When a unit custodian receives equipment issue, they must sign a custody document (DW Form 04); however, when they turn in the same equipment to the warehouse custodian they must again sign the DW Form 12 and there is no data on this document that identifies which custodian received, validated and assumed accountability for the returned equipment. ?With the current version of the document, the onus is on the member to sign that he/she turned in the equipment vice the receiving custodian to validate and acknowledge that the equipment was returned to them. For complete legitimacy of accountability transfer, add a signature block for the receiving custodian or change the existing signature block to the warehouse custodian with the "Returned By" name and UIC filled in by the system. The receiver is the person who actually validates what has been returned and accepts it, so they should be signing for custody then giving a copy to the member for their records. ?A good example is the use of SF-153s (Comsec Material Report) for issue and receipt of key encrypted equipment; when issued, the receiving officer signs for the equipment and when returned the EKMS custodian signs a new 153 for custody of the previously issued equipment and both copies must be maintained in the EKMS log.

When equipment is shipped to or transported by courier to a deployed unit, the receiving officer is often not a DPAS WM user, does not have an available document scanner but does have CAC enabled email. Without a scanner, "manually" signed DW04s must be sent by mail or other physical means back to the issuing command. Proposed improvement is to add an embedded digital signature block capability to the unit issue>sign>manual signature form DW04 Pdf which the system generates. Adding this would allow the issuing command to email the custody document to the deployed receiving officer who would then digitally sign the document and email it back to the issuing unit. Manual signing of the printed document would still be possible, if necessary.

Description
There is no capability within DPAS WM to transfer "unit issued" equipment from one unit to the next.
It is commonplace for deployed military units in all services to turn over custody of equipment/assets remaining in place within a units area of operation (AOR). Currently, the only means of transferring equipment within WM is to use the unit "return" module then reissue the equipment to another unit. This method forces personnel at the warehouse validate the items returned even though they do not have "eyes on" the subject equipment and it makes them accountable if items were actually missing.
Hard copy DD 1149s are currently in use at NEIC as a stop gap measure for deployed unit to unit transfers but it cannot reflect accurately in DPAS WM.

Recommended
Add the capability within WM for a unit to unit transfer including the ability for the deployed receiving officer to sign custody documents for equipment turned over by another unit possessing equipment which was originally issued from the parent command warehouse.

Mission Critical

Benefits

Users

Completed - Release 5.2 - 29 September 2017

Description
My issue is not being able to loan out multiple assets at one time.
A mass loan capability would be particularly useful when dealing with Government Furnished Property (GFP). I have multiple contracts with tens of thousands of lines of property, and loaning assets one at a time is time consuming.
This is first encountered during the initial loading of DPAS. Loading all of the program property, and then changing the loan code for the assets furnished to contractors on by one is going to take months of work.
The problem does not stop once the initial loan is made. This issue will come back to haunt us when the period of performance for that contract ends, and the "follow on" contract is awarded. I see three actions that would result from closing out the first contract. The first will transitioning the property to the new contract, the second will be the dispositional of excess property, and the third would be the return of the property to the government.
Having to pull all of the property back in from loan and then loaning, disposing, and reassigning custodians one record at a time again is a daunting task.

Recommended
I believe that the way forward is to add a few new features in conjunction with some already existing navigation windows. The following is the step by step processes I have in mind for solving this problem:

1. Mouse over Asset Management
2. Select Update from the drop-down menu
3. Use the Search Criteria to find the property you want to update
   On the search screen I would like to see the Contract Number and Cage Code be added as searchable fields. This could be done with a radio button like the other fields, but an intellisense functionality in that search field would save several mouse clicks.
4. View the list of property and select the property you want to loan
5. Review the list of property selected and choose appropriate action
   In the Action Box I would like to have a Mass Update option added between the Mass Update and Stock Number/Authorization Update
6. At this point the same Asset Update
   Loan Change screen should appear
7. Select the appropriate Loan Code and update the required information

Mission Critical
This is a mission critical action. DFARS contracts require that a list of the Government Furnished Property (GFP) provided to a contractor will be added to the contract. At PEO Missile & Space there are eight (8) programs, with each program having multiple contracts containing GFP. Each of these programs will have to update the loan code for all of that property.

Benefits
The main benefit to implementing this solution will be a reduction in the time needed to update the system. By reducing the time need to preform this action less labor will be needed to achieve this mission. Therefore freeing up more people and time that will increase productivity and reduce costs.

Users
I can say with certainty all of the DPAS users in PEO Missile & Space, PEO Aviation, and the Missile Defense Agency that I have spoken to would welcome this change. I also see this being beneficial to all DoD users because of the requirement to use contact property attachments.

Completed with SCR 00650.

Description
There is no way to see an after maintenance QC Failure any way other than just as an open work order. These technician failures have a higher priority than a normal open work order.

Recommended
There has to be some way to flag any after maintenance failures coming back to M&U to allow Maintenance Supervisor to be able to reassign tech to W/O. As stated above, these carry priority over a normal new work order. Suggested solution could be a "select a field" as used with DPAS warehouse module for Grid Option feature.

Mission Critical

Benefits
This will reduce time/cost and will ensure accuracy.

Users
M&U users will be affected.

Completed - Release 3.0 - 15 May 2015

Description
While searching for work orders through "Maintenance/Work Order" method, all pertinent information to the DMC's business processes is not available. We have to see Work Order Reason, Condition Code and Current Location on the main grid line during the work order search process. Due to the fact of Work Orders being removed from the Open Action Folders, it is very difficult to locate and assign work orders. There have been defects written and resolved adding pertinent information to the open action grid line that make it possible to find and assign specific work orders. Now that they have been removed, information needed to locate and assign specific W/Os to technicians is not there.

Recommended
These fields have to be added to the grid line just as defect #54 added them to the "Open Action Grid Line". We have to have condition code and location added to the search criteria along with work order reason. Suggested solution could be a "select a field" as used with DPAS warehouse module for Grid Option features.

Mission Critical

Benefits
This will reduce time/cost and will ensure accuracy.

Users
M&U users will be affected.

Completed - Release 3.0 - 15 May 2015

Description
When trying to mass update Work Orders in M&U, I discovered there is no way to add Technicians or their labor hours to the Work Order while mass updating Work Orders. You can only assign a single Primary tech while mass updating W/Os. There has to be a way to assign multiple technicians and their labor hours to a W/O.

Recommended
Maintenance Officer should be able to assign multiple technicians to a single W/O in the mass update process. There is currently no option to add any tech other than the Primary Tech. To make the Mass Update function work for the DMC business process, there has to be a way to add multiple techs and their labor hours while updating W/Os in mass.

Mission Critical
Yes.

Benefits
The benefit is that functions will be more role specific an eliminate potential breaches.

Users
All

Completed - Release 3.0 - 15 May 2015

Description
During role specific testing, we found that a Maintenance Specialist (Technician) has all of the same capabilities within the Work Order Process that a Maintenance Officer (Supervisor) does. This means that a technician can edit the W/O in any way, (e.g. - Change level of preservation, change C/C of asset, change priority of W/O, reassign to another tech, etc.) This creates potential for numerous problems.

Recommended
There has to be a level of security put in place to limit the technicians capabilities within the W/O process. A technician should only be able to edit fields that are directly related to him/her completing assigned work and updating W/O to reflect this completion.

Mission Critical
Yes. The lack of security layers create a potential breach for misuse and improper management.

Benefits
The benefit is that functions will be more role specific an eliminate potential breaches.

Users
All

Completed - Release 3.0 - 15 May 2015

Description
When trying to mass update work orders, I receive an error message stating that "Next Inspection Date" and "Inspection Status Code" are required.

Recommended
These two requirements are not maintenance functions. They are QC functions and cannot be mandatory fields for maintenance personnel input. This prevents maintenance personnel from being able to mass update work orders with a State Code of "Pending Close" and a Status Code of "Completed Awaiting Inspection". These State codes and Status codes are necessary to send work back to QC for after maintenance inspection.

Mission Critical

Benefits
The elimination of these requirements, which are not a M&U function, would reduce time and improve accuracy by not having to put "false" data just to fill in the blank. DELETION of these fields "Next Inspection Date" and "Inspection Status Code" for M&U is a necessity.

Users
This affects all users of M&U Module.

Completed - Release 3.0 - 15 May 2015

Unavailable Service Days and Unavailable Maintenance Days are mandatory fields and do not pertain to our business. The user has to input a number in each of the two fields that has no meaning.

11 Mar 2021 – cancelled per Jack Sanders
No Longer Needed.