Within the Stock Number AUD edit process the management code will be enabled for edit under our standard validations. The expiration override will always be enabled. Unit of issue, and stocking unit of issue will be enabled for edit. Conversion factor updates will be accounted for in the existing Inventory Update Manager.

 

Mission Critical. Users should be able to edit stock numbers to support needed updates without the necessity of submitting a data fix request for these common processes.  The expected outcome is timely changes updates performed by the user which will lessen the number of help desk tickets requesting support for these types of updates.

 

These changes will improve efficiency for the user due to less time spent modifying or removing associated inventory, or submitting a data fix request and waiting for the change to occur; Additionally, the changes will reduce costs for the DPAS project due to the expected reduction in the number of data change requests that need to be completed.

 

DPAS will update its business processes to account for externally sourced stock numbers without a using service code to enable users to catalog their items using these stock numbers.

 

Mission Critical. DPAS should be updated to account for the lack of this field. Today this is preventing several externally sourced stock numbers from being integrated into DPAS.

 

This change will improve the user's cataloging capabilities when Web FLIS NSNs are selected as the source enabling the user to select Stock Nbrs that do not contain a Using Service Cd.  

 

To allow ease of access to manufacturer part number information which defines type B ( part number ) stock numbers the associated manufacturer name, part number, and CAGE code will be added as additional columns in the results grids on both the Stock Number AUD and Stock Number Inquiry pages within DPAS.

 

Mission critical. DPAS users currently have to navigate between multiple screens within the catalog process to view data which exists at the stock number level. Users should be able to view all stock number defining data from a singular screen within DPAS

 

Once implemented in DPAS this solution will reduce time for the users to complete their data inquiries by including all stock number defining data on singular screens without the need to navigate or merge data within Excel.

 

DAAS will supply the CAGE master data in JSON format to GEX where it will be consumed by DPAS and made available to the users within relevant DPAS update processes (Address, Contractor, Manufacturer Part Nbr AUD, etc., and will be used to provide context  to the CAGE by displaying the Supplier Name within inquiries and reports).

 

Mission Critical. Today there is no data feed supplying CAGE data. Validations are already in place to limit the allowed CAGE codes, however, many invalid codes exist in the system today. This feed will allow a source for users to access official CAGE data provided by DAAS.

 

Consumption of the CAGE master data from DAAS will improve the accuracy and accountability of the DPAS system by ensuring a source exists for users to access official CAGE codes from DLA instead of relying on current logic allowing entry of any CAGE fitting the required format.

 

Add "UIC" as a column option in MAM when searching by Maint Mgt Code.

N/A

 

When mass profiling assets it's critical to be able to identify assets by owning UIC.  This prevents having to individually identifying assets by Asset ID if all assets in the UIC will be  profiled with the same few Maint Mgt Codes.

 

Currently, there is not a good way to run a report or inquiry to provide a single snapshot of all equipment in an EP or MA, including NMC status. I would like to recommend creating a new Maintenance inquiry titled Equipment Status. I would recommend the following search fields with corresponding operands and search values:

 

Mission Critical

 

Shop supervisors run a report in legacy systems every morning that allows them to see, at a quick glance the status of all equipment, including what is currently NMC and how long the asset has been NMC, without having to keep track on a separate excel document. This aids supervisors in setting maintenance priorities for the day while also giving an overall look at the health of the fleet. Also, every morning Maintenance Group commanders hold a meeting that covers many different topics, one of which is the health of Aviation Support Equipment (AvSE). The ability for shop supervisors to run this type of inquiry will be instrumental in keeping all informed on the NMC status and availability of all equipment within a Maintenance Activity or Equipment Pool. Furthermore, this will allow various MAJCOM functionals the ability to take a snapshot of the AvSE fleet health across their MAJCOM.

 

Recommend creating a new Yearly type of recurring method for Maintenance Schedules, it could be Selected Month by Year. Recommend adding to account for inspection requirements of 2, 3, 5, and 10 years. Recommend the ability to select the day and the month and the interval of years for the Maintenance Schedule (i.e., 1 January every 2 years).

 

Mandated, There are several inspections required by manufacturers of equipment that are beyond a year. Many assets require a 2, 3, 5, or 10 year inspection to be completed.

 

There are several inspections that are on a biannual, 3 year, 5 year, or in some cases 10 year basis. It would greatly benefit the enterprise if Work Orders for these inspections were guaranteed to generate on the required day, regardless of when the last inspection was completed. This ability would ensure assets do not inadvertently fall off their inspection cycle. Currently the only way to create a Maintenance Schedule for more than one year it to use the Every X Days recurring method. This method does not guarantee a Work Order will generate on the same day every time it is due, as it generates the next Work Order based of when the previous Work Order was Completed. While it is possible to have Maintenance Schedules generate Work Orders before the Asset Next Maintenance Date, that still does not guarantee that a Work Order will generate on the first of the month that it would be due.  

 

Ensure DPAS depreciation periods are in agreement with the FMR.

 

Yes.  DPAS deprecation periods must be in alignment with the FMR.

 

Provides for accurate computation of depreciation.

 

• DPAS management does not retain evidence that demonstrates that the data used in the performance of the annual review of security and admin users is complete and accurate (i.e., screenshots of parameters/query used to produce the listing its entirety prior to execution within the query tool itself, screenshots of the row count within the query tool prior to extraction to demonstrate data wasn't lost or modified in transfer, etc.). Therefore, EY was unable to determine whether the data that was used in the performance of the annual access review of security and admin user types was complete and accurate. DPAS management is also not properly monitoring that all security and admin type users are properly reviewed. For users identified as requiring access to be removed during the annual review of privileged operating system and database access, as well as DPAS application security and admin user type access, DPAS management has not established a process to:

• Identify the length of time users had access but did not require it commensurate with their job responsibilities; and

• Analyze the activity for these users for that length of time, depending on the nature and risk of the roles held by the users (privileged, elevated-risk roles as identified by management.

 

Control activity 2.8 states: “DPAS PMO requires all IO/AIOs to submit an annual user review report. DPAS PMO performs user account maintenance based on this report. If no report is received by DPAS PMO by the designated due date, all accounts associated with the IO/AIO are deactivated.”

• DPAS management is not properly monitoring the user entity-performed access reviews. Specifically, Management is not verifying the completeness and accuracy of the user listings that are used in the performance of the reviews. Also, DPAS management does not perform a comprehensive retroactive review of activity for users identified with inappropriate access during each application user access review performed by Management or the user entity. Further, in their access reviews, Management has not established a process to:

• Identify the length of time users had access but did not require it commensurate with their job responsibilities; and

• Analyze the activity for these users for that length of time, depending on the nature and risk of the roles held by the users (privileged, elevated-risk roles as identified by management)

Develop a stored procedure that can be used by DBAs to support retroactive user activity requests from IO/AIOs.

 

Mandated - This SCR is required to resolve a NFR in the FY22 SSAE audit.  

 

Passing the next SSAE audit.  

 

 

Completed – Release 2022.2.2 – 23 September 2022

Add a new table, Stored Procedure, and SQL Agent job to support the monitoring.

 

Mandated - This SCR is required to resolve a NFR in the FY22 SSAE audit.  

 

Passing the next SSAE audit.