Letterkenny computer facility as the Defense Megacenter-Chambersburg. Since 1993 DISA has continued to expand the operations at Chambersburg based on its outstanding performance as a megacenter. MISSION IMPACT IF ELIMINATEDIRELOCATED? If planned move were properly resourced and executed, mission impacts would include potential disruption of service to customers. The technical risks associated with such a large scale undertaking could impact tactical missions for extended periods of time. Based on Letterkenny being assigned the tactical missile mission in BRAC 93, DISA believed Letterkenny was a sound location on which to make long term capital investments. Significant facility, communications network and hardware investments have been made to accommodate the rapidly expanding workload identified in the mission paragraph above. DISA is in the process of scoping the cost impacts associated with a forced eviction fiom Letterkenny. That data is not available for inclusion in this package. The costs for DMC in this package are limited to personnel costs; however, non- people costs will clearly be in the millions of dollars. PLANNED DISPOSITION, IF KNOWN? DISA was not advised of the Army's plans to place Letterkenny on BRAC 95 list. The DISA position is they need to protect the tremendous investment they have made at Letterkenny and would therefore desire to remain at the depot regardless of what happens to the maintenance mission. If DISA is evicted by Army leadership, they will need time and dollars to execute the mandated change without adversely impacting customer missions. Page 1 SEVERANCE ENTITLEMENTS SEVERANCE PAY -$I7691 PER EMPLOYEE UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION- 30WKS@$375 LUMP SUM ANNUAL LEAVE PAY OUT-344 HRS @$22.04 RETRAINING SEVERED EMPLOYEES-$5,000 GOVT -FICA/MEDICARE CONTRIBUTIONS FOR FERS(7.65%) EMPL GOVT -FICA/MEDICARE CONTRIBUTIONS FOR CSRS(1.4S0/o) EMPL PCS COSTS COBRA MODEL- $33,044 PER EMPLOYEE DARSE COST (DESCOM EXPERIENCE-$43,000 PER EMPLOYEE ADDITIONAL AL COSTS BASED ON UNLIMITED LEAVE BALANCE LAW-160 HOUR!@22.04 EXTENDED HEALTH CARE @ $285 AVGMOS FOR 18 MOS. VSIP OPTION NON PEOPLE COSTS $1,149,915 $73 1,250 $478,488 $325,000 $6,767 $6,413 $229,2 16 $333,450 $0 $0 - $0 $191,250 $125,143 $59,949 $0 $1,718,288 $2,236,000 $0 $0 $991,320 $1,290,000 $1,149,915 $922,500 $603,632 $325,000 $6,767 $6,413 $2,709,608 $3,526,000 $289,165 $333,450 $0 Page 2 DEFENSE MEGACENTER (DMC)- CHAMBERSBURG TYPE COSTS --- . -- GRANDTOTAL DISA has an on-going action to develop cost data forthe proposed BRAC action. That data is not available for inclusion in this package. The total manpower figure shown above is accurate for DMC-C, the actual spread of employee actions is statistically developed based on other tenant decisions. The overall costs are significantly understated because cost data on equipment moves, communication network reconfiguration actions, and movement of customer data and processes to other sites are not included. That data will be part of the formal DISA package. being developed. I I I I I I I I EMPL OPT RET -- SO EMPLOYEES SEVERED - -- .. -- $3,260,499 EMPL EARLY RET . --- -- -- - -- $376,342 V S P OPTION . - - - SO EMPL ACCOMP MISSION -- $3,954,288 EMPL FIND OTHER GOVT JOB -- SO PPS PLACE MENT - $2,281,320 OTHER COSTS - $0 TOTAL $0 $0 $9,872,449 TENANT MISSION IMPACT FOR: U.S. Army TMDE Support Center - Letterkenny MISSION: The U.S. Army TMDE Support Center-Letterkenny maintains organic calibration measurement standards in an operating condition with accuracy's traceable through the Army calibration support system to the National Institute of Standards and Technology. The TSC uses these standards to provide support for Letterkenny Army Depot, Letterkenny tenants, and Fort Ritchie. The Area Calibration Laboratory, an entity of the TSC, provides secondary reference calibration services in environmentally controlled laboratories for calibration standards used by other TSCs in Region 1. The TSC also has one of the largest mobile calibration operations in support of the Army, Army Reserve, Army National Guard, Air Reserve, Air National Guard, Navy, Marine Corps, Federal Aviation Administration, and other Federal agency customers covering nine states in a geographical area from Pennsylvania west to Michigan, north to New York state, and south to Virginia. WHY LOCATED AT LETTERKENNY? The Calibration Program was established at Letterkenny in the mid 1950s in support of the NIKE missile systems. At that time Letterkenny was centrally located for support of NIKE missile sites in the eastern United States and also Greenland. With the implementation of the improved calibration and repair program in 1990, Letterkenny TMDE Center became a tenant activity under U.S. Army TMDE Support Activity. It was economical to maintain the calibration center at ,Letterkenny considering the cost associated with relocating the environmentally controlled modular laboratories and also the possibility of losing some of the highly trained workforce. MISSION IMPACT IF ELIMINATEDIRELOCATED? Relocation could result in a significant loss of trained personnel, and the cost associated with moving environmentally controlled laboratories or procurement of new laboratories at another location. Elimination would result in enlargement of the facility at another TMDE Center somewhere within Region 1 and increased cost for the relocation of existing laboratories or procurement of new laboratories as the support for customers would still exist. PLANNED DISPOSITION, IF KNOWN? The DOD BRAC 95 package for Letterkenny indicates this organization will be moved to site x. As stated for the TMDE Region 1 organization, the strong desire of this tenant is to remain located at Letterkenny, regardless of the disposition of the depot maintenance mission at Letterkenny. If a forced relocation should occur, this organization should logically move to the same location as TMDE Region 1. US ARMY TMDE SUPPORT CENTER - LETTERKENNY o SECONDARY REFERENCE LAB SUPPORTS - 9 FIXED SITE CALIBRATION LABORATORIES - 6 MOBILE CALIBRATION TEAMS - CUSTOMER EQUIPMENT REQUIRING HIGH ACCURACY o LETTERKENNY BEST LOCATION, MOVE WILL - INCREASE TRAVEL AND TRANSPORTATION COST AND - INCREASE EQUIPMENT TURNAROUND TIME OR - INCREASE SALARY AND SUPPORT COSTS o NO OVERCAPACITY, MUST MOVE CURRENT OR HIRE NEW TECHNICIANS WILL LOSE EXPERIENCED, HIGHLY SKILLED TECHNICIANS o MUST REPLACE ENVIRONMENTALLY CONTROLLED LABORATORIES TMDE Support Center Letterkenny .But. - US Army TMDE Support Center Chambersburg, PA 1720 1-4 185 MAmlfL COMMAND CHIEF BUDDY DEHART SEC CONNIE WELLER DSN 570-8012 . AREA CALIBRATION LABORATORY 7 CHIEF CHARLES SWElTZER CALBR ASSISTANT PEGOY JONES * DSN 570-9720 r NERNAL CALIBRATION LABORATORY I CHIEF PAUL GET2 CALBR ASSISTANT ANITA HAWKlNS DSN 5704534 1 TMDE SUPPORT LABORATORY FORT RITCHIE, MD NCOIC SFC CARTER DSN 988-2883 MTST W459L1 CHIEF MARK CARROLL I - MTST W459L2 CHIEF SAM NEARHOOF SFC CHRISTOPHER TALLEY DSN 570-0338 MTST W459W CHIEF TlMOTHY ANTi40NY MTST W459t.A CWEP KEITH BUGGY I r n T W459L5 CHIEF LEE ORAEP I r I i SUPPORT OFFICE CALBR COORD SPECIALIST JOHN MOWERY LIBRARY PEGGY J O ~ S DSN 570-8339 * DUAL CAPACIIY FAX DSN 570-5521 E-MAIL amxlmgal@letterkmn-emhI .mny.mil COMM (717) 267-XXXX OFFICE SYMBOL AMXIM4A-L This i s not an W ~ c i r l Organizational Chart Acronyms USATA = US Army TMDE A c t i v i t y TMDE = Test , Measurement, and D iagnos t i c Equipment USATS-Region 1 = US Army TMDE Support-Region 1 RTMO = Regional TMDE Management O f f i c e ACL = Area C a l i b r a t i o n Labora to ry ICL = I n t e r n a l C a l i b r a t i o n Labora to ry U.S. ARMY TMDE SUPPORT CENTER-LETTEWENNY (USATSC-LEAD) f < \ In addition to support for organizations on Letterkenny Army Depot, USATSC-LEAD also provides calibration and repair services through internal support operations for TMDE within an assigned nine state, northeastern geographical area comprising of New York, Ohio, West Virginia, Virginia, Maryland, Delaware, New Jersey, Michigan, and Pennsylvania. The Area Calibration Laboratory, an element of TSC-LEAD, provides the next level of calibration support (secondary reference) for seven other TMDE Support Centers and six mobile TMDE Support Teams. Only 11 of the TSCs, 58 authorized personnel spaces, assigned in the Internal Calibration Laboratory (ICL) are in direct support of Letterkenny. TSC LEAD has an overall workload of approximately 28880 annual actions. The elements supported along with the percent of their workload is as follows: Letterkenny Army Depot Support Approx. 2 1 % of the overall workload Defense Distribution Letterkenny United Defense PALLADIN Chambersburg, PA Chambersburg, PA Raytheon AMRAAM Chambersburg, PA Letterkenny Maintenance Activities Chambersburg , PA c ' Raytheon PHOENIX Chambersburg, PA U.S. Army Support Approx. 13 % of the overall workload U.S. Army Support Element Pittsburgh, PA Radford Army Ammunition Plant Radford, VA U.S. Army Support Element U.S. Army Annville, PA Foreign Science and Technology Center Charlottesville, VA U.S. Army Medical Research & Development Command U.S. Army War College Ft. Detrick, MD Carlisle. PA U. S . Army Information Systems Command Carlisle Barracks Ft. Detrick, MD Carlisle. PA Headquarters, U. S. Army Garrison Facilities Engineering C Annville, PA Ft. Detrick, MD Page 1 of 5 Encl. 3 U.S. Army Reserve Support Approx. 17% of the overall workload U.S. A m y Organization Maintenance Shop Coraopolis, PA 79th U.S. Army Reserve Command Willow Grove, PA U.S. Army Equipment Concentration Site 24 Annville, PA U.S. Army 3 18 Light Equipment Maintenance Company State College, PA U.S. Army Area Maintenance Support Activity Lock Haven, PA U.S. Army Area Maintenance Support Activity Clarksburg, WV U.S. Army Area Maintenance Support ~ c t i v i t y Charleston, WV U.S. Army Area Maintenance Support Activity Christiansburg, VA U.S. Army Reserves 80th Division Richmond, VA U.S. Army Aviation Support Facility Elyria, OH 83rd U.S. Army Reserve Command U.S. Army Aviation Support Facility C ' Columbus, OH Columbus, OH 298th U.S. Army Maintenance Company Altoona, PA U.S. Army Combined Support Maintenance Shop Greensburg, PA 99th U.S. Army Reserve Command Oakdale, PA U.S. A m y Area Maintenance Support Activity Parkersburg, WV U.S. Army Area Maintenance Support Activity Valley Grove, WV U.S. Army Area Maintenance Support Activity New Castle, PA U.S. Army Area Maintenance Support Activity Greensburg, PA U.S. Army Area Maintenance Support Activity Oakdale, PA U.S. Army Area Maintenance Support Activity Punxsutawney, PA U.S. Army Area Maintenance Support Activity Franklin, PA Page 2 of 5 U. S. Army National Guard Su~port .Approx. 16% of the overall workload Delaware Army National Guard CSMS Ohio Army National Guard CSMS New Castle, DE Newark, OH U.S. Army National Guard Washington, PA West Virginia Army National Guard CSMS Point Pleasant, W V Pennsylvania Army National Guard CSMS Virginia Army National Guard CSMS Annville, PA Richmond, VA U. S. Air Force Support Approx. 10% of the overall workload 9 10th Military Airlift Wing Youngstown, OH 271st Combat Communications Squadron Annville, PA 9 1 1 th Military Airlift Wing Pittsburgh, PA 21 1 th Electronic Installation Squadron Annville, PA 193rd Special Operations Group Hamsburg, PA 112th Tactical Control Flight State College, PA 201 st Civil Engineering Flight Annville, PA 112th Ground Communications Squadron Annville, PA 9 14th Logistics Support Squadron/MAL Niagara Falls, NY U.S. Marines Support Approx. 1% of the overall workload B Company U.S. Marine Corps 4th Light Armored Vehicle Battalion Truck Headquarters Battalion Fort Detrick, MD Erie, PA "I" Battery 3d Battalion Reading, PA U.S. Marine Corps Military Police Company B North Versailles, PA U.S. Marine Corps Connellsville, PA Page 3 of 5 Other Federal A~encies Supp'ort - Approx. 13% of the overall workload Defense Distribution Depot Susquehama New Cumberland, PA Defense Communications Support Unit Thurmont, MD Federal Emergency Management Agency Berryville, VA Defense Personnel Support Center Philadelphia, PA Defense Personnel Supply Center Richmond, VA Defense Distribution Region East New Cumberland, PA Defense Industrial Plant Equipment Center C ' Mechanicsburg, PA Federal Aviation Administration Locations: Norfolk, VA Richmond, VA Lynchburg, VA Roanoke, VA Charleston, WV Bridgeport, WV Pittsburgh, PA Erie, PA Jamestown, NY Martinsburg, PA Middletown, PA Philadelphia, PA Atlantic City, NJ Washington, DC Fredericksburg, VA The Plains, VA Newark, NJ Charlottesville, VA Reading, PA Trevose, PA Trenton, NJ Altoona, PA Du Bois, PA State College, PA Newcastle, PA Cleartield, PA Leesburg, VA Newport News, VA Huntington, WV W. Mifflin, PA Binns Hall, VA Bedford, VA Clarksburg, WV Millville, NJ Page 4 of 5 Secondary Reference Suuport For Other TSCs and Mobile Teams in Region 1 Approx. 9% of the overall workload USATSC-Fort Eustis Fort Eustis, VA USATSC-Fort Belvoir Fort Belvoir, VA USATSC-Warren Warren, MI USATSC-Harry Diamond Adelphi, MD USATSC-Aberdeen Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD USATSC-Fort Meade Fort Meade, MD Internal Calibration Laboratory Chambersburg, PA USATSC-Fort Ritchie Fort Ritchie, MD Mobile TMDE Support Team Fort Meade, MD Mobile TMDE Support Team W459L1 Chambersburg, PA Mobile TMDE Support Team W459L2 Chambersburg, PA Mobile TMDE Support Team W459L3 Chambersburg, PA Mobile TMDE Support Team W459L4 Chambersburg, PA Mobile TMDE Support Team W459L5 'Chambersburg, PA Page 5 of 5 Page 1 TEST MEASUREMENT & DIAGNOSTIC EQUIPMENT (TMDE) SUPPORT TYPE COSTS NOS. EMPLOYEES IN CATEGORY SEVERANCE ENTITLEMENTS SEVERANCE PAY 417691 PER EMPLOYEE UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION- 30WKS@%375 LUMP SUM ANNUAL LEAVE PAYOUT-344 HRS aS22.04 RETRAINING SEVERED EMPLOYEES-$5,000 GOVT -FICAIMEDICARE CONTRIBUTIONS FOR FERS(7.65%) EMPL GOVT -FICAIMEDICARE CONTRIBUTIONS FOR CSRS(1.45%) EMPL PCS COSTS COBRA MODEL $33,044 PER EMPLOYEE DARSE COST (DESCOM EXPERIENCE-$43,000 PER EMPLOYEE ADDITIONAL AL COSTS BASED ON UNLIMITED LEAVE BALANCE LAW-160 HOUR!$@2.04 EXTENDEDHEALTHCARE@ $285 AVGlMOS FOR 18 MOS. VSIP OPTION NON PEOPLE COSTS EMPLOYEES SEVERED 0 $0 $0 SO $0 $6,767 $6,4 13 SO $0 EMPL OPT RET 4 $45,000 $29,445 $14,106 EMPL EARLYRET 4 $45,000 $29,445 $14,106 VSIP OPTION 0 $0 EMPL ACCOMP MISSION 35 $1,156,540 $1,505,000 EMPL FIND OTHER GOVT JOB 5 $165,220 $2 15,000 PPS PLACE MENT 10 $330,440 $430,000 OTHER COSTS TOTAL 58 $0 $90,000 $58,891 $0 $6,767 $6,413 $1,652,200 $2,150,000 $28,211 $0 $0 Page 2 'TEST MEASUREMENT & DIAGNOSTIC EQUIPMENT (TMDE) SUPPORT TYPE COSTS COSTS TO TEAR DOWN, PACK, MOVE AND REINSTALL EQUIPMENT ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION COSTS-RANGE S395K TO S795K COST OF PRODUCTIVITY LOSS-SEE ATTACHED ANALYSIS EMPLOYEES SEVERED EMPL OPT RET EMPL EARLY RET $380,220 $760,440 GRAND TOTAL VSIP OPTION $895,000 $13,180 $4,887,482 EMPL ACCOMP MISSION - $88,551 EMPL FIND OTHER GOVTJOB pppp PPS PLACE MENT $88,551 OTHER COSTS $500,000 $395,000 TOTAL $500,000 $395,000 $0 SO $2,661,540 US Army TMDE Support Center-Lptterkenny Cost to Move Equipment 4 Environmentally Controlled $400,000 Laboratory Modules @ $100,00 ea Calibration Standards and $100,000 Miscellaneous Equipment $500,000 Construction Costs New Construction Industrial Shell for Laboratories $675,000 8450 it' @ $80/ft2 Office 600 ft2 @ $94/ft2 55,000 Dock Area Renovat ion Industrial Shell for Laboratories $340,000 8450 it2 @ $40/it2 Office 600 ft2 @ $50/ft2 30,000 Dock Area 25,000 $395,000 TENANT MISSION IMPACT FOR: Defense Finance and Accounting Service MISSION: Provides Finance and Accounting Services to Letterkenny and all tenants located at Letterkenny plus subordinate elements of those organizations. WHY LOCATED AT LETTERKENNY? The customer base is at Letterkenny. MISSION IMPACT IF ELIMINATEDIRELOCATED? If timed and executed properly, very little impact. PLANNED DISPOSITION, IF KNOWN? The responsibilities of this organization are scheduled to be absorbed at another location as part of a DFAS Headquarters regionalization of Finance and Accounting services across DOD. This action is independent of BRAC 95 and therefore the Letterkenny DFAS organization should not have been included in the DOD BRAC 95 proposal for Letterkenny Army Depot. The tenant was included in the Letterkenny BRAC package and was identified as a tenant that would move to site x. Because DFAS was included in the DOD BRAC 95 package for Letterkenny, it was retained as part of this analysis to make appropriate comparisons. Page 1 * DEFENSE FINANCE & ACCOUNTING SERVICE W A S ) TYPE COSTS NOS. EMPLOYEES I N CATEGORY SEVERANCE ENTITLEMENTS SEVERANCEPAY 417691 PER EMPLOYEE UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION- 3OWKS@$375 LUMP SUM ANNUAL LEAVE PAYOUT-344 HRS aS22.04 RETRAINING SEVERED EMPLOYEES-$5,000 GOVT -FICA/MEDICARE CONTRIBUTIONS FOR FERS(7.65%) EMPL GOVT -FICAIMEDICARE CONTRIBUTIONS FOR CSRS(1.45%) EMPL PCS COSTS COBRA MODEL $33,044 PER EMPLOYEE DARSE COST (DESCOM EXPERIENCE-$43,000 PER EMPLOYEE ADDITIONAL AL COSTS BASED ON UNLIMITED LEAVE BALANCE LAW-160 HOURS@22.04 EXTENDED HEALTH CARE @ $285 AVG/MOS FOR 18 MOS. VSIP OPTION NON PEOPLE COSTS EMPLOYEES SEVERED 53 $937,623 $596,250 $390,152 $265,000 $6,767 $6,4 13 $186,899 $271,890 EMPL OPT RET 10 -$1 12,500 $73,614 $35,264 EMPL EARLY RET 15 --- $168,750 $1 10,420 _ _ _ _ $52,896 VSIP OPTION EMPL ACCOMP MISSION -- SO EMPL FIND OTHER GOVTJOB 0 SO $0 PPS PLACE MENT SO OTHER COSTS TOTAL SO $0 $275,059 $271,890 $0 - $0 78 $937,623 $877,500 $574,186 $265,000 $6,767 $6,413 $0 $0 Page 2 DEFENSE FINANCE & ACCOUNTING SERVICE OFAS) TYPE COSTS . GRAND TOTAL -- EMPL OPT RET $221,378 EMPLOYEES SEVERED - $2,660,994 EMPL EARLY RET $332,066 SHOWN AS A M'GETO ---- -THIS TENANT WAS INCLUDED -- SITE X. IN REALITY, IT IS SCHEDULED TO MOVE BECAUSE OF DFAS PLANS TO REGIONALIZE SUPPORT (ANITNOT- - BECAUSE OF A BRAC 95 PROPOSED ACTION. IN ORDER TO HAVE THIS PACKAGE BE CONSISTENT WITH THE DOD BRAC PACKAGE, THIS TENANT WAS INCLUDED; HOWEVER, THE COST DATA LN THIS PACKAGE WAS PREPARED ON A LEAST COST SCENERIO, IE. MINIMUM PCS MOVES AND MAXIMUM RETIREMENTS VSIP OPTION $0 IT WAS IN THE DOD EMPL ACCOMP MISSION $0 BRAC PACKAGE FOR LETTERKENNY. TOTAL $0 $0 $3,214,438 EMPL FIND OTHER GOVT JOB $0 -- PPS PLACE MENT SO OTHER COSTS . SO TENANT MISSION IMPACT FOR: Test Measurement & Diagnostic Equipment - Region 1 MISSION: Manages all Army test equipment calibration, repair, and metrology services for the Northeastern United States, and provides services on a reimbursable basis to other DOD, DOD contractor, and federal agency customers. The region ofice provides supply, financial, quality assurance, property accountability, equipment management and automated information management systems support to 2 secondary reference laboratories, 8 mobile calibration teams and 16 fixed calibration laboratories. and south to Virginia. WHY LOCATED AT LETTERKENNY? Central to TMDE Support Centers supported by USATA-Region 1. MISSION IMPACT IF ELIMINATEDIRELOCATED? Elimination would require a reorganization of the USATA. Relocation would primarily be a change in support location. Relocation would increase recurring travel costs for staff support and transportation costs for shipment of supplies and repair parts. PLANNED DISPOSITION, IF KNOWN USATA has no plans to eliminate this organization. Because of its central location serious consideration should be given to retaining this tenant and its subordinate element at Letterkenny, regardless of the disposition of the maintenance mission. If + forced to relocate, alternate sites should be based on one time relocation costs and recurring travel and transportation costs. US ARMY TMDE SUPPORT - REGION 1 0 PROVIDES SUPPORT FOR NORTHEAST REGION TMDE SUPPORT CENTERS - SUPPLIES/REPAIR PARTS - MANAGEMENT AND SUPERVISION - BUDGET FORMULATION AND FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT - QUALITY ASSURANCE - PROPERTY ACCOUNTABILITY - EQUIPMENT MANAGEMENT - AUTOMATED INFORMATION SYSTEMS 0 CLOSURE WOULD FORCE REORGANIZATION OF THE US ARMY TMDE ACTIVITY 0 LETTERKENNY OPTIMUM LOCATION - WITHIN 8 HOUR DRIVE OF 8 OF 10 TMDE SUPPORT CENTERS - DAY TRIP DISTANCE TO 11 OF 17 FIXED SITE LOCATIONS 0 MOVE WOULD RESULT IN INCREASED TRAVEL AND TRANSPORTATION COSTS 0 MOVE WOULD RESULT IN LOSS OF EXPERIENCED WORKFORCE MISSION IMPACT ' The US Army Test, Measurement, and Diagnostic Equipment (TMDE) Activity calibration laboratories are designed as a hierarchical network providing measurement traceability back to national standards. Within the US Army TMDE Support Region 1 the secondary reference laboratories that calibrate first (transfer) level calibration equipment (standards) are geographically located for quick turnaround. The TMDE Support Centers (TSCs) serviced by the Letterkenny Area Calibration Laboratory (ACL) make approximately one trip per day, or a total of 250 trips per year to the ACL for emergency service or scheduled recertification of their calibration standards. If the Letterkenny ACL workload was transferred to Tobyhanna costs for mileage, per diem and lost employee time would increase. Shipping costs for routine individual item service would also increase. More importantly, equipment turnaround time would increase and the system would be less responsive to TSC and customer requirements. The optimum location from a transportation point of view would be the Washington/Baltimore metropolitan area, but this would increase costs for salaries, facilities and utilities. For the US Army TMDE Support Region 1, Letterkenny is an ideal location for an ACL. It is close to its customer base without the high cost of a metropolitan area. Providing this secondary reference service from any other TSC location would increase customer cost and/or increase equipment turnaround time. The Region TMDE Management Office at Letterkenny is located within an 8 hour drive of all but two of the Region 1 TSCs, and within day trip distance of 11 of 17 fixed site calibration laboratories. Moving the Region office to another TSC location would result in increased travel costs for the staff visits required to provide management and supervision, financial, quality assurance, property accountability and equipment management support to US Army TMDE Support Region I. Encl. 4 US Army TMDE Yupport Region 1 Labs Ft Dix Ft Monmouth La bsrreams La bsfreams Labs Labdreams Labsrreams ACL ICL Ft Ritchie Mobile 1 Mobile 2 Ft Devens Edgewood ARUHDL Watervliet Ft Meade Mobile Mobile Watertown* ACL ICL Seneca Mobile Mobile 3 Mobile 4 Mobile 5 * BRAC Closure Page 1 TEST MEASUREMENT & DIAGNOSTIC EQUIPMENT (TMDE) CENTER-REGION 1 TYPE COSTS NOS. EMPLOYEES IN CATEGORY EMPLOYEES SEVERED 0 EMPL OPT RET - 0 SEVERANCE ENTITLEMENTS SEVERANCE PAY 417691 PER EMPLOYEE UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION- 30WKS@$375 LUMP SUM ANNUAL LEAVE PAYOUT-344 HRS @$22.04 RETRAINING SEVERED EMPLOYEES-$5,000 GOVT -PICA/MEDICARE CONTRIBUTIONS FOR FERS(7.65%) EMPL GOVT -FICA/MEDICARE CONTRIBUTIONS FOR CSRS(1.45%) EMPL PCS COSTS COBRA MODEL $33,044 PER EMPLOYEE DARSE COST (DESCOM EXPERIENCE-IE43,000 PER EMPLOYEE ADDITIONAL AL COSTS BASED ON UNLIMITED LEAVE BALANCE LAW-160 HOURWiJ22.04 EXTENDED HEALTH CARE @ $285 AVGIMOS FOR 18 MOS. VSIP OPTION NON PEOPLE COSTS $1 1,250 $7,361 $3,526 EMPL EARLY RET 1 $0 $0 $0 $0 $6,767 $6,4 13 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 SO VSIP OPTION 0 9 $297,396 pp EMPL ACCOMP MISSION 3 $99,132 EMPL FIND OTHER GOVTJOB $387,000 3 $99,132 -16 $0 $1 1,250 $7,361 $0 $6,767 $6,413 $495,660 PPS PLACE MENT $129,000 OTHER COSTS $129,000 TOTAL $645,000 $3,526 $0 $0 Page 2 TEST MEASUREMENT & DIAGNOSTIC EQUIPMENT (TMDE) CENTER-REGION 1 TYPE COSTS EQUIPMENT MOVING EXPENSE CONSTRUCTION COSTS AT NEW SITE-RANGE $170,000 TO $330,000 COST OF PRODUCTIVITY LOSS-SEE ATTACHED ANALYSIS - GRAND TOTAL EMPLOYEES SEVERED $13,180 EMPL OPT RET SO EMPL EARLY RET $22,138 VSIP OPTION SO EMPL ACCOMP MISSION $684,396 EMPL FIND OTHER GOVT JOB $228,132 PPS PLACE MENT $228,132 OTHER COSTS $10,000 $170,000 $180,000 - TOTAL $1 0,000 $1 70,000 $0 $1,355,978 US Army TMDE Support-Region 1 Construction Costs for Moving Region Office New Construction: 1400 ft2 Office @ $94/ft2 = $130,000 2500 f t2 Supply @ $80/ft2 = $200,000 -$330,000 Renovation: 1400 ft' Office @ $50/ft2 = $ 70,000 2500 ft' Supply @ $40/ft2 = 100,000 TENANT MISSION IMPACT FOR: Army Audit Agency MISSION: Assists the Army in satiskng statutory and fiduciary responsibilities as well as assisting Army managers in making informed decisions, resolving issues and using resources effectively. It provides Army leadership with a full range of objective and independent services, including financiaVperformance audits, and consulting services. The agency has the authority to audit all organizations, activities, programs, and functions of the Army. WHY LOCATED AT LETTERKENNY? This tenant provides support to Letterkenny, tenants at Letterkenny, and a number of Army organizations within the commuting area. In the last several years the local AAA office's work has expanded beyond Letterkenny; in fact, in the past three years only two audits have been conducted which directly involved Letterkenny. AAA could be located at another installation; however, Letterkenny provides a central cost effective location for satis@ing the organization's customer base. MISSION IMPACT IF ELIMINATEDIRELOCATED? Impact would be limited to skill loss associated with failure of employees to accompany the organization to the new location (one). Since the workforce is young salaries are high, and the assumption is the organization would remain within 100 miles (due to customer locations) it is assumed all the professional auditors will accompany the mission. Based on this fact, mission impacts of a relocation are considered quite low. PLANNED DISPOSITION, IF KNOWN? The DOD BRAC 95 package for Letterkenny shows this organization being eliminated. Discussions with tenant indicate there would be no intention on AAA's part to eliminate the organization. AAA's desire is to remain located at Letterkenny regardless of what happens to the Depot Maintenance mission at Letterkenny. If that is not permitted by Army leadership, then the organization will be relocated. The foresees no savings are possible through the proposed BRAC actions since AAA has workload to replace the small workload associated with the Letterkenny Depot maintenance mission. DDLP as a DLA organization is not supported by AAA. Since AAA has performed a small amount of work for Letterkenny for the past three years, this package does show a small dollar savings associated with the Letterkenny BRAC 95 proposal. AAA. X LS Page 1 4RMY AUDIT ACTMTY I'YPE COSTS YOS. EMPLOYEES IN CATEGORY SEVERANCE ENTITLEMENTS iEVERANCE PAY 417691 PER SMPLOYEE JNEMPLOYMENT :OMPENSATION- OWKS@S375 .UMP SUM ANNUAL LEAVE 'AYOUT-344 HRS @S22.04 [ETRAINING SEVERED :MPLOYEES-$5,000 ;OVT -FICA/MEDICARE :ONTRIBUTIONS FOR 'ERS(7.65Oh) EMPL ;OVT -FICA/MEDICARE !ONTRIBUTIONS FOR 'SRS(1.45%) EMPL CS COSTS COBRA MODEL 33,044 PER EMPLOYEE lARSE COST (DESCOM XPERIENCE-$43,000 PER MPLOYEE DDITIONAL AL COSTS ASED ON UNLIMITED EAVE BALANCE LAW-160 OUR!S@2.04 XTENDED HEALTH CARE @ !85 AVGIMOS FOR 18 MOS. SIP OPTION DN PEOPLE COSTS EMPLOYEES SEVERED 1 $17,691 $1 1,250 $7,361 $5,000 $6,767 $6,413 $3,526 $5,130 EMPL OPT RET 0 $0 SO SO EMPL EARLYRET 0 VSIP OPTION 0 $0 SO EMPL ACCOMP MISSION 12 $1 7,691 $1 1,250 $7,361 $5,000 $6,767 $6,413 EMPL FIND OTHER GOVTJOB 0 $396,528 $516,000 $3,526 $5,130 $0 $0 PPS PLACE MENT 0 $0 OTHER COSTS TOTAL 1 : $396,528 $5 16,OOO $0 $0 $0 $0 Page 2 ! ARMY AUDIT ACTIVITY TYPE COSTS EMPLOYEES SEVERED EMPL OPT RET EMPL EARLY RET VSIP OPTION EMPL ACCOMP MISSION EMPL FIND OTHER GOVT JOB PPS PLACE MENT OTHER COSTS TOTAL TENANT MISSION IMPACT FOR: Health Clinic MISSION: The Health Clinic at Letterkemy Army Depot (LEAD) is an occupational health clinic and also serves as a Primary Care Clinic. The clinic works closely with the Industrial Hygiene Office and Safety Office to provide a safe working environment. The Clinic provides periodic medical screening to Federal employees (including active duty military) based on the employee's occupational exposures. The program consists of a Vision Program, Hearing Conservation, Pregnancy Surveillance, and a Respiratory Program. The LEAD Health Clinic also provides Primary Care services to the military beneficiaries. This includes Active Duty and their family members and retirees and their family members. These services include pharmacy, laboratory, radiology, and physician appointments, and an Employee Assistance Program. The Industrial Hygiene staff identifies an monitors potentially hazardous conditions in the work environment which could affect the health and safety of employees. The work environment is monitored through inspections and surveys to insure the continued health and safety of depot employees. WHY LOCATED AT LETTERKENNY? The clinic has two primary customers. One is the depot and tenant organizations; while the second customer base consists of over 20,000 retired military personnel in this geographic area. A smaller workload is the support provided to the Army Reserve Units located at Greencastle, PA and the Army Reserve and Army Guard Units who do~heir annual training at LEAD. MISSION IMPACT IF ELIMINATED/RELOCATED? Emergency treatment requirements would have to be evacuated to local hospitals which would increase the chargeback costs to the depot. Other medical services for industrial employees remaining at Letterkenny would have to be performed by another medical unit outside the geographic area which would increase per patientlemployee medical costs and cause added delays for performance of required actions. To contract Industrial Hygiene services out to the local economy would cost about $75.00 to $100.00 per hour. The present cost is zero because of ISSA There is presently 16,000 manyears of work to be done annually. PLANNED DISPOSITION, IF KNOWN? Although the entity was identified to be eliminated in the DOD BRAC 95 package for Letterkemy, there is no way the organization can be eliminated. There would be a workload reduction as noted in the return on investment package; however, the following medical services will have to continue: a. support to the Letterkenny Ammunition mission, b. support of twenty thousand military retirees in the geographic area (25% of organization's current workload), and c. support to the Greencastle Reserve Unit as well as the Army Guard and Reserve Units who doe their annual training at LEAD. This tenant recently completed a $330,000 facility expansion/modernization investment at Letterkenny. It is their desire to remain a tenant at Letterkemy even if the depot loses its maintenance mission. Since they occupy part of the Depot Headquarter's building, they believe continued occupancy of that facility would not increase over all operating costs at the depot. The current location will permit them to provide both cost and mission effective support to the residual Letterkenny missions and to other customers currently supported. Page 1 HEALTH CLINIC TYPE COSTS NOS. E M P L O Y E E S ~ CATEGORY SEVERANCE ENTITLEMENTS SEVERANCE PAY -%I7691 PER EMPLOYEE UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION- 30WKS@S375 LUMP SUM ANNUAL LEAVE PAYOUT-344 HRS BS22.04 RETRAINING SEVERED EMPLOYEES-$5,000 GOVT -FICA/MEDICARE CONTRIBUTIONS FOR FERS(7.65%) EMPL GOVT -FICA/MEDICARE CONTRIBUTIONS FOR CSRS(1.45%) EMPL PCS COSTS COBRA MODEL $33.044 PER EMPLOYEE DARSE COST (DESCOM EXPERIENCE-$43,000 PER EMPLOYEE ADDITIONAL AL COSTS BASED ON U N L D a E D LEAVE BALANCE LAW-160 HOURS@Z2.04 EXTENDED HEALTH CARE @ $285 AVGJMOS FOR 18 MOS. VSlP OPTION NON PEOPLE COSTS EMPLOYEES SEVERED 5 $88,455 $56,250 $36,807 $25,000 $6,767 $6,4 13 $17,632 $25,650 EMPL OPT RET 1 $1 1,250 $7,361 $3,526 EMPL EARLY RET 1 $1 1,250 $7,361 $3,526 VSIP OPTION 0 $0 EMPL ACCOMP MISSION 3 $99,132 $129,000 EMPL FIND OTHER GOVTJOB 0 $0 $0 PPS PLACE MENT 5 $165,220 S215,OOO OTHER COSTS TOTAL 15 $88,455 $78,750 $51,530 $25,000 $6,767 $6,413 $264,352 $344,000 $24,685 $25,650 $0 Page 2 HEALTH CLINIC TYPE COSTS EMPLOYEES SEVERED EMPL OPT RET GRAND TOTAL $22,138 $262.974 EMPL EARLYRET pp $22,138 VSIP OPTION SO EMPL ACCOMP MISSION _ _ _ _ _ _ EMPL FIND OTHER GOVT JOB $228,132 -______ PPS PLACE MENT SO SO $380,220 $915,601 OTHER COSTS TOTAL $0 $0 ' TENANT MISSION IMPACT FOR: Defense Reutilization & Marketing Office (DRMO) MISSION: Provide property disposal support. WHY LOCATED AT LETTERKENNY? DRMO is located here to provide disposal support to the installation and surrounding DOD activities. MISSION IMPACT IF ELIMINATEDJRELOCATED? Surrounding DRMO's will absorb remaining workload if eliminated. PLANNED DISPOSITION, IF KNOWN? DRMO would downsize if they remain on remaining portion of installation. If closed, see above response. ' i . ' ' a b t"~RJbR GOhriAHD: DEFENSE LOGISTICS AGENCY w FIELD GO8MAND: DEFEtiSE KEUTILIZLTION AND MARKETING SEkVICE, BATTLE LiEEf;, h1. r j i ~ ~ h i riGTIk1Ti: DEFEhjE fiEuTI~I;AT10fl hhl, Mlii,r:ETIliG OFFICE - ~ETTERr~ifidf + PEkSSririEi illi EGAi i r : 29 FERRAtiErii 6 TikE 25 TOTAL ~ i ' 34: FiECEIVED AtiD PKOCESSED AF'F'RCIXIKATELY 65,582 LINE I T i E GiiH A TOTAL ACUdISITION COST OF $473,763,124 DOLLGAS STGhAGE CAPABILITIES * INSIDE STORAGE: i14,000 SO FT. * OUTSIDE STORAGE: APROX 35 ACkES/1,456,56ti Sl i FT * IiISSION STATERENT: PROVIDE FULL DISPOSAL SUPPORT FOR HAZARDOUS AND NON HAZARDOUS EXCESS 8 SURPLUS PROPERTY RND RDRIHISTER ENVIROtiKNTAL DISPOSAL CONTRACTS FOR FlLL DoD ACTIVITIES IN: SOUTH CENTRAL 8 YESTERN PA. CENTRAL 8 YESTERN RRRYLRND EASTERN 8 NORTHERN YtST VA. ACCEPT OVER FLOW RATERIAL FRO# URSHINGTON DC AREA 8 DDSP. w DISTRIBUTION CENTER FOR.PRECIOUS RETRL RECWERY EOUIFIRENT RND SUPPLiES FOR IILITRRY INSTRLLATIONS EFtST OF tIISSISSIPP1 8 EUROPE. * OPERATE REGIOHAL PRECIOUS RETRL DEFINITION 8 PROCESSING CENTER i flETHOBS OF PROPERTY DISPOSAL: REDISTRIBUTION OF PROPERTY WITHIN DoD, FEDERRL & STATE GOVERNRENTS SRii TO THE GENERRL PUBLIC ULTIRRTE DISPOSAL THROUGH SEKVICE CONTRRCT FOREIGN flILITARY SALES DEi4ILITRRIZRTION OF WILITARY PECULIAR PROPERTY MISSION SUPPORT RESPONSIBILITIES LETTERKENNY ARMY DEPOT (HOST) Letterkenny &my Depot (LEAD) has many missions. The Depot Systems Command (DESCOI) Headquarters for the U.S. &my is located on LEAD. LEAD bas many unique maintenance and supply missions. Weapons systems which are rebuilt or-receive depot level maintenance include various types of towed and self propelled artillery, tactical truck6 and trailers, chemical warfare decontamination equipment, fire control optics, armored recovery vehicles, ammunition carriers and several special projects. Under the tactical missile consolidation recommended by BRAC '93, 18 tactical missile systems are scheduled to transition to LEAD, nine h m y and nine Interservice systems. LEAD ha6 a major conventional ammunition storage capability. LEAD is relatively large in terms of real estate and personnel. Approximately 19,500 acres and 4,100 people including tenant activities. DEFENSE REUTILIZATION AND M A R K E T I N G O F F I C E - L E T T E R K E N N Y Our primary mission is to provide disposal service to the host installation and other DOD activities is our geographical area. Our ( operation encornparise6 three states, PA. W and HD. Our operation includes the receipt, warehousing. demilitarization. precioua metal recovery and preparation of excess/surplus property for rei~sue, sale or other disposition. In essence, DRHO Letterkenny ia where the rubber hitg the road in the di6po6a1 business. Th.e DRMO is an- additional 6ource of supply. We take great pride in the fact that we give back to Gov't agenciea instead of taking. We make seriou6 endeavors to return dollars to the U.S. Treasury through the disposal program. We provide technical assistance to generating activities and maintain a close liaison to ensure our generators can accomplish their military mission with minimum effort. HAJOR GENERATORS OF PROPERTY TO DRMO LETTERKENAT * . Letterkenny Army Depot Defense Distribution Depot Letterkenny Fort Detrick, HD. Fort Ritchie, MD. Camp David, MD. 167th Air1 if t Group, Martinsburg, WV. l 7 I 6 t Air Refueling Wing, Pittgburg, PA 91 I t h kirlif t Group, P i t t ~ b u ~ g , PA. C 79th ARCOM, Oakdale, PA. .,' .I \ ACTIVITIES NAME GND ADDRESS DOME EFA CAPT HARRY R. HAAR USRC CEKTER 300: Pleasant Vc;l ley Gltoona, PA lbk42 '' CIS $29 - QLTocI# 327 Frankstown R~ad A1 toona. FA 15502-339 DEFARTMENT ZIL!TAii'Y AiFAi;S State Armory Board Ft. Indiantown Sap Annville, PA 17303 EEAVER FALLS AEPfOFiY 150 Janet Street Beaver Fai I;, FA :5010-!~!~)4 BELLE 1'ERKCN USA2 CENTER RD #3, Eox 319 Belle Vernon, PA !5012-sT1):! BELLEFOMTE F;RYORY Route 553 East Bei leionte, F A 16823-2394 FLAISSVILIE ARXCRY 119 North ijainut Streer Blairsviil?, PA !5717-i:1157 BRADFORD 9F;FOiiY 38 Barbour Street Eradford, PA 16701-1917 CCEPANY B, 429TH USkR Erownsville, PA 15317 BUTLER USGA CERTEE 360 Evans C i t y Road Butier, P4 16001-2799 CMS #?O, Hil 2-113th Infantrv EG;: 250 Kreis; Road Butler, PA 15C@1-8ii)7 CAl?!tiNSBYRS AR8ORY North Central Avenue & Wesr Canonsborg , PA 15317-134 E m I POINT OF CONTACT TWHOM # 24 hr Number Anthony fiore 814-943-0564 Fred M i l i ~ r 81 4-945-6989 Jefi O!sen 717-861-8342 717-6, ,1 -c?c= ": 2F'a: Martin DSN 491-8332 John Dick 412-727-3232 WZzATI ~41210522576 Jcseoh Angel j12-7=&-7277 ZEFENSE REtiT?l ?7GTIfiN f ;$ARf"?V- ""'C' I IL. r ~ t ! 1 4 4 L l Lmi r l~L LJJ PA6'7!;8?05fi$ 21 1 "' Letterkenny Grmy Depot 3-11 1 ding 2265 Chacbersburg , PR 17201-4150 Barry Si;iith 717-267-5357 Don Niederoal l (D91) ';;ij-?j57 7fC YELVIN L, Eill,l$l U I L'nl Eo!den Sod Acres F.0, 30;: 799 Ci ear* i el d , PA 16830-09E8 EMS $11 - CCNNELLSVILLE RD X I , Eox 541-8 C ~ n n e l l ; v i 11 e, PA lj4;5-i:i662 ? k I I JIiihELiSViLLE AEMOZY 108 West !4acklingtun Avenue Coocel l s v i i ie , ?A 15425-4453 0% %13 - CGF:&UPCL!S 935 F i f t h Avense Ccraopo l is , i A 151CE-1527 W25Gl9 PA6213820503 Doug Warnock 18438 ' Greg E u s t e i n 91 1 AIRLIFT GRSSPiCEY F66712 PAZ70C24289 Lyn Gemper1 e 4 12-269-8749 P i t t s b u r g h I n t e r n a t i ~ n a l G i r p 2 r t ARS R i c h a r d Feid DSN 277-8749 316 2efpn;e Avznue, g u i t . 101 Jiin W i l k s DSFJ-277-8114 C u r a o p o l i s , 151@-4q:3 PEP$!SYLtj&N!fi f;ATISNAL EC4;D i 17: st j FB5321 FAD1 14942332 Capt John Tower 412-474-7540 P i t t s b u r g h I n t e ~ n a t i s n s i kirp;;t MSGT J e f f Hedges DSN 277-8369 161 XW-EM, k ; t a n g : r i v e , SIdg I!$ Coraopol : 5 , ?R 1" .,,c.o-'io:..'!j 7" '--' U, 5, fiASINE C""CC ih i J 2nd P!atoon iEE!Nj TR 4 t h M i n e , FYF, LZZC Ebensburg , PA 1:931-S4:5 Mli746 PAD991947492 GSgt Rainey 614-472-6440 814-472-7128 .. L OM< t 5 , HHC 1/112th iNFA?!TRY 6th and Parade Streets Erie, PA 1t507-lb95 1LT HARRY COLBGRN !jSA Route 9, Eox 6 Fairnont , UV 2653-5534 C ' L , C' iitltNIiLE i I RD #1, Box 331, ,4-3 F in leyv i l l e , ?A 15332-@i31 FORD CITY ARECRY 301 Tenth Street Ford City, PA i6625-12!9 HQ USAG FORT 9ITCHIE ANRT-EKE Fort Ri tch ie, ?ID 21719-5010 US Ariiiy, Site R Harbaugh Val i ey Sd. Blue Ridge Sumit , %I :i;Z:i (Nail t o it. R i t ~ h i e i FKAFXLIN 9XSA 52 1033-15th Street Ext. Frank1 i n , PA 16323-21!>9 Ffi'AFiKLIN AMSA #1 1415 Pittsbi lrgh Road Frankl in, PA 16323 USAG FT. DETAICC Directorate of iogi;tics Hazardous : fater ial Manage~,snt Gf f i ce HSHD-LOH Frederick, MD 21702 tiSAURI I D GW?JEX 15 klorrrian's M i l l Court Frederick, MD 21701 Steven Luie 314-871-4217 Bill Hoffnan 301-879-3969 ,l]l-E7?-45j.>i:i ? h i l l . L i F f'?nrne DSM-277-.3963 Ed Dorsey DSFJ-277-5357 Bctiay Sci t h OSH 277-3033 Lec, qoocard DSM-988-3632 717-E;S-3z(rt 094-988-2702 717-878-3632 Ferry Wood 814-432-2337 Paul Absnire 301-63;-3439 301-.5!$-7; 14 Z~lh DSM 543-3441 FRIEDENS ARMCRY FD # I , Eax 1C3 Friedeos, PA 1554!-97?t b * . ' COPlFfiNY C 1/314TH I N (K) !2OG F a i r f i e l d Road Getty;burg, PA 17325-7237 GRAFTON USAR CENTER ( US i t 50 E P.O. Bow 600 Grai ton, WV 26354-0600 U.S. GREY RESERVE ( G I 369 Pfnsinger Road P.O. 3ox 190 Greencastle, PA 17225-0190 S.YiE?iSE!JRG fiESA 104 2i41 Hunter Road Sreensburg , PA 15601-1998 GREENSBURG USAR CENTER 900 Armory Drive Greensburg, PA 15601-5297 GREE!,!SBURG ARMOHY RD 812, Box 232 Greensburg, PA 15A01-FBC8 GRGVE CITY ARIORY RD #2, George J u n ~ o r Grove City, PA 16127-9317 C 97iH ARCOM AFA (1111 9357 Washington Court P.C. Box 2088 Hag erst own, ED 21742-?tOri,B HE,S?IITAGE ARPlORY 740 R o ~ t h Hermi tage Road Hermitage, FA !5!48-3222 HDLL!I)AYSFU?iG ARMORY Eo:.: 319 Hoi: i iaysburg , PA 1664S-03!9 tiK!T!NGTGN ARMOHY 236 Standing Stone Avenue Huntington, PA 16652-13- Us. J iNDIkNA ARMGRY b?! 'ilayne fivenue Indiana, PG i5701-3097 Sgt. Shields 717-337-3105 M25CIZW PA1210020383 Steven Clark 717-597-7102 Larry Steinberqer 717-597-7103 W25AR7 PC1D982567554 Joe R u t i r ka 412-834-8960 SFC Wenger 412-834-6910 JCkNSTOilJN USAR CENTER 295 Goucher Stresc J o h s t own, PA 15905-3492 JCkWSTOWN LSAR CENTER, AISA 104 1300 St. C ia i r Road Jchnstcwn, FA 15905-1495 M S #1? - JOHGSTOUN 565 Waiters Rrenue Johnstown. PA 15907-!235 C#S #?I - JOKNSTCgN Funicipa! A i rpor t Johastoin, PA i5907-0157 !,'AXE A%!@RY 208 Chestnut Street Kane, PA !6735-16$3 DMS P26 - LEW!STO# Route 522 North Lewistown, PA 17044 LISONIER ARMCRY 358 West Yain Street Ligonigr , PA 15658-1 132 lb7TH W AP!G Eastern West V i rg in ia Martinsburg, WV 25401-0204 MEADVILLE ARMORY E94 Diamond Park Meadril le, PA 16335-?,jfi3 MORGANTOWN PiATIONAi GUARD $1 17C5 Yileground Road hJorgantown, l$,V " 'C" "" ibJVJ-.-$i d, NORSANTJWN #2 USAS [ENTE; RD #13, Box 87 Korganiown , WV 26505-8572 MT. PLEASART ARFORY Eagie and Spring Streets fit. Pi asan t , PA 15566-1709 NEW KENSINGTCP! IEEORIA- 2450 Leechburg Road New Kensington, PA 15068-4597 GlYSA ! 10 7-17 L.3 J State S t r ~ e t New Castle, ?A l6 lO l OMS #9 820 Frank Avenue New Castle, PA 16!f]! p;~~!9 FA421f2022998 Dan M i l l e r 814-535-2554 William Gero Ronald M i 11 er 814-533-2218 FEt48,? $~!57;;9,:!5g1 Capt . Hammer 304-267-9314 304-267-53r i:! Ron Dai fy DSN-242-9291 W25ASJ .I I ., . C H S i E S E. KELLY SSFPCRT FAC!L!TY AFKA-CK-EH (DEH] z;kdale, FA !5071-5001 OIL ASMGRY Ez;~ 2nd 2nd State St:-ests City, FA 1,5301-:356 - I - ~ - T - c L, , , jJ :Liitli,a b ) ? . ~ ! ? 21: N&TTP)lAI 6 v - n I i u i v L Fhu Pittsburgh In ternat ional A i rpor t IbiAKW-EM, Mustsng Drive, Bldg 110 . . Cfir;opoils, ?A i5103-4300 BE'j'ILiE iSWi\iD Shop Supply and D i r Sot 3900 Grand Avenue Pitt;bur$, PA 15225 C GI i q V Y CfiRPS CF ' '-'h."'" s.! L \ t?ibli;tt~.3 -c> '.;J~.)[J Grsno Avenue P i tt;Ssrgh, FA 15225 #EST ViEW ARKORY P. 0. Sox 97248 Pi :t:burgh, PA i52ze-C219 35 #3[j - FENXSQT&#t!Ey Fiorth Fizdiey Street Funx;utabi,ey, 15767-1499 F:_';jXf ;i:A#?;E'{ AptSA 1 !:)6 Soiih Gi ip in 2 t reet East Funxsutaim~v , ?A 15767-1999 W25RbK F'AD7E!1947245 Brent Moss 412-777-1337 412-777-1183 Steve Baker DSN-242- 1232 Tin Hof frllan DSN 242-1 185 FB6331 PAD1 14942832 Capt John Tawer 412-473-7640 !80085!-6061 MSGT J e i f Hedges DSN-277-8369 W2ZAvK PAD'7!ij322107 T. J, Thompson 412-El-6480 Bob Covington DSN-277-1365 i48:Ei4 ?AS760010050 Sharon Donahue 412-644-6368 Rick Sustus 412-644-6915 Ken Sodinsky 412-644-4822 "'IC1. 8 ~L.I~F,S FA2210022008 Dave Johnson 814-938-5191 C ** *, . N A O A ~ SUPPCRT FACILITY P.C. Box 1000 Park Csntral Road c TYSGME ARMORY 925 South Logan Avenue fyrcne, PA lbLBb-15!0 iiNiONT3WN ESAR CENTER 254 YcCl e l 1 andtcwn :sad Uniontcnn, PA 15401-3!82 WAFREF! A83DRY 330 Hickory Street Warren, PA 15365-2231 ARYY AVI2TION SLPPORi iACILiYi #2 Goodridge Arr;iory Ai rpor t P.E. Eox D Washingtcn, FA 15X!-i;i:?$ 8ASHINGTCF! ESAR CENTER 10 Scenic Drive Washington, PA 15301-9211 WFIYNESB%FC ARMCRY North Grant Styset Waynesbaro, PA 169Ci-lfi02 WAYI'JESECI3C ARXCFIY 51 North kishington Street 11. aqnesbcro, , PA !5370-0522 NO? 17A flDm(1(:!(:!(!:802 Dave Elah 3$1-824-$0 CHAMBER 176 0033368 COMPUTER MDL 5 1 4 0 0033375 1 7 6 COMPUTER MDL 5 1 4 0 004XT 176 MULTIPROTOCAL ROUTER/BRIDGE C933579799 176 FDEJ39877 1.7 6 JE492070187 176 K4030701859 176 MA00259763 . 176 2102368 176 ** Subtotal ** SWITCH GROaAL A-B CONTROLLER MDL 274-C2 COMPUTER MDL 2660 COMMUNICATION SERVER MDL 2100 MODE3lMDL3610~1001 . MONITOR COLOR MDL HCM 4 3 3 ~ COMPUTER MDL U I C - ~ O O ~ - O O ' PRINTER MDL P2000 DOT MATRIX PRINTER EIDL P2000 DOT MATRIX COMPUTER IWL ZWX-248-62 CONPUTER MDL ZWX-248-62 COMPUTER MDL ZWX-2 4 8-6 2 COMPUTER MDG EWX-248-62 COMPUTER MDL ZWX-248-62 MONITOR COLOR MDL ZVM 1380 MONITOR COLOR MRL ZVM 1 3 8 0 MONITOR COLOR MDL ZVM 1380 PRINTER m~ ~ 2 0 0 0 DOT mmrx PRXNTER MDL P2000 DOT MATRIX CD-ROM MDL CDU-6251 MONITOR COLOR MDL ZMhf 14706 MONrTUR COLOR MDL Z ; X M 1470G MODEM MDL 2400 BAUD COMPUTER PERSONAL MDL ASL 433 KEYBOARD MDL E03601QL DATAPHONE MDL 2048A TRANSCEIVER UNIT MDL MT-800 MONXTOR COLOR MDL CVP-5468A PRINTER ,MDL M30430 DOT WLTRXX PRINTER MI)L AEIT-24X DOT MATRIX MFIR 29 -- ' 95 18:23 F R O M D R M S - S PRGE .a03 dnnvhl 6 Inquire Equipment hqident:ulmh0510 LA KEG DLA TYPE REG KEY ACTY EQUTPMENT T FT NAME SERIAL NUMBER MF EX DT 1010g6082 ence4.: sedancpmcg ford 910-06082 1011g6037 ence/dD sedanmidsg ford 910-06037 112092048 encef l~ pul/2ton g ford g41-02048 113795373 ence$o stakeltong chevy g43-55373 116899866 e n c e U 2 stake2.5Td ford 971-09866 147787975 encerlr9 logger/crd$E.L: aljon 12514 402977999 e n c e ~ o tracw7-14d case 77d573 406894649 enceYt' scpc20-50d J@* koehr 21327 406994651 ence #-> f rontloadd PCu deer 544411 409892405 encey-j crncu35 d +a@ p&h 56524 416887694 ence+> whswepridd ?roo power 787027 917079372 enceN" frk4gslSOy allis 114529 920092124 enceYe3 f rk2-3gp p 7"" yale n523849 920092125 e n c e c ; frk2-3gp pg" yale n523850 921080175 ence* frk4gp144p allis 116971 921289326 enceYpJ frk4gpl80p hyste a177b34524k 921289327 e n c e l r , frk4gpl80p G o U h y s t e al77b34525k 921289328 enceYeJ f rk4gpl80p hyste a177b34526k 923089496 ence+' frk6yp1809 m6hyste a177b34561k 923089497 encer'r;' frk6qplROg 73C'hyste a177b34562k 923094207 e n c e r'-5 frk6gpl80p 7 0 U yale 853528 925079498 enceG; frkl5gpZld a h y s t e d6d4819 987982417 ence+'c' frk4dp180d case 9150230 989090283 enceYp-'-j frkl5dp2ld 'l*' wiggi wlc901072 989094252 e n ~ e J ' ~ > f r k l 5 d p 2 l d zcP wiggi hwigginswlc934194 * Report Complete cn PC C l a o a, 2 '2 c 0 b 4 5 * .s U, 1 %@ e,: a S - = ' ! z 0 gcd U -2 3 i 0 0 s&$ ~ % n a, -0 5 .g 9 '2 gg - 0 cr '05 0 2 3 8 .z 2- W L M M- .C_ L' ME: 3.5 2 E g g Q) Q) .s 2 2 2 2 c a, u * 6 5 .g 5 C , = a $ .c Ld 6 a, h-0 f "2 8 2 $ 3 -2 & A ..y z Cl .r a, 0 3 "2 5 a s 0 '3 E .z g a=: acd 0 Q P C 0 '" vj C, 9 2.3 % a 5 L d g m gs'= - a, .s ' a ; ~ 5 t 2 % cd 'S , 3 g.z - a, -5 g5; c * .r g $ cn -a @i 3.5 Cl m.0 MISSION The Defense Printing Service is responsible for the Department of Defense printing program and document automation, encompassing value-added conversion, electronic storage, output and distribution of hardcopy and digital information. Value to the customer includes quality products and services, which are competitively priced, and delivered on time. DEFENSE PRINTING SERVICE REPROGRAPHICS FACILITY LETTERKENNY PERSONNEL 1 Supervisory Printing Specialist 1 Automated Publishing Technician 4 Electronic Duplicating Operator DEFENSE PRINTING SERVICE REPROGRAPHICS FACILITY LETTERKENNY CHAIN OF COMMAND Defense Printing Service Management Office, Washington, DC Director, Mr. Mike Cocchiola Defense Printing Service Northeast Area, Philadelphia, PA Director, Ms. Pat White Defense Printing Service Detachment Office, Mechanicsburg, PA Director, Mr. Joe Bradley Defense Printing Service Reprographics Facility, Letterkenny Supervisor, Mrs. Kim Brown BRAC TENANT INFORMATI~N -DEFENSE PRINTING SERVICE LETTERKENNY 1. Personnel 2. Customers Defense Megacenter electronic output 63% Letterkenny printing 31% DRMO printing 5% DDLP printing 1% 3. Mission impact a. If the Amy's current recommendations to the BRAC are approved, the printing requirements from the remaining Letterkenny ammo operation can be completed at our Detachment Office in Mechanicsburg, PA, or, even so, on office copiers. Our printing shop in building 1 will be closed. b. If Letterkenny is drastically downsized (as the Army recommends), but the Megacenter remains, our personnel will be dropped to approximately 2 or 3 employees in direct support of the Megacenter output. And, in all honesty, with the communication lines as they are, the Megacenter output could be done in our Detachment Office in Mechanicsburg and our shop here at Letterkenny abolished. EMPL EMPL DEFENSE PRINT PLANT EMPLOYEES OPT EMPL VSIP ACCOMP TYPE COSTS SEVERED RET EARLYRET OPTION MISSION NOS. EMPLOYEES IN . CATEGORY 4 1 0 0 SEVERANCE ENTITLEMENTS SEVERANCE PAY -$I7691 PER EMPLOYEE $70,764 UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION- I 3 0 ~ ~ ~ @ $ 3 7 5 I $45,000I $1 1,2501 LUMP SUM ANNUAL LEAVE PAYOUT-313 HRS @$22.M EMPLOYEES-$5,000 -- GOVT -FICA/MEDICARE -- CONTRIBUTIONS FOR FERS(7.65%) EMPL I $6,7671 I GOVT-FIC~EDICARE t $33,044 PER EMPLOYEE DARSE COST (DESCOM EXPERIENCE-$43,000 PER EMPLOYEE ADDITIONAL AL COSTS BASED ON UNLIMITED LEAVE BALANCE LAW-160 HOURSGiJ22.04 EXTENDEDHEALTHCARE@ - $285 AVGIMOS FOR 18 MOS. 1 $20,5201 I I I I I VSIP OPTION $0 NON PEOPLE COSTS EMPL FIND OTHER PPS PLACE OTHER GOVTJOB MENT COSTS 1 pp 0 -- . - --A TOTAL 1 Page 1 Page 2 EMPL OPT RET -. .~ - - $22,138 DEFENSE PRDYT PLANT TYPE COSTS - COSTS TO TEAR DOWN, PACK, MOVE AND REINSTALL EQUIPMENT -- - - GRAND TOTAL TOTAL $20,000 $331,197 EMPL EARLY RET -- -- - - --- - -- SO EMPLOYEES SEVERED --- --- - - $213,015 OTHER COSTS $20,000 -- -- - - $20,000 VSIP OPTION $0 EhlPL ACCOMP MISSlON - - -- -- - - $0 EMPL FIND OTHER GOVT JOB -- -- - - - - $76,044 - -- PPS PLACE MENT - - -- - -- - - - - - - - -- -- SO TENANT MISSION IMPACT FOR: U.S. Army Materiel Command Management Engineering Activity, Industrial Operations Division (AMXME-D) MISSION: The mission of the U.S. Army Materiel Command (AMC) Management Engineering Activity (AMCMEA) is to serve as the principal Headquarters (HQ) AMC staff element for achieving competitive excellence in organization, management, and staffing structure needed to accomplish the primary AMC mission and goals through the application of state-of-the-art industrial and management engineering techniques and other analytical services. The AMCMEA provides customer requested business analysis services, and administers and executes the management engineering program for AMC and all its Major Subordinate Commands (MSCs) and Separate Reporting Activities (SRAs). WHY LOCATED AT LETTERKENNY? The Army proposed elimination of the AMCMEA, Industrial Operations Division (IOD) at Chambersburg, PA, was not supported by the BRAC proposal to eliminate maintenance operations at Letterkenny Army Depot (LEAD). There was no strategic or operational rationale for elimination of IOD. The location of IOD at Chambersburg was the result of a realignment action in 1989 which combined the HQ, U.S. Army Depot System Command Management Engineering Office with the AMCMEA Office responsible for the Manpower Staffing Standards System (MS-3) Program. Both organizations were located at LEAD. This realignment action saved 16 personnel resources or over $500,000. MISSION IMPACT IF ELIMINATEDIRELOCATED? If the AMCMEA IOD were eliminated, there would be no AMC organization in place to provide analytical management, cost studies, etc., to the Industrial Operations Command (IOC) which constitutes approximately 40% of the AMC. If the AMCMEA IOD were eliminated, additional personnel would have to be trained to perform the mission of the organization resulting in considerable loss of productivity. The cost impact would equate to one manyear of learning curve (lost productivity) per person at an average salary of $43,000 times 12 analysts or approximately $516,000. PLANNED DISPOSITION, IF KNOWN? Correspondence is being forwarded to HQ AMC which recommends the mission be retained at Chambersburg, PA with or without the LEAD Maintenance Mission. The alternative, which would cost in excess of $1 .O million, would be to relocate the mission to Huntsville, AL, where the parent organization is located. U.S. ARMY M A T E R I E L COMMAND MANAGEMENT E N G I N E E R I N G A C T I V I T Y I N D U S T R I A L O P E R A T I O N S D I V I S I O N M I S S I O N S T A T E M E N T T h e m i s s i o n o f t h e AMCMEA is t o s e r v e as t h e p r i n c i p a l H Q AMC s t a f f f o r a c h i e v i n g c o m p e t i t i v e e x c e l l e n c e i n o r g a n i z a t i o n , m a n a g e m e n t , a n d s t a f f i n g s t r u c t u r e n e e d e d t o ' a c c o m p l i s h t h e p r i m a r y AMC m i s s i o n a n d g o a l s t h r o u g h t h e a p p l i c a t i o n o f s t a t e - o f - t h e - a r t i n d u s t r i a l a n d managemen t e n g i n e e r i n g t e c h n i q u e s a n d o t h e r a n a l y t i c a l s e r v i c e s . AMCMEA p r o v i d e s c u s t o m e r r e q u e s t e d b u s i n e s s a n a l y s i s a n d managemen t e n g i n e e r i n g s e r v i c e s f o r AMC. T h e m a j o r f u n c t i o n o f AMCMEA is t o p e r f o r m d i v e r s e , a d a p t a b l e , a n d r e s p o n s i v e a n a l y t i c a l s e r v i c e s t h r o u g h i n d e p e n d e n t a n d i n n o v a t i v e a n a l y s i s . Our f u n c t i o n a l a n a l y s i s c r o s s e s o r g a n i z a t i o n a l l i n e s f r o m DOD t o t h e MSCs. Mar. 28 '95 13:34 0000 SQNFQX515Hsorios U . S . Army Materiel Command Management ~ngineering Activity MISSION: The mieeion of the U.S. Army Materiel command Management Engineering Activity (AMCMEA) is to serve ae the principal Headquarters (HQ) AMC staff element for achieving competitive excellence i n organization, management, and staffing structure needed to accomplish the primary M C d.seion and goals through the application of state-of-the-art industrial and management engineering techniques and -ot-hex -urra-1+--1 menrim. -;RMCMEA provides customer requeeted busineee analyeie eervicee, and adminiatere and executes the management engineering program for AMC and all its Major Subordinate Commande (MSCs) and Separate Reporting Activities (SRAs). SERVICES SUPPLIED TO LETTERKEPJNY ARMY DEPOT -(-XisAD)-: The AMCMEA does provide management engineering eervices to LEAD as they do all other AMC inetallatione - primarily ae a result of customer request. Studies for LEAD have helped them improve productivity and determine more accurate cost for operations. We do not exist to support juet LI~AD but rather support the entire command. Only a small portion of AMCMEA workload is generated by LRAD and i f services are requeeted of the AMCMEA by LEAL), it is primarily limited to and conducted by the Induatrial Operations Divieion. A8 indicated in the diviaion title, the Induatrial Operations Division, located in Chambermburg, services the entire Industrial Operatione Command. IMPACT TD THE AMC M I S S I O N XF AMC- -WERE -ELWIZWYED: If the AMCMEA (Industrial operatione Division) were eliminated, there would be no AMC organization in place to provide analytical. management, coet studies, etc., to the IOC which conetitutes approximately 40% of the AMC. If the -A Industrial Operations Division were eliminated, additional personnel would have to be trained to perform the d e e i o n of the organization reeulting in coneiderable lose of productivity. The cost impact would equate to 1 manyear of learning aurve (lort productivity) per person at an average salary of $43,000 t h e e 12 analysts or approximately $516,000 (see attaahed). CUSTOM~R BASE : The current c ~ ~ s of lthe AMCMEA Industrial -Qpara+imm Division are ALL the depots, arsenals and HQ AMC staff and major subordinate commande. For FY94, professional analyst6 support for the depote/arsenala/HQ AMC totaled approximately 80% with 62% for depots/arsenale and 18% for HQ AMC. The remaining 20% of analyet support was for organizations outfaide the AMC. MODERNIZATION IMPACTS AT tEAD: In the 1985 time frame, the AMCMEA, for i t a deeion requirements, funded the construction of buildings 416 and 417 for $400,000 at LEAD. Mar . 28 '95 13:35 0000 SRNFRX515Hserios P! Methodology for Determining Cost Impact Number of Analysts in ~ndustrial Operations Division - 12 Average Salary of Analyete - $43,000 Learning Curve - For each replacement analyst, they would be 1/3 productive the firet year, 2/3 productive the second year therefore reeulting in 1 year of lomt productivity for each of the 12 analyrrte at $43,-0~0.0 or -a -tots-1 -of .$5-16,000. Page 1 MANAGEMENT ENGINEERING ACTMTY TYPE COSTS - NOS. EMPLOYEES IN CATEGORY SEVERANCE ENTITLEMENTS SEVERANCE PAY -$I7691 PER EMPLOYEE UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION- 3OWKS@$375 LUMP SUM ANNUAL LEAVE- PAYOUT-344 HRS @$22.04 RETRAINLNG SEVERED EMPLOYEES SWERED 4 $70,764 $45,000 - $29,445 . EMPL OPT RET 0 $0 - $0 - EMPLOY EES-$5,000 - $20,000 EMPL EARLY RET 1 $1 1,250 -- - -- $7,361 - - - -- - - GOVT -FICA/MEDICARE CONTRIBUTIONS FOR FERS(7.6S0/o) EMPL GOVT -FICA/MEDICARE CONTRIBUTIONS FOR CSRS(1.4S0/o) EMPL PCS COSTS COBRA MODEL- $33,044 PER EMPLOYEE DARSE COST (DESCOM EXPERIENCE-$43,000 PER EMPLOYEE ADDITIONAL AL COSTS BASED ON UNLIMITED LEAVE BALANCE LAW-160 HOURS@22.04 EXTENDEDHEALTHCARE@ $285 AVGlMOS FOR 18 MOS. VSIP OPTION NON PEOPLE COSTS VSIP OPTION 0 -- -- --__ -- -- - - - - - - $6,767 $6,4 1 3 $14,106 $20,520 -- -_ - $0 EMPL ACCOMP MISSION .- -- 0 - - - . -- - - - $6,767 $6,413 $330,440 $430,000 $1 7,632 $20,520 -- - - - $0 $0 P $3,526 -- EMPL FIND OTHER GOVTJOB 1 -- -- -. --- - $20,000 SO PPS PLACE MENT 9 - -. - -- $33,044 $43,000 . $297,396 $387,000 - OTHER COSTS -- - TOTAL 15 $70,764 $56,250 $36,807 Page 2 MANAGEMENT ENGINEERING ACTMTY TYPE COSTS COSTS TO TEAR DOWN, PACK, MOVE AND RELNSTALL EQUIPMENT EMPLOYEES SEVERED EMPL OPT RET GRAND TOTAL SO $213,015 EMPL EARLYRET $22,138 VSIP OPTION SO EMPL ACCOMP MISSION - $0 EMPL FIND OTHER GOVT JOB $76,044 PPS PLACE MENT $684,396 OTHER COSTS $25,000 TOTAL $25,000 $25,000 $0 $1,020,593 TENANTS NOT INCLUDED IN DOD LETTERKENNY BRAC 95 PROPOSAL: DLA SUPPLY DEPOT-DDLP. DLA prepared a separate BRAC package for DDLP. For that reason, DDLP was excluded from the Army costs to eliminate the maintenance mission at Letterkenny. DDLP disestablishment is clearly a cost associated with the proposed elimination of the maintenance mission at Letterkenny since DLA has stated they will retain a depot at Letterkenny if they retain a maintenance mission, and their disestablishment action is totally driven to the proposed action for Letterkenny in BRAC 95. The Army contends the DDLP actions are actions being taken by DLA and are therefore not Army costs. Although that is technically correct, the $99 million one time costs are a cost to DOD and should be considered as part of the total decision. SYSTEMS INTEGRATION & MANAGEMENT ACTIVITY-EAST The DOD BRAC 95 proposal for Letterkenny did not include this tenant and as a result there are no costs associated with a planned moved of this organization. A separate briefing on the SIMA East will provide the details and background on this action which dates back to BRAC 91. The Army has taken the position that this organization can be moved based on BRAC 93 law. They have indicated it is their intent to move SIMA East using BRAC 93 dollars, but the move will be handled consistent with BRAC 95 milestones. It is clear this is part of the overall Army plan to move or eliminate all tenants from Letterkenny as part of the downsizing action, but to do so without identifying the total costs of doing so. In BRAC 91 it was proposed to move SIMA to Rock Island. The GAO noted such a move would be both mission destructive and would be very costly with no benefit to the tax payer. In spite of the GAO concerns, the proposed action became part of the BRAC 91 law. In 1993 SIMA, as a central design organization, was put under the operational control of the new Department of Defense Information Systems Agency. This was to be accomplished under the mandate of a Defense Management Review Decision called DMRD 918. When BRAC 93 proposals were being considered DOD's proposal was to reverse the BRAC 91 law which called for SIMA East to move to Rock Island. The Secretary of Defense Justification for reversing the BRAC 91 law is quoted as follows: "...Retention (at Letterkenny) keeps this activity focused regionally upon the customer. ... Less than 25% of the work performed by SIMA East is associated with the Industrial Operations Command at Rock Island." The Commission recornrneded SIMA East be retained at Letterkenny until DISA completed its review of activities under DRMD 918. Two years after BRAC 93 the Army has taken the position that it is appropriate to move SIMA East based on the fact the decision was made in 1993 to retain central design organizations with the services. In summary, the GAO noted in 1991 it made no economic or mission sense to move SIMA East. In BRAC 93, the Secretary of Defense said based on the broad customer base of SIMA East and the small percent of work performed for the Industrrial Operations Command, it made sense to keep SIMA at Letterkenny. In 1995 the same customer relationships exist, a move will be both mission destructive and cost prohibitive, yet the Army has come to the same conclusion SIMA East should move to Rock Island, Illinois. And they should do so under the provisions of BRAC 93 law. This interpretation of BRAC 93 is clearly in violation of the spirit and intent and clearly is both a bad mission and a bad economic decision. The delayed decision on SIMA East is part of the overall Army strategy to remove all tenants from Letterkenny. Assuming the final BRAC decision for Letterkenny calls for the retention of a Depot Maintenance mission at Letterkenny, request SIMA East specifically be identified in the Commission recommendation to avoid unnecessary mission failure and one-time relocation expenses. \ LOGISTICS SUPPORT ACTIVITY-MAJOR ITEMS INFORMATION CENTER ( M E ) LOGSA-MIIC was not included in the Letterkenny BRAC package which was originally published. Since its publication, that organization has received notification they will be treated as a discretionary move to Huntsville, Alabama if the Letterkenny Depot Maintenance realignment action becomes law in BRAC 95. For this reason the LOGSA-MIIC costs were excluded fiom the BRAC 95 package for Letterkenny. EXHIBIT E NET COST-DDLP BACKUP DATA THIS DATA WAS NOT USED IN COST DATA EVEN THOUGH IT REPRESENTS DLA INPUT ... THE GAO REPORTED COST FIGURE WAS USED SINCE IT WAS SMALLER THAN THE DLA DATA Page 1 DLA DDLP TYPE COSTS NOS. EMPLOYEES IN CATEGORY SEVERANCE ENTITLEMENTS SEVERANCE PAY 617691 PER EMPLOYEE . UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION- 30WKSeS375 LUMP SUM ANNUAL LEAVE PAYOUT344 HRS Bf22.04 RETRAINING SEVERED EMPLOYEESb5,OOO GOVT -FICAIMEDICARE CONTRIBUTIONS FOR FERS(7.65%) EMPL GOVT -FICAIMEDICARE CONTRIBUTIONS FOR CSRS(1.45%) EMPL PCS COSTS COBRA MODEL- $33,044 PER EMPLOYEE DARSE COST (DESCOM EXPERIENCEb43,OOO PER EMPLOYEE ADDITIONAL AL COSTS BASED ON UNLIMITED LEAVE BALANCE LAW-1 60 HOURS@j.04 VSlP PAYOUT TOTAL PEOPLE COSTS . NON PEOPLE COSTS EMPLOYEE S SEVERED 157 $2,777,487 $1,766,250 $1,155,734 $785,000 $6,767 $6,413 $553,645 67,051,295 EMPL OPT RET WNSlP 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 EMPL EARLYRET WNSlP 76 $855,000 $559,463 $268,006 $1,900,000 $3,582,470 VSlP OPTION 23 $258,750 $169,311 $575,000 $1,003,061 EMPL ACCOMP MISSION 193 $6,377,492 $8,299,000 $14,676,492 EMPLFIND OTHER GOVTJOB 0 $0 $0 $0 PPS PLACE- MENT 0 $0 $0 $0 OTHER COSTS $0 TOTAL 449 $2,777,487 $2,880,000 $1,884,508 $785,000 $6,767 $6,413 $6,377,492 $8,299,000 $821,651 $2,475,000 -- $26,313,318 Page 2 DLA DDLP TYPE COSTS CONSTRUCTION AT DDAA FOR 36 ACRES OF HARDSTAND COST TO PREPARE FOR SHIPMENT 8 SHIP MATERIAL STORED AT LETTERKENNY GRAND TOTAL TOTAL $15,590,000 $57,100,000 $99,003,318 PPS PLACE- MENT $0 EMPLOYEE S SEVERED $7,051,295 OTHER COSTS $15,590,000 $57,100,000 $72,690,000 EMPL ACCOMP - MISSION - $14,676,492 EMPL OPT RET WNSlP - $0 EMPLFIND OTHER .- GOVT JOB $0 EMPL EARLY RET WNSlP - - - $3,582,470 VSlP OPTION - $1,003,061 TENANT MISSION IMPACT FOR: Defense Distribution Depot Letterkenny (DDLP) MISSION: To plan, direct, coordinate and manage the physical distribution functions relative to the receipt, storage, preservation/package, issue and transportation of major and secondary items. WHY LOCATED AT LETTERKENNY? DDLP, a former Army supply depot, is located at LEAD primarily to support the LEAD maintenance mission; however, DDLP's customers include Army, Navy, Air Force, Marines, FMS customers, plus numerous smaller organizations. MISSION IMPACT IF ELIMINATEDIRELOCATED? No impact if LEAD is closed. If LEAD remains, it would become difficult for LEAD to perform its mission as they do today. This is because DDLP is the supply source for LEAD. PLANNED DISPOSITION, IF KNOWN? Disestablish DDLP. Material remaining at DDLP at the time of disestablishment will be relocated to available storage space within the DOD distribution system. Documellt Separator % MANPOWER Page 1 @ LETTERKENNY ARMY DEPOT, PA 1. RECOMMENDATION : Realign Letterkenny Army Depot by transferring the towed and self-propelled combat vehicle mission . . to Anniston Army Depot. Retain an enclave for conventional ammunition storage and tactical missile disassembly and storage. Change the 1993 CommissionJs decision regarding the consolidating the tactical mission maintenance at Letterkenny by transferring missile guidance system workload to Tobyhanna Army Depot. 2. IMPACT : 2090 direct jobs 3 . COBRA RUN : POSITION ELIMINATED officer = 9 enlisted = 11 civilian = 1267 T O T A L = 1287 4 . ASIP : POSITION ELIMINATED WONT!P AGY USA A U D I T W2KR20 ACTUSA MEDDEP W459-A TMDE S U P G P #1 W4E4!A ACTMEA W4GV90 USA CECOM . , ! O L 6 0 2 DRMO !OL603 DEF PRINTING WOL6AA LETTERKENNY POSITION REALIGNED officer = 1 enlisted = 14 civilian = 788 TOTAL = 803 0 ( E N L ) 0 ( E N L ) 1 ( E N L ) 0 ( E N L ) 0 ( E N L ) 0 ( E N L ) 0 (ENL) 1 0 ( E N L ) 11 ( C I V ) TOTAL 9 ( O F F ) 11 ( E N L ) 1 2 6 7 (CI'.') P O S I T I O N REALIGNED W23H01 COE (BASE X) 0 (OFF) 0 (ENL) 2 ( C I V ) W 4 5 9 1 7 TMDE S P T GP (BASE X ) 0 ( O F F ) 0 (ENL) 60 ( C I V ) . W49052 DFAS (BASE X) - 0 ( O F F ) 0 (ENL) 78 ( C I V ) W49C!A DEF MEGA CTR (BASE X ) 1 (OFF) 1 4 (ENL) 165 ( C I V ) WLTMODL PUB WORK (BASE X ) TOTAL LETTERKENNY (TOAD) 5. RETAIN : AT LETTERKENNY WOH932 MICOM WOL6AA LETTERKENNY - AMMO STORAGE - QA - SECURITY - BASOPS ! W43T03 LOGSA W44K-A SIMA TOTAL 0 (OFF) 0 (ENL) 183 ( C I V ) 0 (OFF) 0 (ENL) 3 0 0 ( C I V ) 1 (OFF) 1 4 (ENL) 788 ( C I V ) 1 ( O F F ) 0 (ENL) 0 ( C I V ) 0 ( O F F ) 0 (ENL) 4 9 0 ( C I V ) 3 ( O F F ) 13 (ENL) 1 2 6 ( C I V ) 3 ( O F F ) 18 (ENL) 2 8 9 ( C I V ) 7 ( O F F ) 31 (ENL) 905 ( C I V ) Page 1 TOTAL ALL TENANTS (EXCLUDES DESCOM AND DDLP) TYPE COSTS TENANTS IDENTIFIED TO MOVE SYSTEMS INTEGRATION 8 MANAGEMENT ACTIVITY (SIMA) LOGISTICS SUPPORT ACTIVITY - MAJOR ITEMS INFO CENTER (MIIC) PUBLIC WORKS CENTER (pwc) DEFENSE MEGACENTER (DMC) --CHAMBERSBURG TESTMEASUREMENT8 DIAGNOSTIC EQUIPMENT (TMDE) SUPPORT DEFENSE FINANCE d ACCOUNTING SERVICE (DFAS) TOTAL COSTS FOR TENANTS TO MOVE TENANTS TO BE ELIMINATED TESTMEASUREMENT8 DIAGNOSTIC EQUIPMENT (TMDE) REGION 1 ARMY AUDIT AGENCY HEALTH CLINIC DEFENSE REUTILIZATION MARKETING OFC (DRMO) DEFENSE PRINTING EMPLOYEES SEVERED $1,511,943 $962,396 $2,283,625 $3,260,499 $1 3,180 -- $262,974 $8,294,617 $13,180 $63,139 $262,974 $125,680 $213,015 EMPL OPT RET $420,617 $132,827 $66,413 $0 $88,551 $22,138 $730,546 $0 $0 $22,138 $170,520 $22,138 - TOTAL $12,705,069 $8,597,023 $1 1,290,460 $9,872,449 $4,887,482 $915,601 $48,268,085 $1,355,978 $975,667 $91 5,601 $1,458,820 $331,197 EMPL EARLY RET $819,097 $309,929 $575,582 $376,342 $88,551 $22,138 $2,191,638 $22,138 $0 $22,138 $279,780 $0 VSlP OPTION $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $56,840 $0 EMPL ACCOMP MISSION $6,311,652 $3,802,200 $5,931,432 $3,954,288 $2,661,540 $228,132 $22,889,244 $684,396 $912,528 $228,132 $430,000 $0 EMPL FIND OTHER GOVT JOB $1,520,880 $760,440 $1,140,660 $0 $380,220 $0 $3,802,200 $228,132 $0 $0 $0 $76,044 PPS PLACE- MENT $1,520,880 $2,129,232 $1,292,748 $2,281,320 $760,440 $380,220 $8,364,840 $228,132 $0 $380,220 $0 $0 OTHER COSTS $600,000 $500,000 $0 $0 $895,000 I $0 $1,995,000 $180,000 $0 $0 $396,000 $20,000 Page 2 TOTAL ALL TENANTS (EXCLUDES DESCOM AND DDLP) TYPE COSTS MANAGEMENT ENGINEERING ACTIVITY (ME4 TOTAL COSTS OF TENANTS TO BE ELIMINATED TOTAL COST TO MOVE ALL TENANTS (EXCLUDING DDLP 8 DESCOM) EMPLOYEES SEVERED $213,015 $891,002 $9,185,618 EMPL OPT RET $0 $214,796 $945,342 EMPL EARLY RET $22,138 $346,193 $2,537,832 VSlP OPTION $0 $56,840 $56,840 EMPL ACCOMP MISSION $0 $2,255,056 $25,144,300 EMPL FIND OTHER GOVT JOB $76,044 $380,220 $4,182,420 TOTAL $1,020,593 $6,057,854 $54,325,939 PPS PLACE- MENT $684,396 $1,292,748 $9,657,588 OTHERCOSTS $25,000 $621,000 $2,616,000 Document Separator EXHIBIT G COSTS NOT INCLUDED IN THE NET COST FIGURES TENANT PRODUCTMW Page 1 SIMA-E PRODUCTIVITY LOSSES EXPLANATION OF ENCLOSURES 1 THROUGH 4: It is axiomatic that some level of productivity losses will be incurred as organizations are realigned. The real questions are: (1) What is the exlent of the productivity losses; (2) How long can they be expected to last; and (3) What is the confidence level in predicting one and two. This is not a speculative exercise for this organization. Adjusting estimates of time, effort, schedule, and cost as a result of changes to resource availability is a function of our daily business. The difference in this estimating exercise is one of scale, and even that is not a significant problem as, for various reasons, we have estimated changes of this magnitude several times before. Therefore, we have a great deal of confidence in our ability to predict the extent and duration of the productivity loss. In SIMA-E to determine the scope of productivity losses we draw upon two things. First, we draw upon our thirty years of experience in this business. Our extensive experience in this business enable us to determine with reasonable precision: (1) what our current level of productivity is; (2) what skills we are llkely to lose if the organization moves; and (3) how long it will take to re-grow them. Second, we use an industry accepted software estimating model called SLIM. (See Enclosure 1 for a list of commercial firms and government organizations that currently use this tool.) This tool enables us to assess the impacts of various productivity levels on time, effort, schedule and cost. Further, it allows us to compare our estimates to industry norms for like development efforts. In effect, it is an independent sanity check on reasonableness of estimates. Utilizing our experience and the modeling tool we proceded through the following steps to estimate the productivity losses. ' First, we developed a list of our potential personnel losses by type and quantity. Our survey of personnel indicates that a substantial number of people who embody the institutional knowledge of the organization will not move when it is transferred to another location. There will be a huge loss in functional knowledge, specialized experience with the application software, and in project management leadership. The numbers are exlensive as can be seen by the list shown at Enclosure 2. Second, based on our experience, we translated these personnel losses in to three numerically expressed levels of productivity that could be input into the model. In the SLIM model, productivity is expressed as a numeric index ranging from 1-30. The industry norm identified in the SLIM model for business type systems is 15.8. The average productivity index for SIMA-E in developing business type systems is currently 17.4. In practical terms, a higher index number means lower cost, shorter schedules, and less effort; and, a lower index number means the converse. Knowing what our current level of productivity is and knowing what skills and experience we are likely to lose, we are able to estimate what our levels of productivity will be in the first year, second year, and third year following a move. We estimate that in the first year we will fall below the industry norm of 15.8 PI to a 15.1 PL In the first year following a transfer it is anticipated that productivity will drop simcantly for the reasons cited in the first step. In fact, falling from 17.4 to 15.1 in the first year is a very conservative estimate of the level of fall. It could very well fall to a 14.1 or lower. During the second year following the move some of this loss should be recouped as the organization gradually rebuilds its core skill base. By the third year we should be approximately 90% of the way back to where we were before the transfer. Third, after determining what the Productivity Indices were likely to be for each of the years following the move, we input each indices into the model and recomputed the cost, schedule, effort values for each of the elements within the current work plan. Fourth, we compared the results with our current costs. The differences in values between the current plan and the future plans represent the productivity losses for the entire organization. This result is sho\srn in dollar value terms on the SIMA-E N 95 Business Plan spreadsheet shown as Enclosure 3. It is also shown graphically in the bar chart labeled SIMA-E PRODUCTIVITY LOSSES (Enclosure 4). The chart shows the estimated amount of productivity loss for each year and the cumulative loss for all three years. As can be seen in the total column the cumulative effect will be approximately 16.2 million dollars--a sum equal to the cost of one year of doing business. If this move takes place, since we are a fee for service organization, this increase in the cost of doing business will ultimately be passed back to the customer base in the form of increased rates and stretched out delivery schedules. To illustrate our productivity analytical process, we have included SLIM details for one application in the charts and narrative that follows. Detailed information for other or all applications is available upon request. LssLEgL-L* LLO HBZ EM^ ' h n s 'wps(no3 -0 BIU 'ZL Pn #SO sualuw Awaw 999E*z-cLL-L m XI snow 9286 UOOU I'S'O OOSL hdw3 I!O lleus Uwwwd AWM EoLtLaL ( 0 0 ~ ) mcm 1 ' W W Wdu!W F U eepuw 'M OOSL 'WI 1- ).Amr(L) MuJW MLU VA 'Usspyy -MI W ! W SZSL ww='d'w @M u w o L W L m (WL) MLU VA "UsPPYY -'!a ~ l W SZSL uw"od'Q~l!rd lu.uMm Ow S , 3 0 d WITS SLIM P0C"S Scott L.nCadu Intel Corpwstion 5200 NE E l m Young Parhay Hillsbom, OR 97124 (503) 5314466 Mark Lunun SRA 2000 1SthaNdNocth Mi*. VA 22201 (703) am-1884 Beverly Lemplckl Gknn Lueders Hompdl ATS 21111 N. 1SUIAuantla U988 PhocmiAt8503(1 1402-436-2306 Mitre Corporation 7525 Colshire Drive McL8an. VA 22102 Mlke Mah QSM Associates. Inc. Henry Avenue Prdeasional Building 8 MsPdaw Ridge PittsfieM. MA 01201 1-413494988 Ted Makovvl# Lorsl Fedorol!3yakms~ 700 N. FmduickAvaw# 1 m B 0 1 -10, MD m 7 9 (301) 240-7524 DSVM a. Marcus w . d A m y S M A im s~ street St. Lourn. CO 63105-2834 (314) 331-4611 Chrldlne L N W m Roclmrdl 400 Collim Rosd N.E. Crdsr Rap&, IA 52- (310) - Wayne Metun IDS Financial Servicss IDS Tovmr 10. No8171 Minnempdm. MN 55440 (612) 671-7020 Steve Otte ClncinMti Bell 600 Vine streel P.O. Bor 1838 Cincinnati. OH 45201 16117&e5951) Nancy Oxenburg - hc. 1 1 0 0 V l ~ i n h ~ MIS 121 fl. Weahindm. PA 1- 1-2156414s2 NIW Pml l l bY lp LORAL ~R~~ Rmm 4003. MIS 409 8.uwds.M)20L)17 13014@3-1066 Wah Paskey CACl International 1100 North Olehe Road Mington. VA 22201 841-7910 9 ~ l k . h P M NadNrsy.tmbmmMd 1421 J.lkronD.vi.hy-JPZW M i , VA 22243 ~ ~ 4 0 ~ Lmcnce H. Putnam Sr. QSM. Inc. 2OW CorpaPte R i Suite 900 Mean , VA 2201 2 1-703-749-3815 H. Puburn Jr. OSM. Inc. =CapmrRidg. Suit. 900 Mdan, VA 22012 1-703-74S-3818 Barbara Putnun. OSM. Inc. 2000-R- S u i 900 Mdan. VA 22012 I-703-1-15 Tom RepaIda M T A T U . Inc. 4375 Fair Lake8 Court FPWa. VA 22124 o- Chlp Raymond us &my ISSC 6000 GVI Street - Suite l22A Fort Bdvioc. VA 22MIO C103) 806-3265 Dan Rkfurd LoRAL FederPl Systems 6600 Rocldedge Drfvs Be(heada. M) 2081 7 (301) 4911445 D.v#sKh. KPMGPealMsrm#r 2001 M Strsrl, N.W. w=ltin@m.M:- 0 487-3338 Helm Rornanowaky Rochdi 400 Cdlim Road N.E. Cedar Rapid.. IA 52498 019) - Mlke R o u H 21111 N. 1 O t h A m r P.O. Bac21111-2P3mz PhomkALMo2l (ma- ENCLOSURE ! rEgr 16 OE-Le-LLM ~ ' ~ C R I E O S E m '0 'd WBBKWUl ~ ! ~ O S B run- U ~ A y'q urn 9901-zv6 eo?J #XX)Z 30 'W&!WM J O W W L - MN 'WWS 9 OLEL u o g w -s m d l u o g .Jp 'SaMS 86- tLoc-L9Z (LLL) OBW-LOUL Vd '&nq~eqwa(3 1 W S ~ ems m s n )r.-s lu(9 zLOP6tLIOL-L ZLOa VA 'U'usoply 006 WnS *M OOgZ '='I l)YSO ).+ms 'I' ~ V l l l M ZWL 08 tE-L-ceLL0-6 -eJd ' k d Q1 EZQL ~I IWWS ep e m u 09 lY3 l3lv3lV s r l w u r A a u a u r r m (or*) QLO L Z M '-W 3 w n s - p e o ~ w w O t E ~ w!lP.Iodro3 oe3ue!3S loyldwo3 IOIS h w a ZOLZZ VA ' U * W w W!c(Sp3 SZSL v- OJi!w wws .lJw Page 1 NATURE OF EMPLOYEE LOSS: -- - - EMPLOYEES TO BE SEVERED EMPLOYEES OPTIONAL RETIREMENT EMPLOYEES EXERCISING DISCONTINUED SERVICE RETIREMENT EMPLOYEES WHO WlLL FIND ANOTHER GOVERNMENT JOB EMPLOYEES WHO WlLL BE PLACED UNDER PPS TOTAL NUMBER OF EMPLOYEES WHO WlLL NOT ACCOMPANY MISSION - - - - -- 30 19 37 20 20 1 26 SIMA-E FY 95 BUSINESS PLAN BRAC PRODUCTIVITY IMPACTS FUND SOURCE HQ AMC AMC AMC AMC AMC AMC OTHER AMC ERF APG l&SA I&SA AMCCOM AMCCOM AMCCOM DESCOM DESCOM DESCOM DESCOM DESCOM DESCOM DESCOM DESCOM LOGSA MlCOM NON-AMC SLA SLA SLA SLA DFAS DFAS DFAS DFAS DFAS DFAS JLSC JLSC JLSC JLSC JLSC DLA DMC-C EUR EUR DOD DOD DOD DOD DODIDA IMMC LEA AREA OF SUPPORT AMC LEGACY SYS 8 BUSINESS PROCESS SUPPORT AAMMIS AMCISS APPROVED WORKLOAD IEMSlASSSC LEGACY SYS SPT AMMO-MISSION CIO APPROVED WORKLOAD SDS LEGACY SUPPORT OF ERF SDS AMMO PROGRAM RASFlARSlAMClSS AT A M AMCISS INTERFACE TO IFS-M IOC CENTRALIZED WKLD SDS LEGACY SYS SUPPORT AMMO INVENTORY ACCT PROGRAM SDS IN SUPPORT OF WR PRGM (AR214) SDS WAR RESERVES AR-2 (MAILS) DESCOM SDS LEGACY SYS SUPPORT SDS LEGACY SYSTEMS SUPPORT DEPOT WKLD FORECAST SYS AFES SUPPORT - MCALESER AMCISS TECHNICAL SPT/lRAINING PALADIN MASS REQUISITIONS UNIQUE ITEM TRACKING ARMS WORKSHOPIWBLICATIONS SINGLE STOCK FUND SDS IMPL AT AMMO PLANTS PHASE II PROCESS OF ASLP SLA INITIATIVES DFAS SDS SYS SPT-AFES DFAS SDS SYS SPT ATAAPS DFAS SDS SYS SPT RASFIARS DFAS SDS SYS SPT-SIFS DFAS SDS SYS SPT - SlFS (CAWCF) APARS/ICAR SUPPORT TO TOAD JLSC LEGACY SYSTEM SUPPORTIAMCLB JLSC D M MRPICMF JLSC LEGACY SYSTEM SUPPORT-DEPOT MAlNT AMMO BPM CONVERSION AMMO SDS + SOFWARE DEVELOPMENT ASSISTANCE EXECUTIVE SOFIWARE SUPPORT SDS LEGACY SUPPORT OF RSAM SDS @ KTOWN IEMS AT DECA ED1 IMPLEMENTATION SDS LEGACY SYS SPT - INTERFACES TO DMMlS SPERRY 5000/80 SUPPORT MODIFICATION OF ILS VHFS SITE SURVEY SDS WAR RESERVES - AR3 AMC LEGACY SYS &BUSINESS PROCESS FW6 FIRST SECOND THIRD ORGANIC YEAR . YEAR YEAR COSTS COSTS COSTS COSTS It would take 810.5 million more t o accomplish the same workload one year after the move. Enclosure 3 SIMA-E PRODUCTMTY LOSSES EXPLANATION OF SLIM PROJECT ASSUMPTIONS REPORT: This is a project assumption sheet from the SLIM model. The project assumption sheet identifies the major parameters employed in developing the estimated cost, schedule and effort associated with a particular project. This is the project assumption sheet for the Army Material Command Installation Supply System. It indicates that we have a requirement to modify approximately 44000 to 64000 lines of code within this system during the FY 95. It also indicates that our anticipated level of productivity for this system is 17.4. This number is a index that represents SIMA-E current (FY 95) tooling and methods capability, the technical constraints of this particular system, and the skills, knowledge, and abilities of the individuals responsible for the development. This productivity index in conjunction with the size of the system are used by the model to determine the cost of development, the amount of time to develop, and the amount of effort required. Project Assumptions I Name AMCISS FY 95 BUSINESS PLAN Start Date 1011195 Phases Included Phase Name Shape Functional Design Medium Fmnt Load Rayleigh Main Build Default Rayleigh Sblng (ESLOC) Low Most Likely High 44000 56000 64000 Predominant Appilcatlon TVW Business -. Complexity ~ i i - Business 100 % Productlvlty (User SpecMed) PI 17.4 PI Uncertainty Slightly Uncertain AMClSS FY 95 BUSINESS PLAN Page 4 SIMA-E PRODUCTIVITY LOSSES EXPLANATION OF THE SLIM DEFAULT PI DETAIL: This is the SLIM Productivity Index detail input sheet. It is used to determine a level of productivity that the activity can use as an input into the model. At its foundation is a world wide industry productivity average for the various types of sofihvare developed. The average for 'business type" software as of 1993 tvas 15.8 on a scale of 1- 30 with the high number indicating greater productivity. This average number is adjusted up or down by an organization depending on how each of the detail questions are answered. In the left column is a series of questions pertaining to tooling and methods the organization has at its disposal, questions pertaining to any technical constraints associated with the particular project, and questions pertaining to personnel of the organization. In the right column is our responses to these questions. The responses are expressed in a numerical scale from 1 to 10 with five being average. The numeric responses are calculated and used to adjust the productivity index up or down. We have shown four separate Default PI Detail entry sheets. There is one that represents our current situation and there are three more that identify how we would have to answer the questions for each of the three post move years. For the post move years the tooling and methods questions and the technical constraints questions have been held constant. In other words, we have assumed that there would be no impact in these areas resulting fiom the move. However, the Personnel Profile for the post move years has been modified to reflect the impacts on personnel structure and ability resulting fiom a move. Year 1 shows the greatest impact and year 3 the least. CIlJ-NT YEAR PRODUCTIVITY LEVEL Default PI Detail Peak Manpower Constralnts Lowest nla Schedule and Quality Prlority Schedule, quality, cost equally important Producthrlty Assessment Categories ToollnglMethods What is your level of familiarity with the development hardware? What is the awilabiiity of the development system? What is the role of database management in this system? What is your DBMS tools capability? What is the volume of screens anticipated in this ystem? What is your screen writer capability? What is the volume of reports anticipated In this system? What is your report writer capability? What is the volume of file handling anticipated in this system? What is the capability of your file handling tools? What is your level of capability using diagramming W s ? What is your level of capability using testing tools? What is your level of capability using programming tools? What is your level of capability using configuration management tools? What is your level of capability using project management tools? What is your level of capability using documentation b l s ? What is your level of capability using QA tools? What is the capability of your database conversion utilities? What is the level of integration of your tools? What is the robustness of your development standard? (O=no standard) What is the level of adherence to your dewlopment standard? What is your level of experience with it? What is the level of adaptability of your development standard in handling diierent size systems? Technical Constralnts What is the intensity of memory utilization in this system? What is the volume of data in this system? What is the complexity of data manipulation in this system? What is the volume of new algorithms? What is the complexity of developing new algaithms? What is the volume of new logic? What is the complexity of developing new logic? What is the volume of expected requirements changes? What is the level of complexity anticipated in interfacing with the customen What is the level of complexity anticipated in interfacing with external systems? What is the level of difficulty in integrating and testing existing code? What is the severity level of the documentation requirements? What is the level of stability of your hardware platform? Hlghest nla Response 7 8 Unknownha Unknownlna 7 5 5 5 5 5 3 4 5 4 5 4 4 3 3 , 3 4 4 5 Response 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 AMCISS FY 95 BUSINESS PLAN Page 8-1 CURRENT YEAR PRODUCTIVITY LEVEL I 'I Default PI Detail I I What is the lewl of stability of your system sofhvare? 5 Pemonnel Pmflle What is the effectiveness of management and leadership? What is the amilabiiity of training? What is the anticipated level of staff tumowr? What is the availability of skilled manpower? What is the level of functional knowledge? What level of experience does the development team haw with this application type? What is the anticipated level of motimtion of the development team? What is the level of cohesiveness of the development team? What is the level of human communication complexity? Computed PFoducthrWy Index 17.4 Response 5 5 3 5 7 6 5 5 5 AMCISS FY 95 BUSINESS PLAN Page 8-2 F I R S T Y E A R P R O D U C T I V I T Y L E V E L Default PI Detail I Peak Manpower Constralnts Lowest nla Schedule and Qualily Priority Schedule, quality, cost equally important PrPdudhrity Assessment Categorbs ToollnglMethods What is your level of familiarity with the development hardware? What is the a~ilabil i ty of h e development system? What is the role of database management in this system? What is your DBMS tools capability? What is the volume of screens anticipated in this system? What is your screen writer capability? What is the volume of reports anticipated in this system? What is your report Miter capability? What is the volume of file handling anticipated in this system? What is the capability of your file handling tools? What is your level of capability using diagramming tools? What is your level of capability using testing tools? What is your level of capability using programming tools? What is your level of capability using configuration management tools? What is your level of capability using project management tools? What is your level of capability using documentation tools? What is your level of capability using QA tools? What is the capability of your database conversion utilities? What is the level of integration of your tools? What is the robustness of your development standard? (O=no standard) What is the level of adherence to your development standard? What is your level of experience with it? What is the level of adaptability of your development standard in handling different size systems? Technkal Constralnts What is the intensity of memory utiliiation in this system? What is the wlume of data in this system? What is the complexity of data manipulation in this system? What is the volume of new algorithms? What is the complexity of developing new algorithms? What is the wlume of new logic? What is the complexity of developing new logic? What is the volume of expected requirements changes? What is the level of complexity anticipated in interfacing with the customer? What is the level of complexity anticipated in interfacing with external systems? What is the level of difficulty in integrating and testing existing code? What is the severity level of the documentation requirements? What is the level of stability of your hardware platform? Hlghest nla Response 7 8 Unknownlna Unknownlna 7 5 5 5 5 5 3 4 5 4 5 4 4 3 3 ' 3 4 4 5 Response 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 AMCISS FY 95 BUSINESS PLAN Page 8-1 F I R S T YEAR P R O D U C T I V I T Y L E V E L Default PI Detail I I What is the level of stability of your system software? 5 Personnel Profile What is the effectiveness of management and leadership? What is the availability of training? What is the anticipated level of staff turnover? What is the availability of skilled manpower? What is the level of functional knowledge? What level of experience does the development team have with this application type? What is the anticipated level of motivation of the development team? What is the level of cohesiveness d the development team? What is the level of human communication complexity? Computed Ploducthrlty Index 15.1 Response 4 5 9 4 3 3 5 5 5 AMCISS FY 95 BUSINESS PLAN Page 8-2 S E C O N D Y E A R P R O D U C T I V I T Y LEVEL Default PI Detail I Peak Manpower Constraints Loweat nla , Schsdub and Quallty Prlorny Sclledulu, quallty, cost equally important Pmducttvlty Assessment Categories ToollnglMet hods What is your level of familiarity with the development hardware? What is the availability of the development system? What is the role of database management in this system? What is your DBMS tools capability? What is the volume of screens anticipated in this system? What is your screen writer capability? What is the volume of reports anticipated in this system? What is your report writer capability? What is the volume of file handling anticipated in this system? What is the capability of your file handling tools? What is your level of capability using diagramming tools? What is your level of capability using testing tools? What is your level of capability using programming tools? What is your level of capability using configuration management tools? What is your level of capability using project management tools? What is your level of capability using documentation tools? What is your level of capability using QA tools? What is the capability of your database conversion utilities? What is the level of integration of your tools? What is the robushess of your development standard? (O=no standard) What is the level of adherence to your development standard? What is your lew1 of experience with it? What is the level of adaptability of your dewlopment standard in handling different size systems? Technkal Constnlnts What is the intensity of memory utilization in this system? What is the volume of data in this system? What is the complexity of data manipulation in this syslem? What is the volume of new algorithms? What is the complexity of developing new algorithms? What is the volume of new logic? What is the complexity of dewloping new logic? What is the volume of expected requirements changes? What is the level of complexity anticipated in interfacing with the customer? What is the level of complexity anticipated in interfacing with external systems? What is the level of difficulty in integrating and testing existing code? What is the severity level of the documentation requirements? What is the level of stability of your hardware platform? AMCISS FY 95 BUSINESS PLAN Hlghest nla Response 7 8 Unknownlna Unknownlna 7 5 5 5 5 5 3 4 5 4 5 4 4 3 3 , 3 4 4 5 Response 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 Page 8-1 SECOND YEAR PRODUCTIVITY LEVEL Default PI Detail What is the level of stability of your system software? 5 Penonnel Pmflle What is the effectivaness of management and leadership? ' What is the availability of training? What is the anticipated level of staff tumowr? What is the availability of skilled manpower? What is We level of functional knowledge? What lewl of experience does the development team haw with this application type? What is h e anticipated level of motivation of the dewlopment team? What is the level of cohesiveness of the development team? What is h e level of human communication complexity? Computed ProdudhrWy Index 15.3: Response 4 5 6 5 4 4 5 5 5 AMCISS FY 95 BUSINESS PLAN Page 8-2 T H I R D Y E A R P R O D U C T I V I T Y L E V E L Default PI Detail Peak Manpower Constralnts Lowest nla Schedule and Quallty Prlorty Schedule, quality, cost equally important Productlvlty Assessment Categorles Toollng/Methods What is your level of familiarity with h e development hardware? What is the a~ilabil i ty of the development system? What is the role of database management in this system? What is your DBMS tools capability? What is the volume of screens anticipated in this system? What is your screen writer capability? What is the volume of reports anticipated in this system? What is your report writer capability? What is the volume of file handling anticipated in this system? What is the capability of your file handlina tools? What is your level ofcapability using diagramming tools? What is your level of capability using testina tools? What is your level of capabilitjr using tools? What is your level of capability using configuration management t d s ? What is your level of capability using project management tools? What is your level of capability using documentation tools? What is your level of capability using QA tools? What is the capability of your database conversion utilities? What is the level of integration of your tools? What is the robustness of your development standard? (O=no standard) What is the level of adherence to your developrnent standard? What is your level of experience with it? What is the level of adaptability of your development standard in handling different size systems? Technkal Constnlnts What is the intensity of memory utilization in this system? What is the volume of data in this system? What is the complexity of data manipulation in this system? What is the volume of new algorithms? What is the complexity of developing new algorithms? What is the d u m e of new logic? What is the complexity of developing new logic? What is the volume of expected requirements changes? What is the level of complexity anticipated in interfacing with the customer? What is the level of complexity anticipated in interfacing with external systems? What is the level of diiculty in integrating and testing existing code? What is the severity level of the documentati on requirements? What is the level of stability of your hardware platform? Highest nla Response 7 8 Unknownlna Unknownlna 7 5 5 5 5 5 3 4 5 4 5 4 4 3 3 3 4 4 5 Response 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 AMCISS FY 95 BUSINESS PLAN Page 8-1 THIRD YEAR PRODUCTIVITY LEVEL Default PI Detail What is the level of stability of your system software? Personnel Pmflb What is the effecti- of management and leadership? What is the availability of training? What is the anticipated level of staff turnoven What is the availability of skilled manpower? What is the level of functional knowledge? What level of experience does the development team ham with this application type? What is the anticipated level of motimtion of the development team? What is the level of cohesiveness of the dewlopment team? What is the level of human communication complexity? I Computed Pmducthrlty Index 16.17. , . Response 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 AMCISS FY 95 BUSINESS PLAN Page 8-2 SIMA-E PRODUCTIVITY LOSSES EXPLANATION OF THE SLIM BAR CHARTS: The Time Profile, The FOC MTTD Profile, and The UNINP Cost Profile. Given the size of the system change, the Productivity Index for the organization and any known constraints the model is run and time, cost, effort, staffing, and defect outputs are calculated. The remaining charts show the results of running the model under four different scenarios. The first shows the results that are reflected in our current business plan. The next three show the results from various level of productivity loss resulting from moving the organization to another location. CURRENT YEAR PRODUCTIVITY LEVEL These three profiles summarize the results of running the model with a 17.4 Productivity Index--our current year productivity level. Each profile shows four bars numbered 1, 2, 3, and 4. Bar 1 represents the current year. Bar 2 represents the first post move year productivity level. Bar 3 represents the second post move year productivity level. Bar 4 represents the third post move year productivity level. In addition to the three profiles, there is a table in the lower right corner of the chart. This table summarizes the results from running the model with a current year PI of 17.4. It shows the expected values for Time, Effort, Uninflated Cost, Peak StafT, Mean Time To Defect (MTTD) and the Size of the change. The Time, MTTD, and the Uninflated Cost expected values are shown in the first column of each bar chart. They can be visually compared to the three post move years shown by bars 2, 3, and 4. Bar 2 shows what the impact of a Productivity Index of 15.1 would have, Bar 3 shows what a productivity Index of 15.9 would have, and Bar 4 shows what a Productivity Index of 16.7 would have. Bar 2 (PI 15.1) would be our likely level of productivity the first year at a new location. Bar 3 (PI 15.9) would be our most likely level of productivity the second year at a new location. Finally, Bar 4 (PI 16.7) would be our level of productivity during the third year at our new location.. The Time Profile bar chart shows the degree to which time to accomplish the same level of work increases with the decline in productivity. Costs, as seen in the Uninflated Cost Profile bar chart, also increase dramatically as more effort has to be applied over a longer period of time to get the same job done. In addition, the model also shows that there is a hidden cost in a loss in productivity. That cost occurs with the loss in quality. People with limited knowledge and experience make more mistakes. This is shown in the Fully Operational Complete Mean Time To Defect Profile. This bar chart indicates that the software will be in operation for a shorter number of days before the user encounters a problem which must be corrected. SIMA-E PRODUCTIVITY LOSSES EXPLANATION OF THE SLIM PROJECT CONSTRAINTS REPORT: This is the Project Constraints sheet from the SLIM Model. While the basic assumptions on size and productivity are the foundation of the estimates, known constraints can also be factored into the model. In addition, a desired probability for being able to live within the constraint can also be computed. In this particular instance the customer has indicated that there is a cost constraint of $591,000. Being a fee for service organization, we have indicated that we want at least a 75% confidence of coming in under this particular cost. Project Constraints Parameter Constraint Time (Months) nla Effort (PM) nla Cost ($ 1000) 59 1 Min Staff (People) nla Max Staff (People) nla FOC MTTD (Days) n/a Desired Probability Weight 16 AMCISS FY 95 BUSINESS PLAN 100 % total defect tuning factor $ 101993 1 MYR burdened labor rate Page 5 C U R R E N T Y E A R P R O D U C T I V I T Y L E V E L M O D E L E S T I M A T E S Time Profile FOC MTTD Profile 4.0 3.5 Uninf Cost Profile I , 1200 Solution 1 Time Effort Uinf Cst Pk Stan M n D Size CURRENT YEAR PROD LEVEL 60.48 PM 785 People 3.09 Days 55333 ESLOC PI 17.4 1 2 3 4 Solutions SIMA-E PRODUCTIVITY LOSSES EXPLANATION OF THE SLIM FIRST YEAR PRODUCTIVITY LEVEL REPORT. This chart shows the results of the model being run at a Productivity Index of 15.1. Looking at the various profiles it is evident that there is a substantial impact on the amount of time require to do the job, on the costs of doing the job and the amount of defects that will be uncovered in the fielded system by dropping from a productivity level of 17.4 to one of 15.1. In addition, the table indicates that there now is only a 3% probability of getting the job done at the customer constrained cost of $591,000 whereas, when we ran the model at 17.4 our confidence level of bringing the job in at our under cost was 75%. The corresponding Default Productivity Index Detail chart for this scenario was held constant as far as tooling and methods and technical constraints are concerned. The only thing that was modified was the responses to the question in the Personnel Profile. They were modified to reflect the decline in management capability, the increase in staff turnover, and the loss in skill, functional knowledge and application expertise. F I R S T Y E A R P R O D U C T I V I T Y L E V E L M O D E L E S T I M A T E S Time Profile r - 7' Sdutions Uninf Cost Profile FOC MTTD Profile f 4.~ Solution 2 FIRST YEAR PROD LWEL 15.61 Months 121.71 PM Uinf Cst 1034 S 1000 3% Prob P k Staff 12.61 People 1.82 Days 55333 ESLOC PI 15.1 1 2 3 4 Sduti ons SIMA-E PRODUCTIVITY LOSSES EXPLANATION OF THE SLIM SECOND and THIRD YEAR PRODUCTIVITY LEVEL REPORTS. These charts show the model being run at 15.9 and 16.1 respectively. These gradual increases in the Productivity Level represent an assumption that core skill levels can be recouped over time. In the model this has been done by modifjlng our responses to the personnel questions imposed; i.e., providing more optimistic responses. The results are that the time, cost, and quality pictures start to improve to the point where we have 11% and 38% chance of meeting customer cost objectives. S E C O N D Y E A R P R O D U C T I V I T Y LEVEL M O D E L E S T I M A T E S Time Profile P I 8 solutions Uninf Cost Profile /1200 FOC MlTD Profile Solution 3 SECOND YEAR PROD LEVEL Tirm 14.52 Months Effort 85.43 PM Uint Cst 811 0 1000 Pk Staff 10.70 People 297 Days 55333 ESLOC 11% Prob I PI 15.8 T H I R D Y E A R P Q O D U C T I V I T Y L E V E L M O D E L E S T I M A T E S Time Profile FOC MlTD Profile 1 2 3 4 Solutions Uninf Cost Profile l-----Il2O0 Solution 4 T HlRD YEAR PROD LEVEL 19.47 Months 74.82 PM Uinf Cst 636 S 1000 Prob P k Staff 9.07 People 2.67 Days 55333 ESLOC PI 16.7 28 Mar 95 Loss of Productivity Worksheet(Major item Information Center) 1 . Personnel Categories and Numbers of: Functionals (GS-11 and up supply-analysts) - 43 Software (GS-11 and up systems analysts) - 58 Other ( G S - 9 and below supply and systems - 26 analysts; all other series and grades) TOTAL - 127 2. Approximately 40% of onboard employees have indicated they will accompany the mission to Huntsville. AL. Thus, a 60% loss of onboard employees: Functionals - 60% x 43 = 26 people to be hired Software - 60% x 58 = 35 people to be hired Other - 60% x 26 = 16 people to be hired TOTAL = 77 3. Applying the dollar value loss in productivity while these new hires are brought up to full productive level, using the SIMA factors: Functionals - 26 x $220.332 = $5,728,632 Software - 35 x $153,720 = $5,380,200 Other - 16 x $30,744 = $49 1,904 TOTAL = $11,600,736 US Army TMDE Support Center-Letterkenny Productivity Losses Replace 19 Technicians Assume : - Fully knowledgeable of electronics or physical science - 60% productive 1st yr - 958 productive 2nd yr - Fully productive 3rd yr - Must work overtime to make up lost productive hours. (No excess capacity) 19 X 2080 X .4 = 15,808 Hrs Lost 19 X 2080 X .05 = 1,976 Hrs Lost 17,800 Hrs Lost 17,800 Hrs @ $25.00 hr (OT rate) = $445,000 US Army TMDE Support-Region 1 Productivity Losses MH Lost for Move 4 0 MH X 9 employees = 3 6 0 MH 360 MH X $21.50/HR (AVG) = $ 8,000 Training 7 new employees - 75% Productive, 1st yr - 95% Productive, 2nd yr 3700 MH lost 1st yr 750 MH lost 2nd yr 4450 MH lost Page 1 MEA 4 0 1 0 0 1 9 0 15 TENANT FOR WHICH V S P COSTS NOT COVERED BASED ON FAST TRACK BRAC PLANS* SIMA EAST LOGSA-MIIC PUBLIC WORKS CENTER (Pwc) DEFENSE MEGACENTER @MC) CHAMBERSBURG TMDE SUPPORT TMDE REGION 1 ARMY AUDIT ACTMTY HEALTH CLINIC DFENSE PRINTING PPS PLACE MENT 20 28 17 30 10 3 0 5 o VSIP OPTION 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -- 0 EMPLOYEES SEVERED 30 19 44 65 0 0 1 5 4 OTHER COSTS 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o EMPL ACCOMP MISSION 83 50 78 52 3 5 9 12 3 - o TOTAL 209 127 183 164 58 16 13 15 6 EMPL OPT RET 19 6 3 0 4 0 0 1 1 ---EMPL FIND OTHER GOVT JOB 20 10 15 0 5 3 0 0 1 EMPL EARLY RET 37 14 26 17 4 1 0 1 0 Documel-t Separator A P R - 1 9 - 9 5 W E D 9 ' 1 6 WET PRESENT VALUES REPORT (COBRA ~ 5 . 0 8 ) Data A8 O f 07:59 04/05/1995, Report Created O8:09 04/19/1995 , Dqmrtmcnt : ARMY b t Ion Pat kaae : bE2L3-2L , ~'cenar l o f i 1s r C:\BRAC~S\CQRA\TENANTS.CBR Std F c t r e F i l e r C:\BRAC9S\COBRA\TENANTSSSFF Year .-a- 1996 lW7 1998 ; 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 Cost (S) - - - - - - - 0 54,326,000 -1,298,000 -1,298,000 - 1,298,000 -1,298,000 -1,298,000 - 1,298,000 - 1,298,000 - 1,298,000 - 1,298,000 -1,298,000 -1,298,000 -1,298,000 -1,298,000 - 1,298,000 - 1 ,298,000 - 1,298,000 -1,298,000 -1,298,000 -1,298,000 -1,298,000 -1,298,000 - 1,298,000 -1,298,000 -1,298,000 - 1,298,000 -1,298,000 -1,298,000 -1,298,000 - 1,298,000 - 1,298,000 - 1,298,000 -1,298,000 -1,298,000 -1,298,000 - 1,298,000 -1,298,000 -1,298,000 -1,298,000 -1,298,000 - 1,298,000 - 1,298,000 -1,298,000 -1,298,000 - 1,298,000 - 1,298,000 -1,298,000 - 1,298,000 -1,298,000 -1,298,000 -1,298,000 -1,298,000 -1,298,000 -1,298,000 - 1,298,000 -1,298,000 -1,298,000 - 1,298,000 -1,298,000 -1,298,000 Adjusted Cost($) -..----*-------- 0 52,159,688 -t,212,886 -1,180,425 -1,148,832 -1,118,084 -1,088,160 -1,059,036 - 1,030,692 -1,003,107 -976,260 -950,131 -924,702 -899,953 - 875,867 -852,425 -629,611 -807,407 - 785.798 -764,767 - 744,298 -724,378 -704,991 -686,122 -667,759 -649,887 -632,494 -615,566 -599,091 -583,056 -567,452 -552,264 -537,483 -523,098 -509,098 -495,473 -482,212 -469,306 -456,745 -444,521 -432,624 -421,045 -409,776 -398,809 -388,135 -377,747 -367,637 -357,798 -348,222 -338,902 -329,831 -321,004 -312,413 -304,051 -i?9S,914 -287,994 -280,286 -272,m - 265,483 -258,378 -251,463 MET PRESENT VALUES REPORT (COBRA J5.m) - Page 2 Dnts As O f 07:59 04/05/1w, Report Created 08:09 04/19/1995 - Departnct~t : ARMY Optiof~ Pecknge r DE2L3-21 Scensr lo F i le a C:\BRAC9S\COORA\TENANTSSCBR Std Fct r s F i l e : C:\BRACPS\COBRA\TEIANT~.SFF Document S eparator Page 1 TENANT ORGANIZATIONS LOCAL ANNUAL EXPENDITURES DLA SUPPLY DEPOT-DDLP SYSTEMS INTEGRATION & MANAGEMENT ACTIVITY (SIMA) LOGlSlTlCS SUPPORT ACTIVITY- MAJOR ITEMS INFO CTR (MIIC) PUBLIC WORKS CENTER (PWC) DEFENSE MEGA CENTER (DMC) TEST MEASUREMENT & DIAGNOSTIC EQUIPMENT (TMDE) SPT & GROUP 1 DEFENSE FINANCE & ACCOUNTING SERVICE ARMY AUDIT AGENCY (AAA) HEALTH CLINIC DEFENSE REUTILIZATION 8 MARKETING OFFICE (DRMO) DEFENSE PRINTING MANAGEMENT ENGINEERING ACTIVITY TOTAL ANNUAL EXPENDITURES $1 9,916,455 $20,000,000 $1 2,400,000 - $1 8,730,216 $1 0,281,958 $5,000,000 $4,929,000 $960,000 $840,000 $1,706,101 $222,000 $900,000 $95,885,730 Documellt Separator Tenant Fair Share of Depot Infrastructure Costs Impact on Rates Based on a review of the FY94 tenant ISSAs, it is determined that $8,000,000 of their current assessment would have to be absorbed by Letterkenny Army Depot. The majority of these costs are for the maintenance and upkeep of depot facilities (buildings, water treatment plan, roads, etc), security, maintenance of shared computer equipment and other miscellaneous expenses now common to both depot sind tenants. Using a projected workload of 1,890,000 hours (1,600,000 in maintenance and 290,000 in Ammo) for FY96 (this number changes all the time), this $8 million extra cost would equate to $4.23 increase to LEAD'S direct labor rate. QPR-05-1995" 13 : 45 LEQD SDSLE-RQ 717 261 9268 P.02/03 w . . . .- ---- ...... - - ....... . . ......... -- , ..... -..-..--- -.- . ---- - - .- ... ... . . . - - ..... , . RPR-85-1995 13:45 LEFID SDSLE-RFI 717 267 3268 P.03/03 .. ..... . ___.____ -.- .-... . - . , ..----.-- --. - < - _ < ... __.I._... .-- ----.-..-- . . . . . . . . I . . . . . . . -. . . . . . I . . . . . . . . --. . . . ...- . ,. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . TOTFIL F .03 Documellt Separator CRITERIA GOOD MORNING/MTERNOON, MY NAME IS THE DOD BRAC 95 PROPOSAL FOR LETTERKENNY ARMY DEPOT HAS A SIGNIFICANT IMPACT ON THE TENANTS LOCATED AT THAT INSTALLATION.. .IN SHORT, THE MANDATE IS TO EITHER RELOCATE OR ELIMINATE ALL TENANTS AT LETTERKENNY AS PART OF THE PROPOSED BRAC REALIGNMENT ACTION. THE LETTERKENNY BRAC PROPOSAL FAILS TO RECOGNIZE THE FULL MISSION AND COST IMPACTS OF SUCH AN ACTION. IT IS BELIEVED THE RIGHT DECISION NEEDS TO BE MADE OBJECTIVELY BASED THE BASIC DOD BRAC DECISION CRITERIA IN ORDER TO PROVIDE A BALANCED DECISION FOR BOTH NATIONAL DEFENSE AND THE TAX PAYERS OF AMERICA. Page 1 THE PURPOSE OF THE BRIEFING IS TO PRESENT FACTS, NOT EMOTION, WHICH CLEARLY SHOW THE PLAN TO REMOVE ALL TENANTS AT LETTERKENNY IS A BAD DECISION BASED ON THE APPLICATION OF THE BRAC DECISION CRITERIA. THE LOWER LEFT INSERT SHOWS THE SCOPE OF TENANTS AT LETTERKENNY. IF DEPOT MAINTENANCE AND TENANTS ARE PULLED FROM LETTERKENNY, THERE WILL BE LITT'LE LEFT. CLEARLY, THE IMPACT IS MUCH GREATER THAN WHAT HAS BEEN DOCUMENTED IN THE DOD BRAC PACKAGE FOR LETTERKENNY ARMY DEPOT. Page 2 SIGNIFICANT JOINT WORK TMDE REGION 11SPT OFC IT IS IMPORTANT TO UNDERSTAND THERE ARE TWO DIFFERENT LEGITIMATE VIEWS OF THE WORLD ... THERE IS A DEFINITE CLASH BETWEEN ARMY GREEN AND PURPLE AS GRAPHICALLY ILLUSTRATED IN THIS CHART! THE ARMY GREEN WORLD HAS TO DEAL WITH MANDATED WORKYEAR CEILINGS AND STILL GET A MISSION DONE. THOSE MANDATES HAVE CAUSED THE ARMY MATERIEL COMMAND (AMC) TO TAKE THE POSITION "IF A MISSION DOES NOT SUPPORT THE ARMY, GET RID OF IT!" LETTERKENNY AND ITS TENANTS ARE CLEARLY A MODEL INSTALLATION WHERE SUPPORT OF JOINT SERVICE PROGRAMS IS CONCERNED. JOINT SERVICE PROGRAMS MAKE SENSE FOR DOD, NATIONAL DEFENSE AND THE EFFICIENT AND EFFECTIVE USE OF LIMITED DEFENSE DOLLARS. EVEN THOUGH SUCH SUPPORT IS GOOD FOR DOD AND THE TAX PAYERS, IT FORCES THE ARMY TO EXPEND LIMITED WORKYEARS TO HELP SISTER SERVICES. IT IS VERY CLEAR FROM THE COLOR CODING OF THE TENANTS AT THE BOTTOM OF THE CHART THAT THERE IS A TREMENDOUS SUPPORT OF DOD JOINT SERVICE PROGRAMS BY THE TENANTS AT THE DEPOT. WE BELIEVE WORKYEAR CONSTRAINTS PENALIZE LETIXRKENNY AND ITS TENANTS IN THE STRATEGIC DECISION PROCESS FOR SUPPORTING JOINT INITIATIVES DESIGNED TO REDUCE DOD OPERATING COSTS AND IMPROVE DOD READINESS. Page 3 FIXED INFRASTRUCTUR TENANTS PAY THEIR FAIR SHARE OF THE COSTS OF OPERATING THE BASIC PLANT INFRASTRUCTURE. ..THAT MAKES GOOD BUSINESS SENSE. IT IS INTERESTING DOD AND DA HAVE A POLICY THAT SUPPORTS THE LARGE TENANT BASE AT LETTERKENNY ... THAT POLICY IS DESIGNED TO MINIMIZE GSA LEASE COSTS. IT FURTHER RECOGNIZES SPREADING INFRASTRUCTURE COSTS WILL HAVE A NET AFFECT OF MAKING AN INSTALLATION HOST AND ITS TENANTS MORE EFFICIENT. THE BOTTOM INSERT DISPLAYS THE TENANTS FAIR SHARE OF INFRASTRUCTURE COSTS AT LETTERKENNY. IF LETYERKENNY WERE TO MAINTAIN ITS MAINTENANCE MISSION AND THE TENANTS WERE FORCED TO MOVE AS CURRENTLY PLANNED, LETTERKENNY WOULD EXPERIENCE A RATE INCREASE OF $4.23 PER HOUR. Page 4 FEW PEOPLE UNDERSTAND THE MAGNITUDE OF THE ARMY'S PLAN TO REMOVE TENANTS FROM LETTERKENNY.. .I504 JOBS WILL BE AFFECTED! 39% OF THE POPULATION BASE AT LETIERKENNY IS MADE UP OF TENANTS. ..THIS PERCENT EXCLUDES CONTRACTOR PERSONNEL. THE RIGHT INSERT SHOWS WHAT HAPPENS TO THE PEOPLE AS ALL THE TENANTS ARE FORCED OFF LETIERKENNY. 91 % OF THE TENANT POPULATION BASE WILL RELOCATE. THE REMAINING TENANT POPULATION WILL BE ELIMINATED. AS WILL BE SHOWN IN THIS PACKAGE, THE COSTS TO MOVE TENANTS ARE GROSSLY OVERSTATED. THE SAVINGS IDENTIFIED AS A RESULT OF ELIMINATING TENANTS IS ALSO GREATLY OVERSTATED. Page 5 SlMA EAST, LOGSA-MIIC, PWC, DMC-C, TMDE SPT, THIS IS WHAT WILL HAPPEN TO THE TENANTS AT LETTERKENNY IF THE ARMY FOLLOWS THROUGH WITH ITS PLANS ... AS STATED IN THE PREVIOUS CHART THE SAVINGS FORECAST FOR TENANTS PROPOSED TO BE ELIMINATED ARE GROSSLY OVERSTATED BECAUSE MUCH OF THE WORK PERFORMED BY THOSE TENANTS IS FOR ORGANIZATIONS OTHER THAN LETTERKENNY AND DDLP. THAT WORK WILL NOT BE ELIMINATED AND WILL HAVE TO BE TRANSFERRED TO OTHERS FOR ACCOMPUSHMENT. Page 6 ICS AGENCY-DDLP SYSTEMS INTEGRATION & MGT ACI'IVITY U.S. ARMY LOGISTICS SUPPORT ACTMTY-MIIC 139181 DEFENSE MEGACENTER U.S. ARMY TEST MEAS & DIAGNOSTIC EQUIP. 7 4 0 PUBLIC WORKS CENTER THIS CHART PROVIDES A FEEL FOR THE SIZE OF TENANTS ... SOME ARE VERY SMALL WHILE A NUMBER ARE FAIRLY LARGE. THE THREE AT THE TOP ARE CONSIDERED TO BE LARGE ... NONE OF THE COSTS FOR THESE TENANTS ARE IN THE ARMY'S BRAC 95 PACKAGE FOR LETIERKE NNY... SO NONE OF THOSE COSTS ARE VISIBLE ... THE ARMY'S POSITION IS THESE ARE NOT TECHNICALLY BRAC 95 COSTS TO THE ARMY WHICH IS TRUE ... BUT THEY ARE COSTS WHICH NEED TO BE CONSIDERED AS PART OF THE LETI'ERKENNY DECISION. THE COSTS FOR THE TENANTS LISTED AT THE BOTTOM OF THE CHART WERE IN THE LETI'ERKENNY PACKAGE BUT WERE SIGNlFICANTLY UNDERSTATED THE DDLP COSTS WILL BE SHOWN LATER IN THE BRIEFING ... THEY WERE NOT IN THE ARMY COST PACKAGE BECAUSE DLA SUBMI'ITED A SEPARATE BRAC PACKAGE FOR THAT TENANT ACTIVITY. MIIC IS CONSIDERED A DISCRETIONARY MOVE AS PART OF THE LElTERKENNY REALIGNMENT ACTION, BUTTHEIR COSTS WERE NOT INCLUDED IN THE LETTERKENNY BRAC PACKAGE. IN THE CASE OF SIMA, TWO YEARS AFTER BRAC 93, THE ARMY IS TAKING THE POSITION THEY CAN MOVE SIMA AS PART OF DELAYED ACTION ON A BRAC 93 DECISION AND USE PRIOR BRAC FUNDS TO DO SO. IT IS VERY CLEAR THE TIMING OF THE DECISION TO MOVE SUlA IS TIED TO THE OVERALL PLANS TO REMOVE ALL TENANTS FROM LETTERKENNY. THE DECISION ON SIMA DISPOSITION SHOULD BE LINKED TO THE OVERALL TENANT DECISION FOR LETI'ERKENNY. Page 7 MILITARY VALUE IS A CRITICAL FACTOR IN THE BRAC DECISION PROCESS ...THE MAJORITY OF TENANTS AT LETTERKENNY ARE PROFESSIONAL ORGANIZATIONS WITH HIGHLY SKILLED PERSONNEL ... FORCED MOVES ARE VERY MISSION D E S T R U m . MOVEMENT OF SIMA AND LOGSA-MIIC WILL RESULT IN A MISSION FAILURE IN THESE ORGANIZATIONS FOR A PERIOD OF UP TO THREE YEARS ... DETAILED MISSION IMPACT BRIEFINGS ON THESE TENANTS FOLLOW THTS BRIEFING. THE IMPACT ALSO ADVERSELY IMPACTS DOD EFFORTS TO DEVELOP AND PROLIFERATE STANDARD SYSTEMS ACROSS DOD. EXHIBIT C TO THIS PACKAGE PROVIDES DETAILED INFORMATION ON EACH TENANT AT LETTERKENNY. Page 8 SSION IMPACTS SIMA EAST AND LOGSA-MIIC ARE THE ONLY TWO LETTERKENNY TENANTS THAT PERFORM MISSIONS THAT ARE UNIQUE TO THE ARMY, AND IN SOME CASES, UNIQUE TO DOD. IT HAS TAKEN YEARS TO "GROW" THESE ARMY UNIQUE SKILLS. THIS IS ESPECIALLY TRUE OF THE FUNCTIONAL BUSINESS PROCESS ANALYSTS FOUND IN BOTH OF THESE ORGANIZATIONS. WE ARE NOT SUGGESTING THE ARMY CAN NOT REBUILD THESE SKILLS, IT CAN BE DONE; HOWEVER IT WILL TAKE A SIGNIFICANT AMOUNT OF TIME TO DO SO AND DURING THAT PERIOD OF TIME THE TWO ORGANIZATIONS WILL FAIL IN THEIR RESPECTIVE MISSIONS. IN ADDITION, THERE WILL BE A VERY SIGNIFICANT COST INCURRED IN BOTH RETRAINING COSTS AND PRODUCTIVITY LOSSES. SIMA EAST IS A FEE-FOR-SERVICE CENTRAL DESIGN ORGANIZATION. AS SUCH THEY HAVE TO SIZE SOFTWARE PROJECTS IN ORDER TO ESTIMATE THE COST OF WORK TO BE PERFORMED FOR CUSTOMERS. THEY USE AN INDUSTRY ACCEPTED SOFTWARE RESOURCE ESTIMATING TOOL CALLED SLIM TO DETERMINE THE ELAPSED TIME AND RESOURCES REQUIRED TO PERFORM SOFTWARE DEVELOPMENT TASKS. THE MODEL IS VERY SENSITIVE TO THE SKILL LEVELS AVAILABLE TO PERFORM THE REQUIRED WORK. THE MODEL IS VERY RELIABLE AND HISTORICALLY PRODUCES RESULTS WITHIN ACCURACY LEVELS OF PLUS OR MINUS 5%. SLIM WAS USED TO DETERMINE THE COST ASSOCIATED WITH THE SKILL LOSSES DUE TO SKILLED PROFESSIONALS WHO WILL NOT ACCOMPANY THE MISSION TO ANOTHER LOCATION. THOSE RESULTS ARE REFLECTED IN THE COST DATA FOR SIMA EAST AND MIIC . THE LOSSES ARE VERY SIGNIFICANT ($27 MILLION DOLLARS OVER A SEVERAL YEAR PERIOD). Page 9 THE DOUBLE EDGED SWORD *MISSION DEGRADATION/FAILURE SIGNIFICANT PRODUCTIVITY LOSSES QUALITY EROSION SKILL LOSES WIELD A DOUBLE EDGED SWORD. THEY KILL THE MISSION AND HAVE A SIGNIFICANT ADVERSE IMPACT ON THE COST OF OPERATIONS SIMA EAST AND LOGSA-MIIC WILL SUFFER SIGNIFICANT PRODUCTIVITY WHICH WILL TRANSLATE TO SIGNIFICANT COST INCREASES AND DEGRADATION OF QUALITY TO CUSTOMERS. ALTHOUGH THESE COSTS ARE NOT INCLUDED IN THE! NET COST RETURN ON INVESTMENT DATA LATER IN THE BRIEFING THEY ARE SIGNIFICANT AND THEY WILL BE REFLECTED AS INCREASED COSTS TO CUSTOMERS. Page 10 NET COST -EXCLUDING DDLP OUR FOCUS ON THIS AND THE NEXT SEVERAL SLIDES IS ON NET COST CONSIDERATIONS A!3OClATED WlTH THE PLAN TO REMOVE ALL TENANTS FROM LETTERKENNY. AS MENTIONED EARLIER OVER 90% OF THE TENANT POPULATION BASE IS BEING DIRECTED TO MOVE FROM LETIERKENNY TO ANOTHER LOCATION. THERE ARE NO ECONOMIC BENEFITS ASSOCIATED WITH SIMPLY MOVING A TENANT TO A NEW LOCATION ...THE COST OF THAT PROPOSAL IS OVER $48 MILLION WITH ABSOLUTELY NO SAVINGS. THE COST OF ELIMINATING THE BALANCE OF THE TENANTS IS OVER $6 MILLION. EXHIBIT F PROVIDES A SPREADSHEET WHICH IDENTIFIES HOW MUCH OF THE WORK CURRENTLY PERFORMED BY THESE TENANTS IS FOR CUSTOMERS OTHER THAN LETI'ERKENNY DEPOT MAINTENANCE OR DDLP ... THAT WORK MUST CONTINUE TO BE PERFORMED BY SOMEONE ...THE BENEFITS OF ELIMINATING TENANTS HAS BEEN DISCOUNTED BASED ON THE FACT THAT MUCH OF THE WORK WILL SIMPLY TRANSFER TO AN ORGANIZATION AT ANOTHER LOCATION. THE DISCOUNTED SAVINGS AMOUNTS TO $1.298 MILLION. Page 11 DMCC COSTS COS~S TO MOVE EQUIPMENT a RECONFIGURE COMMUNICATIONS NETWORKS =EX MILLIONS VSlP COSTS UNDERSTATED ... D L . RECOGNIZED RlF REQUIREMENTS TIED TO "FAST TRACKn BRAC, OTHERS DID NOT ; ESTIMATE 55.375 M ADDITIONAL COSTS NOT IN DATA CAPTURED CONSTRUCTION COSTS GENERALLY NOT INCLUDED; PROBABLY UNDERSTATED BY $67 MILLION EXHIBIT 0 4WRNlsHED TO -ION 8 T W THE PURPOSE OF THIS CHART IS TO HIGHLIGHT SIGNIFICANT COSTS WHICH ARE EITHER NOT PERMITI'ED AS BRAC COSTS OR COSTS THAT COULD NOT BE DEVELOPED AT THIS TIME BECAUSE THE DATA IS NOT AVAILABLE BASED ON THE BASE X DESIGNATION IN THE BRAC PACKAGE ... THERE IS NO WAY TO KNOW IF MCA REQUIREMENTS WILL EXIST UNTIL SUCH DETAILS ARE COORDINATED. THE TOTAL OF THE COSTS ON THIS CHART WILL BE APPROXlMATELY 40 MILLION ... THESE ARE NOT INCLUDED IN THE NET COST DATA PRESENTED LATER IN THE BRIEFING ... WE WOULD HOWEVER LIKE TO POINT OUT THAT THE COST DATA THAT IS PRESENTED IS GROSSLY UNDERSTATED. Page 12 I HAVE HEARD COMMENTS THAT LETIERKENNY IS NOT AS MODERN AS SOME OF THE OTHER ARMY DEPOTS ...IT DEPENDS ON WHAT A PERSON CALLS MODERN. IF YOU WERE TO DRIVE BY A NUMBER OF THE TENANT BUILDINGS ON LETI'ERKENNY YOU SIMPLY SEE A WORLD WAR 11 WAREHOUSE ON THE OUTSIDE. BUT I WOULD CHALLENGE YOU TO COME THROUGH THE FRONT DOORS OF THESE FACILITIES AND SEE WHAT IS INSIDE. THESE FACILITIES ARE STRUCTURALLY SOUND AND HAVE BEEN MODERNIZED TO MEET THE CHALLENGES OF THE HIGH TECH WORLD WE NOW MUST SUPPORT! A SIGNIFICANT AMOUNT OF MONEY HAS BEEN SPENT IN MODERNIZING TENANT FACILITIES ... OVER $21 MILLION IN THE PAST FIVE YEARS. OVER HALF OF THAT MODERNIZATION INVESTMENT HAS BEEN FOR THE THREE HIGH TECH TENANTS ALONE. WE BELIEVE IT IS IMPORTANT THAT THE FACILITY INVESTMENTS AT LETT'ERKENNY BE PROTECTED ... AND WE BELIEVE IT WILL BE COSTLY TO REPLICATE THOSE FACILITIES AT A NEW LOCATION(S). Page 13 NET COST -SUMMARY SECRETARY DEFENSE WILLIAM PERRY ANNOUNCED TO THE NATION THAT BRAC 95 DECISIONS WERE DRIVEN BY MISSION VALUE AND PROPOSALS WITH SMALL UP FRONT INVESTMENTS AND QUICK RETURN ON INVESTMENT (NEiT COSTS). ECONOMIC IMPACTS ARE ALSO A FACTOR IN THE DECISION PROCESS TO INCLUDE THE CUMULATIVE AFFECT OF PRIOR BRAC ACTIONS ON THE COMMUNITY.. IT IS VERY CLEAR THAT REMOVAL OF TENANTS AT LETTERKENNY ARMY DEPOT FAILS SECRETARY PERRY'S BRAC 95 DECISION CRITERIA. THE TOTAL COST TO MOVE ALL TENANTS IS BETWEEN $54 AND $90 MILLION DOLLARS FOR AN ANNUAL SAVINGS OF A LITTLE MORE THAN $1 MILLION DOLLARS PER YEA R.... AS STATED EARLIER WE HAVE USED THE LOWER AMOUNT TO COMPUTE THE RETURN ON INVESTMENT WHICH SHOWS A PAY BACK PERIOD OF OVER - YEARS! Page 14 ECONOMIC IMPACT EXHIBIT I - FURNISHED TO COIIYIOON 8 T W IT IS REALIZED ECONOMIC IMPACT TO THE COMMUNITY IS NOT WEIGHTED AS HEAVILY AS MILITARY VALUE AND NET COST, BUT IT IS A FACTOR ... AND FOR A RURAL SETTING WHERE LETTERKENNY IS SITUATED THE ECONOMY IS VERY SENSITIVE TO JOB MARKET LOSSES. SECRETARY PERRY'S BRAC 95 PUBLIC ANNOUNCEMENT INDICATED A SENSITIVITY TO THE COMBINED CUMULATIVE AFFECT OF THIS AND PREVIOUS BRAC ACTIONS' ECONOMIC IMPACTS TO COMMUNITY. LETIERKENNY HAS BEEN IMPACTED BY PREVIOUS BRAC ACTIONS INVOLVING THE DEPOT SYSTEMS COMMAND HEADQUARTERS. THE COMBINED AFFECT OF PRIOR BRAC ACTIONS WITH THE LATEST PROPOSAL TO REMOVE ALL REMAINING TENANTS FROM LETTERKENNY TRANSLATES TO A SIGNIFICANT ADVERSE IMPACT TO THE LOCAL ECONOMY AS REFLECTED ON THIS CHART. Page 15 THE GROSS ASSESSMENT OF THE ARMY'S PLAN TO REMOVE TENANTS IS VERY CLEAR. .. IT IS VERY MISSION DESTRUCTIVE ... IT IS CLEARLY A BAD ECONOMIC DECISION ... ... AND FINALLY, IT WILL HAVE A VERY TELLING AFFECT ON THE LOCAL ECONOMY, ESPECIALLY WHEN YOU CONSIDER. THE AREA IS JUST NOW FEELING THE FULL IMPACT OF THE BRAC 91 ACTION WHICH REQUIRED THE RELOCATION OF THE MAJOR TENANT LOCATED AT THE DEPOT (DEPOT SYSTEMS COMMAND HEADQUARTERS). IN SHORT, THE PROPOSED MANDATE TO REMOVE ALL TENANTS FROM LE'ITERKENNY SATISFIES NONE OF THE DOD BRAC DECISION CRITERIA AND THEREFORE LEADS TO ONLY ONE LOGICAL CONCLUSION AND THAT IS, ALL TENANTS SHOULD REMAIN AT LETTERKENNY, TO INCLUDE SIMA EAST. Page 16 THERE IS ONLY ONE LOGICAL CONCLUSION WHETHER VIEWED THROUGH THE! MISSION EYES OF A MILITARY PROFESSIONAL OR THROUGH THE BUSINESS EYES OF A STEWARD OF THE TAX PAYER ... THE BRAC 95 LAW SHOULD CALL FOR THE RETENTION OF ALL TENANTS AT LE'ITERKENNY. Page 17 IF THE COMMISSION AGREES WITH THE FACTS PRESENTED HERE TODAY, WE WOULD RESPECTFULLY RECOMMEND THAT THE VERBAGE SHOWN ON THIS CHART BE CONTAINED IN THE FINAL COMMISSION RECOMMENDATIONS TO THE PRESIDENT. THE RATIONALE FOR SPECIFICALLY MENTIONING SIMA WILL BE SPELLED OUT IN THE NEXT BRIEFING. Page 18 Docu~llent Separator BRAC 95 ... THE RIGHT DECISION LETTERKENNY TENANTS FACILITY MODERNIZATION Page 1 TENANT "HIGH TECH"ORGANIZATI0N INVESTMENTS IN LAST FIVE YEARS SYSTEMS INTEGRATION & MANAGEMENT ACTIVITY (SIMA) PUBLIC WORKS CENTER SPREADSHEET SIMA LAN (NOT ON PWC SHEET) TOTAL INVESTMENTS $2,732,153 $300,000 I SlMA TOTAL 1 $3,032,153 LOGlSlTlCS SUPPORT ACTIVITY- MAJOR ITEMS INFO CTR (MIIC) PUBLIC WORKS CENTER SPREADSHEET MllC LANINETWORK MIlC CLASSIFIED TERMINAL ROOM (SEE FOOTNOTE BELOW) $474,278 $1,000,000 $300,000 1 MllC TOTAL I $1,774,278 I DEFENSE MEGA CENTER (DMC) $6,066,852 TOTAL $1 0,873,283 NOTE: The classified terminal room was constructed prior to five year c however, it is included because it is a critical part of classified mission o and it is assumed construction of a similar facility would be required at n location. t 5 APR 95 SIMA FACILITY INVESTMENTS: SIMA - CHAMBERSBURG LOCAL AREA NETWORK GENERAL DESCRIPTION: THICK-NET ETHERNET BACKBONE WITH HUBS TO THIN-NET ETHERNET SEGMENTS TO DESKTOPS. PACKET DRIVERS USE ETHERNET-11. NUMBER OF USERS SUPPORTED: 250 APPROXIMATE COST: ORIGINAL COST (1990) - $300,000 REPLACEMENT COST (1 995) - $425,000 (INCLUDES LABOR TO INSTALL) 5 Apr 95 SUBJECT: MIIC Facility Investments 1 . Classified Terminal Room: Building 10 contains a classified terminal room and work area essential for accessing and operating severai classified automated information systems that support Army/DOD logistics, readiness, equipment distribution and planning missions. This termina-1 room was constructed in the mld-1980s at a cost of approximately $300,000. It provides an environmentally controlled and tempest certified secure site for online terminal and PC access to the classified systems and data bases. 2. Major Item Information Center (MIIC) Network: This network is currently being installed in Building 10 at a cost of approximately S1M. It will provide a "state of the art" NOVELL NETWARE 4.1 network using ethernet technology to provide centrailzed software, operational support and communications connectivity for assigned personnel. The network establishes a virtual 56KB link to our parent organization in Huntsville, AL. It will also provide access to major item information to a woridwlde user community via INTERNET, the Defense Data Network and normal telephone links. ' * * TENANT MISSION IMPACT FOR: Systems Integration & Management Activity East MISSION: Provides integrated automation support to the U.S. Army AMC installation, industrial, and financial business processes. Critical to AMCIArmy Future Power Projection and Force 2 1 Missions such as Strategic StockslWar Reserves worldwide, Central Asset Visibility (CAV)/Single Stock Fund (SSF) Army-wide implementation, Integrated Sustainment Maintenance initiative, and extension of Automated Time, Attendance and Production System (ATAAPS)/Standard Industrial Fund System (SIFS) Army wide. SIMA-EAST employs 209 organic staff in addition to 37 contractor staff. The organization operates with an annual budget of $20 million. WHY LOCATED AT LETTERKENNY? SIMA East's original mission was to develop the standard automated systems to support depot operations. Letterkenny as a multimission depot was designated to serve as the prototype installation for all the applications developed by SIMA. This userldeveloper partnership has significantly contributed to the high quality systems fielded by SIMA over the years. The secondary reason for Army decision makers locating SIMA East at Letterkenny was the cost effective means of maintaining currency of functional knowledge of the business processes the automated systems are required to support. Because of the close working relationship between designer and end user, SIMA developed systems have automated and integrated business processes in such a way that depot operations have become both efficient and effective. In order to retain the mission effectiveness of both SIMA East and its end user customers, it is essential that SIMA be located at a multimission depot. MISSION IMPACT IF ELIMINATEDIRELOCATED? SIMA East applications are unique within the Army. The applications developed by this organization are absolutely critical to the Army in both peace time and national emergency. The hnctional business process systems analysts in SIMA East are totally unique within the Army. Many of the automation personnel within the organization also have skills that are unique to the Army. Within SIMA East automation professionals become productive in their first year; however, they do not achieve full performance levels for approximately three years. In the case of hnctional systems analysts, it takes about three years to "grow" a functional analyst to the point they understand their assigned functional applications and how their hnctions interface with other SIMA East applications and interfaces with external business processes/systems. It is the professional opinion of those most familiar with the mission and unique skill of this organization that relocation of SIMA East will cause a total mission failure for a period of three years. PLANNED DISPOSITION, IF KNOWN? SIMA East workforce has been told that IOC has been directed to prepare a contingency planning package which will be part of Letterkenny BRAC 95 Implementation plan. That package will reflect a relocation of SIMA East to the Rock Island Arsenal consistent with BRAC 95 milestones. The basis for the move is supposedly the Army's interpretation of BRAC 91 and BRAC 93 law. SIMA East was directed to move to Rock Island in BRAC 91. BRAC 93 law reversed the BRAC 91 decision based on the fact that SIMA East (as a central design organization would transfer to DOD based on DMRD 91 8). DISA said it made no sense to move SIMA East to Rock Island based on the small amount of resources expended on Industrial Operations Command (Rock Island) business and the organization could better serve its customer base fiom Letterkenny. In 1993 DOD reversed its decision to transfer central design organizations to DOD and the Army is now saying that decision puts SIMA back to the BRAC 91 decision (move to Rock Island) even though the GAO BRAC 91 comments on that proposal said it makes no mission or economic sense to move SIMA. DISA (and the Secretary of Defense) in BRAC 93 said based on the customer base of SIMA East they should remain at Letterkenny. Current and hture projected workloads for SIMA East confirm it still makes no sense to move SIMA off Letterkenny Army Depot. Page 1 SIMA EAST TYPE COSTS NOS. EMPLOYEES IN CATEGORY EMPLOYEES SEVERED 30 EMPI, OPT RET SEVERANCE ENTITLEMENTS SEVERANCE PAY -$I7691 PER EMPLOYEE UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION- 30WKS@$375 LUMP SUM ANNUAL LEAVE PAYOUT-344 HRS aS22.04 RETRAINING SEVERED EMPLOYEES-$5,000 GOVT -FICA/MEDICARE CONTRIBUTIONS FOR FERS(7.65%) EMPL GOVT -FICA/MEDICARE CONTRIBUTIONS FOR CSRS(1.45%) EMPL PCS COSTS COBRA MODEL $33,044 PER EMPLOYEE DARSE COST (DESCOM EXPERIENCE-M3,M)O PER EMPLOYEE ADDITIONAL AL COSTS BASED ON UNLIMITED LEAVE BALANCE LAW-160 HOURS@22.04 EXTENDED HEALTH CARE @ $285 AVGIMOS FOR 18 MOS. VSJP OPTION NON PEOPLE COSTS 19 $2 13,750 $139,866 $67,002 P$530,730 $337,500 3220,841 $1 50,000 $6,767 $6,4 1 3 $105,792 $1 53,900 EMPL EARLY RET 37 $416,250 $272,370 $130,477 VSIP OPTION 0 $0 EMPL ACCOMP MISSION 83 $2,742,652 $3,569,000 EMPL FIND OTHER GOVTJOB 20 $660,880 $860,000 PPS PLACE MENT 20 $660,880 3860,000 209 $530,730 $967,500 $633,077 $1 50,000 $6,767 $6,413 $4,064,412 $5,289,000 $303,270 $1 53,900 $0 OTHER COSTS TOTAL Page 2 TOTAL $600,000 $1 2,705,069 SIMA EAST TYPE COSTS COSTS TO TEAR DOWN, PACK, MOVE AND REINSTALL EQUIPMENT ROCK ISLAND ARSENAL CONSTRUCTION COST FOR SIMA EAST-TBD COST OF PRODUCTMm LOSS-SEE ATTACHED ANALYSIS GRAND TOTAL EMPLOYEES SEVERED $1,511,943 EMPL OPT RET - PPS PLACE MENT O m R COSTS $600,000 $ 0 EMPL EARLY RET - - - - -- $600,000 $420,617 VSIP OPTION - - $819,097 EMPL ACCOMP MISSION -- SO EMPL FIND OTHER GOVT JOB $6,311,652 S1,520,880 $1,520,880 ' TENANT MISSION IMPACT FOR: Logistics Support Activity-Major Item Information Center (MIIC) MISSION: MIIC serves as the Army's key source for all logistics information relating to major (e.g., tanks, helicopters, rifles, radios, etc.) and selected secondary items of equipment. MIIC is the only organization that has visibility of all Army owned equipment worldwide. Its comprehensive and integrated databases and business processes allow soldiers and civilians from the Pentagon to troops in the field to plan for and execute critical logistics missions. These missions include equipment requirements, force modernization, weapon system management and mobilization and contingency/crisis planning and execution. MIIC also directly supports U.S. commitments to conventional armaments treaties and agreements, to include technical support of 53 other countries. WHY LOCATED AT LETTERKENNY? MIIC was established at Letterkenny in 1955 and has been retained at this site throughout various organizational realignments. One of the principal reasons for locating MIIC at Letterkenny and a contributing factor to its successfbl mission accomplishment for 40 years was the proximity of Chambersburg, PA to Washington, D.C. This allows MIIC quick access to and continuous interaction with the proponents for our information systems, databases and processes; i.e., the Office of the Secretary of Defense and Headquarters, Department of Army. This facile communications channel allows W C to be responsive to the Departments' priorities and requirements in accomplishing MIIC's national and international missions. MISSION IMPACT IF ELIMINATEDJRELOCATED? Relocation of MIIC will be very mission destructive. It is estimated that only 40% of our current staffwould actually relocate, , and these would be our less experienced and knowledgeable employees. MIIC personnel are the & subject matter experts on major item information and processes. To train new individuals to a fully functional level required for MIIC missions would take fiom 3 to 6 years. This significant loss of MIIC institutional knowledge and expertise will pose a real threat of mission failure with major impacts as follows: a. Army loses its sole source for major item information and thereby its ability to effectively plan for and meet critical national logistics responsibilities. b. U.S. commitments to conventional arms control treaties and agreements placed at risk. c. Total Asset Visibility (TAV), a technological leap forward in inventory management, will not become a reality. Page 2 r LOGISTICS SUPPORT ACTIVITY-MIIC TYPE COSTS COSTS TO TEAR DOWN, PACK, MOVE AND REINSTALL EQUIPMENT HUNTSVILLE CONSTRUCTION COSTS EMPLOYEES SEVERED EMPL OPT RET COST OF PRODUCTIVITY LOSSSEE ATTACHED ANALYSIS GRAND TOTAL EMPL EARLY RET $962,396 VSIP OPTION EMPL ACCOMP MISSION S O , $0 $8,597,023 $760,440 $132,827 TOTAL $500,000 EMPL FIND OTHER GOVT JOB - $2,129,232 $309,929 - $500,000 PPS PLACE MENT OTHER COSTS $500,000 SO - $3,802,200 28 Mar 95 SUBJECT: Major Item Information Center (MIIC) Tenant Data A. Total number of employees today: 127 B. How many people would be separated: 19 C. How many people would take optional retirement: 6 D. How many people would take early out: 14 E. How many people would move to Huntsville, AL: 50 F. How many would find other government jobs before forced move (on their own) : 10 G. How many would be placed through Priority Placement: 28 Number of onboard contractors: 81 Loss of productivity (worksheet attached): S11.6M Cost of equipment move: S500K Estimated construction/facilitization costs: $1M Projected FY 95 expenditures in this geographic area: $ 1 4 . 6 M ISA - S1.2M government payroll - $6.8M contractor payroll - $6.6M TENANT MISSION IMPACT FOR: Public Works Center MISSION: The Public Works Center (PWC) is the organization that has responsibility for the facilities and grounds infrastructure at Letterkenny Army Depot. Several years ago the Department of Defense identified an initiative which was designed to reduce the costs associated with managing installation infiastructures. The Letterkenny Directorate of Engineering and Logistics organization was designated as a Directorate of Public Works (DPW). The DPW was to provide support to other Defense activities in this region when it became the US Army Central Penn Regional Public Works Center. The PWC was to remain an entity on the Letterkenny TDA for a period of time and it was then to become a DOD TDA organization. To date, that has not happened, the PWC remains a Letterkenny TDA organization with an organizational title of the Public Works Center (PWC). The BRAC 95 package for Letterkenny treats the PWC like it has completed its transition to become a DOD DPW Regional site and the PWC is therefore treated as a tenant identified to move to site x. WHY LOCATED AT LETTERKENNY? Although the PWC concept identified in the previous paragraph would have greatly expanded its mission, the primary customer of the PWC is to manage the Letterkenny installation infiastructure which supports the Ammunition, Depot Maintenance, DLA DDLP, and all tenant missions on post. MISSION IMPACT IF ELIMINATEDJRELOCATED? The principal impact would be the loss of professional labor forces, and the institutional knowledge of the physical plant intiastructure. The very professional skills needed to plan and establish the PWC fbnctions are the ones which will not relocate and will therefore not be available to reconstitute operations at another site. If Letterkenny is reduced in scope, it is' assumed this fbnction is one of the last hnctions that would be relocated since they will be heavily involved in the orderly shut down of the industrial area of the depot. Because many of the skills in the PWC are marketable in the private sector, it is anticipated that many of the master craftsmen will abandon their positions to accept employment elsewhere. This will have a definite impact on any orderly transition of the depot infrastructure to an "Ammunition" mission only. PLANNED DISPOSITION, IF KNOWN? The only guidance contained in the BRAC 95 package for this organization is it would relocate to site x. There is no indication where site x is located. Even if the depot maintenance mission and DDLP are gone, there will be a requirement for an "enclave" of resources to provide infrastructure base operations support to the residual missions remaining at Letterkenny. It is assumed that enclave will be responsible to the PWC scheduled to be move to site x. Page 1 PUBLIC WORKS CENTER (Pwc) TYPE COSTS NOS. EMPLOYEES I N CATEGORY SEVERANCE ENTITLEMENTS SEVERANCE PAY -%I7691 PER EMPLOYEE UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION- 30WKS@S375 LUMP SUM ANNUAL LEAVE PAYOUT-344 HRS @%22.04 RETRAINING SEVERED EMPLOYEES-$5,000 GOVT -FICA/MEDICARE CONTRIBUTIONS FOR FERS(7.65%) EMPL GOVT-FICA/MEDICARE CONTRIBUTIONS FOR CSRS(1.45%) EMPL PCS COSTS COBRA MODEL- $33,044 PER EMPLOYEE DARSE COST (DESCOM EXPERIENCE-$43,000 PER EMPLOYEE ADDITIONAL AL COSTS BASED ON UNLIMITED LEAVE BALANCE LAW-160 HOURS6J22.04 EXTENDED HEALTH CARE @ $285 AVGIMOS FOR 18 MOS. EMPLOYEES SEVERED 44 $778,404 $495,000 $323,900 $220,000 $6,767 $6,413 $155,162 $225,720 pp VSIP OPTION NON PEOPLE COSTS EMPL OPT RET 3 $33,750 $22,084 $10,579 $0 EMPL EARLYRET 26 -- $292,500 $191,395 $91,686 $0 VSIP OPTION 0 EMPL ACCOMP MISSION 78 $2,577,432 53,354,000 EMPL FIND OTHER GOVTJOB 15 - - - $495,660 $645,000 PPS PLACE MENT 17 - - - -- - - $561,748 $73 1,000 OTHER COSTS - TOTAL 183 $778,404 $821,250 $537,379 $220,000 $6,767 $6,413 $3,634,840 $4,730,000 $257,427 $225,720 Page 2 PUBLIC WORKS CENTER (Pwc) TYPE COSTS EQUIPMENT MOVING COSTS GRAND TOTAL EMPLOYEES SEVERED $72,260 $2,283,625 EMPL OPT RET $66,413 EMPL EARLYRET $575,582 THIS ORGA~IZATION WAS PUBLIC- CENTER IS A VSIP OPTION SO ENTITYAND ORIGINALLY TO BECOME A TENANT IDENTIFIED AS DEFENSE PUBLIC WORKS (DPW). THE ORGANIZATION HAS REGIONAL PUBLIC WORKS RESPONSIBILITIES, BUT THEY ARE PART OF THE LETTERKENNY TDA. THE DOD BRAC 95 PROPOSAL TREATS THIS ORGANIZATION LETTEEN Y NOT A TENANT AS A TENANT AND SHOWS THEM MOVING TO SITE X. FOR CONSISTENCY IN TREATMENT, THEY ARE TREATED AS A TENANT IN THIS PACKAGE. ORGANIZATION EMPL ACCOMP MISSION $5,931,432 - EMPL FIND OTHER GOVT JOB $1,140,660 TOTAL $72,260 $0 $1 1,290,460 PPS PLACE MENT -- $1,292,748 OTHER COSTS $0 TENANT MISSION IMPACT FOR: Defense Megacenter (DMC) - Chambersburg MISSION: DMC Chambersburg provides information processing support and services to war fighters and their supporting organizations 24 hours a day 7 days a week. The support includes providing our world wide customers on-line access to the mainfiame computers. The Megacenter has three large capacity AMDAHL computers that are capable of executing 498 million instructions per second and the Defense Information System Network (DOD's primary world-wide telecommunications and information transfer network) node at DMC Chambersburg provides the users throughout the world the access to the mainfiame computers. The Megacenter processes 2000 batch jobs a day and over 3 1,000 users have real-time access to their data stored on DMC Chambersburg's Robotic Tape Libraries and Direct Access Storage Devices. As part of the DOD Data Center consolidation, DMC Chambersburg has migrated workload fiom a Navy site in Arlington, VA and workload fiom an additional Navy site located in New Orleans, LA and a DOD site located in Cleveland, OH. The migration of that workload is scheduled to be completed by September 1995. DMC Chambersburg's workload will be increased by 2,000 daily batch jobs and 10,000 on-line users upon completion of the workload consolidation. In addition to providing supply, maintenance, finance, on-line logistics queries, and payroll support to Army and DLA customers, DMC Chambersburg is currently supporting the Army Materiel Command's War Reserve initiative with connectivity to Italy, Japan and Korea and will be supporting the payroll and manpower assignments for the entire U.S. Navy and Navy Reservists and processing pay for all DOD retirees. WHYLOCATEDATLETTERKENNY? A number of years ago the Army Materiel Command designated the computer facility at Letterkenny as one of its regional processing centers. In 1993 DMRD 918 transferred the services business computer processing centers to the Department of Defense (DISA). DISA redesignated the Letterkenny computer facility as the Defense Megacenter-Chambersburg. Since 1993 DISA has continued to expand the operations at Chambersburg based on its outstanding performance as a megacenter. MISSION IMPACT IF ELIMINATEDIRELOCATED? If planned move were properly resourced and executed, mission impacts would include potential disruption of service to customers. The technical risks associated with such a large scale undertaking could impact tactical missions for extended periods of time. Based on Letterkenny being assigned the tactical missile mission in BRAC 93, DISA believed Letterkenny was a sound location on which to make long term capital investments. Significant facility, communications network and hardware investments have been made to accommodate the rapidly expanding workload identified in the mission paragraph above. DISA is in the process of scoping the cost impacts associated with a forced eviction fiom Letterkenny. That data is not available for inclusion in this package. The costs for DMC in this package are limited to personnel costs; however, non- people costs will clearly be in the millions of dollars. Page 1 DEFENSE MEGACENTER @MC)- CHAMBERSBURG SEVERANCE ENTITLEMENTS SEVERANCE PAY -517691 PER EMPLOYEE UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION- 30WKS@S375 LUMP SUM ANNUAL LEAVE PAYOUT-344 HRS @$22.04 RETRAINING SEVERED EMPLOY EES-55,000 GOVT -FICA/MEDICARE CONTRIBUTIONS FOR FERS(7.65%) EMPL GOVT -FICAIMEDICARE CONTRIBUTIONS FOR CSRS(1.45°/o) EMPL PCS COSTS COBRA MODEL- $33,044 PER EMPLOYEE DARSE COST (DESCOM EXPERIENCE-$43,000 PER EMPLOYEE ADDITIONAL AL COSTS BASED ON UNLIMITED LEAVE BALANCE LAW-160 HOUR!3@22.04 EXTENDED HEALTH CARE @ $285 AVGMOS FOR 18 MOS. VSIP OPTION NON PEOPLE COSTS $1,149,915 $73 1,250 $478,488 $325,000 $6,767 $6,413 $229,2 16 $333,450 - $0 $0 $0 -- $191,250 $125,143 $59,949 - $0 -- ~- --$1,718,288 $2,236,000 $0 SO $991,320 $1,290,000 $1,149,915 $922,500 $603,632 $325,000 $6,767 $6,413 $2,709,608 $3,526,000 $289,165 $333,450 -$0 Page 2 DEFENSE MEGACENTER @MC)- CHAMBERSBURG TYPE COSTS - - pp - EMPLOYEES SEVERED EMPL OPT RET GRAND TOTAL - - -- t f I O / ~ ~ - r $ o ~ i * > 2 0 -- - EMPL EARLY -- - --- RET VSIP OPTION -$0 EMPL ACCOMP MISSION - $9,872,449 DISA has an on-going action to develop cost data for the proposed BRAC action. That data is not available for inclusion in this package. -- ~ h e total maGo~ver - figure shown -- above is accurate -- -- --- for DMC-C, t6-d - of employee actions is statistically developed based on other tenant decisions. The overall costs are significantly understated because cost data on equipment moves, communication network reconfiguration actions, and movement of customer data and processes to other sites are not included. That data will be part of the formal DISA package. being developed. EMPL FIND OTHER GOVT JOB - - PPS PLACE MENT -- OTHER COSTS -- TOTAL $0 $0 TENANT MISSION IMPACT FOR: U.S. Army TMDE Support Center - Letterkenny MISSION: The U.S. Army TMDE Support Center-Letterkenny maintains organic calibration measurement standards in an operating condition with accuracy's traceable through the Army calibration support system to the National Institute of Standards and Technology. The TSC uses these standards to provide support for Letterkenny Army Depot, Letterkenny tenants, and Fort Ritchie. The Area Calibration Laboratory, an entity of the TSC, provides secondary reference calibration services in environmentally controlled laboratories for calibration standards used by other TSCs in Region 1. The TSC also has one of the largest mobile calibration operations in support of the Army, Army Reserve, Army National Guard, Air Reserve, Air National Guard, Navy, Marine Corps, Federal Aviation Administration, and other Federal agency customers covering nine states in a geographical area from Pennsylvania west to Michigan, north to New York state, and south to Virginia. WHY LOCATED AT LETTERKENNY? The Calibration Program was established at Letterkenny in the mid 1950s in support of the NIKE missile systems. At that time Letterkenny was centrally located for support of NIKE missile sites in the eastern United States and also Greenland. With the implementation of the improved calibration and repair program in 1990, Letterkenny TMDE Center became a tenant activity under U.S. Army TMDE Support Activity. It was economical to maintain the calibration center at Letterkenny considering the cost associated with relocating the environmentally controlled modular laboratories and also the possibility of losing some of the highly trained workforce. MISSION IMPACT IF ELIMINATEDJRELOCATED? Relocation could result in a significant loss of trained personnel, and the cost associated with moving environmentally controlled laboratories or procurement of new laboratories at another location. Elimination would result in enlargement of the facility at another TMDE Center somewhere within Region 1 and increased cost for the relocation of existing laboratories or procurement of new laboratories as the support for customers would still exist. PLANNED DISPOSITION, IF KNOWN? The DOD BRAC 95 package for Letterkenny indicates this organization will be moved to site x. As stated for the TMDE Region 1 organization, the strong desire of this tenant is to remain located at Letterkenny, regardless of the disposition of the depot maintenance mission at Letterkenny. If a forced relocation should occur, this organization should logically move to the same location as TMDE Region 1. US ARMY TMDE SUPPORT CENTER - LETTERKENNY o SECONDARY REFERENCE LAB SUPPORTS - 9 FIXED SITE CALIBRATION LABORATORIES - 6 MOBILE CALIBRATION TEAMS - CUSTOMER EQUIPMENT REQUIRING HIGH ACCURACY o LETTERKENNY BEST LOCATION, MOVE WILL - INCREASE TRAVEL AND TRANSPORTATION COST AND - INCREASE EQUIPMENT TURNAROUND TIME OR - INCREASE SALARY AND SUPPORT COSTS o NO OVERCAPACITY, MUST MOVE CURRENT OR HIRE NEW TECHNICIANS o WILL LOSE EXPERIENCED, HIGHLY SKILLED TECHNICIANS o MUST REPLACE ENVIRONMENTALLY CONTROLLED LABORATORIES TMDE Support Center Letterkenny US Army TMDE Support Center Chambersburg, PA 1720 1-4 185 MATERIEL COMMAND OFFICE OF THE CHIEF CHIEF BUDDY DEHART SEC CONNIE WELLER DSN 570-8012 - - NCOlC - SFC CHRISTOPHER TALLEY DSN 570-8338 AREA CALIBRATION LABORATORY I CHIEF CHARLES SWElTtER CALBR ASSISTANT PEGOY JONES * DSN 570-9720 b FELD OPERATIONS MTST W459L1 CHIEF MARK CARROLL MTST W459L2 CHIEF SAM NEARHOOF MTST W459W CHEF mom ANTHONY MTST W459L4 CWEQ KEllH BUGGY MTST W459L5 CHIEF LEE ORAEF - NCOIC SFC CARTER DSN 988-2883 A SUPPORT OFFICE CALBR COORD SPECIALIST JOHN MOWERY LIBRARY PEGGY I O ~ S DSN 570-8339 & * DUAL CAPACITY FAX DSN 570-5521 E-MAIL amxtmgal@latdmn-emhl .rrrny.mil COMM (71 7) 267-XXXX lh i s is not m Oficirl Orgrnizational Chart OFFICE SYMBOL AMXTM-CjA-L INTERNAL CALIBRATION LABORATORY CHIEF PAUL GET2 CALBR ASSISTANT ANITA HAWKINS DSN 5703554 MU& 1995 - TMDE SUPPORT LABORATORY - FORT RITCHIE, MD - Acronyms USATA = US Army TMDE A c t i v i t y TMDE = T e s t , Measurement, and D i a g n o s t i c Equipment USATS-Region 1 = US Army TMDE Support-Region 1 RTMO = Regional TMDE Management O f f i c e - A C L = Area C a l i b r a t i o n Labora to ry ICL = I n t e r n a l C a l i b r a t i o n Labora to ry U.S. ARMY TMDE SUPPORT CENTER-LE'TTERKENNY (USATSC-LEAD) In addition to support for organizations on Letterkenny Army Depot, USATSC-LEAD also provides calibration and repair services through internal support operations for TMDE within an assigned nine state, northeastern geographical area comprising of New York, Ohio, West Virginia, Virginia, Maryland, Delaware, New Jersey, Michigan, and Pennsylvania. The Area Calibration Laboratory, an element of TSC-LEAD, provides the next level of calibration support (secondary reference) for seven other TMDE Support Centers and six mobile TMDE Support Teams. Only 1 1 of the TSCs, 58 authorized personnel spaces, assigned in the Internal Calibration Laboratory (ICL) are in direct support of Letterkenny. TSC LEAD has an overall workload of approximately 28880 annual actions. The elements supported along with the percent of their workload is as follows: Letterkenny Army Depot Support Approx. 21 % of the overall workload Defense Distribution Letterkenny United Defense PALLADIN Chambersburg, PA Chambersburg, PA Raytheon AMRAAM Chambersburg, PA Letterkenny Maintenance Activities Chambersburg, PA c ' Raytheon PHOENIX Chambersburg, PA U.S. Army Support Approx. 13% of the overall workload U.S. Army Support Element Pittsburgh, PA Radford Army Ammunition Plant Radford, VA U.S. Army Support Element U.S. Army Annville, PA Foreign Science and Technology Center Charlottesville, VA U.S. Army Medical Research & Development Command U.S. Army War College Ft. Detrick, MD Carlisle. PA U.S. Army Information Systems Command Carlisle Barracks Ft. Detrick, MD Carlisle. PA Headquarters, U.S. Army Garrison Facilities Engineering C Annville, PA Ft. Detrick, MD Page 1 of 5 Encl. 3 U.S. Army Reserve Support . Approx. 17% of the overall workload U.S. Army Organization Maintenance Shop Coraopolis, PA 79th U.S. Army Reserve Command Willow Grove, PA U. S. Army Equipment Concentration Site 24 Annville, PA U.S. Army 3 18 Light Equipment Maintenance Company State College, PA U.S. Army Area Maintenance Support Activity Lock Haven, PA U.S. Army Area Maintenance Support Activity Clarksburg, WV U.S. Army Area Maintenance Support Activity Charleston, WV U.S. Army Area Maintenance Support Activity Christiansburg, VA U.S. Army Reserves 80th Division Richmond, VA U. S. Army Aviation Support Facility Elyria, OH 83rd U.S. Army Reserve Command U. S. Army Aviation Support Facility c 1 Columbus, OH Columbus, OH 298th U.S. Army Maintenance Company Altoona, PA U.S. Army Combined Support Maintenance Shop Greensburg, PA 99th U .S . Army Reserve Command Oakdale, PA U.S. Army Area Maintenance Support Activity Parkersburg, WV U.S. Army Area Maintenance Support Activity Valley Grove, WV U. S. Army Area Maintenance Support Activity New Castle, PA U.S. Army Area Maintenance Support Activity Greensburg, PA U . S. Army Area Maintenance Support Activity Oakdale, PA U.S. Army Area Maintenance Support Activity Punxsutawney , PA U.S. Army Area Maintenance Support Activity Franklin, PA Page 2 of 5 U.S. Army National Guard SuIjport Approx. 16% of the overall workload Delaware Army National Guard CSMS Ohio Army National Guard CSMS New Castle, DE Newark, OH U.S. Army National Guard Washington, PA West Virginia Army National Guard CSMS Point Pleasant, WV Pennsylvania Army National Guard CSMS Virginia Army National Guard CSMS Annville, PA Richmond, VA U.S. Air Force Support Approx. 10% of the overall workload 910th Military Airlift Wing Youngstown, OH 9 1 1 th Military Airlift Wing Pittsburgh, PA C ' 193rd Special Operations Group Hamsburg, PA 1 12th Tactical Control Flight State College, PA 271 st Combat Communications Squadron Annville, PA 21 1 th Electronic Installation Squadron Annville, PA 20 1 st Civil Engineering Flight Annville, PA 1 12th Ground Communications Squadron Annville, PA 914th Logistics Support Squadron/MAL Niagara Falls, NY U.S. Marines Support Approx. 1% of the overall workload B Company U.S. Marine Corps 4th Light Armored Vehicle Battalion Truck Headquarters Battalion Fort Detrick, MD Erie, PA "I" Battery 3d Battalion Reading, PA U.S. Marine Corps Military Police Company B North Versailles, PA U.S. Marine Corps Connellsville, PA Page 3 of 5 Other Federal Agencies Sup~ort - Approx. 13% of the overall workload Defense Distribution Depot Susquehanna New Cumberland, PA Defense Communications Support Unit Thurmont, MD Federal Emergency Management Agency Benyville, VA Defense Personnel Support Center Philadelphia, PA Defense Personnel Supply Center Richmond, VA Defense Distribution Region East New Cumberland, PA Defense Industrial Plant Equipment Center Mechanicsburg, PA Federal Aviation Administration Locations; Norfolk, VA Richmond, VA Lynchburg, VA Roanoke, VA Charleston, WV Bridgeport, WV Pittsburgh, PA Erie, PA Jarnestown, NY Martinsburg, PA Middletown, PA Philadelphia, PA Atlantic City, NJ Washington, DC Fredericksburg, VA The Plains, VA Newark, NJ Charlottesville, VA Reading, PA Trevose, PA Trenton, NJ Altoona, PA Du Bois, PA State College, PA Newcastle, PA Clearfield, PA Leesburg, VA Newport News, VA Huntington, WV W. Mifflin, PA Binns Hall, VA Bedford, VA Clarksburg, WV Millville, NJ Page 4 of 5 Secondary Reference Support For Other TSCs and Mobile Teams in Region 1 Approx. 9% of the overall workload USATSC-Fort Eustis Fort Eustis, VA USATSC-Fort Belvoir Fort Belvoir, VA USATSC-Warren Warren, MI USATSC-Harry Diamond Adelphi, MD USATSC-Aberdeen Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD USATSC-Fort Meade Fort Meade, MD USATSC-Fort Ritchie Fort Ritchie, MD Mobile TMDE Support Team Fort Meade, MD Mobile TMDE Support Team W459L1 Chambersburg, PA Mobile TMDE Support Team W459L2 Chambersburg, PA Mobile TMDE Support Team W459L3 Chambersburg, PA Mobile TMDE Support Team W459L4 Chambersburg, PA Internal Calibration Laboratory Mobile TMDE Support Team W459L5 < ' Charnbersburg, PA Chambersburg, PA Page 5 of 5 Page 1 TEST MEASUREMENT & DIAGNOSTIC EQUIPMENT (TMDE) SUPPORT TYPE COSTS NOS. EMPLOYEES IN CATEGORY EMPLOYEES SEVERED 0 EMPL OPT RET -- 4 $0 $90,000 $58,891 $0~ $6,767 $6,413 $1,652,200 $2,150,000 $28,211 $0 $0 SEVERANCE ENTITLEMENTS SEVERANCE PAY -$I7691 PER EMPLOYEE UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION- 30WKS@S375 LUMP SUM ANNUAL LEAVE PAYOUT344 HRS @$22.03 RETRAINING SEVERED EMPLOYEES-$5,000 GOVT -FICA/MEDICARE CONTRIBUTIONS FOR FERS(7.65%) EMPL GOVT -FICAIMEDICARE CONTRIBUTIONS FOR CSRS(1.45%) EMPL PCS COSTS COBRA MODEL- $33.044 PER EMPLOYEE DARSE COST (DESCOM EXPERIENCE-$43,000 PER EMPLOYEE ADDITIONAL AL COSTS BASED ON UNLIMITED LEAVE BALANCE LAW-160 HOURS@22.04 EXTENDED HEALTH CARE @ $285 AVGIMOS FOR 18 MOS. VSIP OPTION NON PEOPLE COSTS EMPL EARLY RET 4 $1,156,540 $1,505,000 $0 $0 $0 $165,220 $215,000 TOTAL 58 VSJP OPTION 0 $330,440 $430,000 $45,000 $29,445 $45,000 $29,445 $0 $6,767 $6,4 1 3 $0 $0 EMPL ACCOMP MISSION 35 $14,106 OTHER COSTS EMPL FIND OTHER GOVT JOB 5 $14,106 PPS PLACE MENT 10 $0 Page 2 TEST MEASUREMENT & DIAGNOSTIC EQUIPMENT (TMDE) SUPPORT TYPE COSTS COSTS TO TEAR DOWN, PACK, MOVE AND REINSTALL EQUIPMENT ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION COSTS-RANGE S395K TO $7953 COST OF PRODUCTIVITY LOSS-SEE ATTACHED ANALYSIS EMPLOYEES SEVERED EMPL OPT RET GRAND TOTAL $88,551 $13,180 EMPL EARLY RET $88,551 VSIP OPTION $0 EMPL ACCOMP MISSION $2,661,540 EMPL FIND OTHER GOVTJOB $380,220 PPS PLACE MENT $760,440 OTHER COSTS $500,000 $395,000 TOTAL $500,000 $395,000 $0 $895,000 $4,887,482 US Army TMDE Support Center-Letterkenny Cost to Move Equipment 4 Environmentally Controlled $400,000 Laboratory Modules @ $100,00 ea Calibration Standards and Miscellaneous Equipment Construction Costs New Construction Industrial Shell for Laboratories $675,000 8450 ft2 @ $80/ft2 Office 600 it2 @ $94/it2 55,000 Dock Area 25,000 $755,000 Renovation Industrial Shell for Laboratories $340,000 8450 ft2 @ $40/ft2 Office 600 ft2 @ $50/ft2 30,000 Dock Area I TENANT MISSION IMPACT FOR: Defense Finance and Accounting Service MISSION: Provides Finance and Accounting Services to Letterkenny and all tenants located at Letterkenny plus subordinate elements of those organizations. WHY LOCATED AT LETTERKENNY? The customer base is at Letterkenny. MISSION IMPACT IF ELIMINATEDRELOCATED? If timed and executed properly, very little impact. PLANNED DISPOSITION, IF KNOWN? The responsibilities of this organization are scheduled to be absorbed at another location as part of a DFAS Headquarters regionalization of Finance and Accounting services across DOD. This action is independent of BRAC 95 a'nd therefore the Letterkenny DFAS organization should not have been included in the DOD BRAC 95 proposal for Letterkenny Army Depot. The tenant was included in the Letterkenny BRAC package and was identified as a tenant that would move to site x. Because DFAS was included in the DOD BRAC 95 package for Letterkenny, it was retained as part of this analysis to make appropriate comparisons. Page 1 DEFENSE FINANCE & ACCOUNTING SERVICE @FA9 TYPE COSTS NOS. EMPLOYEES IN CATEGORY -- SEVERANCE ENTITLEMENTS SEVERANCE PAY 417691 PER EMPLOYEE UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION- 3OWKS@$375 LUMP SUM ANNUAL LEAVE PAYOUT-314 - HRS BS22.04 RETRAINING SEVERED EMPLOY EES-$5,000 G~VT-FICAIMEDICARE CONTRIBUTIONS FOR FERS(7.65'10) EMPL GOVT -1FICAMEDICARE CONTRIBUTIONS FOR CSRS(1.45%) EMPL PCS COSTS COBRA MODEL $33,044 PER EMPLOYEE DARSE COST (DESCOM EXPERIENCE-$43,000 PER EMPLOYEE ADDITIONAL AL COSTS BASED ON UNLIMITED LEAVE BALANCE LAW-160 HOURS(ijJ22.04 EXTENDED HEALTH CARE @ $285 AVGJMOS FOR 18 MOS. VSIP OPTION NON PEOPLE COSTS EMPLOYEES SEVERED 53 $937,623 $596,250 $390,152 $265,000 $6,767 $6,4 13 $1 86,899 $271,890 EMPL OPT RET 10 $1 12,500 $73,614 $35,264 EMPL EARLY RET 15 $168,750 $1 10,420 $52,896 VSIP OPTION o - - $0 EMPL ACCOMP MISSION o -- - $0 $0 EMPL FIND OTHER GOVT JOB o $0 $0 PPS PLACE MENT o - -~ $0 $0 OTHER COSTS - -- TOTAL 78 $937,623 $877,500 $574,186 $265,000 $6,767 $6,413 $0 $0 $275,059 $271,890 $0 Page 2 DEFENSE FINANCE & ACCOUNTING SERVICE (DFAS) TYPE COSTS - GRAND TOTAL THIS TENANT WAS INCLUDED IN THE DOD BRAC PACKAGE FOR LETTERKENNY. IT WAS SHOWN AS A MOVE TO SITE X. IN REALITY, IT IS SCHEDULED TO MOVE BECAUSE OF DFAS PLANS TO REGIONALIZE SUPPORT (AND NOT BECAUSE O F A BRAC 95 PROPOSED ACTION. IN ORDER TO HAVE THIS PACKAGE BE CONSISTENT WITH THE DOD BRAC PACKAGE, THIS TENANT WAS INCLUDED, HOWEVER, THE COST DATA IN THIS PACKAGE WAS PREPARED ON A LEAST COST SCENERIO, LE. MINIMUM PCS MOVES AND MAXIMUM RETIREMENTS I I I I I I EMPL OPT RET -~---- - $221,378 EMPLOYEES SEVERED S2,660,994 EMPL EARLY RET $332,066 VSIP OPTION -- - -. - SO TOTAL $0 $0 $3,214,438 EMPL ACCOMP MISSION -- SO EMPL FIND OTHER GOVT JOB - SO PPS PLACE MENT -- SO OTHER COSTS - . -- SO TENANT MISSION IMPACT FOR: Test Measurement & Diagnostic Equipment - Region 1 MISSION: Manages all Army test equipment calibration, repair, and metrology services for the Northeastern United States, and provides services on a reimbursable basis to other DOD, DOD contractor, and federal agency customers. The region office provides supply, financial, quality assurance, property accountability, equipment management and automated information management systems support to 2 secondary reference laboratories, 8 mobile calibration teams and 16 fixed calibration laboratories. and south to Virginia. WHY LOCATED AT LETTERKENNY? Central to TMDE Support Centers supported by USATA-Region 1. MISSION IMPACT IF ELIMINATEDIRELOCATED? Elimination would require a reorganization of the USATA. Relocation would primarily be a change in support location. Relocation would increase recurring travel costs for staff support and transportation costs for shipment of supplies and repair parts. PLANNED DISPOSITION, IF KNOWN USATA has no plans to eliminate this organization. Because of its central location serious consideration should be given to retaining this tenant and its subordinate element at Letterkenny, regardless of the disposition of the maintenance mission. If , forced to relocate, alternate sites should be based on one time relocation costs and recurring travel and transportation costs. US ARMY TMDE SUPPORT - REGION 1 0 PROVIDES SUPPORT FOR NORTHEAST REGION TMDE SUPPORT CENTERS - SUPPLIES/REPAIR PARTS - MANAGEMENT AND SUPERVISION - BUDGET FORMULATION AND FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT - QUALITY ASSURANCE - PROPERTY ACCOUNTABILITY - EQUIPMENT MANAGEMENT - AUTOMATED INFORMATION SYSTEMS 0 CLOSURE WOULD FORCE REORGANIZATION OF THE US ARMY TMDE ACTIVITY 0 LETTERKENNY OPTIMUM LOCATION - WITHIN 8 HOUR DRIVE OF 8 OF 10 TMDE SUPPORT CENTERS - DAY TRIP DISTANCE TO 11 OF 17 FIXED SITE LOCATIONS 0 MOVE WOULD RESULT IN INCREASED TRAVEL AND TRANSPORTATION COSTS 0 MOVE WOULD RESULT IN LOSS OF EXPERIENCED WORKFORCE MISSION IMPACT The US Army Test, Measurement, and Diagnostic Equipment (TMDE) Activity calibration laboratories are designed as a hierarchical network providing measurement traceability back to national standards. Within the US Army TMDE Support Region 1 the secondary reference laboratories that calibrate first (transfer) level calibrati-on equipment (standards) are geographically located for quick turnaround. The TMDE Support Centers (TSCs) serviced by the Letterkenny Area Calibration Laboratory (ACL) make approximately one trip per day, or a total of 250 trips per year to the ACL for emergency service or scheduled recertification of their calibration standards. If the Letterkenny ACL workload was transferred to Tobyhanna costs for mileage, per diem and lost employee time would increase. Shipping costs for routine individual item service would also increase. More importantly, equipment turnaround time would increase and the system would be less responsive to TSC and customer requirements. The optimum location from a transportation point of view would be the Washington/Baltimore metropolitan area, but this would increase costs for salaries, facilities and utilities. For the US Army TMDE Support Region 1, Letterkenny is an ideal location for an ACL. It is close to its customer base without the high cost of a metropolitan area. Providing this secondary reference service from any other TSC location would increase customer cost and/or increase equipment turnaround time. The Region TMDE Management Office at Letterkenny is located within an 8 hour drive of all but two of the Region 1 TSCs, and within day trip distance of 11 of 17 fixed site calibration laboratories. Moving the Region office to another TSC location would result in increased travel costs for the staff visits required to provide management and supervision, financial, quality assurance, property accountability and equipment management support to US Army TMDE Support Region 1. Encl. 4 US Army TMDE Yupport Region 1 Labs Ft Dix Ft Monmouth Labdreams Labsrreams Labs Labdreams Labdreams ACL ICL Ft Ritcl Mobile 7 ie 1 Mobile 2 Mobile 3 Mobile 4 Mobile 5 Ft Devens Watervliet Mobile Watertown* Edgewood ARUHDL Ft Meade Mobile ACL ICL Seneca Mobile * BRAC Closure TMDERGl .XLS Page 1 TEST MEASUREMENT & DIAGNOSTIC EQUIPMENT (TMDE) CENTER-REGION 1 TYPE COSTS NOS. EMPLOYEES IN CATEGORY SEVERANCE ENTITLEMENTS SEVERANCE PAY -$I7691 PER EMPLOYEE UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION- 3OWKS@$375 LUMP SUM ANNUAL LEAVE PAYOUT-344 HRS BS22.04 RETRAINING SEVERED EMPLOY EES-$5,000 -- GOVT -FICA/MEDICARE CONTRIBUTIONS FOR FERS(7.65%) EMPL GOVT -FICA/MEDICARE CONTRIBUTIONS FOR CSRS(1.45%) EMPL PCS COSTS COBRA MODEL $33,044 PER EMPLOYEE DARSE COST (DESCOM EXPERIENCE-$43,000 PER EMPLOYEE ADDITIONAL AL COSTS BASED ON UNLIMITED LEAVE BALANCE LAW-160 HOURS@22.04 EXTENDED HEALTH CARE @ $285 AVGIMOS FOR 18 MOS. VSIP OPTION NON PEOPLE COSTS EMPLOYEES SEVERED 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $6,767 $6,4 1 3 $0 $0 EMPL OPT RET - 0 $0 $0 $0 EMPL EARLY RET 1 $1 1,250 $7,361 $3,526 VSIP OPTION 0 -- - $0 EMPL ACCOMP MISSION 9 --- $297,396 5387,000 EMPL FIND OTHER GOVTJOB 3 $99,132 $129,000 PPS PLACE MENT 3 $99,132 $129,000 OTHER COSTS TOTAL 16 $0 $1 1,250 $7,361 $0 $6,767 $6,413 $495,660 $645,000 $3,526 $0 $0 Page 2 TEST MEASUREMENT & DIAGNOSTIC EQUIPMENT (TMDE) CENTER-REGION 1 TYPE COSTS EQUIPMENT MOVING EXPENSE ~ R U C T I O N COSTS AT NEW SITE-RANGE $170,000 TO $330,000 COST OF PRODUCTMTY LOSS-SEE ATTACHED ANALYSIS GRANDTOTAL EMPLOYEES SEVERED $13,180 EMPL OPT RET ~ - - ~ .- SO EMPL EARLY RET $22,138 EMF'L ACCOMP MISSION ~. ~~ $684,396 VSIP OPTION $0 EMPL FIND OTHER GOVT JOB $228,132 PPS PLACE MENT $228,132 .- OTHER COSTS $10,000 $1 70,000 $180,000 TOTAL $1 0,000 $1 70,000 $0 $1,355,978 US Army TMDE Support-Region 1 Construction Costs for Moving Region Office New Construction: 1400 ft2 Office @ $94/ft2 = $130,000 2500 f t L Supply @ $80/ft2 = $200,000 -$330,000 Kenovation: 1400 f t ' Office @ $50/ft2 = $ 70,000 2500 ft' Supply @ $40/ft2 = 100,000 $~70,000 TENANT MISSION IMPACT FOR: Army Audit Agency MISSION: Assists the Army in satiseing statutory and fiduciary responsibilities as well as assisting Army managers in making informed decisions, resolving issues and using resources effectively. It provides Army leadership with a full range of objective and independent services, including financiaVperformance audits, and consulting services. The agency has the authority to audit all organizations, activities, programs, and hnctions of the Army. WHY LOCATED AT LETTERKENNY? This tenant provides support to Letterkenny, tenants at Letterkenny, and a number of Army organizations within the commuting area. In the last several years the local AAA ofice's work has expanded beyond Letterkenny; in fact, in the past three years only two audits have been conducted which directly involved Letterkenny. AAA could be located at another installation; however, Letterkenny provides a central cost effective location for satiseing the organization's customer base. MISSION IMPACT IF ELIMINATEDJRELOCATED? Impact would be limited to skill loss associated with failure of employees to accompany the organization to the new location (one). Since the workforce is young salaries are high, and the assumption is the organization would remain within 100 miles (due to customer locations) it is assumed all the professional auditors will accompany the mission. Based on this fact, mission impacts of a relocation are considered quite low. PLANNED DISPOSITION, IF KNOWN? The DOD BRAC 95 package for Letterkenny shows this organization being eliminated. Discussions with tenant indicate there would be no intention on AAA's part to eliminate the organization. AAA's desire is to remain located at Letterkenny regardless of what happens to the Depot Maintenance mission at Letterkenny. If that is not permitted by Army leadership, then the organization will be relocated. The foresees no savings are possible through the proposed BRAC actions since AAA has workload to replace the small workload associated with the Letterkenny Depot maintenance mission. DDLP as a DLA organization is not supported by AAA. Since AAA has performed a small amount of work for Letterkenny for the past three years, this package does show a small dollar savings associated with the Letterkenny BRAC 95 proposal. Page 1 ARMY AUDIT ACTIVITY TYPE COSTS NOS. EMPLOYEES I N CATEGORY EMPLOYEES SEVERED 1 EMPL OPT RET 0 SEVERANCE ENTITLEMENTS SEVERANCE PAY 417691 PER EMPLOYEE UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION- 30WKS@$375 LUMP SUM ANNUAL LEAVE PAYOUT-344 fiRS @$22.04 RETRAINING SEVERED EMPLOYEES-$5,000 GOVT -FICA/MEDICARE CONTRIBUTIONS FOR FERS(7.65%) EMPL GOVT -FICA/MEDICARE CONTRIBUTIONS FOR CSRS(1.45%) EMPL PCS COSTS COBRA MODEL $33.044 PER EMPLOYEE DARSE COST (DESCOM EXPERIENCE-$43,000 PER EMPLOYEE ADDITIONAL AL COSTS BASED ON UNLIMITED LEAVE BALANCE LAW-160 HOURS@22.04 EXTENDED HEALTH CARE @ $285 AVGlMOS FOR 18 MOS. VSIP OPTION NON PEOPLE COSTS $0 $0 $0 $17,69 1 $1 1,250 $7,361 $5,000 $6,767 $6,4 13 $3,526 $5,130 EMPL EARLY RET 0 $0 $0 $0 VSIP OPTION 0 EMPL ACCOMP MISSION 12 $0 $0 $0 EMPL FIND OTHER GOVT JOB $396,528 $5 16,000 -_______ - 0 $0 $0 PPS PLACE MENT 0 13 $1 7,691 $1 1,250 $7,361 $5,000 $6,767 $6,413 $396,528 $516,000 $3,526 $5,130 $0 OTHER COSTS TOTAL EMPL IRMY AUDIT ACTlVITY EMPLOYEES OPT rYPE COSTS SEVERED RET ZtAND TOTAL $63,139 SO I EMPL E W L FIND EMPL VSIP ACCOMP OTHER PPS PLACI EARLY RET OPTION MISSION GOVT JOB MENT COSTS 1 Page 2 TENANT MISSION IMPACT FOR: Health Clinic MISSION: The Health Clinic at Letterkemy Army Depot (LEAD) is an occupational health clinic and also serves as a Primary Care Clinic. The clinic works closely with the Industrial Hygiene Office and Safety Office to provide a safe working environment. The Clinic provides periodic medical screening to Federal employees (including active duty military) based on the employee's occupational exposures. The program consists of a Vision Program, Hearing Conservation, Pregnancy Surveillance, and a Respiratory Program. The LEAD Health Clinic also provides Primary Care services to the military beneficiaries. This includes Active Duty and their family members and retirees and their family members. These services include pharmacy, laboratory, radiology, and physician appointments, and an Employee Assistance Program. The Industrial Hygiene staff identifies an monitors potentially hazardous conditions in the work environment which could affect the health and safety of employees. The work environment is monitored through inspections and surveys to insure the continued health and safety of depot employees. WHY LOCATED AT LETTERKENNY? The clinic has two primary customers. One is the depot and tenant organizations; while the second customer base consists of over 20,000 retired military personnel in this geographic area. A smaller workload is the support provided to the Army Reserve Units located at Greencastle, PA and the Army Reserve and Army Guard Units who do~heir annual training at LEAD. MISSION IMPACT IF ELIMINATED/RELOCATED? Emergency treatment requirements would have to be evacuated to local hospitals which would increase the chargeback costs to the depot. Other medical services for industrial employees remaining at Letterkenny would have to be performed by another medical unit outside the geographic area which would increase per patient/employee medical costs and cause added delays for performance of required actions. To contract Industrial Hygiene services out to the local economy would cost about $75.00 to $100.00 per hour. The present cost is zero because of ISSA. There is presently 16,000 manyears of work to be done annually. PLANNED DISPOSITION, IF KNOWN? Although the entity was identified to be eliminated in the DOD BRAC 95 package for Letterkenny, there is no way the organization can be eliminated. There would be a workload reduction as noted in the return on investment package; however, the following medical services will have to continue: a. support to the Letterkenny Ammunition mission, b. support of twenty thousand military retirees in the geographic area (25% of organization's current workload), and c. support to the Greencastle Reserve Unit as well as the Army Guard and Reserve Units who doe their annual training at LEAD. This tenant recently completed a $330,000 facility expansion/modernization investment at Letterkenny. It is their desire to remain a tenant at Letterkenny even if the depot loses its maintenance mission. Since they occupy part of the Depot Headquarter's building, they believe continued occupancy of that facility would not increase over all operating costs at the depot. The current location will permit them to provide both cost and mission effective support to the residual Letterkenny missions and to other customers currently supported. Page 1 HEALTH CLINIC TYPE COSTS NOS. EMPLOYEES IN CATEGORY SEVERANCE ENTITLEMENTS SEVERANCE PAY -$I7691 PER EMPLOYEE UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION- 3OWKS@$375 LUMP SUM ANNUAL LEAVE PAYOUT-344 HRS 0522.04 RETRAINING SEVERED EMPLOYEES-$5,000 GOVT -FICA/MEDICARE CONTRIBUTIONS FOR FERS(7.65%) EMPL - GOVT -FICA/MEDICARE CONTRIBUTIONS FOR CSRS(1.45%) EMPL PCS COSTS COBRA MODEL $33,044 PER EMPLOYEE DARSE COST (DESCOM EXPERIENCE-$43,000 PER EMPLOYEE ADDITIONAL AL COSTS BASED ON UNLIMITED LEAVE BALANCE LAW-160 HOURS@Z2.04 EXTENDED HEALTH CARE @ $285 AVGIMOS FOR 18 MOS. VSIP OPTION NON PEOPLE COSTS EMPLOYEES SEVERED 5 $88,455 $56,250 ppp$36,807 $25,000 $6,767 $6,4 13 $1 7,632 $25,650 EMPL OPT RET 1 $1 1,250 EMPL EARLY RET 1 $1 1,250 VSIP OPTION 0 $7,361 pp $3,526 EMPL ACCOMP MISSION 3 pp $51,530 $25,000 $6,767 $6,413 $264,352 $344,000 $24,685 $25,650 $0 $7,361 $3,526 $99,132 $129,000 $0 EMPL FIND OTHER GOVT JOB 0 $0 $0 $165,220 $215,000 PPS PLACE m N T - 5 OTHER COSTS -- TOTAL 15 $88,455 $78,750 HEALTH CLINIC Page 2 TENANT MISSION IMPACT FOR: Defense Reutilization & Marketing Office (DRMO) MISSION: Provide property disposal support. WHY LOCATED AT LETTERKENNY? DRMO is located here to provide disposal support to the installation and surrounding DOD activities. MISSION IMPACT IF ELIMINATEDIRELOCATED? Surrounding DRMO's will absorb remaining workload if eliminated. PLANNED DISPOSITION, IF KNOWN? DRMO would downsize if they remain on remaining portion of installation. If closed, see above response. , i ' .. * ' P i d h h COK#AHD: DEFENSE LOGISTILS AGENCY r FIELD LOfiNflND: DEFEtiSE HEUTILIZRTION AND NARKETING SERVICE, b A T i L E Ci'EEr:, # I . t Tihrt t rT H C T I L ~ T T : DEFEhiE hEuTl~1;ATlOrl kdl, MkF.I'\ETItiG O i F i C i - i E T T E i i L i ~ d f ~y . I + : KECEIVED A1iD FKOCESSED APPROIILATELY 85,E;th L I N E - i :EX GITH A TOTAL ACDiJISITION COST OF 3473,763,124 DOLLRRS r INSIDE STORAGE: i14 ,600 SO F i . f OUTSIDE STORAGE: AF'ROX 35 ACWES/1,456,5tb SU F T r EISSION STATEKNT: PROVIDE FULL DISPOSAL SUPPORT FOR HAZARDOUS AND NON HAZRRDDUS EXCESS 8 SURPiUS PROPERTY AND ADRItiISTER ENVIRONfiENTAL DISPOSAL CONTRACTS FOR ALL DoD A C T I V I T I E S IN: SOUTH CENTRAL 8 YESTERN PA. CENTRAL 8 YESTERN HARYLAND EASTERN t NORTHERN WtST VA ACCDT GVEh FLOW PIATERIAL FROB WASHINGTON DC AREA 8 IIDSP. fi DISTkIEUTION CENTER FOR .PRECIOUS RETAL RECOVERY EQUIPtIENT AND SUPPLIES FOR PIILITRRY INSTALLATIOHS EAST OF W l S S I S S I P P l & EUROPE. * OPEkATE REGIONAL PRECIOUS RETRL DEFINIT ION 8 PROCESSING CEtiTER r flETtiODS OF PROPERTY DISPOSAL: REDISTRIBUTION OF PROPERTY WITHIN DoD, FEDERRL 8 STATE GDVEF;HFEHTS SGiE TO THE GENERAL PUBLIC ULTIEATE DISPOSAL THROUGH SEKVICE CONTRACT FOREIGN f l IL ITARY SALES DE#IL ITARIZRTION OF NIL ITARY PECULIAR FIHOPERTY MISSION SUPPORT RESPONSIBILITIES LETTERKENNY ARMY DEPOT (HOST) Letterkenny Army Depot (LEAD) has many mi6sions. The Depot Systems Command (DESCOII Headquarters for the U.S. Army is located on LEAD. LEAD has many unique maintenance and supply missions. Weapons system which are rebuilt or-receive depot level maintenance include various types of towed and self propelled artillery, tactical trucks and trailers, chemical warfare decontamination equipment, fire control optics, armored recovery vehicles. ammunition carriers and several special projects. Under the tactical missile consolidation recommended by BRAC '93. 18 tactical missile systems are scheduled to transition to LEAD, nine h m y and nine Interservice 6yStem6. LEAD has a major conventional ammunition storage capability. LEAD is relatively large in terms of real estate and personnel. Approximately 19,500 acres and 4,100 people including tenant activities. DEFENSE REUTILIZATION AND MARKETING OFFICE - LETTERKENNY Our primary mission is to provide disposal service to the host installation and other DOD activities is our geographical area. Our ( operation encompasses three states, PA, WV and MD. Our operation include6 the receipt, warehousing, demilitarization, precioug metal recovery and preparation of excess/surplus property for reissue, sale or other disposition. In essence. DRMO Letterkenny ig where the rubber hits the road in the di6p6al business. Th-e DRlrlO is an- additional source of supply. We take great pride in the fact that we give back to Gov't agencies ingtead of taking. We make s e ~ i o u s endeavors to return dollars to the U.S. Treasury through the disposal program. We provide technical assistance to generating activities and maintain a close Iiaigon to ensure our generators can accomplish their military mission wit6 minimum effort. MAJOR GENERATORS OF PROPERTY TO DRMO LETTERKENNY . Letterkenny Army Depot Defense Distribution Depot Letterkenny Fort Detrick, MD. Fort Ritchie, MD. Camp David. HD. 167th Airlift Group, Martinsburg, W . 1 7 1 ~ t Air Refueling Wing, Pittsburg, PA. 911th Airlift Group. Pittsburg, PA. 79th ARCOH, Oakdale, PA. .' ., ACTIVITIES EWE GND ADDRESS DODCIM: EPA CAPT hARRY R. HAAR USKC CENTER 3001 Plea;- ,a: L'allev Altccna, PA 16632 ( cfls 120 - CTOC:! DEF4STENT ?!L!TAi7Y AFFAIZS State Armory Eoard F t . Indianto~n Bao Annville, i s 1730; BEAYES F4LLS %P!OFtY !+y3;si PAD982575241 150 Janet Street Beaver Fai I;, PA 15?1i2-!:>04 SELLEF24TE G R E R Y Route 553 Ea;: Eei le+cnte, FA 16323-2-7? ER:BFCAD FEtf3cf 39 Sa:kr.ur Strep: Bradford, PA it701-I917 BUTLER USkR CENTEL 360 Evans C i t y Road Putie-, PA 16301-,7?9 Elvc f POINT OF WNTACT TELEPHONE 1 24 hr Fhimbw Anthony Fiore 81 4-943-i~t4 Fred Miller 81 4-946-6989 Jefi 0l;en 717-851-5342 717-E5!-S9?5 Pat Martin DSN 491-8332 John Dick 41 2-929-3232 N25ATI PA1210522578 Joseph Angel 412-758-7277 W25KYQ PA521 1890038 Dennis Burke 412-789-?:I5 Rr. Weber Barry S;nith 717-257-9357 Don Ni ederga! 1 (DSN) 57<1-9357 LETTERKENNY ARMY DEPOT SDSLE-ENC, Bldg 613 Cha~bersbuig, ?A 17201-4150 ( CHAl(EERSS#G ARFZRY 1010 i i n c o i n Uay West Chamb~ic.:lurg, PA 1 7 3 1 PFC YELVI?j L. BfiZWN U Golden Fiod Acres P.0. 3ox 985 Cl earf i e l d, PA 1 6830-0988 CLEARFiiiD ARMORY P.O. @ox 817 Clearf i e ld , PA 16830-11347 OMS t l l - CONNELLS'JILLE RD X I , Box 541-E Connel l s v i l ! e, PA 15425-0662 WNWELLSUi LLE ARMORY 108 West Washington Avenue Connel l svi i l e, ?A 15425-4453 O?!S #13 - CCRAOPCL!S 835 F i f t h Avenue Coraopolis, FA 15108-1527 $25~12 PA6213820503 Doug Warnock 18435 717-267-9101 ' G T E ~ Epstein 91 1 AiRLIFT ERGUPICE0 F66712 FA7c-...-m .1tb':4. --= LL I v . . . ~ ,ti ?vn G~mperl e 412-269-8749 412-263-;25::, Pit tsburgh In ternat ional A i rpar t dRS Richard Feid DSE! 277-8749 316 Defense Avenue, Suite 101 Yll~ W i i k DSW-277-3114 Coraopol i s, PA 15108-4403 PEHNSYLVANIA A13 NATIONAL GW2D i 17:;t) FE&z1 FAD! 14942532 C a ~ t John Tower 41?-474-76& !s00851-';061 P i t t i bu rgh In ternat ional A i rpor t MSGi J s f f Hedges DSN 277-2369 161 ARM-EM, Mustang Ciive, Z!dg 110 Coraapoiis, PA 15:08-4300 COFRY ARflGRY 205 East Xashington Street Corry, PA 16407-lM2 U.S. MRRIM CORPS 2nd Platoon (BEIN) TR 4th Marine, FMF, USYC Ebensburg , PA 15931-2955 ER!E US ARMED FORCES -CJ. .-, ;,.3 Old Frfncn Road Hi7746 PAD791947492 GSgt Rai ney 31 4-172-6440 814-472-7128 , .. L ,I EMS t 5 , SHC !/! l?th INFANTRY 6th 2nd Parade Streets Erie, PA It507-1695 EVERETT AERCRY HD $4, SC: 283 1LT EARLY COLBSRN USA Route 9, Pox 6 i a i r m n t , Vd 265:?-SSS? FCRD C!?Y GEECRY 201 Tenth Street Ford Z i t y , ?A ib&Z&-l=l" HE USAS FEAT SIiCLJIE ANRT-EWE For t Rit.zhie, ?!!I 21719-53i0 US br,zv, S i t e R Harbaugh Valley ;d. Blue R:ase S i ~ n l t , PA 1,212 (Mai! t o Ft. R i Y h i ? ) Ffi$GKLIN S#S$ $2 1059-!5t: Street Ext. Frsn;:! i n , PA !6323-;1!)? FRA?.;KLIN PMZb #1 1415 P i t t s b u r g h Road Fr;fit!;n, PA 16525 USAB FT. DETRICi; 2i;e;toratp of iogi;t ics Hazardocs ?!ateria: Manige~~snt Cf f i c e HSED-LCH ;rrip;ick, 29 l17CZ GSAi6KI 19 2Nf;EX 15 Wornan ' 5 Kill Court crpijerlci:, ti2 21701 ijZ5#Yl"' PA121 1890024 Steven Luce 814-871-4217 B i l l Hoffman P h i l l i p Marne Ed Dorsey Bobby Smith Les Uoodard Perry ijood Perry Wood Paul Abshire Ron a i l 1 Shultz, 3 r 301-878-3968 301-873-4500 DSN-277-3968 DSN-277-5387 DSN 277-K!i,OS DSN-788-3632 717-878-4500 DSN-98B-27?2 7 17-878-3532 301-633-3439 301-519-7114 DSM 343-3441 L .. \ ' COK'ANY C li'3!4TH I N ( M I !200 i a i r f i e l d Road Gettysburg, PA 17??C-7?7? J L ~ I L.'I GEAiTON USAR CENTER ( US l t 50 E P.C, tox 609 Grafton, YV ?5354-(i&1)i) U.S. AEEY RESERVE ( G I 359 Pensinger Ro;d P.O. 3ox 100 Gre~ncast le, PA 17225-0190 SXEEF!SB!JG &fSA 10% 2141 Hunter Road P oreensburg, - PA 15501-4995 GREEMSBURG USAR CENTER 900 Arwory Drive Greensburg, PA 15601-5297 GREEMSBURG ARMORY RD %12, Box 232 Green;burg , PA 15601-9806 GROVE C I T Y AREDRY RD #2, George Junior Grove City, PA 16127-9317 4 97TH ARCOY AFA (1 11 1 9357 Uashi ngton Court P.O. Eox 2008 Hagerstown, MD 21742-?C$8 hTiiillTAGE ARWDRY 740 North Hermi tage Road Hermitage, PA 16148-3222 HOUIDAYSBiiZG ARMDRY Eai 319 Hoi 1 i daysbury, FA 16643-0319 HLiiiTII'!GiOM ARMORY 236 Standing Stone Avenue Huntington, PA 15652-1% .a>. I NDI ANFI ARMCRY 621 Nayne Avence Indiana, FA i5701-3097 Sgt. Shields 717-337-31!:15 LJ2zAzW F41?:00:335: Steven Clark 717-597-7102 Larry Steinberger 717-597-7:03 ~ 2 5 ~ ~ 7 P A D ~ ~ ~ : b J 5 ~ + l Joe Ruzicka 4 12-834-8960 Sic Wenger 412-934-691(] JCHHSTG!dN USAR CEWTER 295 Goucher S t r e ~ r Johnst own, FA 15905-3492 .. * JOkkiSTCUN GAR CENTCH L ! AMSA 104 1300 St. C!air Road Johnstein, FA 15905-1499 OM3 # I 2 - JCHNSTFJN 565 Waiters Avenue Zohnztown, PA 15907-!235 CKS #?: - JOENSTE"N 5~nicipal 4:rport ~ p - t . . ~'t , , , ,- PA i59157-(:I157 !:$;E A3:!5v{ 205 Chf~tnut Street Kane, PA !673-16Gz Ens t 2 b - LEWISiOXN Route 522 Eiarth Lewistcwn, PA 17044 LIECXIiff ARMCRY 352 West Main Skeet Ligonler, FA 15t53-112 157TH ii"/ ANG Eastern Kest Virginia Martin;Surg , WV 2Z301-<1203 MEAG!,J!itE #fiE$Y C 294 ziasond Fark ~eadvi!le, PA ;t335--305 EMS $7 m " . ? w . , . ,,.; :rcrf; A,;enue :& : s . ; t : s , ?& l , j IC! k'23ASO FA4210022999 Dan Miller R14-535-2551 William Gero Ronald Miller 81 4-533-2218 ~ ~ t 4 8 2 YV1572890001 Capt. Hammer ~04-267-qs74 ~@4-2,j7-53~!:! Ron Cai! y DSN-242-9291 W25ASC b '?C w.,ARS PAD982557587 Bob Fergoson 412-658-281 1 #?'r';n -- .. , LI PA121 1890028 J a m !+utter 412-654-7841 717-865-3995 .., - . .I CHAKLES E. KELLY SLPPCilT FAC!L!TY AFKA-CK-EH (DEE) Oakdale, FA 15071-5001 - PITTC',! IRPU 1 dr.d Oil Crane henue p i t t - b . L , ~ ~ , ,.-- &, FA 1521b-312 ?E!,;?iS{LyAN I A A 1 R NATICNAL GUARD Pit tsburgh I n t ~ r n a t i o n a ! A i rpor t 16iAFW-EN, Mustang Drive, B ldg 11% c ~ ~ . ~ ~ - ,o,poii3, 7 ;- PA i5!$3-480$ piE! i I i i i ISWND Shop Supply and D i r Spt 3900 Grand Avenue Fit tsburqh, FA 15225 FVT STERLING L. MUiiELiND 7100 Leech f a r a Road Fitt;bura$, FA 152$6-!293 US ARMY CCHFS CF ENGIGEEZS 3500 Gr;no Avenue Pittsburgh, FA 15225 WEST VIEW ARKORY P.O. Box 97243 Pittsburgh, P9 15229-C248 nns #30 - PUNXS!JTAWREY Ntiith Findley Street Punxsutakzev, PA 15757-!499 PCNXZUTGWMEY 106 South G i ip in Street East Punxsutawney, PA 15767-1999 RiDGEliAY ARPi3Ri? 7 2 North 5road Street Eid;eway, PA 15853-1029 SCGTTJGLE GhYCfiY 501 Nor:h Brcadway Scc'tdaie, PA 15683-1050 Brznt Kc55 41"-"'-1797 i iil i d 412-777-1183 Steve Baker DSN-242-1232 T in Hoffman DSN 242- 1 185 C;pt John Tower 412-474-7640 !g5(351-Efit; ESGT J e i i Hedger DSN-277-8369 X:E74 2AS?biji:11ijQ50 Sharcn Donahue 412-644-5363 5ici; S U ~ ~ U ; 4!2-$44-&9!5 Ken hodinsky 412-644-4822 M i . Williams 314-932-8810 717-3$5-5575 ""C"C' ,,.. :,'* L . - ~ , .(A 7477 --I 7 nij??p;-j3 .-LA..,IU Dave johnson 614-938-5191 J i n Siroi; 412-7;1-!:8? 412-741-1126 C * , 1 4 ~ 9 4 ~ SIJPPCRT FACILITY P.O. Box !000 Park Czntral Road 9 3 South Logan Avenue Tyrcne, FA l&&-1510 ~GLKE?! ARFORY -.- -. .:,.iu 2i ckory Street Warren, FA :5355-?2Z: AF;?IY A'J!GiiC?j SLP?gR j FASILiTY #2 Goodridge Arfiory Airpcrt P.O. Bax D Washingtcn, FA i5;91-?(i;9 Dave U!ah 301-624-90% 331-241 -1 40!) DSM-375-3000 EXT - 1282 &~-crc ,dn,F PA8210021556 Randal ! Fisher 4 12-437-,m6 Edwin Mangoid 412-437-2491 Chief John Shultz j)s?{-242- 1287 Er. Quinn Page 1 DEFENSE REUTILIZATION & MARKETING OFC TYPE COSTS NOS. EMPLOYEES I N CATEGORY S E V E W C E ENTITLEMENTS SEVERANCE PAY -30WKS UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION- 30WKS@S240 LUMP SUM ANNUAL LEAVE PAYOUT-240 HRS @$14.25 RETRAINING SEVERED EMPLOY EES-$5,000 GOVT -FICAIMEDICARE CONTRIBUTIONS FOR FERS(7.65%) EMPL GOVT -FICAIMEDICARE CONTRIBUTIONS FOR CSRS(1.45%) EMPL PCS COSTS COBRA MODEL $30,000 PER EMPLOYEE HOME OWNER'S ASSISTANCE PROGRAM $41,800 PER EMPLOYEE ADDITIONAL AL COSTS BASED ON UNLIMITED LEAVE BALANCE LAW-160 HOURS@22.04 VSIP ONE TIME 9% SURCHARGE FOR CSRS VERA SEPARATIONS EMPL EARLY RET WNSIP 9 $30,780 $225,000 $24,000 EMPLOYEES SEVERED 4 $68,000 $24,000 $1 3,680 EMPLOPT RET WNSIP 6 $20,520 $150,000 VSIP OPTION 2 $6,840 $50,000 TOTAL 27 $68,000 $24,000 $71,820 $0 $0 $0 $1 80,000 $250,000 $0 $425,000 $24,000 EMPL ACCOMP MISSION 6 $ 1 80,000 $250,000 EMPL FIND OTHER GOVT 0 $0 $0 PPS PLACE- MENT 0 $0 $0 OTHER COSTS Page 2 I DEFENSE REUTILIZATION & MARKETING OFC TYPE COSTS ~ -- - EXTENDED H E A ~ E ~ S285/MO FOR 9 MOS NON PEOPLE COSTS FACILITY & EQUIPMENT OTHER OPERATIONAL COSTS TDY SPT, TEMP PERSONNEL, COMMERCIAL CONTRACTS, AND ENVIRONMENTAL CLEANUP GRAND TOTAL EMPLOPT RET WNSIP -- $1 70,520 EMPLOYEES SEVERED - $20,000 - $1 25,680 EMPL EARLY RET WNSIP - $279,780 TOTAL VSlP OPTION $56,840 EMPL ACCOMP MISSION - $430,000 EMPL FIND OTHER GOVT $0 PPS PLACE- MENT OTHER COSTS $0 $61,000 $335,000 $396,000 $61,000 $335,000 $0 $1,458,820 +616-932-5954 DRMS-KS 181 P82 MQR 29'95 11:27 dRAC CLOSURE COSTS FOR DRMO LETTERKENNY (31 DEC 99) 1 1 ,J A. CIVILIAN PERSONNEL ONE-TIME COSTS: garation Incantlves: 4 . Optional Retirements wlSPl fs: _--.__- -- , NO. OF EMPLOYEES AVERAGE BONUS ---- .................... . .- ---- - ------- -.-.-----. 1 COSTL€lT.XlS 3/29/95 (IN $000) TOTAL . . -.---- - -- - I 8. Voluntary Early Retirement Authority (VERA) wlincentive ....... FYs: ..+-. - NO. OF EMPLOYEES I AVERAGE BONUS I .- . I - (a) Average Hourly Pay = $14.251h+- I I"" FY 02 1 - - ---- - ---- - - - _ - . + - - , - I ---- (IN $000) I TOTAL -- I D. Resignations w/SPI - . - - -- . (IN $000) .---- -- NO. OF EMPLOYEES AVERAGE BONUS TOTAL I (IN $000) TOTAL - -- I I I C. 9% ONE-TIME COST FOR CSRS EMPLOYEES WITH VERA SEPARATION: - - ----xlI..-- 5 -X'RIF&S~S (SEVERANCE PAY): ' _J- I . -- ----- .. - . - . . - - . - - . . (a) (IN $000) W s : NO. OF EMPLOYEES NO. QF WEEKS WEEKLY AVERAGE PAY TOTAL . ----..-------- P/S ' NO. OF EMPLOYEES .. .-.+ ---. -- ---~ ----... ........ AVERAGE SALARY --.-- -. 9% OF BASIC PAY +616-932-5954 DRMS-KS 1 I - 8. Rite Costs (UNEMPLOYMENT): (b) f (IN $000) NO. OF EMPLOYEES NO. OF WEEKS WEEKLY AVG PAYMENT1 TOTAL I r~~~~~~~~~ BRAC CLOSURE COSTS FOR DRMO LETTERKENNY (31 DEC 99) .--- - . I COSTLETT.XL S ....... -..L.. --,.---,--.---- ........ - ........ 1 .. ----.- ( (b , .,- Based on estimate of .-....., ........-... ,.. .-.-. -. .....- ... I " (a) Average Hourly Pay = $16,29/hr - ... .--7 - --- ..... .-. C. Extended Health Benefit Costs: . - .- -. - -- - - - - - - ------- - (b) (IN $000) i u s : - --" -- NO. OF EMPLOYEES NO, OF MONTHS - MONTHLY COSTS -__C TOTAL -.- .--- 3/29 (b) ~ ~ e i A ~ m h Benefits Basbd'on t28Wrno I I --.--. 7-- I I . . . . . . ....... -T I I , -,..--..--,. L-- ----. -.- ('3 .... ..----- --. ___._ ._____._.^_._I____. __.__.-. . ---- (IN $000) .... Ns: -. NO. OF HOURS .-.-.--I ---. '--'-."'-'-'~.~-----~' ----- "-'-" --.,-----.-.-- "-- ..---.----- TOTAL ... . . . " " . ....... -74 3. A. C~vlllan PCS Costs: . .---- I (IN $000) .-- -FYs: NO. OF EMPLOYEES AVERAGE RELOCATION COST I TOTAL .. -..- - I +616-932-5954 DRMS-KS CO3TLElT.X 8 3/29/ ----- - - - , (IN $000) .----- TOTAL I I Transition Costs (to include administration costs): I I I I - I I I SECTION 8. CIVILIAN PERSONNEL END STRENGTH STAFFING REQUIREMENTS: FY01 FY02 0 - 0 W99 FY 00 15 0 7 0 ----- . ---.- ........ Civ Penn Civ Temp -.- FY97 FY98 27 27 - .. 7 7 DRMO Letterkenny BRAC 95 Cost Requirements Summary (Dollars in Thousands) Fac i l i t i e s : 0 Equipment: FY 97 L e a s e of Equipment 25 Transportation (MHE & Precious Metal Recovery) Other Costs - Operational: FY 97 TDY support due to loss of personnel 60 to handle BRAC workload increases. (S15K for 4-5 personnel for 2 week period per FQ from various DRMOs) ~emporary personnel-3 Wage Grade Commercial contracts (maintenance, fuel, phones, etc.) due to loss of ISA support before D M 0 closure *~nvironmental Cleanup * Army cost as part of base environmental closure plan. There may be cleanup of the DRMO scrapyard, if contadnaked, Provided as cost estimate and information only for planning purposes. Prepared by: C. Prior, DRMS-B, DSN932-7216, 2 9 Mar 95. WAR 29 ' 9 5 18:22 F R O M D R M S - S P A G E . BE12 Page No. 1 0 3 / 2 8 / 9 5 P D P G i YBARCODE # PLANT ACT # SYSTEM BAR # TITLE ------------- - -C-- l -"- l" ."- ...--*-*------- I--I---I------C--CI*L1I1----------- ** ITEMS IN LOCATION ==> CHAMBER 0033368 176 COMPUTER MDL 5140 0033375 176 COMPUTER MDL 5140 O04XT 176 MULTIPROTOCAL ROUTER/BRIIXE 9601406 176 A01700003119 176 A433CL010652 176 C933579799 176 FDEJ39877 176 JE492070187 176 K4030701859 176 MA00259763 176 2102368 176 ** Subtotal ** SWfTCH GRQBAL A-B CONTROLLER MDL 274-C2 COMPUTER MDL 2660 COMMUNICATION SERVER MDL 2100 MODEM MDL 3610~1001 MONTTOR COLOR MDL HCM 4 3 3 ~ COMPUTER MDL UIC-1003-00' PRINTER MDL P2000 DOT MATRIX PRINTER MDL P2000 DOT MATRIX COIQUTER MDL ZWX-248-62 COMPUZtER MDL ZWX-248-62 COMPUTER HDL ZWX-248-62 COMPUTER MDL ZWX-248-62 COMPUTER MDL ZWX-248-62 MONXTOR COLOR MDL ZVM 1380 MONITOR COLOR MDL ZVM 1380 MONXTOR COLOR MDL ZVM 1380 PRINTER PIDL ~ 2 0 0 0 DOT mmrx PRINTER MDL P2000 DOT MATRIX CD-ROM MDL CDU-6251 MONITOR COLOR MDL ZMM 14706 MONTTOR ,COLOR MDL E H M 1470G MODEM MDL 2400 BAUD COMPUTER PBRSONAL MDL ASL 433 KEYBOARD MDL, E03601QL DATAPHONE KDL 2048A TRANSCEIVER UNIT MDL MT-800 MONXTOR COLOR MDL CVP-5468A PRINTER .MDL MJ0430 DOT MATRIX PRINTER MI)L MPT-24X DOT MATRIX *** Total *** P Q G E .003 MQR 29 -- ' 95 10:23 F R O M D R M S - S drmshl 6 I n q u i r e Equipment hqident:ulmh0510 m&-d DL A TYPE P SF MANUF REG KEY ACTY EQUIPMENT T FT NAME SERIAL NUMBER MF EX DT 1010g6082 ence4 . : sedancpmcg ford g10-06082 1011g6037 enceP0 sedanmidsg ford 910-06037 112092048 cncepo pul/2ton g ford g 4 1 - 0 2 0 4 8 113795373 encePo stakeltong chevy g43-55373 116899866 enceY2 stake2.5Td ford 971-09866 147787975 ence%:, logger/crd$Er:aljon 12514 402977999 enceuo tracw7-14d case 77d573 406894649 enceYcs scpc20-50d dm* koehr 21327 406994651 ence frontloadd S t y deer 5 4 4 4 1 1 409892405 encev-J crncu35 d +oc0 p&h 56524 416887694 ence*> whswepridd 40" power 787027 917079372 enceN3 frk4gsl80y allis 114529 920092124 encey" f rk2-3gp p 7"" yale n523849 920092125 enter; frk2-3gp pa@ yale n523850 921080175 ence* frk4gp144p allis 116971 921289326 enceYrJ frk4qp180p 5e6 h y s t e a177b34524k '921289327 enceyrs frk4ypl80p s o u h y s t e a177b34525k 921289328 enceP5 frk4gpl80p 500 h y s t e a177b34526k 923089496 encey'r' frk6gp180g YMhyste a177b34561k 923089497 encer'4 frk6gplROg 7dL'hyste a177b34562k 923094207 e n c e J-5 f rk6gp180p roo yale 853528 925079498 ences ; frkl5gp2ld a hyste d6d4819 987982417 encedG' f rk4dpl80d case 9150230 989090283 enceje ' frklSdp2ld wiggi wlc901072 989094252 encefe2f rkl5dp2ld f Z c o w i g g i hwigginswlc934194 * Report Complete TENANT MISSION IMPACT FOR: Defense Printing Service (DPS) MISSION: To provide quality and mission responsive printing services for the best price for customers located at the installation. WHY LOCATED AT LETTERKENNY? DPS is located at Letterkenny to support the Defense Megacenter Chambersburg (DMC-C) with electronic output. The DPS supports the entire Letterkenny installation with hard copy printing, engineering drawing copying, desktop publishing, and bindery and distribution services. Potential services include aperture card scanning, output onto CD-ROM, and electronic storage. MISSION IMPACT IF ELIMINATEDJRELOCATED? DPS's main mission will follow the relocation of the DMC-C. The workload will be picked up at the DPS site at that location. There will be a period of mission interruption as the workload is transferred. Workload in support of the rest of the installation tenants will follow to the DPS site wherever they are relocated. A minute amount of printing will exist will the remaining Ammo mission, and that will be absorbed by our Detachment office in Mechanicsburg, Pa. PLANNED DISPOSITION, IF KNOWN? The majority of our workload is generated from the DMC-C. If they move to a new location, the electronic output workload will be picked up by the DPS site at that location. The DPS office at Letterkenny will be abolished. DEFENSE PRINTING SERVICE . MISSION The Defense Printing Service is responsible for the Department of Defense printing program and document automation, encompassing value-added conversion, electronic storage, output and distribution of hardcopy and digital information. Value to the customer includes quality products and services, which are competitively priced, and delivered on time. DEFENSE PRINTING SERVICE REPROGRAPHICS FACILITY LETTERKENNY PERSONNEL 1 Supervisory Printing Specialist 1 Automated Publishing Technician 4 Electronic Duplicating Operator DEFENSE PRINTING SERVICE REPROGRAPHICS FACILITY LETTERKENNY CHAIN OF COMMAND Defense Printing Service Management Office, Washington, DC Director, Mr. Mike Cocchiola Defense Printing Service Northeast Area, Philadelphia, PA Director, Ms. Pat White Defense Printing Service Detachment Director, Mr. Joe Bradley Office, Mechanicsburg, Defense Printing Service Reprographics Facility, Letterkenny Supervisor, Mrs. Kim Brown BRAC TENANT INFoRMATI~N - DEFENSE PRINTING SERVICE LETTERKENNY 1. Personnel 6 2. Customers Defense Megacenter electronic output 63% Letterkenny printing 31% DRMO printing 5% DDLP printing 1% 3. Mission impact a. If the Army's current recommendations to the BRAC are approved, the printing requirements from the remaining Letterkenny ammo operation can be completed at our Detachment Office in Mechanicsburg, PA, or, even so, on office copiers. Our printing shop in building 1 will be closed. b. If Letterkenny is drastically downsized (as the Army recommends), but the Megacenter remains, our personnel will be dropped to approximately 2 or 3 employees in direct support of the Megacenter output. And, in all honesty, with the communication lines as they are, the Megacenter output could be done in our Detachment Office in Mechanicsburg and our shop here at Letterkenny abolished. Page 1 DEFENSE PRINT PLANT TYPE COSTS NOS. EMPLOYEES IN CATEGORY SEVERANCE ENTITLEMENTS SEVERANCE PAY -$I7691 PER EMPLOYEE UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION- 30WKS@$375 -- LUMP SUM ANNUAL LEAVE PAYOUT344 HRS @$22.04 - --- - - ETRAINLNG SEVERED EMPLOY EES-$5,000 - --- - - - . GOVT -FICA/MEDICARE CONTRIBUTIONS FOR FERS(7.65%) EMPL GOVT -FICA/MEDICARE CONTRIBUTIONS FOR CSRS(1.45%) EMPL PCS COSTS COBRA MODEL $33,044 PER EMPLOYEE DARSE COST (DESCOM EXPERIENCE-$43,000 PER EMPLOYEE ADDITIONAL AL COSTS BASED ON UNLIMITED LEAVE BALANCE LAW-160 HOURS@22.04 EXTENDEDHEALTHCARE@ $285 AVGMOS FOR 18 MOS. VSIP OPTION NON PEOPLE COSTS EMPLOYEES SEVERED 4 $70,764 $45,000 - - -- $29,445 - $20,000 -- -- $6,767 $6,4 13 $14,106 $20,520 EMPL OPT RET -- 1 $1 1,250 - $7,361 - $3,526 EMPL EARLY RET 0 $0 $0 -- $0 VSIP OPTION 0 - --- $0 EMPL ACCOMP MISSION - 0 - -- - - -. -- - - $0 $0 EMPL FIND OTHER GOVT JOB 1 -- -- - - -- - -- - - - - -- $33,044 -- $43,000 PPS PLACE MENT 0 - -- - -- - $0 $0 OTHER COSTS -- - - - - - -- TOTAL 6 $70,764 $56,250 $36,807 $20,000 $6,767 --- $6,413 $33,044 $43,000 $1 7,632 $20,520 $0 Page 2 DEFENSE PRINT PLANT TYPE COSTS - COSTS TO TEAR DOWN, PACK, MOVE AND REINSTALL EQUIPMENT -- -- - - - -- - -- GRAND TOTAL EMPLOYEES SEVERED --- - - - - - - $213,015 EMPL OPT RET - - - - - - $22,138 EMPL EARLY RET -- . - - ---- -- -- SO VSIP OPTION -- EMPL ACCOMP MISSION -- -- - EMPL FIND OTHER GOVT JOB - - PPS PLACE MENT - --- - - - - -- -- -- SO $20,000 OTHER COSTS $331 ,I 97 TOTAL $20,000 $0 $20,000 - - $76,044 $0 TENANT MISSION IMPACT FOR: U.S. Army Materiel Command Management Engineering Activity, Industrial Operations Division (AMXME-D) MISSION: The mission of the U.S. Army Materiel Command (AMC) Management Engineering Activity (AMCMEA) is to serve as the principal Headquarters (HQ) AMC staff element for achieving competitive excellence in organization, management, and staffing structure needed to accomplish the primary AMC mission and goals through the application of state-of-the-art industrial and management engineering techniques and other analytical services. The AMCMEA provides customer requested business analysis services, and administers and executes the management engineering program for Ah4C and all its Major Subordinate Commands (MSCs) and Separate Reporting Activities (SRAs). WHY LOCATED AT LETTERKENNY? The Army proposed elimination of the AMCMEA, Industrial Operations Division (IOD) at Chambersburg, PA, was not supported by the BRAC proposal to eliminate maintenance operations at Letterkenny Army Depot (LEAD). There was no strategic or operational rationale for elimination of IOD. The location of IOD at Chambersburg was the result of a realignment action in 1989 which combined the HQ, U.S. Army Depot System Command Management Engineering Ofice with the AMCMEA Office responsible for the Manpower Staffing Standards System (MS-3) Program. Both organizations were located at LEAD. This realignment action saved 16 personnel resources or over $500,000. MISSION IMPACT IF ELIMINATEDIRELOCATED? If the AMCMEA IOD were eliminated, there would be no AMC organization in place to provide analytical management, cost studies, etc., to the Industrial Operations Command (IOC) which constitutes approximately 40% of the AMC. If the AMCMEA IOD were eliminated, additional personnel would have to be trained to perform the mission of the organization resulting in considerable loss of productivity. The cost impact would equate to one manyear of learning curve (lost productivity) per person at an average salary of $43,000 times 12 analysts or approximately $5 16,000. PLANNED DISPOSITION, IF KNOWN? Correspondence is being forwarded to HQ AMC which recommends the mission be retained at Chambersburg, PA with or without the LEAD Maintenance Mission. The alternative, which would cost in excess of $1 .O million, would be to relocate the mission to Huntsville, AL, where the parent organization is located. U. S. ARMY MATERIEL COMMAND MANAGEMENT ENGINEERING ACTIVITY I N D U S T R I A L OPERATIONS D I V I S I O N M I S S I O N STATEMENT T h e m i s s i o n o f t h e AMCMEA is t o s e r v e as t h e p r i n c i p a l H Q AMC s t a f f f o r a c h i e v i n g c o m p e t i t i v e e x c e l l e n c e i n o r g a n i z a t i o n , m a n a g e m e n t , a n d s t a f f i n g s t r u c t u r e n e e d e d t o ' a c c o m p l i s h t h e p r i m a r y AMC m i s s i o n a n d g o a l s t h r o u g h t h e a p p l i c a t i o n of s t a t e - o f - t h e - a r t i n d u s t r i a l a n d managemen t e n g i n e e r i n g t e c h n i q u e s a n d o t h e r a n a l y t i c a l s e r v i c e s . AMCMEA p r o v i d e s c u s t o m e r r e q u e s t e d b u s i n e s s a n a l y s i s a n d managemen t e n g i n e e r i n g s e r v i c e s f o r AMC. T h e m a j o r f u n c t i o n o f AMCMEA is t o p e r f o r m d i v e r s e , a d a p t a b l e , a n d r e s p o n s i v e a n a l y t i c a l s e r v i c e s t h r o u g h i n d e p e n d e n t a n d i n n o v a t i v e a n a l y s i s . Our f u n c t i o n a l a n a l y s i s c r o s s e s o r g a n i z a t i o n a l l i n e s f r o m DOD t o t h e MSCs. AMCMEA's CHAIN OF COMMAND I HQ AMC SPECIAL kNALYSlS OFFICE Mr. Michael Sandusky, 284-8337 I I AMC MGMT ENGR ACTIVITY DIRECTOR Ma. Harriett Tribble, 788-6401 DEP l J TY DIRECTOR I Mr. Michael Shoneay, 788-0401 1 INDUSTRIAL OPERATIONS DiV CHIEF Mr. Dewey F. Hutaler, Jr., 570-9778 I 1 J 1 I A 1 I I TEAM LEADER M r. Ed Fal tr 670-6238 J TEAM LEADER M r . h V 1 s 8 ter Tay lor &TO*-(524 1 TEAM LEADER Mr. Leorlard Pistone 670-6242 2 b v M a r . 28 '95 1 3 : 3 4 0000 SFcNF~X515Hsor ios U.S. Army Materiel Command Management ~ngineerfng Activity MISSION: The mieeion of the U.S. Anny Materiel cormnand Management Engineering ~ctivity ( A M W A ) ie to serve as the principal Headquarter 8 ( HQ) AMC staff element for achieving competitive excellence in organization, management, and staffing structure needed to accomplish the primary AMC mieeian and goale through the application of state-of-the-art Industrial and management engineering tec hniquers a-nd -at-her -urrd$zica-l m m r i . . MCMEA provides customer requested bueinese analyeie eervice~, and administers and executes the management engineering program for AMC and all ite ~ajor Subordinate Commands (MSCa) and Separate Reporting Activities (SRAe). SERVICE8 SUPPLIED TO LETTERKEPJPJ-Y a -DIPPOT - ( - W ) - t The AMCMEA does provide management engineering eervicee to LEAD as they do all other AMC installatione - primarily a13 a reeult of customer requeet. Studies for LEAD have helped them hpxave productivity and determine more accurate cost for operations. We do not exist to support Just LEAD but xather support the entire command. Only a small portion of AMCMEA workload ie generated by LEAD and if senrices are xequeated of the MCMEA by LP;AD, it ie primarily limited to and conducted by the Induetrial Operations Divieion. As indicated i n the division title, +he Induetrial Operations Division, located in Chambersburg, services the entire Industrial Operatione Command. IMPACT TO THE: AMC MIESLON IF AMCm-WERE-ELIMIN&TED: If the AMCMEA (Induatrial operation^ Division) were eliminated, there would be no AMC organization in place to provide analytical management, coet etudfes, etc., to the XOC which conetitutes approximately 40% of the AMC. If the Industrial Operations Divieion were eliminated, additional personnel would have to be trained to perform the d e e i a n o f the organization resulting in coneiderable lose of productivity. The cast impact would equate to 1 manyear of learning curve (lost productivity) per person at an average salary of $43,000 time@ 12 analysts or approximately $516,000 (eee attaahed). CUSTOMI~R BASE : The current cushxmrs of .the -AMCMEA Induetria-1 -0pentimrm Division are ALL the depots, arsenaler and ElQ AMC etaff and major subordinate co-nde. For FY94, profeeeional analyst6 support for the depots/arsenals/HQ AMC totaled approximately 80% with 62% for depots/arsenals and 18% for HQ AMC. The remaining 20% of analyet support was for organizationm outside the AMC. MODERNIZATION IMPACTS AT LEAD: In the 1985 time frame, the A M C m , for its miemion requirements, funded the construction of buildings 416 and 417 for $400,000 at LEAD. Mar. 28 '95 13:35 00a0 SRNFRX515Hsories P. 3 Methodology for ~ e t e d n i n g Coat Impact Number of Analysts in Industrial operations Divieion - 12 Average Salary of Analysts - $43,000 Learning Curve - For each replacement analyat, they would be 1 / 3 productive the firet year, 2 / 3 productive the eecond year therefore resulting in 1 year of lost productivity for each of the 12 analysts at $43,000 or a total of $516,000. Page 1 MANAGEMENT ENGINEERING ACTMTY TYPE COSTS NOS. EMPLOYEES IN CATEGORY SEVERANCE ENTITLEMENTS SEVERANCE PAY 417691 PER EMPLOYEE UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION- 30WKS@$375 LUMP SUM ANNUAL LEAVE PAYOUT344 HRS @$22.04 RETRAININGSEVERED EMPLOY EES-$5,000 G ~ V T -FICA/MEDICARE CONTRIBUTIONS FOR FERS(7.65%) EMPL GOVT -FICA/MEDICARE CONTRIBUTIONS FOR CSRS(1.4S0/o) EMPL PCS COSTS COBRA MODEL 533,044 PER EMPLOYEE DARSE COST (DESCOM EXPERIENCE-$43,000 PER EMPLOYEE ADDITIONAL AL COSTS BASED ON UNLIMITED LEAVE BALANCE LAW-160 HOURS@22.04 EXTENDED HEALTH CARE @ 5285 AVGIMOS FOR 18 MOS. VSIP OPTION NON PEOPLE COSTS EMPLOYEES SEVERED 4 $70,764 $45,000 $29,445 ElMPL OPT RET pp 0 EMPL EARLYRET 1 -- $20,000 $6,767 $6,4 1 3 $14,106 $20,520 VSIP OPTION 0 - -- $20,00( $6,761 $6,416 $0 $0 $0 ___ -- -- ~p - $1 1,250 $7,361 $3,526 EMPL ACCOMP MISSION 0 -- -- $33,044 $43,000 -- _ - $0 EMPL FIND OTHER GOVT JOB 1 - $0 $0 $297,396 $387,000 -- $330,440 $430,000 $1 7,632 $20,520 $0 PPS PLACE MENT 9 - I! $70,764 $56,25( $36,80i OTHER COSTS TOTAL TENANTS NOT INCLUDED IN DOD LETTERKENNY BRAC 95 PROPOSAL: DLA SUPPLY DEPOT-DDLP. DLA prepared a separate BRAC package for DDLP. For that reason, DDLP was excluded from the Army costs to eliminate the maintenance mission at Letterkenny. DDLP disestablishment is clearly a cost associated with the proposed elimination of the maintenance mission at Letterkenny since DLA has stated they will retain a depot at Letterkenny if they retain a maintenance mission, and their disestablishment action is totally driven to the proposed action for Letterkenny in BRAC 95. The Army contends the DDLP actions are actions being taken by DLA and are therefore not Army costs. Although that is technically correct, the $99 million one time costs are a cost to DOD and should be considered as part of the total decision. SYSTEMS INTEGRATION & MANAGEMENT ACTIVITY-EAST % The DOD BRAC 95 proposal for Letterkenny did not include this tenant and as a result there are no costs associated with a planned moved of this organization. A separate briefing on the SIMA East will provide the details and background on this . action which dates back to BRAC 91. The Army has taken the position that this organization can be moved based on BRAC 93 law. They have indicated it is their intent to move SIMA East using BRAC 93 dollars, but the move will be handled consistent with BRAC 95 milestones. It is clear this is part of the overall Army plan to move or eliminate all tenants from Letterkenny as part of the downsizing action, but to do so without identwng the total costs of doing so. In BRAC 91 it was proposed to move SIMA to Rock Island. The GAO noted such a move would be both mission destructive and would be very costly with no benefit to the tax payer. In spite of the GAO concerns, the proposed action became part of the BRAC 91 law. In 1993 SIMA, as a central design organization, was put under the operational control of the new Department of Defense Information Systems Agency. This was to be accomplished under the mandate of a Defense Management Review Decision called DMRD 918. When BRAC 93 proposals were being considered DOD's proposal was to reverse the BRAC 91 law which called for SIMA East to move to Rock Island. The Secretary of Defense Justification for reversing the BRAC 91 law is quoted as follows: "...Retention (at Letterkenny) keeps this activity focused regionally upon the customer. ... Less than 25% of the work performed by SIMA East is associated with the Industrial Operations Command at Rock Island." The Commission recornmeded SIMA East be retained at Letterkenny until DISA completed its review of activities under DRMD 918. Two years after BRAC 93 the Army has taken the position that it is appropriate to move SIMA East based on the fact the decision was made in 1993 to retain central design organizations with the services. In summary, the GAO noted in 1991 it made no economic or mission sense to move SIMA East. In BRAC 93, the Secretary of Defense said based on the broad customer base of SIMA East and the small percent of work performed for the Industrrial Operations Command, it made sense to keep SUlA at Letterkenny. In 1995 the same customer relationships exist, a move will be both mission destructive and cost prohibitive, yet the Army has come to the same conclusion SIh4A East should move to Rock Island, Illinois. And they should do so under the provisions of BRAC 93 law. This interpretation of BRAC 93 is clearly in violation of the spirit and intent and clearly is both a bad mission and a bad economic decision. The delayed decision on SIMA East is part of the overall Army strategy to remove all tenants from Letterkenny. Assuming the final BRAC decision for Letterkenny calls for the retention of a Depot Maintenance mission at Letterkenny, request SIMA East specifically be identified in the Commission recommendation to avoid unnecessary mission failure and one-time relocation expenses. LOGISTICS SUPPORT ACTIVITY-MAJOR ITEMS INFORMATION CENTER (MIIC) LOGSA-MIIC was not included in the Letterkenny BRAC package which was originally published. Since its publication, that organization has received notification they will be treated as a discretionary move to Huntsville, Alabama if the Letterkenny Depot Maintenance realignment action becomes law in BRAC 95. For this reason the LOGSA-MIIC costs were excluded from the BRAC 95 package for Letterkenny. Document Separator EXHIBIT E NET COST-DDLP BACKUP DATA THIS DATA WAS NOT USED IN COST DATA EVEN THOUGH IT REPRESENTS DLA INPUT ... THE GAO REPORTED COST FIGURE WAS USED SINCE IT WAS SMALLER THAN THE DLA DATA Page 1 DLA DDLP TYPE COSTS - NOS. EMPLOYEES IN CATEGORY SEVERANCE ENTITLEMENTS SEVERANCE PAY -617691 PER EMPLOYEE UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION- 3OWKS@$375 LUMP SUM ANNUAL LEAVE PAYOUT-344 HRS BS22.04 RETRAINING SEVERED EMPLOYEES-$5,000 GOVT -FICA/MEDICARE CONTRIBUTIONS FOR FERS(7.65%) EMPL GOVT -FICA/MEDICARE CONTRIBUTIONS FOR CSRS(1.45%) EMPL PCS COSTS COBRAMODEL- $33,044 PER EMPLOYEE DARSE COST (DESCOM EXPERIENCE-$43,000 PER EMPLOYEE ADDITIONAL AL COSTS BASED ON UNLIMITED LEAVE BALANCE LAW-I 60 HOURS@22.04 VSlP PAYOUT TOTAL PEOPLE COSTS NON PEOPLE COSTS EMPL OPT RET - WNSlP 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 EMPLOYEE S SEVERED 157 $2,777,487 $1,766,250 $1,155,734 $785,000 $6,767 $6,413 $553,645 $7,051,295 EMPL EARLY RET WNSlP 76 $855,000 $559,463 $268,006 $1,900,000 $3,582,470 VSlP OPTION - 23 $258,750 $169,311 $575,000 $1,003,061 EMPL ACCOMP MISSION 193 $6,377,492 $8,299,000 --- $14,676,492 EMPLFIND OTHER GOVTJOB 0 $0 $0 $0 TOTAL 449 $2,777,487 $2,880,000 $1,884,508 $785,000 $6,767 $6,413 $6,377,492 $8,299,000 $821,651 $2,475,000 -- $26,313,316- PPS PLACE- MENT 0 $0 $0 -- $0 OTHER COSTS $0 G) --I 2 I F'i c n c n o 2- og; 5 2 ; L m ; ~ Z D r n w R z z 2 5 ; z m a 5 E l ~ ~ ~ , I 1I 1% I l l I I I * m 0 0 0 0 0 x n o D O 0 a a z o,, c n c n - l --I g g B 0g- l , cn 0 0 z 3 Z E rn 00 O F $ d cn 0 8 1 cn rn K 5 5 5 % 2 0 m s R 8 2 2- r - rw E r v SF; Z z T I E r r w 4 a rn -I 0 < 5 g 6 Z 5;; E o r P 5 G ) o m 32; & " ? 0 2 V1 cn w 0 0 0 0 2 m m (D 0 b 0 0 R E P 5 2 ' 7' n 0 g 2 2 2 -l 2 ? TENANT MISSION IMPACT FOR: Defense Distribution Depot Letterkenny (DDLP) MISSION: To plan, direct, coordinate and manage the physical distribution functions relative to the receipt, storage, preservation/package, issue and transportation of major and secondary items. WHY LOCATED AT LETTERKENNY? DDLP, a former Army supply depot, is located at LEAD primarily to support the LEAD maintenance mission; however, DDLP's customers include Army, Navy, Air Force, Marines, FMS customers, plus numerous smaller organizations. MISSION IMPACT IF ELIMINATEDIRELOCATED? No impact if LEAD is closed. If LEAD remains, it would become difficult for LEAD to perform its mission as they do today. This is because DDLP is the supply source for LEAD. PLANNED DISPOSITION, IF KNOWN? Disestablish DDLP. Material remaining at DDLP at the time of disestablishment will be relocated to available storage space within the DOD distribution system. the depot. The current location will permit them to provide both cost and mission effective support to the residual Letterkenny missions and to other customers currently supported. Document Separator Page 1 ACTL EQUIV MPWR SAVING 1.95 6.00 0183 21.06 1.92 - - 0.75 32.51 - -- -- TENANTS TO BE ELIMINATED ARMY AUDIT AGENCY HEALTH CLINIC TMDE REGION 1 DEFENSE REUTILIZATION MARKETING OFC (DRMO) DEFENSE PRINTING MANAGEMENT ENGINEERING ACTIVITY AVG ANNUAL SALARY (INCL BENEFITS) $44,210 $34,535 $42,042 $40,121 $44,027 $53,703 - .- -- - - TOTALS AAA.. SERVES GEOGRAPHIC AREA. DATA FOR ACTUAL TOTAL MANPOWER 13 15 16 27 6 -- 15 -- % MANPOWER UTILIZED FOR LEAD DEPOT MAINTENANCE I DDLP CUSTOMERS 15.00% 40.00% 5.20% 78.00% 32% - -- -- 5.00% - - TOTAL ANNUAL SAVINGS FROM ELIMINATIONS $86,210 $207,210 $34,979 $844,940 $84,532 -$40,277 -- -- - -- - - - 92 -- -- -- PAST THREE YEARS INCORRECT DOD BRAC 95 MANPOWER - 16 14 11 37 .- 6 2 1 - - - - -. - [ 7 9 8 . ! 4 ! -- - 105 - - -pp-p- -- sHOWSONE AUDIT FOR DEPOT MAINTENANCEAND ANOTHER FOR FINANCIAL STATEMENTS COMBINED THIS IS APPROXIMATELY~~%OFRESOURCES - BALANCE OF RESOURCES HAVE SUPPORTED REGIONAL CUSTOMER B ~ E - ~ H ~ W O ~ K WILL CONTINUE I .HEALTH CLINIC. .ONLY 40% OF WORKLOAD IS IN SUPPORT O ~ P O T MAINTENANCEIDDLP. 50% OF WORKLOAD IS IN SUPPORT OF 20,000 MILITARY RETIREES IN AREA, REMAINING 10% SUPPORT HAGERSTOWN RESERVE UNITS, LEAD AMMO 8 TENANTS 'TMDE-REGION l...SUPPORTS ASSIGNED REGIONAL AREA LEAD ONLY REPRESENTS 5% OF TOTAL WORKLOAD DRMO .78% WORKLOAD GENERATED FROM LEAL DEPOT MAINTENkNzE AND DDLP DEFENSE PRINTING. ONLY 32% OF WORKLOAD IS FOR DEPOT MAINTENANCE AND DDLP. PRIMARY CUSTOMER IS DEFENSE MEGACENTER MEA. ONLY 5% OF WORKLOAD IS IN SUPPORT OF LEAD DEPOT MAINTENANCE AND DDLP ORGANIZATION SUPPORTS ,GEOGRAPHIC AREA LOGICAL LOCATION IS LETTERKENNY, BUT IF EVICTED WILL RELOCATE, NOT BE ELIMINATED .- - - ~ -- LETTERXENNY ARMY DEPOT, $A 1. RECOMMENDATION : Realign Letterkenny Army Depot by transferring the towed and self-propelled combat vehicle mission . . . to Anniston Amy Depot. Retain an enclave for conventional ammunition storage and tactical missile disassembly and storage. Change the 1993 Commission8s decision regarding the consolidating the tactical mission maintenance at Letterkenny by transferring missile guidance system workload to Tobyhanna Army Depot. 2. IMPACT : 2 0 9 0 direct jobs 3 . COBRA RUN : POSITION E L I M I N A T E D officer = 9 enlisted = 11 civilian = 1267 TOTAL POSITION REALIGNED officer = 1 enlisted = 14 civilian = 788 TOTAL = 803 4. ASIP : POSITION ELIMINATED WONT!P AGY USA AUDIT 0 ( O F F ) 0 ( E N L ) 1 6 ( C I V ) W 2 m 2 0 ACTUSA MEDDEP 0 ( O F F ) 0 ( E N L ) 14 ( C I V ) W459-A TMDE S U P GP #I 0 ( O F F ) 1 ( E N L ) 11 ( C I V ) W4E4!A ACTMEA 0 ( O F F ) 0 ( E N L ) 2 1 ( C I V ) W4GV90 USA CECOM 0 ( O F F ) 0 ( E N L ) 1 ( C I V ) ! O L 6 0 2 DRMO 0 ( O F F ) 0 ( E N L ) 37 (CI'.') ! O L 6 0 3 DEF P R I N T I N G 0 (OFF) 0 ( E N L ) 6 (CI'.') W O L 6 M LETTERKENNY - 9 ( O F F ) 1 0 ( E N L ) 1 1 6 1 (CI'. ') TOTAL 9 ( O F F ) 11 ( E N L ) 1 2 6 7 (CI';) P O S I T I O N REALIGNED W 2 3 H 0 1 COE (BASE X) 0 ( O F F ) 0 (ENL) 2 ( C I V ) W 4 5 9 1 7 TMDE SPT G P (BASE X ) 0 ( O F F ) 0 (ENL) 60 ( C I V ) W 4 9 0 5 2 DFAS (BASE X) . 0 ( O F F ) 0 (ENL) 78 ( C I V ) W49C!A DEF MEGA CTR (BASE X) 1 ( O F F ) 1 4 (ENL) 165 ( C I V ) WUMODL PUB WORK (BASE X ) 0 ( O F F ) 0 (ENL) 183 ( C I V ) WOL6AA LETTERKENNY (TOAD) 0 ( O F F ) 0 (ENL) 300 ( C I V ) TOTAL 1 ( O F F ) 1 4 (ENL) 788 ( C I V ) 5. RETAIN : AT LETTERKENNY WOH932 MICOM 1 ( O F F ) 0 ( E N L ) 0 ( C I V ) WOL6AA LETTERKENNY 0 ( O F F ) 0 (ENL) 4 9 0 ( C I V ) - AMMO STORAGE - QA - SECURITY - BASOPS W43T03 LOGSA W44K-A SIMA TOTAL 3 ( O F F ) 1 3 (ENL) 1 2 6 ( C I V ) 3 ( O F F ) 18 (ENL) 289 ( C I V ) 7 ( O F F ) 3 1 (ENL) 905 ( C I V ) Page 1 TOTAL $12,705,069 $8,597,023 $1 1,290,460 $9,872,449 $4,887,482 $915,601 $48,268,085 $1,355,978 $975,667 $91 5,601 - $1,458,820 $331,197 OTHER COSTS $600,000 $500,000 $0 $0 $895,000 $0 $1,995,000 $180,000 $0 $0 $396,000 $20,000 TOTAL ALL TENANTS (EXCLUDES DESCOM AND DDLP) TYPE COSTS TENANTS IDENTIFIED TO MOVE SYSTEMS INTEGRATION 8 MANAGEMENT ACTIVITY (SIMA) LOGISTICS SUPPORT ACTIVITY - MAJOR ITEMS INFO CENTER (MIIC) PUBLIC WORKS CENTER (pwc) DEFENSE MEGACENTER (DMC) -4HAMBERSBURG TEST MEASUREMENT & DIAGNOSTIC EQUIPMENT (TMDE) SUPPORT DEFENSE FINANCE 8 ACCOUNTING SERVICE (DFAS) TOTAL COSTS FOR TENANTS TO MOVE TENANTS TO BE ELIMINATED TEST MEASUREMENT & DIAGNOSTIC EQUIPMENT (TMDE) REGION 1 ARMY AUDIT AGENCY HEALTH CLINIC DEFENSE REUTILIZATION MARKETING OFC (DRMO) DEFENSE PRINTING EMPLOYEES SEVERED $1,511,943 $962,396 $2,283,625 $3,260,499 $13,180 $262,974 $8,294,617 $13,180 $63,139 $262,974 $125,680 $213,015 EMPL OPT RET $420,617 $1 32,827 $66,413 $0 $88,551 $22,138 $730,546 $0 $0 $22,138 $170,520 $22,138 EMPL FIND OTHER GOVT JOB $1,520,880 $760,440 $1,140,660 $0 $380,220 $0 $3,802,200 $228,132 $0 $0 $0 $76,044 PPS PLACE- MENT $1,520,880 $2,129,232 $1,292,748 $2,281,320 $760,440 $380,220 $8,364,840 $228,132 $0 $380,220 $0 $0 EMPL ACCOMP MISSION $6,311,652 $3,802,200 $5,931,432 $3,954,288 $2,661,540 $228,132 $22,889,244 $684,396 $912,528 $228,132 $430,000 $0 EMPL EARLY RET $81 9,097 $309,929 $575,582 $376,342 $88,551 $22,138 $2,191,638 $22,138 $0 $22,138 $279,780 $0 VSlP OPTION $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $56,840 $0 Page 2 TOTAL ALL TENANTS (EXCLUDES DESCOM AND DDLP) TYPE COSTS MANAGEMENT ENGINEERING ACTIVITY (ME4 TOTAL COSTS OF TENANTS TO BE ELIMINATED TOTAL COST TO MOVE ALL TENANTS (EXCLUDING DDLP 8 DESCOM) EMPLOYEES SEVERED $213,015 $891,002 $9,185,618 EMPL OPT RET $0 $214,796 $945,342 EMPL EARLY RET $22,138 $346,193 $2,537,832 VSlP OPTION $0 $56,840 $56,840 EMPL ACCOMP MISSION $0 $2,255,056 $25,144,300 EMPL FIND OTHER GOVT JOB $76,044 $380,220 $4,182,420 PPS PLACE- MENT $684,396 $1,292,748 $9,657,588 OTHER COSTS $25,000 $621,000 $2,616,000 TOTAL $1,020,593 $6,057,854 $54,325,939 Document Separator EXHIBIT G COSTS NOT INCLUDED IN THE NET COST FIGURES TENANT PRODUCTIVITY Page 1 c* r e g 2 p m w e Q B r' 9 B S." 3 ~ 4 1 - - Er , p g c & - - 8 srffg .ul M -1 SCD 5 . g p Ig s z s 3 2 6 $1" q '4 a gIS B t;' 0 % 2. 3. '4 s. az. q " " o G B B m a a ' = i f g a g g 7 z.ao g.2- 8. $ : a m 1 c*$ g E . 0 , V ". p. 5 2 c i j - ~ 4 m m g P 3 g m ' u q 'D . ;i $ g ~ a - g:. 9. a v . 5 X M - - C * - 0 " 8 % 8 Eg P F a E. ti' 'D G 9 z g s 3 , a b = g l b -u u s E , g 0 S - - g ' g i g F - 2 . K ,I = S 2 2 % 3 Q g ? & o 8 uti .zr Z - g r L " 35.2 g a g - s ~ $ E p ? g O a & m e 2, '4v 8 Fo - "* L, following the move some of this loss should be recouped as the organization gradually rebuilds its core skill base. By the third year we should be approximately 90% of the way back to where we were before the transfer. Third, after determining what the Productivity Indices were likely to be for each of the years following the move, we input each indices into the model and recomputed the cost, schedule, effort values for each of the elements withn the current work plan. Fourth, we compared the results with our current costs. The differences in values between the current plan and the future plans represent the productivity losses for the entire organization. This result is shown in dollar value terms on the SIMA-E FY 95 Business Plan spreadsheet shown as Enclosure 3. It is also shown graphically in the bar chart labeled SIMA-E PRODUCTIVITY LOSSES (Enclosure 4). The chart shows the estimated amount of productivity loss for each year and the cumulative loss for all three years. As can be seen in the total column the cumulative effect will be approximately 16.2 million dollars--a sum equal to the cost of one year of doing business. If this move takes place, since we are a fee for service organization, this increase in the cost of doing business will ultimately be passed back to the customer base in the form of increased rates and stretched out delivery schedules. To illustrate our productivity analytical process, we have included SLIM details for one application in the charts and narrative that follows. Detailed information for other or all applications is available upon request. = = S m s L t b L o r n va ' o a p u d urns m- - -WUE Ilg- *m-r m r w trot) tSOmw'- ULLLL 'we-cca epo3 lepR3srayMlrwplnw -- S 130d WITS SLIM P O C 8 ' S Scott Lanu.1.r lntdcorporetion 5200 NE Elam Young Parlmrsy HiII.boco, OR 97124 (503) 531-5468 Mark Luman SRA 2000 15th S W North Mington. VA 22201 (703) 803-16&( Dmnls Ldbold KPMQPaatMsmick 4221 S. Walton Walker EM. Dallas, TX 75963 (21 4) 3356297 Bcvcrly Lempicki Mitre Corporation 7525 Colshire Drive Mclean. VA 22102 Bruce Loughmllkr Camber Corpontlon 1755 J~f fe rs~n DDvn lfwy. - Suite 809 Mington. VA 22202 (703) 412-5760 Glenn Luadus Honeywail ATS 21 11 I N. 19lh Avenue U088 Phoenu. At 85036 1-602-436-2306 Mlke Mah QSM Associates. Inc. Henry Avenue Ptufessional Building 8 Mepdow Ridge Pittsfield. MA 01201 1-413.4990988 Tad Makowskl Lorpi Federal Systems- 700 N. Frederick Aveum 1 m m 1 Gaithemburg, MO 20879 (301) 267524 Davld G. Marcus bpl .dArmySlMA 1222 Sprvcs Strest St. Mi. CO 63105-2834 (314) 331-4611 Wayne Metcan IDS Financial Services IDS 1- 10. NOS-I71 Minneapoli, MN 55440 (612) 671-7020 &Ian Munay HudnodsBayComppny 700 Lomcmg Avenue, Wed Tomnlo. ontali0 MLIP, 363, CanPdP (416) 25(CJtSO Christine L Nkhdton Rockwdl 400 Collins Road N.E. Cdar Rapids, IA 52498 (310) - Steve Otte Cincinnati Bdl 600 Vim Stred P.O. Box 1838 Cincinnati. OH 45201 1513-78C5968 Nancy Oxenburg -1 Inc. IlWVirginia CMvr IWS 121 Fl. Wuhinglon, PA 19034 1-21M13952 Nikkl PanlllbYap LORAL 6600 Rockladgo CMvr Room 4003. w.s 409 BahedP. MD20817 1-301493-1066 Douglas T. Pubum QSM. Inc. 2000 Cocporste R i Suite 9W Mclesn. VA 22012 1-703748381 7 Wall Paskcy CACi International 1 100 North GIebo Road Mington. VA 22201 MI-7910 Sha1k.h P.W Naval Air Sydenn Command 1421 M-Dsv*Hwy-JP294(1 Mington. VA 22243 (703) so44240 xzess W e n c e H. Putnam Sr. QSM. inc. 2000 Capcde Ridge Suite 900 Mean . VA 2201 2 1-703-749381 5 brbm Putnam. QSM. Inc. 2000 Cocporste RidOe S u b 900 Mdssn. VA22012 1-703-749-3615 L.wnnce H. Puburn Jr. aSM. Inc. W C o r p a s t . R W Suite 900 Mdssn, VA 22012 1-703749-3618 Chip Raymond us Army issc 6000 Slh Strest - Suite l22A Fort Bdvkr. VA 22060 (703) 806-3265 Fred Redo CACI, Im. 1100 N. Qbta R o d Mindon. VA 22201 641-2871 Tam Reynolds MTATEL. Inc. 4375 Fair Lslra Court FaisirFpx. VA 22124 (703) 9so-= Stan Rtfkin Msder synlscm. Inc. P o B o x m Mcbpn. VA 221ma02 (m) 803-2121 Bob RMemann ClncinnaU Bdl 800 VimStmd Cincinnati. OH 45202 (513) 784-5960 DrvldSIchr KPMOPsstMorwidr 2001 M M, N.W. wanhii.DC20036 (202) 467-3336 Hekn Romanowsky Rodmdi 400 Collins Road N.E. Cedv Rap&. IA 52498 (319) - Mlke R o u Honsywdl ATS 21111 N. 10thAvmnm P.O. Box21111 -= PhWIlh,m05027 (8M) 8422 ENCEGOSURE ! LPOLL6 m L C L L P 6 w " J w w w ' m C R I = OKO '0 'd uogMouUI Clay) ~ ! w a o S Q wm=a 'KG w a r x -3 'ow LO gmoYlyy AazoNWolno~ e q Y e y l e Y ~ l e t ~ H A W 'd W.(I ZWL 08 WLeLL06 -wd ' k d el OEZEL e( l !~tJes op w"oY QQ l Y 3 13lWlW srl u e ~ MM S130d W I T S -- EMPLOYEESTOBESEVERED EMPLOYEES OPTIONAL RETIREMENT EMPLOYEES EXERCISING DISCONTINUED SERVICE RETIREMENT EMPLOYEES WHO WILL FIND- ANOTHER GOVERNMENT JOB EMPLOYEES WHO WILL BE PLACED UNDER PPS NUMBER OF EMPLOYEES WHO WILL NOT ACCOMPANY MISSION 1 Page 1 SIMA-E FY 95 BUSINESS PLAN BRAC PRODUCTIVITY IMPACTS FUND AREA OF SUPPORT SOURCE HQ AMC AMC AMC AMC AMC AMC OTHER AMC ERF APG I&SA I&SA AMCCOM AMCCOM AMCCOM DESCOM DESCOM DESCOM DESCOM DESCOM DESCOM DESCOM DESCOM LOGSA MlCOM NONdMC SLA SLA SLA SLA DFAS DFAS DFAS DFAS DFAS DFAS JLSC JLSC JLSC JLSC JLSC D LA DMC-C EUR EUR DOD DOD DOD DOD DODIDA IMMC LEA AMC LEGACY SYS 8 BUSINESS PROCESS SUPPORT AAMMIS AMCISS APPROVED WORKLOAD IEMSIASSSC LEGACY SYS SPT AMMO-MISSION CIO APPROVED WORKLOAD SDS LEGACY SUPPORT OF ERF SDS AMMO PROGRAM RASFlARSlAMClSS AT A W AMCISS INTERFACE TO IFS-M IOC CENTRALUED WKLD SDS LEGACY SYS SUPPORT AMMO INVENTORY ACCT PROGRAM SDS IN SUPPORT OF WR PRGM (AR214) SDS WAR RESERVES AR-2 (MAILS) DESCOM SDS LEGACY SYS SUPPORT SDS LEGACY SYSTEMS SUPPORT DEPOT WKLD FORECAST SYS AFES SUPPORT - MCALESTER AMCISS TECHNICAL SPTilRAINING PALADIN MASS REQUISITIONS UNIQUE ITEM TRACKING ARMS WORKSHOP/PUBLICATIONS SINGLE STOCK FUND SDS IMPL A T AMMO PLANTS PHASE II PROCESS OF ASLP SLA INITIATIVES DFAS SDS SYS SPT-AFES DFAS SDS SYS SPT ATAAPS DFAS SDS SYS SPT RASFIARS OFAS SDS SYS SPT-SIFS DFAS SDS SYS SPT - SlFS (CAWCF) APARSIICAR SUPPORT TO TOAD JLSC LEGACY SYSTEM SUPPORTIAMCLB JLSC D M MRPICMF JLSC LEGACY SYSTEM SUPPORT-DEPOT MAlNT AMMO BPM CONVERSION AMMO SDS + SOFTWARE DEVELOPMENT ASSISTANCE EXECUTIVE SOFTWARE SUPPORT SDS LEGACY SUPPORT OF RSAM SDS @ KTOWN EMS AT DECA ED1 IMPLEMENTATION SDS LEGACY SYS SPT - INTERFACES TO DMMlS SPERRY 5000180 SUPPORT MODIFICATION OF ILS VHFS SITE SURVEY SDS WAR RESERVES - AR3 AMC LEGACY SYS &BUSINESS PROCESS FY% FIRST SECOND THIRD ORGANIC YEAR - YEAR YEAR COSTS COSTS COSTS COSTS It would take $10.5 million more to accomplish the sams workload one year after the mow. L Enclosure 3 MISSION FAILURE SIMA-E PRODUCTIVITY LOSSES EXPLANATION OF SLIM PROJECT ASSUMPTIONS REPORT: This is a project assumption sheet from the SLIM model. The project assumption sheet identifies the major parameters employed in developing the estimated cost, schedule and effort associated with a particular project. This is the project assumption sheet for the Army Material Command Installation Supply System. It indicates that we have a requirement to modify approximately 44000 to 64000 lines of code within this system during the FY 95. It also indicates that our anticipated level of productivity for this system is 17.4. This number is a index that represents SIMA-E current (FY 95) tooling and methods capability, the technical constraints of this particular system, and the skills, knowledge, and abilities of the individuals responsible for the development. This productivity index in conjunction with the size of the system are used by the model to determine the cost of development, the amount of time to develop, and the amount of effort required. Project Assumptions I Name AMCISS N 95 BUSINESS PIAN Start Date 1011195 Phases Included Phase Name Shape Functional Design Medium Front Load Rayleigh Main Build Default Rayleigh Sklng (ESLOC) Low Most Likely High 44000 56000 64000 Predominant Appllcatlon Type Business Complexity Mix Business 100 % PI Uncertainty Slightly Unwrtain AMCISS N 95 BUSINESS PLAN Page 4 SIMA-E PRODUCTIVITY LOSSES EXPLANATION OF THE SLIM DEFAULT PI DETAIL: This is the SLIM Productivity Index detail input sheet. It is used to determine a level of productivity that the activity can use as an input into the model. At its foundation is a world wide industry productivity average for the various opes of software developed. The average for 'business type" software as of 1993 was 15.8 on a scale of 1- 30 with the high number indicating greater productivity. This average number is adjusted up or down by an organization depending on how each of the detail questions are answered. In the left column is a series of questions pertaining to tooling and methods the organization has at its disposal, questions pertaining to any technical constraints associated with the particular project, and questions pertaining to personnel of the organization. In the right column is our responses to these questions. The responses are expressed in a numerical scale from 1 to 10 with five being average. The numeric responses are calculated and used to adjust the productivity index up or down. We have shown four separate Default PI Detail entry sheets. There is one that represents our current situation and there are three more that identify how we would have to answer the questions for each of the three post move years. For the post move years the tooling and methods questions and the technical constraints questions have been held constant. In other words, we have assumed that there would be no impact in these areas resulting from the move. However, the Personnel Profile for the post move years has been modified to reflect the impacts on personnel structure and ability resulting from a move. Year 1 shows the greatest impact and year 3 the least. C U R R E N T Y E A R P R O D U C T I V I T Y L E V E L I Default PI Detail I I What is the level of stability of your system software? 5 Personnel Proflle What is the effectivenebs of management and leadership? What is the availability of training? What is the anticipated level of staff turnover? What is the availability of skilled manpower? What is the level of functional knowledge? What level of experience does the development team have with this application type? What is the anticipaled level of motiwtion of the development team? What is the level of cohesiveness of the development team? What is the level of human communication complexity? Computed ProdudhfRy Index 17.4 Response 5 5 3 5 7 6 5 5 5 AMCISS FY 95 BUSINESS PLAN Page 8-2 F I R S T Y E A R PRODUCTIVITY LEVEL Default PI Detail Peak Manpower Constraints Lowest nla Schedule and Quality Priority Schedule, quality, cost equally important Productivity Assessment Categories Toolinghlethods What is your level of familiarity with the development hardware? What is the availability of the development system? What is the role of database management in this system? What is your DBMS tools capability? What is the volume of screens anticipated in this system? What is your screen writer capability? What is the wlume of reports anticipated in this system? What is your report writer capability? What is the volume of file handling anticipated in this system? What is the capability of your file handling tools? What is your level of capability using diagramming tools? What is your level of capability using testing tools? What is your level of capability using programming tools? What is your level of capability using configuration management tools? What is your level of capability using project management tools? What is your level of capability using documentation tools? What is your level of capability using QA t d s ? What is the capability of your database conversion utilities? What is the level of integration of your tools? What is the robustness of your development standard? (O=no standard) What is the level of adherence to your development standard? What is your level of experience with it? What is the level of adaptability of your dedoprnent standard in handling diierent size systems? Technical Constnlnts What is the intensity of memory utilization in this system? What is the vdume of data in this system? What is the complexity of data manipulation in this system? What is the d u m e of new algorithms? What is the complexity of developing new algorithms? What is the d u m e of new logic? What is the complexity of developing new logic? What is the volume of expected requirements changes? What is the level of complexity anticipated in interfacing with the customer? What is the level of complexity anticipated in interfacing with external systems? What is the level of difficulty in integrating and testing existing code? What is the severity level of the documentation requirements? What is the level of stability of your hardware platform? AMCISS FY 95 BUSINESS PLAN Hlghest nla Response 7 8 Unknownlna Unknownlna 7 5 5 5 5 5 3 4 5 4 5 4 4 3 3 ' 3 4 4 5 Response 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 Page 8-1 FIRST YEAR PRODUCTIVITY LEVEL Default PI Detail What is the level of stability of your system software? Personnel Profile What is the effectiveness of management and leadership? What is the availability of training? What is the anticipated level of staff tumowr? What is the amilability of skilled manpower? What is the level of functional knowledge? What level of experience does the development team ham with this application type? What is the anticipated level of motivation of the development team? What is the level of cohesiveness of the development team? What is the level of human communication complexity? Computed Producthrlty Index 15.1 5 Response 4 5 9 4 3 3 5 5 5 AMClSS FY 95 BUSINESS PLAN Page 8-2 S E C O N D Y E A R P R O D U C T I V I T Y L E V E L Default PI Detail - - Peak Manpower Conrtralnts Lowest nla Hlgheat nla Schedule and Qualtty PrlorHy Scl~adult?, quality, cost equally Important Productlvlty Aaaessment Categorlea TooMnglMethods What is your level of familiarity with the development hardware? What is the adability of the development system? What is the role of database management in this system? What is your DBMS tools capability? What is the wlume of screens anticipated in this system? What is your screen writer capability? What is the wlume of reports anticipated in this system? What is your report writer capability? What is the wlume of file handling anticipated in this system? What is the capability of your file handling tools? What is your level of capability using diagramming tools? What is your level of capability using testing tools? What is your level of capability using programming tools? What is your level of capability using configuration management tools? What is your level of capability using project management tools? What is your level of capability using documentation tools? What is your level of capability using QA t d s ? What is the capability of your database wnversion utilities? What is the level of integration of your tools? What is the robustness of your development standard? ( O = o standard) What is the level of adherence to your development standard? What is your level of experience with it? What is the level of adaptability of your development standard in handling different size systems? Technical Constraints What is the intensity of memory utilization in this system? What is the volume of data in this system? What is the complexity of data manipulation in this system? What is the volume of new algorithms? What is the complexity of developing new algorithms? What is the volume of new logic? What is the complexity of developing new logic? What is the wlume of expected requirements changes? What is the level of complexity anticipated in interfacing with the customer? What is the level of complexity anticipated in interfacing with external systems? What is the level of difficulty in integrating and testing existing code? What is the severity level of the documentation requirements? What is the level of stability of your hardware platform? Response 7 8 Unknownlna Unknownlna 7 5 5 5 5 5 3 4 5 4 5 4 4 3 3 ' 3 4 4 5 Response 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 AMCISS FY 95 BUSINESS PLAN Page 8-1 S E C O N D Y E A R PRODUCTIVITY L E V E L Default PI Detail What is the level of stability of your system software? Personnel Pmnle What is the effectiveness of management and leadership? ' What is the availability of training? What is the anticioated level of staff turnover? What is the availibility of skilled manpower? What is the level of functional k d e d a e ? What level of experience does the development team haw with this application type? What is the anticioated level of motivation of the dewlo~ment team7 What is the level bf cohesiveness of the development tdam? What is the level of human communication complexity? Computed ProdudhrYy Index 15.3. AMCISS M 95 BUSINESS PLAN Page 8-2 T H I R D Y E A R P R O D U C T I V I T Y LEVEL Default PI Detail I Peak Manpower Constralnts Lowest nla Schedule and Quallty Priority Schedule, quality, cost equally important Productivity Assessment Categories ToollngMethods What is your level of familiarity with the development hardware? What is the availability of the development system? What is the role of database management in this system? What is your DBMS tools capability? What is the volume of screens anticipated in this system? What is your screen writer capability? What is the volume of reports anticipated in this system? What is your report writer capability? What is the wlume of file handling antidpated in this system? What is the capability of your file handling tools? What is your level of capability using diagramming tools? What is your level of capability using testing tools? What is your level of capability using programming tools? What is your lee1 of capability using configuration management tools? What is your level of capability using project management tools? What is your l e d of capability using documentation W s ? What is your l e d of capability using QA tools? What is the capability of your database conversion utilities? What is the level of integration of yoirr tools? What is the robustness of your development staruiwd? (O=no standard) What is the l e d of adherence to your development standard? What is your l e d of experience with it? What is the level of adaptability of your development standard in handling d ' i m t size systems? Tschnlcill Constnlnts What is the intensity of memory utilization in this system? What is the volume of data in this system? What is the complexity of data manipulation in (his system? What is the volume of new algorithms? What is the complexity of developing new algorithms? What is the volume of new logic? What is the complexity of developing n w logic? What is the volume of expected requirements changes? What is the level of complexity anticipated in interfacing with the customer? What is the lewl of complexity anticipated in interfacing with external systems? What is the level of difficulty in integrating and testing existing code? What is the severity l e d of the documentation requirements? What is the level of stability of your hardware plaIform? AMCISS FY 95 BUSINESS PLAN Response 7 8 Unknownlna Unknownlna 7 5 5 5 5 5 3 4 5 4 5 4 4 3 3 3 4 4 5 Response 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 Page 0-1 THIRD YEAR PRODUCTIVITY LEVEL I I Default PI Detail What is the level of stability of your system software? 5 Personnel Proflb What is the effecti veness of management and leadership? What is the amilability of training? What is the anticipated level of staff t u m t ? What is the availability of skilled manpower? What is the level of functional knowledge? What level of experience does the development team have with this applicalion type? What is Ule anticipated level of mot i~ l ion of the development team? What is h e level of cohesiveness of the development team? What is the level of human communication complexity? Computed Ploducthrlty Index 18.17. . . Response 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 AMCISS FY 95 BUSINESS PLAN Page 8-2 SIMA-E PRODUCTIVITY LOSSES EXPLANATION OF THE SLIM BAR CHARTS: The Time Profile, The FOC MTTD Profile, and The UNINF Cost Profile. Given the size of the system change, the Productivity Index for the organization and any known constraints the model is run and time, cost, effort, stafling, and defect outputs are calculated. The remaining charts show the results of running the model under four different scenarios. The first shows the results that are reflected in our current business plan. The next three show the results from various level of productivity loss resulting from moving the organization to another location. CURRENT YEAR PRODUCTIVITY LEVEL These three profiles summarize the results of running the model with a 17.4 Productivity Index--our current year productivity level. Each profile shows four bars numbered 1, 2, 3, and 4. Bar 1 represents the current year. Bar 2 represents the first post move year productivity level. Bar 3 represents the second post move year productivity level. Bar 4 represents the third post move year productivity level. In addition to the three profiles, there is a table in the lower right corner of the chart. This table summarizes the results from running the model with a current year PI of 17.4. It shows the expected values for Time, Effort, Uninflated Cost, Peak Staff, Mean Time To Defect (MTTD) and the Size of the change. The Time, MTII), and the Uninflated Cost expected values are shown in the first column of each bar chart. They can be visually compared to the three post move years shown by bars 2,3, and 4. Bar 2 shows what the impact of a Productivity Index of 15.1 would have, Bar 3 shows what a productivity Index of 15.9 would have, and Bar 4 shows what a Productivity Index of 16.7 would have. Bar 2 (PI 15.1) would be our likely level of productivity the first year at a new location. Bar 3 (PI 15.9) would be our most likely level of productivity the second year at a new location. Finally, Bar 4 (PI 16.7) would be our level of productivity during the third year at our new location.. The Time Profile bar chart shows the degree to which time to accomplish the same level of work increases with the decline in productivity. Costs, as seen in the Uninflated Cost Profile bar chart, also increase dramatically as more effort has to be applied over a longer period of time to get the same job done. In addition, the model also shows that there is a hidden cost in a loss in productivity. That cost occurs with the loss in quality. People with limited knowledge and experience make more mistakes. This is shown in the Fully Operational Complete Mean Time To Defect Profile. This bar chart indicates that the software will be in operation for a shorter number of days before the user encounters a problem which must be corrected. SIMA-E PRODUCTIVITY LOSSES EXPLANATION OF THE SLIM PROJECT CONSTRAINTS REPORT: This is the Project Constraints sheet from the SLIM Model. While the basic assumptions on size and productivity are the foundation of the estimates, known constraints can also be factored into the model. In addition, a desired probability for being able to live within the constraint can also be computed. In this particular instance the customer has indicated that there is a cost constraint of $591,000. Being a fee for senice organization, we have indicated that we want at least a 75% confidence of coming in under this particular cost. Project Constraints Desired Parameter Constraint Probability Weight Time (Months) nla Effort '(PM) . nla Cost ($ 1000) 591 75 % 16 Min Staff (People) nla Max Staff (People) nla FOC MTTD (Days) nla AMCISS FY 95 BUSINESS PLAN 100 % total defect luning factor $101 993 I MYR burdened labor rate Page 5 CURRENT YEAR PRODUCTIVITY LEVEL MODEL ESTIMATES Time Profile FOC M U D Profile 1 2 3 4 Soluf ons Uninf Cost Profile 1 l 2 O 0 Solution 1 Time Effort Uinf Cst ~k stan m D Size CURRENT YEAR PROD LWEL 12.61 Months 60.48 PM 514 $1000 75% Prob 7.85 People 3.09 Days 55333 ESLOC PI 17.4 ! Solutions SIMA-E PRODUCTIVITY LOSSES EXPLANATION OF THE SLIM FIRST YEAR PRODUCTIVITY LEVEL REPORT. This chart shows the results of the model being run at a Productivity Index of 15.1. Looking at the various profiles it is evident that there is a substantial impact on the amount of time require to do the job, on the costs of doing the job and the amount of defects that will be uncovered in the fielded system by dropping from a productivity level of 17.4 to one of 15.1. In addition, the table indicates that there now is only a 3% probability of getting the job done at the customer constrained cost of $591,000 whereas, when we ran the model at 17.4 our ~ o ~ d e n c e level of bringing the job in at our under cost was 75%. The corresponding Default Productivity Index Detail chart for this scenario was held constant as far as tooling and methods and technical constraints are concerned. The only thing that was modified was the responses to the question in the Personnel Profile. They were modified to reflect the decline in management capability, the increase in staff turnover, and the loss in skill, functional knowledge and application expertise. F I R S T Y E A R P R O D U C T I V I T Y L E V E L M O D E L E S T I M A T E S FOC MTTD Profile Time Profile P I 8 1 2 3 4 Solutions Uninf Cost Profile Solutions Solution 2 FIRST YEAR PROD LEVEL 15.61 Months 121.71 PM Uinf Cst 1034 S 1000 3% Prob Pk Staff 12.61 People 1.02 Days 55333 ESLOC PI 15.1 Solutions SIMA-E PRODUCTIVITY LOSSES EXPLANATION OF THE SLIM SECOND and THIRD YEAR PRODUCTIVITY LEVEL REPORTS. These charts show the model being run at 15.9 and 16.1 respectively. These gradual increases in the Productivity Level represent an assumption that core skill levels can be recouped over time. In the model this has been done by modifLing our responses to the personnel questions imposed; i.e., providing more optimistic responses. The results are that the time, cost, and quality pictures start to improve to the point where we have 11% and 38% chance of meeting customer cost objectives. Time Profile fi Uninf Cost Profile S E C O N D Y E A R P R O D U C T I V I T Y L E V E L M O D E L E S T I M A T E S FOC MTTD Profile Solutions Solution 3 SECOND YEAR PROD T i 14.52 Months Effort 05.43 PM Uinf Cst 811 $ 1000 Pk staft 10.70 People M l l D 297 Days She 55333 ESLOC LEVEL 11% Prob rSdutions T H I R D YEAR PRODUCTIVITY LEVEL MODEL ESTIMATES Time Profile 7 " 1 2 3 4 Solutions Uninf Cost Profile P l y FOC MlTD Profile Solutbn 4 1 HlRD YEAR PROD LEVEL 1 2 3 4 Solucons Time 13A7 Months Effort 74.82 PM Uinf Cst 636 S 1000 Pk Staff 9.07 People r n D 2.67 Days Size 55333 ESLOC 38% Prob PI 16.7 28 Mar 95 Loss of Productivity Worksheet(Major Item Information Center) 1 . Personnel Categories and Numbers of: Functionals (GS-11 and up supply-analysts) - 43 Software (GS-11 and up systems analysts) - 58 Other ( G S - 9 and below supply and systems - 26 analysts; all other series and grades) TOTAL - 127 2. Approximately 40% of onboard employees have indicated they wlll accompany the mission to Huntsville, AL. Thus, a 60% loss of onboard employees: Functionals - 60% x 43 = 26 people to be hired Software - 60% x 58 = 35 people to be hired Other - 60% x 26 = 16 people to be hired TOTAL = 77 3. Applying the dollar value loss in productivity while these new hires are brought up to full productive level, using the SIMA factors : Functionals - 26 x $220,332 = $5 ,728 ,632 Software - 35 x $153,720 = $5 ,380 ,200 Other - 16 x $30 ,744 = $49 1,904 TOTAL = $11 ,600 ,736 US Army TMDE Support Center-Letterkenny Productivity Losses Replace 19 Technicians Assume : - Fully knowledgeable of electronics or physical science. - 608 productive 1st yr - 95% productive 2nd yr - Fully productive 3rd yr - Must work overtime to make up lost productive hours. (No excess capacity) 19 X 2080 X .4 = 15,808 Hrs Lost 19 X 2080 X -05 = 1,976 Hrs Lost 17,800 Hrs Lost 17,800 Hrs @ $ 2 5 . 0 0 hr (OT rate) = $445,000 US Army TMDE support-Region 1 Productivity Losses MH Lost for Move 40 MH X 9 employees = 360 MH 360 MH X $21.50/HR (AVG) = $ 8,000 Training 7 new employees - 75% Productive, 1st yr - 95% Productive, 2nd yr 3700 MH lost 1st yr 750 MH lost 2nd yr 4450 MH lost 4450 MH X $ 2 1 . 5 0 / ~ ~ (AVG) = $ 95,000 $103,000 Page 1 TENANT FOR WHICH VSIP COSTS NOT COVERED BASED ON FAST TRACK BRAC PLANSa SIMA EAST LOGSA-MIIC PUBLIC WORKS CENTER (Pwc) DEFENSE MEGACENTER (DMC) CHAMBERSBURG TMDE SUPPORT TMDE REGION 1 ARMY AUDIT ACTIVITY HEALTH CLINIC DFENSE PRINTING MEA MINIMUM VSIP ACCEPTANCE COST OF VSlP LETTERKENNY HAS BEEN BRAC. IMPLEMENTATION PLANS ARE TO REFLECT A SHUT DOWN OF MAINTENANCE OPERATIONS BY THE END OF FY97. THIS FAST TRACK ACTION WILL RESULT IN RIR ACTIONS FOR ALL TENANTS. THIS WILL FORCE ALL TENANTS TO OFFER VSIP TO THOSE WHO ARE FACING RIF ACTIONS. DFAS WAS EXCLUDED FROM THE ABOVE DATA BECAUSE THEY WILL BE MOVED PRIOR TO FINAL CLOSURE OF LETTERKENNY DEPOT MAINTENANCE MISSION (SEE MISSION IMPACT STATEMENT FOR DFAS). DLA ORGANIZATIONS ALREADY PLAN RIF ACTIONS AS PART OF THE PLANNED ACTIONS FOR DDLP AND DRMO. VSIP COSTS ARE ALREADY PART OF THEIR PACKAGE AND ARE THEREFORE EXCLUDED FROM THIS SPREADSHEET. VSIP OPTION 0 0 0 0 0 0 EMPL EARLYRET 37 14 26 17 4 I - EMPLOYEES SEVERED 30 19 44 65 0 0 EMPL OPT RET 19 6 3 0 4 0 ~ EMPL ACCOMP MISSION 83 50 78 52 35 9 -- 12 3 -- 1 - EMPL FIND OTHER GOVT JOB 20 10 15 0 5 3 - - o o 5 - 4 4 ADVISED BY HQS o PPS PLACE MENT 20 28 17 30 10 3 - o o o 0 -- -- - - -- 0 13 15 0 -OTHER COSTS 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 - - ---- - 5 0 1 - 1 0 34 $850,000 0 6 TOTAL 209 127 183 164 58 16 INDUSTRIAL OPERATIONS COMMAND 1 0 1 101 52,525,000 1 15 - 135 $3,375,000 THAT THEY WILL BE ON A FAST T R A C K ~ - - - ~ 0 ------ 1 9 -- 0 - - -- - . Document Separator ~oz'z~E'Z~ 999'81C'59 LLS' IZP'H 'r~~'~Lf't3 00~'L19'99 - ZSOZ LSOZ OSOZ 6902 9702 L'rOZ 990E S M Z 3302 f 902 ZPOZ LMZ 0902 6f02 ecoz LEO2 9S02 Sf02 9Eo2 E POZ ZEOZ LEO2 Of OZ 6ZOZ 8202 LZOZ 9202 St02 f ZOZ EZOZ 2202 L ZOZ 0202 6101 8LOZ L 102 9102 SLOZ *LO2 EL02 2102 L LO2 OLOZ 6002 8002 LOO2 POOL SO02 30OZ so02 ZOOZ LOO2 0002 666\ 866 L L66L 966 L -.-. JPOA 962 'LO- 000'862' L - 1602 1 969'69 - 000'062'~- 7602 (91'26- 000'862'1- S6OZ 269'76- 000'862' L. 2602 ' 662'16- 000 '862 ' L - I402 ~ 6 ' 6 6 - 000'862'1- 0602 9U'ZOI- 000'862'~- 6802 695;'LOL- 000'862'~- 8902 ZSf'801 - 0O0'86Z1L- LBO2 7i7'111- 000'862'~- 9802 66~ ' tL t - 000'86~'L- S802 LW'LLI- 000'962 ' L - 9802 f88'0ZL- 000 '~b~ 'b- SBOZ LOZ'PZ~ - 000'962' b - ZOO2 EZ~'LZ& - 000'062' L - LBO2 ZEL'LSL- 0 0 0 ' 8 6 ~ ' ~ - OBOZ U U : % L - 000'062'~ - 6LOZ 99'1 O f & - 000'06Z'l- BLOZ 152 '~ f L - 0 0 0 ' 0 6 ~ ' ~ - UOZ £91'991- 000'86Z'i 9LOZ t8L8OSL- 000'862' L - UOZ ZLflfSL- 000'862'L- CLOZ 9S!ia8SL- 000:962'~- KOZ 916'291- 000 96Zd1- ZLOZ %~'&91- 000 '962' L - LLOZ OOO'UL- 000'962 ' L - OLOZ 0U ' 9 ~ L - 0 0 0 ' 8 6 ~ ' ~ - 6902 06S'LOL- 000'862'~ - OWL )85 '98 L - 000'06~ 'L - 1902 S L L ' ~ ~ ) - 00Og06Z'l - 9902 ~ 8 6 ' 9 6 ~ - 000'862'l- $902 ~ ' r 'Z02- 000'862'~ - 7902 OL6'&OZ- 000'86Z'L - SWZ ' 6 8 9 ' ~ ~ ~ - 000'862'L- 2902 99S86LZ- 000'06Z81- '" bW 1 909'522- 000'86Z'L- 0902 000'LfZ- 0 0 0 ' 8 6 ~ ' ~ - bsOZ 1 €8) ' U S E - 000'062'~- US02 . ~U 'WZ- 000'862' L - LSOZ .* l i ~ ' ~ l ~ ~ ~ 3 1 \ V L 1 8 0 3 \ % 3 V ~ 8 \ : 3 : ! 4 oJ&sd PIS - 103'~ll~~31\~1803\S63V&8\:3 8 0 ) ! j 01 JSua3S 12-Sqz3a 8 a6~4ded blO1Vb AMUV : alr~w14sdaa Page 1 TENANT ORGANIZATIONS ANNUAL LOCAL ANNUAL EXPENDITURES EXPENDITURES DLA SUPPLY DEPOT-DDLP I $1 9,916,455 SYSTEMS INTEGRATION & MANAGEMENT I ACTIVITY (SIMA) I $20,000,000 LOGlSlTlCS SUPPORT ACTIVITY- MAJOR I ITEMS INFO CTR (MIIC) I $1 2,400,000 I PUBLIC WORKS CENTER (PWC) $1 8,730,216 DEFENSE MEGA CENTER (DMC) $1 0,281,958 TEST MEASUREMENT & DIAGNOSTIC EQUIPMENT (TMDE) SPT & GROUP 1 1 $5,000,000 I DEFENSE FINANCE & ACCOUNTING SERVICE1 $4,929,000 ARMY AUDIT AGENCY (AAA) HEALTH CLINIC DEFENSE REUTILIZATION & MARKETING OFFICE (DRMO) $960.000 $840,000 $1,706,101 DEFENSE PRINTING $222,000 I MANAGEMENT ENGINEERING ACTIVITY I $900,000 I TOTAL $95,885,730 Tenant Fair Share of Depot Infrastructure Costs Impact on Rates Based on a review of the FY94 tenant ISSAs, it is determined that $8,000,000 of their current assessment would have to be absorbed by Letterkenny Army Depot. The majority of these costs are for the maintenance and upkeep of depot facilities (buildings, water treatment plan, roads, etc), security, maintenance of shared computer equipment and other miscellaneous expenses now common to both depot a d tenants. Using a projected workload of 1,890,000 hours (1,600,000 in maintenance and 290,000 in Ammo) for FY96 (this number changes all the time), this $8 million extra cost would equate to $4.23 increase to LEAD'S direct labor rate. RPR-85-1995" 13: 45 LERD SDSLE-RR 717 267 9268 P.B2/03 QPR-05-1995 13:45 LEQD SDSLE-RQ 717 267 9268 P.03/03 ... ----..----.. .-... . _ . , .. ..----..-.. ...-_, ... -- ....... ..-.-..-- ....... I . . . . . . - ......... -. . C . . . a . . . . _-.., ... ..._.. ...... ...-., - .-? TOTQL P. 03 BASED ON DECISION GOOD MORNING/ AFTERNOON, MY NAME IS THE DOD BRAC 95 PROPOSAL FOR LETTERKENNY ARMY DEPOT HAS A SIGNIFICANT IMPACT ON THE TENANTS LOCATED AT THAT INSTALLATION. ..IN SHORT, THE MANDATE IS TO EITHER RELOCATE OR ELIMINATE ALL TENANTS AT LETTERKENNY AS PART OF THE PROPOSED BRAC REALIGNMENT ACTION. THE LETTERKENNY BRAC PROPOSAL FAILS TO RECOGNIZE THE FULL MISSION AND COST IMPACTS OF SUCH AN ACTION. IT IS BELIEVED THE RIGHT DECISION NEEDS TO BE MADE OBJECTIVELY BASED THE BASIC DOD BRAC DECISION CRITERIA IN ORDER TO PROVIDE A BALANCED DECISION FOR BOTH NATIONAL DEFENSE AND THE TAX PAYERS OF AMERICA. Page 1 THE PURPOSE OF THE BRIEFING IS TO PRESENT FACTS, NOT EMOTION, WHICH CLEARLY SHOW THE PLAN TO REMOVE ALL TENANTS AT LETTERKENNY IS A BAD DECISION BASED O N THE APPLICATION OF THE BRAC DECISION CRITERIA. THE LOWER LEFT INSERT SHOWS THE SCOPE OF TENANTS AT LETTERKENNY. IF DEPOT MAINTENANCE AND TENANTS ARE PULLED FROM LETTERKENNY, THERE WILL BE LITTLE LEFT. CLEARLY, THE IMPACT IS MUCH GREATER THAN WHAT HAS BEEN DOCUMENTED IN THE DOD BRAC PACKAGE FOR LETTERKENNY ARMY DEPOT. Page 2 SIGNIFICANT JOINT WORK TMDE REGION 1ISPT OFC IT IS IMPORTANT TO UNDERSTAND THERE ARE TWO DIFFERENT LEGITIMATE VIEWS OF THE WORLD ... THERE IS A DEFINITE CLASH BETWEEN ARMY GREEN AND PURPLE AS GRAPHICALLY ILLUSTRATED IN THIS CHART! THE ARMY GREEN WORLD HAS TO DEAL WITH MANDATED WORKYEAR CEILINGS AND STILL GET A MISSION DONE. THOSE MANDATES HAVE CAUSED THE ARMY MATERIEL COMMAND (AMC) TO TAKE THE POSITION "IF A MISSION DOES NOT SUPPORT THE ARMY, GET RID O F IT!" LETI'ERKENNY AND ITS TENANTS ARE CLEARLY A MODEL INSTALLATION WHERE SUPPORT OF JOINT SERVICE PROGRAMS IS CONCERNED. JOINT SERVICE PROGRAMS MAKE SENSE FOR DOD, NATIONAL DEFENSE AND THE EFFICIENT AND EFFECTIVE USE OF LIMITED DEFENSE DOLLARS. EVEN THOUGH SUCH SUPPORT IS GOOD FOR DOD AND THE TAX PAYERS, IT FORCES THE ARMY TO EXPEND LIMITED WORKYEARS TO HELP SISTER SERVICES. IT IS VERY CLEAR FROM THE COLOR CODING OF THE TENANTS AT THE BOTTOM OF THE CHART THAT THERE IS A TREMENDOUS SUPPORT OF DOD JOINT SERVICE PROGRAMS BY THE TENANTS AT THE DEPOT. WE BELIEVE WORKYEAR CONSTRAINTS PENALIZE LETI'ERKENNY AND ITS TENANTS IN THE STRATEGIC DECISION PROCESS FOR SUPPORTING JOINT INITIATIVES DESIGNED TO REDUCE DOD OPERATING COSTS AND IMPROVE DOD READINESS. Page 3 TENANTS PAY THEIR FAIR SHARE OF THE COSTS OF OPERATING THE BASIC PLANT INFRASTRUCTURE.. .THAT MAKES GOOD BUSINESS SENSE. IT IS INTERESTING DOD AND DA HAVE A POUCY THAT SUPPORTS THE LARGE TENANT BASE AT LETTERKENNY.. .THAT POLICY IS DESIGNED TO MLNIMIZE GSA LEASE COSTS. IT FURTHER RECOGNIZES SPREADING INFRASTRUCTURE COSTS WILL HAVE A NET AFFECT OF MAKING AN INSTALLATION HOST AND ITS TENANTS MORE EFFICIENT. THE BOTTOM INSERT DISPLAYS THE TENANTS FAIR SHARE OF INFRASTRUCTURE COSTS AT LETTERKENNY. IF LETJXRKENNY WERE TO MAINTAIN ITS MAINTENANCE MISSION AND THE TENANTS WERE FORCED TO MOVE AS CURRENTLY PLANNED, LETTERKENNY WOULD EXPERIENCE A RATE INCREASE OF $4.23 PER HOUR. Page 4 PERCENT OF TENANTS/BRAC DISPOSITION: w o - 0 ~ ~ ~ : PERCENT OF POPULATION ..."..""."" .... " FEW PEOPLE UNDERSTAND THE MAGNITUDE OF THE ARMY'S PLAN TO REMOVE TENANTS FROM LETTERKE NNY... 1504 JOBS WILL BE AFFECTED! 39 % OF THE POPULATION BASE AT LETTERKENNY IS MADE UP OF TENANTS ... THIS PERCENT EXCLUDES CONTRACTOR PERSONNEL. THE RIGHT INSERT SHOWS WHAT HAPPENS TO THE PEOPLE AS ALL THE TENANTS ARE FORCED OFF LETTERKENNY. 91 % OF THE TENANT POPULATION BASE WILL RELOCATE. THE REMAINING TENANT POPULATION WILL BE ELIMINATED. AS WILL BE SHOWN IN THIS PACKAGE, THE COSTS TO MOVE TENANTS ARE GROSSLY OVERSTATED. THE SAVINGS IDENTIFIED AS A RESULT OF ELIMINATING TENANTS IS ALSO GREATLY OVERSTATED. Page 5 SlMA EAST, LOGSA-MIIC, PWC, DMC-Cl TMDE SPT, THIS IS WHAT WILL HAPPEN TO THE TENANTS AT LETTERKENNY IF THE ARMY FOLLOWS THROUGH WITH ITS PLANS .. . AS STATED IN THE PREVIOUS CHART THE SAVINGS FORECAST FOR TENANTS PROPOSED TO BE ELIMINATED ARE GROSSLY OVERSTATED BECAUSE MUCH OF THE WORK PERFORMED BY THOSE TENANTS IS FOR ORGANIZATIONS OTHER THAN LETTERKENNY AND DDW. THAT WORK WILL NOT BE ELIMINATED AND WILL HAVE TO BE TRANSFERRED TO OTHERS FOR ACCOMPLISHMENT. Page 6 DEFENSE LOGISTICS AGENCY-DDLP SYSTEMS INTEGRATION & MGT ACTIVITY U.S. ARMY LOGISTICS SUPPORT ACTIVITY-MIIC 139181 DEFENSE MEGACENTER U.S. ARMY TEST MEAS 8 DIAGNOSTIC EQUIP. 741 0 PUBLIC WORKS CENTER THIS CHART PROVIDES A FEEL FOR THE SIZE OF TENANTS ... SOME ARE VERY SMALL WHILE A NUMBER ARE FAIRLY LARGE. THE THREE AT THE TOP ARE CONSIDERED TO BE LARGE ... NONE OF THE COSTS FOR THESE TENANTS ARE IN THE ARMY'S BRAC 95 PACKAGE FOR LEITERKENNY ... SO NONE OF THOSE COSTS ARE VISIBLE ... THE ARMY'S POSITION IS THESE ARE NOT TECHNICALLY BRAC 95 COSTS TO THE ARMY WHICH IS TRUE... BUT THEY ARE COSTS WHICH NEED TO BE CONSIDERED AS PART OF THE LETI'ERKENNY DECISION. THE COSTS FOR THE TENANTS LISTED AT THE BOTTOM OF THE CHART WERE IN THE LETI'ERKENNY PACKAGE BUT WERE SIGNIFICANTLY UNDERSTATED THE DDLP COSTS WILL BE SHOWN LATER IN THE BRIEFING ... THEY WERE NOT IN THE ARMY COST PACKAGE BECAUSE DLA SUBMITTED A SEPARATE BRAC PACKAGE FOR THAT TENANT ACTIVITY. MIIC IS CONSIDERED A DISCRETIONARY MOVE AS PART OF THE LETTERKENNY REALIGNMENT ACTION, BUT THEIR COSTS WERE NOT INCLUDED IN THE ETTERKENNY BRAC PACKAGE. IN THE CASE OF SIMA, TWO YEARS AWER BRAC 93, THE ARMY IS TAKING THE POSITION THEY CAN MOVE SIMA AS PART OF DELAYED ACTION ON A BRAC 93 DECISION AND USE PRIOR BRAC FUNDS TO DO SO. IT IS VERY CLEAR THE TIMING OF THE DECISION TO MOVE SIMA IS TIED TO THE OVERALL PLANS TO REMOVE ALL TENANTS FROM LET2TRKENNY. THE DECISION ON SIMA DISPOSITION SHOULD BE LINKED TO THE OVERALL TENANT DECISION FOR LETTERKENNY. Page 7 DETAUED INK) ON EACH TENANT- FURNISHED TO COYISSK)N STAFF MILITARY VALUE IS A CRITICAL FACTOR IN THE BRAC DECISION PROCE SS... THE MAJORITY OF TENANTS AT LETT'ERKENNY ARE PROFESSIONAL ORGANIZATIONS WITH HIGHLY SKILLED PERSONNEL.. .FORCED MOVES ARE VERY MISSION DESTRUCTIVE. MOVEMENT OF SIMA AND LOGSA-MIIC WILL RESULT IN A MISSION FAILURE IN THESE ORGANIZATIONS FOR A PERIOD OF UP TO THREE YEARS ... D E T U D MISSION IMPACT BRIEFINGS ON THESE TENANTS FOLLOW THZS BRIEFING. THE IMPACT ALSO ADVERSELY IMPACTS DOD EFFORTS TO DEVELOP AND PROLIFERATE STANDARD SYSTEMS ACROSS DOD. EXHIBIT C TO THIS PACKAGE PROVIDES DETAILED INFORMATION ON EACH TENANT AT LETIERKENNY. Page 8 SIMA EAST AND LOGSA-MIIC ARE THE ONLY TWO LETTERKENNY TENANTS THAT PERFORM MISSIONS THAT ARE UNIQUE TO THE ARMY, AND IN SOME CASES, UNIQUE TO DOD. IT HAS TAKEN YEARS TO "GROW" THESE ARMY UNIQUE SKILLS. THIS IS ESPECIALLY TRUE OF THE FUNCTIONAL BUSINESS PROCESS ANALYSTS FOUND IN BOTH OF THESE ORGANIZATIONS. WE ARE NOT SUGGESTING THE ARMY CAN NOT REBUILD THESE SKILLS, IT CAN BE DONE; HOWEVER IT WILL TAKE A SIGNIFICANT AMOUNT OF TIME TO DO SO AND DURING THAT PERIOD OF TIME THE TWO ORGANIZATIONS WILL FAIL IN THEIR RESPECTIVE MISSIONS. IN ADDITION, THERE WILL BE A VERY SIGNIFICANT COST INCURRED IN BOTH RETRAINING COSTS AND PRODUCTIVITY LOSSES. SIMA EAST IS A FEE-FOR-SERVICE CENTRAL DESIGN ORGANIZATION. AS SUCH THEY HAVE TO SIZE SOFTWARE PROJECTS IN ORDER TO ESTIMATE THE COST OF WORK TO BE PERFORMED FOR CUSTOMERS. THEY USE AN INDUSTRY ACCEPTED SOFTWARE RESOURCE ESTIMATING TOOL CALLED SLIM TO DETERMINE THE ELAPSED TIME AND RESOURCES REQUIRED TO PERFORM SOFTWARE DEVELOPMENT TASKS. THE MODEL IS VERY SENSITIVE TO THE SKILL LEVELS AVAILABLE TO PERFORM THE REQUIRED WORK. THE MODEL IS VERY RELIABLE AND HISTORICALLY PRODUCES RESULTS WITHIN ACCURACY LEVELS OF PLUS OR MINUS 5%. SLIM WAS USED TO DETERMINE THE COST ASSOCIATED WITH THE SKILL LOSSES DUE TO SKILLED PROFESSIONALS WHO WILL NOT ACCOMPANY THE MISSION TO ANOTHER LOCATION. THOSE RESULTS ARE REFLECTED IN THE COST DATA FOR SIMA EAST AND MIIC . THE LOSSES ARE VERY SIGNIFICANT ($27 MILLION DOLLARS OVER A SEVERAL YEAR PERIOD). Page 9 FORCED RELOCATION IMPACI'S SKILL LOSSES ... THE DOUBLE EDGED SWORD MILITARY VALUE @MISSION DEGRADATION/FAILURE SIGNIFICANT PRODUCTIVITY LOSSES QUALITY EROSION SKILL LOSES WIELD A DOUBLE EDGED SWORD. THEY KILL THE MTSSION AND HAVE A SIGNIFICANT ADVERSE IMPACT ON THE COST OF OPERATIONS SIMA EAST AND LOGSA-MIIC WILL SUFFER SIGNIFICANT PRODUCTIVITY WHICH WILL TRANSLATE TO SIGNIFICANT COST INCREASES AND DEGRADATION OF QUALITY TO CUSTOMERS. ALTHOUGH THESE COSTS ARE NOT INCLUDED IN THE NET COST RETURN ON INVESTMENT DATA LATER IN THE BRIEFING THEY ARE SIGNIF'ICANT AND THEY WILL BE REFLECTED AS INCREASED COSTS TO CUSTOMERS. Page 10 OUR FOCUS ON THIS AND THE NEXT SEVERAL SLIDES IS ON NET COST CONSIDERATIONS ASSOCIATED WITH THE PLAN TO REMOVE ALL TENANTS FROM LETTERKENNY. AS MENTIONED EARLIER OVER 90% OF THE TENANT POPULATION BASE IS BEING DIRECTED TO MOVE FROM LETTERKENNY TO ANOTHER LOCATION. THERE ARE NO ECONOMIC BENEFITS ASSOCIATED WITH SIMPLY MOVING A TENANT TO A NEW LOCATION ...THE COST OF THAT PROPOSAL IS OVER $48 MILLION WITH ABSOLUTELY NO SAVINGS. THE COST OF ELIMINATING THE BALANCE OF THE TENANTS IS OVER $6 MILLION. EXHIBIT F PROVIDES A SPREADSHEET WHICH IDENTIFIES HOW MUCH OF THE WORK CURRENTLY PERFORMED BY THESE TENANTS IS FOR CUSTOMERS OTHER THAN LETIERKENNY DEPOT MAINTENANCE OR DDLP ... THAT WORK MUST CONTINUE TO BE PERFORMED BY SOMEONE ...THE BENEFrI'S OF ELIMINATING TENANTS HAS BEEN DISCOUNTED BASED ON THE FACT THAT MUCH OF THE WORK WILL SIMPLY TRANSFER TO AN ORGANIZATION AT ANOTHER LOCATION. THE DISCOUNTED SAVINGS AMOUNTS TO $1.298 MILLION. Page 11 IN THIS PACKAGE PRODUCTlVrrY LOSSES, WED IN COBRA MODEL F FOR DETAILS. DMCC COSTS COSTS TO MOVE EQUIPMENT 8 RECONFIGURE COMMUNICATIONS NETWORKS = SX MILLIONS VSlP COSTS UNDERSTATED,.DLA RECOGNIZED RIF REQUIREMENTS TIED TO "FAST TRACK" BRAC, OTHERS DID NOT ; ESTIMATE t5.376 M ADDITIONAL COSTS NOT IN DATA CAPTURED CONSTRUCTION COSTS GENERALLY NOT INCLUDED; PROBABLY UNDERSTATED BY $6-7 MILLION THE PURPOSE OF THIS CHART LS TO HIGHLIGHT SIGNIFICANT COS'IS WHICH ARE EITHER NOT PERMITTED AS BRAC COSTS OR COSTS THAT COULD NOT BE DEVELOPED AT THIS TIME BECAUSE THE DATA IS NOT AVAILABLE BASED ON THE BASE X DESIGNATION IN THE BRAC PACKAGE ... THERE IS NO WAY TO KNOW IF MCA REQUIREMENTS WILL EXIST UNTIL SUCH DETAILS ARE COORDINATED. THE TOTAL OF THE COSTS ON THIS CHART WILL BE APPROXIMATELY 40 MILLION ... THESE ARE NOT INCLUDED IN THE NET COST DATA PRESENTED LATER IN THE BRIEFING ...WE WOULD HOWEVER LIKE TO POINT OUT THAT THE COST DATA THAT IS PRESENTED IS GROSSLY UNDERSTATED. Page 12 MODERNIZATION I HAVE HEARD COMMENTS THAT LETTERKENNY IS NOT AS MODERN AS SOME OF THE OTHER ARMY DEPOTS ... IT DEPENDS ON WHAT A PERSON CALLS MODERN. IF YOU WERE TO DRIVE BY A NUMBER OF THE TENANT BUILDINGS ON LEIZTERKENNY YOU SIMPLY SEE A WORLD WAR I1 WAREHOUSE ON THE OUTSIDE. BUT I WOULD CHALLENGE YOU TO COME THROUGH THE FRONT DOORS OF THESE FACILITIES AND SEE WHAT IS INSIDE. THESE FACILITIES ARE STRUCTURALLY SOUND AND HAVE BEEN MODERNIZED TO MEET THE CHALLENGES OF THE HIGH TECH WORLD WE NOW MUST SUPPORT! A SIGNIFICANT AMOUNT OF MONEY HAS BEEN SPENT IN MODERNIZING ... TENANT FACILITIES OVER $21 MILLION IN THE PAST FIVE YEARS. OVER HALF OF THAT MODERNIZATION INVESTMENT HAS BEEN FOR THE THREE HIGH TECH TENANTS ALONE. WE BELIEVE IT IS IMPORTANT THAT THE FACILITY INVESTMENTS AT LETI'ERKENNY BE PROTECTED ... AND WE BELIEVE IT WILL BE COSTLY TO REPLICATE THOSE FACILITIES AT A NEW LOCATION(S). Page 13 NET COST -SUMMARY SECRETARY DEFENSE WILLIAM PERRY ANNOUNCED TO THE NATION THAT BRAC 95 DECISIONS WERE DRIVEN BY MISSION VALUE AND PROPOSALS WITH SMALL UP FRONT INVESTMENTS AND QUICK RETURN O N INVESTMENT (NET COSTS). ECONOMIC IMPACTS ARE ALSO A FACTOR IN THE DECISION PROCESS TO INCLUDE THE CUMULATIVE AFFECT OF PRIOR BRAC ACTIONS ON THE COMMUNITY.. IT IS VERY CLEAR THAT REMOVAL OF TENANTS AT LETTERKENNY ARMY DEPOT FAILS SECRETARY PERRY'S BRAC 95 DECISION CRITERIA. THE TOTAL COST TO MOVE ALL TENANTS IS BETWEEN $54 AND $90 MILUON DOLLARS FOR AN ANNUAL SAVINGS OF A LITTLE MORE THAN $1 MILLION DOLLARS PER YEAR .... AS STATED EARLIER WE! HAVE USED THE LOWER AMOUNT TO COMPUTE THE RETURN O N INVESTMENT WHICH SHOWS A PAY BACK PERIOD OF OVER - YEARS! Page 14 IT IS REALIZED ECONOMIC IMPACT TO THE COMMUNITY IS NOT WEIGHTED AS HEAVILY AS MILITARY VALUE AND NET COST, BUT IT IS A FACTOR ... AND FOR A RURAL SE'ITING WHERE LETTERKENNY IS SITUATED THE ECONOMY IS VERY SENSITIVE TO JOB MARKET LOSSES. SECRETARY PERRY'S BRAC 95 PUBLIC ANNOUNCEMENT INDICATED A SENSITIVITY TO THE COMBINED CUMULATIVE AFFECT OF THIS AND PREVIOUS BRAC ACTIONS' ECONOMIC IMPACTS TO COMMUNITY. LETTERKENNY HAS BEEN IMPACTED BY PREVIOUS BRAC ACTIONS INVOLVING THE DEPOT SYSTEMS COMMAND HEADQUARTERS. THE COMBINED AFFECT OF PRIOR BRAC ACTIONS WITH THE LATEST PROPOSAL TO REMOVE ALL REMAINING TENANTS FROM LETTERKENNY TRANSLATES TO A SIGNIFICANT ADVERSE IMPACT TO THE LOCAL ECONOMY AS REFLECTED ON THIS CHART. Page 15 THE GROSS ASSESSMENT OF THE ARMY'S PLAN TO REMOVE TENANTS IS VERY CLEAR ... IT IS VERY MISSION DESTRUCTIVE ... IT IS CLEARLY A BAD ECONOMIC DECISION ... AND FINALLY, IT WILL HAVE A VERY TELLINGAFFECT ON THE LOCAL ECONOMY, ESPECIALLY WHEN YOU CONSIDER. THE AREA IS JUST NOW FEELING THE FULL IMPACT OF THE BRAC 91 ACTION WHICH REQUIRED THE RELOCATION OF THE MAJOR TENANT LOCATED AT THE DEPOT (DEPOT SYSTEMS COMMAND l3EADQUARTERS). IN SHORT, THE PROPOSED MANDATE TO REMOVE ALL TENANTS FROM LETTERKENNY SATISFIES NONE OF THE DOD BRAC DECISION CRITERIA AND THEREFORE LEADS TO ONLY ONE LOGICAL CONCLUSION AND THAT IS, ALL TENANTS SHOULD REMAIN AT LETTERKENNY, TO INCLUDE SIMA EAST. Page 16 THERE IS ONLY ONE LOGICAL CONCLUSION WHETHER VIEWED THROUGH THE MISSION EYES OF A MILITARY PROFESSIONAL OR THROUGH THE BUSINESS EYES OF A STEWARD OF THE TAX PA YER... THE BRAC 95 LAW SHOULD CALL FOR THE RETENTION OF ALL TENANTS AT LETTERKENNY. Page 17 RECOMMENDATION IF THE COMMISSION AGREES WITH THE FACTS PRESENTED HERE TODAY, WE WOULD RESPECTFULLY RECOMMEND THAT THE VERBAGE SHOWN ON THIS CHART BE CONTAINED IN THE FINAL COMMISSION RECOMMENDATIONS TO THE PRESIDENT. THE RATIONALE FOR SPECIFICALLY MENTIONING SIMA WILL BE SPELLED OUT IN THE NEXT BRIEFING. Page 18 BRAC 95...THE RIGHT DECISION REFERENCE CHART EXHTRTT INDEX IN BRIEFING D. DISA ASSESSMENT ON SIMA EAST 6 E. BRAC 95 DECISION FEDERAL REGISTER 7 F. DIRECT WORKFORCE BY CUSTOMER 9 n~ A c TNADT C A K C ~ T T P A T P T ~ ~ T P P U C ~ T IT c 10 U. U K m a - llVI1 LljlVIljlY 1 ti I l u l l 3LrlCU u L1; H. CG IOC STATEMENT ON SIMA EAST 12 I. AMC AUTOMATION ASSESSMENT 14 - * TENANT MISSION IMPACT FOR: . Systems Integration & Management Activity East MISSION: Provides integrated automation support to the U.S. Army AMC installation, industrial, and financial business processes. Critical to AMCIArmy Future Power Projection and Force 21 Missions such as Strategic Stocks1Wa.r Reserves worldwide, Central Asset Visibility (CAV)/Single Stock Fund (SSF) Army-wide implementation, Integrated Sustainment Maintenance initiative, and extension of Automated Time, Attendance and Production System (ATAAPS)/Standard Industrial Fund System (SIFS) Army wide. SIMA-EAST employs 209 organic staff in addition to 37 contractor staff. The organization operates with an annual budget of $20 million. WHY LOCATED AT LETTERKENNY? . SIMA East's original mission was to develop the standard automated systems to support depot operations. Letterkenny as a multimission depot was designated to serve as the prototype installation for all the applications developed by SIMA. This user/developer partnership has significantly contributed to the high quality systems fielded by SIMA over the years. The secondary reason for Army decision makers locating SIMA East at Letterkenny was the cost effective means of maintaining currency of fbnctional knowledge of the business processes the automated systems are required to support. Because of the close working relationship between designer and end user, SIMA developed systems have automated and integrated business processes in such a way that depot operations have become both efficient and effective. In order to retain the mission effectiveness of both SIMA East and its end user customers, it is essential that SIMA be located at a multirnission depot. MISSION IMPACT IF ELIMINATEDIRELOCATED? SIMA East applications are unique within the Army. The applications developed by this organization are absolutely critical to the Army in both peace time and national emergency. The functional business process systems analysts in SIMA East are totally unique within the Army. Many of the automation personnel within the organization also have skills that are unique to the Army. Within SIMA East automation professionals become productive in their first year; however, they do not achieve full performance levels for approximately three years. In the case of functional systems analysts, it takes about three years to "grow" a fbnctional analyst to the point they understand their assigned functional applications and how their functions interface with other SIMA East applications and interfaces with external business processes/systems. It is the professional opinion of those most familiar with the mission and unique skill of this organization that relocation of SIMA East will cause a total mission failure for a period of three years. - * PLANNED DISPOSITION, 1F KNOWN? SIMA East workforce has been told that IOC has been directed to prepare a contingency planning package which will be part of Letterkenny BRAC 95 Implementation plan. That package will reflect a relocation of SIMA East to the Rock Island Arsenal consistent with BRAC 95 milestones. The basis for the move is supposedly the Army's interpretation of BRAC 91 and BRAC 93 law. SIMA East was directed to move to Rock Island in BRAC 91. BRAC 93 law reversed the BRAC 91 decision based on the fact that SIMA East (as a central design organization would transfer to DOD based on DMRD 918). DISA said it made no sense to move SIMA East to Rock Island based on the small amount of resources expended on Industrial Operations Command (Rock Island) business and the organization could better serve its customer base from Letterkenny. In 1993 DOD reversed its decision to transfer central design organizations to DOD and the Army is now saying that decision puts SIMA back to the BRAC 91 decision (move to Rock Island) even though the GAO BRAC 91 comments on that proposal said it makes no mission or economic sense to move SIMA. DISA (and the Secretary of Defense) in BRAC 93 said based on the customer base of SIMA East they should remain at Letterkenny. Current and fbture projected workloads for SIMA East confirm it still makes no sense to move SIMA off Letterkemy Army Depot. LETTERKENNY ARMY DEPOT, P24 1. RECOHHENDATION : Realign Letterkenny Army Depot by transferring the towed and self-propelled combat vehicle mission . . to Anniston Army Depot. Retain an en'clave for con~entional ammunition storage and tactical missile disassembly and storage. Change the 1993 Commission8s decision regarding the consolidating the tactical mission maintenance at Letterkenny by transferring missile guidance system work1oad;to Tobyhanna Army Depot. 2. IMPACT : 2090 direct jobs 3. COBRA RUN : - P O S I T I O N ELIMINATED POSITION REALIGNED o f f i c e r = 9 officer = 1 enlisted = 11 enlisted = 14 civilian = 1267 civilian = 788 TOTAL 4 . A 8 I P : POSITION ELIMINATED WONT!P AGY USA A U D I T W2KR20 ACTUSA MEDDEP W459-A TMDE SUP G P #1 W4E4!A ACTMEA W4GV90 USA CECOM . ! O L 6 0 2 DRMO I , ! O L 6 0 3 D E F PRINTING . WOL6AA LETTERKENNY TOTAL 0 ( O F F ) 0 ( E N L ) 1 6 ( C I V ) 0 ( O F F ) 0 ( E N L ) 1 4 ( C I V ) 0 ( O F F ) 1 ( E N L ) 11 ( C I V ) 0 ( O F F ) 0 ( E N L ) 2 1 ( C I V ) 0 ( O F F ) 0 ( E N L ) 1 ( C I V ) 0 ( O F F ) 0 ( E N L ) 37 ( C I r r ) 0 ( O F F ) 0 ( E N L ) 6 (CIT!) 9 ( O F F ) 10 ( E N L ) 1 1 6 1 (CI*:) TOTAL 9 ( O F F ) 11 ( E N L ) 1267 ( C I V ) POSITION REALIGNED W23H01 COE (BASE X) 0 (OFF) 0 (ENL) W45917 TMDE SPT GP (BASE X) 0 (OFF) 0 (ENL) W49052 DFAS (BASE X) . 0 (OFF) 0 (ENL) W49C!A DEF MEGA CTR (BASE X) 1 (OFF) 14 (ENL) WUMODL PUB WORK (BASE X) 0 ( O F F ) 0 (ENL) WOL6AA LETTERKENNY (TOAD) TOTAL 0 ( O F F ) 0 (ENL) 1 (OFF) 14 (ENL) 5. RETAIN : AT LETTERKENNY WOH932 MICOM WOL6AA LETTERKENNY - AMMO STORAGE - QA - SECURITY - BASOPS W43T03 LOGSA W44K-A S I M A TOTAL 1 ( O F F ) 0 (ENL) 0 ( O F F ) 0 (ENL) 3 ( O F F ) 13 (ENL) 3 ( O F F ) 18 (ENL) 7 ( O F F ) 3 1 (ENL) 2 ( C I V ) 60 ( C I V ) 78 ( C I V ) 165 ( C I V ) 183 ( C I V ) 300 ( C I V ) 788 ( C I V ) 0 ( C I V ) 490 ( C I V ) 126 (CIV) 2 8 9 (CIV) 905 ( C I V ) DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY HEADQUARTERS, U.S. ARMY I N D ~ O P E t u n w WWAND ROCK I S M , (U*KHS 812894060 1 9 APR 1995 M@MORANDUM POR SEE DIBTRIBUTION I SUBJECT: B a s e Realignment and Cloeure (BRAC) 95 Implomentation Plan I 11 Ref+?enca BRAC 95 ImplementatLon Planning Guidance Meeting, 15-16 Maroh 1495, ROUk Imland Areenal, I l l i n o i s . 2, The Eollowlng guidance o r i g i n a l l y provided a t rtmfezenctmd m e t i n g i m rOs ta ted f o r emphaois. Bach loning U,S. Army Depot S y r t m Command/U.G. Army Atmament, Nunitione and Chemical Command i n s t a l l a t i o n w i l l prepare i t 8 - reepectlve BRAC 95 Implementation plan. he gaining i n s t a l l a t i o n w i l l provide eupport a m required. 3) Suboequent guidance from headquartere, U.S. A m y HaterLel Command, i m that an Impleanentation Plan w i l l be developed f o r the S y e t m r In t eg ra t ion and Msnagemmnt Activity-East (SINA-E) ae a BRAC 93 act ion. The SINR-E Plan, although o l a e e i f i e d as a BRAC 93 act ion, w i l l follow a11 t h e requiremente absoclated with BRAC 95 and w i l l be prepared by SIMA-E am an addendum t o t h e LBtterkenny Army Depot (LEAD) Implementation Plan. The LEAD w i l l , a0 wi th any o the r t eaan t , account f o r t h e impact on LEAD barns operat ione cos te , etc. 4- A l l Implementation Plane w F l l show a completion da t a of end P Y 97 unlemm otherwiata approved by t h e Commanding Oenmral, Indun t r i a l opera t ions Command. 5. The POC i e M r . Kenneth P. Huehl, AMSnC-MI, D8N 793-8393, datnfax DbN 793-9760. U Chief, Sezf otm&nce valuation Divieion DJSTRIBWION t Conunander, Letterkenny Army Depot, ATTNr SDSLE-I (Me. n a l l i o Bunk), Chrmbereburg, PA 17201-4170 dommander, R e d River Army Depot, ATTN: SDSRR-B ( M r . Bbbby Notley) , Texarkana, TX 15f07-5000 Cloaumander, S i e r r a Army Depot, ATTNI sDSSI-CO (COL Donald D. wh i t f i e ld XI), Hmrlong, CA 96113-5000 Caamandet, Seneca Army Depot, ATTNr SDSTO-SECO (Mr. Anthony J. Carnavals), 5786 state Route 96, Romulue, NY 14541-5001 C+mandee, Bavannn Army Depot ~ c t i v i t y , ATTN8 BDSLE-V-CO (MAJ James Siok) , Savannh, I L 61074-9636 Direc tor , Syetema In t eg ra t ion and Managemant Activity-Bast ( M r . J i m Hafer) , Chambmraburg, PA 17201-4180 d~ 8 Commander, Anniston Army Depot, ATTNa SDSU-DM-PW (Ur. Paul Harper), 7 F r e f ord Avenue, Anniston, AL 36101-4199 dommander, Tobyhanna army Depot, ATTN: SD8TO-PE (Mr. Robert Haao), 11 Hap ArnoLd Boulevard, Tobyhanna, PA 18466-6000 Commanber, Lone S t a r Army Zmnunition Plant , ATTN: SMCLS-CO (LTC Pa t r i ck Dunkle), Texarkana, T X 75505-9101 Commander, McAleoter Army Annnunition Plant, ATTNr SMCMC-BMD (Me. Carol Cook), : m l e e t e r , OK 74501-5000 Gonunanderr U.S. Army Amamant, Munition8 and Chemical Cormnand, ATTN: AMSMC-AEE/HR/EQ, Rook Ieland, IL 61299-6000 Document Separator FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY 433 r I PBD Continuation Sheet No. . - - I - DETAIL OF EVALUATION: BACKCROWD: Contra1 Design Activities (CDASI provide for the development and operational sustainmane of automated information ( A I S ) and communicat ions sys terns for specified cusromers - Generally, CDAs pravide a broad range of services such as requirements definition, system desigg, development, tosting, integration, implementation support, and documentarion services. In January 1991, the Executive Level Group for Corporate Information Management recommended fee-for-service for a l l automated data processin5 operations. In A p r i l 1991, a DoD-wide. working group was established t o develop the f inancial management structure to place data processing installations (DPII and CDAs on a full cosr Eee-for-service basis. fn order to account for full costs, allocate and report to the customers a l l c o s t s Eor the services received, and to recover costs from customers, tho DPIs and CDAs were to placed in the DBOF. This has already beeh accomplished for the sixteen Defense Megacenters and for the CDAs which provide services to the supply and logistics community. To continue this initiative, sixteen CDAS will be placed on a f ee - for - service basis beginning i n FY 1996. Addit ional CDAs, as identified by the Components, w i l l be considered for inclusion in subsequent fiscal years. The purpose of this PBD is twofold- First, to reflect and adjust as necessary, the costs and revenues associated with CDAs. Second, t o continue the trans i t ion of CDAs, whose customers would benefit from the total cost and fee-for-service concepts, to the Information Services Business Area. rn a l l cases, the CDAs remain w i t h their parenc S e r v i c e or Defense Agency. However, the parent Service or Defense Agency will implement fee-for-servict3 at the CDA Fee-for-service requires that a f u l l y burdened le direct l a b o r hourly rate(s) be established for each CDA, as w e l l as-Fully burdened costs of any d a P support serv ices provided- Also, the total operating costs and the customer revenue to support those costs must be identified- Two subdivisions will be created within the Information Services Business Area for FY 1996: Army Information Services and Air Force *formation Services. The cash needs of these new-entities will addressed as the De~artment transfers DBOF cash management from OSD t o r he Components. ' ~utthermore. B#e+eratfnS! Suv~ort and Military Personnel funding will n e realigned until the FY 1997 Budget Review. The CDAs included in t h i s PBD are as follows: ' Current Funding Informat ion Systems Command - Ft Huachuca direct - Ft Lee - Washington, DC Sysceni Integration 4 Management A c t i v i t y f* FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY / a sw. &&i LJ d- F - I & . F ~ ~ J ; W .5---+F Document Separator ; 5-1'4. 41 ; 8 :35 ; GAO REPORT - 17 E n ! 1991 s cited as a major factor in the ed miseions within depots and commodities. The TABS group also considered the ability of the receiving locations to absorb the realig.ning mlesion or function. Tan major realignmanta Involve commodity installatione and depots. Por example, the Harry Diamond Laboratory at Adelphi, Maryland, would become the flagship laboratory headquartera with the establishment of the Combat Materiel Research Laboratory, performing in-hOuse,basic and applied research for the Army. Some concerns have been 'raised over the various realignments involving the depots and commodity fnatallations. For example, concern wae expressed about selective missions at Letterkenny Amy Depot, Pennsylvania, moving to Rock Island, ~llinoia .Specifically, the concerns deal with whether the recommended realignment of the System8 Integration and Management Activity is rational and economical. According to a TABS group official, the Depot Systems Command and the Activity were recommended tor realignment-because they would provide services to the Industrial Operation3 Command being established at Rock Island.. Because of time constraints, we were unable to review the numerous options involved in many realignments. Major trainins areas The Army has eight training area installations that provide facilitiee for a c t i v e and reserve units to conduct large training exercises. The military value ranking for each of the eight installations is shown in table 2.5. Table 2.5: ~ilitary Value Rankinq of Major Training Areas Installation ~ t . Irwin Fte DIx Ft. McCoy It. Orerely Ft. Chaffse Pt, A.P, Hill Ft. Indiantown Ft, P i c k t t t Rankinq ~ t s . Greely and Irwin were excluded from closure and realignment consideration becauae of their mission uniquenese. Ft. Greely i a a critical cold weather'testing and' training site .for the Army. Ft. Irwin ranked far above. the other installations in militam value and is the site of the-National Training Center. The remaining installationsf military value scores were close. Consideration for poseible closure or realignment then included cost savings and the CROSS RE?EPENCE - Page 8/46 3 1 Exhibit !3 a~ '93 16:57 JGK ! MEMORANDUN FCz DLRECXOR., TO!PAti ARMY BU14n SUBJECT 1 Byaten ~ntegration (STHA-B). 1 his is i n xe~ponse to your memxandum repuemting our amseaunnt od the moot S I N - B , given that it wrae to have bean Army Depot to R W k Xaland Arsaml a. plan. 2 . Host of SIHR-II was xeomntly brought control ot t h i e agency with the fntene % DISA during FX 93. From a DITSO C M p~ jus+ifirration for aligning the trao~~terr Rock Ialand Axoenal. Ipo oont s&ge or and the investment required to= k81e xeXo paybaak. ~ r t h e r m a r o t o xelwste oauZd .upport of the aukomateti syetg. =upparti. Depots. Recommend that; thc portion o t i d e n t i f i e d for traasdar to D18A remain 1 Army Depot. Document Separator _... - - &&& e . 1 v d 58, NO. 48 / hdosdey, hdarch.15, 1983 / b&-. - " kttmrkelmy Army Depot, Pannryf-ir Rechmmp~drtion: Realign Letterkenny Army ~ e p o t .(LEAD) by reducing it to a depot activity and placing it under the command and control of Tobyhanna Army Depot, PA. Relocate the maintenance functions and associated workload to other depot -4, '?. maintenance activities, including the private sector. Retain the 7, conventional ammunition storage mission and the regional Test 1, t t Measurement and Diagnostic Equipment (TMDE) mission. Change the t' recommendation of the 1991 Commission regarding Letterkenny as follows. Instead of sending Systems Integration Management Activity East (SIMA-E) to Rock Island Arsenal, Illinois, as I- recommended by the 1991 Commission, retain this activity in place. Retain the SIMA-E and the Information Processing Center at Letterkenny until the Defense Information Systems Agency a (DISA) completes its review of activities relocated under Defense i Management Review Decision (DxRD) 918. The activities of the depot not associated with the remaining mission will be , inactivated, transferred or otherwise eliminated. Missile maintenance workload will not consolidate at Letterkenny, as originally planned. However, Depot Systems Command will relocate to Rock Island Arsenal, where it will consolidate under the Industrial Operations Corrniand there, as approved by the 1991 Commission. Justification: The decision to realign LEAD was driven by the results of the Chairman, Joint Chiefs of Staff triennial review of roles and missions in the Department of Defense. As part of !! .:. this review, the Chairman chartered the Depot Maintenance Consolidation Study. The study identified a significant anount of excess depot capacity and duplication among the Services. The Army has concluded that the projected ground systems and equipment depot maintenance workload for fiscal year 1999 is not sufficient to maintain all of the ground systems and equipment depots . In drawing the conclusion to downsize LEAD, the Army considered the following factors: relative military value of cke depots; the future heavy force mix; reduced budget; workforce skills; excess capacity; ability of the depots to accommodate new workload levels; the proximity of the depots to the heavy forces in the U.S.; and the resulting savings. SIMA-E performs computer systems design and data management functions for a variety of activities. This organization is transferring to the Defense Information Systems Agency (DISA) in 1993. Retention keeps this activity focused regionally upon the customer. SIMA-West is located in St. Louis and supports functions in the western portion of the U.S. DISA advised the Army that there were no advantages or savings from a relocation to Rock Island Arsenal, IL. Less than 25% of the work performed by SIMA-E is associated with the Industrial Operations Comnand a: Rock Island Arsenal. F* pseiau / Vol. 58, Na 48 b f d a ~ , llderch. IS , 1983 / N o h 14031 ,, on fnvert=ont: Total estimated One-time costs for this wtyignment are approximately $106 million. Annual steady state sea are about $30 million, with an immediate retutn on znpact8: The realignment of Letterkenny Army Depot will have an impact 0x1 the local economy. The projected potential employment lass, both direct and indirect, is 7 percent of the employment b a s e in the Franklin County Metropolitan Statistical Area, "0 economic recovery. There are no significant impediments from this realignment. Environmental will continue until complete. 'There are no known obstacles in the ability of the receiving communityts infrastructure to support this recommendation. Document Separator SIMA-EAST FY95 FUNDING # DIRECT LABOR +CONTRACTOR % OF CUSTOMER EMPLOYEES TOTAL AMC IOC DPAS DFAS ALL OTHER -S LA -JLSC -DODIDAIDLA TOTAL Document Separator BRAC 95...THE RIGHT DECISION SIMA EAST EXHIBIT G DPAS - DPAS Implementations through FYQ5 Number of Period ' Property Books AgencylSdce Army AMC Organization ARO, AQTD DFAS DFAS Army AMC DE(2), IN(3), PE, KS(2) HQ MICOM, Annibton, TMDE Redstone(2), Letterkenny(G), HQ AMC(1), TMDE Chambersburg Navy Army AMC DDRE(13) RDEC, Blue Grass, Corpus Christi, Crane, McAlester(B), Pine Bluff(2), Pueblo Navy Army AMC FlSC Norfolk Savannah, Seneca, Sierra, Tobyhanna, Rock Island, Red River Fort Sill DCMC(6), DRMS(6), DNSC(4), DDRW(10) Army DLA ARL, Edgewood, Tech Esc, TECOM, Combat Test, Sys Analysis, TRADOC Mil Packg DCSC, DESC, DPSC, DGSC. DISC, DIPEC Army AMC DLA h Y Army AMC West Point (1 1) Toole, Umatilla, WateMiet, S t Louis (4), Ft. Eustis, Rocky Mountain, F t Monmouth, Watertown, Ft Beivoir, Warren(B), Selfridge, Picatinny, F t Rucker DSDC(1 I), HQ(1 ), DFSC(9) DLA DeCA Dugway(3), Ft Huachuca, Madison, White Sands(2), Yuma, Adelphl(2), Ft Monmouth(4) Warner Robbins Megacenters (10) Army AMC Air Force DlSA Megacenters(6) & HQ(3) (not currently on IEMS) Ft Lee TRADOC Headquarters, USMC, Henderson Hall Arlington, MCCDC Quantico, MCAS Cherry Point, MCB Camp Lejeune FOSSAC. NAVMTO Norfolk TBD DlSA Army AMC Army Marine Navy Air Force Schedule to be determined Schedule to be determined Totals E3rri w.\ \ c q $ - L La- ( J ~ U qr C ~ Q + ? : BRAC 95 ... THE RIGHT DECISION SIMA EAST EXHIBIT H STATEMENT ON SIMA EAST DEPARTMENT O F THE ARMY U.S. AMC SYSTEMS INTEGRAnON AND MANAQEMENT ACnVrrY CHAMBERSBURQ. PA 17201-4100 MEMORANDUM FOR SIMA EAST Workforce SUBJECT: Latest Update on BRAC 95 C 1. Based on information received from HQ IOC, it has been det-ed that SlMA East is not part of the BRAC 95 proposal for Letterkenny Army Depot realignment. That is the good news. The bad news is that a DA BRAC conference was held at Washington in early February and the DA staff announced that SIMA East was identifled to move to Rock Island Arsenal, Rock Island, Illinois. This issue has not been resolved between DA and the AMC BRAC Offices. If and when I receive additional information, I will share it with you. An encouraging note is MG Benchoff s position with regard to this matter. In short I quote MG Benchoff "I do not support a move to Rock Island Arsenal for SIMA East". Even though MG Benchoff does not personally support the move of our organization, he is a professional soldier and must support DOD and Army decisions. 2. I will continue to update you as additional information is received. w Director SIMA East Document Sepal-ator Doc~llnent Separator AMC AUTOMATION ASSESSlMENT TASK FORCE REPORT JUNE 1m Prepared for: GEN JIMMY D. ROSS COMMANDING GENERAL ARMY MATERIEL COMMAND Prepared by: BG ROBERT E. WYNN COMMANDING GENERAL 7TH SIGNAL COMMAND FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY Copy 3 of 10 DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY HEADQUARTERS, U.S. ARMY MATERIEL COMMAND 5001 EISENHOWER AVENUE, ALEXANDRIA, VA 22333 0001 S: 24 Jul 92 I AMCSO MEMORANDUM FOR SEE DISTRIBUTION SUBJECT: AMC Automation Assessment Report 1. References : a. Memorandum, HQ AMC, AMCSO, 16 Jun 92, SAB. b. Memorandum, ASQN-CG, 4 Jun 92, SAB, (encl) . 2 . An assessment of AMC Automation has been completed by Brigadier General Robert E. Wynn, Commander, 7th Signal Command. In accordance with reference la, this report is now being staffed to you for review and comment. 3 . The enclosed report contains recommendations which have been divided into two sections, "tactical", which addresses existing processes, and "strategic", which proposes fundamental changes to AMC's use of automation. Brigadier General Wynn's task force solicited comments on a draft of this report from selected AMC organizations as a part of the assessment process. This final report incorporates both these AMC comments and the Wynn task force response. It is strongly recommended that particular attention be given to these task force responses during your review of the final report. 4. An Automation Assessment Task Force, headed by Ms. Louann Elledge, has been established to manage AMC review and implementation of this report. Comments should be provided to this Task Force, ATTN: AMCSO, NLT 24 Jul 92. Request you include a point of contact with your comments. 5. Point of contact for this action is Ms. Pat Harrison, AMCSO, D S N 284-8855. 6. AMC -- America's Arsenal for the Brave. Encl . WILLIAM d McGRATH Major General, USA Chief of Staff DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY HEADQUARTERS. 7 lH SIGNAL COMMAND FORT RtTCHIE. MARVUNO 21719-5010 m C R 4 N D U M F9R Cammander, A m Materlel Czmand, >.TT?I: . M C Z S , - - - >n,.q 5901 Elsenncwer Avenue, Alexandria. ':A. - - , ~ : - ~ J ~ ~ L I I SYBJECT: .WC ~utomation Assessment Reporc . Enciosed is, the AMC Automation Assessment Task Force Report. 2. Flrst and foremost, AMC 1s successfully supportrng :he Army 13 both peace and war. Information technology wlthln AMC : s weil ~ntegrated lnto AMC buslness processes and 1s key to the successes experienced. The talent and achievements of S c t n the fxnc~~cnal staff and the lnformaclon technology staff are commendable. Some speclflc laudatory examples noted by tze team are: a. AMCCOM's use of lnformaclon technology In the Xock Island Arsenal Manufacturing Facliity. b. TACOM1s implementation of a Declslon Support System oslng shadow databases and their automation of the materlel ciesrgn process lntegratlng deslgnlng, inodellng, Eestrng asd productron. c. MICOM1s unparalleled commitment to responsiveness and customer satisfaction exemplified by thelr effort to automate :he "3Y srocess frzm request for orders thrgugh payment 1.r; :ne zraveler's bank account. 2 . A command-wide quantum increase in the benefits from information technology is possible; however, your personal direction, support, and empowerment of the implementers is essential. I recommend you challenge the technology providers to adopt industry models for decision support; centrally nanage ~nformation technology activities; focus on core competencies, and out-source where possible. 1. 1 am avazlable to provlde whatever addlriofiai i s s l s ~ ~ ~ ~ e ;.zu Tay require. ~OE~'ERT E. .WC T ~ S K Fcrce Directsr AMCSO SUBJECT: AMC Automation Assessment Report DISTRIBUTION: Headquarters: AMCDMR AMCRDA AMCAQ AMXED AMCIO AMCEN AMCMI AMCLG AMCPE AMCRD AMCRM AMCCC AMXIG AMSAC AMXLA AMXLS AMCAM Commander, U.S. Army Armament, Munitions, and Chemical Command, Rock Island, IL 61299-6000 Commander, U.S. Army Communications-Electronics Command, Fort Monmouth, NJ 07703-5009 Commander, U.S. Army Aviation Command, St. Louis, MO 63120-1798 Commander, U.S. Army Troop Support.Command, St. Louis, MO 63120-1798 Commander, U.S. Army Test and Evaluation Command, APG, MD 21005-5055 Commander, U.S. Army Tank-Automotive Command, Warren, MI 48397- - 5000 Commander, U.S. Army Missile Command, Redstone Arsenal, AL 35815-5190 Commander, U.S. Army Laboratory Command, Adelphi, MD 20783-1145 Commander, U.S. Army Depot System Command, Chambersburg, PA 17201-4170 Commander, U.S. Army Simulation, Training, and Instrumentation Command, 12350 Research Parkway, Orlando, FL 32826 Director, U.S. Army Research Office, Research Triangle Park, NC 27709-2211 Director, U.S. Army Industrial Engineering Activity, Rock Island, IL 61299-7260 AMCSO SUBJECT: AMC Automation Assessment Report Director, U.S. AMC Log Con Activity, Presidio of San Francisco, CA 94129-6900 Commander, U.S. Army TMDE Activity, Redstone Arsenal, AL 5898- 5190 Commander, U.S. AMC Catalog Data Activity, New Cumberland, PA 17070-5010 Director, Materiel Readiness Support Activity, Lexington, KY 40511-5101 ander, AMC Europe, APO New York 09333-4747 rector, USAMC Systems Integration & Management Activity, F Charnbersburg, PA 17201-4180 Commander, U.S. AMC Installations and Service Activity, Rock Island, IL 61299-7190 Commandant, U.S. Army Management Engineering College, Rock Island, IL 61299-7040 Director, U.S. Army Materiel Systems Analysis Activity, APG, MD 21005-5071 Director, U.S. AMC Management Engineering Activity, Research Drive, Huntsville, AL 35805-5906 DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY HEADQUARTERS. 7TH SIGNAL C O M M A N D FORT RITCHIE. MARYLAND 21719-5010 y m O ~ r n U M FCR Commander, .Army Materlei Command, ?T?J : .MC123, - - - . ? ; - , ' ? - - 5001 Elsennower A-venue, Alexandria, 'JA ,, , , , J I, b L SCBJECT: AMC Automation Assessment Report 1. Enclosed is the AMC Automation Assessment Task Force Eieport 2. First and foremost, AMC is successfully supporting the Army :z both peace and war. Information technology within AMC 1s well ix~egrated into AMC business processes and is key to the successes experienced. The talent and achievements of botn :he f~~nc~lsnai staff and the rnformatlon technology staff are commendable. Some speclfic laudatory examples noted by t h e team are: a. AMCCOMfs use of information technology ln the Xock Island Arsenal Manufacturlng Facility. b. TACOM's implementation of a Decision Support Sysism using shadow databases and their automation of the mater~el design process integrating deslgnlng, nodeling, testing snd production. c. MICOM's unparalleled commitment to responslveness and customer satisfaction exemplified by their effort to automate the TDY crocess f r ~ m request for orders rhrmgh payment :T.C=: :he zrsveier's bank account. 3. 4 command-wide quantum increase in the benefits from information technology is possible; however, your personal direction, support, and empowerment of the implementers is essential. I recommend you challenge the technology providers to adopt industry models for decision support; centrally nafiage ~nformation technology activities; focus on core competencies, and out-source where possible. 4. 1 am available to provrde whatever additional 3sslszsr.ce 'cu Tay requlre. .4MC Task Fccrce Dlrector EXECUTIVE SUMMARY BACKGROUND In February 1992, LTG Hilmes established a Task Force headed by BG Wynn to conduct an automation assessment of AMC for GEN Ross. The purpose of the assessment was to find and report opportunities to improve efficiency and effectiveness of Information Technology (IT) services supporting AIMC. The task force conducted interviews with key AMC staff, MSC commanders. and functional managers to draw upon their knowledge and experience with AMC's existing Information Technology services. Information obtained from the interviews and from the documents provided was analyzed to ascertain technical sufficiency and opportunities for economies. PURPOSE The Task Force goal was to help AMC posture its IT services to support the goals and objectives of a long-range functional business plan. Information Technology support is undergoing dramatic change throughout the Department of Defense. DOD's Corporate Information Management initiative, the recently formed Joint Logistics System Center, the Defense Business Operations Fund, and the Army's Sustaining Base Information Systems Program are key initiatives changing the strategy for providing Information Technology services for the next decade. Concurrent with the changes in the IT environment are equally significant changes to AMC's business area. AMC is reshaping with a smaller work force and with more focus on its future core competencies. Automation support, beyond the current capabilities, will be necessary. OBSERVATION The Task Force's primary observation was that AMC is successfully using and. in fact. improving its use of Information Technology to support its mission. AMC's program to consolidate data processing centers (annual sustainment savings of $24M) is progressing and will be completed in FY93. Efforts to reduce the inventory of software have made good progress initially and should C O ~ M U ~ . The responsiveness and technical qualifications of the work force providing IT are commendable. OPPORTUNITIES The Task Force recommendations are divided into two sections: one addresses "tactical" initiatives - recommendations to improve the existing processes; the second addresses "strategic" initiatives - functional changes to AMC's use of automation. In each case. the Task Force identified specific actions to facilitate implementation. - - - - - - W C AUTOMATION 4SSESSMEV June !992\ Z ~ e c u t l v e Sumrnvv Tactical Opportunities There were several opportunities for near-term economies to current processes. (Estimate $18M/first year cost avoidance and $12M/YR thereafter). The Estimated Completion Date (ECD) is also shown. 1. The AMP MOD computer system can be closed. Certain residual capabilities can be provided at lower cost via other exisnng computers and networks. (ECD 6 months) 2. The PADDs computer system can be replaced with current technology. Return on investment is within 1 year. (ECD 6 months) 3. There will be reduced O&S cost for AMC if the number of Unix processors is consolidated using current technology (tier 01 processors and fde servers). A 20% reduction within 6 months is an attainable target. (ECD 6 months) 4. More clearly defined management of DSREDS and better exploitation of its capabilities will improve speed and accuracy of the acquisition process. (ECD 6 months) 5. Bundling of point-to-point circuits in conjunction with the DOD DISN network will reduce circuit costs by at least 20%. (ECD 1 year) 6. For unclassified work, High Performance Computer support should be available, with current technology, at less cost. (ECD 1 year) 7. Not relocating SlMA-East to Rock Island will realize a $18M cost avoidance; while collocating SIMA-West into the Army Information Processing Center and ATCOM facilities will avoid GSA lease costs of $3.0M/YR. (ECD 2 years) 8. Connecting AMC Headquarters directly to the HQDA DSS will facilitate access of its staff to authoritative data and enhance its use of electronic exchange of information. (ECD 6 months) Strategic Opportunities Savings from "Strategic" initiatives have the potential to be an order of magnitude greater since these initiatives focus on the business process and saucture of AMC. The corporate software development philosophy is decentralized. Currently, MSC's develop up to seven technical solutions to a functional problem. All may be satisfactory with each local customer feeling that he received exceptional customer support; however, the solutions are not necessarily compatible, and AMC has lost an opportunity for savings and synchronization. Rather than resource many solutions to one problem, AMC can organize to apply the same resources to a single solution for many problems. Savings of up to 4 to 1 in software development costs should be realized by seizing the opportunity to centralize the direction of SIMA and the vanous Applications Development Divisions. .WC AUTOMATION ASSESSMENT (June 1992) u Executive Summa* The most sigmicant opportumty tor enhancing AIMC's Information Technology support during the transition years centers around development of a corporate data warehouse (traditionally known as "shadow database" within AMC). AMC's business processes are closely linked, and in fact. defined by its automation systems. These "legacy" systems have existed for more than a decade and currentiy h~nder AMC's efforts to move to modem business processes. AMC functionais need to be "decoupled" from these "legacy" systems and given the freedom of action to redefine their business practices. The "data warehouse," whde not a panacea, provides the least expensive capability to both free AMC to re-engineer its business processes while concurrently actually improving their daily performance. Several MSCs have implemented 'data warehouses' to some degree. TACOM has institutionalized the approach. It includes data synchronization, end-user training, and realigning information technology support assets within their DOIM. The DOIM now emphasize training, consultation, and end-user support rather than traditional software~development TACOM's cost avoidances attributed to impjementing its "data warehouse" are over $100M in the first year. Comparable savings in the other MSC's are likely. Key to realizing these opportunities is establishment of a saong central control in the Information Management community without sacrificing responsiveness. A single agency should command and control all intormauon technology activities within AMC. The head must be at the general officer1SES level to be on equal footing with other staff principals and MSC commanders. Subsequent to forming this agency, AMC may determine they can better focus on the core business processes and obtain better service for each dollar spent by outsourcing their IT support. SUMMARY AMC is successfully supporting the Army in both peace and war. Information technology within AMC is well integrated into AMC business processes and is key to the successes experienced. The challenge for AMC during the transition period is to: Lmplement recommended opportunities to reduce costs/increase effectiveness in existing operauons. Cenuaily manage information technology activities during the turbulent reshaping period. Decouple their business processes from their automation process by implementing a "data warehouse" in support of TACOM, MICOM, CECOM, AVSCOM, TROSCOM, AMCCOM. and DESCOM, as well as HQ AMC. .LMC AUTOMATION .ASSESS.MENT Iune 1997,) !u Zxecuave Summ arl, TABLE OF CONTENTS Page 1 . BACKGROUND . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I . 1 Task Force Purpose 1 . 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.2 Task Force Methodology 1 . 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.3 Organization of Task Force Report 1-3 2 . TACTICAL NITIATIVES 2.1 Army Materiel Plan Modernization (AMP MOD) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.1.1 Observation : . . . . . . . . 2-1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.1.2 Discussion 2-1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.1.3 Recommendations 2-2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.1.4 Benefits 2-2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.1.5 Impacts 2-2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.1.6 Implementation 2-3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.1.7 Tieframe 2-3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.1.8 MSC Comments and Task Force Response 2-3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.2 Technical Data Management/DSREDS 2-5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.2.1 Observation 2-5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.2.2 Discussion 2-5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.2.3 Recommendations 2-6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.2.4 Benefits 2-8 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.2.5 Impact 2-8 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.2.6 Implementation 2-8 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.2.7 Timeframe 2-9 2.2.8 MSC Comments and Task Force Comments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ,- 9 2.3 Procurement Automated Data and Document System (PADDS) . . . . . . . . . . . 2.. 12 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.3.1 Observation 2-12 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.3.2 Discussion 2-12 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.3.3 Recommendations 2-12 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.3.4 Benefits 2-12 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.3.5 Implementation 2-13 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.3.6 Timeframe 2-13 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.3.7 MSC Comments and Task Force Response 2-13 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.4 Integrated Procurement System (IF%) 2-14 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.4.1 Observation 2-14 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.4.2 Discussion 2-14 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.4.3 MSC Comments and Task Force Response 2-14 .... -- . . M C AUTOMATION ASSESSMENT (June i99?) v Table of Contents TABLE OF CONTENTS (Cont'd) Page . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.5 Systems Integration and Management Activity 2-16 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.5.1 Observation 2-16 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.5.2 Discussion 2-16 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.5.3 Recommendations 2-19 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.5.3 Benefits 2-19 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.5.5 Implementation 2-19 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.5.6 Timeframe 3-19 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.5.7 MSC Comments and Task Force Response 2-20 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.6 System Review Committee (SRC) Structure 2-24 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.6.1 Observation 2-24 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.6.2 Discussion 2-24 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.6.3 Recommendations 2-25 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.6.4 Benefits 2-25 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.6.5 implementation 2-25 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.6.6 Timeframe 2-26 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.6.7 MSC Comments and Task Force Response 2-26 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.7 Supercomputers . 2-28 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.7.1 Observation . 2-28 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.7.2 Discussion . 2-28 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.7.3 Recommendations 2-29 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.7.4 Benefits 2-29 2.7.5hpact . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-30 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.7.6 Implementation 2-30 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.7.7 Timeframe . 2-30 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.7.8 MSC Comments and Task Force Response 2-30 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.8 HQ AMC Decision Support System (DSS) 2-35 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.8.1 Observations 1-35 2.8.2 Discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-35 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.8.3 Recommendations 2-37 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.8.4 Benefits 2-37 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.8.5 implementation 2-37 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.8.6 Timeframe 2-37 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.8.7 MSC Comments and Task Force Response 2-38 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.9 Single-Function Circuits 2-40 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.9.1 Observation . 2-40 2.9.2 Discussion 2-40 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.9.3 Recommendations 2-41 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.9.4 Benefits 2-41 2.9.5 Implementation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-42 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.9.6 Timeframe 2-32 2.9.7 MSC Comments and Task Force Response 2-33 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .M C AUTOMATION ASSESSMENT (June 1992) v I Table of Contenrs TABLE OF CONTENTS (Cont'd) Page . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.10 Unix Consolidation 2-48 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.10.1 Observation 2-48 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.10.2 Discussion 2-48 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.10.3 Recommendations 2-49 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.10.3 Benetit 2-50 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.10.5 Impact 2-50 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.10.6 Implementation 2-50 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.10.7 Timeframe 2-50 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.10.8 MSC Comments and Task Force Response 2-51 STRATEGIC INITIATIVES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.1 Software Development- 3-1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.1.1 Observation 3-1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.1.2 Discussion 3-1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.2 Structure of Information Technology Support 3-2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.2.1 Observation 3-2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.2.2 Discussion 3-2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.2.3 Recommendations 3-3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.2.4 Benefits 3-4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.2.5 Lmplementation 3-4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.2.6 Timeframe 3-4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.2.7 MSC Comments and Task Force Response 3-4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.3 Use of Information Technology as an Enabler 3-14 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.3.1 Observation 3-14 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.3.2 Information Systems and Corporate Data 3-14 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.3.3 Office Automation and Electronic Mail 3-19 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.3.4 MSC Comments and Task Force Response 3-20 APPENDIX A . AMC AUTOMATION ASSESSMENT TASK FORCE REPORT BRIEFING 22 MAY 92 . AMC AUTOMATION .ASSESSMENT (June 1992) v u Tsble of Contents LIST OF FIGURES Page FIGURE 1 - Shadow Database . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . , . . . . . . - . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3- 16 2 - Shadow Database . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3- 18 1. BACKGROUND 1.1 Task Force Purpose In February 1992, the Director of Information Systems Command, Control, Communications, and Computers (DISC4). LTG Hilrnes, established a Task Force headed by BG Wym, Commander, 7th Signal Command, to conduct an automation assessment for the Army Materiel Command (AMC) Commander. GEN Ross. The purpose of the assessment was to provide direction for AMC's automation support for the next five years. The Task Force was to find and report opportunities to improve efficiency and effectiveness of information technology services supporting AMC. The scope of the assessment included all areas of information technology services with the primary focus on automation systems and computer networks. The assessment addressed areas throughout AMC, including the Headquarters (HQ) and each Major Subordinate Command (MSC). The goal of the Task Force was to help AMC posture its Information Mission Area (TMA) to support the goals and objectives of AMC's long-range functional business plan. AMC's plan to reshape its organization with a focus on core competencies and reengineered business processes with less workforce will require dramatic changes in its automation support. Department of Defense (DOD) and Army initiatives influencing this change include: DOD Corporate Information Management (CIM) DOD Joint Logistics Systems Center (JLSC) Department of the Army @A) Sustaining Base information Systems (SBIS) DA Installation Support Modules/MACOM Lnternal Support Modules (ISM/MISM) Defense Business Operations Fund (DBOF) Migration to Open Systems Environment (OSE) 1.2 Task Force Methodology The Task Force began by conducting personal interviews with key AMC staff, MSC commanders, leadership, functional managers and technical experts to draw upon their extensive knowledge and experience with AMC's baseline information technology services. In the interviews, the Task Force obtained information on existing ~nformation technology services, lirmtations of current support and recommendations for improvements. The Task Force also discussed the process for idenafymg and implementing changes to information systems in each interview. . W C AUTOMATION ASSESSMENT (June 1%?) 1-1 Background Information obtained in the interview and an extensive amount of background information provided to the Task Force were analyzed to identlfy potential cost reductions and opportunities for increased productivity. Within the time allowed, the Task Force validated the opportunities. Key documents in the analysis were: Army Information Process Action Team (IPAT) Information Technology Sub-Group Report AMC Software Scrub M204 Implementation Plan AMC Geographicflechnical Architecture Streamlining Information Service Operations Consolidation Study (SISOCS) The information obtained from AMC staff and AMC reports was heavily supplemented by information from industry. Key industry documents include industry references on implementing relational database technology in a decision support environment (i-e.. data warehouse approaches) and references on out-sourcing General Motors information technology support to Electronic Data Systems (EDS). Most of the Task Force's observations were derived from recommendations provided by the AMC senior staff and commanders. Many of these recommendations were initially addressed in earlier AMC reports. The Task Force focused on near-term customer support to the functional managers, especially in the areas of decision support and use of technology as an enabler. Where many of the AMC reports discussed improving existing methods of information technology support, the Task Force approach focused on requirements of functional managers, looking for opportunities to free the functional managers from the constraints of existing information systems and their cumbersome support structure. The Task Force briefed AMC senior staff and commanders on its interim results throughout the study: AMC Chief of Staff 06 Apr 92 AMC Commanding General 01 May 92 AMC Major Subordinate Commands 11 May 92 AMC Commanding General 22 May 92 Copies of the briefings were distributed to the Major Subordinate Commanders and their comments solicited. These comments are provided as part of ths repon . W C AUTOMATION ASSESSMENT (June 1992) 1-2 lixkeround 1.3 Organization of Task Force Report The Task Force report is divided into four major sections: Background. Tactical Initiatives, Strategic Initiatives, and Summary. The tactical initiatives include recommendations to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of existing processes. Although these initiatives are intended to provide near-tern benefits, they are intended to align AMC's information technology support with the target environment five years out. Examples of tactical initiatives recommendations include continued consolidation of business systems and strategic networks. This category includes improvements of systems that will eventually be replaced by CIM or JLSC initiatives. In these cases. the Task Force carefully reviewed the status of existing systems, the CIM plans and the cost for improvements. The Task Force determined that these systems warranted near- term improvements while waiting for CIWJLSC replacements. A full functional economic analysis is required prior to implementation of these recommendations. The strategic initiatives include fundamental changes to AMC's use of automation. These initiatives are divided into two categories: structure of information technology support and the use of information technology as an enabler. In these initiatives, the Task Force proposed a paradigm shift in AMC's use of information technology. The recommendations include: (1) proposals to refocus AMC on its core competencies and out-sourcing information technology support, and (2) proposals to 'decouple' AMC's business practices from the automation systems by making a dramatic change in the use of the information captured through existing information systems. Comments on the interim findings are incorporated into the Task Force report immediately following each initiative. Many of these comments are based on early findings that have been revised based on comments from the field and additional research. W C .AUTOMATION ASSESSMENT (June 1992'1 : -3 Background TACTICAL INITIATIVES 2.1 ARMY MATERIEL PLAN MODERMZATION (AMP MOD) 2.1.1 Observation The AMP MOD system, operated by AMC, is not well utilized and does not provide benefits commensurate with its cost. 2.1.2 Discussion AMP MOD is a secure system designed to support the acquisition process. The AMP MOD Program was implemented beginning in June 1987, and is managed by HQ AMC, Deputy Chief of Staff for Research and Development and Engineering (AMCRD-AP). The AMP MOD system envuonment Includes IBM 4381 mamfrarnes running IBM's Multiple Virtual Storage (MVS) operating system and COMTEN Front-End Processors. The annual cost of operating ,4MP MOD is $1.3M (including 22.3 1 manyears). AMP MOD runs on old, obsolete hardware that is expensive to maintain and software no longer supported by the vendor (IBM). Upgrades to current technology are neither funded nor planned. In addition, many of the AMC business processes supported by the AMP MOD system changed significantly when the PEO structure was established. AMP MOD functionality has not been adjusted to support the changed business processes. As a result, the AMP MOD system is no longer synchronized (functionally aligned) with current business processes and, therefore. not widely used. On 25 Jan 91, MG Rigby initiated action to terminate the AMP MOD program by requesting infonnation on the impact of closing down the system from all MSCs, ASA(RDA), RDAISA, DA DCSOPS, and PM AIM. Each MSC responded to MG Rigby's memorandum with a recommendation to retain the communications portion of AMP MOD because it provides the only available secure network to support the acquisition community. Analysis of the collected infonnation resulted in a decision to retain AMP MOD and its databases. As revealed by the impact analysis, the AMP MOD system, though not widely used for its intended purpose, provides a secure network to pass critical data between MSCs, RDAISA, and HQDA. System design does not allow for easy decoupling of the communications network from the processing system. The result is continued operation and maintenance of a system utilized at approximately 3% of its processing capacity. AMP MOD is erroneously assumed by some to be the source of critical information when. in reality, it serves primarily as a medium for data and infonnation exchange. The only critical processing function actually performed by AMP MOD is the Standard Study Number (SSN) to Line Item Number (LEV) conversion. In addition to the SSN/LIN conversion process, some sites use AMP MOD for other functions such as preparing P-FORM. however. PC-based systems are available to support these functions at sigd~cantly lower operational cost. - .%MC AUTOMATION ASSESSMEKT t June 1'1921 2- L "~cticcil lnltlatlves 2.13 Recommendations The AMC Automation Assessment Task Force made the following recommendations: 1. Close AMP MOD and provide secure network capability via a combination of DISNET and STU I11 dialup access. 2. Transition SSNLIN conversion process to run at RDAISA. 3. Implement command-wide standard systems and procedures to replace AMP MOD functions (e.g., PC P-Forms). 2.1.4 Benefits The AMC Automation Assessment Task Force recommendations have the following benefits: 1. Annual savings of approximately $1.3M. 2. Reduction in civilian over-strength by approximately 22 personnel. 3. Improved management of acquisition data resulting from implementation of standard processes feeding a single reliable database (RDAISA). 2.1.5 Impact Adequate alternatives exist that will minimize potential negative impacts: Loss of AMP MOD data access - Since AMP MOD is not widely used, the data stored in AMP MOD are no longer maintained nor considered "authoritative." (In discussions with the Task Force, Mr. Keith Charles of the Army Staff (SARD-RI) stated that AMP MOD data are of very poor quahty and not used for planning or decision making.] The RDAISA database is now considered the authoritative source for data originally intended for AMP MOD. Loss of AMP MOD network - PM AIM is in the process of fielding systems to each MSC, whch include a secure network utilizing the DOD standard network, DISNET. Many of the AIM secure network requirements are satisfied today using secure dialup via STU ms. Reduced workforce. . W C AUTOMATION ASSESSMENT (June 1992) 2-2 Tachcal Initiatives 2.1.6 Implementation The following tasks are required to implement the Task Force recommendations: 1. CG AMC task ISC to engineer and install a secure network to each MSC that will support both the AIM and AMC secure network requirements. Plan should explore use of both DISNET and STU Ins. 2. CIO task AMC DOIMs to check with those directly connected to AMP MOD to ensure their support requirements are accommodated. 3. CIO manage implementation of AMC-wide solution to support requirements identified by AMC DOLMs. 2.1.7 Timeframe The timeframe to implement the Task Force recommendations is the near-tern. 2.1.8 MSC Comments and Task Force Response RECOMMENDATION 1. Close AMP MOD and provide secure network capability via a combination of DISNET and STU HI dialup access. MICOM Comments Termination of the AMP MOD system (including the Major Item System Map database) will have minimal impact on the rnission/function of the MICOM Integrated Logistic Support (ILS) office. However, processing of Basis of Issue Plan Feeder Data (BOIPFD) and qualitative/quantitative personnel requirements information (QQPRI) will either revert to a manual system or require development of a local ADP system. Memorandum from AMC to Headquarters DA requesting termination of .4MP MOD. dated 24 Apr 91, was not granted due to the many positive responses from within the HQ DA. SIMA Comments Concur with recommendation. It needs to be noted that selected data currently provided (e-g. procurement delivery schedules) must be obtained from other sources. I t also should be noted that there are two distinct elements that need to be examined--the AMP-MOD automated information system and the communication network which supports the transfer of data. We concur with the elimination of the automated system. and recommend that the network be examined for future viability as an independent action. A-MC AUTOMATION .ASSESSMENT ; J u n e 1992) . , --J Tactical inuiauves CECOM Comments The report recommends that the AMP MOD be closed. CECOM agrees. Task Force Response Functions currently provided by AMP MOD and still required should be identified through the SRC process for command-wide support. ;tMC AUTOMATION ASSESSMENT (June 1992) 2-4 T ~ c u c ~ ~ hiuaaves 2.2 TECHNICAL DATA MANAGEMENTIDSREDS 2.2.1 Observation Digital Storage and Retrieval Engineering Data System (DSREDS)/ Technical Data,Configuration Management System (TDICMS), as currently operated and maintained by AMC. is not yielding all of its potential benefits. The technical data and associated configuration management program operate independently throughout AMC's seven DSREDS sites. Strong central management of DSREDS/ TD/CMS will enable AMC to achieve higher levels of efficiency, reduce system costs AMC-wide. and derive maximum benefits from the system. 2.2.2 Discussion DSREDS, though not fully deployed and somewhat under utilized, is a robust system essential to the Army's technical data management program. EDMICS, the current CIM system of choice, will not deliver sufficient functionality and capacity to supplant DSREDS for some 3 years, during which time. DSREDS provides the only viable alternative for meeting the Army's requirement for technical data. The Task Force experienced a general lack of knowledge among those interviewed regarding where DSREDS and the technical data management program fits in the AMC organization. There appears to be no consensus as to the identity of the lead DSREDS functional proponent. This is indicative of a need for stronger central management to ensure overall success in the technical data management function. At AVSCOM/TROSCOM the functional technical data program is directed out of the maintenance organization. At TACOM and CECOM the engineering directorate provides overall direction. The Project Manager for the DSREDS Program is a member of the DOIM staff at MICOM and, therefore, subject to direction by the CIO, while the senior technical direction in HQ AMC is out of the concurrent engineering area. Senior members of the staff expressed concern over the effect of DSREDS program fragmentation on cost management and the funding process: logistics support, including maintenance; and standardization. In the areas of capacity and performance, the Task Force heard concerns regarding the capability of DSREDS to handle TACOM's workload, while, in contrast, it found that CECOM and Fort Belvoir may be under utilizing DSREDS. The Task Force also encountered questions regarding the robusmess of EDMICS, which affects how long AMC will need to rely on DSREDS. Current DSREDS functionality does not address the capability to allocate system resource usage to specific users. This limitation, if left uncorrected, will constrain future AMC requirements to implement a DSREDS-speclfic cost analysis and cost recovery program in accordance with DA/DOD policy. DSREDS maintenance levels vary from site to site under the current concept, whereby each site contracts separately for maintenance. Consolidation of maintenance contracts will provide economy of scale and ensure uniformly high levels of maintenance across all sites. AMC r\UTOMATION 4SSESSMEV June 1 9 2 ) 2 -5 "~ctlcal In~tiatlves Application of standard cataloguing techruques and namng conventions for drawings w-dl enable personnel command-wide to access drawings resident in a central DSREDS repository. This wdl advance movement towards CALS compliance and accelerate AMC's awnment of all benefits of a fully automated, interactive technical data production and management program. Standard data management policies and procedures are needed Amy-Wide and DOD-wide for the technical data automation concept to deliver the maximum payoff. Different TDICMS programs are in use at each MSC. It has been demonstrated at Huntsville that significant improved performance and cost savings can be realized by standardizing TD/CMS and collocating it with DSREDS on state-of-the-art, Unix-based, front-end systems currently installed at the sites. Excepting the R&D -community, DSREDS is the only remaining unconsolidated MVS workload in AMC, Migration of the DSREDS workload to the AIPCs offers potential for additional savings. A command-wide capability for depot-level interactive access to DSREDS does not currently exist, although proof of concept has been established in tests between AVSCOM, St. Louis, and Corpus Christi Army Depot. 2.23 Recommendations The AMC Automation Assessment Task Force made the following recommendations: 1. CIO direct the DSREDS PM to engage AMC's Management E n g i n e e ~ g Activity at Huntsville to conduct a management study with the following objectives: a. Evaluate the current technical data management processes and provide recommendations for improvement. The study should assess the current technical data/configuration management structure and recornrnefld the best canddate as the AMC functional proponent of technical daw'configuration management systems. b. Document the savings achievable through standardization, consolidation and configuration management. The study should quantify savings associated with standardizing electronic transmission, storage, and remeval. including archival characteristics. The study results should enable AMC to prompt action at the DADOD level supporting promulgation of appropriate standards and/or associated policies. c. Evaluate the need for DSREDS at Fort Belvoi.. This evaluation should include a functional economic analysis of alternatives for providing DSREDS suppon to local customers to determine if DSREDS support should be provided by some other means. . M C AUTOMATION ASSESSMENT (June 1992) 2 -6 Tactlcal Inrt~ahves 2. CIO task ISC's capacity managers to immediately initiate capacity management of ail technical data production systems e.g., Infodetics, DSREDS, manual processes, to ensure cost-effective, efficient placement and utilization of technical data production resources. Further, the capacity manager should immediately conduct a workload/capacity analysis of DSREDS to address capacitylutilization issues at CECOM, TACOM, and Fort Belvoir and to provide data to the CIM/EDMICS program for use in sizing EDMICS production requirements. 3. CIO direct the PM to consolidate (at the earliest feasible opportunity given current contract periods of performance) DSREDS maintenance contracts. 4. CIO direct the PM to develop and document the requirements needed in DSREDS to support the DADOD fee-for-service policy and ensure that these requirements are met in future enhancements to the system 5. CIO direct the DSREDS PM to take immediate action to standardize the current TDICMS at all sites and rmgrate the application to the Unix front-end systems installed at the sites. This wlLl place all of the technical data and associated configuration management systems in the same operating environment on common systems, which will reduce the cost of system administration, operation, communications and other associated costs. 6. CIO task ISC to assess the technical feasibility of rehosting the DSREDS workload on the AIPC, and if the concept is technically feasible. to follow up with a functional economic analysis. When DSREDS is rehosted on the AIPC MVS/XA processors, the costs of maintai~ng seven separate MVSXA licenses wdl be eliminated. As 'DSREDS moves to an open system environment, AIPC Unix hosts will provide the same economies of scale. With the migration of the depots' processing to the AIPC, and the establishment of communications lines to those locations, the communications network will provide the requisite interactive support with minimum upgrade. Migration of depot-level DSREDS processing to the AIPCs should be implemented as a second phase to the current DSREDS upgrade, which wdi raise the DSREDS operanng system level to that of the AIPCs. (The current peripherals on the DSREDS are fully compatible with the AIPC mainframe platforms.) 7. AMC direct the DSREDS PM to extend full interactive access to the Army depots to enable them to access the technical data repository in DSREDS. This will permit the Army depots to access the most current set of technical documentation and configuration management information and thereby significantly improve their ability to conduct depot- level maintenance on the appropriate system. It will also assure that the most current engineering change information is available at the depot and reduce their requirement to maintain drawings and publications separately at the local level. - LVC AUTOMATION 4SSESSMENT 1 June 1992) . - - - I Tactlcai In~tlatlves 2.2.4 Benefits The AMC Automation Assessment Task Force recommendations have the following benefits: 1. Assessing the costs associated with delaying implementation of standards will promote movement towards standardization and the attainment of resultant savings. 3. Improved capacity management will optimize performance system wide and reduce unit cost of service. 3. Consolidation of maintenance contracts will reduce the unit cost of maintenance and yield a higher level of performance across the system. 4. Preparing to implement fee for service will enable compliance with DODDA policy. 5. Standardization of TD/CMS and migration to the Unix front-end systems will reduce the cost of system administration. operation. communications and other associated costs, increase performance and facilitate incremental attainment of CALS compliance. 6. Rehosting DSREDS on the AIPC MVS/XA processors will eliminate the costs of maintaining seven separate M V W licenses. Migration of depot-level DSREDS processing to the AIPCs and extending interactive DSREDS access to the depot level will significantly improve the overall quality of technical data. 7. Ultimately, an improved DSREDS will improve the Army's technical data packages, which improves the total acquisition process in the Army, and has a vast impact on configuration control of end items, maintenance costs, and safety .... a good set of specs and a good set of drawings is essential to efficient cost-effective acquisition of Army materiel. 2.2.5 Impact Full implementation of DSREDS technology will hasten progress toward a modem, cost-effective business process that will meet Army mission needs and provide a migration path to CALSICIM technology. Access by all levels of the command to accurate technical data and its associated configuration management structure should assist in achieving major improvement to other associated business processes, e.g., procurement/acquisition, maintenance, engineering, and quality assurance. Bottom line: this will provide more quality products at less cost in less time. 2.2.6 Implementation The following tasks are required to implement the Task Force recommendations: 1. Management programs should be initiated withm 15 days of approval of the recommendations. .4MC AUTOMATION .4SSESSMENT (June 1992) 2-8 Tactlcai h~ttauves 2. Formal tasking and associated processes should begin not later than 30 days after the management structure is approved and formalized AMC-wide. 2.2.7 Timeframe The timeframe to implement the Task Force recommendations is the near to mid-term 3.2.8 MSC Comments and Task Force Response RECOMMENDATION 2. Close DSREDS sites at Fort Belvoir and CECOM and provide support remotely. MICOM Comments MICOM concurs for economic reasons, implementing BRAC and incorporating CIWJLSC initiatives, that closing some DSREDS sites is a possibility. However. a more thorough evaluation must be accomplished with the following problems to be addressed: Fort Belvoir was identified as the only secure site for processing classified data. They have also been designated as the site to host the processing of data for the National Capitol Region. CECOM has not previously attained Full Operating Capacity (FOC), but is now bein3 upgraded at a cost of $500K to reach FOC. The software at DSREDS host sites will have to be upgraded to allow .two or more major commands to process concurrently. Under guidance of JLSC and CALS environment. any changes to the DSREDS software will not be made without the JLSC's approval. This will also necessitate additional communication costs and hardware adaptations and upgrades. This will negate savings projected in support of DSREDS initial development. Operation of remote sites through a host site will introduce one to two weeks additional Procurement Administrative Leadtime (PALT). The PALT cost in 1983 was estimated in a range of $.5M to $1M per day depending on site involved. CECOM Comments The report recommends that the DSREDS site at CECOM be closed and support tor DSREDS should be obtained from a remote site. CECOM suon_gly non-concurs. 1. The past history of CECOM DSREDS being minimally used was caused by s t a r t u p funding problems that have since been corrected. 2. CECOM, as the second largest AMC repository, currently has approximately 1,000,000 documents in its DSREDS database. If we add the approximately 500,000 SATCOM documents, CECOM would undoubtedly be the largest repository among the major subordinate commands. To have these documents loaded at a remote site would require a significant expansion of its storage capacity. The manpower and material cost increase to the remote site expansion would be enormous and passed on to CECOM. The cost benefits in the recommendation would not materialize. 3. Taking into consideration state-of-the-art compression techniques, sending graphical information over communications lines is still a very expensive undertaking. The current plan to use the AIPC in Chambersburg, with non-graphical data, is already 120% over the normal annual CECOM operating costs thus, ramping up the AIPC disk storage, the CPU power and the sizable communications upgrade would state the business case for a remote DSREDS as a loss. 4. Since the cost to obtain drawings digitally through communications lines is extremely expensive, we would have no recourse but to have large volume requirements sent to us by aperture card. This would significantly impede engineering research efforts and delay master bid set building, due to lack of material for performing an issue check. 5. Since JCALS is not in place, we would be further delayed in obtaining digital access to our documents as well as receiving digital data for storage. We would be forced to remain in our present manual mode of operation, and further complicated by not having direct access to our documents. 6. DSREDS is contractually identified as a major island of automation here at CECOM by the ongoing JCALS effort. CECOM fielding is in FY94. The impact to the massive JCALS program would be disastrous. 7. We would be "out of business" if communications line problems occurred or if we had to timeshare access to the remote site.' Our access to documents would undoubtedly be second priority to that of the selected remote site. We would be forced to maintain the mylar and aperture card storage system as presently exists for backup purposes. 8. With the Intergraph file server removed, we would no longer have access to DSREDS via our Intergraph workstations. This would reduce our configuration management efforts to manual controls which would be impossible with the number of acquisitions and technical data packages we manage at CECOM. 9. Problems with legibility would take longer to resolve since we may have to wait for a new apemue cards to arrive. 10. Updates to printed outputs, such as the TDPL, would experience an unnecessary time lag. Time to do issue checks would become untenable. - - - .AMC AUTOMATION ASSESSMENT !June 1992) 1-10 Tactical In~tiatlves 11. Control of different drawing numbering systems would require extensive software modifications. Also, documents accessed by drawing number may identify two documents of different CAGE codes possibly resulting in an inaccurate master bid set. 12. Classified and h t e d rights data cannot be accessed over communications lines without a complete secure line system in place. 13. We would lose immediate access facility, thus becoming further backlogged on ECP changes. 14. Engineering review of drawings for configuration management requirements, design analysis and fast response decisions for "Desert Storm" type situations would become grossly more cumbersome, if we don't have full repository capability with the latest facilities. 15. It is estimated that administrative lead time would be tripled. 16. The Research. Development and Engineering Center (RDEC), CECOM, would be adversely affected if the DSREDS site at CECOM is moved. The Prototype Development Directorate (PDD) provides retrieval service of engineering drawings on a continuous basis to technical personnel of all RDEC directorates, as well as to Project Managers (PMs), Program Executive Offices (PEOs), and other elements at Fort Monmouth. The volume of drawing requests and the complexity of drawings is substantial and unless adequate speed and integrity of data for remote support can be fully guaranteed, the loss of direct connection to a local Center would have serious negative impact in terms of impaired productivity on RDEC, CECOM and the PMs, PEOs and other elements to which PDD provides direct daily engineering support. Task Force Response Based on input from PM DSREDS/TDCMS, the Task ~ o r c e recommendations have been revised. Recommend CECOM retain DSREDS capability and migrate to full utilization of system capabilities. . W C AUTOMATION 4SSESSMENT (June !992> 2 -1 1 T~ctlcal [n~t~atlves 2.3 PROCUREMENT AUTOMATED DATA AND DOCUMENT SYSTEM (PADDS) 2.3.1 Observation The PADDS system, operated by AMC, runs on obsolete. expensive equipment from Perlun Elmer with high software and hardware maintenance costs. The system is slow and does not support the required number of users. 2.3.2 Discussion PADDS is the AMC standard system that supplies AMC CCSS sites with the capability to generate hardcopy, signature-ready procurement instruments, along with ancillary forms and documents. The PADDS program was implemented in 1980, and is managed by SIMA. The PADDS environment includes a PerIun Elmer minicomputer running a proprietary operating system. P.4DDS is written in COBOL and TAPS using the TOTAL database management system. PADDS is installed at each MSC plus SIMA-W. Annual maintenance costs are approximately $346K per site per year for hardware and software maintenance plus $69K for personnel, $47K for monitors, $10K for technicians and $1.5K for other. The Joint Logistics Systems Center (JLSC) has responsibility for fielding the DOD standard replacement for PADDS. JLSC has selected the Navy's procurement system, Integrated Technical Item Management and Procurement System (ITIMP) (previously known as the Procurement Early Development [PED] system) as the DOD standard. JLSC plans to field ITIMP to five sites within the next 12 months, however total Army fielding will take over two years. AMC has focused SIMA resources, originally dedicated to PADDS, on ITlMP development in a joint effort with the Navy. This work is supported by JLSC. 2.33 Recommendations The AMC Automation Assessment Task Force made the following recommendations: 1. Contract with Electronic Data Systems (EDS) via ISC's U 2 contract to convert PADDS from the proprietary Perkin Elmer system to an Open Systems Environment. Costs are estimated roughly at $300-400K with an approximate duration of 4-6 months. 2. Field PADDS on avadable Unix hosts at MSCs. 3. Continue SlMA eifon to enhance ITlMP and field to all MSCs as replacement to P.4DDS when available. 2.3.4 Benefits The AMC Automation Assessment Task Force recommendations have the following benefits: . W C AUTOMATION ASSESSMENT (June 1993 2-12 T ~ c t ~ c a i ln~tlauves 1. improved avadability of critical procurement system during transition to ILSC standard. 2. Savings of over $300K per year in hardware and software maintenance. 2.35 Implementation The following tasks are required to implement the Task Force recommendations: 1. CG AMC direct SIMA to task EDS through the SMC contract for a cost estimate for convemnz PADDS to Unix. 2. CG AMC direct AMC DCSRM to conduct a functional economic analysis to validate savings from PADDS conversion and consider any other technically feasible alternatives. 3. CIO publish and execute an implementation plan. 2.3.6 Timeframe The timeframe to implement the Task Force recommendations is the near-tern. 2.3.7 MSC Comments and Task Force Response RECOMMENDATION 3. Convert PADDS to Unix; move to other hardware. MICOM Comments Strongly disagree that PADDS is a non-critical system. The current PADDS hardwarelsoftware environment successfully provides critical procurement needs at MICOM. The recently upgraded PADDS system provides continued service untll a CIM solution becomes operational. Expenditure for. an interim system in these austere times does not appear cost effective. CECOM Comments The report recommends that the PADDS system be converted to Unix and moved to other hardware. CECOM concurs. PADDS software and hardware are outmoded and the issues concerning the JLSC and PEDS must still be addressed. Task Force Response Grouping PADDS under the heading "Non-Critical System" was an error by the Task Force. The recommendation to develop lntenm replacement was the result of acknowledging the importance of PADDS. Invesunent in the range of $400K for an interim solution appears warranted based on rapid return on investment. . M C AUTOMATION ASSESSMENT (June !Y92) 1-13 Tact~cal In~t~atlves 2.4 INTEGRATED PROCUREMENT SYSTEM (IPS) 2.4.1 Observation AMC operates and maintains 32 Unix minicomputers that were purchased for the IPS program, which was never fielded and is no longer under development. 2.4.2 Discussion This issue has been incorporated into the Unix consolidation section. 2.43 MSC Comments and Task Force Response RECOMMENDATION 1. Reduce number of Unisys processors. MICOM Comments Non-Concur. The Unisys processors which were originally acquired to be utilized in the Integrated Procurement System (IPS), which has been cancelled, remain heavily utilized in support of the MICOM procurement mission. LABCOM Comments With regard to recommendation #1, "Reduce number of Unisys processors," we note that at ALC most of the Unisys processors have been collocated. There may be merit in moving Unisys systems to a common, larger platform as a mid- to long-term initiative. This recommendation requires thorough analysis to determine whether adequate service can be provided at reduced cost. Factors must include location of the common platform, cost, and network responsiveness. AVSCOM Comments Reduce the number of Unisys processors/Consolidate onto large Unix hosts operated and maintained by the APCs: Who wdl fund the additional software and capacity for the mainframe required to replace the Unisys processors? The local DOlM must be provided some flexibility in this environment to ensure responsiveness to the local Commander's requirements. Consolidation should be conducted on a business case basis and it should ensure that all architectural and operational requirements are considered. Task Force Res~onse See Unix consolidation discussion. . M C AUTOMATION ASSESSMENT (June 1992) 2-14 Tactical Initiauves RECOMMENDATION 2. Remove INTEL hubs. Reduce other file servers. MICOM Comments Most INTEL hubs have been removed from MICOM. The minicomputers and other file servers at MICOM comply with the state-of-the-art client-server technology. Horizontal and vertical interoperability allows MICOM customers to successfully manipulate data from all tiers to perform their mission. For example: File servers are a critical part of the MICOM Executive Yetwork. are cnticai to the continued implementation of the imaging program to reduce paper, and are the backbone of the new technology move toward client-server architecture. LABCOM Comments We have serious disagreement with recommendation #2, "Remove lntel hubs: reduce other file servers." The desktop computing initiative at ALC is built on a system of hubs and servers. Our plans for the ARL Corporate Information System are based on file servers using templates to update databases. implementation plans for our Executive Information System (EIS) utilize shadow databases serviced by X-windows client server technology. AVSCOM Comments Reduce other file servers: Does this imply LAN file servers? We are in the process of a major implementation of work group LANs. LANs are critical to expanding the opportunities for achieving significant advances in end-user productivity. Task Force Response Recommendation was not intended to imply elimination of file servers. The intent was to replace obsolete. expensive lntel file servers with new technology. Maintenance and system administration costs for Intel 3 101320s exceed replacement costs. 2.5 SYSTEMS INTEGRATION AND MANAGEMENT ACTIVITY 2.5.1 Observation Observation concerning S h l A falls into two categories: 1. Savings can be realized by modifying current SIMA structure (removal of functionals from SIMA TDA). 2. Savings can be realized by reconsidering future SIMA locations (BRAC 91 SIMA-E relocation decision and relocation of SIMA-W to Goodfellow Blvd). 2.5.2 Discussion The Systems Integration and Management Activity (SIMA) serves as AMC's Central Design Activity (CDA) for Army logistics management systems, both wholesale and retail. SIMA provides continuous AMC applications deveiopment support to all AMC functional proponents and other customers. The majority of SIMA personnel are located at Chambersburg, PA (HQ- SIMA East) and St. Louis (SIMA West). Additional staff are located at Tobyhanna. PA, and Seckenheirn, Germany. Current staffing levels are 990 civilians (927 authorized) and 22 Military (25 authorized). SIMA is organized along mission lines into the following directorates: Acquisition and Engineering Systems Materiel Management Systems Depot Maintenance and Dismbution Systems Financial Systems Information Services Two major systems developed and maintained by SIMA are ~he~Cornrnodity Command Standard Systems (CCSS) and Standard Depot Systems (SDS): CCSS - The Commodity Command Standard System (CCSS) is the Automated Information System (AIS) which supports mission accomplishment at Army Materiel Command (AMC) Inventory Control Points and National Maintenance Points (ICP/NMP). CCSS is the umbrella designation for sub-systems which support the following functional areas: procure men^ Financial Management; Materiel Management including Stock Control, Supply Management, Maintenance Management and Asset Management; Logistics Data Management including both Cataloging and Provisioning; and Acquisition Management. In addition, CCSS supports Security Assistance (Foreign Military Sales). CCSS is comprised of over 6.5M lines of application code. There are over 500 applications which are comprised of over two thousand executable process blocks. Over four thousand individual modules are included in the process blocks. and they are d o r e d to spec~fic functions. CCSS is modular by design, which allows for the incorporation of changes and modifications more readily than would be the case if the executable process blocks were not modular. - -- -- . W C AUTOMATION ASSESSMENT (June 1992) 1-16 Tacucal huauves A further d e h t i o n of systems funcaonality foilows. using the senerally accepted Materiel Management categories: ** ITEM INTRODUCTION processes support the functions of provisioning and cataloging including planning and budgeting, initial provisioning requirements, Item idennficanon naming, numbering and dissermnation of data. and publications support. .ACQUISITION MATERIEL .MANAGEMENT processes include procurement. technical data configuration management. and deficiency repornng. ** REQUIREMENTS processes include secondary item requirements determination, budget stratification. budgeting and funding, contingency planning and war reserves and security assistance. ** ASSET MANAGEMENT processes include asset visibility, requisition processing, distribution manaeernent. returns and disposal manasement. phy5ical inventory. and mantenance plannlng and execution. *- FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT processes associated with the above include funds certification. billing, financial accounting, reconciliation and reporting. SDS - The SDS is a systemic grouping of tasks within application processes or modules allowing the logistical management of ammunition and general supply items (wholesale and retail), equipment, facilities, and the maintenance rebuild of major and secondary items. The system consists of some 3.1 million lines of source code in approximately 2,300 application programs categories into 40 projects or application areas. The numerous applications categorized as Standard System Applications include: ** Materiel Management Applications - Support the disaibution or matenel through the receipt, cataloging, storage, issue, and inventory of wholesale supplies. ** Installation Suppon Applications - Provide for installation support for Equipment, Facllity Management, Quahty Assurance, Procurement and Retail Supply Activities. ** Personnel, Financial, and Maintenance Management Applications - Support customer resource requirements for tinance and personnel and provides planning, production and control for mantenance and supply activities. 2.5.2.1 Functional Input to SIMA SIMA personnel fall into two distinct categories: information technology specialists that serve as applications developers, and functional experts that serve as liaison between SIMA's applications developers and functional proponents from the various organizations supported by SIMA. The latter constitute approximately 50% of SIMA's TDA. The opportunity is to draw functional expertise directly from the organization supported on an as needed basis rather than to maintain an expensive stable of functional expertise. To combat traditional problems in user dissatisfaction with centrally developed systems, i t is necessary to increase the user involvement. This is best done by placing functions in the user organization rather than the developers. MICOM's comments on this issue (attached) accurately describe the benefits of removing functionals from the TDA of the central design activities. 2.5.2.2 Future SIMA Locations At the time of the srudy, AMC was planning to move SIMA-E to Rock Island, IL, based on BRAC 91 decisions involving facility consolidations, organization moves, and the creation of new organizations through realignment of existing AMC elements. The IPAT Sub-Group Report assessed this decision as follows: This affects the technical staff who maintain the Depot Standard Systems (SDS) and many other information systems currently in daily use w i h AMC. It is anticipated that only a small percentage of the people currently on board will actually make the physical move. This vvlll create a major loss of corporate knowledge associated with the maintenance and continued suppon to a number of mission critical AMC information systems. This wdl be problematic not only in keeping the systems in therr present form operating, but will also make it difficult to properly transition the functionaiity of the systems to the future DOD standard Information Technology environment. The DOD initiative to standardize information systems, and the DA initiatives to move to an Open System Environment (OSE) will have significant impacts on the systems currently maintained by SIMA-E. The availability of the expertise of the people who created the existing systems to help in the transition to the future environment will be very important. 'The probable loss of a significant portion of this knowledge base as a result of the SIMA-E move is a significant factor. BRAC 91 decision to relocate SMA-E to Rock Island costs $8M in MCA and up to SlOM in relocation costs. Relocation will result in loss of software expertise and operational effectiveness will be disrupted. SIMA-W currently leases GSA facilities. Alternative space will be avdable at Goodfellow at a s igdcantly lower cost. - , M C XLJTOMATION ASSESSMENT (Jum 1992) 1-13 Tactical Initlatlves 2.53 Recommendations The AMC Automation Assessment Task Force made the following recommendations: 1. Provide functional input to SIMA using lead MSC and functional proponents (e.g., JLSC). 2. Remove functionals from SIMA TDA. 3. Do not relocate SIMA-E. Bring before BRAC 93 Committee. 4. Relocate SIMA-W to Goodfellow Boulevard and consolidate DPI with ALPC. 2.5.4 Benefits The AMC Automation Assessment Task Force recommendations have the following benefits: 1. Current functional expertise provide to software development. 2. Cost avoidance of $8M MCA, $10M relocation and approximately $1.2M civilian pay (post reduction). 3. Savings of $3.1M annually in GSA lease cost. 2.55 Implementation The following tasks are required to implement the Task Force recommendations: 1. AMC DCSRM review SIMA TDA and remove functional (non-information management) authorizations. 2. Transfer portion of these authorizations to MICOM to cover additional workload associated with lead MSC mission. 3. AMC DCSRM recommend removal of SIMA-E relocation from BRAC. 4. Chief of Staff task SIMA and AVSCOM to develop FEA for relocation of SIMA-W into Goodfellow Blvd., St. Louis, MO. 2.5.6 Timeframe The timeframe to implement the Task Force recommendations is the mid-term. - - . M C AUTOMATION ASSESSMENT (June 1992) 2-19 2.5.7 MSC Comments and Task Force Response RECOMMENDATION 1. Provide functional input to S M A using lead 34SClproponent (JLSC). MICOM Comments Agree. Utilization of functional personnel who are actually performing the AMC rmssions to define functional requirements for automation systems will ensure that the perspectives of a real world "worlung" environment are captured. It will mean that the functional requirements will be guided by the expertise that is using the systems on a daily basis. The experts having a working knowledge of the current systems know their shortcomings and pitfalls and where improvements would bring the most overall benefit. Such an environment wffl also ensure that this expertise is maintained, since the resources will be circulated back into an operational mode. In fact, unlization of rapid prototype development and elect~onic group systems techniques for functional definition will minimize the absence from the workplace. SIMA Comments We strongly non-concur to this suggestion for several reasons. Functional support is required continuously throughout the life cycle of a system -- not just during concept development. Functionals play an integral role in the design, testing, documentation, training, and deployment. In addition, after the system is fielded it is constantly being maintained, modified and enhanced via the SCR process. It is also being supported on a daily basis by answering user questions, supporting functional policy task groups, etc. As a result our systems have long life cycles. Further, our systems are large, complex, and integrated. They consist of hundreds of thousands of lines of code which defmelorganizeiprocess minute pieces of functional logic. You cannot expect to assign lead responsibility to a group that exists for'a temporary period or has a constant turnover in personnel and expect to maintain the institutional knowledge that is required to support the system over its entire life. Functional support is a full time job that requires extensive 4cnowledge of how the system was or is to be designed. To perform this function at a MSC would require the creation of new organization not within their mission responsibility with a substantial commitment of resources. Two, recommendation one assumes that the MSC has the resources to commit to systems support. In today's environment it seems extremely unl~kely that they will be able to siphon off a sufficient number of resources to support a new mission. In addition. these resources must be trained. Systems design is a skill that requires formal training in automation tools: e.g., how to write logic in suuctured and tight English, how to develop and design decision nees and tables, how to normalize databases, etc. These sialls are not acquired overnight. They take months to develop in the very best people and a year or two to develop in people with average abilities. The learning curve is extensive and costly. . M C AUTOMATION .ASSESSMENT (June 1992) 1-20 Tscucal In~uauves Three, implementation of these plans would divorce the functional from the ADP community incurring unnecessary costs and creating communications problems. This would extend systems development and maintenance times at a period when development time is already unacceptable. SIMA has been co-located with its user community to ensure that its functionals are in tune with the real world. It offers opportunity for immediate feed-back on what works or doesn't work. It is convenient for prototyping. Furthermore, in the information technology world of the future, the lines between ADP and functional personnel are becoming invisible. In the CASE environment, business analysts have a broad range of skills that cross the boundaries, and those individuals will ultimately provlde the bulk of the services. Task Force Response Comments received by the Task Force throughout AMC indicate that functional expertise in SIMA is stale. Investment in functional manhours for system development should come from the best source of functional experience (a line unit). rather than soliciting technical assistance in areas such as database normalization that should be the domain of the system developer. LABCOM Comments With regard to recommendation #1, "Provide functional input to SIMA using lead MSC/proponent (JLSC)." the laboratory community has never had functional support in SIMA. The concept of a "lead" MSC working with the JLSC causes concern that research processes WLU be swallowed by logistics mission requirements. ARL should be the lead MSC for laboratory requirements. RECOMMENDATION 2. Remove functionals from SIMA .TDA. AVSCOM Comments We agree to this recommendation as long as some approach is developed for providing coordinated functional requirements to SIMA. Three options should be considered: 1) Use the Lead MSC concept; 2) Assign areas of functional expertise to different MSCs: or 3 ) Franchise requirements definition on a case by case basis. The reassignment of these spaces should be used to staff the Lead MSC and to support other AMC strategy implementations. At the same time, b s is being accomplished, SIMA's overall resource allocation should be reviewed to determine where additional savings can be gained through collocation with DOIM/AIPCs. Finally, SIMA's role needs to be reexamined. As SIMA goes under Fee-for- Service, should SlMA be viewed as a contractor? AMC AUTOMATION r\SSESShtENT (.!me 19921 1-21 "actlcal [n~tlatlves CECOM Comments The removal of SIMA functionals would transfer the weight to a lead MSC andlor the FCG. There is no disagreement with the methodology, but current functional resource constraints must be considered. In some cases the systems/business combination of expemse is not there. Task Force Response Concur. Some nansfer of spaces from SIMA to the lead MSC is appropriate. RECOMMENDATION 3. Do not relocate SIMA-E. Bring before BRAC 93 committee. MICOM Comments The relocation of SIMA-E is best addressed by AMCCOM; however, if their primary mission is to support the depot community, the move would be beneficial long range since it would then be located with the Indusmal Operations Command. The major problem that MICOM has had with SIMA-E is the fielding of systems developed for the Depots without proper interfaces to other standard systems, e.g., SOMARDS with RASFIARS. The configuration and software release management is not consistent with SIMA-W and has caused many problems in the MSC environment. Task Force Res~onse Concur. Although not part of this study, 7th Signal Command is working with SIMA on software release management. SIMA Comments Strongly support and concur with recommendation for retention of SIMA-East at Letterkenny Army Depot, Chambersburg, PA. Additional benefits to be gained by retention of SIMA-E at cuncnt location include satisfylng mobdization and contingency requirements, and continuation of responsive and extensive support to AMC design elements in accomplishing rapid changes of day-today logistical business processes for significant Army doctrinal changes. AMC w-iU also benefit in the tremendous task of managing the rmllions of dollars of European retrograde generated by the Anny build-down and obtaining visibility overall classes of supply with Total Asset Visibility. Cost avoidance of $18M is a low estimate: the personnel and equipment movement costs are actually estimated at $27.5M. Not relocating SIMA-E also avoids a total mission collapse for 2-3 years following the move plus the accompanying degradation of productivity in out years. W C AUTOMATION ASSESSMENT (June 1992) 2 -22 Tactlcd h~tlauves LABCOM Comments With regard to recommendation #3, "Do not relocate SIMA-E. Bring before BRAC 93 Committee," we recommend considering consolidation of SIMA-E and SIMA-W and collocating with the "lead MSC" for logistics and readiness mission support RECOMMENDATION 4. Relocate SIMA-W to Goodfellow Boulevard and consolidate DPI with AIPC. MICOM Comments Agree. If AMC really has no control over how 90% of SIMA-W resources are used. as stated in the 1 1 May VTC, this should be a near-term initiative to save the $3M for FY93 that GSA requires for the leased space. Unless AMC has plans to provide "de facto" control over SIMA, it would appear that only 10% of the resources providing O&M of current AMC systems would have to be relocated. Use of the SLMA functional resources by LOGSA should be explored. Any AMC SISOCS site could assume the associated computer workload. SIMA Comments The decision to relocate SIMA-W to Goodfellow should be based upon: ( 1) the ability of the Goodfellow complex to accommodate the projected SIMA requirements, and (2) the move is economcally justifiable. It appears that the original projected savings were over- estimated. When all costs associated with the move are considered, it may be questionable whether it remains a cost-justifiable option. Due to this uncertainty, it is recommended that an independent analysis be developed by MEA and that the results of that analysis provide a basis for the final decision. LABCOM Comments With regard to recommendation #4, "Relocate SIMA-W to Goodfellow Boulevard and consolidate DPI with AIPC," we recommend considering consolidation of SIMA-E and SIMA-W and collocating with the "lead MSC" for logistics and readiness mission support. CECOM Comments The report recommends a relocation and restructuring of SIMA. CECOM concurs with reservation. Task Force Resoonse Concur. . M C XLTOMATION 4SSESSMENT (June 1992) 1-13 Tscticd Inltlauves 2.6 SYSTEM REVIEW COMMITTEE (SRC) STRUCTURE 2.6.1 Observation Current SRC structure focuses Information Management suppon to specific functions rather than across functional areas. 2.6.2 Discussion The current System Review Committee structure conslsts of four categories: logistics, acquisition, resource management, and information management. The various functions supported are clustered logically within these four categories. Functional requirements needing automated support surface through these partitioned channels, and system support is provided through these same channels. The problem with this organization is that it promotes articulation of functional requirements along distinct functional lines and encourages the development of stovepipe systems in each functional area. This saucture inhibits consolidation and aggregation of similar requirements into integrated systems that cross functional boundaries. Moreover. AMC's business processes undergo constant change that cause functional realignments and overlaps; and the SRC process can easily lag behind the ever changing business processes the systems are intended to support. The following extract from the Army Materiel Command Business Automation Initial Transition Plan, Phase I describes the structure used' by AMC to manage automation programs: Management S aucture: AMC 'dcula tes functional requirements and manages its automation program to ruppon those requirements with a management structure designed to draw on expertise in all seven AMC mission areas at all organizational levels. Functional experts in a designated functional area from the HQ, AMC Major Subordinate Commands and Separate Reporting Activities form Functional Coordinating Groups (FCGs) chartered by the responsible System Review Committee (SRC). Thus, system support and Life Cycle Management for all functional areas are partitioned among the four SRCs; the Logistics System Review Committee, the Resource Management System Review Committee, the Acquisition System Review Committee and the Infomation Management System Review Committee. SRCs are chaired by an appropriate HQ AMC Deputy Chief of Staff or higher, with their functional counterparts at the MSCs/SRAs belonging to an SRC as voting member. In turn, the AMC Chief ot Staff, the chairs o i the SRCs, and Director of SIMA comprise the Information Management Council, which convenes on major issues which impact more than one SRC. Within the LSRC. which has jurisdiction for two-thirds of AMC's business software applications, the FCGs are further grouped under Functional System Integrators, which align to designated CLM sub-areas within Materiel Management. The above describes a management structure aligned along functional boundaries tailored to the AMC staff structure. T h ~ s suucrure has the following three limitations: (1) The systems .WC AUTOMA7TON ASSESSMENT (June 1992) ? -24 Tdctical In~batlves supporting AMC's business do not t'oilow this alignment (e.g., CALS. CCSS), ( 2 ) Integration across functional areas is a major requirement for automation support (thus the name of System Integration Management Activity), (3) The Joint Logistics Systems Center t JLSC) is not aligned dong these boundaries. AMC is experiencing defacto out-sourcing of information technology support due to the advent of JLSC and operations support from ISC. These factors reduce the freedom of action of functional SRCs and require an integrated view of AMC automation support. 2.6.3 Recommendations The .AMC Automation Assessment Task Force made the following recommendations: 1. Establish a single SRC with Command Group oversight (GOISES) and members from all functional areas. 2. Appoint CIO as Secretary. 3. Establish nonvoting chairs for JLSC, ISC, and IMA Integration and Analysis Center (LZAC). IJAC is responsible for overseeing the integration of software, providing configuration management, compliance support, resource priority recommendations and technology promotions. 4. Convene as a working group as required. 5. Restructure Functional System Integrators (COWGM 15) to provide honzontal integration. 2.6.4 Benefits The AMC Automauon Assessment Task Force recommendations have the following benefits: 1. increased economies and efficiencies through consolidation of requirements into standard integrated systems. 2. Reduced proliferation of systems offering redundant capabilities. 3. Improved coordination and integration of functional requirements into information technology systems. 2.6.5 Implementation The foilowing usks are required to implement the Task Force recomrnendauons: 1. Chief of Staff task the existing SRCs to provide to the CIO a status of all current and future projects. together with associated costs and benefits witfun 60 days. . W C .AUTOMATION ASSESSMENT (June 1993,) 2 -25 T~crlcsl h~tiauves 2. CIO analyze this list for potential redundancies and provide an integrated priority list at the first restructured SRC meeting. 3. CG task CIO to complete restructuring action within 6 months. 2.6.6 Timeframe The timeframe to implement the Task Force recommendations is the near-term. 2.6.7 MSC Comments and Task Force Response RECOMMENDATION 1. Establish a single SRC with Command Group oversight (GOISES) and members from all functional areas. MICOM Comments MICOM has no objection to the concept proposed. Much more information would be needed. however, before approval or objections could be stated about its implementation. For example: What would be the size of this SRC? Would the membership include individuals from the MSCs? How would the member(s) from the MSCs be determined (i.e. a single member, a member from each functional area, or some other criteria)? What would the mechanism be to raise an issue before this SRC? How would a Lead MSC relate to this SRC? In short, AMC and the MSCs need to carefully scrutinize the implementation of this proposal. SIMA Comments We concur and suppon the recornrnendation to establish a single SRC structure as a means of streamlining the process. The recornrnendation would reduce the amount of administrative time required to support the separate but different processes that exist today. Further, the recommendation should improve those situations where the separate review committees have separate but conflicting priorities. It will serve to integrate the entire process and resolve any boundary issues. We suppon this recommendation and would recommend it as a model for DOD. LABCOM Comments With regard to the recommendations, "Establish a single SRC with Command Group oversight (GO/SES) and members from all functional areas: CIO serves as secremy; JLSC and ISC representation; and Restructure FSls (COL/GMlS) to provide horizontal integrauon," there exists a single forum for Information technology today which has command group oversight and functional input through the current SRCs. .WC AUTOMATION ASSESSMENT (June 1992) 1-26 Tsctlcal Irutiatlves The requirement for multiple SRCs arose !?om the strong mission focus of the LSRC to the exclusion of R&D and RM requirements. The proposed structure would re-energize concerns of lack of support for R&D and RM processes. In the instances where responsibilities overlap between SRCs today the leadership of the SRCs involved jointly resolve jurisdiction issues and coordinate items of mutual interest. AVSCOM Comments Establish a sinsle SRC with Command Group oversight (GOISES) and members from all areas (to include JLSC and ISC representation): The SRCs should be reoriented along the funcuonal lines of the JLSC and established as a formalized configurauon control board (CCB) for business processes, lnfomation systems, and data. The Techcal Coordinating Group (TCG) should be established as the CCB for the technical architecture. If the JLSC and ISC are included, will they get a vote? Task Force Res~onse Comments were reviewed, however, Task Force still recommends a single SRC. During implementation, it is important that the SRC delegates responsibility for certain levels of decision below the SRC level to avoid problems in size and duration of SRC sessions. RECOMMENDATION 3. JLSC and ISC representation. MICOM Comments No objection. The L S C and ISC representatives should not have a vote in the SRC. Task Force Response Concur. RECOMMENDATION 5. Restructure Functional System Integrators (COUGMlS) to provide horizontal integration. MICOM Comments It is felt the COWGM 15 level is too high to expect the detailed knowledge of a given functional area needed to provide direction for the creation of a new system or for the modification of an existing one. Task Force Res~onse Recommendation stands. 2.7 SUPERCOMPUTERS 2.7.1 Observation Discussions with key personnel and on-site analysis reveal that the network configuration and distribution of supercomputer assets within AMC may not be aligned to provide the desired flexibility and support to mission-essential acuvities, or the most cost-effective solution. 3.7.2 Discussion The Army has highly sensitive, mission-essential super computing requirements of a classified nature that, with all probability, should be performed on in-house assets. Some AMC organizations (e.g., AVSCOM) receive unclassified supercomputer support at National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA). In many cases the technologies employed by other Government agencies involve the same lunds of technology that the Army and other DOD components require. DOD directed evaluations to reduce high-cost DOD systems in response to the reduced threat in the current world environment. Continued Army-owned and Army-operated unclassified supercomputer systems in lieu of out-sourcing on an as-required basis must be questioned. AMC operates two supercomputer programs: one located at Ballistics Research Laboratory (BRL in Aberdeen, MD, and the other at Tank Automotive Command (TACOM) at Warren. 341. Classified work requirements exist at both sites: however, the BRL system (Cray-2) currently maintains the central repository of secure data. This requires use of a classified network as well as an unclassified network to support both locations' requirements. In addition to this processing and systems support, additional computer support is obtained from the University of Minnesota. Discussions reveal some reluctance to put real-time analysis for specific Army systems in the facility at University of Minnesota because of its potential impact on the academe community. The Cray X-MP computer located at BRL costs $1.95M per year to maintain. This system is considered obsolete because of its limited ability to handle high CPU intensive workload and high cost per megaflop compared to that found in newer machines. The second processor at BRL (Cray-2) is exclusively used for classified processing support for all AMC acnvities. At both sites a high-cost system administrative support staff, provided throush contract support. adds depth to the local Army technical user, as well as the Army customers. If support were leased, the provider would offer this service. No cost recovery progTam is currently in place to regulate demand for supercomputer use by charging users for resources consumed. The current mode of operation is to provide support 25 hours-a-day, 365 days-a-year for both the classified and unclassified systems. System utilization data indicate that each supercomputer is fully ualized. Most of the worL-lqad consists of modelling to support AMC's R&D community. Modelling is known to dr. . even the most .tMC AUTOMATION .4SSESSMENT (June 1993 ?. 2-28 ~s t l ca l !n~:~ailves powerful supercomputer to its h t . The high cost of supercomputer operations necessitates scrutiny of each job's worth to the Army and meticulous cost management. In the case of modelling, it is essential to weigh the tradeoff between cost and payoff and pursue least-cost alternatives. Some of the work (non-urgent) could be provided through interactive capability as a part of DOD, other Government, or commercial networks and thereby reduce the requirement for full-period assets at Army facilities. New Reduced Instruction Set Computing (EUSC) technology on individual workstations may be a cost-saving alternative for a processing capability with a side effect of reducing interactive communication costs. Wherever possible supercomputer work should be migrated to lower-cost technology. Several other Army technological support efforts receive adequate supercomputer support on a fee-for-service basis from NASA or other Government agencies/contractors. Specifically, AVSCOM has for some time obtained at minimum cost supercomputer support from NASA- AMES, Langley. Support continues to grow from these sources as they migrate to newer technology. In the current restricted funds environment, both DOD, as well as other R&D functions should be combined, particularly when the associated technology is common (e-g., ballistics and space research). Utilization of these common assets on a fee-for-service basis should significantly reduce the Army's cost for these services. In summary, regionalization of supercomputer technology at a DOD level would appear to be imminent. The Army should be the fore-runner in exploring that alternauve. 2.7.3 Recommendations The AMC Automation Assessment Task Force made the following recommendations: 1. Turn in Cray X-MP at BRL. 2. Retain Cray at BRL to adequately handle classified processing. 3. Unclassified processing should be subject to functional economic analysis (FEA) to determine if it should be out-sourced or done in-house to include the high performance supercomputer at the University of Minnesota. 2.7.4 Benefits The AMC Automation Assessment Task Force recommendations have the tollowing benefit: Reduced hardware and software O&S $1.3M per year. Net benefit determined by FEA. .AMC AUTOMATION .ASSESSMENT June i992! . .? ---9 -1ct1cai inltl3oves 2.7.5 Impact FEA should ensure that these recommendations do not deprive AMC of any mission essential resources or R&D capabilities. 3.7.6 Implementation The following tasks are required to implement the Task Force recommendations: 1. CIO formally task ISC to establish a technical analysis team to evaluate the merits of the recommendations on the restructuring and reconfiguration of the current Army supercomputer network to: (a) determine whether portions of the work can be out-sourced to reduce cost, (b) provide access to state-of-the-art technology, and (c) provide a broader scope of access not only to the Army community but to other DOD systems and technologies. 2. CIO task ISC to evaluate the current network infrastructure to determine the potential of moving to the MPC/DISN network (see discussion on Single-Funcuon Circuits). 3. CIO task D O N S at both of the current supercomputer sites to establish a performance measurement or analysis capability either through in-house or contract resources to determine the best utilization of the facilities and where possible ascertain the potential for relocating workload to other dismbuted technologies (i.e., RISC or parallel processing systems). 4. CIO task the capacity manager, (Ref. previous recommendation) to evaluate the production management process so as to reduce where appropriate the current around-the- clock support through dismbution of workload to other Government agencies to include NASA as well as those noted in the BRL response of 14 May 92 (subject: Comments on AMC Automation Assessment Briefing via Video Teleconference. 1 1 May 92). 2.7.7 Timeframe The timekame to implement the Task Force recommendations is the near to mid-term 2.7.8 MSC Comments and Task Force Response RECOMMENDATION 1. Turn in X-MP at BRL. MICOM Comments MICOM participated in the formulation and supports the response of the Functional Coordinating Group-Supercomputer regarding this Task Force recommendation. LABCOM Comments BRL Position: Non-Concur (X-MP should be turned in only when replacement is acquired). a. System purpose: A large scale general purpose vector supercomputer required to support BRL/Army mission of creating and sustaining weapons-oriented basic. exploratory, and advanced development research prosrams in defense-related technolosies. BRL programs depending on the ,WMP involve tank and fighting vehicle armor design studies plus numerous related technology programs involving projecnle propulsion. aerodynamics and vulnerability assessment ArmyIAMC wide Tech Base Research Programs also depend on the X-MP for extensive classified processing as part of the AMC supercomputer Tech Base Initiative. b. Mode of operation: The system is operated 365 days per yead24 hours per day in 100% unclassified mode. (The Crav-2 at BRL is operated similarly year round but 100% classified.) Both systems are shared Army wide via high speed networlung on the Army Super Computer Network, ASNET. These two systems are saturated as are the other two Army unclassified systems at TACOM and the Corps of Engineers. Impact of Implementing Recommendation: a. Mission: The Army cannot perform its vital mission without an alternative to the X-MP. There are no feasible in-house alternatives to computing on the X-MP at BRLIARL or the Army as a whole. Out-sourcing alternatives are discussed in response to Recommendation 3 and are found to be more costly than retaining the X-MP. b. Political: High Performance Computine is a critical enabling technology in support of the seven DOD Science and Technology Thrusts. BEWARL is and will be 3 major player in the DOD HPC Modernization etfort. The Plan includes early modernization of the BRWARL systems and recognizes the importance of replacing the X-MP. Turning in the X-MP without an alternative computing source jeopardizes the Army's position to receive resources in the emerging DOD Modernization Plan. RECOMMENDATION 2. Retain CRAY a t BRL to adequately handle classified processing. MICOM Comments MICOM participated in the tormulation and supports the response o t the Functional Coordinating Group-Supercomputer regarding this Task Force recommendation. LABCOM Comments BRL Position: Concur with comment. The Cray-2 is currently the Army's (and the Services) only full tlrne general purpose c1ass~1e.d supercomputer. The strategy for Army modernization is to obtain a new state-of- the-art system to perform classdied processing. The current Cray-2 at BRL would be used for unclassified processing and the X-MP would be excessed. RECOMMENDATION 3. Conduct functional economic analysis (FEA) to determine if unclassified processing should be out-sourced or done in house to include the high performance supercomputer at the University of Minnesota. MICOM Comments MICOM participated in the formulation and supports the response of the Functional Coordinating Group-Supercomputer regarding this Task Force recommendation. LABCOM Comments The recommendation to consider out-sourcing unclassified supercomputing is based on the Army's long acquisition lead time, high investment cost and rapid obsolescence of supercomputing technology. Desktop workstation technology also experiences rapid obsolescence and considering the number required the total investment is substantial. The recommendation fails to address the problem of long acquisition lead time and focuses on out-sourcing which impacts the ability of scientists and engineers to understand their computational tools and make effective use of them. This will lead to improper use of the tools and wrong tool selection that can affect our ability to provide soldiers proper. useful, and effective systems. Even General Motors learned that they could not out-source engineering tools to EDS but had to incorporate EDS into the engineering teams and put engineers into EDS. They learned an expensive lesson which we should not repeat. BRL Position: Non-Concur. It is more cost effective to continue current X-MP operations inhouse. An FEA will be part of any new acquisition process for replacement. a. Economic analysis: The Army Supercomputer Program in conjunction with USAISC did develop an EA whch addressed whether i t was more cost advantageous to purchase systems or lease eqlupment or commercial rime. This EA determined that purchasing was more advantageous. This analysis was reviewed by Army and OSD MAISRC's. AMC AUTOMATION ASSESSMENT (June 1992) 2-32 Tsctlcal hltiauves b. Out-sourcing as a current alternative: Requirements for out-sourcing: Currently approximately 28,000 useful CPU hours per year are devoted to BRL. AMC, and Concepts Analysis Agency mission programs. Additionally, the system has 44 Gbytes of on-line disk storage of RDT&E data and applications programs. An additional 150 Gbytes (300 Gbytes for redundancy) of off-line migrated mass storage is controlled by the X-MP and is vital to the user's computations. o. Cost of X-MP operations (Costs that could be avoided by shutdown): Hardware Software Maintenance--$l.300,000 Miscellaneous expenses--$200,000 Personnel Costs--$450,000 Total Marginal Costs related to Shutdown--$1,950,000 d. Alternatives: A recent phone survey was conducted to determine costs of out-sourcing supercomputing time. Typical costs quotes are: San Diego Supercomputer Center-$325 to $750/CPU hour for a Y-MP* Ohio State University-$5OO/CPU hour for a Y-MP University of North Carolina-$500/CPU hour for a Y-MP Power Computing Corp., Dallas, Texas-$300 to $750/CPU hour for 3n X-MP Minnesota Supercomputer Center-$250/CPU hour for an X-MP Naval Weapons Center, China Lake CA-$560/CPU hour (,Production)(One processor X- MP system) David Taylor Research Center. Bethesda. MD $75. S150. and S300lCPU hour. t low. medium dnd high pnonty) Addiuonai charges ror memory and storage c Two processor X-MP system) * -4 Y-MP CPU hour provides 2040% more CPU throughput than an X-MP hour. e. Cost estimate for replacing 28.000 CPU hours: Based on the above quotes it is unlikely that any single or combination of sources would yield average rates lower than 3200/CPU hour. The replacement cost would therefore be no lower than $5,600.000 exclusive of storage costs. Only at a cost of $70/CPU hour would buy~ng ume be iess than or equal to offsemng the 51,950,000--the marginal costs ot X-lMP operations. t'. Practical considerations: Transltioning operations from inhouse to nmesnaring would be beset w ~ t h numerous practical problems. These include: 1. Network bottleneck caused by entire work load channeled to Wide Area Network. 2. Scheduling and responsiveness. 3. Opsec aspects of Unclassified Sensitive US-2 data demand systems be accredited at that level-questionable to obtain at University sites. 4. Impracticality of mass data archiving compounded if stored at multiple sites. 5. Inability to do scientific visualization due to Wide Area Network band width limitations. 6. AMC would not have an internal Continuity of Operations Plan (COOP) capability for unclassified supercomputing. Task Force Response Task Force has' reviewed MSC comments, however, recommendation stands. Comments were addressed in the discussion section of the report. . M C AUTOMATION ASSESSMENT (June 1992) 2-34 Tacucal [n~ t~a t~ves 2.8 HQ AMC DECISION SUPPORT SYSTEM (DSS) 2.8.1 Observations The Task Force made the following observations: 1. Essential components for building a DSS exist. 2. No formal functional requirements definition efforts are underway to define a DSS development strategy. 3. Capability of the existing infras~ucture is not well understood by users so many of the systems' current capabilities are not being fully used. 4. Limited software applications exist that integrate decision support functions with key office activities. 2.8.2 Discussion The commander of AMC requested the United States Army Decision Systems Management Agency (USADSMA) to study HQ AMC to determine actions required for developing a HQ AMC DSS, DSMA approached this study by examining the components that comprise a DSS: functional process. application software, data, hardware, communications. training and services, and organizations and people. 2.83.1 Functional Process HQ AMC has performed High Level Information System modeling in the recent past. This effort was done by using Process Action Teams (PATS) implementing Total Quality Management (TQM) methodologies. This is a starung point for building a DSS: the analysis of the business process that underlies users requirements. The PATS, however. did not produce in-depth analysis using an automated tool that reflects the flow of the agency's acuvities. The IDEF methodology can provide that tool needed to document existing activities and processes: a requirement (by DOD) for funding and developing an ~nformation mfrashucture. 2.8.2.2 Applications Software HQ AMC has a variety of software applications that can integrate office activities, both separate and within work groups. There is ,vutually no DSS or Executive Information System at HQ AMC. Maximum use of commercial off-the-shelf software, rapid protoyping and having functionals work together with developers will make fielding applications less costly and more responsive to the users. .AMC .4UTOMATION ASSESSMENT (!me i s ' ! :-35 T3crical Inrusuvrs 2.8.2.3 Data HQ AMC has the necessary relational database and querying capabilities to support DSS applications. The only limitation chat exists is that there 3re no formal efforts underway to integrate information across functional areas. Without this commitment the senior leadership cannot view coordinated and synchronized information across funcuonal areas. The work done at TACOM to provide ad hoc query capabilities using current database management systems should be used as a model throughout AMC. 2.8.2.4 Hardware HQ AMC has an effective two-tier hardware platform capability (worksrations and mini- computers) with direct access to a third (HQDA's mainframe). This infrastructure can support DSS applications provided that the second-tier mini-computers are upgraded. An alternative to upgrading the mini-computers, to support DSS applications, is to develop a HQ AMC DSS on the Pentagon's mainframe. 2.8.2.5 Communications HQ AMC Local Area Network (LAN) provides excellent direct link connectivity to all hardware platforms and offices within the headquarters. Communications to subordinate commands is prirnanly done through DDN for small data file transfers. Communication links with HQDA and planned upgrades to DDN and FTS 2000 should be adequate to support DSS applications well into the future. 2.8.2.6 Training and Services During our analysis we found HQ AMC personnel not knowing how to use the existing capabilities and expressing frustration with the network. We believe an aggressive Training and Assistance Program can overcome h s problem A technical and functional trruning curriculum targeting three levels: clerks, action officers, and functional managers needs to be in place. The curriculum should be a requirement for all new HQ AMC employees and a training team should be formed to visit and re-main current users. Finally, the program needs to have a one-stop service organization where users can receive technical and functional assistance. 2.8.2.7 Organizations and People HQ AMC needs to form a small DSS functional team through which the senior leadership will set the direction for development of the H Q AMC DSS. Understanding the mission and functional processes of AMC, this group will be the functional integrator for the HQ. Its role is to continuously plan and improve the DSS infrastructure as required. Current technical experts should continue to do the work of building systems under the guidance and direction of the DSS team. 2.8.3 Recommendations The AMC Automation Assessment Task Force made the following recommendations: 1. Provide HQDA DSS connectivity to staff members via AMC HQ LAN. 2. Establish a command-supported Training and Assistance Center. 3. Expedite a HQ AMC IDEF process to guide mid-term and long-term DSS initiatives. 3. Migrate to Lotus Notes or comparable product to exploit advantages of groupware, project management and graphlc user interface. 2.8.4 Benefits The AMC Automation Assessment Task Force recommendations have the following benefits: 1. HQ AMC inexpensively connected to the HQDA DSS Network (world wide) and access provided to HQDA databases. 2. Classified and unclassified data processed with HQDA's mainframe computer and HQDA DSS. 3. Users empowered through a d d c a t e d aaining/sustainment service organization. 4. B ~ i c strategic plan and the documentation required for funding and developing an information infrastructure provided by IDEF. 2.85 Implementation The following tasks are required to implement the Task Force recommendations: 1. CIO configure HQ AMC LAN to provide DA DSS connectivity to all HQ users. 2. CIO establish training and assistance program. 2.8.6 Timeframe The timeframe to implement the Task Force recommendations rs the near-tern to mid-term. 2.8.7 MSC Comments and Task Force Response RECOMMENDATION 1. Provide worldwide E-Mail and HQDA DSS connectivity to staff members via AMC HQ LAN and LAN gateway. MICOM Comments Agree that the recommendation appears sound. but this decision should be addressed by the HQ, AMC DOlM organization. LABCOM Comments We must take care not to separate HQ AMC from the MSCs in matters such as E-Mail. CECOM Comments The report recommends that a worldwide network be setup to access HQ AMC databases for decision support systems. CECOM concurs. Task Force Resoonse HQDA DSS provides interface to DDN for E-Mail. RECOMMENDATION 2. Support structured and dedicated training and sustainment senice. MICOM Comments Agree that the recommendation appears sound, but this decision should be addressed by the HQ, AMC D O M organization. LABCOM Comments We must take care not to separate HQ AMC from the MSCs in matters such as DSS. As we become interdependent with other services and defense activities the need for coordination extends to all levels and activities. Task Force Response Agree. HQ DSS efforts must be coordinated with command-wide DSS initiative discussed in finding in Use of Information Technology as an Enabler section. M C AUTOMATION ASSESSMENT (June 1992) 2-38 Tacucal Lnitlatlves RECOMMENDATION 4. ,Mid-term: Migrate to Lotus Notes or comparable product to exploit of groupware, project management and graphic user interface. MICOM Comments Agree that the recommendation appears sound, but this decision should be addressed by the HQ, AMC DOIM organization. LABCOM Comments We need to coordinate desktop computing in ARL with HQ AMC so that the benefits of using common digital media (voice, text, data, graphics and image) will be obtained. Task Force Response Agree. 2.9 SINGLE-FUNCTION CIRCUITS 2.9.1 Observation The AMC community uses several single-function networks with dedicated circuits. Consolidation of these circuits will result in a more cost-effective, yet operationally satisfactory service to the AMC community. 2.9.2 Discussion The AMC community has established several dedicated networks to support its business processes. These networks are implemented as separate transmission networks. This implementation does not afford AMC the advantages of large-scale use of transmission bundling or use of transmission assets already available or programmed at common nodes within CONUS. Unit cost reduction and management efficiencies can be achieved by use of an integrated transmission network to support the AMC community needs. A common transmission network implemented around the Army Information Processing Center (AIPC) network can achieve enhanced support of the AMC customer by providing quality service at less cost. The availability of new technology "smart multiplexors" has established a means to achieve additional cost reductions and management efficiencies. Currently, Defense Information Systems Agency (DISA) has implemented a program for using this technology called Defense Information Systems Network-Near Term (DISN-NT). The goal is to provide economies of scale for aansmission services through bundling of DOD long-haul cornrnunications requirements. In accordance with JCS MOP 70, 31 Mar 92, DOD established the basis for implementation of DISN-NT to satisfy long-haul communications requirements that meet Warner Amendment criteria. USAISC has been designated the Army executive agent for program execution of the Army sub-networks. The DISN-NT network will provide all Army users a common transmission service and universal access to DOD acnvlties supported by DISN-NT. DISA wdl manage DISA-NT. DISA's proactive management of the bandwidth and service availability wdl enhance service and system response for the AMC customer. USAISC and 7th Signal Command have entcred into an agreement with DISA to monitor the Army portion of the physical transmission network and retain management of the logical network riding over the DISN-NT. The Army DISN-NT sub-networks ~1.11 be based on ALPC transmission network topology. AMC can achieve significant efficiencies and savings through use of the DISN-hT and the XIPC Transmission network. h t i a l DISA cost savings are estimated at a minimum of 20%. DISA is prepared to charge only 80% of the current Defense Communications Telecommunications Network (DCTN) rate for any circuits that are implemented through the DISN-NT. AMC will save a minimum of $880K/year by conservative estimates. - - - - - %MC .\UTOMATlON ASSESSMENT 'June 1%:) :-to 7. ! ~cticai In~~iatlves Strategic network management will be provided to all supported organizations. Local network management will remain under the control and direction of the local DOIM, and/or command management process. The AIPC network will be centrally managed at the network control facility at Fort Ritchie, MD, providing coverage 24 hours-a-day, 7 days-a-week. The network management concept will monitor the physical network using automated management techniques that are a part of the systems technology provided by DISA (IDNX70190 technology), which will ensure the highest level of system availability. The IDNX70190 systems have an automatic slrcuit conuol capability so that transfer of individual circuits is accomplished automatically in case individual paths become inoperable. The IDNX70190 equipment is currently employed as a part of the Air Force Red Switch program and is also the system of choice of many of the largest commercial systems integrators in the world, e.g., EDS. In addition. centralized as well as decentralized network management is provided as a part of the network management concept so that a backup network management capability can be provided as required. Multiple protocols (i.e.. TCP/IP, TP4. SNAISDLC) are supported in the bundling process as the circuits provided will be physical links and will transmit the logical protocols based upon the end-user equipment systems. For example, a supercomputer link runnins TCP/IP can be multiplexed with an AIPC link running SNA/SDLC. Individual networks will each be responsible for their own end-to-end encryption (using the same encryption devices and keying rnaterial'as they use today.) Data will be encrypted before reaching the entry point for the backbone network. 2.9.3 Recommendations The AMC Automation Assessment Task Force made the following recommendations: i . .AhlC ~nould consoiiaate stovepipe uansrnisslon networKs Into the LJ~SS-h T.2. The A r m y wiil manage the AMC transmission services through the .4lPC network. 3. AMC should out-source the transmission network management to USAISC. 2.9.4 Benefits The .AMC .Automation Assessment Task Force recommendations have the folic~v~ng cttnetits: 1. .A Cost icivines of 3t least SX80K;yex for the .4MC iornrnunitv. 2 . Yo rnanDower mace m s f e r s required to USAISC. 3. AMC focuses on core business through out-sourcing network services to DISWSAISC. 4. Better network availability and responsiveness provided through integrated network facility and management structure. 2.95 Implementation The following tasks are required to implement the Task Force recommendations: 1. CIO task ISC (within 30 days) to initiate an in-depth traffic analysis (duration 60 days) of the single-function dedicated networks to determine candidates for migration to the AIPC backbone network environment. Subsequent recommendations should address the potential of full migration of all associated systems/circuits to the DISN in order to achieve reduction in cost, improved circuit availability, backup/mobilization structure, and the potential to meet planned increases in bandwidth. 2. Based on the results of the analysis, CIO task ISC to execute the approved redismbution of circuits and associated workload to ensure that appropriate RDT&E and business systems are supported. 3. CIO task ISC to produce the appropriate implementation, test and migration plan to ensure that installation of new circuits is accomplished in parallel with the in-place technology so that the fallback and recovery process will ensure that customer support is maintained throughout the transition process. 4. CIO establish an internal management process to monitor the execution of the recommended program. Future action should include the continued evaluation of the telecommunications requirements of the collective network system to ensure that all proposed systems are integrated into this high-performance network. 5. CIO task ISC to conduct on-site validation and baseline study to ensure that the current infrastructure meets the current and projected needs of this network and to ensure that the local DOLM andlor command structure has the appropriate network-management capability. (Local network management support d l fall under the domain of the local installation DOIM. Wide Area Network (WAN)/Strategic network management support will continue to fall under the domain of ISC.) 2.9.6 Timeframe The timeframe to implement the Task Force recommendations is the mid-term. .IMC AUTOMATION ASSESSMENT (Jum 1992) 1 4 2 Tacucal htlatlves 2.9.7 MSC Comments and Task Force Response LABCOM Comments Circuit consolidation has merit in some cases, however. we must be assured that responsive service can be delivered. Consolidation of stovepipe systems makes sense at the installation level. Consolidation at the APC level must satisfy service level requirements of the functional customer at the installation. In addition to the ASNET, management of internal networks must not be out-sourced to ISC. Task Force Response Management of the Army's strategic networks is a core competency of ISC. RECOMMENDATION 1: Consolidate stovepipes into single network hubbed around the AIPCs. MICOM Comments It is agreed that networks and dedicated circuits which are strategic ISC assets should be consolidated around an ISC hub, but should not be considered part of the installation infrastructure. Remote network interfaces that technically are segments of the MSC infrastructure should be managed by the MSC. LABCOM Comments BEU Position: Non-Concur. The Army Supercomputer Network (ASNET) has very high bandwidth requirements, 45 megabits per second near-term, and 155 megabits per second within 5 years. Efforts are currently underway to comect/consolidate AS NET with ServicesIDARPA High Performance Computing (HPC) Networks to include connectivity to the Defense Integrated Science and Technology Network (DISTNET) and the National Research and Educational Network (NREN). Toward this end SARDA, the Functional Proponent for the Army's HPC Program, has drrected BRL to maintain its activities in network development, management and control and coordinate these activities with 7th Signal through a Memorandum of Agreement. ASNET employs the DOD standard TCP-IP network protocol. SISOCS employs the SNA IBM protocol. ASNET bandwidth is apportioned between classified and unclass~fied and is encrypted. Solving the technical, administrative, and logistical problems associated with the two protocols and encryption of ASMET data at the AIPC's would be formidable. By the time the Army could solve these problems ASNET will likely be subsumed within other DODDARPA RDT&E network initiatives. High-speed network communications is a vital component of the Army HPC Modernization Plan. It permits Army scientists. engineers and AMC AUTOMATION ASSESSMENT (June 1992) 2 4 3 Tactical htlatlves analysts to access distributed computing on large-scale, high performance dismbuted or heterogeneous systems, regardless of location. The network architecture must be scalable to permit extended and higher-speed connectivity as future requirements mandate and technology permits. The Army Supercomputer Network (ASNET) was established in 1989 and provides a scalable, secure, robust, and responsive network that supports the full range of user applications and provides quality of service to remote users. ASNET is a high-speed backbone network (TI circuits) that interconnects Army HPC systems and permits sharing of centralized hardware and software resources by geographically dispersed Army users. The Defense Data Network (DDNNILNET?, and other existing cornrnunications networks are used by some users, however MILNET does not meet the requirements of most users due to its low speed and traffic congestion problems. ASNET has been expanded to connect additional Army activities with classified connections to selected sites. Additionally, it has been extended with gateway connections to the National Science Foundation Network (NSFNET) and the Defense Secure Network (DSNETl). Under the forces of the Joint Directors of Laboratories (JDL), the Army is advancing a proposal to link ASNET to similar Air Force. Navy, and DARPA high speed networks. Under the terms of this proposal, ASNET would be part of the extended Defense Integrated Science and Technology Network (DISTNET) and would be updated to take advantage of existing nationwide T3 .circuit availability and future SONET (Synchronous Optical Network, 155 Mbps) transmission technologies. Impact of Implementing Recommendation: a. Mission: Consolidation of ASNET onto a single network hubbed around the AIPCs would limt the ab~lity of the RDT&E community to remain agile in implementing leading edge network technology. Therefore the mission areas .dependent on HPC technology, particularly the mission areas related to the seven DOD Science and Technology Thrust Areas, would experience a severe negative impact. Areas which would immediately and most acutely be impacted include the emerging discipline of scienhfic visualization and distributed interactive simulation @IS). b. Political: The Army has been an active participant in the development of the DOD High Performance Computing Modernization Plan which addresses consolidation of Service and DOD agency HPC networks. Consolidation of ASNET with business computing represents a marked contrast to this National initiative and would jeopardize our role and participation. Task Force Resuonse LABCOM issues were addressed in the discussion section of the single-function circuit section. AMC AUTOMATION ASSESSMENT (June 1992) 2 4 Tact~cal Inltiatrves CECOM Comments The report recommends that AMC networks be consolidated into a single network hubbed around the AIPCs. CECOM nonconcurs with reference to AIN. The Army Interoperability Network (AIN) is a system that provides materiel developers, maintainers, Program Managers, and testers with remote test-access to actual interfacing C31 weapons systems connected through the network, promoting opportunities for earlier software integration and improved interoperability, across the entire life cycle. As a developer's tool, ALN should remain integral to CECOM to ensure that we can continue to provide the capability for the software developer and maintainer to rapidly respond to software and interoperability problems that arise during system fieldings and tactical operations such as Desert Storm. The AIN is iready built, and implemented from the beginning, to reduce Army costs. Consolidation, as recommended in this report, is feasible for AIN, ONLY IF it provides the A I N circuits in a manner that is transparent in the interface, protocol. and functionality. Force-fitting AIN into some generalized automation network mold only jeopardizes the purpose for which it was created. A N s proven cost savings and return-on-investment for overshadows any potential claimed gains by the Task Force report if improperly force-implemented, the Anny will incur 3-10 times more costs for software/interoperability support than the amount invested in AIN, as supported by documented AIN cost savings, projected DOD-Army software size and cost growth estimates. and cost analysis of AIN return-on-investment. AIN is one means of curbing rapidly escalating software costs. RECOMMENDATION 3: Out-source network management to ISC. MICOM Comments Remote network interfaces that technically are segments of the MSC infrastructure should be managed by the MSC. LABCOM Comments BRL Position: Non-Concur with respect to ASNET and related RDT&E Network activities. RationaleDiscussion: As the Army coordinates RDT&E network initiatives with the other services and DARPA, out-sourcing tri-service RDT&E network management to DISA andlor private contractors wdl be a Likelihood. Accordingly, outsourcing initiatives will be best considered in the broader tri-service arena. AMC AUTOMATION ASSESSMENT (June 1992) 2 4 5 Tacucal Irutlatlves Impact: Since it is clear that RTD&E HPC networking is quickly evolving into a Tri-Service initiative, and equally clear that outsourcing will be performed at this level, it makes little sense to out-source to ISC at this time. BRL is currently performing ASMT Management and Control and it makes sense to continue this role during the transition to m-service as described above. BRL functionals have 40 plus manyears of expertise in network technology in the R&D environment. A crash program to duplicate this capability within ISC would not be cost effective. Reduced service and capability would ldcely be the result until such capability is developed. AVSCOM Comments Out source network management to ISC: The Defense Infomation Systems Agency (DISA) has the mission to manage all data communications networks down to the end-user's workstation. This is a long-range goal which can only be achieved in phases and through the implementation of standards. The DISA already manages wide area networks such as the Defense Data Network (DDN), now called the Defense Information Systems Network (DISN), and the Automated Digital Network (AUTODIN). The ISC supports DISA in this effort and provides another level of network management. The ISC provides the arms, legs, and brains for DISA to manage the Army networks as they interface to the wide area networks. The ISC has established a network operations center (NOC) at Fort Ritchie (they monitor our AVSCOM/TROSCOM electronic mail networks ensuring full operational support) and a network control center (NCC) at Fort Leavenworth (they monitor all our SNA networks). Thus, ISC is already performing network management on our systems to our benefit. We sbll have to provide another level of network management, and we expect that to continue. The ISC will provide advice and support when needed and will control the local interfaces to the campus and wide area networks. End-user loca1,area networks will s t d be managed and administered at the local DOIM level. DESCOM Comments Agree with MICOM, especially if this includes local networks that support workplace automation and E-Mail, such as the HQ DESCOM personal computer network (PCNET). CECOM Comments The report recommends that network management be out-sourced to ISC. CECOM non- concurs. There is no support to the benefits idea that ISC has been a proactive Network Manager while saving dollars. There is no business case to support the estimated $800K yearly cost savings in telecommunications. The concept of single-function circuits or centralized network contract overlooks the requirement that each installation will have a Common User Installation Telecommunication Network (CUITN) or a Metropolitan Area Network (MAN), rather than a wide area star topology, using point-to-point circuits. We should be looking to network the networks and AMC AUTOMA'I'ION ASSESSMENT (June 1992) ? -46 Tac~cal Inltlauves only install standard operating systems that are enzineered to operate in this environment. Also, network control down to the departmental LAN level is where we need to tocus. because the majority of failures occur at this level versus wide area cucuits. which are fairly well maintained by the various TELCOs and long distance carriers. This dictates the need for each installation to have a network control facility which could be networked into a regional control facility. It is agreed that the management of networks should be done proactively. Task Force Response See discussion tor derails on network manasernent roles and responsibilities. M C AUTOMATION ASSESSMENT (June 1992) 2-47 Tactical Lnltlatlves 2.10 UNIX CONSOLIDATION 2.10.1 0 bservation AMC operates and maintains numerous small and medium Unix systems at each installation. The costs associated with processing the current workload can be reduced and overall performance optimized through centralized capacity management and development of a cohesive system architecture. Consolidation of Unix workload on fewer more robust processors offers an opportunity for significant cost reduction. 2.10.2 Discussion AMC operates from 10 to over 100 Unix hosts at each AMC installation, with a total of 1,248 Unix hos;s command-wide. Each host requires hardware and software maintenance; floor space and environmental conditioning; and consumes, in some cases, substantial elecmcal power. Each individual host also requires system admirustration and systems programming to suppon multiple software systems. Within AMC, Unix systems are used for E-Mail, office automation; DOD, Army, and AMC standard systems; local command uniques; etc. Traditionally, acquisition decisions for Unix platforms have primarily been based on availability of convenient requirements contracts rather than a planned implementation of the appropriate geographic/technical (geotechnical) architecture. The processing of AMC business and production workload on a large number of distributed Unix processors is costly and inconsistent with AMC's geographic/technical (geotechnical) architecture. The geotechnical architecture, as described in August 1991, contains three levels of suppon: General Provider, Direct Provider, and User. General Provider service is defined as: The collection of corporate data centers using large processors, production systems, distribution systems, and other information tools to support the general population of Army users. Large standard Army applications that are Anny-wide in scope and the data to suppon these applications generally reside at this level. On 2 Oct 91, the CG AMC turned over ownership of the AlPCs to ISC. At that time, the criteria for determining the responsibility for a processing requirement was based on the operating system used to suppon a specific application. The decision to relinquish ownership of the APCs was consistent with the SISOCS plan to consolidate MVS processing into the AZPCs. The decision also included an agreement to address additional transfers of production requirements to ISC on a businesscase basis. Demand for Unix processing capacity will continue to grow as systems migrate from proprietary operating systems (e.g., MVS) to the open systems (POSIX) environment. As this migration occurs, more of the AMC core business systems processes will be hosted on the APCJSISOCS MVS platforms and robust Unix systems. AMC AUTOMATION ASSESSMENT (June 1992) 2 4 8 Tadlcal Inltlat~ves HQDA is in the early phases of executing a plan to install Unix-based applications at the AIPC 3s part of the Installation Transition Processing (ITP) program. Initially, these applications will be Installation Support Modules (ISM) for installations from AMC, FORSCOM and TR4DOC. ISEC and DISC3 are finalizing the technical solution for ITP processing at the AIPCs. This will be the first major expansion of the AiPCs to absorb non-MVS systems. The decision to implement ITP at the AIPCs was based on a detailed Technical Assessment/Cost Estimate (TACE) by ISEC. AMC has initiated action along the same Lines as the ITP using UTS (Amdahl's Unix operating system). Initial efforts are proceeding with the Objective Supply Capability at AIPC-St. Louis and several systems at AIPC-Huntsville. These Unix systems take advantage of the existing technical support intiasuucture; however, they are using large, IBM-compatible mainframe platforms. New technology provides options for satisfying Unix processing requirements at lower costs with reduced infrastructure (floor space, power, air conditioning, etc.). A Productivity Capital Investment Program (PCIP) case can be developed to justify acquisition of new processors that will reduce sustainrnent costs. AMC can attain significant cost reduction and pursue the "general provider" concept by consolidating corporate-wide workload and data currently processed on the distributed Unix platforms. The existing workload includes office automation and business systems. Office automation is more effectively processed on inexpensive file servers; business systems (with corporate data) should migrate to the AIPC using client-server approaches wherever possible. There is very tittle workload in an MSC-size corporation that can be efficiently and cost-effectively processed on equipment the size of the Unix systems prevalent within AMC. The costs associated with processing the current Unix workload can be reduced, and overall performance opurnized, through centralized capacity management and development of a cohesive system architecture. A detailed analysis is needed to characterize the workload and distribute processing based on costs, performance requirements, etc. 2.103 Recommendations The AMC Automation Assessment Task Force made the following recommendations: 1. CG AMC task the CIO to revise the AMC geotechnical architecture to place DOD/JLSC and AMC standard systems at the general provider level. The decision to service at the general provider level should be made if a system utilizes data critical to the operation of the corporation and the decision is supportable by a functional economic analysis. 2. CIO task MSC DOJMs to develop plans to migrate office automation support from expensive Unisys 5000 andlor Intel 320 systems to low-cost 486 microprocessors (PCIP acquisition). Monitor system life-cycle maintenance costs against cost goals established by CIO. .*C AUTOMATION ASSESSMENT (June 1992) 249 Tactlcal In~tlatlves 2.10.4 Benefit The AMC Automation Assessment Task Force recommendations have the following benefit: A $23K cost reduction/year for each Unisys 5000 elimnated. 2.10.5 Impact The recommendations wdl allow a reduction in civilian over-strength. 2.10.6 Implementation The following tasks are required to implement the Task Force recommendations: 1. CG AMC task the CIO to establish a command capacity management function for Unix processing requirements (within 30 days). 2. CIO prepare CG taslang to ISC (within 1 week) to initiate an in-depth workload analysis (30 days duration) of the Unix workload (Sperry 5000-80s. 5000-95s. Intel 3 10s Intel 320s and other like technology). 3. Based on the results of the analysis, CIO prepare CG tasking to ISC to develop a program to redismbute the workload, consistent with the approved Army/Command geotechnical architecture. The objective is to achieve a cost-effective technically sound migration of the corporate-wide business workload abd data from older highsost platforms to the large-capacity state-of-the-art processors at the AIPCs and the remaining office automation workload to the LANf486-PCFi Server environment at the operating agency level. (Migration to begin within 90 days and to be completed within 18 months). 4. In accordance with standard procedures, MSC DOLMs should dispose of assets that are not required in AMC. 5. CG AMC should fund installation of a technically robust infrastructure for migration of existing Unix applications to the AlPC by competitively purchasing a state-of-the-art Unix host for each AlPC. 2.10.7 Timeframe The tirnefiame to q l e m e n t the Task Force recommendations is the mid-term. --- - - - - - - AMC AUTOMATION ASSESSMENT (Jum 1992) 2-50 Tactical Inmatlves 2.10.8 MSC Comments and Task Force Response RECOMMENDATION: Consolidate onto large Unix hosts operated and maintained by the ' m s . MICOM Comments Consolidation and evolution of Unix hosts from the present three-tiered architecture to a file server and client state-c.f-the-art architecture is a MICOM objective. However. the control of resources producing organuational level information must remain with the MSC or the information loses its immediacy and effectiveness. LABCOM Comments With regard to the recommendation, "Consolidate onto large Unix hosts operated and mainrained by the AIPCs," we recognize that, while there may be merit in consolidating the stovepipes, it is not clear that large Unix hosts at the ALPCs is where the consolidation should occur. We must retain Unix platforms for ARL corporate enterprise computing and scientific, mission related support. SIMA Comments We strongly support the recommendation to consolidate the Unix operating systems into large Unix hosts operated and maintained by the AIPCs. We believe that this is a smart initiative which should greatly enhance release management, database administration. file uansfers, and customer satisfaction with the Unix applications. However. in order for this action to be effective, the recommendations pertaining to the effective operation of the DSS network become even more critical. CECOM Comments The repon recommends that the 10 to 100 Unix hosts at each MSC be consolidated into large Unix hosts operated and maintained by the AIPCs. CECOM concurs with reservations. At CECOM, most Unix machines were purchased and are "owned" by individual customers for specific systems. Since these machines are not shared, the overall computing power cannot be combined toward doing the CECOM mission. Consolidating corporate applications onto larger Unix machines would alleviate this problem. Consolidating them at APCs would only c o n ~ u e the accepted trend. If the SISOCS scenano results in equal or better service for CECOM, consolidating corporate Unix applications should strengthen the trend. There is no way that all Unix hosts should be centrally consolidated. Standard systems (SAACONS, AFES, SA3) and corporate level applications could be operated and maintained at AIPCs on large Unix hosts. This should only be accomplished on a one-for-one basis after a business case shows that it will be a good decision. The commercial. aend is to AMC AUTOMATION ASSESSMENT (June 19921 2-5 1 Tactical Initiatives decentralize this level of computing to the business units thus empowemg them to re- engineer and/or quality improve their business process through applying technologies such as cliendserver architecnues. Also, serious consideration should be given to a number of contingencies prior to considering the centralizing of standard E-Mail (MMDF?, an AMS) hosts. It doesn't make as much sense to consolidate Unix systems that support office automation such as at the INTEL level. These machines are smaller, many are in user areas. and they support functions such as E-Mail that are better administered locally. The burden on the communications infrastructure would be increased. Additionally, consolidating all aspects of Unix processing on existing AIPC hosts would likely lead to resource/capacity and major telecommunications problems. Unix processing would require an additional domain on the already domain-poor AIPC mainframes. Buying new larger Unix hosts would resolve the technical problems, but the costs would have to be analyzed before a decision could be made. The benefits associated with Unix consolidation must consider the expense associated with the additional T-1 or T-3 circuits that would be required. The other alternative would be to purchase the bandwidth on demand or Switched Multimegabit Data Service (SMDS) capability that companies like Bell Atlantic are in the early stages of offering. Based on the costs associated with acquiring the communication capability, it may not be accurate to state that a savings of $23K/year per Sperry would immediately be realized. Even without the Unix consolidation, dynamic bandwidth allocation should be the basis for all future inter- installation networks. DESCOM Comments Each application must be looked at individually. Workplace Automation and E-Mail are potentially two applications that would not be well-served and responsive to user needs when operated from a consolidated site. Both of these applications would require capacity to pass high volumes of data and support a large number of users. Consolidation of some systems could be feasible when savings in software, hardware, and support costs exceed the increased cost of providing adequate communication capabilities. It would be unrealistic and inefficient to depend upon the ISC Technical Review Board for approval of changes which have no impact on AIPC operations or capacity requirements. Task Force Res~onse As evidenced by these comments, some MSC staff within AMC feel that control of resources producing organizational level lnfonnation must remain at that level or the information loses its immediacy and effectiveness. The issue is not who controls and operates the resources (i.e., the hardware, the software, or the data); the issue is whether the service provider meets user requirements. For the system to work, it is essential that service agreements exist between provider and user and that both parties abide by the terms of the agreements. AMC AUTOMATION ASSESSMENT (June 1992) 2-52 Tacucal Initiauves Regardless of who controls the resources, the local organization needing information must have access to that information. For example, at MICOM. the local installation LAN, cable plant and switch are owned and operated by the local telephone company (Bell South). This arrangement does not prevent the provision of timely, effective. state-ot-the-art support. .4MC AUTOMATION ASSESSMENT (June 1992) '-53 Tact~cal Inihabves 3. STRATEGIC IMTIATIVES 3.1 SOFTWARE DEVELOPMENT 3.1.1 Observation AMC will improve responsiveness and reduce expenses by changing its software development philosophy, structure and scope. 3.1.2 Discussion During development of the report, the Task Force realized that issues originally discussed under the heading 'Software Development' overlapped with issues discussed in the sections on 'Structure of Information Technology Support' and 'Use of Information Technology as an Enabler.' Earlier recommendations under the heading 'Software Development' were divided as follows: Information Technology as an Enabler: .. Recommendation 1. Field TACOM's shadow relational database technology to other MSCs for use by functionals. Structure of Information Technology Support: ** Recommendation 2. Enforce reduction of unique systems. ** Recommendation 3. Focus on migrating to standard systems by providing requirements to developer rather than creating own system (IPAT initiative) (SBIS 3). ** Recommendation 4. Create a single information management organization that commands and controls all information technology services throughout AMC, and that capitalizes in place all DOIMs, MSC ADDs, SRA ADDs, and SIMA. Comments received on each of these recommendations are discussed in the sections listed above. MAC AUTOMATION ASSESSMENT (June 1992) 3-1 Strakgc Imatlves 3.2 STRUCTURE OF INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY SUPPORT 3.2.1 Observation Fundamental changes to AMC's Information technology business environment are inevitable. CLM initiatives, DOD funding changes, DOD-wide staff reductions. shifts to temporary employees and contractors -- al l impact AMC's IMA mission and information technology support structure. Currently AMC has 4,734 personnel on-hand with 3,876 FY92 authorizations and 3,296 FY92 authorizations (excluding ADDS and SIMA). This information technology support structure fragments services horizontally at various organizational levels and partitions development vertically along functional lines. Parallel and overlapping capabilities are developed at different levels of AVC. 3.2.2 Discussion The CIO function, which is responsible for the overall management of the IMA discipline, reports to the Chief of Staff of AMC: the software development function. which is centralized in the SIMA structure, also reports to the Chef of Staff. The respective MSC and the depot systems commanders have software development organizations reporting to them. Historically, all of these major functions have independently designed, acquired, installed, implemented, and to some degree resourced numerous IMA systems. Project management offices, PEOs, and other organizations residing on AMC installations also design, acquire, install, implement, and support (MA systems (mainframes through PC-level systems and associated supporting software). Because of this decentralized management environment, parallel and overlapping capabilities are developed. Large dollar amounts are committed with inadequate ability to determine, through the cost-accounting process, how and where funds are expended. The following extract from an FY93 punitive cut against DOD by the House Armed Services Committee re~nforces the need for dramatic changes to the Army's system development strategy. Near term, dramatic efforts with well documented results are required to best utilize remaining funds while removing the stigma from existing redundant systems. Automatic Data Recessing ($75.OM) -- Strong committee feeling that "nobody's in charge" of the full range of communications requirements. They believe that rather than a genuine attempt to provide leadership in a very complex arena, it is easier to throw money at the problem. The committee cites the GAO and DOD's own audit organization findings of unnecessary equipment being purchased, redundant systems being funded, and oversight being poor. The enclosed software scrub provides a first cut at supplementing AMC's effort with a review of available Army systems. Although duplication issues are not clear cuf opportunities exist to migrate from AMC unique systems to DA standards. AMC AUTOMATION ASSESSMENT (June 1992) 3 -2 Strateg~c h r a a ~ v e s DISNJLSCICIhl will mandate future systems and have a profound impact on AMC's Ih1A mission. Mainframe and strategic network operations have migrated out of AMC (defacto out- sourcing). Functionals will place greater reliance on information and applications accessed through computer networks. AMC needs to redefine its core business processes, competencies and its Information Technology Support Resource constraints and DOD policies reduce freedom of action. AMC functional requirements must be developed collaborative with ILSC and information technology service providers. Historically, AMC has been its own provider. This is changing. How much of the IMA mission AMC will continue to perform is unclear at this time, but it is clear that the mission is in the process of being parntioned and redistributed, e.g., MVS processing golng to AIPCs, departmental applications replacing standard AMC applications, software development beins out- sourced. 3.2.3 Recommendations The AMC Automation Assessment Task Force made the following recommendations: 1. Consolidate and centralize command and control of the IMA mission. The CIO function in AMC should be centralized at the senior command level. It should function consistent with the IMA process exemplified in other Government agencies [where it is referred to as information resources management (IRM)] so that the total life-cycle management of the IMA mission and related support programs, to include life cycle approval, standard geotechnical architecture design, standards, policies, procedures and docmne, are controlled from the command level and the total process is promulgated throughout AMC. 2. Through the central IRM organization structure, assess IMA mission needs and obtain concurrence from DOD (CIMIJLSC), Army, and ISC regarding M A mission issues. Once the mission needs are clearly defined, it will be possible, again working with Army and ISC, to establish the who. when, where, and how the mission support should be provided. IMA core competencies should be identified for either retention or out-sourcing. 3. Once the scope of the AMC IMA mission is clearly defined and aligned with the command's IRM resources to perform the mission as cost effectively as possible, i t is possible that the IMA area will no longer be regarded by AMC as a core competency area, at least not insofar as its historically broad scope and mission have been. The future AMC IMA mission can be expected to be reduced in size and scope, but the evolution and the final makeup should be controlled from wittun, not from without Command restructuring of IT support wdl enable AMC to manage the evolutionary process whereby hardware is being reassigned to AIPCs, critical business applications are coming under DODICIM control, and other life cycle information technology services, e.g., systems design, development, installation, operation and maintenance, are being out- sourced (to ISC, contractors, other Government elements). AMC will increase its reliance .IMC AUTOMATION ASSESSMENT (June 1992) 3-3 Strategc Irutlat~ves on external service providers. It is essential that AMC have a cennally managed process for ensuring that as the providers change, AMC develops a means of controiling service (quality and quantity as well as unit cost) through service level agreements rather than through the command and control process it currently employs. 3.2.4 Benefits The AMC Automation Assessment Task Force recommendations have the following benefits: 1. Increased control and visibility of IMA activities and costs. 2. Reduced staffing to authorized levels. 3. Increased self determination through assumption of a more proactive role in directing resources. 4. Enabled attainment of excellence in fewer well-defined core competency areas. 5. Increased functional focus and definition on core competencies. 6. Attains business, vice informal, relationships for IT support. 7. Directed customer focus attained by clear service level agreements. 8. Focused IT providers to insure that support is at equal or less cost. 9. Insure IT support costs are explicit and formalized. 3.2.5 Implementation The following task is required to implement the Task Force recommendations: CG AMC establish centrally managed IM organization headed by general officer or SES with command and conuol over all AMC IM resources. 3.2.6 Timeframe The tirnefrarne to implement the Task Force recommendations is the near to mid term. 3.2.7 MSC Comments and Task Force Response RECOMNlENDATION 2. Get HQDA resolution regarding reduction to authorized strength in FY92. MICOM Comment Agree. A,tvlC AUTOMATION ASSESSMENT (June 1992) 3 4 Srrategc htiauves LABCOM Comment With regard to recommendation #2, "Get HQDA resolution regarding reduction to authorized strength in -92," we note that ISC-AMC is approximately 700 over-strength in FY92 and 1500 in FY93. ISC LABCOM is 26 over in FY92 and no additional in FY93. If we are included in with the AMC total we share the FY93 problem. The ARL over-strength problem does not correlate with these recommendations. RECOMMENDATION. Out-source information technology support to ISC. MICOM Comments It is agreed that operation of MVS operating system mainframes and that part of network operations which are designated as strategic assets, such as long haul circuits, have already migrated out of AMC. However, responsibility for the installation infrastructure, organizational level computers and workstations must remain with the MSC or installation because an intimate knowledge of the local environment is required to be successfui. The inability to set priorities and allocate resources locally eliminates flexibility needed to meet fast-changing, critical needs of the MSC. LABCOM Comments We cannot support recommendation #1, "Out-source information technology suppon to ISC." Out-sourcing any technology support is inconsistent with our mission of technology generation. As we generate technology we must be able to acquire, implement and use innovative technology and assess its potential for incorporation into the Army. If information technology support were out-sourced the Army would have to re-examine ARLs role in research. Note that AIRMICS, with the mission of research into large data bases and business systems will become part of ARL in October 1992. TACOM Comments Agrees with MICOM's comments. CECOM Comments The report recommends that information technology be out-sourced to ISC. CECOM non- concurs. There is no support to the thesis that ISC is the technology leader. Information Technology should be a joint effort of AMC and ISC working together for common objectives. M C AUTOMATON ASSESSMENT (June 1992) 3 -5 Strakgc haatlves SIMA Comments It's not entirely clear whether the Task Force is recomrnendmg that ISC take over all the missions and functions now performed by SIMA, ADDS, and DOIMs to include application software development of AMC mission systems or whether they are refening to the "executive software" software currently provided by ADP Technology organizations. It would not be in the best interests of AMC to out-source either of these functions to ISC. In the case of ADP Technology, they are an integral, inseparable pan of the rnission/functions of a central design activity, such as SIMA. SIMA would not be able to deliver the information systems and services to our customers in a quality or timely manner if ADP Technology was out-sourced. Conflicts in workload priorities would inevitably work to the demment of AMC. Organizational loyalties would be confusing. Barriers would be erected by virtue of the fact that the systems developers who rely on ADP Technology for support in even more jeopardy for the reasons stated above. In this scenario, it is even less clear where the functional responsibilities would lie. Separating the central design activity functionals from the systems developers would be a very strategic blunder. History has proven that all the people responsible for developing systems should work for the same organization entity in order to be most effective. RECOMMENDATION. Enforce reduction of unique systems. (Previously part of the Software Development section) MICOM Comments Agree. The AMC community has recognized that this is a desired state. The IPAT subgroup report of Aug 91 identified several initiatives which would achieve this objective. Among these were: institutionalize the software scrub process; establish an AMC information system development and maintenance workload oversight process; identify opportunities and implement actions to minimize Band 1 resource consumption (Band 1 defined as maintenance of standard systems); and establishment of a common development platform. The creation of MSC unique systems is required when standard systems fail to incorporate 'functionality or an MSC's unique commodity mandates a more detailed level of management than the standard system provides. Although some commodity uniqueness will always exist to meet the requirements of detailed management, a thorough involvement of the functional community in concert with system developers wlll provide the capability to accomplish these processes within a standard system environment. LABCOM Comments The following comments relate to recommendation #2, "Enforce reduction of unique systems." Uniques will continue to be required untd there are standard systems which can support laboratory requirements. Contracting systems, for example, focus on acquisition of .4MC AUTOMATION ASSESSMENT (June 1992) 3 -6 Strategic I r u u ~ v e s end items. supplies and spare parts. Research requirements and innovative technology are not handled adequately in the standard acquisition and supply support systems. AVSCOM Comments Enforce reduction of unique systems: We do not agree with this recommendation until the particular unique system is replaced by a standard system. It should be noted that unique systems can respond to changes in the business processes quicker and this responsiveness produces greater cost savings. It should also be noted that we have scrubbed our unique systems in concert with the other MSCs and have identified reductions. HQ AMC is currently situng on the reqwements for standardizahon of unique systems. It may be possible that relational database management systems and the shadow database concept may satisfy some of. these requirements. TACOM Comments TACOM agrees with this recommendation as we all should. They offer the comment that unique systems become required when functionality is missing from the source system. This is very true for the systems that have not yet converted to current technology, including relational database capabilities. Our use of shadow files has made the need for new unique systems go way down. Many times unique systems are simply special reports. Once the data elements are available in shadow files, and the users have direct access, we no longer need a unique system. This recommendation will be much easier to achieve as we migrate information into shadow files. RECOMMENDATION. Focus on migrating to standard systems by providing requirements to developer rather than creating own system ( E A T initiative) (SBIS 3). (Previously part of the Software Development section) MICOM Comments This recommendation is the cornerstone of any successful standard system process. In the past h s approach may have failed because the standard system group became too far removed from the user requirements and too focused on "their" standard systems to incorporate interfaces with/utilize other DA "standard" systems. Since CCSS does not provide full capabilities to any of the MSCs, to augment the CCSS process and provide the user community with data to effectively perform their mission, bridging and unique systems must be developed at the MSCs. However, if the focus is properly placed on user functionality to satisfy mission requirements and is fully implemented by the developers, then we agree with thls recommendation. Again, until perfect interoperability among all "standard systems" is achieved - something that does not even exist among AMC standard systems, much less among AMC, DA, DOD systems - local software generation to interface systems for efficient use at the MSCs will be necessary. M C AUTOMATION ASSESSMENT (June 19'32) 3-7 Strategc Initia~ves LABCOM Comments With regard to recommendation #3, "Focus on migrating to standard systems by providing requirements to developer rather than creating own system (PAT initiative) (SBIS 3)," we believe that developers must become responsive to laboratory requirements. To date developers have fielded systems for installations which do not adequately support laboratories. We are told to change the way we do business rather than support the research mission. AVSCOM Comments Focus on migrating to standard systems by providing requirements to developer rather than creating own system: An approach to providing requirements is through the rapid prototyping and CASE technology. The development of unique systems through rapid prototyping using relational DBMS technology and shadow databases has proven to be very successful at TACOM. This approach allows for the immediate local command need to be satisfied and the definition of requirements for the standard system to be accomplished. TACOM Comments We must move to a standard system environment. It is the only way to ensure consistent source data. As those systems transition to relational technology, and the data consumer is empowered to access the source data, we wiU have the local flexibility we all are asking for. Meanwhile, provisions of an intermediate layer though shadow files accommodates the standard system as well as the local ad hoc requirements. Again, I see shadow files as a way of facilitating the migration to true standard systems. RECOMMENDATION. Create a single information management organization that commands and controls all information technology services throughout AMC, and that capitalizes in place all DOIMs, MSC ADDS, SRA ADDS and SIMA. (Previously part of the Software Development section) MICOM Comments MICOM non-concurs for all the reasons leading to the decision of GEN Sullivan to return C O W S installation DOIMs to the MACOMs. MICOM supports the principle that the Commanding Oficer of any installation is responsible for accomplishmg the mission assigned to the installation, is accountable for all resources and should be delegated authority to decide how best to apply those resources. including the D O N resources, to accomplish his mission. AMC AUTOMATION ASSESSMENT (June 1992) 3 -8 Shatcgc Irutiaves LABCOM Comments Recommendation #4, "Create a single information management organization that commands and controls a l l information technology services throughout AMC, and that capitalizes in place all DOIMs. MSC ADDs, and SIMA," would retain current iM organizations as tenants supporting the installation or MSC under central control from AMC. This places HQ AMC in the role of direct support for operating elements instead of a staff coordinating role. We are concerned that R&D support resources would be lost in the effort to bolster the effort in logistics. Recommend that HQ AMC perform the MACOM staff role and delegate operating support to the MSCs. We believe that software development organizations do not beat the bushes for work as there is more than enough work from internal sources. It is sometimes necessary to assist other activities for the common good and profitable to share lessons learned. CECOM Comments The repon recommends that AMC create a single information management organization that controls all Information Technology (TT) services to include al l DOIMs, MSC ADDS, SRA ADD, and SIMA. CECOM nonconcurs. There certainly must be some centralized direction of IT resources, to efficiently move into the 21st century. However, substantial savings and efficient hardwarelsoftware configurations neither emerges automatically from centralization nor are any savings guaranteed. IT centralization also has a history of lacking a proper customer orientation. We've shifted IT focus to the customer and we don't want to lose it. SIMA Comments The recommendations outlined in the IPAT SubGroup Report dated August 1991 will accomplish the same objectives. The P A T Sub-Group specifically examined the viability of consolidating the ADDs and SIMA in place. The real issues that need to be addressed are: workload visibility of all AMC automation resources, having a standard automation development platform, a standard method of processing Systems Change Requests (SCR) which includes a corporate data base comprised of SCRs for both standard and unique systems, and a method of assigmg design and development workload (and traclung that workload) with clear cognizance of corporate level goals and priorities. Recommendations and a milestone plan have been presented to the CIO. The CIO has accepted responsibility for action. If the IPAT Sub-Group recommendations are implemented, we will have achieved the benefits outlined in the AMC Automation Assessment Task Force Report without undergoing a major reorganizational realignment to achieve the same result XVSCOM Comments Create a single information management organization that commands and controls all information technology services throughout AMC, and that capitalizes in place all DOLMs, MSC ADDs, SRA ADDs, and SIMA: The Corporate Information Office was created by HQ, AMC, to accomplish this objective. We support the CIO. However, the local commander needs to maintain control of DOIM/ADD resources in order to maintain the flexibility to . m C AUTOMATION ASSESSMENT (Jum 1992) 3 -9 Strategc 1rutlatlve.s meet fast-changing, critical needs of the MSCs. The CIO should consider improving their management of AMC's corporate information management resources via a configuration management methodology. However, we should not lose sight that overall information management support should focus on improving the business processes and not sub-optimizing the technical Information rnanagement processes. TACOM Comments No question that this is a sensitive issue. We all have operated for a long time being able to call our own shots. The environment has changed. though, and we do need to have a structure that allows for a more efficient and strategic application of our critical IMA resources. The local commander must have some degree of local flexibility, but I feel that can be accomplished while still developing a single management suucture. The establishment of the CIO within AMC was an important f i s t step in this arena. Perhaps that structure needs some additional definition relative to day to day work load decisions in areas such as applications development. The TACOM efforts to move to relational technology, shadow fdes, and direct user data access has changed the way we work within the D O N . We are not nearly as involved in the development of systems, but rather in facilitating access to information. In this environment, a single management structure can work. Major development work is focused on building strong central data repositories. Local work is focused on facilitating the local ad hoc data access requirements. This could allow central management while at the same time maintaining needed local support and flexibility. I feel a strategy can be developed that will ,allow a viable single management structure to work. RECOMMENDATION. Freeze the baseline and associated unique bridging efforts of all systems that will be replaced by Corporate Information Management (CIM). DESCOM Comments It is impossible to stop mission-related system changes from occurring over the time period required to implement CIM. In addition to mission changes, there are regulatory changes that cannot wait for CIM. Many CIM replacements are stdl years away. There could be rationale for stopping nice-to-have changes or system rewrites merely for computer 'processing efficiencies, for example. Would require commitment from all sites to do the necessary evaluation to determine efforts that are "required." RECOMMENDATION. Merge MSC Application Development Divisions (ADDS) with SIMA. DESCOM Comments If the MSC ADDS were merged with SIMA but left in place, collocated with the MSC, and MSC had option to buy hours of service which the MSC would workload, the recommendation could be workable. Consider the following: (1) If workloaded locally, the . W C AUTOMATION ASSESSMENT (June 1992) 3-10 Stratcpc Initiat~ves portion of ADD supporting the klSC could respond more quickly to MSC requirements; (2) The number of hours required by the MSC could vary from year to year, leaving the remaining resources at that time to be workloaded by SLMA; (3) Local sites require operational support--determining local scheduling requirements, response to system aborts, and maintenance of systems that support the local commander. Larger organizations have dedicated personnel outside of ADD to perform this mission. Resource constraints within DESCOM preclude that type of structure; and (4) There is concern in having all ADD resources m the SIMA development organization and having no one available to support the operational envuonment. Task Force Resuonse The preceding set of MSC comments reinforce the House Armed Services Committee (HASC) perception that "nobody's in charge." Rather than address the complex issue of eliminating redundant systems, the tendency is to fight to retain control of IM support (retaining the ability to develop unique redundant systems) "unhl perfect interoperability among all 'standard systems' is achieved." The contrast between TACOM's comments and those of the other MSC's is further evidence of the paradigm shift made with implementation of shadow databases. .-UIIC AUTOMATION ASSESSMENT (June 1992) 3-1 1 Strateg~c lnitiatlva AMC STD SYSTEM ARMY STD AMC FCG CIM SYSTEM SYSTEM U T L G TDMStCTOL PROV LCAPS SPS ICAPS ACQUISITION W A G E M E S T Cornpltcr Add Lopsaa Svsccm Deficieny Reponmg System (DRS) promremat InruLLm Rocuremeat Harugemat S v s t u n (PMS) Suadrrd AuLomrcsd Amy Cootnctmg Syslan (SMCONS) A q u u ~ n m Managemem Mdalwo Systan (AMMS) Army Systcm for AtUmuauon of Repuedness P u (ASAPP) Digla Stonge and Remwal Engmeermg Data Syscan (DSREDS) T d m t d 1Lu Cciu ipamn Mmrgammc Systanr CID/CMS) value ~ n g w m q ~ n r l y s u d ~ e p a r n y Syscm! WEARS) CALS DRS PROC LPWS DRS PEDS SAACONS SAACONS DSREDS S w Y M-8- SUPPLY MOT W C SuDdvd InrUUIioa Supply Syag , AMClSS (AMCISS) Ammuted Self-Ssvce AMC Supply Cenlo ASSSC (ASSSC) Inru1l.h E q w v r m .Managanat System [EMS ([EMS) AF€MS SPBS ASSET M A N A G E W AIMYSDF RDES RDB Inventory Accormtmg [NV ACCT G mINT w o SEC AFFAIR STX cn AMMO-D M u a u w Managanent Modilkawn Work Ordm AIMSJSDF CATS EOQASE SCS VRS FINANCE MANAGEMENT (OPR) SDS Resauce Mmagcme~t Suodrd Army RoMmrrnt AppFopnumo sy le (SAPAS) S u n d u d la&s(rul Rmd System (SDS) S M Depa Systrm (SDS) - RM Srmdmi ObWRDTE sysm (SOMARDS) AMC Fhmd EOWcmtlLI Syslem (AFES) RASFIARS - Rerul my Suck And Invauwy Aaocmnn(( Repatmg S y s m Amy Roamwot Accounang Reporrmg System/lntegnted Command Automaled SlFS SDSRM-D SOMhRDS AFFS DTPS lATS RASFlhRS 5TARFIARS Repcrcmg Systan AutwaIul T ' i and AUadamx d R0dlIC~w SF- Zao BiK RCSO(IIFQ ZBR DEPOT MANENANCE MAlhT-D R B R M R P I I (AMC STD BCL Syscrm KMMS Bank) PDMSS .4MC AUTOMA'TION ASSESSMENT (June 1992) 3-12 Strarqc imnatrves SYSTEM FUNCTIONS iMATRIX AMC STD C I M NNCllONS S Y S E M ARMY STD AMC FCC CIM S Y m M SYSlEM CONRACT PAYhEFiTS CCSS R a m Mmganeol CCSS-RM (TEAM-UP) TMM-UP CIVILIAN PAYROLL Smdard A r m y Cn11i.o Pay System (STARCIPS) STARCIPS DCPS CNILIAN PERSONNEL .ACPERS - A r m y Civilian Penamel System ACPERS DCPDS MISCELLANEOUS RESOURCES M A N A G E m T Budget R a o m Womatm Muugancot Svscrm Openoom Buelmc Cost Guuute AMC AulormCsd Mmpowa MuugeanaU InformaPoo Sprcm AMC Systems M.nrgemea OLfre Standud A r m y M u o w e Syaan Funct~onal System Management for c- Fimamorl SylYm M~~ f a Aldommal Fummmi Syaan Mmaganuu f a S ~ p p m SF- A m y MLald FTm M o d m t a b a * . h r m y W i d c T a t ~ d E v . h u o a o D . U ~ -- Compashidcd D u l ~ ~ g E o v m Amammmo SyaQ In-cw'-NemT== Resurcb Developmm~ d A~cquu~non M i P m Aru Matme1 Plro M ~ ~ p o w a and P u s o a d lntegnhm Relraoarl D- (AMCDE) Maunel change fnf- Systcm Supacompcucr AMCLD wort uuc Inlormarma Sysrrm Dslp to C o s Dau A q u a o n Requuanenu Muugemcat WamMoo S p v m -a- BRIMS FSM-AUTO FSM-SPT MCIS SUPUlCOMP WUIS DSGNlCOST DhRMIS ACPERS AMC AUTOMATION r\SSESSMENT (June 1992) 3-13 Slratc@c Imuatlves 3.3 USE OF INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY AS AN ENABLER 3.3.1 Observation , W C ' s business processes are closely tied to rigid applications systems. These systems are based on aging technologies and cannot keep pace with today's dynamic business environment. Available infonation technology is not being fully exploited. The following discussion is divided into two sections: one on information systems and corporate data and one on office automation and electronic mail. 3.3.2 Information Systems and Corporate Data 3.3.2.1 Discussion Many, if not most, existing business and production systems have been in service to AMC for two or more ordinary system lives and have been outdated for some time. They were designed more than 10 years ago around the technology and business processes of that era. These "legacy" systems lack capabilities needed to manage AMC's business in a modem competitive DOD environment that is adopting state of the art business concepts, e.g., total asset visibility, material requirements planning, total quality management, and just-in-time provisioning. One of the most frequent complaints about AMC's information technology support was that AMC's automation systems drive AMC's business processes rather than vice versa. AMC continually undergoes comprehensive analysis that leads to recommendations for redesigned, improved business processes. This places new requirements on system developers. Implementing these business process improvements is hampered by the inability of the existing systems to adjust quickly and meet new requirements. AMC depends on ouunoded application software technology. This restricts the introduction of modem software development tools and techniques to maintain or enhance applications. Maintaining large, integrated systems with millions of lines of COBOL is expensive and slow. Reports are hard coded. New or modified reports require initiation of labor-intensive System Change Requests. Users become frustrated by their dependency on a staff of skilled software engineers to make the changes. As a result, the senior leadership lacks £reedom of action to keep business processes in step with a changing environment. AMC needs to apply information technology to enable business process improvement. Adoption of modern information technologies such as shadow databases, user language, etc. will reduce the need for expensive, slow system changes; reduce the unit cost of software support: and. most importantly, enable the business functionals to maintain the lean, cost-effective posture essential to attainment of AMC's future objectives. Senior managers and executives require more access to critical information and decision-support tools, both essential to enable sound management of a corporation with the breadth and scope of AMC. The current suite of business and production systems lacks the capability to satisfy these requirements quickiy and cost-effectively. Existing systems either do not capture the mformation AMC AUTOMATION ASSESSMENT (June 1992) 3-14 Strategc h t i a v e s or cannot manipulate and present it in ways that meet the criteria of executives, managers, and action officers. AMC could gain significantly from the implementation of a modem Decision Support System (DSS) that applies dormation technology as an enabler, empowering management and functionals alike with an expanded capability in the area of information access, analysis, and presentation. A modem DSS that extracts data from business and production systems and related feeder databases is required. This will enable AMC's managers to access and analyze information resident in existing systems as well as information not currently captured. This wdl facilitate delivery of enhanced operational support to the business processes. The DSS must provide authorized users access to required data residing in a logical database. Users require a tailored view of data and state-of-the-art tools for analysis and presentation. The AMC C10 and STMA are currently developing a long-term strategy to relieve this situation by migrating many systems to relational database technology. The following extract from AMC's Business Automation h t i a l Transition Plan, Phase 1 describes AMC's strategy for implementation of relational database technology: 3.9.2 Relational Data Base Management Technology. The evolution of Relational Data Base Management System (RDBMS) technology now makes it possible to put expanded information management capabilities into the hands of the information customer. Movement of mission execution data into an RDBMS environment opens an extensive window of data access to the functional user. This is achieved without direct intervention of Information Technology professionals in real time and on the terms of the user. As a result, the ability of the user to operate with full access to al l of the underlying data contained within the various information repositories, and to retrieve it when desired in the required format allows for signficant productivity improvements. Such productivity gains will be essential as the number of people available to perform AMC mission processes will be decreasing over time. Incorporation of RDBMS technology in the AMC standard information systems has begun. Migration of all AMC information systems to an RDBMS environment is a priority area for the immediate future. Not only does such a move provide for increased productivity of functional personnel, bur it will also reduce the associated information system support requirements. The latter factor will become increasingly important as the various DOD and Army initiatives to reduce the number of "software engineers" are implemented. While migration of all AMC information systems to an RDBMS will result in significant savings, the current approach provides more benefits to the technology provider (SIMA) than support to the customer. This effort should be complimented by establishment of a separate "shadow database" for decision support. In using relational database technology, it is necessary for performance and functional reasons to separate data into two databases with one configured to serve the need for flexibility @ecision Support Systems) and the other to serve the need for performace under a high transaction load, e.g., CCSS, SDS (reference Dual Data Bare-The Issues, William H . Inmon, 1987, Auerbach Publishers Inc). . W C AUTOMATION ASSESSMENT (June 1992) 3-15 Strategic Initiatives Ln discussions with representatives from the AMC technical community, the need for real-time or up-to-the-second data from operational systems was srressed with the conclusion that converting operational systems to relational databases was the only viable solution. In contrast, discussions with the functional community in AMC stressed that today's output from information systems is useless because it is 60 days old when received. The functional user didn't ask for real-time access; just day-old or week-old Information. In many cases. decision support (trend analysis, projections, etc.) requires that data be frozen and synchronized at some point in time rather than subject to continuous interactive update. The TACOM approach to exploiting relational database technology for decision support is to map critical data from numerous existing operational systems into relational tables orgaruzed to support the weapon system management process (see Figure 1). USERS FUNCT'ONAL 1 EXECUTIVES L 1 Figure 1 AMC AUTOMATION ASSESSMENT (June 1992) 3-16 Strategc Irutlatives This approach rmrrors chat taken by HQDA in the DA DSS as well as industry leaders (reference Volume 27 No. 1, 1988, IBM Systems Journal. An Architeemre for a Business and Information System and DM'S technical paper dated October 1991 titled Innoduction to Infirmarion Warehousing). The key features of the shadow database concept are listed below: Relational databases created from corporate data required by and meenng the needs of the user community. Data gathered from sources outside AiiC and redesigned where necessary to serve the needs of the user community. Data (including non-AMC data) integrated and shared by the entire user community. User friendly, menu-driven subsystems to provide access to the data for the unslulled user. Freedom of access for the skilled user unconstrained by standard systems. Subsystems developed and run without impairing standard system Application Development Division's role changes from traditional software maintenance to worlung with the user community to provide consultation, training, and programming support. Net affect is reduction in manhours required for customer support Cheapest method of taking advantage of relational database technology (see SIMA study on .implementation of M204, which identified a cost of $2.3M for shadow database implementation vice $29M for conversion of the business systems). Promotes data quality improvement, identifying data integrity problems in standard systems. Data models tailored to local users needs. Extraneous data elements defined for elimination from future corporate data models. A significant benefit of shadow databases during the transition years from AMC standard systems to JLSC initiatives is the transparent replacement of business systems, still feeding the same shadow database. As shown in Figure 2, JLSC initiatives can partially overlay existing applications without changing the functional manager's view of the corporate database. XMC AUTOMATION ASSESSMENT (June 1992) 3-17 Shategc Iruaatlves /OW DATABASE) EXECUTIVES Figure 2 3.3.2.2 Recommendations The AMC Automation Assessment Task Force made the following recommendations: 1. Develop and empower a small DSS group working for the CG. Group must consist of mix of technologists and functionals. 2. Complete IDEF concurrent with implementation of AMC's DSS. 3.3.2.3 Benefits The AMC Automation Assessment Task Force recommendations have the following benefits: 1. Customer support - quick, inexpensive empowerment of the functional user. 2. Improved business process (TACOM documented savings of $108M in FY91 in management of stocks). 3. Lncreased freedom of action - ability to look at data from any perspective. 4. Improved ability to plug in new business systems (e-g., JLSC near-term initiatives) without degrading the management process. AMC AUTOMATION ASSESSMENT (June 1992) 3-18 Strategc Initiatives 5. Increase In programmer producovity (4% improvement was documented by an independent study at TACOM). Software maintenance is quicker, simpler (programs at TACOM are 3 3 8 shorter after implementation of shadow databases). 6. Data shared easily across command - AMC-wide corporate database. 3.3.2.4 Implementation The following task is required to implement the Task Force recommendations: CG AMC direct SIMA to develop shadow database implementation plan within 30 days for AMC-wide implementation within 12 months. 3.3.2.5 Timeframe The timeframe to implement the Task Force recommendations is the near-term. 3.33 Office Automation and Electronic Mail 3.33.1 Discussion Modem information technology is not fully exploited in AMC's automation of the workplace. This has been made clear to the Task Force, which requested E-Mail feedback on the initiai Task Force briefing to facilitate sharing of comments received and incorporation of additions and corrections into the report. Instead of receiving the requested E-Mail response, in many cases the Task Force received telefax replies. In virtually all of these cases, the replies were prepared in electronic format. printed in hard copy and faxed to the Task Force. The Task Force expended staff labor to receive, duplicate, and distribute the fax copies among team members. Additions and corrections were then redundantly rekeyed for incorporation into the repon This anecdote supports the lack of E-Mail utilization throughout AMC. A closer look reveals multiple E-Mail software packages from state-of-the-art commercial off-the-shelf products to awkward, rigid systems. Senior level staff within AMC stated that they are not using electronic mail systems for various reasons including difficult user interface, complex addressing scheme, and questionable reliability of E-Mail delivery through the network. In many cases they rely on fax when E-Mad would be much more appropriate. Additional training, establishment and dissemination of E-Mail policy and procedures, and E-Mail standardization could effect more widespread utilization of this technology in AMC. 3.33.2 Recommendations The AMC Automation Assessment Task Force made the following recommendations: 1. Direct strategic changes in AMC's use of automation as an enabler for senior executives. 2. Emphasize E-Mail as the standard method of information transfer from command level down to subordinate elements. .WC AUTOMATION ASSESSMENT (June 1992) 3-19 Strategc lnitiauva 3.33.3 Implementation The following tasks are required to implement the Task Force recommendahons: 1. CG AMC establish policy stating that E-Mail is the method of choice for all oficial correspondence. 2. CIO task MSC DOLMs to provide E-Mail support to MSC staff with user interface equivalent .: or better than ISC's PC Max-E-Mad. 3. CIO enforce implementation of Army standard E-Mail addressing conventions. 3.33.4 Timeframe The timeframe to implement the Task Force recommendations is the near-tern. 3.3.4 MSC Comments and Task Force Response 3.3.4.1 Information Systems and Corporate Data RECOMMENDATION 1. Develop and empower a small DSS group working for the CG to extend shadow database work from TACOM to all MSCs Group must consist of mix of technologists and functionals. MICOM Comments MICOM does not agree that shadow databases are the way that AMC should be going. MICOM used shadow databases during Desert Shield~Desert Storm; however, AMC's thrust should be to convert to relational technology. Ln any case, we feel that every MSC has implemented the so-called "shadow database" concept in some form or the other and needs no assistance in this area. The MSC ~nformation professionals recognize their obligation to provide state-of-the-art information technology that allows the AMC customer base to increase its productivity and compensate ' for declhng personnel resources. Since AMC has been unable to move the AMC standard systems into such an environment, partly because of the tremendous investment sunk in a complex, integrated CCSS, we have had no alternative other than to use such techniques to remain responsive to the customer and critical mission needs. Task Force Response Non-concur. Migration of business systems to relational databases does not solve the requirements of functional managers. This fact is well established in industry and other A m y organizations (e.g., HQDA DSS). Recommendation stands. .AMC AUTOMATION ASSESSMENT (June 1992) 3-20 Strategic Irut~atlves LABCOM Comments In response to recommendation #I, "Develop and empower a small DSS group worlung for the CG to extend shadow database work from TACOM to all MSCs. Group must consist of mix of technologies and functionals," we agree that the TACOM system has yielded benefits for TACOM and the approach may be valid for commodity oriented MSCs. If imposed upon ARL, however. we would have to redesign all of our plans for a corporate information system and possibly abandon our approach for an EIS. Our research mission is not dependent upon a standard system supported by SLMA (or any CSDA) as are commands with readiness and logistics missions. Task Force Response Concur. LABCOM should use same approach as TACOM, however, implementation should be tarlored to laboratory requirements. AVSCOM Comments Use of Info Technology as enabler: Suggest you add the following strategies: 1) Develop AMC Corporate Data Model; and 2) Empower functional community via end-user community. This overall strategy should not just be limited to the senior executive community. Task Force Res~onse Concur. TACOM Comments Some disagreed with this recommendation due to their feeling that shadow databases are not a viable approach to providing information to the user community. They would like the source systems converted to relational technology (specifically CCSS). I think that d we were to look at the cost of converting CCSS, or any other source data system, to relational technology we would frnd that it exceeds the cost of establishing shadow files. This would be in terms of both dollars and time. It would also seem inappropriate to consider the conversion of any existing system at this time due to the CIM decisions yet to be made. Consequently, waiting for the source systems to eventually be moved to relational technology means that the benefits to be derived from better information and easier access wdl be lost. I can appreciate their concern, but I don't think they fully realize the functional benefits that are to be gained. I support the recommendation to form a group made up of both functionals and technical people. They key focus of such a group should be the data elements to be included in a shadow file approach and the corresponding data model. The current TACOM M204 shadow files address some of the functional areas, but they do not include information from the procurement or financial systems. The use of a small DSS group could really facilitate an AMC-wide view of what information should be included. Once the total data view strategy was developed, the work to build the links could be allocated to the various M C AUTOMATION ASSESSMENT (June 192) 3-21 Strategic Initiatives ,MSC staffs. All of this could be conducted under the cennal management strategy with decentralized execution. Task Force Res~onse Concur. RECOMMENDATION 3. Complete IDEF concurrent with implementation of AMC's Decision Support System. MICOM Comments Agree. LABCOM Comments IDEF is an ~nformation systems planning methodology which includes capture of data elements into the data dictionary. IMs plan for ARL was to capture this donnation as the plan developed. It is anticipated that each MSC will have to complete an IDEF process when AMC proliferates the methodology. Task Force Resoonse Concur. TACOM Comments We completely agree with this recommendation. I mentioned the need to develop a complete information model in the DSS discussion. We really do need to get a good focus on the underlying information requirements. and then let the technical community work on satisfying the requirements. A comprehensive IDEF will facilitate this requirement. Task Force Response Concur. RECO.MMENDATION. Field TACOM9s shadow relational database technology to other lMSCs for use by functionals, (Previously part of Software Development Section) MICOM Comments MICOM has been creating and using M204 shadow files for over three years. These files were a valuable asset during the Desert ShieldJDesert Storm timeframe. Currently MICOM maintains in excess of eighty CCSS shadow files. The shadow file concept is a very . W C AUTOMATION ASSESSMENT (Jum 1'392) 3-22 Stntepc Imr~auves expensive way to do business. It requires nightly DMR file extracts and file loads to the M204 format and large quantities of DASD for the M204 shadow tide and its keys. Use of this techque will always introduce the possibility that the information accessed by the customer will not be current. Depending on the time of access, and assuming daily extracts, information could be 24 hours old. We believe if online inquiry capability is required then the needed DMR files should be converted to a 4GL database. MICOM has offered to either lead an effort or totally convert the CCSS DMR files to M204. MICOM developed the AMC Remote Terminal Interpretative System (ARTIS) inquiry system in the early 70's to query the CCSS files and was proliferated to a l l of the other MSC's to accomplish their query requirements. MICOM currently has over 2300 questions which are actively being used by the MICOM functionals for ad hoc queries ranging in complexity from data element extractions to statistical reporting. This capability is an integral solution to resolving dady requirements. For example, one such question is executed an average of 15,000 times per month. The functional community recognizes the need to have an SQL/4GL database query tool to access the current and proposed 4GL databases that will be an integral part of the Army's futurc. This tool should be menu dnven and user-friendly. It is felt that a less costly and more efficient way of achieving these goals is to develop these queries using such a tool. The functionals need the capability to get quick accurate answers to short requests without having to become a quasi-computer programmer. Task Force Response AMC's study on M204 conversion documented the fact that cost of shadow file approach is $2M versus $29M for full system conversion recommended by MICOM. In addition, the decision support requirements are not satisfied by the MICOM approach. CECOM Comments The report recommends that the TACOM shadow database be fielded to other MSCs for use by functionals and that the focus is on migrating to standard systems. CECOM concurs. CECOM is playing an active role in the usage of TACOM shadow file systems in the logistics CCSS arena. This command is joining in a cooperative agreement to adopt one system, and reviewing other systems. The technology is also present in a CECOM system called Acquisition Process improvement System (APIC). This system surrounds Corporate data for users of the Acquisition process, provides AI triggers. management reporting, and feeds clean data back to CCSS for update. Shadow file technology is nothing more than a mirror image of CCSS sectorlsegment file data with user-friendly front-end to assist the item manager in hisher business process. The resource cost to CECOM would be in the Direct Access Storage Device (DASD) arena. CECOM would have to purchase DASD to adopt this technology, and is working toward that end. AMC AUTOMATION ASSESSMENT (June 1992) 3-23 Stratcpc h t l a h v a DESCOM Comments Later this year, U.S. Army Depot Svstem Command (DESCOM) wdl be fielding a "shadow data base " capability to all its depots. Our depots receive their automation support from the Standard Depot System (SDS). As part of the modernization of SDS, business case development methodology was used in establishing the requirements for a management support data base system. It follows the same philosophy as U.S. Army Tank Automotive Command's (TACOM) concept in that management support data is extracted from production data bases to form the SDS-MOD shadow data base. The extracted data will then be loaded to a DATACOMDB data base and functional users will have interactive standard query language (SQL) capability to the data. A bndg~ng system has been developed that will allow the extraction of data to either Unix or DOS environments. These environments will be supported by a product which is compatible to the mainframe version of the DATACOM SQL. LABCOM Comments We believe that recommendation #1, "Field TACOM's shadow relational database technology to other MSCs for use by functionals" is an overreaction to the successful implementation of Model 204 in the user community at TACOM. Shadow database technology is not a panacea. Effective implementation requires close cooperation between the developer and the user and extensive training and user support. With all of this in place the user can gain considerable benefit by manipulating the shadow databases. The customer support workload will not decrease but wiU change in nature and support more customers. Use of shadow databases is vital to ARL's concept of a corporate information system. The TACOM implementation is not appropriate for ARL. ARL's concept is based on using X ciientiserver technology with relevant data extracted from central databases wherever they are located. We have no plans to use M204 shadow databases. AVSCOM Comments Field TACOM's shadow database technology to other MSCs for use by functionals: We concur with the implementation of TACOM's shadow databases and have acquired their programs and database schema. However, in the longer term, an AMC corporate data model needs to be developed which incorporates all business mfoxmation requirements. However, who will fund the direct access storage device (DASD), the additional processing capacity, and training which wdl be required? TACOM Comments Some comments are directed at the idea that shadow files are a very expensive way to do business, and that they are not immediately current with the source data. In addition they focus on the need to convert the source systems to relational database technology with specific reference to CCSS. From a pure DOIM point of view, we initially had the same concerns regarding the use of shadow files. The expense of DASD and the supporting download process did concern us in the beginning. Our need to integrate data from many - -- AMC AUTOMATION ASSESSMENT (June 1992) 3-24 itrateyc Imaa~lve-s different source systems other than CCSS made the use of shadow file the only practical solution. It simply would not be possible to have in excess of 25 source data systems converted to an alternate database system. If our only source of data were CCSS, an argument could certainly be made to convert the source system rather than use shadow files. Once the shadow files were established, the real value became apparent. The vastly improved decision and analysis processes that has been enabled by the shadow files, have more than offset the cost in DASD and operations support. The visibility provided by having not just wholesale data (CCSS), but also retail and other field data systems information available to the TACOM decision maker has given us tremendous benefits. The TACOM MCP has indicated that repair part purchase decisions based on the old way of doing business would have resulted in expenditures $374M greater than actually executed during the period of Feb 90 to the present. The dollar difference was not actually a hard savings because the funding was not available. The key point is that through better ~nformation, the decision makers were able to use the available funding by strategically reducing the supply level purchase recommendations in the amount of $374M without impacting operational readiness. That is real leverage, and easily offset the small cost of DASD and data download support requirements. What we quickly learned after making the decision to use shadow files as our approach to providing a more complete integrated lnfomtion repository to the TACOM users was the great value of being detached from the dynamics of the source system revision processes. In effect, as long as the desired data elements remained, we had very little overhead involved in maintaining our shadow file links. We really didn't care what changes were being made to the technical or functional capabilities of the source systems as long as the primitive data remained intact. Our users have a stable environment and interface to their data without having to worry or become involved in the technical decisions regarding the source databases. They can focus on their data needs and in turn let the JMA professionals worry about technical issues. Another lesson learned was our early concern about the data being somewhat out of cycle with the source system data has not been a problem. The shadow file data is being used for analysis and decision support. In this capacity it does not have to be real time current 4 24 hour lag does not create a problem for the functional user who is now able to focus on analysis to anticipate needs rather than react to unexpected events. If real time data is required, it is always possible to go to the source system The main point is that the 24 hour lag in currency of the shadow files has simply not been a problem or issue with the functionals. A very important aspect of the shadow file concept is making sure the functional have direct access to the data. That means no requirement for a programmer to develop the query. This requires an up front commitment to making sure the ultimate data consumer has received the appropriate level of training. The level of training will vary depending on the level of ad hoc access required by the individual user. The TACOM functional community has been fully supportive of the training requirement, and as the benefits have accumulated, have expanded the number of trained individuals. The M204 classes provided by AMEC are excellent In a number of cases they are better than the ones provided by the M204 vendor. We are using the M204 user Language. I know that my counter parts at the other MSCs do not feel this is the best way to go. They feel the user must learn more detail than should M C AUTOMATION ASSESSMENT (June 1992) 3-25 Seatcgc Initiatives be required. Some feel that the user should not have to become a quasi-computer programmer. Not having had the experience of workrng with an empowered user community, I can understand their concerns. Once the process starts, our experience has shown the functional community not only is capable of learning the tools, but they become very excited when they realize how much capability they have individually. Learning the M204 user Language is not much different that the requirements we impose on the community to learn Lotus 1-2-3, DBASE IV, or any other PC application. Such knowledge is as much a quasi-programming skill as the M204 User Language. The simple fact is that people entering the work force today are very computer literate, and almost demand the ability to be able to work independently. Task Force Res~onse Above comments indicate a general willingness to adopt the shadow file or data warehouse approach, however, each MSC is working its own solution. Recommend AMC-Wide solution hosted at the ALPC. 3.3.4.2 Office Automation and Electronic Mail RECOMMENDATION. Make strategic change in AMC's use of automation as an enabler for senior executives. MICOM Comments MICOM is fully exploiting the latest technology in communications and office automation. This command has a campus area network (CAN) that has every major building on Redstone Arsenal tied in. This allows systems such as the MICOM Administrative Support System (MASS) to be accessed by offices all over the Arsenal. This system produces travel orders. 1556 training forms, overtime requests, travel vouchers, etc. and also gives managers the capability to pull personnel statistics on their workforce, such as, how many over a certain age, how many rnales/femaies, who received awards, etc. MICOM has an on-line computer based training system, Self Paced Army Computer Education (SPACE) Program that allows each terminal on an employee's desk to be a training mechanism since the integrated CAN gives access to al l three tiers of hardware -- micros, minis, and mainframes. LABCOM Comments To accomplish recommendation #2, "Make strategic change in M C ' s use of automation as an enabler for senior executives," a culture change is required for both the functional and development communities. Close coordination will be required for all elements of AMC. TACOM Comments We strongly agree with this recommendation. MSCs note the various ways they have been using automation to enhance their local processes. I am aware of a number of the systems they have implemented, and they are excellent in their capability. Lf I understand the recommendation correctly, I feel some may have missed the objective. Their comments seem to address systems being used to support ongoing mission functions rather than senior executives. I am assuming that the recommendation is addressing Executive Information Systems and the need to get an AMC-wide approach in place. This includes the technical approach. and a change in culture in terms of the use of such systems in the day to day decision process. It has been interesting watching senior managers at TACOM begin to realize what complete information can mean in terms of malung truly informed decisions. We have a long way to go, but as the culture is changing the demand for additional executive level decision information is growing rapidly. I'm sure having an AMC corporate wide common baseline would made the process that much better. Task Force Response Agree. .WC AUTOMATION ASSESSMENT (June 1992) 3 -27 Strategc Irutiatlves 4, SUMMARY AMC is successfully supporting the Army in both peace and war. Information technology within AMC is well i *gated into AMC business processes and is key to the successes experienced. The challenge iur AMC during the transition period is to: Implement recommended opportunities to reduce costs/increase effectiveness in existing operations. Centrally manage information technology activities during the turbulent reshaping period. Decouple their business processes from their automation process by implementing a "data warehouse" in support of TACOM, MICOM, CECOM, AVSCOM, TROSCOM, AMCCOM, and DESCOM, as well as HQ AMC. AMC AUTOMATION ASSESSMENT (June 1992) 4- 1 SWW APPENDIX A '4MC AUTOMATION ASSESSMENT TASK FORCE REPORT BRIEFING 22 MAY 92 .LMC .AUTOMATION XSSESSiMENT i J u n e 1391) AMC AUTOMATION ASSESSMENT TASK FORCE REPORT BG ROBERT WYNN TASK FORCE LEADER 22 MAY 92 FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY UPDATE AMC AUTOMATION ASSESSMENT TASK FORCE REPORT BRIEF STRUCTURE - REVIEW ACTIVITY - REVIEW OBSERVATIONS WITH MSCISRA COMMENTS - CLOSE EVENTS SINCE 1 MAY BRIEFING - COMMENTS FROM FIELD - T.F. CHANGES - REPORT TENOR - HASC MARK " UNIX CONSOLIDATION COMMENTS." - - -- - - - - - - - . -- - - - - - -- - MICOM: 1 . NONCONCUR; PROCESSORS REMAIN HEAVILY USED IN SUPPORT OF PROCUREMENT. 2. MOST INTEL'S HAVE BEEN REMOVED. 3. WANT CONTROL OF ORGANIZATION LEVEL INFORAMTION. LABCOM: 1 . NEED A N FEA. 2 . DISAGREE WlTH REMOVING INTEL HUBS; USE CLIENT SERVER. AVSCOMITROSCOM: 1 .WHO WlLL FUND? DOlM NEEDS FLEXIBILITY TO BE RESPONSIVE. TF RESPONSE: 1 . REPLACE "INTEL'S" WlTH CURRENT TECHNOLOGY. 2. AGREE THAT FEA SHOULD BE ACCOMPLISHED. TF ASSERTS MODERN TECHNOLOGY WlLL REDUCE O&S. 3. AGREE WlTH #3 OF MICOM COMMENTS. [I] I m "CONVERT PADDS TO UNIX; MOVE TO OTHER HARDWARE." COMMENTS: MICOM: 1. STRONGLY DISAGREE THAT PADDS IS A NONCRITICAL SYSTEM. 2. EXPEDITING ON INTERIM SYSTEM DOES NOT APPEAR COST-EFFECTIVE. TF RESPONSE: 1. AGREE - "GENERAL SUPPORT" IS BETTER. 2. ROI (OF ABOUT 400K) .WITHIN 1 YEAR; ENHANCED ACCESS. NO CHANGE TO REC. I "CLOSE DSREDS SITES AT FORT BELVOIR AND CECOM AND PROVIDE SUPPORT REMOTELY." - -- -. I - COMMENTS: MICOMICECOM: NONCONCUR; NEED TO ENTER 500,000 + DRAWINGS INTO DSREDS AND EXPLOIT ITS CAPABILITIES. TF RESPONSE: AGREE; REVISED RECOMMENDATION RECOMMENDATION: "CLOSE AMPMOD; PROVIDE NETWORK VIA DISNET." COMMENTS: MICOM: MINIMAL IMPACT; CHECK ON PROCESSING BOlP FEEDER DATA AND QUALITATIVE AND QUANTITATIVE PERSONNEL REQUIREMENTS INFORMATION. SIMA: CONCUR; EXAMINE COMM NETWORK FOR FUTURE USE. TF RESPONSE: AGREE TACTICAL INITIATIVES NON-CRITICAL SYSTEMS SlMA d SUPERCOMPUTERS - - --- IMPROVEMENTS TO EXISTING I d HQAMC DSS d d d SYSTEM REVIEW COMMITTEE (SRC) STRUCTURE d SINGLE FUNCTION CIRCUITS d UNlX CONSOLIDATION "ATTABOYS" CAD/CAM SHADOW DATABASE I PMCCOM: I TACOM; Information Technology is an enabler at Uses Relational DB technology R I A Manufacturing Facility Decouples business from TACOM; automation processes Facilitates redesign of business Des ign - Mact~ine - - - processes I AMC IS SUPPORTING I THE ARMY DURING IMMENSE CHANGE AMC INITIATIVES Records Management SlSOCS (7 out of 22 sites) Paperless Cdrs Conference Innovation and responsiveness to customer TDY process: ' i TASK FORCE GUIDANCE I CG I ' ,' i / Identify core competencies in 95-96 and then work back I! Reconfigure core competencies for Power Projection Outsource the margin Adopt a business orientation d Maintain value-added core within PBG CSA d AMC is key to Power Projection Challenge is to reshape AMC Avoid a Salami-Slice approach Become a more efficient organization TASK FORCE PURPOSE ENVIRONMENT METHODOLOGY PURPOSE Incorporat ing CIM/JLSC .. I tnplementing BRAC ; Reshap ing Army ; Dofining Core Competencies ., FY91 Expenditures equal S564M FIND AND REPORT OPPORTUNITIES V" Series of personal in t~rv ievrs Key staff MSC Commanders SLA, JLSC, PEOs, ARSTAFF d ldent if ied potential opportunit ies TO IMPROVE EFFICIENCY AND 1 EFFECTIVENESS OF INFORMATION i TOTAL OBLIGATION ARMY MATERIEL COMMAND - 1 * 4 COMMENTS: SIMA: LABCOM NONCONCUR CONCUR MICOM CONCUR AVSCOMITROSCOM CONCUR TF RESPONSE: NO CHANGE TO RECOMMENDATION (.'DO NOT RELOCATE SIMA-E. BRING BEFORE BRAC 93 COMMITEE." COMMENTS: DESCOM: CONCUR SIMA: CONCUR AMCCOrvr: NONCONCUR TF RESPONSE: NO CHANGE TO RECOMMENDATION I RECOMMENDATION: "RELOCATE SIMA-W TO GOODFELLOW BOULEVARD AND CONSOLIDATE DPI WITH AIPC." - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - -- - -- - - - . COMMENTS: SIMA: DO FEA AVSCOM/TROSCOM: CONCUR LABCOM: CONSOLIDATE LEAD MSC TF RESPONSE: NO CHANGE TO RECOMMENDATION SRC STRUCTURE OBSERVATION DISCUSSION C u r r s t ~ t s t r ~ ~ c t u r e focuses suppor t t o I Informat ion techno logy systoms c r o s s spocif ic funct ions rather t t ~ a t i across funct ional areas (e.g. CALS, CCSS) . f i l t~c t io r ia l areas. I Boundar ies between SRCs sometirn 0 s mixed. Advent o f JLSC reduces freedom of act ion of funct ional SRCs. AlPCs provide operat ions suppor t . i RECOMMENDATIONS i 1 . Establish a single SRC wi th Command Group oversight (GOISES) and members f rom all I func t iona l areas. I I 2. CIO serves as Secretary. I 1 3 . JLSC arid ISC reprosentat ion. i 4. Rostr i lcturo FSls (COL, GM 15) to provide hor izontal in tegrat ion. I BEN EFlTS Imp.rovos c o o r d i n a t i o l ~ ant1 in tegrat ion o f changes to in format ion techno logy - systems. TIME FRAME Near term SUPERCOMPUTERS OBSERVATION DISCUSSION Additional time i s obtained from the University o f Minnesota. Technological obsolescence is quick. XMP supercomputer at BRL is on Curretit configuration of s~rporcomputer support m a y not be the i ~ i o s t cost effective. - -. -- --- I - 1 the verge of obsolescence. RECOMMENDATIONS Army's lengthy acquisition c y c ~ o AMC operates two supercomputers at Ballistics Research Lab (BRL) and one at Tank Automotive Command (TACOM). Classified work i s done at BRL. i determine if unclassifed processing should b e 1 be out sourced or done in house to include BENEFITS the h igh performance silpercomputer at the Reduces $1.3M per year it1 hardware and software O&S. University of Minnesota. i Net benefit determined by -- -. -- . - - . - - - -7 FEA. TIME FRAME I 1. Turn in XMP at BRL. 2 . Reta in C R A Y at BRL to adequately handle classified processing. I 3. Conduct functional economic analysis (FEA) to I Near to mid term I inhibits efforts to stay curront. HQ AMC DSS OBSERVATION DISCUSSION I HQ AMC has a good automation infrastructure AMC h a s components for t~uilding a based upon a n 1,100 workstat ion LAN connoctorj 10 D S S . I mini-computers. HQ AMC rolios on FAX and Overall automation strategy and capabilities are not well defined nor fully used. No formal functional requirements definition effort is underway to guide D S S development. surface mail t o communicate data filos wi th M S C s rather than data networks. Connoctivity to HQ AMC 9370 oquates to connectivi ty t o HQDA D S S network (TRADOC, FORSCOM, etc). Connoctivi ty to HQDA DSS is available, but not commonly known or wol l utilized. Although a training program is in place, it n e o d s moro structuro, omphasis, and visibility. I RECOMMENDATIONS i I ga teway . 2. Support s t r u c t u r e d a n d d e d i c a t e d t r a i n i ng and s ~ l s t a i n n i e n t se rv ice . I 1 . Pi .ovido w o r l d w ide E-Ma i l ar~d HQDA DSS connec t i v i t y t o staf f v i a H Q AMC L A N a n d L A N I Inexpensive HQ AMC litik to worldwide network and D S S . I BENEFITS 3. M id te rm: M ig ra te to L o t u s Notes o r c o m p a r a b l e I product to e x p l o i t g r o u p w a r e , p ro jec t management , / Access 10 I i Q D A databases. 1 a n d g r a p h i c use r in ter face. 1 I I Empowerment of users. TIME FRAME I Noar to mid t e r m I z a z : m , 7 1 ) I ] ' Dl 5 I o 0 3; 0 m u cn' ' 3 -. - m z m 71 - + rn - - -- RECOMMENDATION: ( 'S INGLE FUNCTION CIRCUIT COMMENTS'' - - LABCOM: NON CONCUR AVSCOMITROSCOM: CONCUR MICOM: CONCUR FOR EXTERNAL CIRCUITS ONLY TF RESPONSE: 1. NO CHANGE. UNIX CONSOLIDATION OBSERVATION DISCUSSION AMC operates and maintair is numerous smal l Unix systems at oach ir istal lat ion. RECOMMENDATION AMC operates from 10 t o over 100 Uriix hosts at each MSC, each requir ing hardware and software maintsnat ico and system administration. New tec l ino logy provides lower-cost platfortns for consol idat ion o f mul t ip le Unix appl icat ions. I Consolidate onto large U r ~ i x hosts operated I l and maintained by the AIPCs. BENEFITS TIME FRAME Mid term 1 Reduces $23K/yr/Sperry i r ~ 1 HW/SW maintenance. Reduces c iv i l ian overstrength. / ""NIX CONSOLIDATION COMMENTS.'' I MICOM: 1. NONCONCUR; PROCESSORS REMAIN HEAVILY USED IN SUPPORT OF PROCUREMENT. 2. MOST INTEL'S HAVE BEEN REMOVED. 3. WANT CONTROL OF ORGANIZATION LEVEL INFORMATION. LABCOM: 1. NEED A N FEA. 2. DISAGREE WlTH REMOVING INTEL HUBS; USE CLIENT SERVER. AVSCOM/TROSCOM: 1.WHO WlLL FUND? DOlM NEEDS FLEXIBILITY TO BE RESPONSIVE. TF RESPONSE: 1. REPLACE "INTEL'S" WlTH CURRENT TECHNOLOGY. 2. AGREE THAT FEA SHOULD BE ACCOMPLISHED. TF ASSERTS MODERN TECHNOLOGY WlLL REDUCE O&S. 3. AGREE WlTH #3 OF MICOM COMMENTS. STRATEGIC IN ITIATIVES I FUNDAMENTAL CHANGES I TO BUSINESS I \/ SOFTWARE I PRACTICES I DEVELOPMENT STRUCTURE OF INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY SUPPORT USE OF INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY AS AN ENABLER SOFTWARE DEVELOPMENT OBSERVATION AMC wil l improve responsive- The first objective in software development is to ness and reduce expenses by changing i ts software development philosophy, structure, and scope. TIME FRAME enable responsive satisfaction of user requirements. Decoupling the functional f rom existing applications via a "shadow database" wi l l enable business process redesign and replacement/ standardization of software. Strong central control, enforced standards, and current info technology can complement the effort. Software development by providing requirements to developer rather than creating own system (IPAT initiative) (SBIS 3 ) . ' 4. Create a single information management organization that commands and controls all information technology services throughout AMC, and that capitalizes in place all DOIMs, MSC ADDs, SRA ADDs, and SIMA. variety of software utilities. , I - ' organizations seek software RECOMMENDATIONS work frorn other sources, 1. Field TACOM's shadow relational database which diffuses their focus. technology to other MSCs f o r use by functionals. 2. Enforce reduction of unique systems. 3. Focus on migrating to standard systems BENEFITS Improve responsiveness by synchronizing s o f t w a r e development. Near to mid term I L -7 - - - Reduce cost by reducing RECOMMENDATION: ( "FIELD TACOM's SHADOW RELATINAL DATABASE TECHNOLOGY TO OTHER 1 1 MSCs FOR USE BY FUNCTIONALS." I COMMENTS: MICOM: 1. SHADOW FILE CONCEPT IS VERY EXPENSIVE WAY TO DO BUSINESS. 2. BELIEVE DMR FILES SHOULD BE CONVERTED TO SQL." LABCOM: 1. USE OF SHADOW DATABASES VITAL TO ARL'S CONCEPT OF CORPORATE INFO SYSTEM. 2. TACOM IMPLEMENTATION NOT APPROPRIATE FOR ARL. AVSCOMTTROSCOM: l.CONCUR, WHO WILL FUND? TACOM: 1. CONCUR DESCOM: 1.ALREADY WORKING SHASOW DATABASE PROGRAM FOR DESCOM. TF RESPONSE: 1. NO CHANGE IN RECOMMENDATIONS. 2. AMC-WIDE IMPLEMENTATION OF STANDARD SHADOW DATABASE SOLUTION FOR DSS IS CHEAPER, FASTER AND ELIMINATES REDUNDANT DEVELOPMENT EFFORTS. 3. IMPROVED CUSTOMER FOCUS. IT] 0 Z IT]' m I] 0 m 'P -I 0 Z I RECOMMENDATION: "CREATE A SINGLE INFORMATION MANAGEMENT ORGANIZATION THAT COMMANDS ALL INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY SERVICES THROUGHOUT AMC, AND THAT CAPITALIZES IN PLACE ALL DOIMS, MSC ADDs, SRA ADDs, AND SIMA. . - - -- ---- - -- -- - - - COMMENTS: MICOM: 1. COMMANDING OFFICER SHOULD BE DELEGATED AUTHORITY TO DECIDE HOW TO APPLY RESOURCES INCLUDING DOIM. LABCOM: 1. HQ AMC SHOULD BE IN STAFF SUPPORT ROLE RATHER THAN DIRECT SUPPORT OF OPERATION ELEMENTS. AVSCOM/TROSCOM: 1.LOCAL COMMANDER NEEDS TO MAINTAIN CONTROL OF DOIMIADD RESOURCES. TACOM: 1. CONCUR WITH COMMENT (RETAIN LOCAL FLEXIBILITY VIA SHADOW DATABASE). TF RESPONSE: 1. NO CHANGE IN RECOMMENDATIONS. . 2. FOCUS ON CORE COMPETENCIES. STRUCTURE OF INFO TECHNOLOGY SUPPORT OBSERVATION DISCUSSION Fundamental changes t o AMC business environment are inevitable. Currently AMC has 4,734 personnel RECOMMENDATIONS JLSC/CIM will mandate future systems. Mainframe and network operations w i l l migrate out of AMC (defacto outsourcing). Functionals will place greater onhand with 3,876 FY92 authorizations and 3,296 FY93 authorizat ions (excluding ADD s and SIMA). AMC functional requirements interface to JLSC and IM reliance on computer networks. AMC needs to define its business processes and core competencies (IDEF). Resource constraints and DOD policy I ISC. 1 r-L- - - - - - - --- I. Outsource informat ion technology support t o - -. service providers still required. - authorized strength in FY92. - -- -- reduce freedom of action. 2. Get HQDA resolut ion regarding reduct ion t o i core competencies. Attains business, vice informal, BENEFITS Increase functional's focus on I I relationship for IT support. \- _-- _ - -_- --- - ----- - , - 1 Focuses IT provider on providing support at TIME FRAME equal or less cost. Makes IT support costs Near to mid term I explicit. 18 RECOMMENDATION: "OUTSOURCE INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY SUPPORT TO ISC" COMMENTS: GENERALNONCONCURRENCE TF RESPONSE: 1. NO CHANGE. TECHNOLOGY SERVICES ARE ISC'S CORE FUNCTION USE OF INFO TECHNOLOGY AS AN ENABLER OBSERVATION DISCUSSION I Current approach tying business processes to systems automated systems constrains AMC's efforts AMC's bus iness I to change business processes. Problem wil l processes. I get worse as control of systems t l . . , ,sit ions to JLSC. Decoupling the functionals from Informat ion technology i s rio existing applications will enable business I being ful ly exploited. process redesign and reduce inlpacts of migration to JLSC standard systems. - . -- -- -- - - RECOMMENDATIONS / Acceptable automated tools / o f mix o f technolog is ts and functionals. I available throughout AMC. 1. Develop and empower a smal l DSS g r o u p work ing for the CG. Group must consist 1 2. Make strategic change in AMC's use of for electronic c o n ~ m u n ~ c a t ~ o n and office automation are not I - - -- - - - - - I I -- - - - - - -- - - FY91 in management o f TIME FRAME stocks. automat ion a s an enabler for senior executives. I BENEFITS Near term I 3. Complete IDEF concurrent with implementat ion of AMC's Dec is ion Suppor t System. Impro\ ies bus iness p rocess . TACOM saves $108M i n RECOMMENDATION: "USE OF TECHNOLOGY AS AN ENABLER" COMMENTS: GENERAL CONCURRENCE WITH CONCEPT, BUT DESIRE TO IMPLEMENT LOCALLY UNDER CONTROL OF MSC COMMANDER TF RESPONSE: NO CHANGE. AMC-WIDE SOLUTION PROVIDES BEST SUPPORT TO CORPORATE DATA NEEDS Document Separator EXHIBIT A BACKGROUND SIMA EAST * 4 - .- L TENANT MISSION IMPACT FOR: Systems Integration & Management Activity East MISSION: Provides integrated automation support to the U.S. Army AMC installation, industrial, and financial business processes. Critical to AMC/Army Future Power Projection and Force 21 Missions such as Strategic Stocks/War Reserves worldwide, Central Asset Visibility (CAV)/Single Stock Fund (SSF) Army-wide implementation, Integrated Sustainment Maintenance initiative, and extension of Automated Time, Attendance and Production System (ATAAPS)/Standard Industrial Fund System (SIFS) Army wide. SIMA-EAST employs 209 organic staff in addition to 37 contractor staff. The organization operates with an annual budget of $20 million. WHY LOCATED AT LETTERKENNY? SIMA East's original mission was to develop the standard automated systems to support depot operations. Letterkenny as a multimission depot was designated to serve as the prototype installation for all the applications developed by SIMA. This user/developer partnership has significantly contributed to the high quality systems fielded by SIMA over the years. The secondary reason for Army decision makers locating SIMA East at Letterkenny was the cost effective means of maintaining currency of hnctional knowledge of the business processes the automated systems are required to support. Because of the close working relationship between designer and end user, SIMA developed systems have automated and integrated business processes in such a way that depot operations have become both efficient and effective. In order to retain the mission effectiveness of both SIMA East and its end user customers, it is essential that SIMA be located at a multimission depot. MISSION IMPACT IF ELIMINATEDIRELOCATED? SIMA East applications are unique within the Army. The applications developed by this organization are absolutely critical to the Army in both peace time and national emergency. The fbnctional business process systems analysts in SIMA East are totally unique within the Army. Many of the automation personnel within the organization also have skills that are unique to the Army. Within SIMA East automation professionals become productive in their first year; however, they do not achieve fbll performance levels for approximately three years. In the case of functional systems analysts, it takes about three years to "grow" a fbnctional analyst to the point they understand their assigned hnctional applications and how their fbnctions interface with other SIMA East applications and interfaces with external business processes/systems. It is the professional opinion of those most familiar with the mission and unique skill of this organization that relocation of SIMA East will cause a total mission failure for a period of three years. *. PLANNED DISPOSITION, IF KNOWN? SIMA East workforce has been told that IOC has been directed to prepare a contingency planning package which will be part of Letterkenny BRAC 95 Implementation plan. That package will reflect a relocation of SIMA East to the Rock Island Arsenal consistent with BRAC 95 milestones. The basis for the move is supposedly the Army's interpretation of BRAC 91 and BRAC 93 law. SIMA East was directed to move to Rock Island in BRAC 91. BRAC 93 law reversed the BRAC 91 decision based on the fact that SIMA East (as a central design organization would transfer to DOD based on DMRD 918). DISA said it made no sense to move SIMA East to Rock Island based on the small amount of resources expended on Industrial Operations Command (Rock Island) business and the organization could better serve its customer base fiom Letterkenny. In 1993 DOD reversed its decision to transfer central design organizations to DOD and the Army is now saying that decision puts SIMA back to the BRAC 91 decision (move to Rock Island) even though the GAO BRAC 91 comments on that proposal said it makes no mission or economic sense to move SIMA. DISA (and the Secretary of Defense) in BRAC 93 .. said based on the customer base of SIMA East they should remain at Letterkenny. Current and future projected workloads for SIMA East confirm it still makes no sense to move SIMA off Letterkenny Army Depot. 4 . ASZP : p O S I T I O N ELI WIN ATED WONT!P AGY U S A AUDIT W2KR20 ACTUSA M EDDEP W459-A TNDE SUP GP #I DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY HEADQUARTERS. UA AW INOWWU oKwnow COMMAND ROCK ISLANO, J L W 812804000 1 9 APR 1995 M@4ORANDUM FOR SEE DIBTRIBUTXON I SUBJECT; Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) 95 Implementation Plan I 1, R e f e ~ n c s BRAC 95 Implamenration PlannSng Guidance Meeting, 15-16 Marah 1095, Raak Imland Areenal, I l l i n o i e . 2, The Pollowing guidance or ig inakly provided at refezenced meeting i m rO8tatsti f o r emphasie. Each los ing U.S. Army Depot ByatGm Command/U.s. Army Wnuuaent, Hunitione and Chemical Comand i n s t a l l a t i o n w i l l prepare i t 8 - reepective BRAC 95 Implementation Plm. he gaining i n s t a l l a t i o n w i l l provide eupport am required. 3, Suboequent guidance from headquartere, U.S. Army Materiel Cornand, ie that an ImpleRhentation Plan w i l l be developed f o r t h e SyetcPmeJ In t eg ra t ion and Mansgun8fit Activity-Eaet (STHA-E) ae a BRAC 93 act ion. The SIMA-E Plan, although a l a s e i f i e d as a BRAC 93 act ion, w i l l follow all the r e q u i r m e n t e mbsociated with B m C 95 and w i l l be prepared by SIMA-E ae an addendum t o t h e LBtterkenny Army Depot (LEAD) Implementation Plan. The LEAD w i l l , am with any other tenant , account for t h e impact on LEAD ba r s operationu cos t s , etc. 4. A l l Implementation Plane w i l l ohow a completion dake of end F Y 97 unlemm otherwiee approved by t h e Commanding General, f ndua t r i a l Operationo Command. 5 . The POC i e M r . Kenneth P. Muehl, AMSHC-AEE, DBN 793-8393, datafax DbN 793-7760. Chief, Performince Evaluation DJSTRIBWION t Comander, Letterkenny Army Depot, ATTNt SDSLE-I (Me. I i a l l i o Bunk), Chunber8burg, PA 17202-4170 dommandez, Red River Army Depot, ATTNt SDSRR-B (Mr. B&bby Notley) , lexatkana, - - TX 75507-5000 (ItnUn~der. S i e r r a Army Depot, ATTN: ~~681-CO (COL Donald D. Whitf ie ld I x ) , ~ e r l o n ~ ; CA 96113-i000- - Commandet, Seneca Army Depot, ATTNt GDSTO-BECO (Mr. Anthony J. Carnevalo), 5706 state Route 96, Romulue, NY 14541-5001 @nmandey, Bavanna Army Depot ~ c r i v i t y , ATTN: BDBLE-V-CO (MAJ James Sink) , SavannL, I L 61074-9636 Director , Syeteme In t eg ra t ion and Management Activity-Eaet (Mr. ~ i m Hafer), Chambermburg, PA 17201-4180 d~ a Commandey, Anniston Anny Depot, ATTN: SDSAN-DM-PPB (Mr. Paul Iiarper), 7 F r p n k f o r d hvenuo, Anniston, AL 36101-4199 qommander, Tobyhanna Army Depot, ATTN: SD8TO-PE ( M r . Robert Haao), 11 H a p Arnokd Boulevard, Tobyhanna, PA 10466-6000 Commander, Lone S t a r Army Amunition P lan t , ATTN: SXCLS-CO (LTC Patrick Dunkla), Texarkana, TX 75505-9101 bmander, McAleoter Army Ammunition Plant , ATTNs SMCMC-BMD (Mr. Carol Cook), * McAleeter, OK 74501-5000 dcmuMn4er, U-So Army Armament, Hunitione and Chemical Command, ATTN: AMSHC-~EE/HR/EQ, Rook Xeland, I L 61299-6000 Document Sepal-ator DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY HEADQUARTERS. US. ARMY MAERIEL COMMAND 5001 ElSENHOWER AVENUE, ALEXANDRIA, YA 21333 - 0001 To . m O F AMCSO 21 March 1995 MEMORANDUM FOR SEE DISTRIBUTION SUBJECT: BRAC 95 Implementation Planning Guidance - Discretionary Moves 1 - Reference : a. Memorandum, AMCSO, s Mar 9 5 , BRAC 95 Implementation Planning Guidance. b. Memorandum, AMCSO, 10 Mar 95, BRAC 95 Implementation Planning Guidance. 2. The two memorandums and their attachments laid out the requirements relating to discretionary moves for "tenantw actiyities on AMC installations proposed for closure o r realignment. 3. The purpose of this memorandum i s to lay out two short term Suspense5 far discretionary moves. I . At enclosure 1 is a data extract of tenant activities on our closing/renligning bases so r t ed by t h e parent activity responsible for the tenant. Data includes the AMC closing/reali ning site, the name of the tenant activity, t h e 2 UIC of +&e a c ~ i v i r y , t h e recommendation for the tenant activity as conteined. in the DOD deta provided to t h e R R k C Commissicn, znd the s t r e n g t h f iq~res l o r the tenant zctiviTlV. The recommendation pertaining to the tenant activity contained in-the DOD proposal to the BRAC Commission is in the the "gain/elimff column of the ex t rac t and can be one of three i t e m s : /' a. A speci f ic site the activity will be realigned to. b. The fact *&at the activity has been eliminated. c. Base X. A "holdingw nomenclature for purposes of the BRAC proposal. This means the activity w 5 . 1 1 realign, but its destination has not y e t been determined. 5. This suspense is t w o fold: a. 114! CCB B Mar 95 responsible agencies need to provide US with the desired locations for those activities currently deslynated t o realign t o Base X. This may be done AMCSO SUBJECT: BRAC 95 Implementation planning ~uidance - Discretionary Moves telephonically to meet the short term suspense, but must be followed up i n wri t ing. b. Bv COB 13 Apr 9 5 , fo r each of the act iv i t ies designated to relocate to Base X, provide the data at paras 1, 3 , -. 5 and 8 of enclosure 2. 6 . The point of contact f o r this action is M r . Paul Mui, DSN 284-8157, datafax (703) 274-3779. 7 . AMC -- America's Arsenal far the Brave. C . SANDUSICY DISTRIBUTION: COL Gipson (DCSPER) Mr. A1 Wilson (roc) Mr. Perry Trol l inger (TMDE) Mr. Mike Early (TECOM) LT John McKone ( D I X ) AhA AWES CIC DEF CON AGY DFAS DISk FORSCOM USAREC CF: Ms. Joan Horton (LOGSA) M r . Tom Smith (ATCOM) - Mr. Frank Cuifio (CECOM) M r - Gary R e a s (MICOM) + ~r . Bud O'Mara (SIMA) ' MEDCOM (MAJ Ileeies) H m I B L E m = M + am . MBCY~~SA WDIT LETTaJQ)blY tE€m USA ALlDIT +t 5ubtotal +t . . . . ... -.. . . . - .. . . . . ... .-. ., . H P E s f w I B L E m = I Y Y E 5 4 SIEM RD &YES ED RIVER WWY DEWT ~ I u x WE * Sllbtotal w HlEzuNsIBLEAGENCY=MDCGPER I M ) R I Y E R A l W Y m J T R ENGIIEERIFIG & WbeAR mi LOGISTIC fED RIVER CIRWY~DEWT DET IXI CIV TRRINING ENtCATIOY WW!B LD€ STm Rm RIKR IIRI(Y DWIT INTUN 'TRCIINIEIG CTR 191llP UHE STm +t Subtotal +, I * ~ I B L E ~ = a m M FRIE CTRWPERSW~ MIA ~ I H n Subtotal n n lifsmsIBLE m = c m REDRIMRAIWYDPUT W EM1 L 5 i m m u f Y mnwn *4 Subtotal tt r + m r u m = c I c -it; F M I R I K R ~ D E W T us? CIIK: m arn 9 L F R I E FlEliIDNRL sm m CIK lLJUm M X [11 PRIE IW bTH W CIIX: W 4 9 BASE 1 +t Subtotal rct r+ Subtotal * r' . - * R E 5 W ) 6 1 u m V = # p 9 : + . : :'"'.-. . , LImmaaY .- LTR DFRS lzED RIVER AWlY C P U T Fffi mCI AD Fhs SIERftil AD DFffi ILWAY PROVlffi 6R#U) DFRS * Subtotal t, H ~ S P O H S I B L E ~ = D I S A 4 LEtTERKaePl W PRIUIK SERVICE D(sWY PWWIN6 6ROIW DEF PRINTIIIG I83 RIVER NW DEPOT DEF PRINTIW WIE LmERKPOJY DmKSEmm +* Wtatal r i + r R E S W N S r s l E m = W I * LEnwmw MW RED RIVER W DEWT EELlSFLOEFMPTfUCY aa&&m m sa€%II w rim m R I m ~ m m m m m ff %total +r !mM2 ELM WIBFo3 asn !RUOI BAS1 !mi R%cX !mm , aru !EOI arn !MCM ELIK H m 1 B L E = w AECRUITING CarrrW~lLD' * SELFRIDGE was AC IRRINIK in MY WW12 BCISE I cn PRICE I m M1: ST LWIS YlQROO BR6EX DECA AD 6RlW RC T R K 1ST PIWY wrPB17 * Subtotal ++ HQ AMC MCSO .._ _. APPENDIXm,2 (PROPOSED DISCmTIONARY LOCATION MOVE ANALYSIS FORMAT) to MWFX J (DISC-TIONARY-LtOCATION MOVE GUIDANCE) to HQDA BRAC 95 IMPLEMENTATION GUIDANCE PROPOSED DISCRETIONARY LOCATION MOVE ANALYSIS FORMAT (Fer proposed realignment of an aa t i v i t y to a gafning iastalLation not specified by We ERAC colamission) *I. Pranased Act.a. Relocation of (specific activity) to (gaining installation). 2. Bationale f o r Ta. kina the ~ction (this 'is the same for all act iv i t ies ) . under the provisions of the Defense Base Closure and Realignment Act of 1990, public L a w 101-510, the Secretary of Defense submitted a list of installations recommended for closure or realignment to the Defense Base Closure and Realigxnent Commission in Feb 95. Included in that lisc was the recommended closure of (specified installation). As a result of the closure of the installation, the (specific activity) will be relocated to (proposed gaining installation). The closure of (specified installation) is mandated by public L a w 101-510 unless rejected by the C o m m j . s s i o n , the President, or the Congress. " 3 . S t a t i o n h a Criteria. Identify attributes which define site selection of reasonable alternatives; i.e., acreage, geo/demograpnic constraints, affiliations, etc. The critetie ._. will include required attributes for mission reguirernents such as location, availability of physical or synergistic activities, cost. and other unique items. 4 . -2lvsis of ~lterna+Tves. D e s c r i b e the alternatives studied m d w n y the proposed ac t i on is the preferred action. Include the following: a. No action. f his alternative is unacceptable because a1 the mandated closure of the current location. b. Inactivate the unit/disestablish the activity. Discuss why this alternative is not desirizble. c . Reasonable alternative gaining installatiuns. (assess stationing criteria against all alternatives). 5 . strateaic and oneratma1 Imlications. If the action would result in major impacts on cuxrent: strategy, contingency plans, or other operational considerations, describc the impacts succinctly. Do not include classified information. 6 . &ated Map~ower T m ~ a c t s . Describe the overall change in manpower for the activity or unit and for the Losing and gaining installations (i.e., support manpower). ~nclude positions transferred and eliminated. . . .._- IT-2-1 , APPENDIX 2 (PROPOSED DISCRETIOUARY LOCATION MOVE ~EIN;YSIS FORMAT) to ANNEX J (DISCRETIONARY-LOCATION MOVE CEIDANCE) to HQDA BRAC 9 5 IMPLKECNTATION GUIDANCE 7. &i&icipated ~ostslSavinns. Describe estimated one-time and steady state net annual recurring savings and c o s t s . * 8 . FaciliCi~s ~ecnlirenents. Describe w h a t f a c i l i t i e s w i l l have t o be constructed, converted, renovated, or leased in order to implement the action. Identify specific projects , by f i g c n l year, which mumr be constructed t o implement the action or which will be canceled as a result of the ac t ion . 9. -+cts - ~ r i e f ly describe the envirorrulental impacts of the action- The NEPA action plan f o r the proposed gaining installation will address the cumulative impacts of relocation; therefore, do n n t address in this proposal the type ' of environmental documentation which will need to be prepared. 10, P o t e n t i ~ l Problemq. Identify any potential problems, such as local opposi?.j.on or socioecon~mic concerns, which may be encountered if the action is implemented. 11. Milestones. Show projected milestones f o r the i n i t i a k i o n and completion of significant events. REPLY TO ATrENnON OF AMXLS-H DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY ll8INC LOGISTICS SUPPORT A C T M N REO6TONE AR6ENAL. M 35090.71bC MEXORANDUM FOR MR. DARRELL ?OWELL, CHIEF, BASE REALIGNMENT AND CLOSURE (BRAC) OFFICE, SPECIAL ANALYSIS OFFICE, U.S. ARMY MATERIEL COMMAND, 5001 EISENHOWER AVENUE, ALEXANDRIA, VA . 22333-0001 SWJECT: BRAC 95 - ~ealignment of Letterkenny m y Depot 1. Under BRAC 95, tenants of Letterkenny Army Depot are to be realigned, The Major Item Information Center (MIIC), UIC W43T03, a derivative unit of the Logistics Support Activity (LOGSA), is currently a tenant at Letterkenny Army Depot. LOGSAfs primary location is Redstone Arsenal, AL. Rcquest tha t the M I I C b e considered for inclusion in the planned realignment, and transferred to Redstone Arsenal, AL. 2. Transferring the MIIC to Redstone Arsenal would result in savings of at least $ 1 ~ a n n u a l l y ; the amount t h e MIIC currently pays to Letterkenny m y Depot for base operations support. Additional savings would accrue because the MIIC would reduce trave l spending as it would be co-located with its parent unit. The MIIC has three officers, 13 enlisted, and 129 civilians on-board. 3. 1 believe including the MIIC in the Letterkenny A m y Depot realignment and re locat ing it to Redstone Arsenal is most-advantageous to t he overall. Agaiz, request consideration to include the MIIC in the L e t t e r k e m ~ Realignment. \ Executive Director Logistics Support Activity Document Separator .Army's Only Source For Major Item Information Specialized Knowledge and Skills -- Not Found Elsewhere THREE UNIQUE MISSIONS 12000 + UNITS SUPPORTED SOLE SOURCE FOR \!MAJOR ITEM INFORMATION, MIIC SUPPORT IS VITAL TO THE ARMY LEADERSHIP ! "... the primary information tool used to determine available assets to support contingency operations " "used by the A RSTA F to determine redistribution priorities " "used during recent de~loyment to Somalia, Rwanda, and Haiti to - determine available assets" "heavily used during Desert Storm to analyze equipment support requirements" "used by the A RSTA F to justify budget submissions and defend. ..to Congress" D. ##*TRAMST VBlBILflY REPLACEMENT OF COMBAT LOSSES D LEVEL OF EQUlPMENf READINESS IDENTIFlCATmN OF CRITICAL ffEM SHORTAGES UR RO! F... INFORMATION & AUTOMATION SUPPORT TO: JOINT STAFF; OTHER SERVICES EUROPEAN UNIFIED COMMAND FIFTY THREE OTHER COUNTRIES UR SKILLS... TREATYEXPERTISE DATA MANAGEMENT THE REAL COST == IMPACT ON READ CHART 1 GOOD AFTERNOON. MY BRIEFING ADDRESSES THE MAJOR ITEM INFORMATION CENTER, ALSO A TENANT AT LETTERKENNY ARMY DEPOT. THE MllC (AS WE REFER TO OUR ORGANIZATION) WAS NOT ADDRESSED IN THE ARMY'S BRAC 95 SUBMISSION. NOT ONLY WERE THE DOLLARS OMITTED FROM THE IMPACT. BUT THE MISSION WAS NOT ADDRESSED. MY PURPOSE IN BRIEFING YOU TODAY IS TO MAKE YOU AWARE OF THlS CRITICAL MISSION AREA AND TO SUGGEST THAT ANY CONCLUSION ON DOWNSIZING OF LETTERKENNY SHOULD BE MADE ONLY AFTER THERE IS A CLEAR UNDERSTANDING AND CAREFUL CONSIDERATION IS GIVEN TO THE IMPACT THAT THIS WOULD HAVE ON THE MISSION OF THE MAJOR ITEM INFORMATION CENTER. AND MORE IMPORTANTLY, THE ARMY AND THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE. IN THE CHARTS THAT FOLLOW. I WILL EMPHASIZE THREE MAJOR POINTS: 1. THE MISSION IS EXTREMELY CRITICAL TO THE ARMY AND TO DOD. BOTH IN PEACETIME AND DURING CONTINGENCY OPERATIONS - SO CRITICAL THAT THE ARMY LITERALLY CANNOT EFFECTIVELY FUNCTION WITHOUT IT. 2. THAT THE MISSION IS UNIQUE; WE ARE ONE OF A KIND - THE ONLY ORGANIZATION IN THE ARMY (PERHAPS DOD), THAT DO WHAT WE DO. AS SUCH, WE HAVE A HIGHLY SPECIALIZED SKILL BASE. 3. IF A PHYSICAL MOVE OCCURS, MOST OF THAT SKILL BASE WOULD BE LOST, AND MISSION FAILURE WOULD RESULT FOR A SIGNIFICANT PERIOD OF TIME. AS IMPLIED IN OUR NAME. THE PRIMARY MISSION OF OUR ORGANIZATION IS MAJOR ITEM INFORMATION. WHEN WE TALK ABOUT MAJOR ITEMS. WE REFER TO THOSE THINGS THAT MOVE. SHOOT, OR COMMUNICATE; I.E., TANKS. HELICOPTERS, MISSILE SYSTEMS. RADIOS, ETC. THE ARMY CURRENTLY HAS IN ITS INVENTORY ABOUT 11.000 DIFFERENT TYPES OF MAJOR ITEMS WITH AT TOTAL DOLLAR VALUE OF APPROXIMATELY $113 BILLION. *Army's Only Source For Major Item Information *Specialized Knowledge and Skills -- Not Found Elsewhere 2 WlsW - mACzm4 CHART 2 THIS CHART TALKS TO WHO WE ARE AT THE MIIC. WHY WE ARE LOCATED AT LETTERKENNY, WHO WE SERVE, AND SOME STATISTICAL INFORMATION ON OUR WORKFORCE. FIRST, OUR HISTORY: WE'VE BEEN AT LETTERKENNY FOR 40 YEARS. DURING THAT TIME, OUR NAME AND ORGANIZATIONAL ALIGNMENT HAS CHANGED SEVERAL TIMES, BUT THE PRIMARY MISSION HAS REMAINED THE SAME - MAJOR ITEM INFORMATION. OUR LOCATION AT LETTERKENNY IS NOT AN ACCIDENT. THE CLOSE PROXIMITY TO OUR PROPONENTS IN THE PENTAGON ALLOWS FOR QUICK ACCESS AND CONTINUOUS INTERACTION WlTH ARMY STAFF AND OSD PERSONNEL. WHO WE WORK WlTH ON A DAILY BASIS AND WlTH WHOM WE WE MEET FREQUENTLY. WE CAN BE AT A MEETING IN THE PENTAGON IN LESS THAN 2 HOURS. IF NEED BE. (OVER THE YEARS, RARELY HAS A WEEK GONE BY WITHOUT A NEED TO MEET WlTH OUR PROPONENTS IN THE PENTAGON). OUR CUSTOMERS: WE HAVE A DIRECT RELATIONSHIP WlTH EVERY POST, CAMP, AND STATION IN THE ARMY. AS YOU WILL SEE ON A LATER CHART. WE RECEIVE DATA FROM VIRTUALLY EVERY ARMY UNIT. AND AT THE SAME TIME. WE PROVIDE INFORMATION BACK TO THOSE UNITS AND THEIR COMMAND ELEMENTS FROM BRIGADE LEVEL TO THE PENTAGON. LASTLY, BUT MOST IMPORTANTLY, OUR WORKFORCE. AS I INDICATED EARLIER, IT IS A HIGHLY SPECIALIZED ONE. IT IS ALSO A SUCCESSFUL INTEGRATION OF CIVILIAN. MILITARY, AND CONTRACTOR PERSONNEL THREE UNIQUE MISSIONS CHART 3 THlS CHART IDENTIFIES THE THREE MOST SIGNIFICANT MISSION AREAS FOR MIIC. THE FIRST IS THE MAJOR ITEM MISSION. AT MIIC, MAJOR ITEM INFORMATION IS DEVELOPED AND PROCESSED FOR USE THROUGHOUT THE ARMY. THE ARMY RELIES EXCLUSIVELY ON MllC FOR THlS INFORMATION. AND AS YOU WlLL SEE IN THE CHARTS THAT FOLLOW, THlS INFORMATION IS USED FOR EVERYTHING FROM UNIT READINESS ANALYSIS, TO FORCE DEVELOPMENT, TO BUDGET PROJECTIONS. TO ACTUAL MOBILIZATION AND DEPLOYMENT. OUT NEXT TWO MISSIONS ARE TRUE 'PURPLE SUIT' MISSIONS, I.E., THEY SUPPORT ALL OF DOD, NOT JUST THE ARMY. MllC IS THE DEVELOPER AND OPERATOR OF THE ARMY'S TOTAL ASSET VISIBILITY (TAV) SYSTEM. AS THE NAME SUGGESTS, TAV GOES BEYOND MAJOR ITEMS, PROVIDING VISIBILITY OF ALL CLASSES OF SUPPLY (REPAIR PARTS, AMMUNITION, FUEL. CLOTHING, ETC). THE THIRD MISSION AREA INVOLVES CRITICAL SUPPORT TO THE INTERNATIONAL ARMS CONTROL COMMUNITY, TO INCLUDE SPECIALIZED SUPPORT ON TREATY COMPLIANCE. IN THE CHARTS THAT FOLLOW, I WlLL PROVIDE MORE SPECIFICS ON THESE THREE MISSION AREAS. 120W + UNITS SUPPORTED SOLE SOURCE FOR \I ( MAJOR ITEM INFORMATION ) CHART 4 THlS CHART SUMMARIZES MIIC'S MAJOR ITEM MISSION. THE ARMY MANAGES MAJOR ITEMS DIFFERENTLY FROM THE WAY IT MANAGES ITS SPARE PARTS OR AMMUNITION. UNLIKE SPARE PARTS WHICH ARE MANAGED CENTRALLY, THE MAJOR ITEM PROCESSES ARE DECENTRALIZED TO NUMEROUS AGENCIES THROUGHOUT THE ARMY (I.E., FORCE DEVELOPMENT, REQUIREMENTS DETERMINATION, ACQUISITION. ETC). ONLY AT THE MllC ARE THESE PROCESSES BROUGHT TOGETHER, COMBINED WITH MIIC COMPILED ASSET DATA AND THEN INTEGRATED TO REPRESENT A TOTAL MAJOR ITEM PICTURE. AND, IT IS SAFE TO SAY. THAT THE PROCESSES AND SYSTEMS THAT WE TIE INTO ARE NOT WELL INTEGRATED. CONSEQUENTLY, THE MllC INTEGRATION EFFORT IS MUCH MORE THAN AN AUTOMATION PROCESS. THE SPECIALIZED SKILLS I ALLUDE TO INVOLVE BOTH A WORKING KNOWLEDGE OF THE VARIOUS BUSINESS PROCESSES AND A DETAILED KNOWLEDGE OF THE NUMEROUS AUTOMATION SYSTEMS THROUGHOUT THE ARMY. AS THE CHART ILLUSTRATES. RAW DATA IS GATHERED FROM THE PENTAGON AND FROM EVERY POST, CAMP, AND STATION IN THE ARMY. THlS DATA IS INTEGRATED. MODELED FOR PROJECTION PURPOSES, AND MADE AVAILABLE T O MORE THAN 12.000 USERS THROUGHOUT THE ARMY. THESE USERS INCLUDE DECISION MAKERS AT THE PENTAGON. NATIONAL MANAGERS IN WHAT WE CONSIDER THE WHOLESALE ARMY, MAJOR COMMANDS, CORPS. DIVISIONS. SEPARATE BRIGADES. AND ON DOWN TO THE INDIVIDUAL UNITS. HOW THlS INFORMATION IS USED IS FURTHER ADDRESSED ON THE NEXT CHART. THE S ONLY SOURCE CHART 5 THlS MAJOR ITEM INFORMATION IS USED BY BOTH THE PENTAGON AND THE FIELD ARMY IN SUPPORT OF CRITICAL PLANNING AND DAILY EXECUTION PROCESSES. USERS ACROSS THE ARMY WOULD GIVE TESTIMONY TO ITS CRITICALITY TO THEIR MISSION. YOU SEE. IN THE ARMY, MOST PROCESSES ARE DRIVEN BY THlS INFORMATION - THE CURRENT OR PROJECTED PROFILE OF MAJOR ITEMS. NOTE THAT ON BOTH SIDES OF THE CHART, SUPPORT TO CONTINGENCY OPERATIONS IS IDENTIFIED. I'LL SAY MORE ON CONTINGENCY SUPPORT LATER IN THE BRIEFING. AT THlS TIME. I WILL JUST POINT OUT THAT THlS INFORMATION HAS PROVEN VITAL TO THOSE OPERATIONS; VITAL TO BOTH THE PENTAGON PLANNERS AS WELL AS TO DEPLOYING COMMANDS. ALSO NOTE THlS INFORMATION SUPPORTS CRITICAL READINESS AND BUDGET PROCESSES. FUNCTIONS TIED TO DOWNSIZING. SUCH AS FORCE VALIDATION AND REDISTRIBUTION RELY HEAVILY ON MIIC'S MAJOR ITEM INFORMATION. A KEY POINT - MllC IS THE ONLY ORGANIZATION IN THE ARMY PERFORMING THIS MISSION AND HAS THE CONCENTRATION OF EXPERTISE IN MAJOR ITEMS. AN ORGANIZATION MOVE WOULD RESULT IN THE LOSS OF A GOOD PORTION OF THlS EXPERTISE. THlS WOULD CRIPPLE THE MISSION FOR A SIGNIFICANT PERIOD OF TIME. MIIC SUPPORT IS VITAL TO THE ARMY LEADERSHIP ! "...the primary information tool used to determine available assets to support contingency operations " "used by the A RSTA F to determine redistribution priorities " "used during recent deployment to Somalia, Rwanda, and Haiti to - dettkmine available assets " "heavily used during Desert Storm to analyze equipment support requirements" "used by the ARSTA F to justify budget submissions and defend. ..to Congress" CHART 6 THESE STATEMENTS WERE EXTRACTED FROM A DOCUMENT PRODUCED FROM THE OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY CHIEF OF STAFF FOR LOGISTICS ON THE ARMY STAFF. THEY SPEAK TO THE VALUE OF MIIC'S MAJOR ITEM MISSION IN THE EYES OF THOSE THAT UNDERSTAND IT AND USE IT ON A DAILY BASIS. -- of E V ~ ~ ~ T H I N G THE ARMY owNS IN STORAGE 0 Se800 CHART 7 THE SECOND MAJOR MISSION IS TOTAL ASSET VISIBILITY. BECAUSE OF OUR ROLE IN THE ASSET VISIBILITY OF MAJOR ITEMS, IN 1990. WE WERE TASKED TO EXPAND THAT ROLE TO INCLUDE ALL OTHER CLASSES OF SUPPLY (INCLUDING AMMUNITION, REPAIR PARTS, FUEL, CLOTHING. FOOD, ETC). THE TASKING WAS THE RESULT OF THE DEFENSE MANAGEMENT REVIEWS CONDUCTED DURING THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION AND THE RESULTING INVENTORY REDUCTION DIRECTIVES. IT IS DIFFICULT TO REDUCE YOUR INVENTORY UNLESS YOU KNOW HOW BIG IT IS. THlS WAS THE IMPETUS FOR THE TOTAL ASSET VISIBILITY PROGRAM. TAV DOES INDEED NOW TRACK ALL CLASSES OF SUPPLY, WHETHER THEY ARE IN USE, IN STORAGE, IN PROCESS, OR IN TRANSIT. IN A SHORT PERIOD OF TIME. ARMY TAV HAS GROWN TO THE POINT THAT IT IS NOW USED BY THE OTHER SERVICES WITH MORE THAN 4.000 USERS AMONG ALL THE SERVICES AND DLA. IT TRULY IS AN INTERSERVICING SUCCESS STORY. OTHER SERVICES DEPEND ON TAV FOR VISIBILITY OF COMMONLY USED ITEMS MANAGED BY THE ARMY AND DLA. AN EXAMPLE OF HOW TAV IS USED CAN BE SEEN RIGHT AT LETTERKENNY ARMY DEPOT, WHERE PM PALADIN USES TAV TO LOCATE CRITICAL PARTS (BE THEY ARMY OR DLA MANAGED) TO PRECLUDE LINE STOPPAGE ON THE MI09 CONVERSION LINE. LACK OF ONE PART CAN SHUT DOWN THE ENTIRE LINE AT THE COST OF $300,00OIDAY. TAV HAS ALSO PLAYED A MAJOR ROLE IN SUPPORT OF CONTINGENCY OPERATIONS. A LOOK AT THE RECENT HAITI OPERATION ILLUSTRATES THlS POINT. DURING OPERATION UPHOLD DEMOCRACY. WE SUCCESSFULLY INCORPORATED THE USE OF RADIO FREQUENCY TRACKING DEVICES TO TRACK HIGH PRIORITY MATERIAL MOVING FROM THE UNITED STATES TO U.S. FORCES IN HAITI. THlS WAS ACCOMPLISHED WlTH LESS THAN A MONTH'S NOTICE AND WAS AN ENORMOUS SUCCESS. PLANS ARE NOW UNDERWAY TO EXTEND THlS TECHNOLOGY TO ALL CONTINGENCIES AND TO PEACETIME USE AS WELL. A KEY POINT - MllC IS THE ONLY ORGANIZATION THAT HAS VISIBILITY OF ALL ARMY OWNED EQUIPMENT. C> LEVEL OF EQUIPMENT READINESS CHART 8 THAT VISIBILITY IS ESPECIALLY CRITICAL IN TIME OF CONTINGENCY OPERATIONS. THlS CHART SUMMARIZES MIIC'S SUPPORT TO RECENT CONTINGENCIES IN BOTH THE MAJOR ITEMS AND TAV MISSION AREAS. IN ADDITION TO PROVIDING CRITICAL INFORMATION USED BY THE ARMY LEADERSHIP, MllC HAS BEEN CALLED UPON TO ACTUALLY DEPLOY CIVILIAN AND MILITARY PERSONNEL. WE DID SO IN ODS, OPERATION VIGILANT WARRIOR IN SWA, AND UPHOLD DEMOCRACY IN HAITI. OUR ROLE IN THESE DEPLOYMENTS WAS TO ASSIST DEPLOYING FORCES IN ESTABLISHING AN INFRASTRUCTURE THAT WOULD ALLOW FOR ACCOUNTABILITY AND VISIBILITY OF EQUIPMENT. THlS VISIBILITY IS, OF COURSE, CRITICAL TO COMBAT READINESS AND PREPARES FOR REPLACEMENT OF COMBAT LOSSES. OUR ROI Em.. INFORMATION & AUTOMATION SUPPORT TO: JOINT STAFF; OTHER SERVICES EUROPEAN UNIFIED COMMAND FIFTY THREE OTHER COUNTRIES TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE AT ANNUAL EXCHANGES UR SKILLS... TREATY EXPERTISE DATA MANAGEMENT 9 w1m - ma..* CHART 9 THE THIRD MISSION WAS ALSO A NATURAL OUTGROWH OF OUR MAJOR ITEM ASSET TRACKING AND VISIBILITY MISSION. IT IS ALSO ANOTHER INTERSERVICING SUCCESS STORY. AS THE CONVENTIONAL FORCES EUROPE (CFE) ARMS REDUCTION TREATY WAS BEING NEGOTIATED, THE DOD RECOGNIZED THAT WE WOULD NEED A MECHANISM TO MANAGE THE INFORMATION AND TRACK EQUIPMENT COVERED BY THE TREATY. CONSISTENT WlTH OUR EXISTING MISSION OF MANAGING AND TRACKING MAJOR ITEMS, WE WERE THE LOGICAL CHOICE AND WERE TASKED TO SUPPORT THE CFE TREATY. AS YOU CAN SEE ON THE CHART. THAT REQUIREMENT HAS CONTINUED TO GROW TO ACCOMMODATE OTHER ARMS CONTROL AGREEMENTS. MIIC'S ROLE IN THlS MISSION IS ONE OF INFORMATION MANAGEMENT AND TECHNICAL SUPPORT. IN ADDITION TO HAVING THE INSTITUTIONAL EXPERTISE IN MAJOR ITEMS, WE HAVE DEVELOPED EXPERTISE IN ARMS CONTROL AND IN THE TREATIES THEMSELVES, AND USE THAT EXPERTISE IN PROVIDING TECHNICAL SUPPORT TO ALL SERVICES. NATO, AND 53 COUNTRIES. WE ALSO WORK WlTH THE STATE DEPARTMENT TO ENSURE THAT OUR INFORMATION AND SYSTEMS SERVICES ARE CONSISTENT WlTH TREATY COMPLIANCE REQUIREMENTS. WE PARTICIPATE IN TREATY DICTATED ANNUAL INFORMATION EXCHANGES IN VIENNA AND HAVE DEVELOPED SYSTEMS THAT ARE USED TO SUPPORT EACH COUNTRY IN THAT EXCHANGE. AGAIN, A KEY POINT - WE ARE THE ONLY DOD ACTIVITY PERFORMING THlS CRITICAL MISSION. IF THlS ORGANIZATION IS MOVED. MANY OF THESE SKILLS AND INSTITUTIONAL KNOWLEDGE WOULD BE LOST, AND OUR ABILITY TO ENSURE COMPLIANCE WlTH THESE TREATIES WOULD BE PLACED AT RISK. THE REAL COST == IMPACT ON REA CHART 10 THE FIRST BRIEFER MADE THE POINT THAT MOVING AND RETRAINING THE TENANTS (TO INCLUDE MIIC) IS AN EXPENSIVE PROPOSITION. SUCH A MOVE COULD BE EVEN MORE EXPENSIVE FROM A MISSION STANDPOINT. IF THE ARMY'S BRAC 95 RECOMMENDATION TO DOWNSIZE LETTERKENNY IS UPHELD BY THE COMMISSION, THERE IS NO DOUBT THAT MIIC WlLL BE MOVED. IN FACT, AMC HAS RECOMMENDED THAT MllC SHOULD MOVE TO HUNTSVILLE, AL AS A DISCRETIONARY MOVE. IF THAT OCCURS, IT IS IMPORTANT FOR THE COMMISSION TO UNDERSTAND THE SEVERE IMPACT THAT THE FAILURE OF MIIC'S MISSION WlLL HAVE ON DOD. ON THE OTHER HAND. IF THE COMMISSION DECIDES AGAINST THE DOWNSIZING OF LETTERKENNY, THEN IT ABSOLUTELY MAKES NO SENSE TO MOVE THE MllC ANYWHERE. WE KNOW YOU HAVE MUCH TO CONSIDER REGARDING LETTERKENNY. BUT TO PRECLUDE UNNECESSARY EXPENSE TO THE TAXPAYER, AND EQUALLY UNNECESSARY FAILURE TO A CRITICAL DOD MISSION, WE ASK, IN ADDITION TO ALL THE OTHER FACTS BEARING ON THE LETTERKENNY SITUATION. THAT YOU ALSO TAKE INTO CONSIDERATION THIS TENANT AND ITS MISSION WHEN MAKING THE FINAL DECISION REGARDING THE DISPOSITION OF LETTERKENNY ARMY DEPOT. Document Separator BRAC 95 ... THE RIGHT DECISION LETTERKENNY TENANTS - SIMA EAST - T H F W T N N F R S - - - NATTONAT. D E F E N S E ANT) T H E T A X PAYER WHO IS SIMA EAST? SIMA EAST IS ..... A FEE-FOR-SERVICE CENTRAL DESIGN ACTIVITY (CDA) WHICH PERFORMS COMPUTER SYSTEM DESIGN AND MAINTENANCE OF LOGISTICS AN FINANCIAL SYSTEMS. 209 ORGANIC & 37 CONTRACTOR STAFF ISCAL YEAR BRAC 91 DIRECTED SIMA EAST MOVE TO ROCK ISLAND SIMA EAST OP CON'D TO DISA UNDER DMRD 918 BRAC 93 REVERSED BRAC 91 BASED ON FACT SIMA EAST AS A CDA WOULD TRANSFER TO DISA UNDER DMRD 918 DOD REVERSED DECISION TO TRANSFER CDA'S TO DISA ARMY'S POSITION IS - DOD'S REVERSAL ON CDA'S TO DISA PUTS SIMA EAST BACK INTO BRAC 93 LAW AND IS TO MOVE TO ROCK ISLAND. WHY SIMA EAST LOCATED AT LETTERKENNY BACKGROUND THE THIRTY PROTOTYPE SITE PARTNERSHIP ... FOR BRAC 93 PROCESS NO JUSTIFICATION FOR ALIGNING SIMA EAST TO ROCK ISLAND ARSENAL LESS THAN 25% OF WORK PERFORMED BY SIMA EAST IS ASSOCIATED WITH INDUSTRIAL OPERATING COMMAND AT ROCK ISLAND ARSENAL DOD & BRAC COMMISSION BRAC 93 POSITION SIMA EAST MOVE 760 ROCK ISLAND MAKES NO SENSE ... " LESS THAN 25 F WORK ... IOC" FY96 CUSTOMER REQUIREMENTS WHO WORKLOADS & FUNDS SIMA EAST SIMA EAST... DIRECT LABOR BY CUSTOMER ANALYSIS - OTHER CORPORATE INFORMATION DPAS ... SIMA EAST'S SUPPORT TO DOD CIM MIGRATORY SYSTEM DEFENSE PROPERTY ACCOUN - DOD STANDARD "TRULY PURP DEPLOYMENT PHASE INTENT OF - ELIMINATE SERVICE UNIQUE SYSTEMS - HUGE SAVINGS THRU STANDARDIZATION DPAS PROJECT MANAGE FRANK EGAN, SKILLS AND MISSION FA GUIDANCE ON IMPLEME DFAS ... SIMA EAST TO FINANCIAL CIM MIGRATORY SYSTEMS w DEFENSE FINANCIAL ACCOUNTING SYSTEMS - STANDARDIZE SIFS AND ATAAPS SYSTEMS - ELIMINATE UNIQUE SYSTEMS - HUGE SAVING THRU STANDA BOBBY DERRIC STANDARDIZATION PR CG IOC SAYS,,,,,,,, a "I DO NOT SUPPORT A MOVE TO ROCK ISLAND ARSENAL FOR SIMA." HOWEVER IF DIRECTED TO DO SO, HE WILL SUPPORT DOD DECISION AND RELOCATE SIMA EAST ON FAST AMC AUTOMATION ASSESSMENT JUNE 1992 " SOFTWARE EXPERTISE WILL BE LOST AND OPERATIONAL EFFECTIVENESS DISRUPTEDN. READINESS SUPPORT... SDS SUPPORT OF PREPOSITIONED STRATEGIC STOCKS CG A1\13C, "SDS CRITICAL TO FUTUREPOWER 0 LEGHORN DEPOT CHARIXSTON CHARLESTON WORKLOAD S DECISION ... FOR RELOCATION OF SIMA EAST ANNISTON ARMY DEPOT E N D USER OF ALL SYSTEM APPLICATIONS (MAINT & AMMO) PROTOTYPE CAPABILITY Page 1 SIMA EAST IS ..... A FEE-FOR-SERVICE CENTRAL DESIGN ACTIVITY (CDA) WHICH PERFORMS COMPU SYSTEM DESIGN AND MAINTENANCE OF LOGISTICS FLNANCIAL SYSTEMS. 209 ORGANIC & 37 CONTRACTOR STAFF SIMA East is a FEE-FOR-SERVICE Central Design Activity (CDA) which performs computer design and maintenance of Logistics and Financial Systems. As a FEE-FOR-SERVICE organization, all revenues are generated through reimbursable orders. SIMA East has been fully reimbursable since FY94. In short, SIMA East's services are sold on a per hour basis. SIMA East is included in PBD 433 which transitions CDA's of all services to the Information Services Business Area under Defense Business Operations Fund (DBOF). Page 2 RAC 91 DIRECTED SIMA EAST MOVE TO ROCK ISLAND SIMA EAST OP CON'D TO DISA UNDER DMRD 918 BRAC 93 REVERSED BRAC 91 BASED ON P A m SIMA EAST AS A CDA WOULD TRANSFER TO DISA UNDER DMRD 918 DOD REVERSED DECISION TO TRANSFER CDA'S TO DISA ARMY'S POSITION IS - DOD'S REVERSAL ON CDA'S TO DISA PUTS SIMA EAST BACK INTO BRAC 93 LAW AND IS TO MOVE TO ROCK ISLAND. SIMA-East's BRAC history started with BRAC 91 in which SIMA East was directed to move to Rock Island. By the time BRAC 93 came around, SIMA East was Op Con'd to Defense Information Systems Agency (DISA) under DMRD 918, and the BRAC 93 law reversed the BRAC 91 decision based on the fact that SIMA East, as a CDA, would transfer to DISA under DMRD 918. Department of Defense (DOD), however, reversed DMRD 918 for CDA's and SIMA East never transferred to DISA. In BRAC 95 law the Army's position is the DOD reversal on DMRD 918 throws SIMA East back into BRAC 93 law and is to move to Rock Island. Page 3 WHY SIMA EAST LOCATED AT LETTERKENNY SIMA East has been located at Letterkemy Army Depot for over 30 years. The criteria for locating SIMA East at Letterkenny is the same which has kept them there; namely, Letterkenny is an END USER of the system and the principal PROTOTYPE SITE for all system changes and enhancements. Page 4 GAO REPORTS SPECIFICALLY ON SIMA RELOCATION TO ROCK ISLAND In the process of BRAC 91, General Accounting Office (GAO) conducted a review on the proposed move of SIMA East to Rock Island, and the GAO reports specifically commented on SIMA as follows: "...Specifically, the concerns deal with whether the recommended realignment of SIMA is rational and economical." Page 5 FOR BRAC 93 PROCESS NO JUSTIFICATION FOR ALIGNING SIMA EAST TO ROCK ISLAND ARSENAL LESS THAN 25% OF WORK PERFORMED BY SIMA EAST IS ASSOCIATED WITH INDUSTRIAL OPERATING COMMAND AT ROCK ISLAND ARSENAL During the period in which SIMA East as Op Con'd to DISA, they conducted an independent assessment on the BRAC 91 law to move SIMA East to Rock Island. This independent assessment stated there is no justification for aligning SIMA East to Rock Island Arsenal. DISA stated that less than 25% of work performed by SIMA East personnel is associated with Industrial Operating Command (IOC) at Rock Island Arsenal. Page 6 FY96 CUSTOMER REQUIREMENTS The BRAC 93 Commission recommended to reverse BRAC 91 law on SIMA East and stated (from Federal Register) that "DISA advise the Army that were no advantages or savings from a relocation by SIMA East to Rock Island Arsenal, Illinois. Less than 25% of the work performed by SIMA East is associated with the IOC at Rock Island Arsenal." SIMA East's customer base is still diversified and the IOC still accounts for less than 25% of direct manyear support. Page 7 (ROCK ISIAND) This Chart shows the relationship of who workloads and funds SIMA East by application. The system supported by SIMA East is over 12 million lines of code with many applications. Ifs important to note that although the IOC workloads and the funds the depot maintenance and ammunition systems, the IOC is NOT an END USER of these systems. The majority of funds and workload direction comes from HQ AMC located in Washington, DC , and two major customers located in Columbus, Ohio and Indianapolis, Indiana. Page 8 In the past three years, SIMA East's workload has shifted to where over 61% of DIRECT LABOR is in support of DOD design and fielding of Corporate Information Management (CIM) migratory systems. These systems are in direct support of the CIM strategy and follow the intent and spirit of DMRD 918. This strategy is to reduce the number of unique systems through standardization. This chart shows by customer the percentage of direct labor working on and funded by DOD. The next several charts will expand on the benefits of these CIM initiatives. Page 9 DEFENSE PROPERTY ACCO - DOD STANDARD "TRULY PURP DEPLOYMENT PHASE - ELIMINATE SERVICE UNIQUE SYSTEMS - HUGE SAVINGS THRU STANDARDIZATION The Defense Property Accountability System (DPAS) is a DOD CIM migratory system. SIMA East has 19% of its Direct Workforce in this effort. This system is in the deployment phase and will replace serve unique property book systems resulting in large savings through standardization. The Project Manager (Mr. Frank Egan, DSN 850-1822 or Commercial 614-692-1822) was provided information on mission impacts due to directed relocation of SIMA East to Rock Island. Mr. Egan stated he has work for SIMA East through the year 2000 and needs to include government furnished material into the DPAS system. Mr. Egan expressed real concern that, historically, only a few people move in BRAC actions; and the loss of SIMA East skills would result in mission failure. He also believes this loss of skill would undermine guidance on implementation of CIM standard systems. Page 10 - STANDARDIZE SIFS AND ATAAP - ELIMINA7T UNIQUE SYSTEM - HUGE SAVING THRU STAND BOBBY DBRRICK - DFAS "MOVEMENT OF PEOPLE WILL DESTROY MY CIM STANDARDIZATION PROJECTS. I DQN'T WANTTO MOVE The Defense Finance Accounting Service (DFAS) is directing the implementation of financial CIM migratory systems. SIMA East has 21% of its Direct Workforce supporting the implementation of Standard Industrial Fund System (SIFS) and Automated Time, Attendance, and Production System (ATAAPS). These standard systems are eliminating unique systems resulting in large savings through standardization. The Project Manager (Mr. Bobby Derrick, DSN 699-3026 or Commercial 317- 542-3026) was provided information on mission impacts due to directed relocation of SIMA East to Rock Island. Mr. Derrick has first-hand experience with the movement of people and resulting loss of mission capabilities. Mr. Derrick does not favor moving anyone. Page 11 . . . . . . . . "I DO NOT SUPPORT A MOVE TO ROCK ISLAND ARSENAL FOR SIMA." IF DIRECTED TO DO SO, HE WILL SUPPORT DOD DECISION AND RELOCATE SIMA EAST ON PAST The Commanding General of the IOC (MG Benchoff) has stated he does not support the move to Rock Island Arsenal for SIMA East; but if directed to do so, he will support the DOD decision and relocate SIMA East on the Fast Track. Page 12 SYSTEMS INTEGRATION AND MANAGEMENT ... IT IS MORE THAN A NAME: At the core of SIMA East's customer concern is the loss of skill base and the resulting adverse impacts on mission sustanability. In fact, the loss of unique skill will result in mission failure up to three years. In particular, it is the functional analysts' skills that take so long to mature or regenerate. The reason is because the functional analysts understands the business process and how this process relates to system integration. It is through the understanding of this business process that improvements can be made. Gaining this business process knowledge and applying it within a system of 12 million lines of code that integrate with DOD systems takes time to mature. It is because SIMA East has this mature workforce that they can implement CIM migratory systems, understand and apply integration issues, and contribute to sustained readiness through system support. Page 13 GEN JIMMY D.RWS m XIGRQBWTlLWMW COMh4ANRING GENERAL m ccYMMMWmG CBNmAt m T N S I ~ A h ~ A P I D RGCQMMENDATXON DO NOT RELOCATE SIMA HAST* BRING B m K E BRAC 93 COMMITTEE -ONE OF THE MAJOR CONCERNS STATED (IN REPORT) After the BRAC 91 decision to relocate SIMA East to Rock Island, BG Robert Wynn lead an independent task group on the assessment of AMC automation. This task group completed its study and made its recommendation in June 1992. The recommendation of the task group as it relates to SIMA East was DO NOT RELOCATE SIMA EAST - BRING BEFORE BRAC 91 COMMlTI'EE. One of the task group's major concerns as stated in the report was the software expertise will be lost and operational effectiveness disrupted. However, during BRAC 93 SIMA East was Op Con'd to DLSA, and the BRAC 91 decision to relocate to Rock Island was reversed anticipating transfer of SIMA East to DISA under DMRD 918. Page 14 SIMA East has 23% of its direct labor in support of critical AMC power projection missions. These include: a) Strategic stocks/war reserves mission worldwide. b) Army-wide implementation of Central Asset Visibility (CAV/Single Stock Fund (SSF). c) Integrated sustainment maintenance (ISM). A relocation of SIMA East to Rock Island would substantially adversely impact sustainability of these critical programs. Page 15 READINESS SUPPORT ... SDS SUPPORT OF PREPOSITIONED STRATEGIC STOCKS , With the drawdown of Armed Forces in the country, there is a shift to a more mobile force capability of swift power projection anywhere in the world. In support of this doctrine, SIMA East is providing system support in the preposition of strategic stocks throughout the world and on propositioned ships. These systems will provide visibility and accountability of war reserve assets and provide maintenance schedules to keep equipment in a readiness state. This chart shows some of the locations the system has been and will be deployed. Ifs important to note that GEN Salomon (CG of HQ AMC) has stated that the systems support provided by SIMA East is critical to future power projection requirements. Page 16 This chart shows a summary of the independent analysis on relocation of SIMA East to Rock Island. As you can see, no one is in favor of such a relocation because this move will result in loss of skills and mission disruptions and, in some instances, mission failure. Page 17 "SYSTEMS INTEGRATION AND MANAGEMENT ACTIVITY-EAST (SIMA- COSTS.AND AVOID ADVERSE Based on the logical decision to retain Letterkemy Maintenance mission and because SIMA East is considered to be part of BRAC 93 Law, we recommend that SIMA East remain at Letterkenny in order to protect military value/mission, avoid unnecessary relocation costs, and avoid adverse economic impacts to the community. SIMA East must be written into BRAC 95 Law in order to reverse the BRAC 93 decision. Page 18 APPLICATIONS (MAINT & AMMO) If Letterkenny is not retained as a Maintenance Mission Depot, then an alternative business decision for the disposition and relocation of SIMA East is proposed. It makes more sense to relocate a CDA with an END USER of SIMA East systems. Relocation to Anniston Army Depot will co-located SIMA East with an END USER and retain prototype capability with the co-located END USER. Lastly, the lost skills could be regenerated from the Anniston workforce since they are an end user of the systems and have already developed some level of functional skill maturity. Page 19 BRAC 95...THE RIGHT DECISION EXHIBIT A BACKGROUND SIMA EAST TENANT MISSION IMPAC'I' IJOK: Systems Integration & Management Activity East MISSION: Provides integrated automation support to the U.S. Army AMC installation, industrial, and financial business processes. Critical to AMCIArmy Future Power Projection and Force 21 Missions such as Strategic StocksMar Reserves worldwide, Central Asset Visibility (CAV)lSingle Stock Fund (SSF) Army-wide implementation, Integrated Sustainment Maintenance initiative, and extension of Automated Time, Attendance and Production System (ATAAPS)/Standard Industrial Fund System (SIFS) Army wide. SIMA-EAST employs 209 organic staff in addition to 37 contractor staff. The organization operates with an annual budget of $20 million. WHY LOCATED AT LETTERKENNY? SIMA East's original mission was to develop the standard automated systems to support depot operations. Letterkenny as a multimission depot was designated to serve as the prototype installation for all the applications developed by SIMA. This userldeveloper partnership has significantly contributed to the high quality systems fielded by SIMA over the years. The secondary reason for Army decision makers locating SIMA East at Letterkenny was the cost effective means of maintaining currency of finctional knowledge of the business processes the automated systems are required to support. Because of the close working relationship between designer and end user, SIMA developed systems have automated and integrated business processes in such a way that depot operations have become both efficient and effective. In order to retain the mission effectiveness of both SIMA East and its end user customers, it is essential that SMA be located at a multirnission depot. MISSION IMPACT IF ELIMINATEDJRELOCATED? SIMA East applications are unique within the Army. The applications developed by this organization are absolutely critical to the Army in both peace time and national emergency. The functional business process systems analysts in SIMA East are totally unique within the Army. Many of the automation personnel within the organization also have skills that are unique to the Army. Within SIMA East automation professionals become productive in their first year; however, they do not achieve full performance levels for approximately three years. In the case of functional systems analysts, it takes about three years to "grow" a functional analyst to the point they understand their assigned functional applications and how their functions interface with other SIMA East applications and interfaces with external business processeslsystems. It is the professional opinion of those most familiar with the mission and unique skill of this organization that relocation of SIMA East will cause a total mission failure for a period of three years. C PLANNED DISPOSITION, IF KNOWN? SIMA East workforce has been told that 10C has been directed to prepare a contingency planning package which will be part of Letterkenny BRAC 95 Implementation plan. That package will reflect a relocation of SIMA East to the Rock Island Arsenal consistent with BRAC 95 milestones. The basis for the move is supposedly the Army's interpretation of BRAC 91 and BRAC 93 law. SIMA East was directed to move to Rock Island in BRAC 91. BRAC 93 law reversed the BRAC 91 decision based on the fact that SIMA East (as a central design organization would transfer to DOD based on DMRD 918). DISA said it made no sense to move SIMA East to Rock Island based on the small amount of resources expended on Industrial Operations Command (Rock Island) business and the organization could better serve its customer base tiom Letterkenny. In 1993 DOD reversed its decision to transfer central design organizations to DOD and the Army is now saying that decision puts SlMA back to the BRAC 91 decision (move to Rock Island) even though the GAO BRAC 91 comments on that proposal said it makes no mission or economic sense to move SIMA. DISA (and the Secretary of Defense) in BRAC 93 .. said based on the customer base of SIMA East they should remain at Letterkenny. Current and fiture projected workloads for SIMA East confirm it still makes no sense to move SlMA off Letterkenny Army Depot. LETTERKENNY ARMY DEPOT, PA = 1. RECOMMENDATION : Realign Letterkenny A m y Depot by transferring the towed and self-propelled combat vehicle mission . ' . to Anniston A r m y Depot. Retain an enclave for conventional ammunition storage and tactical missile disassembly and storage, Change the 1993 Commission8s decision regarding the consolidating the tactical mission maintenance at Letterkenny by transferring missile guidance system workload'to Tobyhanna Army Depot. 2. IMPACT : 2090 direct jobs 3 . COBRA RUN : P O S I T I O N ELIMINATED officer = 9 enlisted = 11 civilian = 1267 TOTAL = 1287 POSITION ELIMINATED WONT!P AGY USA AUDIT W2KR2 0 ACTUSA MEDDEP W459-A TMDE SUP G P #1 W4E4!A ACTMEA W4GV90 USA CECOM , ! O L 6 0 2 DRMO ' I ! O L 6 0 3 DEE P R I N T I N G . WOL6AA LETTERKENNY - P O S I T I O N REALIGNED officer = 1 enlisted = 1 4 civilian = 788 TOTAL = 8 0 3 0 ( O F F ) 0 (OFF) 0 (OFF) 0 ( O F F ) 0 ( O F F ) 0 ( O F F ) 0 ( O F F ) 9 ( O F F ) 1 6 ( C I V ) 1 4 (CIV) 11 (CIV) 2 1 (CIV) 1 ( C I V ) 3 7 (cIy.r) 6 (CLT.') 1 1 6 1 (CI-..) TOTAL 9 ( O F F ) 11 (ENL) 1 2 6 7 ( C I V ) POSITION REALIGNED W23H01 COE (BASE X) 0 ( O F F ) 0 (ENL) W 4 5 9 1 7 TMDE SPT G P (BASE X) 0 - ( O F F ) 0 (ENL) W 4 9 0 5 2 DFAS (BASE X) - 0 (OFF) 0 (ENL) W49C!A DEF MEGA CTR (BASE X) 1 ( O F F ) 1 4 (ENL) WUMODL PUB WORK (BASE X ) 0 ( O F F ) 0 (ENL) WOL6AA LETTERKENNY (TOAD) 0 ( O F F ) 0 (ENL) TOTAL 5. RETAIN : AT LETTERKENNY WOH932 MICOM WOL6AA LETTERKENNY - AMMO STORAGE - QA - SECURITY - BASOPS LOGSA . . W44K-A SIMA 1 ( O F F ) 1 4 (ENL) 2 ( C I V ) 60 ( C I V ) . 78 ( C I V ) 165 (CIV) 183 ( C I V ) 300 ( C I V ) 788 (CIV) 1 ( O F F ) 0 (ENL) 0 ( C I V ) 0 ( O F F ) 0 (ENL) 4 9 0 ( C I V ) 3 ( O F F ) 13 (ENL) 126 ( C I V ) 3 ( O F F ) 18 (ENL) 289 ( C I V ) TOTAL 7 ( O F F ) 3 1 (ENL) 905 ( C I V ) DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY HEADQUARTERS, U.S. ARMY INDU8IF)IAL OPERATIONS COMMAND ROCK ISUND, &UNOlS 8i28W000 19 APR 1995 m R A N D U M FOR SEE DIBTRIBUTION I SUBJECT t Base Realignment and Closure ( B R W ) 95 Implement atf on Plan I 1, &Bf#rancs BRAC 95 Implementation Planning Guidance Meeting, 15-16 Marah 1995, Rbak Imland Ateenal, 1llinoi.e. 2, The Eollowing guidance originally provided at refe~enced meeting im r9etated for emphaeie. Each loeing U.S. Army Depot ByUttSun Command/U.s. Army AlnnanIent, Nunitione and Chemical Comand installation Will prepate it8 - respectPve BRAC 95 Implementation Plan. The gaining inatallation will provide eupport am required. 3, Suboequsnt guidance from headquartere, U.S. A m y h ate riel Command, i r ~ that an ImpleR\entation Plan will be developed for the Syetsme Integration and Managemerit Activity-Eaet (BIHA-E) ae a BRAC 93 action. The SIN-E Plan, although alaeeified ao a BRAC 93 action, will follow all the requirement0 rbsociated with BRAC 95 and will be pgepared by SIMA-E ae an addendum to the Letterkenny A r m y Depot (LEAD) Implementation Plan. The LEAD will, a0 with any other tedant, account for the impact on LEAD baee operationo coets, etc. 4. All Implementation Plane will ehow a completion date of end FY 97 unlearn otherwimei approved by the commanding General, Induetrial Operationo Command. 5. The POC is Mr. Kenneth P. Muehl, AMSI(C-AEE, DSN 793-8393, datefax DBN 793-?768. 0 Chief, Ferformmce Evaluation Divieion Df STRIBWION 8 Commander, Lstterkenny Army Depot, AT!l'Nr SDSLE-I (Ma. Hallio Bunk), Chuabermburg, PA 17 201-4170 dommandet, Red River Army Depot, ATTN: SDSRR-8 ( M r . Bobby Notby), Texarkana, TX 75507-5000 Clolamander, Sierra Army Depot, ATTNI SDSSI-CO (COL Donald D. Whitfield 11), Herlong, CA 96113-5000 commander, Seneca Army Depot, ATTNr SDSTO-BECO (Mr. Anthony J. Carnevsle), ' 5786 State Route 96, Romulusl, NY 14541-5001 -andelc, savanna Army Dapot Activity, ATTN: BDBLE-V-CO (MAJ James Siok), Savannh. IL 61074-9636 Director, Syeteme Integration and Management Activity-East (Mr. aim Hgfer), Chambermburg, PA 17201-6180 d~ 8 Commander, Anniston Army Depot, AmNi SDSAN-DM-PPB (Mr. Paul Iisrper), 7 Frgnkford Avenue, Anniston, AL 36101-4199 qommander, Tobyhanna Army Depot, ATTN: SDBTO-PE (Mr. Robert Haao), 11 Hap - Arnold Boulevard, Tobyhanna, PA 18466-6000 Comanber, Lone Star Army Ammunition Plant, ATTN: SMCLS-CO (LTC Patrick Dunkla), Texarkana, TX 75505-9101 Qoarmander, McAleoter Army Amnunition Plant, ATTNt SMCMC-BMD (Me. Carol Cook), : LbcAleeter, OX 74501-5000 ~ n d e r , U.S. Army Armament, Hunitiona and Chemical Command, ATTN: AMSHC-?UE/HR/EQ, Rook Ieland, IL 61299-6000 - - - .- .,.- LL<&.-. -.* .- - . . -- - - - , . ' 08:Ol FAX 7032747671 AYCRH-D .. . P - 8 4 B 002 4 wen 1 3 2 4 , o m s a cwm > . .". . . ' i I FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY: No. DETAIL OF EVALUATION: BACKCROVD: Central Design Activities (CDASI provide for rhe development and operational ~ustainment of automated intormarion ( A I S ) and communications s stems for specified customers. Generally. CDAs provide r %road range of services such a* requirements definition, system design, development, testing, integration, implementation support, and documentation services. In January 1991, the Executive Level Croup for Corporate Information Management recommended foe-for-service for automated data processinq operarions. In A p r f l 1991, a DoD-wide' working group was established to develop the financial management structure to place data processing installations [DPII and CDAS on a full cost fee-for-service basis. fn order to account for full Costs, allocate and report to the customers all costs for t h e services received, and to recover costs from customers, the DPIs and CDAs were to placed in the DBoF. This has already beeii accomplished for the sixteen Defense Megacenters and for the CDAS which provide s e r v i c e s to the supply and Logistics community. To continue this initiative, sixteen CDAs will be placed on a fee-for- serv ice basis beginning in Fy 1996. Additional CDAs, as identified by the Components, will be considered for inclusion in subsequent fiscal years. The purpose of this PBD is twofold. First , to reflect and adjust as necessary, the costs and revenues associated with CDAs. Second, to continue the t r a n s i t i o n of CDAs, whose customers would benefit from the total cost and Fee-for-service concepts, t o the Information Services Business Area. rn a l l cases, the CDAs remain with their parent S e r v i c e or Defense Agency. However, rhe parent Service or Defense Agency w i l l implement fee-for-service at the CDA F . Fee-for-service requires thar a fully burdened -ect labor hourly mte(s) be established for each CDA, as w e l l a s t h e fully burdened costs of any d a support serv ices provided- Also, the total operating costs and the customer revenue to support those costs must be identified. Two subdivisions will be created within the Information Services Business Area for F Y 1996: Army Information Services and Air Force Jnforrnation Services. The cash needs of these new'antities w i ~ i a0 addressed as the ~ e ~ i r t m e n t transfers DBOF cash management from OSD to rhe Components. Furthermore, Base Operating Support and Military Personnel funding will n i i r e a l i g n e d until the FY 1997 Budget Review. The CDAs included in this PBP are as follows: * ARMY Current Funding Information Systems Command - Ft Huachuca direct - Ft tee d i f t e t -- - Washington, DC @\dL direct .-> S y s t t h Integration 6 Management Activity feid FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY / DM. n . d i * 4%. d-F-e&.$.t.;L& s-iqy EXHIBIT C EXTRACT GAO REPORT 1 GAO REPORT - 17 M l 1991 s cited as a major factor in the ed misnions within depots and cornmoditiea. The TABS group also considered the ability of the receiving location8 to absorb the realigning mission or function. Ten major realignments involve commodity installations and depoto. For example, the Harry Diamond Laboratory at Adelphi, Maryland, would become the flagship laboratory headquarters with the establishment of the Combat Materiel Research Laboratory, performing in-house .basic and applied research for the Army. Some concerns have been raised over the various realignments involving the depots and commodity installatione. For example, concern was expressed about selective missions at Letterkenny Army Depot, Pennsylvania, moving to Rock Island, ~llinois. Specifically, the concerns deal with whether the recommended realignment of the Systems Integration and Management Act iv i ty is rational and economical. According to a TABS group official, the Depot Systems Command and the Activity were recommended for realignment~becauee they would provide services to the Industrial operations Command being established at Rock Island.. Because of time ~0nEitraint9, we were unable to review the numerous options involved in many realignments. Major traininq areas The A m y has eight training area installations that provide facilities for a c t i v e and reserve units to conduct large training exercises. The military value ranking for each of the eight installations is ahown in table 2.5. Table 2.5: Military Value Rankinq of Major Training Areas Installation Rankinq Ft. Irwin 1 Pt, P I X 2 . Ft. McCoy 3 Ft. Greely 4 Ft. Chaffee 5 Ft. A.Pa Hill 6 Ft. Indiantown Gap 7 Ft. Piclcett 8 , b. ~ t s . Greely and Irwin were excluded from closure and realignment consideration because of their mission uniquenees. Ft. Greely is a critical cold weather ' testing and training site .for the Army. Ft. Irwin ranked far above t h e other installatione in military value and fa the site of thc.Nationa1 Training Center. The remaining installations military value scorea were close. Consideration for poseible closure or realignment then included coat savings and the wit D ~ E S REFEFENCE - Page 8/46 3 1 &J '93 16:57 JGK b - - DEFENSE JNFORMATlON SYSTEMS A ~ E N 0lrCNSL lMFORMATlON nCHNOLOGY SORVICCS,OR@NI TlOH 6760 & IRViNGTON PUC# ' ;-I-[ DENVER, COlORAOO 802794000 ElEMORRlYDUM FTP, 3JRECTOR.j mffi ARllY BA8gM SUBJECT I (ry6tem ~ntegrat ioo ( 8 Z U - R ) . 1- This is i n xeepont~e to your manox . repout ing o w ammeesmnt of the most muit SIMA-B, given that it was to have bee rrom xrettetkenny Amy Depot to Rook Island Ar~earl am p u t plan. 2. Most: of S I M w a ~ zeaently kought u control of thi6 agency with the intent: Ch DX8A during FY 93. From a DITSO CDA perm justification for aligning th* transderri Rock Island Ammnal. No GO#+ mavin96 ox and the investment zeguired fox tlra xeXo paybaak. Purthermora, to xslwate aouZd uupport of the automated syetanr aupportf Depots. Recommend that the portion ol: 8 identified for tra~tufar to D18A remain 1 Army Depot. .r i . f - :A ' i! il: : SIMA EAST FEDERAL REGISTER 4 e rr oc in. ryayu- - - - - \ - - I If& 56. No- 48 f h&day.. ldmh.15, 1963.1 Notic-. t.rUaay kzny Depot, ?am.ylrrni. n Letterkenny A m y D ~ P O ~ -(LERD) by epot activity and placing it under the command yhanna my Depot, PA. Relocate the nd associated workload to other depot ties, including the private sector. Retain the . jrk conventional ammunition storage mission and the regional Test Measurement and Diagnostic Equipment (TWE) mission. Change the b *, recommendation of the 1991 omm mission regarding Letterkenny as follows. Instead of sending Systems Integration Management Activity East (SIMA-E) to ROCX 1sland Arsenal, Illinois, as 5: recommended by the 1991 Comission, retain this activity in place. Retain the S1m-E and the Information Processing Center at Letterkenny until the Defense ~nformation Systems Agency 1 101SA) completes its review of activities relocated under Defense i Management Review Decision (DMRD) 918. The activities of the depot not associated with the remaining mission will be inactivated, transferred Or otherwise eliminated. Missile I maintenance workload will not consolidate at Letterkenny, as originally planned. However. Depot Systems Command will relocate to Rock Island Arsenal, where it will consolidate under the Industrial Operations Coraand there, as approved by the 1991 Commission. Justification: The decision to realign LEAD was driven by the results of the Chairman, Joint Chiefs of Staff triennial review of roles and missions in the Department of Defense. As part of this review, the Chairman chartered the Depot Maintenance Consolidation Study. The study identified a significant anount of excess depot capacity and duplication among the Services. The Army has concluded t6at the pr~jected ground systems a" equipment depot maintenance workload for fiscal year 1999 is suificient to maintain all of the ground systems and equipmel depots . In drawing the conclusion to downsize LEAD, the Arm considered the following factors: relative military va depots; the future heavy force mix; reduced budget; WO skills; excess capacity; ability of the depots to acco- workload levels; the proximity of the depots tO the hf in the U.S. ; and the resulting savings. SIMA-E performs computer systems design and d functions tor a variety of activities. This org? ;' , I transferring to the Defense Information Systems I i 1993. Retention keeps this activity focused r customer. SIMA-West is located in St. Louis 1 functions in the western portion of the U . S . Army that there were no advantages or savir to Rock Island Arsenal. IL. Less than 25% by SIMA-E is associated with the Industri I Rock Island Arsenal. SIMA-EAST FY95 FUNDING # DIRECT LABOR +CONTRACTOR % OF CUSTOMER EMPLOYEES TOTAL AMC DPAS DFAS ALL OTHER -S LA -JLSC -DODIDAIDLA TOTAL - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - . .,.... . , . . , . . ........ I . . ... ._..,. . . . . . . . . - . . . . . DPAS Implementations through FY95 Number of Period Property Books AgencylService Organization Army AMC ARO, AQTD DFAS c0(2), cL(2) DFAS DW), IN(3), PE, KS(2) HQ Army AMC MICOM, Anniston, TMDE Redstone(2), Letterkenny(G), HQ AMC(1), TMDE Chambersburg Navy DDRE(13) Army AMC RDEC, Blue Grass, Corpus Christi, Crane, McAlesteflS), Pine Bluff(2), Pueblo Navy FlSC Norfolk Army AMC Savannah. Seneca, Sierra, Tobyhanna, Rock Island, Red River Army Fort Sill DIA DCMC(6), DRMS(6), DNSC(4), DDRW(10) Army AMC ARL, E d g m d , Tech Esc, TECOM, Combat Test, Sys Analysis, TRADOC Mil Packg D M DCSC, DESC, DPSC. DGSC. DISC, DlPEC h Y West Point (1 1) A n y AMC Toole, Umatilla, WateMiet, St. Louis (4), Ft. Eustis, Rocky Mountain, F t Monmouth, Watertown, Ft. Behroir, Warren(B), Selfridge, Picatinny, Ft Rucker DIA DSDC(1 I), HQ(I), DFSC(9) DeCA Army AMC Dugway(3), Ft Huachuca, Madison, White Sands(2), Yuma, Adelphi(2), Ft Monmouth(4) Air Force Warner Robbins DlSA Megacenters (10) DlSA Megacenters(6) & HQ(3) Army AMC (not currently on IEMS) Army Ft Lee TRADOC Marine Headquarters, USMC, Henderson Hall Ariington, MCCDC Quantico, MCAS Cherry Point, MCB Camp Lejeune Navy -SAC, NAVMTO Noriblk Air Force TBD Schedule to be determined Schedule to be determined Totals U. \\ prri.-L. , LA- DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY U.S. AMC SYSTEMS INTLGRAnON AN0 MANAQLMLNT ACTlVlTT MEMORANDUM FOR SIMA EAST WorHorce SUBJECT: Latest Update on BRAC 95 C 1. Based on information received fiom HQ IOC, it has been determined that SIMA East - is not part of the BRAC 95 proposal for Letterkenny Axmy Depot realignment. That is the good news. The bad news is that a DA BRAC conference was held at Washington in early February and the DA s t a f f announced that SIMA East was identified to move to Rock Island Arsenal, Rock Island, Illinois. This issue has not been resolved between DA and the AMC BRAC Offices. If and when I receive additional information, I will share it with you. An encouraging note is MG Benchoff s position with regard to this matter. In short I quote MG Benchoff "I do not support a move to Rock Island Arsenal for SIMA East". Even though MG Benchoff does not personally support the move of our organization, he is a professional soldier and must support DOD and Army decisions. 2. I will continue to update you as additional information is received. V Director SIMA East EXHIBIT I AMC AUTOMATION ASSESSMENT AiMC AUTOMATION ASSESSMENT TASK FORCE REPORT JUNE 1992 Prepared for: GEN JIMMY D. ROSS COMMANDING GENERAL ARMY MATERIEL COMMAND Prepared by: BG ROBERT E. WYNN COMMANDING GENERAL TrH SIGNAL COMMAND FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY Copy 3 of 10 AMCSO DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY HEAWUARTERS. U.S. ARMY MATERIEL COMMAND 5001 EISENHOWER AVENUE, ALEXANDRIA, VA 22333 - 0001 S: 24 Jul 92 3F MEMORANDUM FOR SEE DISTRIBUTION SUBJECT: AMC Automation Assessment Report 1 . References : a. Memorandum, HQ AMC, AMCSO, 16 Jun 92, SAB. b. Memorandum, ASQN-CG, 4 Jun 92, SAB, (encl). 2. An assessment of AMC Automation has been completed by Brigadier General Robert E. Wynn, Commander, 7th Signal Command. In accordance with reference la, this report is now being staffed to you for review and comment. 3 . The enclosed report contains recommendations which have been divided into two sections, "tacticalt', which addresses existing processes, and "strategic", which proposes fundamental changes to AMC's use of automation. Brigadier General Wynn's task force solicited comments on a draft of this report from selected AMC organizations as a part of the assessment process. This final report incorporates both these AMC comments and the Wynn task force response. It is strongly recommended that particular attention be given to these task force responses during your review of the final report. 4. An Automation Assessment Task Force, headed by Ms. Louann Elledge, has been established to manage AMC review and implementation of this report. Comments should be provided to this Task Force, ATTN: AMCSO, NLT 24 Jul 92. Request you include a point of contact with your comments. 5. Point of contact for this action is Ms. Pat Harrison, AMCSO, DSN 284-8855. 6. AMC -- America's Arsenal for the Brave. Encl WILLIAM Id McGRATH Major General, USA Chief of Staff DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY HEADQUARTERS. 7 lH SIGNAL COMMAND FORT RITCHIE. MARYLAND 21119.5010 m O R A N D U M FCR Commander, A m y Mat err el Command, AT-I : .:-YCZ3, 5001 Elsennower Avenue, Alexandrra, ';A Z 2 3 3 3 - 3 : G i SZBJZCT: .WC ~utomation Assessment Report i. Enclosed is the AMC Automation Assessment Task Force Fieport. 2. Flrst and foremost, AMC 1s successfully supporting rhe A r m y :n both peace and war. Information technology wlthln AMC 1s well ~ntegrated into AMC buslness processes and 1s key to the successes experienced. The talent and achlevernents of Secn :he f-~nc:lcnal staff and the lnformatlon technology staff are commendable. Some speclflc laudatory examples noted by zze team are: a. AMCCOM's use of information technology In the ?.oc~ Island Arsenai Manufacturing Facliity. b. TACOM1s implementatlon of a Declslon Support Syscem uslng shadow databases and their automation of the mater-el 5esrgn process lntegratlng deslgnlng, nodellng, EestLng as? production. c. MICOM's unparalleled commitment to responsiveness and customer satisfaction exemplified by their effort :o automate the T3Y srocess from request for orders thrgugh payment :EL= r:-e zrsveier's bank account. 3. A command-wide quantum increase in the benefits from rnformation technology is possible; however, your personal direction, support, and empowerment of the implementers 1s essential. I recommend you challenge the technology providers to adopt industry models for decision support; centrally nanage rnforrnatlon technology actlvit~es; focus on core competencies, and out-source where possible. 4. 1 am avallable to arovlde whatever addltior,al i s s ~ i t ~ r . ; ~ :,-zu yay req-~lre. .MC Task Fcrce Directsr AMCSO SUBJECT: AMC Automation Assessment Report DISTRIBUTION: Headquarters: AMCDMR AMCRDA AMCAQ AMXED AMCIO AMCEN AMCMI AMCLG AMCPE AMCRD AMCRM AMCCC AMXIG AMSAC AMXLA AMXLS AMCAM Commander, U.S. Army Armament, Munitions, and Chemical Command, Rock Island, IL 61299-6000 Commander, U.S. Army Communications-Electronics Command, Fort Monmouth, NJ 07703-5009 Commander, U.S. Army Aviation Command, St. Louis, MO 63120-1798 Commander, U.S. Army Troop Support Command, St. Louis, MO 63120-1798 Commander, U.S. Army Test and Evaluation Command, APG, MD 21005-5055 Commander, U.S. Army Tank-Automotive Command, Warren, MI 48397- 5000 Commander, U.S. Army Missile Command, Redstone Arsenal, AL 35815-5190 Commander, U.S. Army Laboratory Command, Adelphi, MD 20783-1145 Commander, U.S. Army Depot System Command, Chambersburg, PA 17201-4170 Commander, U.S. Army Simulation, Training, and Instrumentation Command, 12350 Research Parkway, Orlando, FL 32826 Director, U.S. Army Research Office, Research Triangle Park, NC 27709-2211 Director, U.S. Army Industrial Engineering Activity, Rock Island, IL 61299-7260 AMCSO SUBJECT: AMC Automation Assessment Report Director, U.S. AMC Log Con Activity, Presidio of San Francisco, CA 94129-6900 Commander, U.S. Army TMDE Activity, Redstone Arsenal, AL 5898- 5190 Commander, U.S. AMC Catalog Data Activity, New Cumberland, PA 17070-5010 Director, Materiel Readiness Support Activity, Lexington, KY 40511-5101 Co ander, AMC Europe, APO New York 09333-4747 rector, USAMC Systems Integration & Management Activity, LpiPM Chambersburg, PA 17201-4180 Commander, U.S. AMC Installations and Service Activity, Rock Island, IL 61299-7190 Commandant, U.S. Army Management Engineering College, Rock Island, IL 61299-7040 Director, U.S. Army Materiel Systems Analysis Activity, APG, MD 21005-5071 Director, U.S. AMC Management Engineering Activity, Research Drive, Huntsville, AL 35805-5906 DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY HEADQUARTERS. 7 lH SIGNAL COMMANO FORT RITCHIE. M A R Y U N O 21719-5010 . L ~ O R ~ L ~ M FCR Commander, A m y Katerlel C~mmand, A-3-1 : .:-uC122, 5001 Elsennewer Avenue, Aiexandrla. ';A , 2 3 3 3 - , j C G l SCBJECT: AMC >.utomation Assessment Reporc . Enclosed is the AMC Automation Assessment Task Force Eieport. 2. Flrst and foremost, AMC 1s successfully supporting the Army rn both 2eace and war. ;nformatlon technology wlthln AMC 1s weil Lntegrated lnto AMC buslness processes and 1s key to the successes experienced. The talent and achievements of Set? :he func~:cnai staff and the lnformatlon technology staff are commendable. Some speclflc laudatory examples noted by the team 3re : a. AMCCOM's use of information technology rn the sock Island Arsenai Manufacturing Facliity. b. TACOM's implementation of a Declsion Support Syst2m using shadow databases and their automation of the materrel design process integrating designing, nodeling, testing and production. c. MICOM's unparalleled commitment to responsiveness and customer satisfaction exemplified by their effort io automate the TIIY process frcm request for orders thr3ugh payment rnts zraveier's bank account. 3 . A command-wide quantum increase in the benefits from information technology is possrble; however, your personal direction, support, and empowerment of the implementers is essential. I recommend you challenge the technology providers to adopt industry models for decision support; centrally nanage rnformation technology activltres; focus on core competencies, and out-source where possible. 4. Z am avallabie to provlde whatever additional sssls==.r,ce y e u xay requlre. .WC Task "rce Director EXECUTIVE SUMMARY BACKGROUND In February 1992, LTG Hilmes established a Task Force headed by BG Wynn to conduct an automation assessment of AMC for GEN Ross. The purpose of the assessment was to find and report opportunities to improve efficiency and effectiveness of Information Technology (IT) services supporting AMC. The task force conducted interviews with key AMC staff, MSC commanders. and functional managers to draw upon their knowledge and experience with AMC's existing Information Technology services. Information obtained from the interviews and from the documents provided was analyzed to ascertain technical sufficiency and opportunities for economies. PURPOSE The Task Force goal was to help AMC posture its IT services to support the _goals and objectives of a long-range functional business plan. Information Technology support is undergoing dramatic change throughout the Department of Defense. DOD's Corporate Information Management initiative, the recently formed Joint Logistics System Center, the Defense Business Operations Fund, and the Army's Sustaining Base Information Systems Program are key initiatives changing the suategy for providing Information Technology services for the next decade. Concurrent with the changes in the IT environment are equally significant changes to AMC's business area. AMC is reshaping with a smaller work force and with more focus on its future core competencies. Automation support. beyond the current capabilities, will be necessary. OBSERVATION The Task Force's primary observation was that AMC is successfully using and, in fact. improving its use of Information Technology to suppon its mission. AMC's program to consolidate data processing centers (annual sustainment savings of $24M) is progressing and will be completed in FY93. Efforts to reduce the inventory of software have made good progress initially and should continue. The responsiveness and technical qualifications of the work force providing IT are commendable. OPPORTUNITIES The Task Force recommendations are divided into two sections: one addresses "tactical" initiatives - recommendations to improve the existing processes; the second addresses "suategic" initiatives - functional changes to AMC's use of automation. In each case. the Task Force identified specific actions to facilitate implementation. W C ALTOMATON ASSESSME!! :June !997,\ ~.secuuve Surnrnlr]: Tactical Opportunities There were several opportunities for near-term economies to current processes. (Estimate $18M/first year cost avoidance and $12M/YR thereafter). The Estimated Completion Date (ECD) is also shown. 1. The AMP MOD computer system can be closed. Certain residual capabdities can be provided at lower cost via other exisnng computers and networks. (ECD 6 months) 2. The PADDs computer system can be replaced with current technology. Return on investment is within 1 year. (ECD 6 months) 3. There will be reduced O&S cost for AMC if the number of Unix processors is consolidated using current technology (tier III processors and file servers). A 20% reduction within 6 months is an attainable target. (ECD 6 months) 4. More clearly defined management of DSREDS and better exploitation of its capabilities will improve speed and accuracy of the acquisition process. (ECD 6 months) 5. Bundling of point-to-point circuits in conjunction with the DOD DISN network will reduce circuit costs by at least 20%. (ECD 1 year) 6. For unclassified work, High Performance Computer support should be available, with current technology, at less cost. (ECD 1 year) 7. Not relocating SIMA-East to Rock Island will realize a $18M cost avoidance; while colIocating SIMA-West into the Army tnformation Processing Center and ATCOM facilities will avoid GSA lease costs of $3.0M/YR. (ECD 2 years) 8. Connecting AMC Headquarters directly to the HQDA DSS will facilitate access of its staff to authoritative data and enhance its use of elecuonic exchange of information. (ECD 6 months) Strategic Opportunities Savings from "Strategic" initiatives have the potential to be an order of magnitude greater since these initiatives focus on the business process and structure of AMC. The corporate software development philosophy is decentralized. Currently, MSC's develop up to seven technical solutions to a functional problem. All may be satisfactory with each local customer feeling that he received exceptional customer support; however, the solutions are not necessarily compatible, and AMC has lost an opportunity for savings and synchronization. Rather than resource many solutions to one problem, AMC can organize to apply the same resources to a single solution for many problems. Savings of up to 4 to 1 in software development costs should be realized by seizing the opportunity to centralize the direction of SIMA and the various Applications Development Divisions. .NC AUTOMATION .4SSESSMENT (June 1992) LI Executive Summary The most signiticant opportunity for enhancing AMC's Information Technology support during the transition years centers around development of a corporate data warehouse (traditionally known as "shadow database" within AMC). AMC's business processes are closely linked. and in fact, defined by its automation systems. These "legacy" systems have existed for more than a decade and currently h~nder AMC's efforts to move to modem business processes. AMC functionais need to be "decoupled" from these "legacy" systems and given the freedom of action to redefine their business practices. The "data warehouse," whrle not a panacea, provides the least expensive capability to both free AMC to re-engineer its business processes while concurrently actually improving their daily performance. Several MSCs have implemented 'data warehouses' to some degree. TACOM has institutionahzed the approach. It includes data synchronization, end-user training, and realigning information technology support assets within their DOIM. The D O N now emphasize training, consultation, and end-user suppon rather than traditional software development. TACOM's cost avoidances attributed to impjementing its "data warehouse" are over $100M in the first year. Comparable savings in the other MSC's are likely. Key to realizing these opportunities is establishment of a strong central control in the Information Management community without sacrificing responsiveness. A single agency should command md control all iniormauon technology activities within AMC. The head must be at the general officer1SES level to be on equal footing with other staff principals and MSC commanders. Subsequent to forrmng this agency, AMC may determine they can better focus on the core business processes and obtain better service for each dollar spent by outsourcing their iT support. SUMMARY AMC is successfully supporting the Army in both peace and war. Information technology within AMC is well integrated into AMC business processes and is key to the successes experienced. The challenge for AMC during the transition period is to: hpiement recommended opportunities to reduce costs/increase effectiveness in existing operations. Centrally manage information technology activities during the turbulent reshaping period. Decouple their business processes from their automation process by implementing a "data warehouse" in support of TACOM, MICOM, CECOM, AVSCOM, TROSCOM, AMCCOM. and DESCOM, as well as HQ AMC. LVC AUTOMATION ASSESSMENT June 1992) ! u ~xecuave Summary 2. TACTICAL INITIATIVES 2.1 ARMY MATERIEL PLAN MODERMZATION (AMP MOD) 2.1.1 Observation The AMP MOD system, operated by AMC, is not well utilized and does not provide benefits commensurate with its cost. 2.1.2 Discussion AMP MOD is a secure system designed to support the acquisition process. The AMP MOD Program was implemented beginning in June 1987, and is managed by HQ AMC, Deputy Chief of Staff for Research and Development and Engineering (AMCRD-AP). The AMP MOD system environment includes IBM 4381 mainframes running IBM's Multiple Virtual Storage (MVS) operating system and COMTEN Front-End Processors. The annual cost of operating AMP MOD is $1.3M (including 22.3 1 manyears). AMP MOD runs on old. obsolete hardware that is expensive to maintain and software no longer supported by the vendor (IBM). Upgrades to current technology are neither funded nor planned. In addition, many of the AMC business processes supported by the AMP MOD system changed significantly when the PEO su-ucture was established. AMP MOD functionality has not been adjusted to support the changed business processes. As a result, the AMP MOD system is no longer synchronized (functionally aligned) with current business processes and, therefore. not widely used. On 25 Jan 91, MG Rigby initiated action to terminate the AMP MOD program by requesting information on the impact of closing down the system from all MSCs, ASA(RDA1, RDAISA, DA DCSOPS, and PM AIM. Each MSC responded to MG Rigby's memorandum with a recommendation to retain the communications portion of AMP MOD because it provides the only available secure network to support the acquisition community. Analysis of the collected information resulted in a decision to retain AMP MOD and its databases. As revealed by the impact analysis, the AMP MOD system, though not widely used for its intended purpose, provides a secure network to pass critical data between MSCs, RDAISA, and HQDA. System design does not allow for easy decoupling of the communications network from the processing system. The result is continued operation and maintenance of a system utilized at approximately 3% of its processing capacity. AMP MOD is erroneously assumed by some to be the source of critical information when, in reality, it serves prirnanly as a medium for data and information exchange. The only cntical processing function actually performed by AMP MOD is the Standard Study Number (SSN to Line Item Number (LIN) conversion. In addition to the SSNLIN conversion process. some sites use AMP MOD for other functions such as preparing P-FORM. however, PC-based systems are available to support these functions at s i g ~ ~ c a n t l y lower operational cost. . M C AUTOMATION ASSESSMENT t June i992) 2 - 1 -3ctlcsl ln~t~atlves 2.13 Recommendations The AMC Automation Assessment Task Force made the following recommendations: 1. Close AMP MOD and provide secure network capability via a combination of DISNET and STU I11 dialup access. 2. Transition SSN/LIN conversion process to run at RDAISA. 3. Implement command-wide standard systems and procedures to replace AMP MOD functions (e.g., PC P-Forms?. 2.1.4 Benefits The AMC Automation Assessment Task Force recommendations have the following benefits: 1. Annual savings of approximately $1.3M. 2. Reduction in civilian over-strength by approximately 22 personnel. 3. Improved management of acquisition data resulting from implementation of standard processes feeding a single reliable database (RDAISA). 2.1.5 Impact Adequate alternatives exist that will minimize potential negative impacts: Loss of AMP MOD data access - Since AMP MOD is not widely used. the data stored in AMP MOD are no longer maintained nor considered "authoritative." Un discussions with the Task Force, Mr. Keith Charles of the Army Staff (SARD-RI) stated that AMP MOD data are of very poor quality and not used for planning or decision making.] The RDAISA database is now considered the authoritative source for data originally intended for AMP MOD. Loss of AMP MOD network - PM AIM is in the process of fielding systems to each MSC, whch include a secure network udzing the DOD standard network, DISNET. Many of the A M secure network requirements are satisfied today using secure dialup via STU ms. Reduced workforce. . W C AUTOMATION ASSESSMENT (June 1992) 1-2 Tacucal Initiatives 2.1.6 Implementation The following tasks are required to implement the Task Force recommendations: 1 . CG AMC task ISC to engineer and install a secure network to each MSC that will support both the AIM and AMC secure network requirements. Plan should explore use of both DISNET and STU Ills. 2. CIO task AMC DOIMs to check with those directly connected to AMP MOD to ensure their support requirements are accommodated. 3. CIO manage implementation of AMC-wide solution to support requirements identified by AMC DOLMs. 2.1.7 Timeframe The tirneframe to implement the Task Force recommendations is the near-term. 2.1.8 MSC Comments and Task Force Response RECOMMENDATION 1. Close AMP MOD and provide secure network capability via a combination of DISNET and STU III dialup access. MICOM Comments Termination of the AMP MOD system (including the Major Item System Map database) will have minimal impact on the mission/function of the MICOM Integrated Logistic Support (ILS) office. However, processing of Basis of Issue Plan Feeder Data (BOIPFD) and qualitarive/quantitative personnel requirements information (QQPEU) will either revert to a manual system or require development of a local ADP system. Memorandum from AMC to Headquarters DA requesting termination of .9MP MOD. dated 24 Apr 91, was not granted due to the many positive responses from within the HQ DA. SIMA Comments Concur with recommendation. It needs to be noted that selected data currently provided (e.g. procurement delivery schedules) must be obtained from other sources. It also should be noted that there are two distinct elements that need to be examined--the AMP-MOD automated information system and the communication network which supports the transfer of data. We concur with the elimination of the automated system. and recommend that the network be examined for future viability as an independent action. CECOM Comments The report recommends that the AMP MOD be closed. CECOM agrees. Task Force Response Functions currently provided by AMP MOD and still required should be identified through the SRC process for command-wide support. 2.2 TECHNICAL DATA MANAGEMENTmSREDS 2.2.1 Observation Digital Storage and Remeval Engineering Data System (DSREDS)/ Technical DataKonfiguration Management System (TDICMS), as currently operated and maintained by AMC, is not yielding all of its potential benefits. The technical data and associated configuration management program operate independently throughout AMC's seven DSREDS sites. Strong central management of DSREDSI TDICMS will enable AMC to achieve higher levels of efficiency, reduce system costs AMC-wide, and derive maximum benefits from the system. 2.2.2 Discussion DSREDS, though not fully deployed and somewhat under utilized, is a robust system essential to the h y ' s technical data management program. EDMICS, the current CIM system of choice, will not deliver sufficient functionality and capacity to supplant DSREDS for some 3 years, during which time. DSREDS provides the only viable alternative for meeting the Army's requirement for technical data. The Task Force experienced a general lack of knowledge among those interviewed regarding where DSREDS and the technical data management program fits in the AMC organization. There appears to be no consensus as to the identity of the lead DSREDS functional proponent. This is indicative of a need for stronger central management to ensure overall success in the tec hnical data management function. At A V S C O ~ O S C O M the functional technical data program is directed out of the maintenance organization. At TACOM and CECOM the engineering directorate provides overall direction. The Project Manager for the DSREDS Program is a member of the DOIM staff at MICOM and, therefore, subject to direction by the CIO, while the senior technical direction in HQ AMC is out of the concurrent engineering area. Senior members of the staff expressed concern over the effect of DSREDS program fragmentation on cost management and the funding process: logistics support including maintenance: and standardization. In the areas of capacity and performance, the Task Force heard concerns regarding the capability of DSREDS to handle TACOM's workload, while, in contrast, it found that CECOM and Fort Belvoir may be under utiiizing DSREDS. The Task Force also encountered questions regarding the robusmess of EDMICS, which affects how long AMC will need to rely on DSREDS. Current DSREDS functionality does not address the capability to allocate system resource usage to specific users. This h t a t i o n , if left uncorrected, will constrain future AMC requirements to implement a DSREDS-spec~fic cost analysis and cost recovery program in accordance with DA/DOD policy. DSREDS maintenance levels vary from site to site under the current concept, whereby each site contracts separately for maintenance. Consolidation of maintenance contracts will provide economy of scale and ensure uruformlv high levels of maintenance across all sites. AMC AUTOMATION ASSESMEV June 1 9 2 ) 1-5 C ~ ~ t ~ ~ d Init~a~vrs Application of standard cataloguing techmques and naming conventions for drawings wdl enable personnel command-wide to access drawings resident in a central DSREDS repository. This wiU advance movement towards CALS compliance and accelerate AMC's attainment of all benefits of a fully automated, interactive technical data production and management program. Standard data management policies and procedures are needed Army-Wide and DOD-wide for the technical data automation concept to deliver the maximum payoff. Different TD/CMS programs are in use at each MSC. It has been demonstrated at Huntsville that significant improved performance and cost savings can be realized by standardizing TDICMS and coliocating it with DSREDS on state-of-the-- Unix-based, front-end systems currently installed at the sites. Excepting the R&D community, DSREDS is the only remaining unconsolidated MVS workload in AMC. Migration of the DSREDS workload to the APCs offers potential for additional savings. A command-wide capability for depot-level interactive access to DSREDS does not currently exist, although proof of concept has been established in tests between AVSCOM, St. Louis, and Corpus Christi Army Depot. 2.23 Recommendations The AMC Automation Assessment Task Force made the following recommendations: 1. CIO direct the DSREDS PM to engage AMC's Management Engineering Activity at Huntsvdle to conduct a management study with the following objectives: a. Evaluate the current technical data management processes and provide recommendations for improvement. The study should assess the current technical datalconfiguration management structure and recornmerid the best candidate as the AMC functional proponent of technical daw'configuration management systems. b. Document the savings achievable through standardization, consolidation and configuration management. The study should quantify savings associated with standardizing electronic transmission, storage, and retrieval, including archival characteristics. The study results should enable AMC to prompt action at the DA/DOD level supporting promulgation of appropriate standards and/or associated policies. c. Evaluate the need for DSREDS at Fort Belvoir. This evaluation should include a functional economic analysis of alternatives for providing DSREDS support to local customers to determine if DSREDS support should be provided by some other means. AMC AUTOMATION ASSESSMENT (June 1992) 3 -6 Tsctlcal Inlt~atlves 2. CIO task ISC's capacity managers to immediately initiate capacity management of all technical data production systems e.g., Infodetics, DSREDS, manual processes, to ensure cost-effective, efficient placement and utilization of technical data production resources. Further, the capacity manager should immediately conduct a workload/capacity analysis of DSREDS to address capacity/utilization issues at CECOM, TACOM, and Fort Belvoir and to provide data to the CIM/EDMICS program for use in sizing EDMICS production requirements. 3. CEO direct the PM to consolidate (at the earliest feasible opportunity given current contract periods of performance) DSREDS maintenance contracts. 4. CIO direct the PM to develop and document the requirements needed in DSREDS to support the DAlDOD fee-for-service policy and ensure that these requirements are met in future enhancements to the system 5. CIO dnect the DSREDS PM to take immediate action to standardize the cment TDfCMS at all sites and migrate the application to the Unix front-end systems installed at the sites. This w d place al l of the techcal data and associated configuration management systems in the same operating environment on common systems, which will reduce the cost of system administration, operation, communications and other associated costs. 6. CIO task ISC to assess the technical feasibility of rehosting the DSREDS workload on the AIPC, and if the concept is technically feasible. to follow up with a functional economic analysis. When DSREDS is rehosted on the AlPC MVSEA processors, the costs of maintaining seven separate MVSXA licenses will be eliminated. As DSREDS moves to an open system environment, AIPC Unix hosts wlll provide the same economies of scale. With the migration of the depots' processing to the AIPC, and the establishment of communications lines to those locations, the communications network will provide the requisite interactive support with minimum upgrade. Migration of depot-level DSREDS processing to the AIPCs should k implemented as a second phase to the current DSREDS upgrade, which wd raise the DSREDS operaang system level to that of the AIPCs. (The current peripherals on the DSREDS are fully compatible with the AIPC mainframe platforms.) 7. AMC direct the DSREDS PM to extend full interactive access to the Army depots to enable them to access the technical data repository in DSREDS. This will permit the Army depots to access the most current set of technical documentation and configurauon management information and thereby significantly improve their ability to conduct depot- level maintenance on the appropriate system. It will also assure that the most current engineering change information is available at the depot and reduce their requirement to maintain drawings and publications separately at the local level. LMC .AUTOMATION .ASSESSMENT (June 1392) . - - - I Tactical Initlauves 2.2.4 Benefits The AMC Automation Assessment Task Force recommendations have the following benefits: 1. Assessing the costs associated with delaying implementation of standards will promote movement towards standardization and the attainment of resultant savings. 2. Improved capacity management will optimize performance system wide and reduce unit cost of service. 3. Consolidation of maintenance contracts will reduce the unit cost of maintenance and yield a higher level of performance across the system. 4. Preparing to implement fee for service will enable compliance with DOD/DA policy. 5. Standardization of TD/CMS and migration to the Unix frontend systems will reduce the cost of system administration. operation. communications and other associated costs. increase performance and facilitate incremental attainment of CALS compliance. 6. Rehosting DSREDS on the AIPC MVSIXA processors will eliminate the costs of maintaining seven separate MVSWA licenses. Migration of depot-level DSREDS processing to the AIPCs and extending interactive DSREDS access to the depot level will significantly improve the overall quality of technical data. 7. Ultimately, an improved DSREDS will improve the Army's technical data packages, which improves the total acquisition process in the Army, and has a vast impact on configuration control of end items, maintenance costs, and safety .... a good set of specs and a good set of drawings is essential to efficient cost-effective acquisition of Army materiel. 2.2.5 Impact Full implementation of DSREDS technology will hasten progress toward a modem, cost-effective business process that will mcct Army mission needs and provide a migration path to CALSICIM technology. Access by a l l levels of the command to accurate technical data and its associated configuration management structure should assist in actzleving major improvement to other associated business processes, e.g., procurementlacquisition, maintenance, engineering, and quality assurance. Bottom Line: this will provide more quality products at less cost in less time. 2.2.6 Implementation The following tasks are required to implement the Task Force recommendations: 1. Management programs should be initiated within 15 days of approval of the recommendations. .4MC AUTOMATION ASSESSMENT (June 1992) 2 -8 Tacucai [nltlauves 2. Formal tasking and associated processes should begin not later than 30 days after the management structure is approved and formalized AMC-wide. 2.2.7 Timeframe The timeframe to implement the Task Force recommendations is the near to mid-tern 3.2.8 MSC Comments and Task Force Response RECOMMENDATION 2. Close DSREDS sites at Fort Belvoir and CECOM and provide support remotely. MICOM Comments MICOM concurs for economic reasons, implemen~g BRAC and incorporating CIM/ILSC initiatives, that closing some DSREDS sites is a possibility. However. a more thorough evaluation must be accomplished with the following problems to be addressed: Fort Belvoir was identified as the only secure site for processing classified data. They have also been designated as the site to host the processing of data for the National Capitol Region. CECOM has not previously attained Full Operating Capacity (FOCI, but is now being upgraded at a cost of $500K to reach FOC. The software at DSREDS host sites will have to be upgraded to allow two or more major commands to process concurrently. Under guidance of JLSC and CALS environment. any changes to the DSREDS software will not be made without the JLSC's approval. This will also necessitate additional communication costs and hardware adaptations and upgrades. This will negate savings projected in support of DSREDS initial development. Operation of remote sites through a host site will introduce one to two weeks additional Procurement Adrmnistrative Leadtime (PALT). The PALT cost in 1983 was estimated in a range of $.5M to $1M per day depending on site involved. CECOM Comments The report recommends that the DSREDS site at CECOM be closed and support tor DSREDS should be obtained from a remote site. CECOM suongly non-concurs. 1. The past history of CECOM DSREDS being minimally used was caused by .;tiin u p funding problems that have since been corrected. lMC AUTOM..\T!ON ASSESSMENT !me 1902) - 1 9 1 ~ 1 1 ~ 3 1 ! n l f l 3 ~ \ ~ \ 2. CECOM, as the second largest AMC repository, currently has approximately 1,000,000 documents in its DSREDS database. If we add the approximately 500,000 SATCOM documents, CECOM would undoubtedly be the largest repository among the major subordinate commands. To have these documents loaded at a remote site would require a ~ i g ~ c a n t expansion of its storage capacity. The manpower and material cost increase to the remote site expansion would be enormous and passed on to CECOM. The cost benefits in the recommendation would not materialize. 3. TaIung into consideration state-of-the-art compression techniques. sending graphical information over communications lines is still a very expensive undertakmg. The cunent plan to use the AIPC in Charnbersburg, with non-graphical data, is already 120% over the normal annual CECOM operating costs thus, ramping up the AIPC disk storage, the CPU power and the sizable communications upgrade would state the business case for a remote DSREDS as a loss. 4. Since the cost to obtain drawings digitally through communications lines is extremely expensive, we would have no recourse but to have large volume requirements sent to us by aperture card. Tlus would significantly impede engineering research efforts and delay master bid set building, due to lack of material for performing an issue check. 5. Since JCALS is not in place, we would be further delayed in obtaining digital access to our documents as well as receiving digital data for storage. We would be forced to remain in our present manual mode of operation, and further complicated by not having direct access to our documents. 6. DSREDS is contractually identified as a major island of automation here at CECOM by the ongoing JCALS effort. CECOM fielding is in FY94. The impact to the massive JCALS program would be disastrous. 7. We would be "out of business" if communications line problems occurred or if we had to timeshare access to the remote site. Our access to documents would undoubtedly be second priority to that of the selected remote site. We would be forced to maintain the mylar and aperture card storage system as presently exists for backup purposes. 8. With the Intergraph filc server removed, we would no longer have access to DSREDS via our Intergraph workstations. This would reduce our configuration management efforts to manual controls which would be impossible with the number of acquisitions and technical data packages we manage at CECOM. 9. Problems with legibility would take longer to resolve since we may have to wait for a new aperture cards to arrive. 10. Updates to printed outputs, such as the TDPL, would experience an unnecessary time lag. Time to do issue checks would become untenable. . M C AUTOMATION ASSESSMENT (June 1992) 3-10 Tactical Initiahves 11. Control of different drawing numbering systems would require extensive software modifications. Also, documents accessed by drawing number may identify two documents of different CAGE codes possibly resulting in an inaccurate master bid set. 12. Classified and limited rights data cannot be accessed over communications lines without a complete secure line system in place. 13. We would lose immediate access facility, thus becoming further backlogged on ECP changes. 14. Engineering review of drawings for configuration management requirements, design analysis and fast response decisions for "Desert Storm" type situations would become grossly more cumbersome, if we don't have full repository capability with the latest facilities. 15. It is estimated that administrative lead time would be mpled. 16. The Research, Development and Engineering Center (RDEC), CECOM, would be adversely affected if the DSREDS site at CECOM is moved. The Prototype Development Directorate (PDD) provides remeval service of engineering drawings on a continuous basis to technical personnel of all RDEC directorates, as well as to Project Managers (PMs), Program Executive Offices (PEOs), and other elements at Fort Monrnouth. The volume of drawing requests and the complexity of drawings is substantial and unless adequate speed and integrity of data for remote support can be fully guaranteed, the loss of direct connection to a local Center would have serious negative impact in terms of impaired productivity on RDEC, CECOM and the PMs, PEOs and other elements to which PDD provides direct daily engineering suppon. Task Force Res~onse Based on input from PM DSREDSmCMS, the Task ~ o r c e recommendations have been revised. Recommend CECOM retain DSREDS capability and migrate to full utilization of system capabilities. .UIC AUTOMATION ASSESSMENT (June !393 1-1 1 Txucal Inlticlt~ves 2.3 PROCUREMENT AUTOMATED DATA AND DOCUMENT SYSTEM (PADDS) 2.3.1 0 bservation The PADDS system, operated by AMC, runs on obsolete, expensive equipment from Perlun Elmer with high software and hardware maintenance costs. The system is slow and does not support the required number of users. 3.3.2 Discussion PADDS is the AMC standard system that supplies AMC CCSS sites with the capability to generate hardcopy, signature-ready procurement instruments, along with ancillary forms and documents. The PADDS program was implemented in 1980, and is managed by SMA. The PADDS environment includes a Perkin Elmer minicomputer running a proprietary operating system. PADDS is written in COBOL and TAPS using the TOTAL database management system. PADDS is installed at each MSC plus SIMA-W. Annual maintenance costs are approximately $346K per site per year for hardware and software maintenance plus $69K for personnel, $47K for monitors, $10K for technicians and $1.5K for other. The Joint Logistics Systems Center (JLSC) has responsibility for fielding the DOD standard replacement for PADDS. JLSC has selected the Navy's procurement system, Integrated Technical Item Management and Procurement System (ITIMP) (previously known as the Procurement Early Development [PED] system) as the DOD standard. JLSC plms to field ITIMP to five sites within the next 12 months, however total Army fielding will take over two years. AMC has focused SIMA resources, originally dedicated to PADDS, on ITEMP development in a joint effort with the Navy. This work is supported by JLSC. 2.33 Recommendations The AMC Automation Assessment Task Force made the following recommendations: 1. Contract with Electronic Data Systems (EDS) via ISC's U2 contract to convert PADDS from the proprietary Perkin Elmer system to an Open Systems Environment. Costs are estimated roughly at $300-400K with an approximate duration of 4-6 months. 2. Field PADDS on available Unix hosts at MSCs. 3. Continue SlMA effort to enhance ITIMP and field to all MSCs as replacement to PADDS when available. 3.3.4 Benefits The AMC Automation Assessment Task Force recommendations have the following benefits: -- - -- .WC AUTOMATION ASSESSMENT ;June 1992) 2-12 Tactical In~uauves 1. Improved avadability of critical procurement system during transition to JLSC standard. 2. Savings of over $300K per year in hardware and software maintenance. 2.35 Implementation The following tasks are required to implement the Task Force recommendations: 1. CG AMC direct SIMA to task EDS through the SMC connact for a cost estimate for converting PADDS to Unix. 2. CG AMC direct AMC DCSRM to conduct a functional economic analysis to validate savings from PADDS conversion and consider any other technically feasible alternatives. 3. CIO publish and execute an implementation plan. 2.3.6 Timeframe The timeframe to implement the Task Force recommendations is the near-term. 2.3.7 MSC Comments and Task Force Response RECOMMENDATION 3. Convert PADDS to Unix; move to other hardware. MICOM Comments Strongly disapee that PADDS is a non-critical system. The current PADDS hardwarelsoftware environment successfully provides critical procurement needs at MICOM. The recently upgraded PADDS system provides continued service until a CIM solution becomes operanonal. Expenditure for an interim system in these austere times does not appear cost effective. CECOM Comments The report recommends that the PADDS system be converted to Unix and moved to other hardware. CECOM concurs. PADDS software and hardware are outmoded and the issues concerning the JLSC and PEDS must shll be addressed. Task Force Response Grouping PADDS under the heading "Non-Critical System" was an error by the Task Force. The recommendation to develop intenm replacement was the result of acknowledging the importance of PADDS. Investment in the range of $WOK for an interim solution appears warranted based on rapid return on investment. .ZMC AUTOMATION ASSESSMENT (June !YVZ) 2-13 Tact~cal 1n:tlatlves 2.4 INTEGRATED PROCUREMENT SYSTEM (IPS) 2.4.1 0 bservation AMC operates and maintains 32 Unix minicomputers that were purchased for the IPS program. which was never fielded and is no longer under development. 2.4.2 Discussion This issue has been incorporated into the Unix consolidation section. 2.43 MSC Comments and Task Force Response RECOMMENDATION 1. Reduce number of Unisys processors. lMICOM Comments Non-Concur. The Unisys processors which were originally acquired to be utilized in the Integrated Procurement System (IPS), which has been cancelled, remain heavily utilized in support of the MICOM procurement mission. LABCOM Comments With regard to recommendation #1, "Reduce number of Unisys processors," we note that at ALC most of the Unisys processors have been collocated. There may be merit in moving Unisys systems to a common, larger platform as a mid- to long-term initiative. This recommendation requires thorough analysis to determine whether adequate service can be provided at reduced cost. Factors must include location of the common platform, cost, and network responsiveness. AVSCOM Comments Reduce the number of Unisys processors/Consolidate onto large Unix hosts operated and maintained by the AIPCs: Who will fund the additional software and capacity for the mainframe required to replace the Unisys processors? The local DOIM must be provided some flexibility in this environment to ensure responsiveness to the locai Commander's requirements. Consolidation should be conducted on a business case basis and it should ensure that all architectural and operational requirements are considered. Task Force Res~onse See Unix consolidation discussion. . M C AUTOMATION ASSESSMENT (June 1992) 2-14 Tactlcal hitiatlves RECOMMENDATION 2. Remove INTEL hubs. Reduce other file servers. MICOM Comments Most INTEL hubs have been removed from MICOM. The minicomputers and other file servers at MICOM comply with the state-of-the-art client-server technology. Horizontal and vertical interoperability allows MICOM customers to successfully manipulate data from all tiers to perform heir mission. For example: File servers are a critical part of the MICOM Executive Yetwork. are critical to the continued implementation of the imaging program to reduce paper, and are the backbone of the new technology move toward client-server architecture. LABCOM Comments We have serious disagreement with recommendation #2, "Remove Lntel hubs: reduce other file servers." The desktop computing initiative at ALC is built on a system of hubs and servers. Our plans for the ARL Corporate [nfomation System are based on file servers using templates to update databases. Implementation plans for our Executive Information System (EIS) utilize shadow databases serviced by X-windows client server technology. AVSCOM Comments Reduce other file servers: Does this imply LAN file servers? We are in the process of a major implementation of work group LANs. LANs are critical to expanding the opportunities for achieving significant advances in end-user productivity. Task Force Response Recommendation was not intended to imply elimination of file servers. The intent was to replace obsolete, expensive Intel file servers with new technology. Maintenance and system administranon costs for Intel 3 10/320s exceed replacement costs. M C .ALTOMATION 4SSESSME.V 1 iune i997,) 1-15 "lctlcd In~uatlves SYSTEMS INTEGRATION AND MANAGEMENT ACTIVITY - 2.5.1 Observation Observation concerning S LMA falls into two categories: 1. Savings can be realized by modifying current SIMA structure (removal of functionals from SIMA TDA). 2. Savings can be realized by reconsidering future SlMA locations (BRAC 91 SIMA-E relocation decision and relocation of SIMA-W to Goodfellow Blvd). 2.5.2 Discussion The Systems Integration and Management Activity (SIMA) serves as AMC's Central Design Activity (CDA) for Army logistics management systems, both wholesale and retail. SIMA provides continuous AMC applications development support to all AMC functional proponents and other customers. The majority of SJMA personnel are located at Charnbersburg, PA (HQ- SIMA East) and St. Louis (SIMA West). Additional staff are located at Tobyhanna, PA, and Seckenheirn, Germany. Current staffing levels are 990 civilians (927 authorized) and 22 Military (25 authorized). SIMA is organized along mission lines into the following directorates: Acquisition and Engineering systems Materiel Management Systems Depot Maintenance and Distribution Systems Financial Systems Information Services Two major systems developed and maintained by SIMA are the-Commodity Command Standard Systems (CCSS) and Standard Depot Systems (SDS): CCSS - The Commodity Command Standard System (CCSS) is the Automated Information System ( U S ) which supports mission accomplishment at Army Materiel Command (AMC) Inventory Control Points and National Maintenance Points (ICP/NMP). CCSS is the umbrella designation for sub-systems which support the following functional areas: Procurement; Financial Management; Materiel Management including Stock Control, Supply Management, Maintenance Management and Asset Managemenr Logistics Data Management including both Cataloging and Provisioning; and Acquisition Management. In addition, CCSS supports Security Assistance (Foreign Military Sales). CCSS is comprised of over 6.5M lines of application code. There are over 500 applications which are comprised of over two thousand executable process blocks. Over four thousand individual modules are included in the process blocks, and they are tailored to specific functions. CCSS is modular by design. which allows for the incorporation of changes and molfications more readily than would be the case if the executable process blocks were not modular. .WC AUTOMATION ASSESSMENT (Juze 1992) :-16 Tactical htiauves A further d e h t i o n of systems funcdonality follows. using the generally accepted Materiel Management categories: 0. ITEM INTRODUCTION processes support the functions of provisioning and cataloging including planning and budgeting, initial provisioning requirements, item identificanon naming, numbering and dissemnation of data. and publications support. . . .ACQUISITION MATERIEL MANAGEMENT processes include procurement. techn~cal data contipration management. and deficiency repornng. .. REQUIREMENTS processes include secondary item requirements determation, budget suatification. budgeting and funding, contingency planning and war reserves and security assistance. . . .ASSET MANAGEMENT processes include asset visibility, requisition processing, distribution management. returns and disposal management. phv5ical inventory. and mantenance planning and execution. FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT processes associated with the above include funds certification. billing, financial accounting. reconciliation and reporting. SDS - The SDS is a systemic grouping of tasks within application processes or modules allowing the logistical management of ammunition and general supply items (wholesale and reml), equipment, facilities, and the maintenance rebuild of major and secondary items. The system consists of some 3.1 million lines of source code in approximately 2.300 application programs categories into 40 projects or application areas. The numerous applications categorized as Standard System Applications include: .. Materiel Management Applications - Support the dismbution or' matenel through the receipt, cataloging, storage, issue. and inventory of wholesale supplies. .* Installation Support Applications - Provide for installation support for Equipment, Fachty Management, Quality Assurance, Procurement and R e d Supply Activities. ** Personnel, Financial, and Maintenance Management Applications - Support customer resource requirements for finance and personnel and provides planning, production and control for maintenance and supply activities. 2.5.2.1 Functional Input to SIMA SIMA personnel fall into two distinct categories: information technology specialists that serve as applications developers, and functional experts that serve as liaison between SIMA's applications developers and functional proponents from the vanous organizations supported by SIMA. The latter constitute approximately 40% of SIMA's TDA. The oppominity is to draw functional expemse directly from the organization supported on an as needed basis rather than to maintain an expensive stable of functional expertise. To combat traditional problems in user dissatisfaction with centrally developed systems, it is necessary to increase the user involvement. This is best done by placing functions in the user organization rather than the developers. MICOM's comments on this issue (attached) accurately describe the benefits of removins functionals from the TDA of the central design activities. 2.5.2.2 Future SIMA Locations At the time of the study, AMC was planning to move SIMA-E to Rock Island, IL, based on BRAC 91 decisions involving facility consolidations. organization moves, and the creation of new organizations through realignment of existing AMC elements. The IPAT Sub-Group Report assessed this decision as follows: This affects the technical staff who maintain the Depot Standard Systems (SDS) and many other information systems currently in daily use within AMC. It is anticipated that only a small percentage of the people currently on board will actually make the physical move. This will create a major loss of corporate knowledge associated with the maintenance and continued support to a number of mission critical AMC information systems. l h s wil l be problematic not only in keeping the systems in their present form operating, but will also make it difficult to properly transition the functionality of the systems to the future DOD standard information Technology environment. The DOD initiative to standardize information systems, and the DA initiatives to move to an Open System Environment (OSE) will have significant impacts on the systems currently maintained by SIMA-E. The availability of the expertise of the people who created the existing systems to help in the transition to the future environment will be very important. The probable loss of a significant portion of this knowledge base as a result of the SIMA-E move is a significant factor. BRAC 91 decision to relocate SIMA-E to Rock Island costs $8M in MCA and up to $10M in relocation costs. Relocauon wdl result in loss of software expertise and operational effectiveness will be disrupted. SIMA-W currently leases GSA facilities. Alternative space will be available at Goodfellow at a sigmficantly lower cost. . M C AUTOMATION ASSESSMENT (Jum 1992) 3-18 Txtlcai ln~uauves 2.53 Recommendations The AMC Automation Assessment Task Force made the following recommendations: 1. Provide functional input to SlMA using lead MSC and functional proponents (e.g., LSC). 2. Remove functionals from SlMA TDA. 3. Do not relocate SIMA-E. Bring before BRAC 93 Committee. 4. Relocate SLMA-W to Goodfellow Boulevard and consolidate DPI with AIPC. 2.5.4 Benefits The AMC Automation Assessment Task Force recommendations have the following benefits: 1. Current functional expertise provide to software development. 2. Cost avoidance of $8M MCA, $10M relocation and approximately $1.2M civilian pay (post reduction). 3. Savings of $3.1M annually in GSA lease cost. 2.55 Implementation The following tasks are required to implement the Task Force recommendations: 1. AMC DCSRM review SIMA TDA and removefunctional (non-information management) authorizations. 2. Transfer portion of these authorizations to MICOM to cover additional workload associated with lead MSC mission. 3. AMC DCSRM recommend removal of SIMA-E relocation from BRAC. 4. Chief of Staff task SIMA and AVSCOM to develop FEA for relocation of SIMA-W into Goodfellow Blvd., St. Louis, MO. 2.5.6 Timeframe The timeframe to implement the Task Force recommendations is the mid-term. . M C AUTOMATION ASSESSMENT (June 1992) 2-19 T3ctlcal In~tlauves 2.5.7 MSC Comments and Task Force Response RECOMMENDATION 1. Provide functional input to SIMA using lead MSC/proponent (JLSC). MICOM Comments Agree. Utilization of functional personnel who are actually performing the AMC rmssions to define functional requirements for automation systems will ensure that the perspectives of a real world "working" environment are captured. I t will mean that the functional requirements will be guided by the expertise that is using the systems on a daily basis. The experts having a working knowledge of the current systems know their shortcomings and pitfalls and where improvements would bring the most overall benefit. Such an environment wdl also ensure that this expertise is maintained, since the resources will be circulated back into an operational mode. In fact, utilization of rapid prototype development and electronic group systems techniques for functional definition will minimize the absence from the workplace. S IMA Comments We strongly non-concur to this suggestion for several reasons. Functional support is required continuously throughout the life cycle of a system -- not just during concept development. Functionals play an integral role in the design, testing, documentation, training, and deployment. In addition, after the system is fielded it is constantly being maintained, modified and enhanced via the SCR process. It is also being supported on a daily basis by answenng user questions, supporting functional policy task groups, etc. As a result our systems have long life cycles. Further, our systems are large, complex, and integrated. They consist of hundreds of thousands of lines of code which defme/organize/process minute pieces of functional logic. You cannot expect to assign lead responsibility to a group that exists for a temporary period or has a constant turnover in personnel and expect to maintain the institutional knowledge that is required to support the system over its entire life. Functional support is a full time job that requires extensive knowledge of how the system was or is to be designed. To perform this function at a MSC would require the creation of new organization not within their mission responsibility with a substantial commitment of resources. Two, recommendation one assumes that the MSC has the resources to commit to systems support. In today's environment it seems extremely unllkely that they will be able to siphon off a sufficient number of resources to support a new mission. In addition. these resources must be trained. Systems design is a skill that requires formal training in automation tools: e.g., how to write logic in structured and tight English, how to develop and design decision trees and tables, how to normalize databases, etc. These slalls are not acquired overnight. They take months to develop in the very best people and a year or two to develop in people with average abilities. The learning curve is extensive and costly. .lMC AUTOMATION ASSESSMENT (June 1992) 2-20 T~clca l Ln~batlves Three, implementation of these plans would divorce the functional from the ADP community incurring unnecessary costs and creating communications problems. This would extend systems development and maintenance times at a period when development time is already unacceptable. SIMA has been co-located with its user community to ensure that its functionals are in tune with the real world. It offers opportunity for immediate feed-back on what works or doesn't work. It is convenient for prototyping. Furthermore, in the information technology world of the future, the lines between ADP and functional personnel are becoming invisible. In the CASE environment, business analysts have a broad range of skills that cross the boundaries, and those individuals will ultimately provide the bulk of the services. Task Force Response Comments received by the Task Force throughout AMC indicate that functional expertise in SlMA is stale. investment in functional manhours for system development should come from the best source of functional experience (a line unit). rather than soliciting technical assistance in areas such as database normalization that should be the domain of the system developer. LABCOM Comments With regard to recommendation #I , "Provide functional input to SIMA using lead MSCIproponent (JLSC)," the laboratory community has never had functional support in SIMA. The concept of a "lead" MSC working with the JLSC causes concern that research processes will be swallowed by logistics mission requirements. ARL should be the lead MSC for laboratory requirements. RECOMMENDATION 2. Remove functionals from SIMA -TDA. AVSCOM Comments We agree to this recommendation as long as some approach is developed for providing coordinated functional requirements to SIMA. Three options should be considered: 1) Use the Lead MSC concept; 2) Assign areas of functional expertise to different MSCs: or 3) Franchise requirements definition on a case by case basis. The reassignment of these spaces should be used to staff the Lead MSC and to support other AMC strategy implementations. At the same time, this is being accomplished, SIMA's overall resource allocation should be reviewed to determine where additional savings can be gained through coilocation with DOIMIAIPCs. Finally, SIMA's role needs to be reexamined. As SIMA _goes under Fee-for- Service, should SIMA be viewed as a contractor'? XMC AUTOMATION .ASSESSMENT (June 1992) 7 - 2 1 "actlcal In~tlatlves CECOM Comments The removal of SIMA functionals would transfer the weight to a lead MSC and/or the FCG. There is no disagreement with the methodology, but current functional resource consmaints must be considered. In some cases the systems/business combination of expertise is not there. Task Force Response Concur. Some transfer of spaces from SIMA to the lead MSC is appropriate. RECOMMENDATION 3. Do not relocate SIMA-E. Bring before BRAC 93 committee. MICOM Comments The relocation of SIMA-E is best addressed by AMCCOM; however, if their primary mission is to support the depot community, the move would be beneficial long range since it would then be located with the Indusmal Operations Command. The major problem that MICOM has had with SIMA-E is the fielding of systems developed for the Depots without proper interfaces to other standard systems, e.g., SOMARDS with RASELARS. The configuration and software release management is not consistent with SIMA-W and has caused many problems in the MSC environment. Task Force Response Concur. Although not part of this study, 7th Signal Command is working with SIMA on software release management. SIMA Comments Strongly support and concur with recommendation for retention of SIMA-East at Letterkenny Army Depot, Chambersburg, PA. Additional benefits to be gained by retention of SIMA-E at current location include satisfying mobilization and contingency requirements, and c o n ~ u a t i o n of responsive and extensive support to AMC design elements in accomplishing rapid changes of day-today logistical business processes for significant Army doctrinal changes. AMC will also benefit in the tremendous task of managing the rruilions of dollars of European retrograde generated by the Army build-down and obtaining visibility overall classes of supply with Total Asset Visibility. Cost avoidance of $18M is a low estimate: the personnel and equipment movement costs are actually estimated at $27.5M. Not relocating SIMA-E also avoids a total mission collapse for 2-3 years following the move plus the accompanying degradation of productivity in out years. W C AUTOMATION ASSESSMENT (June 1992) 2-22 Tactlcal lnltlauves LABCOM Comments With regard to recommendation #3, "Do not relocate SLMA-E. Bring before BRAC 93 Committee," we recommend considering consolidation of SIMA-E and SIMA-W and collocating with the "lead MSC" for logisrics and readiness mission support RECOMMENDATION 4. Relocate SIMA-W to Goodfellow Boulevard and consolidate DPI with AIPC. MICOM Comments Agree. If AMC really has no control over how 90% of SIMA-W resources are used. as stated in the 11 May VTC, this should be a near-term initiative to save the $3M for FY93 that GSA requires for the leased space. Unless AMC has plans to provide "de facto" control over SIMA, it would appear that only 10% of the resources providing O&M of current AMC systems would have to be relocated. Use of the SIMA functional resources by LOGSA should be explored. Any AMC SISOCS site could assume the associated computer workload. SIMA Comments The decision to relocate SIMA-W to Goodfellow should be based upon: ( 1) the ability of the Goodfellow complex to accommodate the projected SIMA requirements, and (2) the move is economically justifiable. It appears that the original projected savlngs were over- estimated. When all costs associated with the move are considered. it may be questionable whether it remains a cost-justifiable option. Due to this uncertainty, it is recommended that an independent analysis be developed by MEA and that the results of that analysis provide a basis for the final decision. LABCOM Comments With regard to recommendation #4, "Relocate SIMA-W to Goodfellow Boulevard and consolidate DPI with AIPC," we recommend considering consolidation of SIMA-E and SJMA-W and collocating with the "lead MSC" for logistics and readiness mission support. CECOM Comments The report recommends a relocation and restructuring of SIMA. CECOM concurs with reservation. Task Force Response Concur. .4MC ALrTOMATION 4SSESSMENT (June 1992'1 1-23 T ~ c t ~ c a l ln~tlatlves 2.6 SYSTEM REVIEW COMMITTEE (SRC) STRUCTURE 2.6.1 0 bservation Current SRC structure focuses Information Management support to specific functions rather than across functional areas. 2.6.2 Discussion The current System Review Committee structure consists of four categories: logistics, acquisition, resource management, and information management. The various functions supported are clustered logically within these four categories. Functional requirements needing automated support surface through these partitioned channels, and system support is provided through these same channels. The problem with this organization is that it promotes articulation of functional requirements along distinct functional lines and encourages the development of stovepipe systems in each functional area. This saucture inhibits consolidation and aggregation of similar requirements into integrated systems that cross functional boundaries. Moreover. AMC's business processes undergo constant change that cause functional realignments and overlaps; and the SRC process can easily lag behind the ever changing business processes the systems are intended to support. The following extract from the Army Materiel Command Business Automation Initial Transition Plan, Phase I describes the strucnue used' by AMC to manage automation programs: Management Structure: AMC articulates functional requirements and manages its automation program to support those requirements with a management structure designed to draw on expertise in all seven AMC mission areas at all organizational levels. Functional experts in a designated functional area from the HQ, AMC Major Subordinate Commands and Separate Reporting Activities form Furictional Coordinating Groups (FCGs) chartered by the responsible System Review Committee (SRC). Thus, system support and Life Cycle Management for all functional areas are partitioned among the four SRCs; the Logistics System Review Committee, the Resource Management System Review Committee, the Acquisition System Review Committee and the Information Management System Review Committee. SRCs are chaired by an appropriate HQ AlMC Deputy Chief of Staff or higher, with their functional counterparts at the MSCsISRAs belonging to an SRC as voting member. In nun, the AMC Chief ot' Staff, the chairs o t the SRCs, and Director of SIMA comprise the Information Management Council, which convenes on major issues which impact more than one SRC. Within the LSRC. which has jurisdiction for two-thirds of AMC's business software applications, the FCGs are further grouped under Functional System Integrators, which align to designated CLM sub-areas within Materiel Management. The above describes a management structure aligned along functional boundaries tailored to the AMC staff structure. Thls structure has the following three limitations: (1) The systems -- - - - - - -- - . W C AUTOMATION ASSESSMENT f!une 19911 1-24 T ~ c t ~ c a l Initlatlves supporting AMC's busmess do not t'ollow this alignment (e.g., CALS, CCSS), ( 2 ) Integration across functional areas is a major requirement for automation support (thus the name of System Integration Management Activity), (3) The Joint Logistics Systems Center (ILSC) is not aligned along these boundaries. AMC is experiencing defacto out-sourcing of information technology support due to the advent of L S C and operations support from ISC. These factors reduce the freedom oi action of functional SRCs and require an integrated view of AMC automation suppon. 2.6.3 Recommendations The ,i4h4C Automation Assessment Task Force made the following recommendations: I . Establish a single SRC with Command Group oversight (GOISES) and members from all functional areas. 2. Appoint CIO as Secretary 3. Establish nonvoeing chairs for ILSC, ISC, and IMA Integration and Analysis Center (IIAC). IIAC is responsible for overseeing the integration of software, providing configuration management, compliance suppon, resource priority recommendations and technology promotions. 4. Convene as a working group as required. 5. Restructure Functional System Integrators (COWGM 15) to provide horizontal integration. 2.6.4 Benefits The AMC Automation Assessment Task Force recommendations have the foilowing benefits: 1. Increased economies and efficiencies through consolidation of requirements into standard integrated systems. 2. Reduced proliferation of systems offering redundant capabilities. 3. Improved coordination and integration of functional requirements into information technology systems. 2.6.5 Implementation The following tasks are required to implement the Task Force recommendations: 1. Chef of Staff task the existing SRCs to provide to the CIO a status of a11 current and future projects. together with associated costs and benefits within 60 days. . M C .4UTOMATION ASSESSMENT (June 1997,) - 3-25 , JCIICAI inlt~atlves 2. CIO analyze this list for potential redundancies and provide an integrated priority list at the f m t restructured SRC meeting. 3. CG task C10 to complete restructuring action within 6 months. 2.6.6 Timeframe The timeframe to implement the Task Force recommendations is the near-term. 2.6.7 MSC Comments and Task Force Response RECOMMENDATION 1. Establish a single SRC with Command Group oversight (GO/SES) and members from all functional areas. MICOM Comments MICOM has no ob~ection to the concept proposed. Much more information would be needed, however. before approval or objections could be stated about its implementation. For example: What would be the size of this SRC? Would the membership include individuals from the MSCs? How would the member(s) from the MSCs be determined (i.e. a single member, a member from each functional area, or some other criteria)? What would the mechanism be to raise an issue before this SRC? How would a Lead MSC relate to this SRC? In short, AMC and the MSCs need to carefully scrutinize the implementation of this proposal. SlMA Comments We concur and support the recommendation to establish a single SRC structure as a means of streamlining the process. The recommendation would reduce the amount of administrative time required to support the separate but different processes that exist today. Further, the recommendation should improve those situations where the separate review committees have separate but conflicting priorities. It wdl serve to integrate the entire process and resolve any boundary issues. We support this recommendation and would recommend it as a model for DOD. LABCOM Comments With regard to the recommendations, "Establish a single SRC with Command Group oversight (GOISES) and members from all functional areas: CIO serves as secretary; JLSC and ISC representation: md Resnucture FSIs (COLIGM15) to provide horizontal integrauon," there exists a single forum for Information technology today which has command group oversight and functional input through the current SRCs. - - .WC AUTOMATION ASSESSMENT (June 1992) 2 -26 Tacucal huatlves The requirement for multiple SRCs arose from the strong mission focus of the LSRC to the exclusion of R&D and RM requirements. The proposed structure would re-energize concerns of lack of support for R&D and RM processes. In the instances where responsibilities overlap between SRCs today the leadership of the SRCs involved jointly resolve jurisdiction issues and coordinate items of mutual interest. AVSCOM Comments Establish a single SRC with Command Group oversight (GOISES) and members from all areas (to include JLSC and ISC representation): The SRCs should be reoriented along the funcuonal lines of the JLSC and established as a formalized configurauon control board (CCB) for business processes, information systems, and data. The Technical Coordinating Group (TCG) should be established as the CCB for the technical architecture. If the JLSC and ISC are included, will they get a vote? Task Force Response Comments were reviewed, however, Task Force sull recommends a single SRC. During implementation. it is important that the SRC delegates responsibility for certain levels of decision below the SRC level to avoid problems in size and duration of SRC sessions. RECOMMENDATION 3. JLSC and ISC representation. MICOM Comments No objection. The L S C and ISC representatives should not have a vote in the SRC. Task Force Response Concur. RECOMMENDATION 5. Restructure Functional System Integrators (COUGMlS) to provide horizontal integration. MICOM Comments It is felt the COWGM 15 level is too high to expect the detailed knowledge of a given functional area needed to provide direction for the creation of a new system or for the moaificauon of an existing one. Task Force Res~onse Recommendation stands. 2.7 SUPERCOMPUTERS 2.7.1 0 bservation Discussions with key personnel and on-site analysis reveal that the network configuration and distribution of supercomputer assets within AMC may not be aligned to provide the desired flexibility and support to mission-essential activities, or the most cost-effective solution. 2.7.2 Discussion The Army has highly sensitive, mission-essential super computing requirements of a class~fied nature that, with all probability, should be performed on in-house assets. Some AMC organizations (e.g.. AVSCOM) receive unclassified supercomputer support at National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA). In many cases the technologies employed by other Government agencies involve the same lunds of technology that the Army and other DOD components require. DOD directed evaluations to reduce high-cost DOD systems in response to the reduced threat in the current world environment. Continued Army-owned and Army-operated unclassified supercomputer systems in lieu of out-sourcing on an as-required basis must be questioned. .4MC operates two supercomputer programs: one located at Ballistics Research Laboratory i BRL in Aberdeen, MD, and the other at Tank Automotive Command (TACOM) at Warren, MI. Classified work requirements exist at both sites; however, the BRL system (Cray-2) currently maintains the central repository of secure data. This requires use of a classified network as well as an unclassified network to support both locations' requirements. In addition to this processing and systems support, additional computer support is obtained from the University of Minnesota. Discussions reveal some reluctance to put real-time analysis for speclfic Army systems in the facility at University of Minnesota because of its potential impact on the academc community. The Cray X-MP computer located at BRL costs $1.95M per year to maintain. This system is considered obsolete because of its limited ability to handle high CPU intensive workload and high cost per megaflop compared to that found in newer machines. The second processor at BRL (Cray-2) is exclusively used for classified processing support for all AMC acnvities. At both sites a high-cost system administrative support staff, provided through contract support. adds depth to the local Army technical user, as well as the Army customers. If support were leased, the provider would offer this service. No cost recovery program is currently in place to regulate demand for supercomputer use by charging users for resources consumed. The current mode of operation is to provide support 2 1 hours-a-day, 365 days-a-year for both the classified and unclassified systems. System uhiization data indicate that each supercomputer is fully utilized. Most of the wori-'qad consists of modelling to support AMC's R&D community. Modelling is known to dr. . even the most . W C AUTOMATION ASSESSMENT (June 1993 --&8 '1 1 . J L L I C ~ ~ ~ I ! I J I . I V ~ S - powerful supercomputer to its k t . The high cost of supercomputer operations necessitates scrutiny of each job's worth to the Army and meticulous cost management. In the case of modelling, it is essential to weigh the tradeoff between cost and payoff and pursue least-cost alternatives. Some of the work (non-urgent) could be provided through interactive capability as a part of DOD. other Government. or commercial networks and thereby reduce the requirement for full-period assets at Army facilities. New Reduced Instruction Set Computing (RISC) technology on individual workstations may be a cost-saving alternative for a processing capability with a side effect of reducing interactive communication costs. Wherever possible supercomputer work should be migrated to lower-cost technology. Several other Army technological support efforts receive adequate supercomputer support on a fee-for-service basis from NASA or other Government agencies/contractors. Specifically, AVSCOM has for some time obtained at minimum cost supercomputer support from NASA- AMES, Langley. Support continues to grow from these sources as they migrate to newer technology. Ln the current restricted funds environment, both DOD, as well as other R&D functions should be combined, particularly when the associated technology is common (e.g., ballistics and space research). Utilization of these common assets on a fee-for-service basis should significantly reduce the Army's cost for these services. In summary, regionalization of supercomputer technology at a DOD level would appear to be imminent. The Army should be the fore-runner in exploring that alternative. 2.7.3 Recommendations The AMC Automation Assessment Task Force made the following recommendations: 1. Turn in Cray X-MP at BRL. 2. Retain Cray at BRL to adequately handle classdied processing. 3. Unclassified processing should be subject to functional economic analysis (FEA) to determine if it should be out-sourced or done in-house to include the high performance supercomputer at the University of Minnesota. 2.7.4 Benefits The AMC Automation Assessment Task Force recommendations have the rollowing benefit: Reduced hardware and software O&S $1.3M per year. Net benefit determined by FEA. . W C AUTOMATION ASSESSMENT June 139'1) . - ---9 -1ct1cal lnit~auves 2.7.5 Impact FEA should ensure that these recommendations do not deprive AMC of any mission essential resources or R&D capabilities. 3.7.6 Implementation The following tasks are required to implement the Task Force recommendauons: I . CIO formally task ISC to establish a technical analysis team to evaluate the merits of the recommendations on the restructuring and reconfiguration of the current Army supercomputer network to: (a) determine whether portions of the work can be out-sourced to reduce cost, (b) provide access to state-of-the-art technology, and (c) provide a broader scope of access not only to the Anny community but to other DOD systems and technologies. 2. CIO task ISC to evaluate the current network infrastructure to determine the potential of moving to the NPC/DISN nehvork (see discussion on Single-Function Circuits). 3. CIO task DOMs at both of the current supercomputer sites to establish a performance measurement or analysis capability either through in-house or contract resources to determine the best utilization of the facilities and where possible ascertain the potential for relocating workload to other distributed technologies (i-e., RlSC or parallel processing systems). 4. CIO task the capacity manager, (Ref. previous recommendation) to evaluate the production management process so as to reduce where appropriate the current around-the- clock support through distribution of workload to other Government agencies to include NASA as well as those noted in the BRL response of 14 May 92 (subject: Comments on AMC Automation Assessment Briefing via Video Teleconference. 11 May 92). 2.7.7 Timeframe The timeframe to implement the Task Force recommendations is the near to mid-term 2.7.8 MSC Comments and Task Force Response RECOMMENDATION 1. Turn in X-MP at BRL. MICOM Comments MICOM participated in the formulation and supports the response of the Functional Coordinating Group-Supercomputer regarding this Task Force recommendation. .4MC AUTOMATION ASSESSMENT (June 19921 2-30 Tacucd Lnitlatlves LABCOM Comments BRL Position: Non-Concur (X-MP should be turned in only when replacement is acquired). a. System purpose: A large scale general purpose vector supercomputer required to support BRL/Army msslon of creating and sustaining weapons-oriented basic. exploratory, and advanced development research programs in defense-related technolo_gies. BRL programs depending on the X/MP involve tank and fighting vehicle armor design studies plus numerous related technology programs involving projectile propulsion. aerodynamics and vulnerability assessment h y / A M C wide Tech Base Research Programs also depend on the X-MP for extensive classified processing as part of the AMC supercomputer Tech Base Initiative. b. Mode of operation: The system is operated 365 days per year124 hours per day in 100% unclassified mode. (The Cray-2 at BRL is operated sirmlarly year round but 100% classified.) Both systems are shared Army wide via high speed networking on the Army Super Computer Network, ASNET. These two systems are saturated as are the other two Army unclassified systems at TACOM and the Corps of Engineers. Impact of Implementing Recommendation: a. Mission: The Army cannot perform its vital mission without an alternative to the X-MP. There are no feasible in-house alternatives to computing on the X-MP at BRLIARL or the Army as a whole. Out-sourcing alternatives are discussed in response to Recommendation 3 and'are found to be more costly than retaining the X-MP. b. Political: High Performance Computing is a critical enabling technology in support of the seven DOD Science and Technology Thrusts. B W A R L is and will be 3 major player in the DOD HPC LModernization effort. The Plan includes early modernization of the BRUARL systems and recognizes the importance of replacing the X-MP. Turning in the X-MP without an alternative computing source jeopardizes h e Army's position to receive resources in the emerging DOD Modernization Plan. RECOMMENDATION 2. Retain CRAY at BRL to adequately handle classified processing. MICOM Comments MICOM participated in the romularion and supports the response o t the Functional Coordinating Group-Supercomputer regarding h s Task Force recommendation. LABCOM Comments BRL Position: Concur with comment. The Cray-2 is currently the Army's (and the Services) only full tlrne general purpose classified supercomputer. The strategy for Army modernization is to obmn a new state-of- the-art system to perform classifred processing. The current Cray-2 at BRL would be used for unclassified processing and the X-MP would be excessed. RECOMMENDATION 3. Conduct functional economic analysis (FEA) to determine if unclassified processing should be out-sourced or done in house to include the high performance supercomputer at the University of Minnesota. MICOM Comments MICOM participated in the formulation and supports the response of the Functional Coordinating Group-Supercomputer regarding this Task Force recommendation. LABCOM Comments The recommendation to consider out-sourcing unclassified supercomputing is based on the Army's long acquisition lead time, high investment cost and rapid obsolescence of supercomputing technology. Desktop workstation technology also experiences rapid obsolescence and considering the number required the total investment is substantial. The recommendation fails to address the problem of long acquisition lead time and focuses on out-sourcing which impacts the ability of scientists and engineers to understand their computational tools and make effective use of them. This w ~ l l ead to improper use of the tools and wrong tool selection that can affect our ability to provide soldiers proper. useful, and effective systems. Even General Motors learned that they could not out-source engineering tools to EDS but had to incorporate EDS into the engineering teams and put engineers into EDS. They learned an expensive lesson which we should not repeat. BRL Position: Non-Concur. It is more cost effective to continue current X-MP operations inhouse. An FEA will be part of any new acquisition process for replacement. a. Economic analysis: The Army Supercomputer Program in conjunction with USAISC did develop an EA whlch addressed whether it was more cost advantageous to purchase systems or lease equipment or commercial time. This EA determined that purchasing was more advantageous. This analysis was reviewed by Army and OSD MAISRC1s. M C AUTOMATION ASSESSMENT (Jum 1992) 2-32 Twtlcal h ~ t ~ a u v e s b. Out-sourcing as a current alternative: Requirements for out-sourcing: Currently approximately 28.000 useful CPU hours per year are devoted to BRL. AMC. and Concepts Analysis Agency mission programs. Adhtionally, the system has 34 Gbytes of on-line disk storage of RDT&E data and applicaaons programs. An additional 150 Gbytes (300 Gbytes for redundancy) of off-line migrated mass storage is controlled by the X-MP and is vital to the user's computations. c. Cost of X-4IP operations (Costs that could be avoided by shutdown): Hardware Software Maintenance--% 1,300,000 Miscellaneous expenses--$200,000 Personnel Costs--$450,000 Total iMarginal Costs related to Shutdown--$1,950,000 d. Alternatives: A recent phone survey was conducted to determine costs of out-sourcin_g supercomputing time. Typical costs quotes are: San Diego Supercomputer Center-$325 to $750/CPU hour for a Y-MP* Ohio State University-$5OO/CPU hour for a Y-MP University of North Carolina-$500/CPU hour for a Y-MP Power Computing Corp., Dallas, Texas-$300 to $750/CPU hour for 3n X-IMP Minnesota Supercomputer Center-$250/CPU hour for an X-MP Naval Weapons Center. China Lake CA-$560/CPU hour (Production)(~ne processor X- MP system) David Taylor Research Center. Bethesda. MD $75. $150, and S300/CPU hour. (low. medium and high priority) Addiuonal charges tor memory and storage (Two processor X-MP system) * .4 Y-MP CPU hour provides 20-40% more CPU throughput than an X-MP hour. e. Cost estimate for replacing 28.000 CPU hours: Based on the above quotes it is unlikely that any single or combinaaon of sources would yield average rates lower r.han S20OlCPU hour. The replacement cost would therefore be no lower than $5.600.000 exclusive of storage costs. Only at a cost of S70lCPU hour would buy~ng ume be iess rhan or equal to offsemng the S1.950.000--the marginal costs ot X-IMP operauons. t'. Practical cons~deraaons: Trans~tioning operations from ~nnouse to nrnesnanng would be beset wlth numerous practical problems. These include: 1. Network bottleneck caused by entire work load c h k e l e d to Wide Area Network. 2 . Scheduling and responsiveness. - LMC .II;TOhI.4T:('IN ASSESSMENT , June : a 2 1-33 '1ctic31 b ~ t ! ~ u \ e s 3. Opsec aspects of Unclassified Sensitive US-2 data demand systems be accredited at that level-questionable to obtain at University sites. 4. Impracticality of mass data archiving compounded if stored at multiple sites. 5. Inability to do scientific visualization due to Wide Area Network band width limitations. 6. AMC would not have an internal Continuity of Operations Plan (COOP) capability for unclassified supercornputing. Task Force Response Task Force has' reviewed MSC comments. however, recommendation stands. Comments were addressed in the discussion section of the report. . M C AUTOMATION ASSESSMENT {June 1992) :-3-t Txtlcal Ln~t~auvrs 2.8 HQ AMC DECISION SUPPORT SYSTEM (DSS) 2.8.1 Observations The Task Force made the following observations: 1. Essential components for building a DSS exist. 2. No formal functional requirements definition efforts are underway to define a DSS development strategy. 3. Capability of the existing infrastructure is not well understood by users so many of the systems' current capabilities are not being fully used. 4. Limited software applications exist that integrate decision support functions with key office activities. 2.8.2 Discussion The commander of AMC requested the United States Army Decision Systems Management Agency (USADSMA) to study HQ AMC to determine actions required for developing a HQ AMC DSS, DSMA approached this study by examining the components that comprise a DSS: functional process, application software, data, hardware, communications, training and services, and organizations and people. 2.8.2.1 Functional Process HQ AMC has performed High Level tnformation System modeling in the recent past. This effort was done by using Process Action Teams (PATS) implementing Total Quality Management (TQM) methodologies. This is a starung point for budding a DSS: the analysis of the business process that underlies users requirements. The PATS, however, did not produce in-depth andysis using an automated tool that reflects the flow of the agency's acnvities. The IDEF methodology can provide that tool needed to document existing activities and processes: a requirement (by DOD) for fundmg and developing an tnformation mfrastructure. 2.8.2.2 Applications Software HQ AMC has a variety of software applications that can integrate office activities, both separate and within work groups. There is vutually no DSS or Executive Informanon System at HQ AMC. Maximum use of commercial off-the-shelf software, rapid prototyping and having functionals work together with developers will make fielding applications less costly and more responsive to the users. .4MC AUTOMATION ASSESSMEW (June !392! 1-35 T3crical Iniuatlves 2.8.2.3 Data HQ AMC has the necessary relational database and querying capabilities to rupport DSS applications. The only limitation that exists is that there are no formal etfons underway to megrate mfonnation across functional areas. Without this c o m t m e n t the senior leadership cannot view coordinated and synchronized information across functional areas. The work done at TACOM to provide ad hoc query capabhties using current database management systems should be used as a model throughout AMC. 2.8.2.4 Hardware HQ AMC has an effective two-tier hardware platform capability (workstations and rmni- computers) with direct access to a third (HQDA's mainframe). This infrastructure can support DSS applications provided that the second-tier mini-computers are upgraded. An aiternative to upgrading the mini-computers, to support DSS applications, is to develop a HQ AMC DSS on the Pentagon's mainframe. 2.8.2.5 Communications HQ AMC Local Area Network (LAN) provides excellent direct link connectivity to all hardware plarforms and ofices within the headquarters. Communications to subordinate commands is prirnanly done through DDN for small data file transfers. Communication links with HQDA and planned upgrades to DDN and FTS 2000 should be adequate to support DSS applications well into the future. 2.8.2.6 Training and Services During our analysis we found HQ AMC personnel not knowing how to use the existing capabilities and expressing frustration with the network. We believe an aggressive Training and Assistance Program can overcome this problem A technical and functional training curriculum targeting three levels: clerks, action officers, and functional managers needs to be in place. The curriculum should be a requirement for ai l new HQ AMC employees and a training team should be formed to visit and re-train current users. Finally, the program needs to have a one-stop service organization where users can receive technical and functional assistance. 2.8.2.7 Organizations and People HQ AMC needs to form a small DSS functional team through which the senior leadership will set the direction for development of the HQ AMC DSS. Understanding the mission dnd functional processes of AMC. this group will be the functional integrator for the HQ. Its role is to continuously plan and improve the DSS infrastructure as required. Current technical experts should continue to do the work of building systems under the guidance and direction of the DSS team. IMC AUTOMATION ASSESSMENT ;June 19921 1-36 T~ctlcal I n l t ~ a u ~ e s 2.83 Recommendations The AMC Automation Assessment Task Force made the following recommendations: 1. Provide HQDA DSS connectivity to staff members via AMC HQ LAN. 2. Establish a command-supported Training and Assistance Center. 3. Expedite a HQ 4MC IDEF process to guide mid-term and long-term DSS initiatives. 4. Migrate to Lotus Notes or comparable product to exploit advantages of groupware, project management and graphc user interface. 2.8.4 Benefits The AMC Automation Assessment Task Force recommendations have the following benefits: 1. HQ AMC inexpensively connected to the HQDA DSS Network (world wide) and access provided to HQDA databases. 2. Classified and unclassified data processed with HQDA's mainframe computer and HQDA DSS. 3. Users empowered through a dedicated training/sustainment service organization. 4. Basic strategic plan and the documentauon required for funding and developing an information infrastructure provided by IDEF. 2.85 Implementation The following tasks are required to implement the Task Force recommendations: 1. CIO configure HQ AMC LAN to provide DA DSS connectivity to all HQ users. 2. CIO establish training and assistance program. 2.8.6 Timeframe The timeframe to implement the Task Force recommendations is the near-term to mid-term. 3.8.7 LMSC Comments and Task Force Response RECOMMENDATION 1. Provide worldwide E-Mail and HQDA DSS connectivity to staff members via AMC HQ LAN and LAN gateway. MICOM Comments Agree that the recommendation appears sound. but this decision should be addressed by the HQ, AMC DOIM organization. LABCOM Comments We must take care not to separate HQ AMC from the MSCs in matters such as E-Mail. CECOM Comments The report recommends that a worldwide network be setup to access HQ XMC databases for decision support systems. CECOM concurs. Task Force Response HQDA DSS provides interface to DDN for E-Mail. RECOMMENDATION 2. Support structured and dedicated training and sustainment service. MICOM Comrnen ts Agree that the recommendation appears sound, but this decision should be addressed by the HQ, AMC DOIM organization. LABCOM Comments We must take care not to separate HQ AMC from the MSCs in matters such as DSS. As we become interdependent with other services and defense activities the need for coordination extends to all levels and activities. Task Force Response Agree. HQ DSS efforts must be coordinated with command-wide DSS initiative discussed in finding in Use of Information Technology as an Enabler section. , M C AUTOMATION ASSESSMENT (June 1992) :-38 Tacucal ln~tiatlves RECOMMENDATION 4. ,Mid-term: Migrate to Lotus Notes or comparable product to exploit of groupware, project management and graphic user interface. MICOM Comments Agree that the recommendation appears sound. but this decision should be addressed by the HQ, AMC DOIM organization. LABCOM Comments We need to coordinate desktop computing in ARL with HQ AMC so that the benetits of using common digital media (voice, text, data, graphics and image) will be obtained. Task Force Response Agree. 2.9 SINGLE-FUNCTION CIRCUITS 2.9.1 Observation The AMC community uses several single-function networks with dedicated circuits. Consolidation of these circuits will result in a more cost-effective, yet operationally satisfactory service to the AMC community. 3.9.2 Discussion The AMC community has established several dedicated networks to support its business processes. These networks are implemented as separate transmission networks. This implementation does not afford AMC the advantages of large-scale use of transmission bundling or use of transmission assets already available or programmed at common nodes within CONUS. Unit cost reduction and management efficiencies can be achieved by use of an integrated transmission network to support the AMC community needs. A common transmission network implemented around the Army Information Processing Center (AIPC) network can achieve enhanced support of the AMC customer by providing quality service at less cost. The availability of new technology "smart multiplexors" has established a means to achieve additional cost reductions and management efficiencies. Currently, Defense Information Systems Agency (DISA) has implemented a program for using this technology called Defense Information Systems Network-Near Term (DISN-NT). The goal is to provide economies of scale for transmission services through bundling of DOD long-haul communications requirements. In accordance with JCS MOP 70, 31 Mar 92, DOD established the basis for implementation of DISN-NT to satisfy long-haul communications requirements that meet Warner Amendment criteria. USAISC has been designated the Arrny executive agent for program execution of the Army sub-networks. The DISN-NT network will provide all Army users a common transmission service and universal access to DOD activities supported by DISN-NT. DISA wdl manage DISA-NT. DISA's proactive management of the bandwidth and service availability will enhance service and system response for the AMC customer. USAISC and 7th Signal Command have entered into an agreement with DISA to monitor the Army portion of the physical transmission network and retain management of the logical network riding over the DISN-NT. The Army DISN-NT sub-networks will be based on ALPC uansrnission network topology. AMC can achieve significant efficiencies and savings through use of the DISN-hT and the XIPC Transmission network. Initial DISA cost savings a . estimated at a minimum of 20%. DISA is prepared to charge only 80% of the current Defense Communications Telecommunications Network ( D O rate for any circuits that are implemented through the DISN-NT. AMC will save a minimum of $880K/year by conservative estimates. . W C AUTOMATION .ASSESSMENT (June 1'993 - -40 I actlcai Inl!lauves Strategic network management will be provided to all supponed organizanons. Local network management will remain under the control and direction of the local DOIM, andlor command management process. The AIPC network will be cenually managed at the network control facility at Fort Ritchie, MD, providing coverage 23 hours-a-day, 7 days-a-week. The network management concept will monitor the physical network usins automated management techniques that are a part of the systems technology provided by DISA (IDNX70/90 technology), which will ensure the highest level of system availability. The IDNX70190 systems have an automatic cucuit control capability so that transfer of individual circuits is accomplished automatically in case individual paths become inoperable. The IDNX70J90 equipment is currently employed as a part of the ,411 Force Red Switch program and is also the system of choice of many of the largest commercial systems integrators in the world. e.g., EDS. In addition, centralized as well as decentralized network management is provided as a part of the network management concept so that a backup network management capability can be provided as required. Multiple protocols (i.e., TCP/IP, TP4. SNA/SDLC) are supported in the bundling process as the circuits provided will be physical links and will transmit the logical protocols based upon the end-user equipment systems. For example, a supercomputer link runnins TCP/IP can be multiplexed with an AIPC link running SNA/SDLC. Individual networks will each be responsible for their own end-to-end encryption (using the same encryption devices dnd keying material'as they use today.) Data will be encrypted before reaching the entry point for the backbone network. 2.9.3 Recommendations The AMC Automation Assessment Task Force made the following recommendations: i . .AhlC ,nould conso~idate stovepipe transrniss~on networks Into the L ~ I S S - L T . 3. The A m y will manage the AMC transmission services through the AIPC network. 3. AMC should out-source the transmission network management to USAISC. 2.9.4 Benefits The AMC .Automation .4ssessment Task Force recommendations have the fo~ic_.\vln: cenet'its: 1 . .A inst .;~tvines cf 3t least 5880KIyex tor the .?IMC comrnunitv. 3. Yo rnanuower soace m s f e r s requ~red to USAISC. 3. AMC focuses on core business through out-sourcing network services to DISAlUSAISC. 4. Better network availability and responsiveness provided through integrated network facility and management structure. 2.9.5 Implementation The following tasks are required to implement the Task Force recommendations: 1. CIO task ISC (within 30 days) to initiate an in-depth traffic analysis (duration 60 days) of the single-function dedicated networks to determine candidates for migration to the AIPC backbone network environment. Subsequent recommendations should address the potential of full migration of all associated systems/circuits to the DISN in order to achieve reduction in cost, improved circuit availability, backup/mobilization structure, and the potential to meet planned increases in bandwidth. 2. Based on the results of the analysis, CIO task ISC to execute the approved redistribution of circuits and associated workload to ensure that appropriate RDT&E and business systems are supported. 3. CIO task ISC to produce the appropriate implementation, test and migration plan to ensure that installation of new circuits is accomplished in parallel with the in-place technology so that the fallback and recovery process will ensure that customer support is maintained throughout the transition process. 4. CIO establish an internal management process to monitor the execution of the recommended program. Future action should include the continued evaluation of the telecommunications requirements of the collective network system to ensure that all proposed systems are integrated into this high-performance network. 5. CIO task ISC to conduct on-site validation and baseline smdy to ensure that the current infrastructure meets the current and projected needs of this network and to ensure that the local DOLM and/or command structure has the appropriate network-management capability. (Local network management support 4 1 fall under the domain of the local installation DOIM. Wide Area Network (WAN)/Strategic network management support will continue to fall under the domain of ISC.) 2.9.6 Timeframe The timeframe to implement the Task Force recommendations is the mid-term. .IMC AUTOMATION ASSESSMENT (Jum 1392) 2 4 2 Tacucal htlctt~ves 2.9.7 MSC Comments and Task Force Response LABCOM Comments Circuit consolidation has merit in some cases, however. we must be assured that responsive service can be delivered. Consolidation of stovepipe systems makes sense at the installation level. Consolidation at the A P C level must satisfy service level requirements of the functional customer at the installation. In addition to the ASNET, management of internal networks must not be out-sourced to ISC. Task Force Response Management of the Army's strategic networks is a core competency of ISC. RECOMMENDATION I: Consolidate stovepipes into single network hubbed around the AIPCs. MICOM Comments It is agreed that networks and dedicated circuits which are strategic ISC assets should be consolidated around an ISC hub, but should not be considered part of the installation infrastructure. Remote network interfaces that technically are segments of the MSC infrastructure should be managed by the MSC. LABCOM Comments BRL Position: Non-Concur. The Army Supercomputer Network (ASNET) has very high bandwidth requirements, 45 megabits per second near-term, and 155 megabits per second within 5 years. Efforts are currently underway to connec tlconsolidate AS NET with Sewices/DARPA High Performance Computing (HPC) Networks to include connectivity to the Defense Integrated Science and Technology Network (DISTNET) and the National Research and Educational Network (NREN). Toward this end SARDA, the Functional Proponent for the Army's HPC Program, has directed BRL to maintain its activities in network development, management and control and coordinate these activities with 7th Signal through a Memorandum of Agreement. ASNET employs the DOD standard TCP-IP network protocol. SISOCS employs the SNA IBM protocol. ASNET bandwidth is apportioned between classified and unclasstfied and is encrypted. Solving the technical, administrative, and logistical problems associated with the two protocols and encryption of ASNET data at the AIPC's would be formidable. By the time the Army could solve these problems ASNET will likely be subsumed within other DODDARPA RDT&E network initiatives. High-speed network communications is a vital component of the Army HPC Modernization Plan. It permits Army scientists. engineers and AMC AUTOMATION ASSESSMENT (June 1992) 2 4 3 Tact~cal htiatlves analysts to access distributed computing on large-scale, high performance dismbuted or heterogeneous systems, regardless of location. The network architecture must be scalable to permit extended and higher-speed connectivity as future requirements mandate and technology permits. The Army Supercomputer Network (ASNET) was established in 1989 and provides a scalable, secure, robust, and responsive network that supports the full range of user applications and provides quality of service to remote users. ASNET is a high-speed backbone network (TI circuits) that interconnects Army HPC systems and permits sharing of cenaahzed hardware and software resources by geographically dispersed Army users. The Defense Data Network (DDN/MILNET), and other existing communications networks are used by some users, however MILNET does not meet the requirements of most users due to its low speed and traffic congestion problems. ASNET has been expanded to connect additional Army activities with classified connections to selected sites. Additionally, it has been extended with gateway connections to the National Science Foundation Network (NSFNET) and the Defense Secure Network (DSNETl). Under the forces of the Joint Directors of Laboratories (JDL), the Army is advancing a proposal to link ASNET to similar Air Force, Navy, and DARPA high speed networks. Under the terms of this proposal, ASNET would be part of the extended Defense Integrated Science and Technology Network (DISTNET) and would be updated to take advantage of existing nationwide T3 *circuit availability and future SONET (Synchronous Optical Network, 155 Mbps) transmission technologies. Impact of Implementing Recommendation: a. Mission: Consolidation of ASNET onto a single network hubbed around the AIPCs would limit the ability of the RDT&E community to remain agile in implementing leading edge network technology. Therefore the mission areas .dependent on HPC technology, particularly the mission areas related to the seven DOD Science and Technology Thrust Areas, would experience a severe negative impact. Areas which would immediately and most acutely be impacted include the emerging discipline of scientific visualization and dismbuted interactive simulation @IS). b. Political: The Army has been an active participant in the development of the DOD High Performance Computing Modernization Plan which addresses consolidation of Service and DOD agency HPC networks. Consolidation of ASNET with business computing represents a marked contrast to this National initiative and would jeopardize our role and participation. Task Force Resoonse LABCOM issues were addressed in the discussion section of the single-function circuit section. ---- AMC AUTOMATION ASSESSMENT (June 1992) 2 4 Tactrcal Inluatlves CECOM Comments The report recommends that AMC networks be consolidated into a single network hubbed around the AIPCs. CECOM nonconcurs with reference to AIN. The Army Interoperability Network (AIN) is a system that provides materiel developers, maintainers, Program Managers, and testers with remote test-access to actual interfacing C31 weapons systems connected through the network, promoting opportunities for earlier software integration and improved interoperability, across the entire life cycle. As a developer's tool, ALN should remain integral to CECOM to ensure that we can continue to provide the capability for the software developer and maintainer to rapidly respond to software and interoperability problems that arise during system fieldings and tactical operations such as Desert S torrn. The AIN is !ready built, and implemented from the beginning, to reduce Army costs. Consolidation, as recommended in this report, is feasible for AIN, ONLY IF it provides the AIN circuits in a manner that is transparent in the interface, protocol. and functionality. Force-fitting AIN into some generalized automation network mold only jeopardizes the purpose for which it was created. Am's proven cost savings and return-on-investment for overshadows any potential claimed gains by the Task Force report. If improperly force-implemented, the Army will incur 3-10 times more costs for software/interoperability support than the amount invested in AIN, as supported by documented AIN cost savings, projected DOD-Army software size and cost growth estimates, and cost analysis of ADJ return-on-investment. AIN is one means of curbing rapidly escalating software costs. RECOMMENDATION 3: Out-source network management to ISC. MICOM Comments Remote network interfaces that technically are segments of the MSC infraswcture should be managed by the MSC. LABCOM Comments BRL Position: Non-Concur with respect to ASNET and related RDT&E Network activities. Rationale/Discussion: As the Army coordinates RDT&E network initiatives with the other services and DARPA, out-sourcing m-service RDT&E network management to DISA and/or private contractors wlll be a likelihood. Accordingly, outsourcing initiatives will be best considered in the broader m-service arena. AMC AUTOMATION ASSESSMENT (June 1992) 2 4 5 Tactlcal Irutiaaves Lmpact: Since it is clear that RTD&E HPC networlung is quickly evolving into a Tri-Service initiative, and equally clear that outsourcing will be performed at this level, it makes little sense to out-source to ISC at this time. BRL is currently performing ASNET Management and Control and it makes sense to continue this role during the transition to tri-service as described above. BRL functionals have 40 plus manyears of expertise in network technology in the R&D environment. A crash program to duplicate this capability w i h ISC would not be cost effective. Reduced service and capability would likely be the result until such capability is developed. AVSCOM Comments Out source network management to ISC: The Defense Information Systems Agency (DISA) has the mission to manage all data communications networks down to the end-user's workstation. This is a long-range goal which can only be achieved in phases and through the implementation of standards. The DISA already manages wide area networks such as the Defense Data Network (DDN), now called the Defense Information Systems Network (DISN), and the Automated Digital Network (AUTODIN). The ISC supports DISA in this effort and provides another level of network management. The ISC provides the arms, legs, and brains for DISA to manage the Army networks as they interface to the wide area networks. The ISC has established a network operations center (NOC) at Fort Ritchie (they monitor our AVSCOMtTROSCOM electronic mail networks ensuring full operational support) and a network control center (NCC) at Fort Leavenworth (they monitor all our SNA networks). Thus, ISC is already performing network management on our systems to our benefit. We still have to provide another level of network management, and we expect that to continue. The ISC will provide advice and support when needed and will control the local interfaces to the campus and wide area networks. End-user local area networks will still be managed and administered at the local DOlM level. DESCOM Comments Agree with MlCOM, especially if this includes local networks that support workplace automation and E-Mail, such as the HQ DESCOM personal computer network (PCNET). CECOM Comments The report recommends that network management be out-sourced to ISC. CECOM non- concurs. There is no support to the benefits idea that ISC has been a proactive Network Manager while saving dollars. There is no business case to support the estimated $800K yearly cost savings in telecommunications. The concept of single-function circuits or centralized network contract overlooks the requirement that each installation will have a Common User Installaaon Telecommunication Network (CUITN) or a Metropolitan Area Network (MAN), rather than a wide area star topology, using point-to-point circuits. We should be looking to network the networks and AMC AUTOMATION ASSESSMENT (June 1992) 2 4 6 Tactical Inltiatlves only install standard operating systems that are engineered to operate in this environment. Also, network control down to the departmental LAN level is where we need to iocus. because the majonty of failures occur at this level versus wide area circuits, which are fairly well maintained by the various TELCOs and long distance carriers. This dictates the need for each installation to have a network control facility which could be networked into a regional conmol facility. it is agreed that the management of networks should be done proactively. Task Force Response See discussion for deTails on network management roles and responsibilities. .4MC AUTOMATION ASSESSMENT (June 19921 2 4 7 Tactlcal Ln~t~at lves 2.10 U r n CONSOLIDATION 2.10.1 Observation AMC operates and maintains numerous small and medium Unix systems at each installation. The costs associated with processing the current workload can be reduced and overall performance optimized through centralized capacity management and development of a cohesive system architecture. Consolidation of Unix workload on fewer more robust processors offers an opportunity for significant cost reduction. 2.10.2 Discussion AMC operates from 10 to over 100 Unix hosts at each AMC installation, with a total of 1,248 Unix hosis command-wide. Each host requires hardware and software maintenance; floor space and environmental conditioning; and consumes, in some cases, substantial elecmcal power. Each individual host also requires system admirustration and systems programming to suppon multiple software systems. Within AMC, Unix systems are used for E-Mail, office automation; DOD, Army, and AMC standard systems; local command uniques; etc. Traditionally, acquisition decisions for Unix platforms have primarily been based on availability of convenient requirements conaacts rather than a planned implementation of the appropriate geographicltechnical (geotechnical) architecture. The processing of AMC business and production workload on a large number of distributed Unix processors is costly and inconsistent with AMC's geographc/techcal (geotechnical) architecture. The geotechnical architecture, as described in August 1991, contains three levels of support: General Provider, Direct Provider, and User. ,General Provider service is defined as: The collection of corporate data centers using large processors, production systems, dismbution systems, and other information tools to support the general population of Army users. Large standard Army applications that are Army-wide in scope and the data to suppon these applications generally reside at this level. On 2 Oct 91, the CG AMC turned over ownership of the APCs to ISC. At that time, the criteria for determining the responsibility for a processing requirement was based on the operahng system used to support a specific application. The decision to relinquish ownership of the AIPCs was consistent with the SISOCS plan to consolidate MVS processing into the APCs. The decision also included an agreement to address additional transfers of production requirements to ISC on a businesscase basis. Demand for Unix processing capacity will continue to grow as systems migrate from proprietary operating systems (e.g., M V S ) to the open systems (POSIX) environment. As h s migration occurs, more of the AMC core business systems processes will be hosted on the AIPCJSISOCS MVS platforms and robust Unix systems. - - - AMC AUTOMATION ASSESSMENT (June 1992) 2 4 8 Tamcal Initiauves HQDA is in the early phases of executing a plan to install Unix-based applications at the AIPC as part of the Installation Transition Processing (ITP) program. Initially, these applications will be Installation Support Modules (ISM) for installations from AMC, FORSCOM and TRADOC. ISEC and DISC3 are finalizing the technical solution for ITP processing at the AIPCs. This will be the first major expansion of the AIPCs to absorb non-MVS systems. The decision to implement rTP at the APCs was based on a detailed Technical Assessment/Cost Estimate (TACE) by ISEC. AMC has initiated action along the same tines as the ITP using UTS (Arndahl's Unix operating system). lnitiai efforts are proceeding with the Objective Supply Capability at APC-St. Louis and several systems at NPC-Huntsville. These Unix systems take advantage of the existing technical support infrastructure: however, they are using large, IBM-compauble mainframe platforms. New technology provides options for satisfying Unix processing requirements at lower costs with reduced infrastructure (floor space. power, air conditioning, etc.). A Productivity Capital Lnvesment Program (PCIP) case can be developed to justify acquisition of new processors that will reduce sustainment costs. AMC can attain significant cost reduction and pursue the "general provider" concept by consolidating corporate-wide workload and data currently processed on the distributed Unix platforms. The existing workload includes office automation and business systems. Office automation is more effectively processed on inexpensive file servers; business systems (with corporate data) should migrate to the AIPC using client-server approaches wherever possible. There is very little workload in an MSC-size corporation that can be efficiently and cost-effectively processed on equipment the size of the Unix systems prevalent within AMC. The costs associated with processing the current Unix workload can be reduced, and overall performance optimized, through centralized capacity management and development of a cohesive system architecture. A demled analysis is needed to characterize the workload and distribute processing based on costs, performance requirements, etc. 2.103 Recommendations The AMC Automation Assessment Task Force made the following recommendations: 1. CG AMC task the CIO to revise the AMC geotechnical architecture to place DODIJLSC and AMC standard systems at the general provider level. The decision to service at the general provider level should be made if a system utilizes data critical to the operation of the corporation and the decision is supportabie by a functional economic analysis. 2. CIO task MSC DOIMs to develop plans to migrate office automanon support from expensive Unisys 5000 andlor Intel 320 systems to low-cost 486 microprocessors (PCP acquisition). Monitor system Me-cycle maintenance costs against cost goals established by CIO. .AMC AUTOMATION ASSESSMENT (June 1992) 249 Tactlcal In~t~atlves 2.10.4 Benefit The AMC Automation Assessment Task Force recommendations have the following benefit: A $23K cost reduction/year for each Unisys 5000 eliminated. 2.10.5 Impact The recommendations w d allow a reduction in civilian over-strength. 2.10.6 Implementation The following tasks are required to implement the Task Force recommendations: 1. CG AMC task the CIO to establish a command capacity management function for Unix processing requirements (within 30 days). 2. CIO prepare CG tasking to ISC (within 1 week) to initiate an in-depth workload analysis (30 days duration) of the Unix workload (Sperry 5000-80s 5000-95s. Intel 310s Intel 320s and other like technology). 3. Based on the results of the analysis, CIO prepare CG tasking to ISC to develop a program to redismbute the workload, consistent with the approved ArmyICornmand geotechnical architecture. The objective is to achieve a cost-effective technically sound migration of the corporate-wide business workload and data from older high-cost platforms to the large-capacity state-of-the-art processors at the AIPCs and the remaining office automation workload to the LAN/486-PC/File Server environment at the operating agency level. (Migration to begin within 90 days and to be completed within 18 months). 4. In accordance with standard procedures, MSC DOLMs should dispose of assets that are not required in AMC. 5. CG AMC should fund installation of a technically robust infrasmcture for migration of existing Unix applications to the AIPC by competitively purchasing a state-of-the-art Unix host for each AIPC. 2.10.7 Timeframe The timeframe to implement the Task Force recommendations is the mid-term. 2.10.8 MSC Comments and Task Force Response RECOMMENDATION: Consolidate onto large Unix hosts operated and maintained by the .4IPCs. MICOM Comments Consolidation and evolution of Unix hosts from the present three-tiered architecture to a file server and client state-cf-the-art architecture is a MICOM objective. However. the control of resources producing organizational level information must remain with the MSC or the information loses its immediacy and effectiveness. LABCOM Comments With regard to the recommendation, "Consolidate onto large Unix hosts operated and maintained by the AIPCs," we recognize that, while there may be merit in consolidahng the stovepipes, it is not clear that large Unix hosts at the ALPCs is where the consolidation should occur. We must retain Unix platforms for ARL corporate enterprise computing and scientific, mission related support. SIMA Comments We strongly support the recommendation to consolidate the Unix operating systems into large Unix hosts operated and maintained by the AIPCs. We believe that this is a smart initiative which should greatly enhance release management, database administration. file aansfers, and customer satisfaction with the Unix applications. However. in order for this action to be effective, the recommendations pertaining to the effective operation of the DSS network become even more critical. CECOM Comments The report recommends that the 10 to 100 Unix hosts at each MSC be consolidated into large Unix hosts operated and maintained by the AIPCs. CECOM concurs with reservations. At CECOM, most Unix machines were purchased and are "owned" by individual customers for specific systems. Since these machines are not shared, the overall computing power cannot be combined toward doing the CECOM mission. Consolidating corporate applications onto larger Unix machines would alleviate this problem. Consolidating them at AIPCs would only continue the accepted trend. If the SISOCS scenario results in equal or better service for CECOM, consolidating corporate Unix applications should strengthen the trend. There is no way that all Unix hosts should be centrally consolidated. Standard systems (SAACONS, AFES, SA3) and corporate level applications could be operated and maintained at AIPCs on large Unix hosts. This should only be accomplished on a one-for-one basis after a business case shows that it will be a good decision. The commercial trend is to AMC AUTOMATION ASSESSMENT (June 1992) 2-51 Tactical tnitiahves decentralize this level of computing to the business units thus ernpowenng them to re- engineer andlor quality improve their business process through applying technologies such as cliendserver architectures. Also, serious consideration should be given to a number of contingencies prior to considering the centralizing of standard E-Mail (MMDF?, an AMS) hosts. It doesn't make as much sense to consolidate Unix systems that support office automation such as at the INTEL level. These machmes are smaller, many are in user areas, and they suppon functions such as E-Mail that are better administered locally. The burden on the communications infrastructure would be increased. Additionally, consolidating all aspects of Unix processing on existing AIPC hosts would likely lead to resource/capacity and major telecommunications problems. Unix processing would require an additional domain on the already domain-poor AIPC mainframes. Buylng new larger Unix hosts would resolve the technical problems, but the costs would have to be analyzed before a decision could be made. The benefits associated with Unix consolidation must consider the expense associated with the additional T-1 or T-3 circuits that would be required. The other alternative would be to purchase the bandwidth on demand or Switched Multimegabit Data Service (SMDS) capability that companies like Bell Atlantic are in the early stages of offering. Based on the costs associated with acquiring the communication capability, it may not be accurate to state that a savings of $23K/year per Sperry would immediately be realized. Even without the Unix consolidation, dynamic bandwidth allocation should be the basis for all future inter- installation networks. DESCOM Comments Each application must be looked at individually. Workplace Automation and E-Mail are potentially two applications that would not be well-served and responsive to user needs when operated from a consolidated site. Both of these applications would require capacity to pass high volumes of data and support a large number of users. Consolidation of some systems could be feasible when savings in software, hardware, and support costs exceed the increased cost of providing adequate communication capabilities. It would be unrealistic and inefficient to depend upon the ISC Technical Review Board for approval of changes which have no impact on AIPC operations or capacity requirements. Task Force Resvonse As evidenced by these comments, some MSC staff within AMC feel that control of resources producing organizational level information must remain at that level or the information loses its immediacy and effectiveness. The issue is not who controls and operates the resources (i.e., the hardware, the software, or the data); the issue is whether the service provider meets user requirements. For the system to work, it is essential that service agreements exist between provider and user and that both parties abide by the terms of the agreements. AMC AUTOMATION ASSESSMENT (June 1992) 2-52 Tacucal Inltlauves Regardless of who controls the resources, the local organization needing information must have access to that information. For example, at MICOM. the local installation LAN, cable plant and switch are owned and operated by the local telephone company (,Bell South). This arrangement does not prevent the provision of timely, effective. state-of-the-art support. . W C AUTOMATION ASSESSMENT (June 1992) 2-53 3. STRATEGIC INITIATIVES 3.1 SOFTWARE DEVELOPMENT 3.1.1 Observation AMC will improve responsiveness and reduce expenses by changing its software development philosophy, structure and scope. 3.1.2 Discussion During development of the report, the Task Force realized that issues originally discussed under the heading 'Software Development' overlapped with issues discussed in the sections on 'Structure of Lnformation Technology Support' and 'Use of Information Technology as an Enabler. ' Earlier recommendations under the heading 'Software Development' were divided as follows: Information Technology as an Enabler: ** Recommendation 1. Field TACOM's shadow relational database technology to other MSCs for use by functionals. Structure of Information Technology Support: ** Recommendation 2. Enforce reduction of unique systems. ** Recommendation 3. Focus on migrating to standard systems by providing requirements to developer rather than creating own system (IPAT initiative) (SBIS 3). ** Recommendation 4. Create a single information management organization that commands and controls all information technology services throughout AMC, and that capitalizes in place all DOIMs, MSC ADDs, SRA ADDs. and SIMA. Comments received on each of these recommendations are discussed in the sections listed above. M C AUTOMATION ASSESSMENT (June 1992) 3-1 Strategc Imatlves 3.2 STRUCTURE OF INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY SUPPORT 3.2.1 Observation Fundamental changes to AMC's mformation technology business environment are inevitable. CIM initiatives, DOD funding changes. DOD-wide staff reductions, shifts to temporary employees and contractors -- al l impact AMC's IMA mission and information technology support structure. Currently AMC has 4,734 personnel on-hand with 3,876 FY92 authorizations and 3,296 FY92 authorizations (excluding ADDS and SIMA). This information technology support structure fragments services horizontally at various organizational levels and partitions development vertically along functional lines. Parallel and overlapping capabilities are developed at different levels of AMC. 3.2.2 Discussion The CIO function, which is responsible for the overall management of the I M A discipline, reports to the Chief of Staff of AMC; the software development function, which is centralized in the SIh4.A structure, also reports to the Chief of Staff. The respective MSC and the depot systems commanders have software development organizations reporting to them. Historically, all of these major functions have independently designed, acquired, installed, implemented, and to some degree resourced numerous IMA systems. Project management offices, PEOs, and other organizations residing on AMC installations also design, acquire, install, implement, and support IMA systems (mainframes through PC-level systems and associated supporting software). Because of this decentralized management environment, parallel and overlapping capabilities are developed. Large dollar amounts are committed with inadequate ability to determine, through the cost-accounting process, how and where funds are expended. The following extract from an FY93 punitive cut against DOD by the House Armed Services Committee reinforces the need for dramatic changes to the Army's system development strategy. Near term, dramatic efforts with well documented resuits are required to best utilize remaining funds while removing the stigma.from existing redundant systems. Automatic Data Fkxessing ($75.OM) -- Strong committee feeling that "nobody's in charge" of the full range of communications requirements. They believe that rather than a genuine attempt to provide leadership in a very complex arena, it is easier to throw money at the problem. The committee cites the GAO and DOD's own audit organization findings of unnecessary equipment being purchased, redundant systems being funded, and oversight being poor. The enclosed software scrub provides a first cut at supplementing AMC's effort with a review of avadable Army systems. Although duplication issues are not clear cuf opportunities exist to migrate from AMC unique systems to DA standards. AMC AUTOMATION A S S E S S W (June 1992) 3 -2 Seatcglc InItlaLl~es DISNJLSClChl will mandate future systems and have a protound impact on AMC's Ib1A mission. Mainframe and strategic network operadons have migrated out of AMC (defacto out- sourcing). Functionals wLU place greater reliance on information and applications accessed through computer networks. AMC needs to redefine its core business processes, competencies and its Information Technology Support Resource constraints and DOD policies reduce freedom of action. AMC functional requirements must be developed collaborative with JLSC and information technology service providers. Historically, AMC has been its own provider. Ttzls is changing. How much of the IMA mission AMC will continue to perform is unclear at this time, but it is clear that the mission is in the process of being parntloned and redistributed, e.g., MVS processing going to ALPCs, departmental applications replacing standard AMC applications, software development being out- sourced. 3.2.3 Recommendations The AMC Automation Assessment Task Force made the following recommendations: 1. Consolidate and centralizt command and control of the LMA mission. The CIO function in AMC should be centralized at the senior command level. It should function consistent with the IMA process exemplified in other Government agencies [where it is referred to as information resources management (IRM)] so that the total life-cycle management of the IMA mission and related support programs, to include life cycle approval, standard geotechnical architecture design, standards, policies, procedures and doctrine, are controlled from the command level and the total process is promulgated throughout AMC. 2. Through the central IRM organization structure, assess IMA mission needs and obtain concurrence from DOD (CIMIJLSC), Army, and ISC regarding M A mission issues. Once the mission needs are clearly defined, it will be possible, again working with Army and ISC, to establish the who, when, where, and how the mission support should be provided. IMA core competencies should be idenafied for either retention or out-sourcing. .3. Once the scope of the AMC IMA mission is clearly defined and aligned with the command's IRM resources to perform the mission as cost effectively as possible, it is possible that the IMA area will no longer be regarded by AMC as a core competency area, at least not insofar as its historically broad scope and mission have been. The future AMC IMA mission can be expected to be reduced in size and scope, but the evolution and the final makeup should be controlled from within, not from without Command restructuring of IT support wLU enable M C to manage the evolutionary process whereby hardware is being reassigned to AIPCs, critical business applications are coming under DODICIM control, and other life cycle information technology services, e. g., systems design, development, installation, operation and maintenance, are being out- sourced (to ISC, contractors, other Government elements). AMC wdl increase its reliance . M C AUTOMATION ASSESSMENT (June 1992) 3-3 Skateg~c Imumva on external service providers. It is essential that AMC have a centrally managed process for ensuring that as the providers change, AMC develops a means of controlling service (quality and quantity as well as unit cost) through service level agreements rather than through the command and control process it currently employs. 3.2.4 Benefits The AMC Automation Assessment Task Force recommendations have the following benefits: 1. Increased control and visibility of IMA activities and costs. 2. Reduced staffing to authorized levels. 3. Increased self determination through assumption of a more proactive role in directing resources. 4. Enabled attainment of excellence in fewer well-defined core competency areas. 5. Increased functional focus and definition on core competencies. 6. Attains business, vice mforrnal, relationships for IT support. 7. Directed customer focus attained by clear service level agreements. 8. Focused IT providers to insure that support is at equal or less cost. 9. Insure IT support costs are explicit and formalized. 3.2.5 Implementation The following task is required to implement the Task Force recommendations: CG AMC establish centrally managed IM organizauon headed by general officer or SES with command and control over all AMC IM resources. 3.2.6 Timeframe The timeframe to implement the Task Force recommendations is the near to mid term. 3.2.7 MSC Comments and Task Force Response RECOMMENDATION 2. Get HQDA resolution regarding reduction to authorized strength in FY92. MICOM Comment Agree. AMC AUTOMAnON ASSESSMENT (June 1992) 3 4 S trategc Iruaatlves LABCOM Comment With regard to recommendation #2, "Get HQDA resolution regarding reduction to authorized strength in FY92," we note that ISC-AMC is approximately 700 over-strength in FY92 and 1500 in FY93. ISC LABCOM is 26 over in FY92 and no additional in FY93. If we are included in with the AMC total we share the FY93 problem. The ARL over-strength problem does not correlate with these recommendations. RECOMMENDATION. Out-source information technology support to ISC. MICOM Comments It is agreed that operation of MVS operating system mainframes and that part of network operations whch are designated as strategic assets, such as long haul circuits, have already migrated out of AMC. However, responsibility for the installation infrastructure, organizational level computers and workstations must remain with the MSC or installation because an intimate knowledge of the local environment is required to be successful. The inability to set priorities and allocate resources locally eliminates flexibility needed to meet fast-changing, critical needs of the MSC. LABCOM Comments We cannot support recommendation #1, "Out-source information technology suppon to ISC." Out-sourcing any technology support is inconsistent with our mission of technology generation. As we generate technology we must be able to acquire, implement and use innovative technology and assess its potential for incorporation into the Army. If information technology suppon were out-sourced the Army would have to re-examine ARLs role in research. Note that AIRMICS, with the mission of research into large data bases and business systems will become part of ARL in October 1992. TACOM Comments Agrees with MICOM's comments. CECOM Comments The report recommends that information technology be out-sourced to ISC. CECOM non- concurs. There is no support to the thesis that ISC is the technology leader. Information Technology should be a joint effort of AMC and ISC working together for common objectives. AhfC AUTOMATION ASSESSMENT (June 1992) 3-5 Strategic In i t i~ves SIMA Comments It's not entirely clear whether the Task Force is recommending that ISC take over all the missions and functions now performed by SIMA, ADDS, and DOlMs to include application software development of AMC mission systems or whether they are referring to the "executive software" software currently provided by ADP Technology organizations. It would not be in the best interests of AMC to out-source either of these functions to ISC. In the case of ADP Technology, they are an integral, inseparable pan of the rnission/functions of a central design activity, such as SIMA. SIMA would not be able to deliver the information systems and services to our customers in a quality or timely manner if ADP Technology was out-sourced. Conflicts in workload priorities would inevitably work to the demment of AMC. Organizational loyalties would be confusing. Barriers would be erected by virtue of the fact that the systems developers who rely on ADP Technology for support in even more jeopardy for the reasons stated above. In this scenario, it is even less clear where the functional responsibilities would lie. Separating the central design activity functionals from the systems developers would be a very strate@c blunder. History has proven that all the people responsible for developing systems should work for the same organization entity in order to be most effective. RECOMMENDATION. Enforce reduction of unique systems. (Previously part of the Software Development section) MICOM Comments Agree. The A M C community has recognized that this is a desired state. The IPAT subgroup report of Aug 91 identrfied several initiatives which would achieve this objective. Among these were: institutionalize the software scrub process; establish an AMC information system development and maintenance workload oversight process; identify opportunities and implement actions to minimize Band 1 resource consumption (Band 1 defined as maintenance of standard systems); and establishment of a common development platform. The creation of MSC unique systems is required when standard systems fad to incorporate functionality or an MSC's unique commodity mandates a more detailed level of management than the standard system provides. Although some commodity uniqueness will always exist to meet the requirements of detailed management, a thorough involvement of the functional community in concert with system developers will provide the capability to accomplish these processes within a standard system environment. LABCOM Comments The following comments relate to recommendation #2, "Enforce reduction of unique systems." Uniques wdl continue to be required unal there are standard systems whlch can support laboratory requirements. Contracting systems, for example, focus on acquisition of .4MC AUTOMATION ASSESSMENT (June 1992) 3 -6 Strategic Irutlauves end items. supplies and spare parts. Research requirements and innovative technology are not handled adequately in the standard acquisition and supply support systems. AVSCOM Comments Enforce reduction of unique systems: We do not agree with this recommendation until the particular unique system is replaced by a standard system. It should be noted that unique systems can respond to changes in the business processes quicker and this responsiveness produces greater cost savings. It should also be noted that we have scrubbed our unique systems in concert with the other MSCs and have identified reductions. HQ AMC is currently situng on the requirements for standardization of unique systems. It may be possible that relational database management systems and the shadow database concept may satisfy some of these requirements. TACOM Cornmen ts TACOM agrees with this recommendation as we all should. They offer the comment that unique systems become required when functionality is missing from the source system. This is very true for the systems that have not yet converted to current technology, including relational database capabilities. Our use of shadow files has made the need for new unique systems go way down. Many times unique systems are simply special reports. Once the data elements are available in shadow files, and the users have direct access, we no longer need a unique system. This recommendation will be much easier to achieve as we migrate information into shadow files. RECOMMENDATION. Focus on migrating to standard systems by providing requirements to developer rather than creating own system (IPAT initiative) (SBIS 3). (Previously part of the Sofkware Development section) MICOM Comments This recommendation is the cornerstone of any successful standard system process. In the past this approach may have failed because the standard system group became too far removed fiom the user requirements and too focused on "their" standard systems to incorporate interfaces withlutilize other DA "standard" systems. Since CCSS does not provide full capabilities to any of the MSCs, to augment the CCSS process and provide the user community with data to effectively perform their mission, bridging and unique systems must be developed at the MSCs. However, if the focus is properly placed on user functionality to satisfy mission requirements and is fully implemented by the developers, then we agree with this recommendation. Again, until perfect interoperability among all "standard systems" is achieved - somethmg that does not even exist among AMC standard systems, much less among AMC, DA, DOD systems - local software generation to interface systems for efficient use at the MSCs will be necessary. M C AUTOMATION ASSESSMENT (June 1992) 3-7 Straregc Initiatives LABCOM Comments With regard to recommendation #3, "Focus on migrating to standard systems by providmg requirements to developer rather than creating own system (PAT initiative) (SBIS 3)," we believe that developers must become responsive to laboratory requirements. To date developers have fielded systems for installations which do not adequately support laboratories. We are told to change the way we do business rather than support the research mission. AVSCOM Comments Focus on migrating to standard systems by providing requirements to developer rather than creating own system: An approach to providing requirements is through the rapid prototyping and CASE technology. The development of unique systems through rapid prototyping using relational DBMS technology and shadow databases has proven to be very successful at TACOM. This approach allows for the immediate local command need to be satisfied and the definition of requirements for the standard system to be accomplished. TACOM Comments We must move to a standard system environment. It is the only way to ensure consistent source data. As those systems transition to relational technology, and the data consumer is empowered to access the source data, we will have the local flexibility we all are asking for. Meanwhile, provisions of an intermediate layer though shadow files accommodates the standard system as well as the local ad hoc requirements. Again, I see shadow files as a way of facilitating the migration to true standard systems. RECOMMENDATION. Create a single information management organization that commands and controls all information technology services throughout AMC. and that capitalizes in place all DOIMs, MSC ADDS, SRA ADDS and SIMA. (Previously part of the Software Development section) MICOM Comments MICOM non-concurs for a l l the reasons leading to the decision of GEN Sullivan to return CONUS installation DOIMs to the MACOMs. MICOM supports the principle that the Commanding Officer of any installation is responsible for accomplishing the mission assigned to the installation, is accountable for all resources and should be delegated authority to decide how best to apply those resources, including the DOIM resources, to accomplish his mission. - - AMC AUTOMATION ASSESSMENT (June 1992) 3 il Scratcgc ht lat lves LABCOM Comments Recommendation #4, "Create a single information management organization that commands and controls all information technology services throughout AMC, and that capitalizes in place all DOIMs, MSC ADDs, and SIMA," would retain current IM organizations as tenants supporting the installation or MSC under central control from AMC. This places HQ AMC in the role of direct support for operating elements instead of a staff coordinating role. We are concerned that R&D support resources would be lost in the effort to bolster the effort in logistics. Recommend that HQ AMC perform the MACOM staff role and delegate operating support to the MSCs. We believe that software development organizations do not beat the bushes for work as there is more than enough work from internal sources. It is sometimes necessary to assist other activities for the common good and profitable to share lessons learned. CECOM Comments The report recommends that AMC create a single information management organization that controls all information Technology (TT) services to include all DOIMs, MSC ADDS, SRA ADD, and SIMA. CECOM nonconcurs. There c e d y must be some centralized direction of IT resources, to efficiently move into the 21st century. However, substantial savings and efficient hardware/software configurations neither emerges automatically from centralization nor are any savings guaranteed. IT centralization also has a history of lacking a proper customer orientation. We've shifted IT focus to the customer and we don't want to lose it. SIMA Comments The recommendations outlined in the IPAT Sub-Group Report dated August 1991 will accomplish the same objectives. The PAT Sub-Group specifically examined the viability of consolidating the ADDs and SIMA in place. The real issues that need to be addressed are: workload visibility of all AMC automation resources, having a standard automation development platform, a standard method of processing Systems Change Requests (SCR) which includes a corporate data base comprised of SCRs for both standard and unique systems, and a method of assigning design and development workload (and trachng that workload) with clear cognizance of corporate level goals and priorities. Recommendations and a milestone plan have been presented to the CIO. The CIO has accepted responsibility for action. If the IPAT Sub-Group recommendations are implemented, we will have achieved the benefits outlined in the AMC Automation Assessment Task Force Report without undergoing a major reorganizational realignment to achieve the same result XVSCOM Comments Create a single ~nformation management organization that commands and controls all information technology services throughout AMC, and that capitalizes in place all DOLMs, MSC ADDs, SRA ADDs, and SIMA: The Corporate Information Office was created by HQ, AMC, to accomplish this objective. We support the CIO. However, the local commander needs to maintain control of DOINADD resources in order to maintain the flexibility to .4MC AUTOMATION ASSESSMENT (June 1992) 3-9 S traregc 1rutlatlve.s meet fast-changing, cntical needs of the MSCs. The C10 should consider improving their management of AMC's corporate information management resources via a configuration management methodology. However, we should not lose sight that overall information management support should focus on improving the business processes and not sub-optimizing the technical information management processes. TACOM Comments No question that this is a sensitive issue. We all have operated for a long time being able to call our own shots. The environment has changed, though, and we do need to have a structure that allows for a more efficient and strategic application of our critical IMA resources. The local commander must have some degree of local flexibility, but I feel that can be accomplished while still developing a single management saucnue. The establishment of the CIO within AMC was an important first step in this arena. Perhaps that structure needs some additional d e f ~ t i o n relative to day to day work load decisions in areas such as applications development. The TACOM efforts to move to relational technology, shadow files, and direct user data access has changed the way we work within the DOIM. We are not nearly as involved in the development of systems, but rather in facilitating access to information. In this environment, a single management structure can work. Major development work is focused on building strong central data repositories. Local work is focused on facilitating the local ad hoc data access requirements. This could allow central management while at the same time maintaining needed local support and flexibility. I feel a strategy can be developed that will,allow a viable single management s&ucture to work. RECOMMENDATION. Freeze the baseline and associated unique bridging efforts of all systems that will be replaced by Corporate Information Management (CIM). DESCOM Comments It is impossible to stop mission-related system changes from occuning over the time period required to implement CIM. In addition to mission changes, there are regulatory changes that cannot wait for CIM. Many CIM replacements are still years away. There could be rationale for stopping nice-to-have changes or system rewrites merely for computer processing efficiencies, for example. Would require cornrnifment from all sites to do the necessary evaluation to determine efforts that are "required." RECOMMENDATION. Merge MSC Application Development Divisions (ADDS) with SIMA. DESCOM Comments If the MSC ADDS were merged with SIMA but left in place, collocated with the MSC, and MSC had option to buy hours of service which the MSC would workload, the recommendation could be workable. Consider the following: (1) If workloaded locally, the .MC AUTOMATION ASSESSMENT (June 1992) 3-10 Strategc Initiahves portion of .ADD supporting the MSC could respond more quickly to MSC requirements; (2) The number of hours required by the MSC could vary from year to year, leavinz the remaining resources at that time to be workloaded by SLMA; (3) Local sites require operational support--determining local scheduling requirements. response to system aborts, and maintenance of systems that support the local commander. Larger organizations have dedicated personnel outside of ADD to perform this mission. Resource constraints within DESCOM preclude that type of structure; and (4) There is concern in having all ADD resources in the SlMA development organization and having no one available to support the operational envuonment. Task Force Response The preceding set of MSC comments reinforce the House Armed Services Committee (HASC) perception that "nobody's in charge." Rather than address tho complex issue of eliminating redundant systems, the tendency is to fight to retain control of IM support (retaining the ability to develop unique redundant systems) "untll perfect interoperability among all 'standard systems' is achieved." The contrast beween TACOM's comments and those of the other MSC's is further evidence of the paradigm shift made with implementation of shadow databases. .4MC .AUTOMATION .ASSESSMENT (June 1992) 3-1 1 Strakgc 1nitiatme.s SYSTEM FUNCTIONS MATRIX ACQClISlTION WAGEME!YT Compura Aided Lopsacs Svsem Deficiency Reponmg System (DRS) Roclmmmt Intulhaon Rocurcment Hlrugcmmt Svsran (IPMS) S h d u d Automated Army Convrrmg Syacm (SAACONS) A q u i n o n Murrgeme~ .Warone Synem (AMMS) Army Syscm, for AAutomwoo of RrpveQwY PL.llmme (ASAPP) Digital Storage and Runevll Engmccrmg Data srs tan (DSREDS) T~CIUWI &a ~ o n f i g u n t m hhaganclr Systcmr (TD/CMS) Vdua Engmemq Analyw md Repacay Systan W) ARMY STD AMC K G CIM SYSTEM SYSTEM REQUIREMENTS ASSET MANAGEMENT CATLG IDMSCIDL PROV l W S SPS ICMS CALS DRS DRS PROC PMS PEDS SAACONS SAACONS ASAPP DSREDS EDMICS Supply Mmag~lcn t SUPPLY MGT AMC Strndvd Iartallrlwo Supply Syslem AMCISS SAILS1 (AMCISS) SARSS-26 AIlunnrod Self-Savice AMC Supply Cenm ASSSC (ASSSO InrmUaooo Equpmmt k g r m m t System EMS AFEMS SPBS (EMS) Inventory Aacoumg Muntmolre MaMgwurt Modifmuon Work Wax Sacr~l ty Affm S k k CmEuI* .UlmUom FWANCE MANAGEMEM ( O m ) SDS Resou~e M q a n m l Sundrd Army RoMem~t Appopnuroo s m (SAPAS) S t a d d b m l Plnd System (SIFS) S- Dqmt S y ~ t a n (SDS) - RM sundrd ObwTunE Sptmr (SOMARDS) AMC Finma EzmUanarc Syslem (rn) RASFIhRS - Rdul hrmy Scoclr Rmd Lnvclwy 4aou1nng Reponmg Sysrrm m y Rarnrmeor ~ c c o u n m g Reporrmg Systembtegrated Command Automated DEPOT MAINTENANCE STK n A I M Y ~ D F RDfS RDB INV ACCTG MAW m o SEC AFFAIR S T K CIL AIMSISDF AMMO-D C A E E o Q c s a SCS VRS sm SDSRM-D S O ~ S AFES DTPS IAT3 RASFlARS STARRARS ZBR .MAlNr-D R B R M R P l l (AMCSID BCL System HMMS B a d ) PDMSS . M C AUTOMATION ASSESSMENT (June 1992) 3-12 Straregc Irunatlves CIM NNCnONS AMC S D ARMY STD SYSITM AMC FCG CIM SYSIFM SYSlFM CONRACT PAYMEKTS CCSS R s o u m Managanent CCSS-RM ITUM-UP) TMM-IIP CIVILIAN PAYROU Suodud Army Civrlian Ply Sys- (STARCm) STARCIPS DCPS S T A R C I P S 1 STARCIPSR CNILIAN PERSONNEL .iCPERS - Army Civilian Paraunl System ACPERS DCPDS ACPERS MISCELLANEOUS Openuom &elme Cost Esurmtc AMC Auumuad M-wa Mana#amaU Informacroo System hMC SYSUm b h M g m ~ t O(hce SuDdud Army M a m a u s e Syamn Funcl~onal System Management lor c- Fummd Syamn M m y a n m t la AuComum Fuanmd S w Mpymnmt far Suppd S- h y W PB Modm&dm** ~ m y W i & T s t m d E v . b u # m D u a B a e --e c w p Aidrd Dsagp.- Env- A~ l lomwo Syanm ln-cwP=-emm= R c s a c b Develapmmc md Aquumoo Mitam h e r Matenel Plrn M.npowa d P ~ e r s d h u p t l o n Relrood DIubue (AMCDE) MaMel Chrage InformaUoo Systrm Supacompuur AMCID work Umt Infamaw0 syrccm DaIp to Crm Data Aquas~tmm Requrrrmnu Managanat hfonn.boll System b d p n w = ' = BRIMS ASMO SAMS FSM-COMM FSM-AUTO FSM-SPT M C AUTOMATION ASSESSMENT (June 1992) 3-13 Stratcpc Im~atlves 3.3 USE OF INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY AS AN ENABLER 3.3.1 Observation AMC's business processes are closely tied to rigid applications systems. These systems are based on aging technologies and cannot keep pace with today's dynamic business environment. Available information technology is not being fully exploited. The following discussion is divided into two sections: one on information systems and corporate data and one on office automation and electronic mail. 3.3.2 Information Systems and Corporate Data 3.3.2.1 Discussion Many, if not most, existing business and production systems have been in service to AMC for two or more ordinary system Lives and have been outdated for some time. They were designed more than 10 years ago around the technology and business processes of that era. These "legacy" systems lack capabilities needed to manage AMC's business in a modern competitive DOD environment that is adopting state of the art business concepts, e.g., total asset visibility, material requirements planning, total quality management, and just-in-time provisioning. One of the most frequent complaints about AMC's information technology support was that AMC's automation systems drive AMC's business processes rather than vice versa. AMC continually undergoes comprehensive analysis that leads to recommendations for redesigned, improved business processes. This places new requirements on system developers. Implementing these business process improvements is hampered by the inability of the existing systems to adjust quickly and meet new requirements. AMC depends on outmoded application software technology. This restricts the introduction of modem software development tools and techniques to maintain or enhance applications. Maintaining large, integrated systems with millions of lines of COBOL is expensive and slow. Reports are hard coded. New or modified reports require initiation of labor-intensive System Change Requests. Users become frustrated by their dependency on a staff of skilled software engineers to make the changes. As a result, the senior leadership lacks freedom of action to keep business processes in step with a changing environment. AMC needs to apply information technology to enable business process improvement. Adoption of modern information technologies such as shadow databases, user language, etc. vvlll reduce the need for expensive, slow system changes; reduce the unit cost of software support; and. most importantly, enable the business functionals to maintain the lean, cost-effective posture essential to attainment of AMC's future objectives. Senior managers and executives require more access to critical ~nformation and decision-support tools, both essential to enable sound management of a corporation with the breadth and scope of AMC. The current suite of business and production systems lacks the capability to satisfy these requirements quickly and cost-effectively. Existing systems either do not capture the mformation .4MC AUTOMATION ASSESSMENT (June 1992) 3-14 S m t e ~ c htimves or cannot manipulate and present it in ways that meet the criteria of executives, managers, and action officers. AMC could gain significantly from the implementation of a modem Decision Support System (DSS) that applies information technology as an enabler, empowering management and functionals alike with an expanded capability in the area of information access, analysis, and presentation. A modem DSS that extracts data from business and production systems and related feeder databases is required. This will enable AMC's managers to access and analyze dormation resident in e~lshng systems as well as information not currently captured. This will facilitate delivery of enhanced operational support to the business processes. The DSS must provide authorized users access to required data residing in a logical database. Users require a tailored view of data and state-of-the-art tools for analysis and presentation. The AMC CIO and SIMA are currently developing a long-term strategy to relieve this situation by migrating many systems to relational database technology. The following extract from AMC's Business Automation h t i a l Transition Plan, Phase 1 describes AMC's strategy for implementation of relational database technology: 3.9.2 Relational Data Base Management Technology. The evolution of Relational Data Base Management System (RDBMS) technology now makes it possible to put expanded infonna tion management capabilities into the hands of the information customer. Movement of mission execution data into an RDBMS environment opens an extensive window of data access to the functional user. This is achieved without direct intervention of Information Technology professionals in real time and on the terms of the user. As a result, the ability of the user to operate with full access to all of the underlying data contained within the various information repositories. and to retrieve it when desired in the required format allows for signficant productivity improvements. Such productivity gains will be essential as the number of people available to perform AMC mission processes will be decreasing over time. Incorporation of RDBMS technology in the AMC standard information systems has begun. Migration of all AMC informarion systems to an RDBMS environment is a priority area for the immediate future. Not only does such a move provide for increared productiviry of functional personnel, but it will also reduce the associated information system support requirements. The latter factor will become increasingly important as the various DOD and Army initiatives to reduce the number of "software engineers" are implemented. While migration of all AMC information systems to an RDBMS will result in significant savings, the current approach provides more benefits to the technology provider (SIMA) than support to the customer. This effort should be complimented by establishment of a separate "shadow database" for decision support. In using relational database technology, it is necessary for performance and functional reasons to separate data into two databases with one configured to serve the need for flexibility (Decision Suppon Systems) and the other to serve the need for performmie under a high transaction load, e.g., CCSS, SDS (reference Duul Data Base-The Issues, William H . Inmon, 1987, Auerbach Publishers hc) . . W C AUTOMATION ASSESSbiENT (June 1992) 3-15 Strategic Initiatives In discussions with representatives from the AMC technical community, the need for real-time or up-to-the-second data from operational systems was stressed with the conclusion that converting operational systems to relational databases was the only viable solution. In contrast, discussions with the functional community in AMC stressed that today's output fiom information systems is useless because it is 60 days old when received. The functional user didn't ask for real-time access: just day-old or week-old information. In many cases. decision suppon (trend analysis, projections. etc.) requires that data be frozen and synchronized at some point in time rather than subject to continuous interactive update. The TACOM approach to exploiting relational database technology for decision support is to map critical data from numerous existing operational systems into relational tables organized to support the weapon system management process (see Figure 1). 1 Figure 1 This approach m o r s that taken by HQDA in the DA DSS as well as industry leaders (reference Volume 27 No. 1, 1988, IBM Systems Journal. An Architecmre for a Business and lnfonnation System and DM'S technical paper dated October 1991 titled Innoduction ro Injbnnan'on Warehousing). The key features of the shadow database concept are listed below: Relational databases created from corporate data required by and meenng the needs of the user community. Data gathered from sources outside AMC and redesigned where necessary to serve the needs of the user community. Data (including non-AMC data) integrated and shared by the entire user community. User friendly, menu-driven subsystems to provide access to the data for the unskilled user. Freedom of access for the slulled user unconstrained by standard systems. Subsystems developed and run without impairing standard system Application Development Division's role changes from traditional s o h a r e maintenance to working with the user community to provide consultation, training, and programming suppon. Net affect is reduction in manhours required for customer support Cheapest method of taking advantage of relational database technology (see SIMA study on implementation of M204. which identified a cost of $2.3M far shadow database implementation vice $29M for conversion of the business systems). Promotes data quality improvement, identtfying data integrity problems in standard systems. Data models tailored to local users needs. Extraneous data elements defined for elimination from funue corporate data models. A significant benefit of shadow databases during the transition years from AMC standard systems to U C initiatives is the transparent replacement of business systems, still feeding the same shadow database. As shown in Figure 2, JLSC initiatives can partially overlay existing applications without changing the functional manager's view of the corporate database. M C AUTOMATION ASSESSMENT (June 1992) 3-17 Sfrakgc Imha~ves IDOW ATABASE 1 3.3.2.2 Recommendations The AMC Automation Assessment Task Force made the following recommendations: 1. Develop and empower a small DSS group workmg for the CG. Group must consist of mix of technologists and functionals. 2. Complete IDEF concurrent with implementation of AMC's DSS. 3.3.2.3 Benefits The AMC Automation Assessment Task Force recommendations have the following benefits: 1. Customer support - quick, inexpensive empowerment of the functional user. 2. Improved business process (TACOM documented savings of $108M in FY91 in management of stocks). 3. Increased freedom of action - ability to look at data from any perspective. 4. Improved ability to plug in new business systems (e.g., JLSC near-term initiatives) without degrading the management process. iUvlC AUTOMATION ASSESSMENT (June 1992) 3-18 S trategc htiahves 5. Increase in programmer producnvity (4% improvement was documented by an independent study at TACOM). Software maintenance is quicker, simpler (programs - at TACOM are 33% shorter after implementation of shadow databases). 6. Data shared easily across command - AMC-wide corporate database. 3.3.2.4 Implementation The following task is required to implement the Task Force recommendations: CG AMC direct SIMA to develop shadow database implementation plan within 30 days for AMC-wide implementation within 12 months. 3.3.2.5 Timeframe The timeframe to implement the Task Force recommendations is the near-tern. 3.33 Office Automation and Electronic Mail 3.33.1 Discussion Modem information technology is not fully exploited in AMC's automation of the workplace. This has been made clear to the Task Force, which requested E-Mail feedback on the initial Task Force briefing to facilitate sharing of comments received and incorporation of additions and corrections into the report. Instead of receiving the requested E-Mail response, in many cases the Task Force received telefax replies. In virtually all of these cases, the replies were prepared in electronic format, printed in hard copy and faxed to the Task Force. The Task Force expended staff labor to receive, duplicate, and dismbute the fax copies among team members. Additions and corrections were then redundantly rekeyed for incorporation into the report This anecdote supports the lack of E-Mail utdization throughout AMC. A closer look reveals muitiple E-Mail software packages from state-of-the-art commercial off-the-shelf products to awkward, rigid systems. Senior level staff within AMC stated that they are not using electronic mail systems for various reasons including difficult user interface, complex addressing scheme, and questionable reliability of E-Mail delivery through the network. In many cases they rely on fax when E-Mail would be much more appropriate. Additional training, establishment and dissemination of E-Mail policy and procedures, and E-Mail standardization could effect more widespread utilization of this technology in AMC. 3.3.3.2 Recommendations The AMC Automation Assessment Task Force made the following recommendations: 1. Direct strategic changes in AMC's use of automation as an enabler for senior executives. 2. Emphasize E-Mail as the standard method of information transfer from command level down to subordinate elements. . W C AUTOMATION ASSESSMENT (June 1992) 3-19 Strarcgc Imbatlves 3.33.3 Implementation The following tasks are required to implement the Task Force recommendations: 1. CG AMC establish policy stating that E-Mail is the method of choice for all official correspondence. 2. CIO task MSC DOlMs to provide E-Mail support to MSC staff with user interface equivalent - . - or better than ISC's PC Max-E-Ma1. 3. CIO enforce implementation of Army standard E-Mail addressing conventions. 3.33.4 Timeframe The timeframe to implement the Task Force recommendations is the near-tern. 3.3.4 MSC Comments and Task Force Response 3.3.4.1 Information Systems and Corporate Data RECOMMENDATION 1. Develop and empower a small DSS group working for the CC to extend shadow database work from TACOM to all MSCs. Group must consist of mix of technologists and functionals. MICOM Comments MICOM does not agree that shadow databases are the way that AMC should be going. MICOM used shadow databases during Desen Shield/Desert Storm; however, AMC's thrust should be to convert to relational technology. In any case, we feel that every MSC has implemented the so-called "shadow database" concept in some form or the other and needs no assistance in this area. The MSC dormation professionals recognize their obligation to provide state-of-the-art ~nforrnation technology that allows the AMC customer base to increase its productivity and compensate for declining personnel resources. Since AMC has been unable to move the AMC standard systems into such an environment, partly because of the tremendous investment sunk in a complex, integrated CCSS, we have had no alternative other than to use such techniques to remain responsive to the customer and critical mission needs. Task Force Res~onse Non-concur. Migration of business systems to relational databases does not solve the requirements of functional managers. This fact is well established in industq and other A m y organizations (e.g., HQDA DSS). Recommendation stands. - .AMC AUTOMATION ASSESSMENT (June 1%2) 3-20 S nateglc I ru t la~~ves LABCOM Comments In response to recommendation #I , "Develop and empower a small DSS group worlung for the CG to extend shadow database work from TACOM to all MSCs. Group must consist of mix of technologies and functionals," we agree that the TACOM system has yielded benefits for TACOM and the approach may be valid for commodity oriented MSCs. If imposed upon ARL. however, we would have to redesign all of our plans for a corporate mforrnation system and possibly abandon our approach for an EIS. Our research mission is not dependent upon a standard system supported by SLMA (or any CSDA) as are commands with readiness and logistics missions. Task Force Resoonse Concur. LABCOM should use same approach as TACOM, however, implementation should be d o r e d to laboratory requirements. AVSCOM Comments Use of Info Technology as enabler: Suggest you add the following strategies: 1) Develop AMC Corporate Data Model; and 2) Empower functional community via end-user community. This overall strategy should not just be limited to the senior executive community. Task Force Response Concur. TACOM Comments Some disagreed with this recommendation due to their feeling that shadow databases are not a viable approach to providing information to the user community. They would like the source systems converted to relational technology (specifically CCSS). I think that If we were to look at the cost of converting CCSS, or any other source data system, to relational technology we would find that it exceeds the cost of establishing shadow files. This would be in terms of both dollars and time. It would also seem inappropriate to consider the conversion of any existing system at this time due to the CIM decisions yet to be made. Consequently, waiting for the source systems to eventually be moved to relational technology means that the benefits to be derived from better information and easier access will be lost. I can appreciate their concern, but I don't think they fully realize the functional benefits that are to be gained. I support the recommendation to form a group made up of both functionals and technical people. They key focus of such a group should be the data elements to be included in a shadow file approach and the corresponding data model. The current TACOM M204 shadow files address some of the functional areas, but they do not include information from the procurement or financial systems. The use of a small DSS group could really facilitate an AMC-wide view of what information should be included. Once the total data view strategy was developed, the work to budd the links could be allocated to the various AMC AUTOMATION ASSESSMENT (June 1992) 3-21 Stnrtegc Initiatives .MSC staffs. .A11 of this could be conducted under the cenual management saategy with decentralized execution. Task Force Response Concur. RECOMMENDATION 3. Complete IDEF concurrent with implementation of AMC's Decision Support System. MICOM Comments Agree. LABCOM Comments IDEF is an information systems planning methodology which includes capture of data elements into the data dictionary. IMs plan for ARL was to capture this information as the plan developed. It is anticipated that each MSC will have to complete an IDEF process when AMC proliferates the methodology. Task Force Response Concur. TACQM Comments We completely agree with this recommendation. I mentioned the need to develop a complete information model in the DSS discussion. We really do need to get a good focus on the underlying information requirements, and then let the technical community work on satisfying the requirements. A comprehensive IDEF will facilitate this requirement. Task Force Resvonse Concur. RECOMMENDATION. Field TACOM9s shadow relational database technology to other iMSCs for use by functionals. (Previously part of Software Development Section) MICOM Comments MICOM has been creating and using M204 shadow files for over three years. These files were a valuable asset during the Desert ShieldDesert Storm timeframe. Currently MICOM maintains in excess of eighty CCSS shadow files. The shadow file concept is a very - . W C AUTOMATION ASSESSMENT (June 1992) 3-22 expensive way to do business. It requires nightly DMR file extracts and frle loads to the M204 format and large quantities of DASD for the M204 shadow f ie and its keys. Use of this technique will always introduce the possibility that the information accessed by the customer 4 1 not be current. Depending on the time of access, and assuming daily extracts, information could be 24 hours old. We believe if online inquiry capability is required then the needed DMR files should be converted to a 4GL database. MICOM has offered to either lead an effort or totally convert the CCSS DMR files to M204. MICOM developed the AMC Remote Terminal Interpretative System (ARTIS) inquiry system in the early 70's to query the CCSS files and was proliferated to a l l of the other MSC's to accomplish their query requirements. MICOM currently has over 2300 questions which are actively being used by the MICOM functionals for ad hoc queries ranging in complexity from data element extractions to statistical reporting. This capability is an integral solution to resolving daily requirements. For example, one such question is executed an average of 15,000 times per month. The functional community recognizes the need to have an SQL/4GL database query tool to access the current and proposed 4GL databases that will be an integral part of the Army's future. This tool should be menu driven and user-friendly. It is felt that a less costly and more efficient way of achieving these goals is to develop these queries using such a tool. The functionals need the capability to get quick accurate answers to short requests without having to become a quasicomputer programmer. Task Force Response AMC's study on M204 conversion documented the fact that cost of shadow file approach is $2M versus $29M for full system conversion recommended by MICOM. Ln addition, the decision support requirements are not satisfied by the MICOM approach. CECOM Comments The report recommends that the TACOM shadow database be fielded to other MSCs for use by functionals and that the focus is on migrating to standard systems. CECOM concurs. CECOM is playing an active role in the usage of TACOM shadow file systems in the logistics CCSS arena. This command is joining in a cooperative agreement to adopt one system, and reviewing other systems. The technology is also present in a CECOM system called Acquisition Process Improvement System (APIC). This system surrounds Corporate data for users of the Acquisition process, provides AI triggers, management reporting, and feeds clean data back to CCSS for update. Shadow file technology is nothing more than a mirror image of CCSS sectorfsegment Ne data with user-friendly front-end to assist the item manager in hisher business process. The resource cost to CECOM would be in the Direct Access Storage Device (DASD) arena. CECOM would have to purchase DASD to adopt this technology, and is working toward that end. M C AUTOMATION ASSESSMENT (June 1992) 3-23 Smtcgc ht la t lva DESCOM Comments Later this year, U.S. Army Depot Svstem Command (DESCOM) WLU be fielding a "shadow data base " capability to all its depots. Our depots receive their automation support from the Standard Depot System (SDS). As part of the modernization of SDS, business case development methodology was used in establishing the requirements for a management suppon data base system. It follows the same philosophy as U.S. Army Tank Automotive Command's (TACOM) concept in that management support data is extracted from production data bases to form the SDS-LMOD shadow data base. The extracted data will then be loaded to a DATACOMDB data base and functional users will have interactive standard query language (SQL) capability to the data. A bridging system has been developed that will allow the extraction of data to either Unix or DOS environments. These environments will be supported by a product which is compatible to the mainframe version of the DATACOM SQL. LABCOM Comments We believe that recommendation #I , "Field TACOM's shadow relational database technology to other MSCs for use by functionals" is an overreaction to the successful implementation of Model 204 in the user community at TACOM. Shadow database technology is not a panacea. Effective implementation requires close cooperation between the developer and the user and extensive training and user support. With all of this in place the user can gain considerable benefit by manipulating the shadow databases. The customer support workload will not decrease but will change in nature and suppon more customers. Use of shadow databases is vital to ARL's concept of a corporate information system. The TACOM implementation is not appropriate for ARL. ARL's concept is based on using X clienvserver technology with relevant data extracted from central databases wherever they are located. We have no plans to use M204 shadow databases. AVSCOM Comments Field TACOM's shadow database technology to other MSCs for use by functionals: We concur with the implementation of TACOM's shadow databases and have acquired their programs and database schema. However, in the longer term, an AMC corporate data model needs to be developed which incorporates all business information requirements. However, who will fund the direct access storage device (DASD), the additional processing capacity, and training which will be required? TACOM Comments Some comments are directed at the idea that shadow files are a very expensive way to do business, and that they are not immediately current with the source data. In addition they focus on the need to convert the source systems to relational database technology with specific reference to CCSS. From a pure DOIM point of view, we initially had the same concerns regarding the use of shadow fdes. The expense of DASD and the supporting download process did concern us in the beginning. Our need to integrate data from many AMC AUTOMATION ASSESSMENT (June 1992) 3 -24 Strategc Irunatlves Mferent source systems other than CCSS made the use of shadow file the only practical solution. It simply would not be possible to have in excess of 25 source data systems converted to an alternate database system. If our only source of data were CCSS, an argument could certainly be made to convert the source system rather than use shadow tiles. Once the shadow files were established, the real value became apparent. The vastly improved decision and analysis processes that has been enabled by the shadow files, have more than offset the cost in DASD and operations support. The visibility provided by having not just wholesale data (CCSS), but also retail and other field data systems information available to the TACOM decision maker has given us tremendous benefits. The TACOM MCP has indicated that repair part purchase decisions based on the old way of doing business would have resulted in expenditures $374M greater than actually executed during the period of Feb 90 to the present. The dollar difference was not actually a hard savings because the funding was not available. The key point is that through better information, the decision makers were able to use the available funding by strategically reducing the supply level purchase recommendations in the amount of $374M without impacting operational readiness. That is real leverage, and easily offset the small cost of DASD and data download support requirements. What we quickly learned after making the decision to use shadow Nes as our approach to providing a more complete integrated information repository to the TACOM users was the great value of being detached from the dynamics of the source system revision processes. In effect, as long as the desired data elements remained, we had very Little overhead involved in maintaining our shadow file links. We really didn't care what changes were being made to the technical or functional capabilities of the source systems as long as the primitive data remained intact. Our users have a stable environment and interface to their data without having to wony or become involved in the technical decisions regarding the source databases. They can focus on their data needs and in turn let the IMA professionals worry about t echca l issues. Another lesson learned was our early concern about the data being somewhat out of cycle with the source system data has not been a problem. The shadow file data is being used for analysis and decision support. In this capacity it does not have to be real time current A 24 hour lag does not mate a problem for the functional user who is now able to focus on analysis to anticipate needs rather than react to unexpected events. If real time data is required, it is always possible to go to the source system The main point is that the 24 hour lag in currency of the shadow files has simply not been a problem or issue with the functionals. A very important aspect of the shadow file concept is making sure the functional have direct access to the data. That means no requirement for a programmer to develop the query. This requires an up front commitment to making sure the ultimate data consumer has received the appropriate level of training. The level of training will vary depending on the level of ad hoc access required by the individual user. The TACOM functional community has been fully supportive of the training requirement, and as the benefits have accumulated, have expanded the number of trained individuals. The M204 classes provided by AMEC are excellent. In a number of cases they are better than the ones provided by the M204 vendor. We are using the M204 user Language. I know that my counter part. at the other MSCs do not feel h s is the best way to go. They feel the user must learn more deml than should -- -- M C AUTOMATION ASSESSMENT (June 1992) 3 -25 Srrategc Iruhauves be required. Some feel that the user should not have to become a quasi-computer programmer. Not having had the experience of workmg with an empowered user community, I can understand their concerns. Once the process starts, our experience has shown the functional community not only is capable of learning the tools, but they become very excited when they realize how much capability they have individually. Learning the M204 user Language is not much different that the requirements we impose on the community to learn Lotus 1-2-3, DBASE IV, or any other PC application. Such knowledge is as much a quasi-programming skill as the M204 User Language. The simple fact is that people entering the work force today are very computer literate, and almost demand the ability to be able to work independently. Task Force Response Above comments indicate a general willingness to adopt the shadow file or data warehouse approach, however, each MSC is working its own solution. Recommend AMC-Wide solution hosted at the ALPC. 3.3.4.2 Office Automation and Electronic Mail RECOMMENDATION. Make strategic change in AMC's use of automation as an enabler for senior executives. MICOM Comments MICOM is fully exploiting the latest technology in communications and office automation. This command has a campus area network (CAN) that has every major building on Redstone Arsenal tied in. This allows systems such as the MICOM Administrative Support System (MASS) to be accessed by offices all over the Arsenal. This system produces travel orders. 1556 training forms, overtime requests, travel vouchers, etc. and also gives managers the capability to pull personnel statistics on their workforce, such as, how many over a certain age, how many rnales/females, who received awards, etc. MICOM has an on-line computer based training system, Self Paced Army Computer Education (SPACE) Program that allows each terminal on an employee's desk to be a training mechanism since the integrated CAN gives access to all three tiers of hardware -- micros, minis, and mainframes. LABCOM Comments To accomplish recommendation #2, "Make strategic change in AMC's use of automation as an enabler for senior executives," a culture change is required for both the functional and development communities. Close coordination Hlll be required for all elements of AMC. TACOM Comments We strongly agree with this recommendation. MSCs note the various ways they have been using automation to enhance their local processes. I am aware of a number of the systems they have implemented, and they are excellent in their capability. If I understand the recommendation correctly, I feel some may have missed the objective. Their comments seem to address systems being used to support ongoing mission functions rather than senior executives. I am assuming that the recommendation is addressing Executive Information Systems and the need to get an AMC-wide approach in place. Tlus includes the technical approach. and a change in culture in terms of the use of such systems in the day to day decision process. I t has been interesting watching senior managers at TACOM begin to realize what complete information can mean in terms of making truly informed decisions. We have a long way to go, but as the culture is changing the demand for additional executive level decision information is growing rapidly. I'm sure having an AMC corporate wide common baseline would made the process that much bener. Task Force Response Agree. . W C AUTOMATION ASSESSMENT (June 1992) 3 -27 Straregc Iruaauves 4. SUMMARY AMC is successfully supporting the Army in both peace and war. Information technology within AVC is well i yated into AMC business processes and is key to the successes experienced. The challenge iur AMC during the transition period is to: Implement recommended opportunities to reduce costs/increase effectiveness in existing operations. Centrally manage information technology activities during the turbulent reshaping period. Decouple their business processes from their automation process by implementing a "data warehouse" in support of TACOM, MICOM, CECOM, AVSCOM, TROSCOM, AMCCOM, and DESCOM, as well as HQ AMC. AMC AUTOMATION ASSESSMENT (June 1992) 4- 1 SWW APPENDIX A AMC AUTOMATION ASSESSMENT TASK FORCE REPORT BRIEFING 22 MAY 92 LMC AUTOMATION ASSESSMENT ~J d n e 1393 AMC AUTOMATION ASSESSMENT TASK FORCE REPORT BG ROBERT WYNN TASK FORCE LEADER 22 MAY 92 FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY UPDATE AMC AUTOMATION ASSESSMENT TASK FORCE REPORT BRIEF STRUCTURE - REVIEW ACTIVITY - REVIEW OBSERVATIONS WITH MSCISRA COMMENTS - CLOSE EVENTS SINCE 1 MAY BRIEFING - COMMENTS FROM FIELD - REPORT TENOR - HASC MARK - - - -- - - - - - - - - - . - - - -- -- - - -. RECOMMENDATION: I / "UNIX CONSOLIDATION COMMENTS." MICOM: 1 . NONCONCUR; PROCESSORS REMAIN HEAVILY USED IN SUPPORT OF PROCUREMENT. 2. MOST INTEL'S HAVE BEEN REMOVED. 3 . WANT CONTROL OF ORGANIZATION LEVEL INFORAMTION. LABCOM: 1 . NEED A N FEA. 2 . DISAGREE WlTH REMOVING INTEL HUBS; USE CLIENT SERVER. AVSCOMITROSCOM: 1.WHO WlLL FUND? DOlM NEEDS FLEXIBILITY TO BE RESPONSIVE. TF RESPONSE: 1 . REPLACE "INTEL'S" WlTH CURRENT TECHNOLOGY. 2. AGREE THAT FEA SHOULD BE ACCOMPLISHED. TF ASSERTS MODERN TECHNOLOGY WlLL REDUCE O&S. 3. AGREE WlTH #3 OF MICOM COMMENTS. SIMA OBSERVATION DISCUSSION Sav ings can be realized by modifying current structure and future locations of SIMA. I RECOMMENDATIONS Approximately 40% of the 900 + personnel in S lMA are not in IM functional a rea . BRAC 91 decis ion to relocate S I M A - E to Rock Island costs the Army $8M in MCA and up to $10M in relocation costs. Software ex~er -se -w i l l be lost and I operational . effect iveness disrupted. 1 SIMA-W currently leases G S A facilities. I. --- - - -. , Alternative space will be I available at Goodfe l lov~ . 1 . P r o v i d e functional input to S lMA using lead I I I MSC/proponent (JLSC). 1 2. Remove functionals from SlMA TDA. lo f $8M MCA, $10M relocation I I BENEFITS 1 I 3. Do not relocate SIMA-E. Bring before -.-- BRAC 93 I Committee. 4 . Relocate SIMA-W to Goodfellow Boulevard arid cotisolidate DPI with AIPC. I I ) and approximately $1 .OM Current functional expertise provided to software development. Cost avoidance TIME FRAME Mid term civilian pay (post reduction). Savings of $3.1 M/yr in leaso. I t 1 RECOMMENDATION: "CONVERT PADDS TO UNIX; MOVE TO OTHER HARDWARE." COMMENTS: MICOM: 1 . STRONGLY DISAGREE THAT PADDS IS A NONCRITICAL SYSTEM. 2. EXPEDITING ON INTERIM SYSTEM DOES NOT APPEAR COST-EFFECTIVE. TF RESPONSE: 1. AGREE - "GENERAL SUPPORT" IS BETTER. 2. ROI (OF ABOUT 400K) .WITHIN 1 YEAR; ENHANCED ACCESS. NO CHANGE TO REC. RECOMMENDATION: "CLOSE AMPMOD; PROVIDE NETWORK VIA DISNET." COMMENTS: MICOM: MINIMAL IMPACT; CHECK ON PROCESSING BOlP FEEDER DATA AND QUALITATIVE AND QUANTITATIVE PERSONNEL REQUIREMENTS INFORMATION. SIMA: CONCUR; EXAMINE COMM NETWORK FOR FUTURE USE. TF RESPONSE: AGREE TACTICAL INITIATIVES I- - - I d NON-CRITICAL SYSTEMS IMPROVEMENTS I TO I d SIMA EXISTING ( 4 SYSTEM REVIEW I PROCESSES I COMMITTEE (SRC) I, STRUCTURE d SUPERCOMPUTERS d HQAMC DSS d SINGLE FUNCTION CIRCUITS d UNIX CONSOLIDATION SHADOW DATABASE 1 "ATTABOY S" CADICAM SHADOW DATABASE I /4MCCOM: TACONI; I In forrnation Technology is an enabler at Uses Relational DB technology R I A Manufacturing Facility Decouples business f r o m TACOM; automation processes Facilitates redesign of business D o s ~ y , ~ Machine ----- Ip I processes IMMENSE CHANGE AMC IS SUPPORTING I 1 I THE ARMY DURING AMC INITIATIVES *- Records Management SlSOCS (7 out of 22 sites) Paperless Cdrs Conference 1- j MICOM: Innovation and responsiveness to customer TDY process: O R D E R S F DEPOSIT BRIEFING STRUCTURE 1 TIME FRAME Near term Within 6 months Mid term Within 2 years SCOPE Strateaic Fundamental change1 Reengineering Tactical Improvement within existing FORMAT OF BRIEFING REALITY OF SITUATION OBSERVATION t- XN RECOMMENDATION BENEFIT REC(1) REC(2) REC(3) REC(4) I TASK FORCE GUIDANCE I J Identify core competencies in 95-96 and then work back Reconfigure core competencies for Power Projection Outsource the margin \i Adopt a business orientation d Maintain value-added core within PBG CSA -d AMC is key to Power Projection d Challenge is to reshape AMC Avoid a Salami-Slice approach Become a more efficient organization TASK FORCE PURPOSE ENVIRONMENT METHODOLOGY I Developed and validntod opporlirnit ios - - - - - -. : Incorporating CIMIJLSC Ir-nplementing BRAC ., Reshaping Army Dofining Core Competencies , FY91 Expenditures equal S564M PURPOSE V" Series of personal intorviev~s Key staff MSC Commanders SLA, JLSC, PEOs, ARSTAFF V' ldent ified potential opportunities FIND AND REPORT OPPORTUNITIES TO IMPROVE EFFICIENCY AND r EFFECTIVENESS OF INFORMATION I TOTAL OBLIGATION ARMY MATERIEL COMMAND I a I I I RECOMMENDATION: I'IDO NOT RELOCATE SIMA-E. BRING BEFORE BRAC 93 COMMITEE." COMMENTS: DESCOM: CONCUR SIMA: CONCUR AMCCOrvr : NONCONCUR TF RESPONSE: NO CHANGE TO RECOMMENDATION 1 RECOMMENDATION: "RELOCATE SIMA-W TO GOODFELLOW BOULEVARD AND CONSOLIDATE DPI WITH AIPC." - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - -- -- - - COMMENTS: SIMA: DO FEA AVSCOM/TROSCOM: CONCUR LABCOM: CONSOLIDATE LEAD MSC TF RESPONSE: No CHANGE TO RECOMMENDATION SRC STRUCTURE OBSERVATION DISCUSSION I ! 1 . Establisl l a single S R C wi th Command Group 1 oversight (GOISES) and members f rom al l Current st ructure focuses suppor t to spocif ic funct ions rather tharl across f i ~ r ~ c t i o r ~ a l areas. -. - -- ---A I I I funct ional areas. 1 2. CIO serves as Secretary. lnformatior i techno logy systoms c r o s s funct ional areas (e.g. CALS, CCSS) . Boundar ies between SRCs sometimes mixed. Advent o f JLSC reduces freedom of act ion o f funct ional S R C s . AlPCs provide operat ions suppor t . - --- -- -- I 1 3 . JLSC and ISC reprosentat ion. ! 4 . Rostruct i l re FSls (COL, G M 15) to provide , I hor izonta l in tegrat io l i . I RECOMMENDATIONS 1 TIME FRAME BEN EFlTS Improvos coord ina t ion ant1 in tegrat ion o f changes t o in fo rmat ion technology ---' sys tem s. Near term I w _ _ _ _ _ _ _ L _ _ - -- RECOMMENDATION: I ' S H C STRUCTURE' COMMENTS - .-. - 1 GENERAL CONCURRENCE TF RESPONSE: 1. NO CHANGE. SUPERCOMPUTERS OBSERVATION DISCUSSION C u r r e r ~ t conf igurat ion o f suporcomputer suppor t may no t be the ri iost cos t effective. i doterrnine i f unc lass i fed process ing should b e 1 be ou t sourced or d o n e in house to inc lude the high performance supercomputer at the Uri iversity o f Minnesota. I AMC operates two supercomputers at Ballistics Research Lab (BRL) and one at Tank Automotive Command (TACOM). Classified work is done at BRL. I Additional time is obtained from the University of Minnesota. Technological obsolescence is quick. XMP supercomputer at BRL is on -- --- - --, the verge of obsolescence. TIME FRAME I RECOMMENDATIONS 1. Turn in XMP at BRL. 2. Retain CRAY at BRL t o adequately handle c lassi f ied process ing. 3. Conduct funct ional economic analysis (FEA) t o BENEFITS Army's lengthy acquisition cyc io inhibits efforts to stay current. I Reduces $1.3M per year it1 hardware and software O&S Net benefit determined by FEA. Near to mid term I RECOMMENDATION: "SUPERCOMPUTER COMMENTS" -- I COMMENTS:. LABCOM: 1 . NON CONCUR. TF RESPONSE: 1. NO CHANGE. HQ AMC DSS OBSERVATION AMC llns components for t~i l i lding a D S S . Overall automation strategy and capabilities are not well defined nor firlly used. No formal functional requirements definition effort is underway to guide D S S development. DISCUSSION HQ AMC has a good automat ion infrostructuro based upon a n 1,100 workstat ion LAN connoctocj t o mini-computers. HQ AMC rolios o n FAX and surface mai l t o communicate data filos wit 11 M S C s rather than data networks. Connoct ivi ty to HQ AMC 9370 equates to connect ivi ty to HQDA DSS network (TRADOC, FORSCOM, stc). Connoct iv i ty to HQDA DSS is availablo, but not commonly known o r wol l utilized. A l t h o i ~ g h a training program is in place, it nsods moro structuro, ornphasis, a n d visibility. - - - - - .- . - _ _ -I -- I RECOMMENDATIONS 1 1 . P l o v i d u w o r l d w i d e E-Ma i l and HQDA DSS connec t i v i t y to s ta f f v ia HQ AMC L A N a n d LAN I ga teway . I 2. S u p p o r t s t r uc tu red a n d d e d ~ c a t e d t r a i n i ng a n d s ~ l s t a i n n i e n t se rv i ce . BENEFITS Inexpensive HQ AMC l ink t o worldwide network and D S S . and g r a p l l i c u s e r in te r face . I 3. Mid te rm : M ig ra te t o L o t u s N o t e s o r c o m p a r a b l e I i pt 'oduct to exp lo i t g r o u p w ~ 7 1 . e ~ p ro jec t managemen t , TIME FRAME I Access to H Q D A databases. Empowerment of users. PJoar t o mid t e r m I - RECOMMENDATION: ( H Q AMC DSS COMMENTS" _I GENERAL CONCURRENCE TF RESPONSE: 1 . NO CHANGE. SINGLE FUNCTION CIRCUITS OBSERVATION DISCUSSION AMC uses several single f u n c t i o n r i o t w o r k s w i t h d e d i c a t e d c i r c u i t s . RECOMMENDATIONS Dedicated networks ex is t for: Army Supercomputer Network (ASNET) Army Interoperabi l i ty Network (AlPJ) AMCCOM Video Network DESCOM Depot Network S lSOCS Network management accomplis heel either by corltractor o r lr l formally - o n a reactive basis. ASlMS and SISOCS cons011 I 1. C o n s o l i d a t e s tovepipes into s ing le 1 nehvork hubbed a round the AIPCs. / dations proviclo infrastrtrctt lre for other network requirements. 2 . Outsource network t~ ianagement to ISC. TIME FRAME BENEFITS 1 Save $8001rnu l r l l r , 1 1 MllC PERSONNEL @ BI~S1iYE.S.S SI'BJECT Af.4 TTER EX'PERTS D,4 1:4/lNFORhL4 TiON MAN4 G'WS . c v c r r m n c A M A I v c r r e - KNOWLEDGE OF BUSINESS PROCESSES FOR ALL CLASSES OF SUPPLY - KNOWLEDGE OF 80t AUTOMATED SYSTEMS AT FIELD, WHOLESALE, AND NATIONAL LEVELS. 2. H'ITH A DETAILED KNOH'LEDGE 017 ,/ THE ONLY O R ( ; A h ~ Z A T l O N 117TH 7'07:11, ASSET THE SUPPORTING A UTOhjA TED SYSTEhfS. .. n \'ISIHIWTY OF E\'ERflHING THE AHhlY Oll'AS J THE ONI,Y OR(;ANIZATION ItiI'1'H THE SLII,l,.,S AND KNOI1'LEDGE T O INTEGRATE THE IIRTTIHEMAJOR ITEM PROCESS YZA TION WITH THE SKlLLS & - KNOWLEDGE OF ALL MI BUSINESS PROCESSES - KNOWLEDGE OF MAJOR ITEM SYSTEMS AT FIELD, WHOLESALE, AND NATIONAL LEVELS. J THE ONi,I,Y 0RI;AMZATIOR'iR' DOD SCHOOLISD hV ARMS C O N l a O L INFORAiATlON PROCESSES U 4. RESULTING IN THE FOLLOH'lNG CRITICAL SERVICES. WHOLESALE LEVEL - KNOWLEDGE OF CONVENTIONAL ARMS CONTROL VISIBILITY OF EVERYTHING THE ARMY OWNS (TAV) * NATIONAL LEVEL PROCESSES, TREATIES, AND AGREEMENTS. FOCUS OF MAJOR ITEM EXPERTISE FOR THE ARMY INTEGRATED MAJOR ITEM INFORMATION 1 1 1 SUPPORT TO INTERNATIONAL ARMS CONTROL PROCESS I I THlS CHART PROVIDES SOME DETAIL ON THE UNIQUENESS OF THE MllC MISSION AND ON THE SPECIALIZED SKILLS AND EXPERIENCE REQUIRED TO MAKE THE MISSION THE SUCCESS THAT IT IS. THE MllC STAFF IS MADE OF UP BUSINESS PROCESS EXPERTS, INFORMATION MANAGERS, AND SYSTEMS ANALYSTS. IT IS THlS UNIQUE BLEND OF KNOWLEDGE AND EXPERIENCE THAT HAS PROVEN NECESSARY IN ORDER TO TAKE RAW, ASYNCHRONOUS DATA, DRAWN FROM EVERY CORNER OF DOD, AND DEVELOP IT INTO QUALITY INFORMATION USED TO DRIVE MANY CRITICAL ARMY AND DOD PROCESSES. THE PROCESS DESCRIBED IS INFINITELY MORE THAN AN AUTOMATION EFFORT. IT REQUIRES A WORKING KNOWLEDGE OF THE NUMEROUS ARMYIDOD BUSINESS PROCESSES AND DETAILED UNDERSTANDING OF EACH OF THE STOVEPIPE SYSTEMS MllC TIES INTO. BY VIRTUE OF IT BEING THE FOCAL POINT FOR THESE NUMEROUS DOD PROCESSES AND SYSTEMS, MllC IS UNIQUELY POSITIONED TO DEVELOP THE STAFF EXPERTISE REQUIRED FOR TOTAL ASSET VISIBILITY AND FOR INTEGRATED MAJOR ITEM INFORMATION. THESE MULTI-DISCIPLINED SKILLS ARE DEVELOPED AT MllC AND CANNOT BE DRAWN FROM ANY OTHER SINGLE ORGANIZATION WITHIN DOD, NOR COULD THEY BE EASILY MUSTERED INTO SO LEAN (130) AN ORGANIZATION. IF THE MllC ORGANIZATION IS PHYSICALLY MOVED, MOST OF THESE CRITICAL INTEGRATION SKILLS WOULD BE LOST AND THE MISSION WOULD FAIL. FAILURE OF THlS MISSION WOULD HAVE AN ADVERSE AFFECT ON UNIT READINESS, VISIBILITY OF EQUIPMENT, CONVENTIONAL ARMS TREATY COMPLIANCE, AND THE ABILITY TO MOBILIZE AND DEPLOY IN SUPPORT OF CONTINGENCY OPERATIONS. WE KNOW THE COMMISSION HAS MUCH TO CONSIDER REGARDING LETTERKENNY. BUT TO PRECLUDE UNNECESSARY EXPENSE TO THE TAXPAYER AND EQUALLY UNNECESSARY FAILURE TO A CRITICAL DOD MISSION, WE ASK, IN ADDITION TO ALL THE OTHER FACTS BEARING ON THE LETTERKENNY SITUATION, THAT THE COMMISSION ALSO TAKE INTO CONSIDERATION THlS TENANT AND ITS CRITICAL MISSION WHEN MAKING THE FINAL DECISION REGARDING THE DISPOSITION OF LETTERKENNY ARMY DEPOT. MllC - THE UNIQUENESS OF ITS MISSION MllC IS A ONE-OF-A-KIND ORGANIZATION @ HCISIIVESS SI~BJE'CT ,VIA TTER EXPER1:)' 2, lilITH A DETAILED KNOIPLEDGE OF J 'J'HE ORl,Y ORGANlZATION H'I'I'H T O n L ASSET @ 1);1 1~4NNFORRlil TION ,I~AIYA GERS THE SUPPORTING A UTOMA TED SYSTEAfS... U5"UlLlTY OF E\'ISR Y'l'HING THIS AHRf Y OIl'h'S SYSTEMS AN4LYSTS MllC PERSONNEL J THE ON1,Y ORI~AMZA'I'fON HrlTH THE: SKILLS dt. KNOIPLEDGE TO RIA KE: TAV HAPPEN - KNOWLEDGE OF BUSINESS PROCESSES FOR ALL CLASSES OF SUPPLY - FORCE DEVELOPMENT - KNOWLEDGE OF 80t AUTOMATED SYSTEMS - REQUIREMENTS DOCUMENTATION AT FIELD, WHOLESALE, AND NATIONAL - ACQUISITION LEVELS. - PROPERTY ACCOUNTABILITY J T H E O N L Y O R G A N I Z A T I O N W I T H T H E SLII,I,S 5. USED TO SUPPORT CONTINGENCY OPS 4h'D KNOIPLEDGE TO IN1%'GRA'I% THIS ISN'flRE RfAJOR AND 1;RITlCA L dfISS1ON AREAS AT: k ITEIVI PROCESS ARMY UNITS AND INSTALLATIONS L DIVISIONS, CORPS, MAJOR COMMANDS - KNOWLEDGE OF ALL MI BUSINESS PROCESSES PENTAGON - NATIONAL LEVEL - KNOWLEDGE OF MAJOR ITEM SYSTEMS * DOD, OTHER SERVICES, NATO AT FIELD, WHOLESALE, AND NATIONAL LEVELS. lPITHlN THE ARMI:.. * UNlTlDlVlSlON LEVEL J THE 0,VI,l' ORHAh'IZATlON 1K DOD SCHOOLED Ih' I * INTERMEDIATE LEVEL ARiW CON'l'ROl, Ih'FOKhllA TION PROCESSES 4 RESULTING IN THE FOLLOH'ING CRITICAL SERVICES. WHOLESALE LEVEL - KNOWLEDGE OF CONVENTIONAL ARMS CONTROL VISIBILITY OF EVERYTHING THE ARMY OWNS (TAV) NATIONAL LEVEL PROCESSES, TREATIES, AND AGREEMENTS. FOCUS OF MAJOR ITEM EXPERTISE FOR THE ARMY INTEGRATED MAJOR ITEM INFORMATION 1 1 I SUPPORT TO INTERNATIONAL ARMS CONTROL PROCESS / I I THlS CHART PROVIDES SOME DETAIL ON THE UNIQUENESS OF THE MllC MISSION AND ON THE SPECIALIZED SKILLS AND EXPERIENCE REQUIRED TO MAKE THE MISSION THE SUCCESS THAT IT IS. THE MllC STAFF IS MADE OF UP BUSINESS PROCESS EXPERTS, INFORMATION MANAGERS, AND SYSTEMS ANALYSTS. IT IS THlS UNIQUE BLEND OF KNOWLEDGE AND EXPERIENCE THAT HAS PROVEN NECESSARY IN ORDER TO TAKE RAW, ASYNCHRONOUS DATA, DRAWN FROM EVERY CORNER OF DOD, AND DEVELOP IT INTO QUALITY INFORMATION USED TO DRIVE MANY CRITICAL ARMY AND DOD PROCESSES. THE PROCESS DESCRIBED IS INFINITELY MORE THAN AN AUTOMATION EFFORT. IT REQUIRES A WORKING KNOWLEDGE OF THE NUMEROUS ARMYIDOD BUSINESS PROCESSES AND DETAILED UNDERSTANDING OF EACH OF THE STOVEPIPE SYSTEMS MllC TIES INTO. BY VIRTUE OF IT BEING THE FOCAL POINT FOR THESE NUMEROUS DOD PROCESSES AND SYSTEMS, MllC IS UNIQUELY POSITIONED TO DEVELOP THE STAFF EXPERTISE REQUIRED FOR TOTAL ASSET VISIBILITY AND FOR INTEGRATED MAJOR ITEM INFORMATION. THESE MULTI-DISCIPLINED SKILLS ARE DEVELOPED AT MllC AND CANNOT BE DRAWN FROM ANY OTHER SINGLE ORGANIZATION WITHIN DOD, NOR COULD THEY BE EASILY MUSTERED INTO SO LEAN (130) AN ORGANIZATION. IF THE MllC ORGANIZATION IS PHYSICALLY MOVED, MOST OF THESE CRITICAL INTEGRATION SKILLS WOULD BE LOST AND THE MISSION WOULD FAIL. FAILURE OF THlS MISSION WOULD HAVE AN ADVERSE AFFECT ON UNIT READINESS, VISIBILITY OF EQUIPMENT, CONVENTIONAL ARMS TREATY COMPLIANCE, AND THE ABILITY TO MOBILIZE AND DEPLOY IN SUPPORT OF CONTINGENCY OPERATIONS. WE KNOW THE COMMISSION HAS MUCH TO CONSIDER REGARDING LETTERKENNY. BUT TO PRECLUDE UNNECESSARY EXPENSE TO THE TAXPAYER AND EQUALLY UNNECESSARY FAILURE TO A CRITICAL DOD MISSION, WE ASK, IN ADDITION TO ALL THE OTHER FACTS BEARING ON THE LETTERKENNY SITUATION, THAT THE COMMISSION ALSO TAKE INTO CONSIDERATION THlS TENANT AND ITS CRITICAL MISSION WHEN MAKING THE FINAL DECISION REGARDING THE DISPOSITION OF LETTERKENNY ARMY DEPOT. Document Sepalator OFFICE OF THE UNDER SECRETARY OF DEFENSE 3000 DEFENSE PENTAGON WASHINGTON DC 20301 -3000 ACOUISITION AND TECHNOLOGY May 3 , '1995 MEMORANDUM FOR THE BASE REALIGNMENT AND CLOSURE COMMISS 1 O N SUBJECT: LOGSA's Arms Control Implementation ~ i s s i o n My office is responsible for oversight w i t h i n the DOD of c ~ I ( % Department ' s implementation o f , and compl i i i r ~ c : t : w i ~ t ~ , a r m s co l i t .~ o l agreements. The Army's Logistics Support Act i v i t y Ma jot . T t . c !u l ~nformation Center (LOGSA MIIC) has been intimately i n v o l v t ~ i i r l the development of the infomatior1 systems desiqncd t.c> c . r l su re USG compliance with conventional force arms cor~trol n g r e e m e n t s slncc 1989. Because the preponderance of data that the USG has to report annually (and more frequently as changes trigger other reporting requirements) for the Conventional Armed Forces in Europe (CFE) Treaty, and the Organization for Cooperatjon nnd Security in Europe's (OSCE) Confidence and Security Build i r ~ g Measures (CSBM) concerns Army equipment, LOGSA was given the mission to develop an equipment data base to support. all DOD reporting for those agreements. In 1993, through coordination with the Army, I,O(;:iA's ,lrrns control data mission was expanded so that LOCSA becarnc the agency tasked to provide direct support to the Office of t h e Secretary of Defense ( 0 s ~ ) in conventional arms control matters dcalinq with data bases and data base management. Since that t i m e , LOGSA has advised this office and represented the DoD at v a r i o u s arms control fora addressing data, data bases, and the devclopment ot information systems to support arms control reporting provisions. LOGSA is the OSD expert resource in such matters. A d d i t . i o n ' i l l y , as the USG has agreed to other arms control measures, such as thc: OSCZ's Global Exchange of Military Informa tion ( G E M 1 ) A y r c c l n c ~ ~ t , and the United Nation's Transparency in Armaments ( T I A ) MeLtsurc. , LOGSA has been developing the data transfer mechanisms to suppor-t those reporting requirements as well. As the BRAC considers base closure issue:; r c : ld t cd to Letterkenny Army Depot, I would like to pol r r t o u t 1 1 1 l . l lc . strongest terms possible, the absolute Doll and USG need to r c . r n , j i r l in compliance with the arms agreements to which w e ar-e p a 7 t . y . The c a p a b i l i t y LOGSA currently provides in suppo t - t o l t ! q u ~ p ; ; ~ ~ r l L reporting requirements cannot be e a s i l } , passed off to ot t lc : r organizations or to personnel not cogr l i zan t of the nullic:roirG. .+rrn.; control measures. coordination needs, be maintained in pr Because of the constant exchanye of views and it is equally important that their capability ,oximity of Washington, D.C. / Mary Margaret E v a n s O f f ice of Arms Control, Implementation and C o m p l i a n c a Document Separator h DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY USAMC LOGISTICS SUPPORT ACTIVITY MA.IOR ITEM INFORMATION CENTER --. . .~ REPLY TO April 27, 1995 ATTENTION OF ~ - I FTTERKENNY ARMY DEPOT. CHAMBERSBURG. PA 17201-4183 Mr. David G. Sciamanna President Greater Charnbersburg Chamber of Commerce Member LEAD Coalition Steering Committee Dear Mr. Sciamanna: I have received your 25 April correspondence requesting, under the provisions of the Freedom of Information Act, additional information concerning the impacts of the DoD 1995 BRAC recommendation for Letterkenny Army Depot (LEAD) on the Major Item Information Center (MIIC), a tenant activity at LEAD. Your questions were and my responses are as follows: a. How were you notified of the Army decision/plan to move MIIC to Huntsville. AL? Initially, I was informally advised that the DOD 1995 BRAC recommendation for LEAD did not address the tenants, and, in fact, the package that was available for review at this installation at that time did not address any of the tenants. I assumed, since the recommendation did not mandate a complete closure for LEAD, that the tenants would remain at LEAD. I hrther based this assumption on my strong belief that movement of more than 1500 tenant employees from LEAD would be a needless and significant cost to the taxpayer; hrther negatively impact the community's economy at large; and most importantly, from a military value perspective, cause severe degradation to the MIIC mission. The 2 1 March 1995 correspondence at enclosure 1 is the formal indication, indirectly provided to us, that MIIC was in fact considered in BRAC planning for LEAD. This correspondence from the Headquarters, U. S. Army Materiel Command (USAMC) advises that MIIC is considered a "discretionary move." It further indicates that in accordance with the DoD data provided to the Commission for tenant activities we are to be relocated to join our parent organization, the USAMC Logistics Support Activity (LOGSA), in Huntsville, AL. Obviously, as referenced in enclosure 1, there were other correspondence and planning actions undertaken on our behalf at the USAMC, Department of Army (DA) and DoD levels, but without the knowledge or involvement of MIIC whatsoever. b. As part o fArm y stffing actions. what input did your orMzation provide in terms of mission impacts of such a move? As discussed in the previous answer, MIIC was not contacted or involved in any actions during development and submission of the DoD 1995 BRAC recommendation for LEAD. I am unaware if LOGSA was involved in any of these actions. However, provided at enclosure 2 are an 8 March 1995 memorandum and a 13 April 1995 memorandum from LOGSA to USAMC advising - that there would be no mission impacts associated with the move of MIIC to Huntsville, AL. our knowled~e were Army and DoD customers consulted with regard to their reaction ta a planned move of MIIC to Huntsville (or any other site)? Since I was unaware that MIIC was being addressed as part of the LEAD BRAC package, I cannot answer unequivocally that our Army and DoD customers were consulted concerning any proposed relocation of this organization. However, as some of our key customers and system proponents became aware of this potential relocation, they exhibited extreme concern about the disruption that this potential relocation would have on our ability to maintain and provide the critical services they require.. Understand that the MIIC missions are a major contributor to the successful accomplishment of our customers' and proponents' missions. I would also point out that these customers and proponents range from Army units in the field to the senior levels of DA and DoD. 'aue skills that you garuzat . . d. What are the um r or ion ~ o w s e s that would be lost if you were relocated? What would be the mission impac-ociated with such a loss? MIIC has served continuously since 1955 as the Army's key source for all logistics information relating to major (for example, tanks, helicopters, rifles, radios, etc.) and selected secondary items of equipment. MIIC is the organization in the U. S. Army whose job is to ensure that the Army has continuous visibility of all Army owned equipment, worldwide. This information allows for planning and execution of critical national security responsibilities to include equipment distribution and redistribution in support of unit readiness, weapon systems production and program management, and meeting the nation's mobilization and contingency requirements. Additionally, MllC directly supports United States commitments to conventional arms control treaties and agreements and provides technical support in arms control to 53 other countries. What enables MIIC to successfully meet the challenge of these important national and international defense responsibilities is the unique blend of business process experts, information managers and multi-disciplined systems analysts and their institutional knowledge and technical expertise that has been developed and retained at MIIC for the last 40 years. It is the combined abilities and experience of the organization overall that is required to take raw asynchronous data, drawn from every comer of DoD, and develop and present it as quality information used to drive many critical Army and DoD processes. Provided at enclosure 3 is a graphic presentation and brief narrative that fiather details both the importance and uniqueness of the MIIC missions. In terms of mission impacts associated with a relocation of this organization, they would be both severe and significant with impacts across all levels of the Army and DoD, from the troops in the field to the senior leadership in the Pentagon. An informal survey of the MIIC workforce indicates that only 40% would be willing to transfer to Huntsville. Typically, the more experienced analysts and senior managers do not transfer, so most of the unique skills and specialized knowledge at MIIC would be lost. Because of the dependency of our customers on the information and logistical service support we provide; when we fail, they fail. Our failure will impact unit readiness (as result of the loss of asset visibility), jeopardize conventional arms treaty compliance and impair the Army's ability to mobilize and deploy troops in support of contingency and wartime operations. In conclusion, it is exactly the mission impacts discussed in my response immediately above that so concerns our customers and our proponents. I am uncertain why the critical role that MIIC plays in support of national defense does not appear to have been considered in the development of the DoD 1995 BRAC recommendation for LEAD. I believe it absolutely essential, in addition to all the other LEAD information being reviewed by the Commission in its final deliberations, that MIIC and its critical Army and DoD missions be given comprehensive and objective consideration before making any final decision regarding the disposition of LEAD and the associated relocation of MIIC. Sincerely, Chief, Major Item V Information Center Enclosures -. - 03/22/95 12:49 S 7 0 3 617 0476 . * r. HQ AMC MCSO DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY HEADOWRTERS, US. ARMY MN€AIEL COMMAND 5W1 DSENHOWER AVENUE, ALEXANDRIA, VA 22333 - 0001 AMCSO 21 March 1995 ,.I MEMORANDUM FOR SEE DISTRIBUTION SUBJECT: BRAC 95 Implementation Planning Guidance - Discretionary Moves 1 - Reference: a. Memorandum, AMCSO, I Mar 95, BRAC 95 Implementation Planning Guidance. b. Memorandum, AMCSO, 10 Mar 95, BRAC 95 Implementation Planning Guidance. 2. The two memorandums and their attachments laid out the requirements relating to discretionary moves for "tenantw ac t iv i t i e s on AMC installations proposed for closure or realignment. 3 - The purpose of this memorandum is to l a y out two short term suspenses far discretionary moves. 4. At enclosure 1 is a data extract of tenant activities on our olosing/realigning baaes sorted by the parent activity responsible for the tenant. Data includes the AMC closing/reali ning site, the name of.the tenant activity, the UIC of M e ac&ivity, the reconunendat~on for the tenant activity as contained in the DOD data provided to the RRAC Comission, and the strength figures for the tenant act iv i ty . The recommendation pertaining to the tenant activity contained in the DOD proposal to the BRAC Commission is in the the "gain/elim" column of the extract and can be one of three items: / a. A cpecific site the activity will be realigned to. b. The fact that the activity has been eliminated. c. Base X. A l*holdingbt nomenclature for purposes of the BRAC proposal. This means the activity w i l l realign, but its destinat~on has not yet been determined. 5, This 6USpenSe is two fold: a. J3.Y Co8 29 Mar 95 responsible agencies need to provide us wi? the desired locations for those activities currently designated to realign to Base X. This may be done AMCSO SUBJECT: BRAC 95 Implementation Planning Guidance - Discretionary Moves telephonically t o meet the short term suspense, but must be followed up in writing. b. Bv COB 13 Anr 9 5 , for each of the activities designated to relocate to Base X, provide the data at paras 1, 3 , w B 5 and 8 of enclosure 2. 6. The point of contact for this action is M r . Paul Mui, DSN 284-8157, datafax ( 7 0 3 ) 274-3779. 7 . AMC -- America's C. SANDUSKY DISTRIBUTION: COL Cipson (DCSPER) ~ r . ~l wilson ( ~ o c ) Mr. Perry Trollinger (TMDE) Mr. Mike Early (TECOM) LT John McKone (Dm) AAA AAFES CIC DEF COM AGY DFAS DISA FORSCOM USAREC CF : Ms. Joan Horton (LOGSA) Mr. Tom Smith (ATCOM) Mr, Frank Cuiffo (CECOM) Mr. Gary R e a s (MICOM) -Mr. Bud OvMara (SIMA) MEDCOM (MAJ Devries) ~RFSPa(SIBLEL\GQICY=ARA+ am . ENYW WDIT wacf!~ LEmww LIGOEY w AU)IT . . W!P Subtotal +i . . .. .--. ... . - .. . - . . ... - . . .-. ,. . . - - fESKMIBLE NZMY = W E 5 Jk SlEWCCl W ) AAFES !69511 RmRIVER#WYDEWT w5 Q1050b m1OGE: AWES !;uwol w !hbtotal w * R E S W H S I B L E ~ = l Y l C D C G P E R I M ) R I K R M O W T T SDAA. R ENGIMBIIB & Y468AR LLl6ISTIC ED RIVER MKY.DWiT #r M C I V TWIINING WICRTI[H Y4CJI!B ED R I E R lVIIlY OEWT Im TRAINING CTR 191 1 P t+ Subtotal +t La€ STAR Lot€ STM n llESWNS1BI.E MDW = CEW(1 REDfiIVERAWMDEPlJt lSAm l.Emmw WCEWl *@ Subtotal si W ! 6 ELM ~ 4 [ ~ 9 0 nIn H R E S R H S I ~ ~ ~ = D E F ~ M Y * 61EFRA IY) DEF CQW f S M 7 wBrr\Y WING mum DEF rnISGRRY ilQcY m1oa WrnrrsDcv i+ Subtotal u P' . - * RmIm = :+ .: :":- ' . -. ' ' ' lElmmuN - - CTR IYkS aD RIVER C\W1Y mT FIS !Elsa a0 DFhs s m W ) Ef6 I m l A Y PROVIMG 6RCMl WAS * Subtotal * W-IBLEIIGDEY=DIM# l.tmEWM DEF PRIIITIti6 SOWICE lXsWAY PWWIffi 6ROlW DEF PRINTIHi REb RIVER MY DWlT DEF PRIMlHB SERVICE lmEfmN D m K S E ~ C E N T E R ** Subtotal t i * lE!mG1BLEm=WI * LEmmEw Dm RED RIVER MRY DEPOT ElElsrrWUPTW.3 4xlmszFces ncrm SDEUliw rn r m , R I W t ~ D W l T m 3lwwMIY) m n abtotal * * B ~ A ~ H ~ I W E ~ = I ~ ~ LEmWMY E 4 ~ P R P M : Cn PRIR DEPKDRlMRtRWDWJT w Subtotal H - , .* '- 03/22/95 12:50 B 7 0 3 817 0476 HQ MIC AMCSO -. . W/A'lY3 -EW 95 D I r n I D W W rms . . . . . . -. 16 in.. .- ..... ;-.. . . . . .". - . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . - . . . . . . . . . . . -. 2. --7 + 2:. '=i7.5:y-7.zyb+ +C--ia" - .,.. A,? :- ,. , - . . . . . . ..--.-.... &, . . . . d . . . " * ...... -- . - . - - - ' .- .-. .-. . . . +tIZESWNSIMAGEH?(=#A . . . . . . . -- .&14!p,:: n~n . - - . . - 3i,-m - L E T M ~ . . . ... ~~ . . ...... . . . .r ... ... . . ...- .-. . . . ... +, Subtotal * . . . . , , . . . . . . ' "" 0' " ' 21. * ~ T B L E R G D I C Y = m y mIHG awuco DuI#cIY PIEDVIffi GWWD W Y PRPU'ING mlull M PRIE SElFRIDGE SELFRIDE L E T 7 W REDRIVERrnDWTl !&",' CUI H Subtotal Dm* WTH CENTER - DE,NTM. IL#TWcEmR-w WTH CENTER #IT IJY mw m w m m CY;rWRDOEPT Acr W#DDEPT A C T I M r n D E P T KT us4 fa R I H arn RIn arrl nIn nIn aIn RIH nln * IZESPOWGIBLE AGENCY nlm n. ~~FFEE, tw IM HISSILE M#WIW w b b ELIH H Subtotal +i ' C' H R!BOBIBLE CI#NCY = TEUJ R e lWTER LI66ElT* UI HB, U5(1 TECOn WE09 BkS X WGWC1Y PRWIK6 6RaMD TECH ESWRT E U H n Subtotal H FT. E E L Y , fN 'LETTEWCEEWY m y PRWING 6llolMl H Subtotal ftr' H RE!jf@6Im = osft FIEWUITIFG b w ~ w ~ r i b * SELFRIDGE BlOta RC TROINIffi 1ST AiWY W9912 BI\SE I m PRIE BN u!3 fa ST LOUIS YlPROO MI mECRC\D aWXIPRCM i S T A W Y(3817 B R S E X * Subtotal * . . . APPENDIX", 2 (PROPOSED D I S C ~ T I O N A R Y LOCATION MOVE ANALYSIS FORMAT) to ANNEX J (DISCRETIONARY-LOCATION MOVE GUIDANCE) to HQDA BRAC 95 IMPLEMENTATION GUIDANCE PROPOSED DISCRETIONARY LOCATION MQVE ANALYSIS FORMAT (For prop~sed realigamaat of an aat iv i ty to a gaiaing ixastallation not sgecified by the WRAC omm mission) "1. P r o n o s e d A c a . Relocation of (specific activity) to (gaining installation) . 2. patianale f n r Taunu the Action (this is the same f o r all activities) . Under the provisions of the Defense Base Closure and Realignment Act of 1990, Public Law 101-510, the Secret- o f Defense submitted a list of installations recommended for closure or realignment to the Defense B a s e Closure and Realignment Connnission in Feb 95. Included in that list was the recommended closure of (specified installation). As a result of the closure of the installation, the (specific activity) will be relocated to (proposed gaining installation). The closure of (specified installation) i s mandated by Public Law 201-510 unless rejected by the Comission, the President, or the Congress. *3. Stntionina Criteria. Identify attributes which define site selection of reasonable alternatives; i.e., acreage, geo/demographic constraints, affiliations, etc. The criteria \--. will include required attributes for mission requirements such as location, availability of physical or synergistic activities, cost, and other unique items. alvsis of Alt 4 . an ernatives. Describe the alternatives studied and why the proposed action is the preferred action. Include the following: a. No action. This alternative is unacceptable because of the mandated closure of the current location. b. Inactivate the unit/discstdblish the activity. Discuss why this alternative is not desirable. c . Reasonable a1 ternative gaining ins.talla.tiuns. .(assess stationing criteria against all alternatives). *5. -a1 ~~mlications. I£ the action would resul-r impacts on current strategy, contingency plans, or other operational considerations, describc the impacts succinctly. Do not include classified information. 6. ~ s b t e d Mapnower T m d a c t g . Describe the overall change in manpower for the activity or unit and for the losing and gaining installations (i. e.. support manpower) . Include positions transferred and eliminated. .. - .._.' 5-2-1 .-/ APPENDIX 2 (PROPOSED DISCRETIONARY LOCATION MOVE NULYSIS FOFWKT) to ANNEX J (DISCRETIONARY-LOCATION MOVE GUIDANCE) to HQDA BRAS 9 5 IMP-ATION GUTDANCE 7 . a i c i p a i - e d ~oete/~avinas. Describe estimated one-time and steady state net annual recurring savings and costs. *8 . F a c i I i e e s ~ e m i r a e n t s . nevcribe what facilities will have to be constructed, converted, renovated, or leased in order to implement the action. Identify specific projects, by fiscal year, wbich must be constructed to implement the action or which will be canceled as a result of the action. CJ. pnviro-ental T m p 3 a - ~riefly describe the enviro*mentaL impacts of the action. The NEPA action plan for the proposed gaining installation will address the cumulative impacts of relocation; therefore, do nnt address in this proposal the type of environmental documentation which will need to be prepared. 10. potential Problemq. Identify any potential problems, such as local opposition or socioeconomic concerns, which may be encountered if the action is i m p ~ ~ e n t e d . II. Milestones. Show projected milestones for the initi.aP-ion and completion of significant events. ...._ ., *= Information needed per para 3b. Entire information required per para 3c. AMXLS-H DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY ueww LocIsncs SUPPORT A ~ M W FZED&TONE ARSENAL, U 95090.74CC 8 MAR 1995 MEMORANDW FOR MR. DARRELL POWELL, CHIEF, BASE REALIGNMENT AND CLOSURE (BRAC) OFFICE, SPECIAL XNALYSIS OFFICE, U. S. 'ARMY- MATWIEL CO-, 5001 EISENHOWER AVENUE, ALEXANDRIA, VA 22333-0001 SWJECT: BRAC 95 - Realignment of Letterkenny m y Depot 1. Under BRAC 95, tenants of Letterkenny Amy Depot are to be realigned, The Major Item Information Center (MIIC), UIC W43T03, a derivative unit of the Logistics Support Activity (LOGSA), is currently a tenant at Letterkenny Army Depot. LOGSAfs primary location is Redstone Arsenal, AL. Request tha t the MIIC be considered for inclusion in the planned realignment, and transferred to Redstone Arsenal, AL. 2. Transferring the MIIC to Redstone Arsenal would result in savings of at least $1M annually; the amount the MIIC currently pays to Letterkenny Army Depot for base operations support. ~dditional savings would accrue because the MIIC would reduce travel spending as it would be co-located w i t h its parent unit. The MIIC has three officers, 13 enlisted, and 129 civilians on-board. 3. 1: believe including the MIIC in the Letterkenny Army Depot realignIUent and relocating it to Redstone Arsenal is most advantageous to the Army overall. Again, request consideration to include the M I I C in the Letterkenny Realignment. B I ~ L I E W. TURMENNE Executive Director Logistics Support Activity Documellt Separator HQ U%MC LOG SUP OFC DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY ~ L W C l ~ S U P W R T ~ PEQSTOW *RSUIY U 3 5 B H 7 M MEMORANDUM FOR CHEF, BASE REALIGNMENT AND CLOSURE (BRAC) OFFICE, SPECIAL ANALYSIS OFFICE, U.S. ARMY MATERIEL COMMAND, 5001 EISENHOWER AVENUE, A L m R I A , VA 22333-0001 \ SUBJECT: BRAC 95 IMPIXh4ENTATION PLA;NNING GUIDANCE - DISCRETIONARY MOVES 1 . In accordance with your memorandum, 21 Mar 95, SAB, information required by paragraphs 1,3, 5, and 8 of enclosure 2 is provided. a. Paragraph 1, Prooosed Action: Relocation of the Major Item Information Center (MIIC), UIC W43TO3, to Redstone Arsenal, AL. b. Paragraph 3, Stationinn Criteria: The MIIC is a subordinate organhation to the USAMC Logistics Suppon Activity GOGSA). The parent UIC of the MlIC is W43TAq FIeadq~en LOGS& located at Redstone Arsenal, A L Relocating the MTIC to Redstone Amend would colIocate them with their headquarters organization and with seven other LOGSX finctional centers. This would also result in savings of at least t l M mually; the amount the MIIC currently pays to Letterkenny Army Depot for base operations support, Additionally, travel dollars would be saved by locating the MIIC with its headquarters activity. Relocating to Redstone Arsenal would not impact the MnCs ability to perform mission requirements. c. Paragraph 5, Strategic and Operational Imulications: This action wodd not result in my impact on current strategy, contingency plans, or other operational considerations. d. Paragraph 8, Facilities Reuuiremcnts: LOGSA and host activity, the US AMC Missile Command (MICOM), would be required to locate 222 personnel (126 Govenunent Civilians, 16 Military, and 80 Suppon Contractors) in approximately 35,964 square feet of office space (222 x 162 sq. ft.), at Redstone Arsenal, Huntsville, AL. Personnel wi11 be initially housed in facilities currently assigned to LOGSA which will be vacated upon completion of the new LOGSA administrative facility, currently under construction. Every attempt will be made to maximize occupancy of new building proposed for construction ( h d e d by BRAC 95) for ATCOM, SlMA West, in order to provide permanent housiing for this new LOGSA mission transfer. This has been RPR-19-1995 16:41 HQ USRMC LOG SUP OFC ,- - . - . r-. , AMXLS-FI SUBJECT; BRAC 95 IMPEMENTATION PLANNlNG C;UIDANCE - DISCRETIONARY MOVES coordinated with host, Redstone Arsenal Support Activity (RASA) Commander, Col ModIer, and RASA Deputy, Mr. Steve Carter, 3 April 95. 2. LOGSA POC is Ms. Ronnie Eggleston, AMXLS-H, X4471 I. BILLJE W. TURMENNE Executive Director Logistics Support Activity TOTAL P. 03 Documellt Separator MllC - THE UNIQUENESS OF ITS MISSION MllC IS A ONE-OF-A-KIND ORGANIZATION BI'SIIVESS SUBJECT i\fATTER EXPERKS 2. H'ITHA DETAILED KNOlt'l,EDGE OF ,/ THIS ON1,Y ORGA,1'IZATION 117I'H TOTAL ASSIST * 1).41;1/lNFORM TIOR' i\!fA,VAG'ERS THE SUPPORTING AUTOMATED SYSTEhfS. .. 'I'ISIBILII'Y OF EYER Y1'HIhlG THE ARMY 0 It1,41LS * SYSTEhfS AhTALYSTS MllC PERSONNEL 4 THE ONI,Y ORGAMZA7'ION 1.YII'H THE SKILLS & K~l'OltlLED(l)(;e TO MAKE TAY HAPPEN 1. COBIBIhE Ah' INTEGRATED It'ORKING KNOllJLEDGE OF THE - KNOWLEDGE OF BUSINESS PROCESSES FOR MAJOR ITEM AND ASSET ALL CLASSES OF SUPPLY - FORCE DEVELOPMENT - KNOWLEDGE OF 80t AUTOMATED SYSTEMS - REQUIREMENTS DOCUMENTATION AT FIELD, WHOLESALE, AND NATIONAL - ACQUISITION LEVELS. - PROPERTY ACCOUNTABILITY ,/ T H E ONLY OR(;ANIZA'I'IOI~' I1'ITH T H E SI,II,I,S 5. USED TO SUPPORT COKTINGENC)' OPS AND CRITICAL RIISSIOX AREAS AT: AND KMOIYLEDGE 1%) INTEGRATE THE ISMIRE MAJOR 17'EAf PROCESS ARMY UNITS AND INSTALLATIONS L DIVISIONS, CORPS, MAJOR - KNOWLEDGE OF ALL MI BUSINESS PROCESSES PENTAGON - NATIONAL LEVEL - KNOWLEDGE OF MAJOR ITEM SYSTEMS * DOD, OTHER SERVICES, NATO AT FIELD, WHOLESALE, AND NATIONAL LEVELS. IVlTHlN THE ARRIl:.. UNlTlDlVlSlON LEVEL ,/ THE ONLY ORGANZA1lOhl IA1 DOD SCHOOLED IN I INTERMEDIATE LEVEL ARMS CONlaOl, INFORMATIOhl PROCESSE.S 4 RESULTING IN THE FOLLOH'ING CRITIC'AL SERVICES. WHOLESALE LEVEL - KNOWLEDGE OF CONVENTIONAL ARMS CONTROL VISIBILITY OF EVERYTHING THE ARMY OWNS (TAV) * NATIONAL LEVEL PROCESSES, TREATIES, AND AGREEMENTS. FOCUS OF MAJOR ITEM EXPERTISE FOR THE ARMY * INTEGRATED MAJOR ITEM INFORMATION 11 I SUPPORT TO INTERNATIONAL ARMS CONTROL PROCESS I II THlS CHART PROVIDES SOME DETAIL ON THE UNIQUENESS OF THE MllC MISSION AND ON THE SPECIALIZED SKILLS AND EXPERIENCE REQUIRED TO MAKE THE MISSION THE SUCCESS THAT IT IS. THE MllC STAFF IS MADE OF UP BUSINESS PROCESS EXPERTS, INFORMATION MANAGERS, AND SYSTEMS ANALYSTS. IT IS THlS UNIQUE BLEND OF KNOWLEDGE AND EXPERIENCE THAT HAS PROVEN NECESSARY IN ORDER TO TAKE RAW, ASYNCHRONOUS DATA, DRAWN FROM EVERY CORNER OF DOD, AND DEVELOP IT INTO QUALITY INFORMATION USED TO DRIVE MANY CRITICAL ARMY AND DOD PROCESSES. THE PROCESS DESCRIBED IS INFINITELY MORE THAN AN AUTOMATION EFFORT. IT REQUIRES A WORKING KNOWLEDGE OF THE NUMEROUS ARMYIDOD BUSINESS PROCESSES AND DETAILED UNDERSTANDING OF EACH OF THE STOVEPIPE SYSTEMS MllC TIES INTO. BY VIRTUE OF IT BEING THE FOCAL POINT FOR THESE NUMEROUS DOD PROCESSES AND SYSTEMS, MllC IS UNIQUELY POSITIONED TO DEVELOP THE STAFF EXPERTISE REQUIRED FOR TOTAL ASSET VISIBILITY AND FOR INTEGRATED MAJOR ITEM INFORMATION. THESE MULTI-DISCIPLINED SKILLS ARE DEVELOPED AT MllC AND CANNOT BE DRAWN FROM ANY OTHER SINGLE ORGANIZATION WITHIN DOD, NOR COULD THEY BE EASILY MUSTERED INTO SO LEAN (130) AN ORGANIZATION. IF THE MllC ORGANIZATION IS PHYSICALLY MOVED, MOST OF THESE CRITICAL INTEGRATION SKILLS WOULD BE LOST AND THE MISSION WOULD FAIL. FAILURE OF THlS MISSION WOULD HAVE AN ADVERSE AFFECT ON UNIT READINESS, VISIBILITY OF EQUIPMENT, CONVENTIONAL ARMS TREATY COMPLIANCE, AND THE ABILITY TO MOBILIZE AND DEPLOY IN SUPPORT OF CONTINGENCY OPERATIONS. WE KNOW THE COMMISSION HAS MUCH TO CONSIDER REGARDING LETTERKENNY. BUT TO PRECLUDE UNNECESSARY EXPENSE TO THE TAXPAYER AND EQUALLY UNNECESSARY FAILURE TO A CRITICAL DOD MISSION, WE ASK, IN ADDITION TO ALL THE OTHER FACTS BEARING ON THE LETTERKENNY SITUATION, THAT THE COMMISSION ALSO TAKE INTO CONSIDERATION THlS TENANT AND ITS CRITICAL MISSION WHEN MAKING THE FINAL DECISION REGARDING THE DISPOSITION OF LETTERKENNY ARMY DEPOT. -Documellt Separator DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY U.S. AMC SYSTEMS INTEGRATION AND MANAGEMENT ACTIVITY CHAMBERSBURG. PA 17201-4180 Letterkenny Coalition 75 S. Second Street Chambersburg, Pa. 1720 1 2 8 PPR 1995 Dear Mr. Sciamanna: The purpose of this memorandum is to respond is to your recent Freedom of Information request. The enclosed is my response to that request. In summary, the responses clearly show the Army decision to move SIMA East to Rock Island under BRAC 93 law: a. was not staffed with logical elements, i.e. primary customers and those that direct the activities of SIMA East on a day to day basis. b. is not consistent with the spirit and intent of BRAC 93 law. The intent of that law was to keep SIMA East at Letterkenny until DOD CIM deliverables were completed. The intent was to make location decisions at that time and not before. c. Retention of SIMA at Letterkenny made sense in BRAC 93 and it makes even greater sense today based on: (1) DOD and service commitments to the DOD CIM program. (2) Sigtuficant legislation pending which will change who and how support is provided within DOD, e.g. service Central Design organizations are coming under the Defense Business Operating Fund (DBOF) effective FY96 as mandated by PBD 433 (considered a preamble to eventual transfer of CDA's to DOD), the Army Materiel Command is being considered for transfer to DOD based on pending legislation, and finally the future impacts of privatization promise to change the way business is conducted, to include the strong possibility that the automated services mission of SIMA East could be privatized. Questions concerning the enclosed response should be directed to Mr. James T. Hafer at the above address or by telephone to (717) 267-9801. Questions and responses are as follows: a. How were you notified of the Army's decisiordplan to move SIMA to Rock Island? Answer: This is a simple question, but the answer is not as easy. On 13 March 1995 I was notified by Col. Longley, the Hqs AMC Deputy Chief of S t a tha t there was a rumor that SIMA East was moving to Rock Island and he wanted to advise me that rumor was not true. He said he was meeting later that day with Darryl Powell, head of the AMC BRAC office, and he would talk to him on this subject. Col Longley called me back and stated Mr. Powell had received a call from the Department of Army staff that morning and they advised Mr. Powell that SIMA East would be moved to Rock Island as part of a BRAC 93 decision associated with DMRD 918. Col. Longley indicated I was to take no action to advise the SIMA East workforce based on that phone call with the Department of Army. Hqs AMC took the position they wanted the DA decision to be put into writing. To date, I am not aware of such a written decision being issued to AMC fiom DA. In anticipation of AMC receiving such guidance in writing, Hqs AMC issued written direction to the Industrial Operations Command to prepare a BRAC package on SIMA East based on a BRAC 93 decision. The SIMA East milestones are to be based on BRAC 95 milestones. The plan is to be part of the Letterkenny BRAC implementation plan submission. See attachments 1 ,2 and 3. b. As part of Army staffing actions what input did your organization provide in terms of mission impacts of such a move? Answer: None, we were not asked for input. c. To your knowledge were Army and DOD customers consulted with regard to their reaction to a planned move of SIlMA to Rock Island (or any other site)? Answer: Army customers ... SIMA, as a Separate Reporting Activity of AMC, has reported to the AMC Chief of Staff. As stated in question a above, the Chief of Staffs office was not aware of any plans to move SIMA East as part of a BRAC action. Hqs AMC Corporate Information Office has historically provided day to day technical oversight of SIMA. They were the focal point for DMRD 918 actions within AMC. When AMC was recently advised of the decision that SIMA would be moved to Rock Island, they were not aware of any such decision. They called . - . - - - - - The IOC BRAC person said SIMA had been scheduled to move to Rock Island in BRAC 91, but that decision had been reversed in BRAC 93 law and SIMA was to remain at Letterkenny. The DA staff officer said the BRAC 93 decision was based on service central design activities (CDA's) transferring to DOD under the provision of DMRD 918. Since DMRD 918 was reversed, the Army position is SIMA East will move to Rock Island. This statement came as a complete surprise to the IOC command group and staff. Non-Army customers: SIMA East business computer systems/applications support a very broad range of AMC and Army customers; however, not all those systems are owned or resourced by AMCIArrny. Two such systems are the Army Standard Industrial Fund System (SIFS) and the DOD Property Accountability System @PAS). SIMA East plays a key role in support of both these important DOD CIM initiatives. These two systems account for half of SIMA East resources. Neither of these DOD customers were consulted on the plan to relocate SIMA East. Both parties have expressed serious concerns that such a move will have extreme adverse impacts to the DOD CIM milestone commitments and have expressed a strong desire to retain SIMA East at Letterkenny . d. Question: There has been much discussion about DMRD 918 and BRAC 93 as it relates to SDlA (it is understood the Army is planning to move SDlA based on DMRD 918 resolution). Could you explain what D M ' 918 called for and how that impacts SIMA today and in the future? Answer: DMRD 9 18 called for the transfer of services business data processing centers and central design organizations to the DOD. Actions were taken to place these organizations under the Operational Control of a new DOD organization called DISA. During this period DOD BRAC 93 proposals were formulated. DISA did an independent review of SIMA East and determined that less than one-fourth of SIMA East resources were in support of the Industrial Operations Command located at Rock Island (still true now and through FY97). DISA determined a relocation of SIMA provided no benefits and would be both mission destructive and very costly. As a result of that independent assessment, the Secretary of Defense recommended to the BRAC 93 Commission that the BRAC 91 law be reversed and that SIMA should be retained at Letterkenny until such time DISA had an opportunity to determine the appropriate long term organization actions which should be taken. The BRAC 93 Commission supported the Secretary of Defense recommendation and recommended to the President that SIMA East be retained at Letterkenny . I believe it is important there is a clear understanding of what DISA had in mind with regard to . . .- --- . - As part of the action to return CDA's back to the services, DOD mandated that service central design organizations come under a fee-for-service operating environment. DOD has withdrawn much of the h d i n g fiom service legacy systems since a number of the legacy systems will be replaced by DOD Standard CIM systems. The intent was to have central design manpower levels be reduced consistent with fbnded workload. By the time all DOD CIM systems are delivered and operating across DOD, the service CDA's would be reduced in size and DOD could then determine what organizations would logically maintain the DOD suite of ClM systems. It is at that time that logical decisions should be made with regard to how many service CDA's are required, how large they should be and where they should be located. It makes no sense to relocate a service CDA at this time. To do so is to incur mission disruption and unnecessary costs; not to mention the severe turbulence to civil service professionals who have dedicated their careers and their lives in the service of their countries. These people can accept the fact that logical DOD management actions may disrupt their lives, but they can not understand or accept a decision that would make a forced physical move which will in all likelihood be altered in a few years based on other decisions. Clearly, the DOD CIM strategy is working. The intelligent course of action with regard to service central design organizations is to complete that course and then make the tough management decisions that make sense fiom a mission, cost and people management perspective. In addition to the above there are several other recent developments that fbrther support retention of SIMA East at its current location: a. Recently DOD issued a Program Budget Decision (PBD) 433. That PBD puts aU the services central design organizations under Defense Business Operating Fund (DBOF) beginning FY96. Most people familiar with this action believe this is a first step to the eventual transfer of CDA's to DOD once CIM initiatives are completed. b. Another compelling reason that SIMA East should remain at Letterkenny is the h r e impact of Privatization. One fbnction which appears on every privatization list is automated services. It would appear SIMA's fbnctions are prime candidates for privatization. Certainly Congress will make those decisions soon, until such decisions are made, SlMA East should remain at Letterkenny. c. DOD Acquisition Management Reform Act of 1995 H.R. 1368 and S 646 @OD Acquisition Management Reform Act) have been introduced into Congress. A part of this legislation would call for the transfer of the Army Materiel Command to the Secretary of Defense. m*- - 1 , . . .. . - -- - correct disposition decision for SIMA East. The BRAC 9 1 GAO comments with regard to a forced move of SIMA to Rock Island were: ... there are no savings tied to such a move, costs are high and significant impacts to the mission will be manifested. The prudent decision is to be keep SIMA East at Letterkenny until the truly "right" decisions can be made for DOD, the Army, and the tax payers. DEPARTMEM OF THE ARMY HEADPUMITERS, US ARUY m m omnow COULMNO ROCK ISAND, 812DW000 . . ! : i m Y T 0 $-= quc-A&E (15-la) m R A N D U M FOR SEE DIBTRIBUTION I 1 9 APR 1995 SUBJECT, Bane Realignment and c loaure (BIIAC) 95 Implomentation P l a n I 1, R e f w n c a BRAC 95 Implmentat ion Planntng Guidance Meeting, 15-16 Narah 1995, ROak 181and Areenal, I l l ino im. 2, The f0110wFng guidance o r i g i n a l l y provided at r r fe rencad larating i m r e e t a t s d f o r emphaaim. Each loming u,S. Army ~ e p o t Byetea Com~~and/V.G. Army Amament, Munitione and Chemical Command installation w i l l p repare i t o - r eepec t ive BIUC 95 Implementation plan. The gaining i n s t a l l a t i o n w i l l provide eupport am required. 3 Subeequent guidance from headquartere, U.S. Anny ater riel C~rwurd, i 6 that an Implmttentation Plan w i l l be developed for the Syetemlr I n t e g r a t i o n and Management Activity-Eaet (BIHA-E) am a B m C 93 ac t ion- The SIHR-E Plan, although o l aee i f i ed as a BRAC 93 action, w i l l follow all the r e q ~ i m n u 9 n t ~ ~BISo~i i r ted with BRAC 95 and w i l l be prepared by SIMA-k! am an addendum t o t h e Letterkenny Army Depot (LEAD) Implementation Plan. The LGAD w i l l , ao with any other t enan t , account f o r t h e impact on LEAD bans operat iono comtn, etc . 4- A l l Implementation p lans w i l l show r completion drke of end P Y 97 unlem8 otherwise approved by the camanding Genaral, Induatrial opera t iono Command. 5. The POC is M r . Kenneth P. nuehl, AUSNC-AEE, DSN 793-8393, da tafax DkN 793-7768. u Chief, 6arform&nce Evaluat ion Dlvieion D;ISTRIBWION 1 Commander, Lstterkenny Army Depot, ATTN: SDSLE-I (HS. H a l l i o Bunk), Chuabmrmburg, PA 17201-4170 b a n d e r , R e d River Atmy Depot, ATTN: SDSRR-8 ( M r . Bobby Notley), Texarkana, - - TX 15507-5000 Qommander, S i e r r a Army ~ e p o t , ATTN: sDSSI-OO (COL Donald D. Whi t f ie ld XI), Hmrlong, CA 96113-g000- commander, Seneca A m y ~ e p o t , ATTNt GDSTO-6ECO (Mr. Anthony J. Carnsvale), 5786 S t a t e Route 96, Romulue, #Y 14541-5001 C+mmander, Bavanna ~ r m y spot ~ c t i v i t y , A m : BDILE-V-CO (WAJ Jamee Siok) , Savannh. I L 61074-9636 - DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY HEADQUARTERS, U.S. ARMY INDUSTRIAL OPERATIONS COMMAND ROCK ISLAND, ILLINOIS 61 299-6000 AMSMC-AEE (15-la) 9 MR a5 MEMORANDUM FOR Director, Systems Integration and Management Activity-East, ATTN: AMXSI-ZC (Mr. Hafer), Chambersburg, PA 17201-4180 SUBJECT: Base ~ealignment and Closure (BRAC) 95 Mission Transition Plans 1. Reference memorandum, HQ, AMC, AMCSO, 20 March 1995, subject: BRAC 95 Implementation Planning Guidance. 2. Paragraph 9 of referenced memorandum directs an addendum to the Letterkenny Army Depot (LEAD) Implementation Plan, moving SIMA-E to Rock Island, be prepared. Request you begin the development of mission transition plans, including coordination with the LEAD BRAC Office, so that all actions can be completed as smoothly as possible. 3. The Commander, U.S. Army Industrial Operations Command/U.S. Army Armament, Munitions and Chemical Command/U.S. Army Depot System Command, has expressed a desire that all actions for realignments and closures be completed by end FY 97. 4. The POC is Ms. Bridget L. Myers, AMSMC-AEE, DSN 793-8397/ 3164, datafax DSN 793-7768. /' Chief, Performance Evaluation Division CF : Commander, Letterkenny Army Depot, ATTN: SDSLE-I (Ms. Bunk), Chambersburg, PA 17201-4150 DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY HEADQUARTERS, U.S. ARMY MATERIEL COMMAND 5001 EISENHOWER AVENUE, ALEXANDRIA, VA 22333 - 0001 20 March 1995 MEMORANDUM FOR SEE DISTRIBUTION SUBJECT: BRAC 95 Implementation Planning Guidance 1. References : a. Memorandum, AMCSO, 1 Mar 95, subject as above. b. Memorandum, AMCSO, 10 Mar 95, subject as above. c. Memorandum, AMCSO, 13 Mar 95, subject: BRAC 95 - Lead MSCs. d. Memorandum, AMCSO, 16 Mar 95, subject: BRAC 95 Implementation Guidance - Draft environmental Baseline Survey (EBS), Statement of Work. 2. The purpose of this memorandum is to provide you with additional information concerning and instructions for preparation of your BRAC 95 ~mplementation Plans. 3. There are two outstanding short term suspenses. a. The first is the requirement to nominate BECs and BTCs. This was tasked out per reference lb, and the data is due at this HQ by 5 April 1995. b. The second is the requirement to review and comment on the Draft EBS SOW tasked out per reference Id. That data is due at this HQ by 30 March 1995. 4. MSCs with "Leadvv assignment for a BRAC 95 package will submit to HQ AMC (ATTN: AMCSO) NLT 29 Jun 95 an Implementation Plan as described below. Plans should be submitted on disk (Microsoft Word or convertible word processing software, and EXCEL or convertible spreadsheet software) and in hard copy (25 copies are required). We will be conducting IPRs at this HQ 12-14 July 95. Further information on these IPRs will be provided at a later date. The plan will assume the availability of necessary funding, and as a minimum, will include data described at paras 4a-j below. Additionally, m c s o SUBJECT: BRAC 95 Implementation Planning ~uidance b. A Manpower Action Plan which outlines the manpower changes associated with the realignment and closure actions. The plan should address every unit affected by a realignment or closure action. Lead MSCs l.~ill be responsible for ensuring all units on the affected installations are accounted for in the plan regardless of their parent organization. The instructions for completion of this plan are at annex E to reference la. This HQ plans to provide additional instructions for this plan. We do not yet have them available. However, this should not stop you from either starting to work this or any other of the plans which are required. c. A Personnel ~ction Plan. At enclosure 2 is an example of a Personnel Action Plan from BRAC 93 for VHFS. This plan is not exactly the same as the requirement for BRAC 95. However, in many instances it is. The BRAC 95 requirements will be discussed using the enclosure as an example. POC for personnel actions is Modena Gooley, AMCPE-CE, DSN 284-9547. The 95 requirement is as follows: (1) Identify the nature of actions and establish a time line for draw down or build up (paras 1 and 2 of the enclosure). Ensure that projected notice periods are covered. ( 2 ) Provide a wiring diagram that reflects the losing and gaining installations and the total personnel moving by military and civilian (i.e., the migration chart from the Executive Summary section). (3) Address personnel and relocation impacts (para 4 of enclosure). ( 4 ) Address required labor union negotiations, placement assistance efforts, continuity of essential operations during draw down, and performance of residual functions as separately titled paragraphs/portions of the plan. (5) Address the non-appropriated fund workforce as a separately titled portion of the plan (para 5 of the enclosure). ( 6 ) Address militarv Dersonne l as a senar=t-o lv t i t i AMCSO SUBJECT: BRAC 95 Implementation Planning Guidance discretion. Depots need to address maintenance related transfers. The point of contact for depot maintenance is Mr. Mike Russell, HQ AMC DCSLOG, DSN 284-8232. e. A Construction Action Plan. ~nstructions and milestones for the preparation of forms DD 1391 was included in reference lb. Those milestones have subsequently changed. The guidance reflecting the new milestones is ateenclosure 3. The completed forms will be the construction Actlon Plan annex to the overall implementation plan. POC is Frank Graziano, AMCEN-F, DSN 284-9228. f. An Information Mission Area Action Plan (IMAAP) . HQ AMC has requested that ISC-Ft. Ritchie, in coordination with the DOIM/CI structure which supports AMC, prepare these plans (enclosure 4). As noted in the VTC of 15 Mar 95, you need to coordinate with these individuals to ensure that total coverage is in fact occurring and to note the progress of activity. Requirements resulting from base realignment and closure activity must be carefully integrated with existing, approved Information Management Master Plan initiatives, and with any MCA requirements and projects. See also para 6 of this memo for additional information. POC is ~ucille Newman, AMCIO-F, DSN 284-3310. g. A Financial Management Action Plan. . The submission should include impacts on Army appropriations in accordance with instructions provided in annex I (reference la), which is fairly self-explanative. POC is Leonard Rachiele, AMCSO, DSN 284-3443. h. A Property Management Action Plan. his annex will contain both plans for real estate and personal property. POC for r e a l e s t a t e i s Maria Longo, AMCEN-R, DSN 284-9002; POC for personal property inventory is Mr. Jim Davidson, DSN 284-5510. (1) The real estate action section of the plan should dovetail with any plans for reserve enclaves and discretionary moves. This section will provide the disposition of real property with proposed schedules for real estate actions. Plans should incorporate known community reuse plans, and timelines for closure and realignment actions. As a minimum this section will contain: AMCSO SUBJECT: BRAC 95 Implementation Planning Guidance (c) A schedule for the demolition of real property and the costs to do so. This should be sub-divided into those demolished as a result of BRAC and those demolished IAW the F'acilities Reduction Program (at individual building level of detail). (d) A list of leases, permits, and licenses to be terminated. (2) The personal property disposal section will include site specific, comprehensive plans and milestones for the conduct of actions required for the disposition of all personal property. The plan will be constructed to ensure that the requirement to have the inventory completed prior to six months following approval of the BRAC 95 legislation (NLT 1 Oct 95) is met. You must address consultation with local redevelopment authorities or, in their absence, local or state officials as a part of your plan. i. A Morale, Welfare, and ~ecreation (MWR) Action Plan. There are two requirements associated with this annex. (1) The completion of forms 2-1-B and 2-1-C for all NAF activity on an installation. Form 2-1-B is "Summary by Organizational Elementw. In this case, the organizational element is all NAF activities on the base. 'The instructions for completing this form are at annex 0 to reference la. The costs to be captured are RIF, PCS, and equipment relocation costs. Form 2-1-C is an explanation of the costs displayed on form 2-1-B. Please be as detailed as possible in your explanation of the costs reflected on the schedule,, e.g., numbers of personnel to RIF, PCS, costs per person, by year, etc. (2) As required, gaining installations may need to conduct Project validation Assessments (PVA). If this is so, then as a separate part of the MWR Action Plan, you must address the scope, the cost and the timing of the PVA effort. ~dditionally, the costs to conduct the PVA effort and any cost of facilities needs to be reflected on the NAF forms 2-1-B and 2-1-C IAW the guidance at annex 0 to reference la. (3) The data required in the two ~araara~hs above s h n l ~ l d AMCSO SUBJECT: BRAC 95 Planning Guidance (1) Submission of 1383: The 1383 report is to be prepared in accordance with reference la. Additional instructions are as follows: (a) Disposal Installations: AMCEN-A requested the environmental offices of the MSCs in coordination with their BRAC counterpart submit 1383s to address all environmental actions and activities that will occur at installations that are slated for disposal or partial disposal due to BRAC 95 disposal actions. Hard copies of the 1383s are to be submitted to AMCEN-A, ATTN: Pete Cunanan, DSN 284-0324, on or before 7 Apr 95. This submission is in addition to the regular spring submission of 1383s on 14 Apr 95. The 1383 must cover the following: o Total environmental cleanup - from start to finish (6 years timeframe). Separate the study phase and remedial action phase. Indicate also who will execute your projects (i.e., installation, COE, AEC). Note: AEC does not execute remedial action projects. o Natural resource studies (e.g., affects on game management) . o Endangered species protection study - total cost. o Preparation of EA/EIS for closure and disposal. Approximate cost per EIS for disposal is $400~-$600~. o Radiological studies and radiological contamination cleanup. o Salary for BEC, BEC TDY and training, Restoration Advisory Board (RAB) formation and RAB support cost. o Environmental compliance action directly affected or speedup by BRAC action (i.e., RCRA facilities closure, OB/OD closure dismantling of environmental facilities, removal of PCB equipments etc.). (b) Realignment Installations: In addition to the above guidance, environmental offices of the MSCs, in coordination with their BRAC counter~art. will submit- 1 3 8 3 ~ +n - 1 1 AMCSO SUBJECT: BRAC 95 Implementation Planning Guidance in addition t9 the regular spring submission of 1383s on 14 Apr 95. The 1383s must cover those areas that will be affected. Such areas may include the following: o Wetland delineation surveys, wetland permit application, and other associated costs. o Endangered species protection study - total cost may include consultation, biological assessments, etc. o preparation of EA/EIS for gaining installations only. Approximate cost per EIS is $200~-$300K; approximate cost per EA is $loOK-$150K. o Radiological studies and radiological contamination cleanup. o Environmental compliance action directly affected or speedup by BRAC action (e.g., RCRA permit applications, removal of PCB equipments, etc.). o Clean Air Act Requirements (e.g., Title V permit applications, Clean Air Conformity analysis, etc.). o Natural resource studies (e.g., affects on wildlife, plants and game management). (2) Natural Resource Action Plan. Submit a Natural Resource Action Plan to AMC, ATTN: AMCEN-A (Stan Lowe) with copy to AMC I&SA, ATTN: AMXEN, NLT 21 Apr 95. Prior to sending, plan must be coordinated between natural resource personnel at installation, MSC and AMXEN-M. (3) Cultural Resource Action Plan. Cultural Resource Action Plan is assigned to Fort Worth District for all AMC installations. Fort Worth District will contact all AMC BRAC 95 installations, slated for realignment, closure and disposal, by 3 Apr 95, to assist in developing costs estimates for funding Cultural Resources compliance actions. MSC/installations must include costs estimates developed with the assistance of Fort Worth District in the DD Form 1383 documents. Fort Worth District will develop the scope of work for all AMC installations to comnlv with the National Envirnn- AMCSO SUBJECT: BRAC 95 Implementation Planning Guidance (a) Fort Worth District will initiate all formal consultation, if required, with the appropriate authorities as required by the above laws. Although Fort Worth is assigned the BRAC 95 Cultural Resources responsibilities for AMC, installations must continually participate in the process. Fort Worth will consult with Army Environmental Center representatives when preparing agreement documents for AMC installations. (b) All MSC/installations must provide a Cultural Resource Point of Contact immediately to work their cultural resource actions with Fort Worth District. (c) Request each installation submit on or before 7 Apr 95 a hard copy of the 1383s to U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Fort Worth District, Planning ~ivision, ATTN: CESWF-PL-R (Mr. William Metz or Mr. Stephen P. Austin), 819 Taylor Street, Box 17300, Fort Worth, TX 76102-0300. (d) Fort Worth District will determine status of cultural resource inventory requirements at gaining and disposing locations for all AMC installations. If you have any questions, please contact Mr. Metz or Mr. Austin at commercial (817) 334-2625 or 3246, Fax (817) 885-7539. Point of contact at this headquarters is Maria Longo, commercial (703) 274-9899 or DSN 284-9899. (4) preliminary Report of Excess (PROE). Installations that are closing and realigning must provide to this head- quarters a PROE on facilities and land that are excess to the installations needs on or before 23 Jun 95. Please,prepare the PROE according to AR 405-90. (a! Provide a general description of land and facilities, including location, area, and impact on local community. Environmental documentation is not required at this time. (b) You must also provide four (4) copies of a color coded installation map showing areas available for disposal, facilities and utilities on the site. (c) The installations can contact Maria Longo, AMCEN-R, commercial (703) 274-9899 or DSN 284-9899. fax 1 7 0 3 ) 774-7611 AMCSO SUBJECT: BRAC 95 Implementation planning Guidance gaining sites, or (3) discretionary moves. Unless MSCts choose to use in-house staff, these NEPA studies shall be performed by contract. As a result of HQ AMC1s responsibility for this work, paragraph 2 of Annex H will be provided to the lead MSC for inclusion in your implementation plan; estimated contract costs for each study shall also be provided for use on the 1383s. HQ AMC will also develop the NEPA Action Plans - discussed in paragraph 2d of Annex H. POC is Shirley Barnett, DSN 284-8172. 5. Attached as enclosure 5 is a listing of the Commission and Staff visits and guidance received from the Commission concerning those visits. This information was datafaxed to your Public Affairs group on 20 March 1995. The cover to that fax requested that your Public Affairs group coordinate directly with you (ASAP) to develop a unified plan for these visits in coordination with your Command Group. 6. Attached as enclosure 6 is data obtained at the DOIM BRAC 95 Planning Conference held 9 March 1995. 7. Attached as enclosure 7 BRAC 95 Alternative Documentation Sets for those proposals you are involved with. These are otherwise known as "bed down1' packages. These are the detailed packages compiled by the TABS Office and provided to the Commission. 8. Attached as enclosure 8 is a revised MSC POC listing for BRAC 95. 9. At the direction of HQDA, an addendum needs to be prepared for the Lead Implementation Plan, moving SIMA-E to Rock Island Arsenal. Although technically the SIMA-E move is a BRAC 93 action, it will follow all the requirements and timelines associated with the BRAC 95 action. 10. AMC -- America's Arsenal for the Brave. AMCSO SUBJECT: BRAC 95 Implementation planning ~uidance DISTRIBUTION: Mr. A1 Wilson (IOC) Mr. Gary Reas (MICOM) Mr. Frank Cuif fo (CECOM) Mr. Mike Early (TECOM) Mr. Len Dube (SSCOM) Mr. Jim McKivrigan (CBDCOM) Ms. Michelene Smith (CM Price) Mr. Tom Smith (ATCOM) Mr. Bob Kaspari (TACOM) Docui~ient Separator LEAD COALITION 75 South Second Street Chambersburg, Pennsylvania 17201 - Telephone (7 17) 264-7 101 FAX (717) 267-0399 April 25, 1995 Systems Integration & Management Activity c/o Letterkenny Army Depot Chambersburg, PA 1 7201 Dear Sirs: The Letterkenny Coalition recently met with the BRAC Commission staff to present our Tenant Package. In short, the package pointed out a planned move or elimination of Letterkenny tenants that would be both mission destructive and very costly. During the discussions dealing with military value, it was pointed out that major customers of SIMA East have stated their desire to retain SlMA at Letterkenny in order to protect the unique mission skills of the organization. The BRAC Commission staff asked why those customers did not express their concerns at the time the action was staffed. The response given was e SiMA East issuqwould - It is believed this particular issue was not adequately responded to in the session. We would like to provide the Commission staff with a more complete response to their question. Under the provisions of the Freedom of Information Act, our organization would appreciate it if you could furnish the following information: *How were you notified of the Army's decisionlplan to move SlMA to Rock Island? *As part of Army staffing actions, what input did your organization provide in terms of mission impacts of such a move? *To your knowledge, were Army and DoD customers consulted with regard to their reaction to a planned move of SIMA to Rock Island (or any other site)? *There has been much discussion about DMRD 918 and BRAC '93 as it relates to SIMA. (It is understood the Army is planning to move SlMA based on DMRD 918 resolution.) Could you explain what DMRD 918 called for and how that impacts SIMA today or in the future? This is a time sensitive action and we would therefore appreciate a response by the first of May. As requested by law, we are willing to pay all costs associated with this request. AMXTM-MP (AMCS0/21 Mar 95) 1st end SUBJECT: BRAC 95 Implementation Planning Guidance-Discretionary Moves Director, U.S. Army Test, Measurement, and Diagnostic Equipment Activity, Redstone Arsenal, AL 35898-5400 1.7 OPR iY35 FOR Commander, U.S. Army Materiel Command, ATTN: AMCSO, 5001 Eisenhower Avenue, Alexandria, VA 22333-0001 1. Data provided the BRAC commission in enclosure to basic memorandum was erroneous regarding the U.S. Army Test, Measurement, and Diagnostic Equipment Support Group,a Directorate of the U. S . Army Test, Measurement, and Diagnostic Equipment Activity (USATA). Information available at this time indicates the USATA mission is not being reduced although relocation of workload from bases affected may necessitate a realignment of USATA assets. Therefore, none of the USATA units and associated personnel spaces listed should be eliminated. 2. It is the understanding of this Activity that the installations affected by BRAC actions where USATA units are tenants will retain portions of their real estate. Due to the expense and operational disadvantages of relocating USATA support laboratories, the USATA proposes to remain in present locations. These bases were originally selected to optimize the USATA's geographical support mission in consideration of the workload on post and the surrounding area. In the event continuing operations from these sites are not possible or practical, the information requested in paragraph 5b of basic memorandum is provided at enclosure 2. Information requested in paragraph 5c has been provided telephonically to Mr. Paul Mui of your office. 3. The USATA point of contact for BRAC actions is Mr. Perry ~rolin~e;, AMXTM-MP, DSN 788-2427. ROBiERT K. DUBOIS Director, U.S. Army TMDE Activity 2 Encls 1. nc Added 1 encl 2. as LETTERKENNY ARMY DEPOT, PA (W45917) Proposed Action: Remain in place for geographical area mission support. Relocate Letterkenny internal mission support personnel to Tobyhanna Army Depot. Stationins Criteria: In addition to the USATA Region 1 HQ mission the USATA personnel at Letterkenny Army Depot support 8,691 items of TMDE for on post customers and 19,665 items of TMDE for off post customers. The USATA has established laboratories at Letterkenny Army Depot which are located to optimize support for the above workload. Requirements are office space, equipment storage area, and environmentally controlled laboratory space in a secured area. Strateaic and Operation Implications: a. Strategic: No impact. b. Operational: Relocation of USATA internal mission support personnel (11) to Tobyhanna A m y Depot will align USATA support resources with the Letterkenny mission transfer to Tobyhanna. The geographical area support personnel and HQ staff should remain at Letterkenny to maximize the efficiency resulting from that geographical location. Relocation of these personnel would incur the costs of personnel and equipment ($7.OM) moves and the establishment of new facilities. Facilities Requirements: Existing USATA facilities at Tobyhanna Army Depot would be modified to house an additional 11 personnel and associated equipment to perform the transferred Letterkenny internal mission support. Costs are approximately $340,000. Relocation of the remainder of the USATA personnel to base X would require a laboratory for 14 personnel and associated equipment, storage and work area for 5 mobile teams equipment and 33 personnel, and office space for 20 management and administrative personnel. Cost would be approximately $2,600,000 additional to the $340,000. LETTERKENNY ARMY DEPOT, PA (W45917) Proposed Action: Remain in place for geographical area mission support. Relocate Letterkenny internal mission support personnel to Tobyhanna Army Depot. Stationins Criteria: In addition to the USATA Region 1 HQ mission the USATA personnel at Letterkenny Army Depot support 8,691 items of TMDE for on post customers and 19,665 items of TMDE for off post customers. The USATA has established laboratories at Letterkenny Amy Depot which are located to optimize support for the above workload. Requirements are office space, equipment storage area, and environmentally controlled laboratory space in a secured area. Stratesic and Operation Im~lications: a. Strategic: No impact. b. Operational: Relocation of USATA internal mission support personnel (11) to Tobyhanna Army Depot will align USATA support resources with the Letterkenny mission transfer to Tobyhanna. The geographical area support personnel and HQ staff should remain at Letterkenny to maximize the efficiency resulting from that geographical location. Relocation of these personnel would incur the costs of personnel and equipment ($7.OM) moves and the establishment of new facilities. Facilities Requirements: Existing USATA facilities at Tobyhanna Army Depot would be modified to house an additional 11 personnel and associated equipment to perform the transferred Letterkenny internal mission support. Costs are approximately $340,000. Relocation of the remainder of the USATA personnel to base X would require a laboratory for 14 personnel and associated equipment, storage and work area for 5 mobile teams equipment and 33 personnel, and office space for 20 management and administrative personnel. Cost would be approximately $2,600,000 additional to the $340,000. U.S. ARMY TMDE ACTIVITY TMDE SUPPORT REGION 1 CHAMBERSBURG, PENNSYLVANIA 172014185 2 1 A p r - 4 5 Documellt Separator BRAC 95 ... LETTERKENNY TENANTS BASED ON DECISION CRITERIA THE WINNERS ... NATIONAL DEFENSE AND THE TAX PAYER THE WHOLE PICTURE ELIMINATE DEPOT MAlNT REMOVE ALL TENANT BRAC DECISION CRITERIA *MILITARY VALUE TENANTS PAY FAIR SHARE OF FIXED INFRASTRUCTURE COSTS TENANTS MAKE GOOD BUSINESS SENSE ARMY & DOD POLICY AGREES ... MOVE ORGANIZATIONS FROM GSA LEASED FACILITIES TO DOD INSTALLATIONS ELIMINATES EXPENSIVE LEASE COSTS SPREADS INSTALLATION INFRASTRUCTURE FY95 TENANT FAIR SHARE = $8 MILLION IF TENANTS EVICTED, RATES INCREASE MOVING COSTS GROSSLY UNDER STATED LETTERKENNY TENANTSISIZE ORGANICICONTRAC DEFENSE LOGISTICS AGENCY-DDIAP SYSTEMS INTEGRATION C31 MGT ACTIVITY U.S. ARMY LOGISTICS SUPPORT ACTIVITY-M1IC 139/81 DEFENSE MEGACENTER U.S. ARMY TEST MEAS & DIAGNOSTIC EQUIP. PUBLIC WORKS CENTER DETAILED INFO ON EACH TENANT- FURNISHED TO COMMISSION STAFF MONTHS 3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 27 30 33 36 39 42 45 48 51 54 57 60 63 6669 72 SlMA EAST & LOGSA MllC MISSION SKILLS UNIQUE TO THE ARMY ... AVG 3.8 YRS FUNCTIONAL ANALYSTS SERVICE UNIQUE SKILLS TIME REQUIRED TO REPLACE SKILLS OTHER I A V G ~ M O S FORCED RELOCATION IMPACTS THE DOUBLE EDGED SWORD MILITARY VALUE .MISSION DEGRADATION/FAILURE SIGNIFICANT PRODUCTIVITY LOSSES QUALITY EROSION TENANT MOVES TOTAL COST OF PROPOSED ACTIONS: $48.268 MILLION TOTAL SAVINGS = $0 COST TO TAX PAYER $48.268 MILLION ROI = NONE L COSTSNOT INCLUDED I IN THIS PACKAGE I PRODUCTIVITY LOSSES ... $27.9 MILLION ... REAL COSTS BUT NOT RECOGNllZED IN COBRA MODEL. SEE EXHIBIT G FOR DETAILS. * DMC-C COSTS COSTS TO MOVE EQUIPMENT & RECONFIGURE COMMUNICATIONS NETWORKS = $X MILLIONS VSlP COSTS UNDERSTATED ... DLA RECOGNIZED RIF REQUIREMENTS TIED TO "FAST TRACK" BRAC, OTHERS DID NOT ; ESTIMATE $3.375 M ADDITIONAL COSTS NOT IN DATA CAPTURED CONSTRUCTION COSTS GENERALLY NOT INCLUDED; PROBABLY UNDERSTATED BY $5-7 MILLION EXHIBIT G -FURNISHED TO COMMISSION STAFF MODERNIZATION THE DOD BRAC 95 TENANT PROPOSAL ... SECRETARY PERRY ... COMBINED AFFECT OF ALL BRAC ACTIONS PROPOSED ACTIONS 1504 JOBS (INCLUDES 128 CONTRACTORS) $95.9 MILLION LOCAL ANNUAL EXPENDITURES . * 2.4% LOCAL WORKFORCE EXHIBIT I - FURNISHED TO COMMISSION STAFF THE TENANT RECOMMENDATION RETAIN LETTERKENNY MAINTENANCE MISSION IN FINAL BRAC 95 LAW ... "ALL TENANTS, INCLUDING SYSTEMS INTEGRATION AND MANAGEMENT ACTIVITY-EAST (SIMA-EAST) WILL REMAIN AT LETTERKENNY IN ORDER TO PROTECT MILITARY VALUE OF ASSIGNED TENANT MISSIONS, AVOID THE UNNECESSARY RELOCATION EXPENDITURES AND RETAIN TENANTS' FAIR SHARE OF DEPOT INFRASTRUCTURE COSTS. " MANPOWER TENANT ORGANIC ICONTRACT 1 MILITARY 1 TOTAL I TENANTS TO RELOCATE SYSTMES INTEGRATION & MANAGEMENT I TENANT TO DISESTABLISH --- 0 DLA SUPPLY DEPOT-DDLP DISESTABLISH TOTAL ACTIVITY EAST 449 449 MANAGEMENT CENTER (MIIC) 4 4 LOGISTICS SUPPORT ACTIVITY-MAJOR ITEMS 209 DEFENSE FINANCE AND ACCOUTING SERVICE TENANTS TO BE ELIMINATED TEST MEASUREMENT & DIAGNOSTIC I 127 I 3 453 37 PUBLIC WORKS CENTER I I 183 i I 3-7- 246 183 8 1 27 TOTAL RELOCATION 804 EQUIPMENT -REGION 1 I I 161 959 128 16 HEALTH CLINIC DEFENSE REUTILIZATION & MARKETING OFC (DRMO) DEFENSE PRINTING I I I I GRAND TOTAL 1345 1 128 1 31 1 1504 12 MANAGEMENT ENGINEERING ACTIVITY (MEA) TOTAL ELIMINATION Page 1 220 DEFENSE MEGACENTER (DMC)- I i CHAMBERSBURG 149 10 ARMY AUDIT AGENCY - 15 2 7 6 15 TEST MEASUREMENT & DIAGNOSTIC EQUIPMENT (TMDE) SUPPORT 15 15 92 5 8 1 3 1 <- 174) -58 13 0 , 0 15 92 DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY OFFICE OF THE CHIEF OF STAFF 200 ARMY PENTAGON WASHINGTON DC 20310-0200 May 3, 1995 Mr. Edward A Brown III Defense Base Closure and Realignment Commission 1 700 North Moore Street Suite 1425 Arlington, VA 22209 Dear Mr. Brown: The attached response is being provided to your request 95042 1 - 10, dated April 2 1, 1 995, and provides comments on specifics of the briefing given by the Letterkenny Army Depot Coalition to the Commission s t a f f on April 20, 1995. Point of Contact for this action is Mr. Ron Hamner, (703) 693-0077. MICHAEL G. JOhZS COL. GS Director, TABS Attachmen; Printed on Recycled Paper LETTERKENNY ARMY DEPOT LETTERKENNY ARMY DEPOT COALITION VISIT We appreciate the opportunity to comment on the presentation by the Letterkenny Army Depot Coalition to the Commission staff on April 20, 1995. The tenants reported as being "not included in DoD Letterkemy BRAC 95 proposal" were in fact included. The Defense Logistics Agency conducted their own BRAC analysis of their activities and provided their recommendations independently of the Army's recommendation. Therefore, the data and results associated with the DLA decision to disestabiish its supply depot would not be reflected in Army data as either a cost or savings. The Coalition's cont&tion that the Systems Integration & Management Activity - East and the Logisrics Support Activity - Major Item Information Center (MIIC) likewise is in error. Both activities are relocating as a result of a prior -cornmission declsion l'herefore, it would be inappropriate to include additional costs in the latest - reconsideration. These are our comments on the specific areas of interest to you. 1991 GAO Report - The recommendation to realign the Depot Systems Command and Systems Integration and Management Activity was based on valid analysis of not only the activities themselves, but what the needs (requirement) of the Army were and what was the best economical solution that supported the Army requirement. The command structu-e is presently relocating to the Rock Island Arsenal. DPAS Projec -Manaser - Who wiil md will r.9; reiocale is s?ec.dztive and ofi.sr. nc: - . aeciaei unrii ;ne ias: inonen1 w-ich Wiy redi-m~iler: or rr=sfe: or r ~ s s : o ~ w c r l i 3 z ~ . 323 us,: - . , - . . . . -. . '.t m e - . - - * . ," -- .-qf .--- . vaiiaated s;maxa :actors bzseC ~ r , PLS;O;ICZ. ex3er;iexc c-..,.. .2 L - L ~ x , LA- L.L- - - rreo_rrapiucL x e z Liirr nes cons~cerzbie emertlse rr, :nc ~C:C)XL:I>T: z e 2 ~ - -7,- DFF4S Projez Manager - There are other 3FAS centers ~hrou_rhout ne cou;rrr\.. , ne i q ' s recommendation relocates this acrivijiry to "Ease X' and aliows the parent orgmkatioc tc decide where the activity wilI be best suited. Reiocation of persome! ma disruption are pat. c l my redi-ment. By relocating to an existing activih, the shortfaii in experience is ofiez overcome by the personnei avariable a: the gaining location. CG IOC on SIMA-East move to Rock Island - It is tiue thzt SSIMA East is not par: ofthe BRAC 95 recommendation. S-t was a£Fected by the B I U C 93 decision on ~ e i e r k e n n ~ . The Army is complying with the Commission and will locate S M - E to Rock Island. The Department of Army did review the issue with A m y Materiel Command. Army is not aware of any document $om MG Benchoff that objects to the -4rmy decision or indicate; a lack of support. The contention of the Letterkemy Army Depot Coalition of a "Green verse Purple Mindset" or a position ofl'I.fa mission does not support the . h y , get rid of it" is neither supportable nor a position the . m y leadership would consider. We are faced with some very hard decisions to ensure we can continue to support the . b y of the 31 st Century. Many very good installations havt been evaluated during the BRAC 95 analysis and some outstanding installations and activities are either being closed or realigned as a result. n e Army is eliminating excess capacity in its depot idfastructure, a difficult but necessary decision. 1 DEFENSE BASE CLOSURE & REALIGNMENT COMMISSION 1700 NORTH MOORE STREET, SUITE 1425 ARLINGTON, VIRGINIA 22209 (703) 696-0504 DATE: April 20,1995 TIME: 10:30 a.m. MEETING WITH: Staff of Rep. Bud Shuster (R-PA); SUBJECT: Letterkenny Army Depot (Tenant Issues) PARTICIPANTS: Name/Title/Phone Number: Mike Joyce; Office of Rep. Bud Shuster John Redding; Letterkenny Army Depot (LEAD) Coalition Jim Hafer; LEAD Coalition Bud O'Mara; LEAD Coalition Lou Farris; LEAD Coalition Doug Tuskin; Letterkenny Army Depot Commission Staff: Jim Schufreider; Manager, House Liaison Ed Brown, Army Team Leader Bob Miller; Army DoD Analyst Bob Cook; Interagency Team Leader MEETING PURPOSE: LEAD Coalition provided three briefings on impact of DoD recommendation to close Letterkenny Army Depot on tennant organizations. They were : General Overview, SIMA- East, and LOGSA-MIIC. Copies are attached. Additional copies were provided to The Army Basing Study Office for comment.

1995 BRAC Commission

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

UNT Digital Library