‘SMART’ CLOSEOUT
To determine disposition instructions, the government established a property sub-IPT that included prospective claim- ants, such as government laboratories and other program offices, and provided them the property lists in spreadsheet format as they became available. Te concurrent staffing and spreadsheet format reduced the time required for the government to generate instructions.
OPEN LINES OF COMMUNICATION
In conducting the GMR contract closeout, it was critical to look for efficiencies and strive for open communication. The GMR Program Office established a Contract Closeout Integrated Process Team (IPT) to close out the contract in a manner that avoided direct charges after the performance period. After the government gave disposition instructions to the prime contractor, the prime included subcontractors in the closeout IPT meetings. Here, SPC Todd Charity of 1st Squadron, 2nd Cavalry Regiment programs a radio inside his vehicle Oct. 13 during Exercise Saber Junction 2012 near Hohenfels, Germany. (U.S. Army photo by SSG Jose Ibarra, 2nd Cavalry Regiment)
To minimize correspondence between the government and contractor, the pro- gram office issued “default” disposition instructions for routine or similar items for which there were previous instruc- tions. Tis permitted the contractor to use the default instructions for items that it found after delivering the property lists to the government, rather than having to generate correspondence.
week and providing weekly updates to the program manager helped maintain momentum and schedule.
CHALLENGES IN EXECUTION Te $2 billion GMR SD&D cost-plus- award-fee contract had more than $180 million worth of property—5.4 million items such as radios, special test equipment, and production materials (capacitors, resis- tors, partially built-up circuit cards, nuts, screws, etc.)—that needed to come off the contract within the six months remaining in the period of performance. Property dis- position was the greatest challenge in this closeout effort.
Te IPT identified three critical tasks that drove the schedule for moving the
128 Army AL&T Magazine
property off the contract: 1) obtaining accurate property lists from the contractor, 2) determining and then conveying appro- priate disposition instructions for this property to the contractor, and 3) execu- tion of those instructions by the contractor.
Te contractor estimated it would take two months to provide the “final” property list to the government. In response, the program office directed the contractor to provide property lists as it generated them, rather than wait for the “last item” to be validated. In making this decision to main- tain schedule, GMR assumed the risk that the lists would not be completely accurate. While there were a few instances of dupli- cation or inaccuracies, the impact proved to be minimal.
January–March 2013
Reutilization of property by other gov- ernment contracts at a contractor facility also shortened the schedule, because the contractor could transfer that property immediately to the other contracts. Tis was effective for large items, like envi- ronmental chambers, that were built into contractor facilities; it would cost more to dismantle, dispose, and ship the chamber than the chamber itself cost.
Te program office learned two key lessons concerning the contractor’s dis- position of property.
First, DCMA’s PCARSS system was not designed to dispose of large volumes of property quickly. Te plant clearance process required impound of each item of property, then announcement for other government claims, followed by disposition—a process that would have introduced significant delay. To expedite closeout, the program office used the DLA property turn-in process through DLA Disposition Services (formerly
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 |
Page 204 |
Page 205 |
Page 206 |
Page 207 |
Page 208 |
Page 209 |
Page 210 |
Page 211 |
Page 212
