Armor Partnership Case

2282 Words5 Pages

1. Mr. Pamar started the meeting by updating Mr. Gable on how the Army Audit team decided on the 60% IPR recommendations. Mr. Parmar explained that in the discussion sections the Army Audit Team focused on three parts. He also made note that Mr. Laukanis is currently working to complete the remaining Potential Monetary Benefits (PMB).Mr. Gable asked, who issued the Team Armor Partnership (TAP) contract? We explained that Tank-Automotive and Armaments Command (TACOM) issued the contract and ensured him that they did not receive any incentives. 2. Mr. Parmar turned the meeting over to Mr. Gladhill who then proceeded to discuss the background on the Audit. Mr. Gladhill gave the background on how the audit team worked with the agency statistician …show more content…

Mr. Gladhill continued with the second recommendation. Documentation/Oversight recommendations to support turn-ins of LRUs (AMC/FORSCOM): Mr. Gable stated that AMC has nothing to do with these recommendations. He explained the first bullet; Issue message to Army units and supporting SSAs to ensure that the unserviceable reparable tag and form 2404 are attached to unserviceable LRU turn-ins and remains on the LRU until it reaches National Level Source of Repair – Team Armored Partnership or final destination. The tag needs to clearly show the DSESTS operator, or other accountable officer, that approved/signed off on turn-in to SSA and the corresponding reason for turn-in is FORSCOM recommendation. The second bullet; Automate the data associated with unserviceable reparable turn-ins in a system such as LIW to include unit that turned in, activity that certified condition code, and reason for turn is a CASCOM recommendation because CASCOM identifies the requirements for GCSS-Army. The third bullet; Using data above, determine root causes of unserviceable LRU turn-ins with NEOFs, or requiring only minor repair, and take actions to fix root causes is a recommendation for TACOM. Mr. Gable also suggested we incorporate the third bullet into the first bullet because we are telling them what to do with the data. Mr. Gable explained when writing a recommendation there should be a long-term action and a short term action. We continued to the next recommendation on training (Slide 23) Mr. Gable stated that the training recommendation should not be towards CASCOM because CASCOM is under TRADOC. Mr. Gladhill asked would it be a good idea to require CASCOM to fund the UDIP program. Mr. Gable suggested we take out the funding recommendation and just go with the add UDIP training to the Advance Leaders Course (ALC) recommendation. Mr. Gable noted that we should try not to tell them to fund one program over another because the Army would still have to assess which is a higher

More about Armor Partnership Case

Open Document