search.noResults

search.searching

dataCollection.invalidEmail
note.createNoteMessage

search.noResults

search.searching

orderForm.title

orderForm.productCode
orderForm.description
orderForm.quantity
orderForm.itemPrice
orderForm.price
orderForm.totalPrice
orderForm.deliveryDetails.billingAddress
orderForm.deliveryDetails.deliveryAddress
orderForm.noItems
This unclassified information can, by itself or when aggregated, provide significant insight into U.S. Army capabilities.


identified by Army PEOs, PMs and science and technology project managers.


Te CP&T list includes program, project and technology names and descriptions, contract numbers and contractor cage codes—short ID numbers that provide a standard method of identifying contractors and their facilities. Tis information is cross-checked with JAPEC to determine if the systems or tech- nologies have been threatened or compromised elsewhere across DOD. Tis provides PEOs and PMs access to a wide array of intelligence threat reporting, law enforcement and counterintel- ligence reports and security information with which they can make informed risk management decisions. For example, if a hacker breached the system of a Marine Corps contractor and obtained data related to a joint program, Army stakeholders would know quickly and could then take steps to prevent fur- ther intrusion and damage.


To further assist PMs, the Office of the Undersecretary of Defense for Research and Engineering will soon publish a DOD directive that establishes policy and assigns responsi- bilities to assess technical information losses and determine consequences. In the interim, ASA(ALT) drafted a policy memorandum and implementation plan that defines the roles and responsibilities for the Army acquisition community to identify and protect CTI. Additionally, DIBCSO is educat- ing all Army PEOs on the JAPEC and their responsibility to identify and protect CTI.


CONCLUSION With the increasing reliance on technology as a vital part of Army modernization, DOD and the Army will continue to be the target of adversaries’ efforts to collect CTI. Because most technical data resides on unclassified, non-DOD networks, tra- ditional methods of protection are no longer sufficient.


Te DOD JAPEC is helping to thwart these attempts by develop- ing a system that makes it easier for DOD stakeholders to increase information sharing, collaboration, analysis,


risk management


and protection. Trough this work, JAPEC strives to evolve cur- rent practices from reactionary to proactive, with the end goal of preventing degradation of the U.S. advantage in the battlespace.


SOSE&I continues to work with JAPEC to establish Army pro- cesses and methodology that can be consistently applied across all Army critical programs and technology. Effective processes and methodology are key to ensuring that we deny our adversar- ies access to our most critical unclassified CTI and, as a result, retain our innovative capabilities.


For more information on DFARS requirements, go to http:// dodprocurementtoolbox.com/faqs/cybersecurity. For more information on JAPEC, go to https://www.acq.osd.mil/se/ briefs/2016-10-24-NDIA-SEC-Hughes-MilAdvantage.pdf.


MR. ANDREW FULTON is a damage assessment specialist for DIBCSO within the SOSE&I Directorate. He previously served as the Army’s liaison officer to the DOD chief information officer in DIBCSO, where he helped the Army shape policy and processes to ensure that unclassified Army information is protected within the defense industrial base. He holds an M.A. in international security from Georgetown University and a B.A., magna cum laude, in world politics and French from Hamilton College. He is Level II certified in life cycle logistics.


MR. KEITH RAMSEY is a damage assessment specialist for DIBCSO, where he supports the JAPEC process by maintaining the Army’s annual input to the CP&T list and developing CTI identification and protection methodologies. He holds an M.S. in cybersecurity policy from the University of Maryland University College and a B.S. in psychology from Texas A&M University. He is Level II certified in life cycle logistics and in program management.


MR. THOMAS QUIGLEY is a program protection policy special- ist for DIBCSO, where he is the team lead for the Army’s JAPEC initiative. He previously served as director of operations for the Project Manager for Soldier Sensors and Lasers within the PEO for Soldier. He holds an MBA from Troy University, an M.S. in national security and strategy studies from the U.S. Naval War College, an M.S. in national resource strategy from the Dwight D. Eisenhower School for National Security and Resource Strategy of National Defense University and a B.S. in marketing from Ohio State University. He is Level III certified in program management.


+ HTTPS: / /ASC.ARMY.MIL 61


ACQUISITION


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