What do you do, and why is it important to the Army or the warfighter?
As the product lead for LIS, I lead all acquisition cost, schedule and performance activities associated with development, test- ing, training and post-production life-cycle sustainment for the Army’s tactical LIS. Tis includes five Acquisition Category III program-of-record products covering 12 separate software base- lines and associated hardware and peripherals.
LIS delivered more than 30 change package releases for FY15, encompassing more than 3,059 change items that improved LIS performance and, by extension, logistics support to the Soldier in the focused logistics domain, including Class V accountability for conventional, guided missile and large rocket munitions; field- and sustainment-level management of ground and aviation maintenance operations; and receipt, store and issue operations at tactical and installation supply support activities.
As the number of information assurance vulnerability alerts
(IAVAs) increased, LIS successfully analyzed more than 4,000 updates, resulting in the build, test and distribution of more than 450 critical IAVA patches. Our success allowed the man- agement of more than 200 supply support activities; all ground and aviation maintenance operations; ammunition manage- ment
facilities; and unit supply and property accountability
operations at all echelons—totaling billions of dollars across the entire Army.
If you could make the rules or break the rules, what would you change?
I would like to see more flexibility in the source selection process, especially in situations where a best-value contract is a better vehicle than a lowest-price-technically-available [LPTA] con- tract. Sustaining our systems takes a unique skill set, and when we’re forced to go with low price over best value, our contrac- tors are forced to cut salaries and their best people move on. You can’t expect someone to do the same work for half of what they used to be paid. Tere are some situations where best-value contracts are perfect—a long-term assembly line, for example, where you know what your costs and deadlines will be. But in the software field, where we’re constantly getting changes in requirements to address new issues, LPTA is the better approach. If I could change one thing, it would be to give project managers more flexibility to choose which option is right for them. Tere’s no one-size-fits-all solution.
What do you see as the most important points in your career with the Army Acquisition Workforce, and why?
As the director of the U.S. Army Communications-Electronics Command (CECOM) Software Engineering Center – Fort Lee (SEC-Lee) in Virginia, I led a workforce that included Army acquisition, logistics, DA civilians and private industry partners in developing and sustaining key and critical combat service support software applications for the Army and other DOD acquisition programs. I successfully transitioned the life-cycle sustainment management of the logistics systems from the LIS product management office to SEC-Lee, which significantly increased the SEC’s role in support of PEO EIS.
Can you name a particular mentor or mentors who helped you in your career? How did they help you?
William C. Dates, project manager for Integrated Logistics Sys- tems, set the standard as my acquisition professional mentor. He was a results-driven program manager and information technol- ogy executive with vision and hands-on experience in leading multimillion-dollar initiatives. As his deputy, I was able to glean the knowledge, skills and experience to design, develop and implement information systems in the areas of logistics and per- sonnel management. I still seek his advice and guidance today.
What’s the greatest satisfaction you have in being a part of the Army Acquisition Workforce?
One of my proudest moments was leading the effort to integrate disparate LIS hardware configurations to employ one com- mon hardware platform. Tis action involved the designation of common platform hardware specifications and the procure- ment of more than 50,000 LIS laptops and 24,000 printers that effectively reduced the logistics-IT hardware footprint from 15 laptop and printer models to one standardized laptop and printer configuration. Tis effort simplified field-level system sustain- ment requirements, reduced sustainment-level logistics costs and prepared units for the deployment of the next- generation, enterprise-level Global Combat Support System – Army. We reduced CECOM field repair activity spares stockage levels by more than 60 percent and improved their customer response time for LIS hardware maintenance.
—MS. SUSAN L. FOLLETT
ASC.ARMY.MIL
25
LOGISTICS
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72 |
Page 73 |
Page 74 |
Page 75 |
Page 76 |
Page 77 |
Page 78 |
Page 79 |
Page 80 |
Page 81 |
Page 82 |
Page 83 |
Page 84 |
Page 85 |
Page 86 |
Page 87 |
Page 88 |
Page 89 |
Page 90 |
Page 91 |
Page 92 |
Page 93 |
Page 94 |
Page 95 |
Page 96 |
Page 97 |
Page 98 |
Page 99 |
Page 100 |
Page 101 |
Page 102 |
Page 103 |
Page 104 |
Page 105 |
Page 106 |
Page 107 |
Page 108 |
Page 109 |
Page 110 |
Page 111 |
Page 112 |
Page 113 |
Page 114 |
Page 115 |
Page 116 |
Page 117 |
Page 118 |
Page 119 |
Page 120 |
Page 121 |
Page 122 |
Page 123 |
Page 124 |
Page 125 |
Page 126 |
Page 127 |
Page 128 |
Page 129 |
Page 130 |
Page 131 |
Page 132 |
Page 133 |
Page 134 |
Page 135 |
Page 136 |
Page 137 |
Page 138 |
Page 139 |
Page 140 |
Page 141 |
Page 142 |
Page 143 |
Page 144 |
Page 145 |
Page 146 |
Page 147 |
Page 148 |
Page 149 |
Page 150 |
Page 151 |
Page 152 |
Page 153 |
Page 154 |
Page 155 |
Page 156 |
Page 157 |
Page 158 |
Page 159 |
Page 160 |
Page 161 |
Page 162 |
Page 163 |
Page 164 |
Page 165 |
Page 166 |
Page 167 |
Page 168 |
Page 169 |
Page 170 |
Page 171 |
Page 172 |
Page 173 |
Page 174 |
Page 175 |
Page 176 |
Page 177 |
Page 178 |
Page 179 |
Page 180 |
Page 181 |
Page 182 |
Page 183 |
Page 184 |
Page 185 |
Page 186 |
Page 187 |
Page 188 |
Page 189 |
Page 190 |
Page 191 |
Page 192 |
Page 193 |
Page 194 |
Page 195 |
Page 196 |
Page 197 |
Page 198 |
Page 199 |
Page 200 |
Page 201 |
Page 202 |
Page 203
