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.  

 

For Audit purposes and causative research recommend that the requisition number, DTID, Disposition Reference Number, Warehouse Transfer Shipment Reference Number, and Warehouse Issue Request Number column be added to Grid Option columns in inventory activity.

 

Yes this will help with audit purposes and causative research to be able to show the requisition numbers for all stock numbers on a DD1149 instead of searching for document numbers for each stock number.

Having this functionality will help from having to go through multiple steps to get the information we need for Audit Purposes.

 

Add the option to include an attachment when adding or updating a Custodian, similarly to what already exists in the Warehouse Module.

 

Custodians are required to be designated in writing and DOD encourages electronic storage of all Key Supporting Documents. Having the option to upload custodian letters to the applicable custodian would consolidate the documentation and meet any future electronic storage requirements.

 

This change will enable DoDEA, as well as other services, to efficiently retain the required custodian designation letters electronically in the same system as the relevant property record. This will also improve auditability by making it easier to access the documentation remotely reducing the time/effort required when this documentation is requested.