Mlf 8 8 final

Intelligent Power O Life Cycle Efficiencies O PBLs Hit a Mid-Life CrisisEngines & Power Plants O MRO Capabilities O Challenging PBLs

The Publication of Record for the Military Logistics Community

Effectiveness Improver

Maj. Gen. Theresa C. CarterCommanderAir Force Installation and Mission Support Center (Provisional)

www.MLF-kmi.com

September 2014Volume 8, Issue 8

U.S. Air Force Air LogiSticS compLexeS

Air Force issue

Special pull-out Supplement

Exclusive Interviews with ALC Commanders

Maj. Gen. H. Brent Baker Sr.

BriG. Gen. DonalD e. “Gene” kirklanD

BriG. Gen. Walter j. linDSley

You can’t substitute for experience outside the wire.

oshkoshdefense.com/JLTV

Oshkosh is JLTV.Anything else is something less.

Operations look different at ground level.

Troops have logged billions of real-world operational miles in Oshkosh® trucks to complete their missions. For decades, we’ve provided the protection and performance troops need to overcome threats outside the wire – with confi dence. Today, Oshkosh delivers the next generation of protected mobility to serve the JLTV mission. The Oshkosh JLTV solution, the Light Combat Tactical All-Terrain Vehicle (L-ATV), is designed and built by the truck experts at Oshkosh, and backed by 97 years of vehicle production, integration and lifecycle know-how to keep ground operations moving. When real-life missions depend on the truck experts, troops depend on Oshkosh.

©2014 OSHKOSH DEFENSE, LLC An Oshkosh Corporation CompanyOshkosh Defense and the Oshkosh Defense logo are registered trademarks of Oshkosh Defense, LLC, Oshkosh, WI, USAJLTV_003_2014-US-1

Cover / Q&AFeatures

Your single-source solution for material and services.

www.SupplyCore.com

mAjor generAL thereSA c. cArter

CommanderAir Force Installation and Mission

Support Center (Provisional)

17

Departments Industry Interview2 editor’S perSpective4 Log opS6 peopLe14 SUppLy chAin26 White pAper ForUm27 reSoUrce center

KArL r. voepeL iiprogram manager logistics Solutions operationleidos

September 2014Volume 8, Issue 8MILITARY LOGISTICS FORUM

28

10chALLenging pBLSAs a strategy for providing cost-effective weapon systems support, performance-based logistics enable DoD to receive performance outcomes based on specific, pre-determined metrics for a product or service. By William murray

12LiFe cycLe eFFiciencieSWhether for naval vessels, military aircraft or a myriad of other platforms, systems and components, industry is working with the Department of Defense to take a harder look at life cycle considerations.By Scott NaNce

22compLementAry tALentSIn today’s sustainment world, even government depots must compete with both private firms and each other for each piece of maintenance or modification work.By HeNry caNaday

24inteLLigent poWerHow the U.S. military purchases installation power and its ability to save money in both fixed-installation and deployed environments has come under some renewal through the use of microgrid systems.By William murray

U.S. Air Force Air LogiSticS compLexeSSpeciAL pULL-oUt SUppLement

WORLD CLASS SUPPLY CHAIN SOLUTIONSIntegrated logistics services that support the mission of our customers, our warfighters and our country.

800.808.5373banneker.comCome visit us at AUSA National Booth #8228

Banneker-30418 AUSA National_18x55.indd 16/30/14 10:05 AM

Brigadier general Walter J. lindsley

commanderWarner Robins air logistics complex

7horSepoWerStronger and more technologically advanced engines are powering the force.By Peter BuxBaum

MaJor general H. Brent Baker sr.

commanderogden air logistics

complex

Brigadier general donald e. “gene”

kirklandcommander

oklahoma city air logistics complex

exclusive intervieWs WitH

Have PBLs lost their luster? It’s a curious thing how a contracting strategy can become so in vogue for a period of time, then—not so much. Such was the trajectory of performance-based logistics before grinding to a snail’s pace—as budget battles, sequestration and the government’s inability to push the stone in any direction. In fact, the use of PBLs actually declined over the past three years.

Earlier this summer, the Department of Defense issued its annual Performance of the Defense Acquisition System report—if you have not read it and you are in contracting and acquisition, you need to! One of the most valuable nuggets to take from the document is that a debate between fixed price and cost type is well-intentioned but somewhat misses the mark. While those contracting vehicles are specifically adept at controlling costs, they also highlight that there is not a one-size-fits-all solution.

While one contract may have a much lower acquisition price, it may be because there is lower risk involved. Lower risk could mean lower reward or represent better value. Both could be right.

Earlier this year, Frank Kendall, under secretary of the defense for acquisition, technology and logistics, testified that, “The data shows that we have not been able to expand the use of PBL for the last two years and that prior to that the use was declining. Declining budgets, as well as the budget uncer-tainty itself, and therefore contract opportunities, are part of this story, as is the fact the PBL arrange-ments are harder to structure and enforce than more traditional approaches. Those factors, combined with the imposition of sequestration, furloughs and a government shutdown last year, are likely to have suppressed the increased use of PBL. This area will receive additional management attention going forward; we are going to increase the use of this business approach.”

Those that a decade ago favored long-term and comprehensive PBLs are no longer in positions to influence decisions—many having long-since retired. Until the perception gap can be reduced, PBLs are unlikely to gain widespread favor, as they did a decade ago. But optimism springs eternal for a rebirth.

With this issue as the backdrop, Military Logistics Forum takes a look at performance-based logistics as a contracting medium, looking for a path forward from PBL’s mid-life crisis.

Publication of Record for the Military Logistics Community

editorialEditor-In-ChiefJeff mcKaughan [email protected]

Managing EditorHarrison donnelly [email protected]

Copy EditorsSean Carmichael [email protected] Jones [email protected] Magin [email protected]

CorrespondentsHeather Baldwin • Christian Bourge • Peter Buxbaum Henry Canaday • Cheryl Gerber • Hank Hogan Marc Selinger • Karen Thuermer • William Murray

Art & designArt DirectorJennifer owers [email protected]

Ads and Materials ManagerJittima Saiwongnuan [email protected]

Senior Graphic DesignerScott morris [email protected]

Graphic Designers andrea Herrera [email protected] Paquette [email protected]

AdvertisingAssociate PublisherJane engel [email protected]

Kmi media groupChief Executive OfficerJack Kerrigan [email protected]

Publisher and Chief Financial Officerconstance Kerrigan [email protected]

Editor-In-ChiefJeff mcKaughan [email protected]

ControllerGigi Castro [email protected]

Trade Show CoordinatorHolly Foster [email protected]

operations, circulation & productionOperations AdministratorBob Lesser [email protected]

Circulation & Marketing AdministratorDuane Ebanks [email protected]

CirculationBarbara Gill [email protected] Woods [email protected]

Data Specialistraymer Villanueva [email protected]

A proud member of:

Subscription informationMilitary Logistics Forum

iSSn 1937-9315 is published 10 times a year by

KMI Media Group. All Rights Reserved. Reproduction with-out permission is strictly forbidden. © Copyright 2014.Military Logistics Forum is free to qualified members of the u.S. military, employees of the u.S. government and

non-U.S. foreign service based in the U.S. all others: $75 per year. Foreign: $159 per year.

corporate officesKMI Media Group

15800 Crabbs Branch Way, Suite 300 Rockville, MD 20855-2604 USA

Telephone: (301) 670-5700 Fax: (301) 670-5701

Web: www.mlF-kmi.com

Military Logistics Forum

Volume 8, Issue 8 • September 2014

EDITOR’S PERSPECTIVE

KMI MEDIA GROUP LEADERSHIP MAGAZINES AND WEBSITES

www.GCT-kmi.com

UAS Leader

Col. Tim BaxterU.S. Army Project Manager UAS Project Office

Technology & Intel for the Maneuver Warfighter

May 2014Volume 5, Issue 3

www.GCT-kmi.com

Rapidly Deployable ISR O Tactical UAS O Enduring REFArmy Aviation O Wheeled Vehicles O Ammo

SPECIAL SECTION:MANNED-UNMANNED TEAMING

Ground Combat & Tactical ISR

www.M2VA-kmi.com

Military Medical & Veterans Affairs

Forum

www.GIF-kmi.com

Geospatial Intelligence Forum

www.MT2-kmi.com

Military Training Technology

www.MAE-kmi.com

Military AdvancedEducation

www.NPEO-kmi.com

Navy Air/Sea PEO Forum

www.MIT-kmi.com

Military Information Technology

www.SOTECH-kmi.com

SOCOM Leader

Adm. Bill H. McRaven

CommanderSOCOM

Diver Gear O 3-D Training O Protective Gear Mulltinational Partnerships

May 2014 Volume 12, Issue 4

www.SOTECH-kmi.com

World’s Largest Distributed Special Ops Magazine

Program Management Updates

SOCOM2014

Special Operations Technology

www.MLF-kmi.com

Reverse Auctions O Defense Transportation O Afghanistan RetrogradeILS O Supply Chain Efficiencies O DMSMS O Senior Logisticians


Resource Aligner

Vice Adm. William A. “Andy” Brown Deputy CommanderU.S. Transportation Command

SPECIAL PULL-OUT SUPPLEMENTUSTRANSCOM

www.MLF-kmi.com

November/December 2013Volume 7, Issue 10

Exclusive Interview with:

GAIL JORGENSONAcquisition Director USTRANSCOM

Military Logistics Forum

www.CGF-kmi.com

U.S. Coast Guard & Border Security

Jeff McKaughaneditor

S:7.875”S:10.375”

T:8.375”T:10.875”

B:8.875”B:11.375”

AT LOCKHEED MARTIN,WE’RE ENGINEERING A BETTER TOMORROW.

WE CALL IT PROTECTED MOBILITY.

SOLDIERS AND MARINESCALL IT A SAFE RIDE HOME.

Compiled by KMI Media Group staffLOG OPS

Naval Facilities Engineering Command (NAVFAC) Southeast announced the first task order from a $240 million indefinite-delivery indefinite-quantity multiple award design-build construction contract. Carothers Construction Inc., of Oxford, Miss., was awarded the initial task order for $34.4 million for the design and construction of an aircraft maintenance hangar at Marine Corps Air Station, Beaufort, S.C.

“The new hangar is designed to support and accommodate the F-35’s unique operational and maintenance requirements,” said Troy Ward, MCAS Beaufort Site Activation Task Force program manager.

The hangar project is expected to be completed by September 2016. Other work to be performed under this contract includes general building type proj-ects (new construction, renovation, alteration, demolition, and repair work), including industrial, airfield, aircraft hangar, aircraft traffic control, infrastruc-ture, administrative, training, dormitory, and community support facilities.

“The existing hangars were designed and built to accommodate legacy aircraft, almost 60 years ago,” said Ward. “They have reached the end of their useful life and renovating or expanding the existing hangars would not be cost effective. We’re building a 21st century facility here to support our new fifth- generation fighters, the Lightning II.”

In late July, the Army Contracting Command activated a new battalion during at a ceremony at the Detroit Arsenal in Warren, Mich.

“Today is a great day for the Army Contracting Command and also for the 923rd Contingency Contracting Battalion,” said Major General Ted Harrison, ACC commanding general, who officiated the ceremony.

Along with the activation of the 923rd came the assumption of its command by Lieutenant Colonel John M. Cooper. Harrison passed the colors to ACC-Warren’s acting executive director, Ken Bousquet, who then passed the colors to Cooper.

Cooper comes to the 923rd after serving as Headquarters, Department of the Army, organization integrator for acquisition, logistics and technology operating force organizations.

As commander of the 923rd, Cooper will be responsible for four contingency contracting teams (CCT): the 628th CCT, the 671st CCT, the 739th CCT and the 740th CCT.

Cooper said that the battalion’s number one priority is to deliver the best contract support possible to soldiers globally and

to be prepared to conduct its mission in a wide range of physical, social, political and economic environments.

“Though small in the context of our greater Army, today’s acti-vation is a great step toward assuring our preparedness to support future operations,” said Cooper. “Today’s activation will improve our Army’s overall readiness and, of even more importance, our ability to support our nation’s sons and daughters in harm’s way.”

By Catherine Liedke

F-35 Hangar

Army Contracting Command Activates New Battalion

Although many U.S. Special Operations Command missions may be covert, the Defense Logistics Agency has been front and center in its support of the organization by establishing a new national account manager (NAM) to best support SOCOM’s needs.

Kevin Kachinski, a former DLA executive officer, was selected as the NAM for the command under DLA Logistics Operations in late July.

“About a year ago, this was just an idea, a discussion, of where DLA can better support the Department of Defense,” Kachinski said. “We [already] have support teams for each of the four military services, and one for federal agencies and international programs. This is an extension of that as the next iteration of our customer-facing focus.”

With the majority of DoD components rightsizing and getting smaller in recent years, SOCOM is one arm of the department that is actually growing slightly, Kachinski said.

“It was a natural growth area for DLA to help synchronize and optimize SOCOM’s logistics requirements with DLA’s capabilities,” he said. “DLA has a lot to offer. It’s important for us to be able to market that to special operations and for them to determine where DLA fits in their business lines. Right now, they are independently doing DLA-type work for their forces. Now, they can reach into the [agency’s logistics] powerhouse to figure out what parts they think will complement and add value to their missions. And we get to make that part of our standard mission set.”

By Amanda Neumann, DLA public affairs.

DLA Establishes SOCOM Account Manager

www.MLF-kmi.com4 | MLF 8.8

AAR HAS YOU COVERED

When duty calls, AAR is there, keeping advanced aircraft and ground equipment mission-ready. From expeditionary airlift to mobile shelters or aircraft component repair, AAR is trusted by government and defense customers worldwide who need a contractor they can count on to help them do more with less.

At

Eas

e

MOBILITY SYSTEMS | COMPONENT REPAIR | CARGO PRODUCTS | COMMAND & CONTROL | LOGISTICS | AIRLIFT SUPPORT

630.227.2000 | www.aarcorp.com/government-defense

AAR MLF 1P.indd 1 9/2/14 10:37 AM

Compiled by KMI Media Group staffLOG OPS

Navy Rear Admiral Dixon R. Smith has been nominated for appoint-ment to the rank of vice admiral and for assign-ment as commander, Navy Installations Command, Washington Navy Yard, D.C. Smith is currently serving as commander, Navy Region Mid-Atlantic, Norfolk, Va.

Captain Keith M. Jones, selected for the rank of rear admiral (lower half), will be assigned as reserve director, Logistics Programs and Business Operations, Chief of Naval Operations, N41, Washington, D.C. Jones previously served as commanding officer, Logistics Readiness Center,

Headquarters 120, U.S. Pacific Fleet, San Diego, Calif.

Roxanne Banks, director of the Small Business Administration’s Denver Finance Center, will be the new deputy director of Defense Logistics Agency Acquisition.

Compiled by KMI Media Group staffPEOPLE

The U.S. Navy awarded General Dynamics Bath Iron Works a $100 million contract to provide planning yard services for the littoral combat ship (LCS) program. General Dynamics Bath Iron Works is a business unit of General Dynamics.

As the LCS Planning Yard, Bath Iron Works will provide maintenance and moderniza-tion support for all Navy LCS 1 and LCS 2 variant ships. Work to be performed under this contract includes availability advanced planning, ship alteration design and logis-tics support, material support, ship planned

maintenance, class services, onboard main-tenance and planning of all maintenance availabilities in the United States and abroad.

“We are pleased for the opportunity to apply our planning yard experience in support of the Navy’s LCS program,” said Bath Iron Works President Fred Harris. “We have been working hard to make every aspect of our busi-ness more affordable, enabling us to success-fully compete for contracts like this. This award is a result of that work and we look forward to working with our industry partners to meet the needs of our U.S. Navy customer.”

Transportation experts from U.S. Transportation Command and Military Surface Deployment and Distribution Command formed a fusion team in early August to more quickly evaluate and address critical issues affecting the U.S. military’s privately owned vehicle shipping program.

On May 1, International Auto Logistics (IAL) assumed responsibility for the Global Privately Owned Vehicle (POV) Contract. Under the terms of the contract, IAL is responsible for processing, transporting and storing vehicles owned by mili-tary personnel and Department of Defense civilian employees bound for or returning from overseas duty locations.

The newly-formed POV fusion team is a combina-tion of subject matter experts who are familiar with the contract requirements and supply chain experts who can assess the system and drive improvements. U.S. Air Force Brigadier General Paul H. Guemmer leads the team.

“We are working very closely with IAL, and we have put together a team to research the issues and gain an understanding of how IAL intends to make the process more efficient and transparent,” said Guemmer. “Our group’s responsibility is to examine IAL’s supply chain processes and provide contract oversight of the company’s ability to meet the require-ments for our military customers. We’re not here to do IAL’s job. We’re here to look after the best interest of our military customers by highlighting issues that IAL needs to resolve.”

By Mark Diamond, SDDC public affairs.

LCS Maintenance and Modernization Contract

In 1954, the song “Rock Around the Clock” was playing on the radio, Oprah Winfrey was born and the first issue of Sports Illustrated appeared on newsstands.

That same year, on August 23, the YC-130 Hercules made its maiden flight at the Lockheed Martin plant in Burbank, Calif. and the C-130 is still in production today, making it the longest-running military aircraft produc-tion line in history.

The need for the C-130 came from Air Force’s Tactical Air Command in 1951, after the Korean War, to fill a void for medium-cargo tactical transport.

“In its first six decades, the C-130 shaped aviation history, redefined industry standards

and exhibited flexibility that other aircraft have yet to match,” said George Shultz, Lockheed Martin vice president and general manager, C-130 Programs, in a Lockheed Martin Aeronautics Company press release. “The C-130 remains the world’s most proven airlifter because of its ability to adapt, remain relevant and deliver results no matter the mission.”

The C-130 is the most modified aircraft in the Air Force, with multiple variants and hundreds of configurations, according to the AMC Historian Office. The C-130 is used for airlift, aeromedical missions, personnel and cargo airdrop, natural disaster relief missions, Antarctic resupply to the National Science

Foundation, weather reconnaissance, aerial spray missions and firefighting duties for the U.S. Forest Service. The C-130 can airlift 92 ground troops, 64 fully-equipped para-troopers, 74 litter patients or 45,000 pounds of cargo.

The C-130J, which is the latest version of the venerable platform, was introduced in February 1999.

By Staff Sergeant Amber R. Kelly-Herard

Privately Owned Vehicle Shipping

Contract Concerns

60 Big Ones


The United States military and its industry partners are charged with maintaining and overhauling a wide range of engines installed on aircraft and ground vehicles. The costs associated with these opera-tions put a strain on defense budgets and an effort has been underway to reduce maintenance costs and enhance the longevity of engines.

Advances in engine maintenance actually begin with engine design. Today’s engines are increasingly modular, allowing maintain-ers to repair or replace individual modules when they go bad without having to deal with the entire system (see sidebar).

Best practices have emerged that are applicable to many, if not all, military engines. Foremost is to follow the lead of commercial operators. These companies lead the military in this area, and their maintenance practices are often applicable to the mili-tary sphere. Many partnerships have evolved between military and commercial entities through which com-mercial maintenance practices are applied to the mili-tary environment.

Among the commercial best practices adopted by the military is performing condition-based mainte-nance. That means being proactive in averting unex-pected maintenance events, rather than hauling an engine into a depot after it is already far gone. The collection and analysis of engine sensor data provide clues about when an engine should be proactively maintained.

Tailoring the scope of maintenance work to a particular engine, instead of following standard proce-dures for all engines, also has the effect of streamlining maintenance processes. Innovative facilities layouts, investments in precision machining equipment, and the reclamation of used parts all serve to reduce main-tenance costs while extending the useful life of the engine and its parts.

“We are seeing a shift from reactive maintenance to a philosophy of condition-based maintenance,” said Andy Foote, an engineer at Alion Science & Technol-ogy. “Every vehicle today has some sort of sensor network in it. The ability to pull diagnostic information out of the engine helps maintain-ers do their jobs better.” Alion has worked on technical prognostics monitors for Air Force airborne platforms and for Marine Corps ground vehicles.

“Military practices lag behind commercial practices,” said Amy Gowder, vice president and general manager of Lockheed Martin Commercial Engine Solutions. “The military has begun to take into

account aircraft operating conditions when determining the mainte-nance required, as has been the case in the commercial arena for some time. The military has recently begun to access the

serviceable materials market, which offers rebuilt and remanufac-tured parts as replacements. Commerical operators have been using it for some time. Since many military aircraft are commercial aircraft derivatives, there are big opportunities for costs savings in that area.”

The partnership between the Anniston Army Depot and Honey-well exemplifies the benefits of maintenance partnerships. Anniston’s skilled government labor puts in millions of hours per year maintain-ing and overhauling Honeywell’s AGT 1500 engine on the M1 Abrams and the T55 engine on the Chinook.

“Much of our equipment has close ties to the com-mercial market,” said Tom Hart, lead for technical sales at Honeywell Defense and Space. “Our philosophy of engine maintenance is to take commercial best prac-tices and apply them to the military.”

“They are the supply chain manager,” said Chris Williams, chief of Anniston’s turbine drive train

division. “They manage all the unit parts and pro-vide some engineering support. Government employ-ees test the parts and disassemble and reassemble the engines.”

In 2005, Honeywell initiated the Total Inte-Grated Engine Revitalization (TIGER) program for the AGT1500 engine, providing improved readiness and reduced operating and support costs. Honeywell’s Fact-Based Maintenance (FBM) data collection system accesses an engine-mounted memory unit to collect engine performance data, enabling identification of opportunities for future engine improvements.

“The FBM records how long an engine has run and at what temperatures and conditions,” said Hart. “With that information we are able to tailor the work scope for a specific engine instead of doing a general overhaul. TIGER has doubled the historical durability

of the engine over the past eight years.”“Not all engines that come back to the depot require a complete

overhaul,” said Williams. “We make the necessary repairs at much lower costs than a complete overhaul.”

Lockheed Martin operates two aircraft maintenance facilities in San Antonio and Montreal. “San Antonio was traditionally a military site and Montreal was a commercial facility,” said Gowder. “Now we operate as a blended model. We have recently applied the tailoring

Stronger and more technologically advanced engineS are powering the force.

amy Gowder

andy Foote

By peter BuxBaum, mlf correSpondent

www.MLF-kmi.com MLF 8.8 | 7

of work scopes, a best practice we got out of the Montreal shop, to military aircraft. The environment the engine has been working in, whether it is cold or in the desert, effects wear and tear on engines. We [have been] finding lots of savings by doing more customized work scopes in the commercial world for quite a while and this represents an opportunity to the military as well.” Among the military engines Lockheed Martin services are the F110 on the F-15 and F-16, the F118 on the U-2, and the T56 on the C-130 and the P-3.

Pratt & Whitney, a manufacturer of a wide variety of aircraft engines, plays different maintenance roles depending on the require-ments of individual programs. “We are involved in sustaining engi-neering across the waterfront,” said Mark Buongiorno, a business development director. “We work with the armed services to under-stand reliability and maintainability practices. We monitor flight safety field work and performance with them to maintain airworthiness across the board.”

The company is also heavily involved in supply chain manage-ment. “We do everything from filling orders for spare parts to forecast-ing to produce guaranteed material maintainability,” said Buongiorno. “At the highest level we guarantee engine availability. We coordinate all maintenance on engines and make sure always there are spares available when they are needed. We enter into agreements with mili-tary organizations that capitalize on their strengths and ours to pro-vide the best support possible at the lowest cost.” Pratt & Whitney has a partnership with the depot at Tinker Air Force Base in Oklahoma for maintaining the F117 engine, which powers the C-17, and the F119 engine, which powers the F-22 Raptor.

Performance-based logistics (PBLs), long-term logistics support contracts based on incentives to achieve specific performance goals, “have been game-changers in terms of readiness and the reduction of maintenance costs for the fleet,” said Andy Morgan-thaler, a senior marketing manager at GE Aviation. “PBLs for maintaining F414 and F404 engines have been in existence for over 10 years and have proven themselves out by dramatically improving readiness and lowering costs.” The PBLs in question are agree-ments between GE Aviation and the Navy’s Fleet Readi-ness Center Southeast in Jacksonville, Fla., and cover depot management and parts availability.

“The programs have been recognized as contribut-ing to cost avoidance of $110.2 million,” said Morgan-thaler. “Material availability has been above 95 percent. The service life of the hot sections of F414 engines has been tripled from 2,000 hours to 6,000 hours.”

Truck engines are now routinely equipped with networks of sensors. “The data collected from these [sensors] is increasingly being used for diagnostics and prognostics,” said Mike Ivy, vice president for global integrated product support at Oshkosh Defense. “The military is becoming more savvy in this area and is tap-ping into this data more and more.” Oshkosh Defense produces a range of wheeled tactical vehicles for the U.S. Army, including the heavy expanded mobility tacti-cal truck, heavy equipment transporter and the family of medium tactical vehicles.

“Data collected from operational engines and through the maintenance process helps to proactively

manage the fleet, especially with PBL programs,” said Buongiorno. “PBLs include incentives to reduce maintenance costs. Combining diagnostics with an understanding of how to effect outcomes yields the ability to do proactive maintenance.”

In one case, Pratt & Whitney designed an upgrade for an engine component that was responsible for a good deal of maintenance costs. The component was replaced when the aircraft came in for other work. “In that way,” said Buongiorno, “we were able to reduce unscheduled future maintenance and aircraft down time.”

The gap between collecting engine data and the ultimate maintenance decisions deriving from that data comes from software of the kind designed by Alion Science & Technology. “At some point, a decision has to be made based on the trending analysis when to per-form maintenance,” said Foote. Alion has developed a Web-based software tool that summarizes engine data to provide decision support.

Advanced information tools are also being used to plan for the obsolescence of engine parts and compo-nents. Obsolescence occurs when a manufacturer goes out of business or is no longer manufacturing or sup-porting a particular product.

BAE Systems developed a Web tool called Advanced Component Obsolescence Management (AVCOM) in the 1990s that forecasts when a part will become obso-lete. AVCOM accomplishes this task with its access to an obsolescence management database including over 100 million parts.

“Users get notifications about when specific parts are going to become obsolete,” said Roger Ogilvie, vice president and general manager for mission support at BAE Systems. “AVCOM takes the surprise out of obsolescence management and enables our customers to make smarter decisions, whether that is to stock up on a part or to look for alternatives.”

In 2012, BAE Systems added an Integrated Logis-tics Support Management System (ILSMS) to AVCOM. ILSMS provides suggested solutions to obsolescence problems. “All this improves the availability of fleets,”

Mark Buongiorno

andy Morganthaler

Mike ivy

The data collected from embedded sensors is increasingly being used for diagnostics and prognostics. [Photo courtesy of Oshkosh Defense]


said Ogilvie. AVCOM and ILSMS have been used by Navy and Air Force jet engine maintenance programs.

The recent and ongoing conflicts in Afghanistan and Iraq have been challenging to the operation of Pratt & Whitney’s turbine engines, noted Buongiorno, which led the company to investigate analytic and modeling tools and technologies that would increase engine time on wing. “We adapted technologies being developed for the joint strike fighter,” he said, “and applied them to our current engines. We believe we can extend the life of the F110 engine by nearly 50 percent and eliminate one in three depot overhauls through new developments in model-ing and analysis of data. That translates to close to a 30 percent reduction in maintenance costs over the engine’s life cycle, which is a significant benefit to our customers.”

Honeywell’s Health and Usage Monitoring System (HUMS) has been installed on Apache, Kiowa and Chi-nook helicopters and has since also been adapted to fixed-wing aircraft. “The technology monitors engine vibrations,” said Hart. “We are able to recognize prob-lems by detecting vibration anomalie signals.”

Honeywell has recently integrated HUMS with satellite communications. “Now HUMS can transmit information on exigencies the aircraft might be experi-encing while the aircraft is in service, and maintainers can get information on aircraft issues before it lands,” said Hart. The STACOM system is available in the com-mercial marketplace but not yet for military systems.

StandardAero, a company that performs maintenance on a vari-ety of military engines for the Air Force, Navy and Coast Guard, has designed its facility to increase the efficiency and reduce the costs of maintenance processes. “Our facility in San Antonio is unique,” said Dan Gonzales, the company’s vice president for business develop-ment, “because it is aligned in a cellular concept. Traditional facilities segregate their shops, such as paint shops and welding shops, by function. We keep the aircraft in one location and route equipment and parts to where they are needed. This significantly reduces engine overhaul time.”

The StandardAero facility was also designed to eliminate the discharge of chemicals and water. “Every ounce of fuel is captured, measured and disposed of through a third-party environmental orga-

nization,” said Gonzales. “For that reason we have been able to reduce the amount of water consumed by 99 percent and have also seen a huge reduction in chemical usage.” The facility uses a closed loop for water and chemicals that routes the fluids to treatment facilities.

Precision machining of parts is one activity that Anniston Army Depot excels in. This has the effect of being able to reclaim used parts and install them flawlessly in over-hauled engines.

“One thing that makes a depot a depot is the reclamation process,” said Doug Turner, a supervisor at Anniston’s reciprocating engine disassembly area. “Instead of putting in all new parts, which would cost more, we reclaim them and bring them back to like-new condition. We are often able to repair cracks in shafts or housings instead of buying a brand new one.”

The Navy’s Fleet Readiness Center Southeast in Jacksonville, Fla. does precision machining during the process of overhauling F404 and F414 engines from the Navy’s F18 Hornet and Super Hornets and the TF34 engine from the Air Force’s A-10 Warthog, among others. “We can machine parts to the fourth decimal point,” said Donald Dunlap, the director of fleet readiness. “This is key to keeping time on wing and helping performance.”

Lockheed Martin has also invested in high-speed grinders that use software to provide tight matching among engine components. “You get more power of the engine with that kind of accuracy,” said Gowder.

That the Department of Defense is seeking to reduce overall program costs by shrinking life cycle costs has become evident in the Army’s ongoing development of a joint light tacti-cal vehicle, the eventual replacement for the HMMWV. “The Army made life cycle costs part of the evaluation criteria,” said Ivy. “That is something we have not seen before. Our defense customer is becoming more aware of life cycle costs as a very large component of overall program costs and is evaluating these costs carefully at the front end.” O

“Navy aircraft engines are modular these days,” said Donald Dunlap, fleet readiness director at the Fleet Readiness Center Southeast in Jacksonville, Fla. “This contributes to the ease of maintenance and lowers maintenance costs.”

“All of our engines have some degree of modularity,” said Andy Morganthaler, a senior marketing manager at GE Aviation. “That means that subcomponents in the engine can be easily replaced in the field instead of having to send back the entire engine to the depot to be repaired. This reduces transportation and storage costs

over the life of a program.” GE Aviation makes the T700 engine on the Black Hawk and Apache helicopters; the F414 and F404, which power the F-18 and enhanced F-18; and the F110, which is installed on F-15 and F-16 fighters.

Ground vehicles are also being designed for ease of maintenance. “One of the simplest and best things we can do is provide maintainers easy access to the engine,” said Mike Ivy, vice president for global integrated product support at Oshkosh Defense. “When you start hanging many components on an engine like large

alternators, the engine can get buried. Easy access to the engine facilitates preventative maintenance checks and reduces life cycle costs.”

Technology is playing a big role in the quest to reduce maintenance and increase performance, according to Dunlap. “The biggest change we have seen in recent years is the deployment of full authority digital engine controls,” he said. “FADECs receive feedback within milliseconds and adjust engine processes to keep them as efficient as possible. Engines that think for them-selves—that is the direction we are headed.”

For more information, contact Editor-in-Chief Jeff McKaughan at [email protected] or search our online archives for related stories

at www.mlf-kmi.com.

Dan Gonzales

Donald Dunlap

Smart Engines


As a strategy for providing cost-effective aircraft and weapon systems support, performance-based logistics (PBL) enables Depart-ment of Defense agencies to receive performance outcomes based on specific, pre-determined metrics for a product or service.

Officials from three publicly-traded defense contractors argued that short-term contracts can impede the innovation and cost-saving potential of PBL. They also said that defining the parameters in a PBL that impact a military organization’s mission and ensuring that these are fully within the control of the PBL provider are key to implement-ing an effective PBL.

Another challenge to PBLs, according to vendors, is that their key champions tend not to be military service officials, but rather officials at organizations such as the Defense Logistics Agency (DLA) and the Pentagon. Therefore, those who champion PBLs and write logistics procurement policy favoring it lack some necessary clout in enforcing policy.

During the last several years, Dale Winstead, SAIC’s general man-ager of logistics and supply chain in San Diego, said that he’s seen a decreased use of PBL in DoD. But rumors of the death of PBLs are just rumors. His company has many performance-based contracts with the DLA, including a number with incentives and disincentives.

At the three-day National Defense Industry Association (NDIA) National Logistics Forum in April, Winstead heard numerous government offi-cials—including Frank Kendall, deputy undersecretary of defense for acquisition, technology and logistics, who has served in his position since May 2012—reaffirm their commit-ment to PBLs in Washington.

“We were happy to hear this and as a participant in this industry, we embrace PBLs and desire contractual relationships with our military customers to be fashioned on PBL terms,” Winstead said. A former nuclear submarine officer who served on active duty for 10 years at the end of the Cold War, he has worked at SAIC for 24 years.

“The big advantages to PBLs are using commercial practices to maintain and support aircraft,” said Pam Carter, vice president of business development for Boeing Global Services and Support in St. Louis, Mo. “There’s an economy of scale to be achieved through PBLs, and industry can provide the services more efficiently. You get more for less.”

Benjamin Ertel, lead associate with Booz Allen Hamilton of McLean, Va., agreed that PBLs can optimize the availability of weapons systems to meet military requirements. He sees the same principle long-used in information technology, with service-level agreements offered by systems integrators in exchange for a cost per seat or perhaps a software licensing fee.

Dean Barnes, a director in General Dynamics Information Tech-nology’s Intelligence Solutions Division, said his company is starting

to see PBL carry over into their areas. “The IT industry is a good exam-ple,” he said. “Network up times, down times, mean time to repair, mean time between operational mission failures are all examples of performance metrics that can be applied to almost any maintenance/logistical area.”

“While no one metric may be more important than another, when compiled they all become meaningful and measureable indicators that allow for better business and operational decisions,” Barnes said.

It appears that in the early 2000s, when PBLs first grew in popu-larity in the U.S. military according to Ertel, government managers did not think clearly through the roles and responsibilities of vendors as opposed to those of the government, wholeheartedly handing over total systems support functions to major original equipment manufac-turers and systems integrators.

“Now, the government is thinking it through more strategically and coming up with tailor-made performance metrics,” Ertel said. “There is a lot of hard thinking-through of roles and responsibilities,” he said. Ertel finds this development very encouraging.

“PBLs require solid, collaborative relationships between system owner and support provider. There is no room for an us and them relationship. For PBLs to be truly successful, there must only be one

team,” Barnes said. During the last five to six years,

Ertel has seen an increased use of public-private partnerships in perfor-mance-based contracting by the gov-ernment; this increase makes sense, since PBL is designed to cultivate the best features of an organic govern-ment workforce and the outsourced services provided by vendors.

“The government is finding there are some inherent government responsibilities” with performance-based contracting, Ertel said. He has worked at Booz Allen Hamilton since 2000 and focuses his work on Army C4ISR and logistics.

There are more advantages to PBLs, according Winstead. “The cus-tomer defines what is truly important to their mission, and the provider, whether organic or integrated, is free to bring to bear the best of their skills, technologies and know-how to

achieve that performance. “In the case of PBLs, that means that warfighters’ weapons

and support systems are available more and operate more reliably,” Winstead continued. Since the service provider is free to choose the best approach to meet the customer’s goals by gaining efficiencies, it is possible for a contract provider to achieve greater profitability

performance-BaSed logiSticS hitS a mid-life criSiS.

Challenging PBLs

Pam CarterDale Winstead

Benjamin ertel

By william murray, mlf correSpondent


through PBL and for the organic provider to save money, according to Winstead.

“To quote General George S. Patton, ‘Never tell people how to do things. Tell them what needs to be done, and they will surprise you with their ingenuity,’” Barnes said. He thinks the military benefits greatly from PBLs through improved support performance through competition and innovation. “Under a PBL, the system owner speci-fies the goals and or desired outcomes, and the product support pro-vider is measured according to how well it succeeds in delivering those outcomes,” Barnes said. “PBLs give the military a means to get greater performance at a lower cost. This is especially true on systems that have significant history, processes, and procedures where much of the cost is known. For contracted support, the combination of firm fixed price and PBL can be very beneficial for both industry and the military,” he said. “Additionally, PBLs often result in reduced acquisi-tion time and oversight because the military is buying an outcome versus a specific service.”

A retired Air Force colonel who served on active duty for 26 years, Carter has worked at Boeing for 10 years. She worked in aircraft maintenance and achieved a Level 4 logistics certification. Her com-pany tends to provide PBLs for its aircraft and any platforms it has manufactured. “We give a lifestyle sustainment view from the (start of manufacturing) to the graveyard,” Carter said.

turf BattleS in dod Supply depotS

One pitfall of PBLs is that military leaders “largely want to keep what they regard as theirs,” Carter said. Some military leaders tend to be protective of the workforce in a supply depot and the established workflow, regardless of any overarching Department of Defense policy favoring PBLs.

“The champions (of PBLs) are usually not from the services,” Carter said. “They can write policy but not enforce it.” This reality limits the effectiveness of the policy. PBLs received an initial promi-nent mention in the Quadrennial Defense Review of 2001 in response to increased costs in maintaining weapons systems and reduced readi-ness and operational reliability.

Well-established instruments or parameters that commercial providers get evaluated on in PBL contracts include the rate of avail-ability of products, order fulfillment or fill rates, logistics response times, and mean time between failures.

“They don’t tell you how to do it: that’s the beauty of PBLs,” Carter said.

“PBLs give contractors more latitude in how best to accomplish a target,” Ertel agreed. “More fees or profit is possible if they hit the target,” which appeals to a company’s profit motive, he said.

“Companies can innovate, and they’re not locked into a gov-ernment process” to achieve the goals, Ertel said. “Once there are constraints that you have to think about, it makes achieving the goal efficiently more difficult,” he said. “(Vendors) need to have the control necessary to deliver on the performance metrics” for PBLs to work well, Ertel said. He argued that configuration changes to equipment in a PBL are necessary for success.

changeS afoot with pBlS

As a result of U.S. troop drawdowns in Afghanistan and Iraq, to Carter it is evident that “(PBLs are) going to change, but might change for the better.” It’s possible in some DoD supply depots that

military leaders will decide to do all work through the depot’s work-force, as opposed to considering a vendor for outsourcing.

PBLs are ideally long-term arrangements at least five years in duration, although the optimal duration is 10 years, according to Winstead, since such contracts give the commercial provider suf-ficient incentive to invest in efficiencies that will eventually provide a payback. Such efforts to invest in efficiencies encourage innovation, which tends to benefit follow-on efforts and other platforms, accord-ing to Winstead.

“For example, an unreliable part on a platform is a sustainment cost driver,” Winstead said. He stated that with a long enough con-tractual period, a PBL provider might invest in designing a better part which would be more reliable and therefore save in sustainment costs. “The military benefits from a more reliable, cost-effective design.

“Recently, our military customers have shied away from long-term contracts,” Winstead said, but he noted at the April NDIA forum that he heard that there may be more willingness from DoD organiza-tions to explore long-term PBL contracts.

Winstead surmised that part of the reason why PBLs have fallen out of favor in some military organizations is that some PBL param-eters are being specified under contract that are not completely within the control of the PBL provider. Such scenarios can result in distractions from the contractual performance or contractual dis-putes, according to Winstead.

“I see PBLs growing but taking a different role,” Ertel said. Rather than taking on large tasks, he sees service providers taking on very specific, specialized roles, such as high-level systems analytics for weapons systems component availability. “I don’t see as many large-scale, pay-by-the-hour PBLs,” Ertel said.

Carter pointed out that foreign militaries appear more willing to sign long-term PBL agreements, which enables them to realize more advantages. It is unclear if the Federal Acquisition Regulation would allow long-term contracts of 10 years or greater because of the going need to foster competition and get the best rates for government agencies.

It appears that some military leaders are building upon earlier experience with performance-based contracts, which is encourag-ing to one vendor. “The guidelines provided in the PBL Guidebook issued by the Department of Defense last May match our experience,” Winstead said. “It is a powerful reference for the military and their contractors to properly implement performance-based logistics.”

“Risk is a big factor for the contractor in a (firm fixed price/performance-based acquisition) environment,” Barnes said. “How-ever, when a strong collaborative relationship between the (systems owner) and product support provider exists, the risk will be lowered for both parties. Because PBLs are based on performance data, it is important that the data collected is meaningful and measurable and that the military and provider are able to act on it. Providers can only be as good as the information they have,” including equipment failure rates, delay areas, and equipment sparing, “Additionally, there is a need for end-to-end visibility into the logistics and maintenance cycle for the program. For those not accustomed to operating in a PBL environment, start-up costs can be a factor. O


at www.mlf-kmi.com.


Whether for naval vessels, military air-craft or a myriad of other platforms, systems and components, industry is working with the Department of Defense to take a harder look at life cycle considerations in their con-tracts and building those same efficiencies into legacy systems.

“Things are lasting longer, right?” asked Roger Ogilvie, vice president and general manager of mission support at contractor BAE Systems. “So life cycle tails are getting longer than they have ever expected to be. We are seeing customers that are suddenly taking a lot more interest in sustainment of products, and the cost that’s associated with that.”

However, improving life cycle perfor-mance has taken on a different look at differ-ent companies, which often employ varying approaches to reach that goal.

One key method at BAE Systems, for instance, has involved deploying a software tool known as AVCOM—Advanced Compo-nent Obsolescence Management.

“It’s an evolving software tool that we began supporting the Air Force [with] in 1991. We support a majority of their weapon systems—primarily aircraft. In addition to the Air Force, it’s also grown into being used by the Army. It’s also used internally within BAE, and most recently on a large contract we had sup-porting the ICBM missile sus-tainment for the Air Force,” Ogilvie said.

AVCOM provides a large database which supports many different components and subsystems, he explained.

“If you think about a fighter aircraft, it’s wrapped in a metal skin. But within that skin, you’ve got several subassemblies,

subsystems, avionics, weapons, the rest of it. What AVCOM does is take each of those subsystems, break them down to individual boxes, individual cards, and then individual components. What you’re doing is then load-ing that information into this tool. What the tool’s providing you is look-ahead informa-tion on obsolescence of any of those compo-nents, either down to the component level, the board level or the box level.

“What the Air Force likes about it is it’s completely automated—it’s a single database across all of their assets as far as aircraft [goes]. For every system you add to it, it benefits all of the other systems that could potentially use that part or that component. … In the past, the Air Force tracked all that stuff manually. Prior to our tool coming in, this [tracking] was always a manual effort on their part.”

The Air Force tracks metrics related to the use of AVCOM versus manual effort, and during this year to-date, AVCOM has saved almost 1.5 million man-hours in obsoles-cence management, Ogilvie said.

“The larger benefit to the product is really what it pro-vides you for increased time in making decisions,” he said. “I can see further down the road if I’m managing these [systems]. Anything that’s a surprise always costs more money in the life cycle chain for any product. With this tool, you get advanced warn-ing far in advance of anything

else you could do and you eliminate those surprises.”

analySiS and data

Wisconsin-based Oshkosh Defense has been implementing life cycle analysis and

building in efficiencies in a number of its contracts with the Pentagon, including the P-19R aircraft rescue fire fighting vehicle, M-ATV family of vehicles, and the Family of Medium Tactical Vehicles (FMTV) pro-grams, according to Mike Ivy, the company’s vice president, global integrated product support.

“P-19 is a new program where we are contracted to perform a full life cycle analy-sis. M-ATV is a legacy program where we had the opportunity to perform a full life cycle analysis and refine their support plan and improve the companion data,” he said. “As part of the life cycle analysis, a level of repair analysis is performed to examine different types of support solutions leveraging exist-ing product and logistics data. A dashboard is created to display this information and used as an interactive tool to determine the most cost-effective and feasible support solution.”

Oshkosh is executing life cycle analysis on P-19 and M-ATV, and has completed the analysis on an FMTV contract, Ivy said.

“We are able to work hand in hand with the government and use factual data to make decisions that create consistency to the vehicle platform’s maintenance phi-losophy,” he said. “Based on factual analysis, service assemblies and kits are identified and introduced into the government’s procure-ment system to assist in executing the sup-port plans that are aligned to that developed maintenance philosophy. This equates to a smaller, more meaningful maintenance manual for the users.

“Our data is robust and substantiated, which allows both Oshkosh and the govern-ment to simulate different levels of main-tenance and support options while being aware of the life cycle cost impact,” he added.

That legacy systems were developed under a prior methodology which was spe-cific to a program’s maintenance philosophy

By Scott nance

mlf correSpondent

Life Cycle Efficiencies

Mike ivy

Squeezing the moSt out of every inveStment.


is a top challenge to helping the DoD look at life cycle considerations and build the same efficiencies into them, Ivy said.

“As the standards in the tactical wheeled vehicle industry mature, it requires break-ing historical maintenance philosophy ties to align all programs under the industry standard,” he said.

reducing Staff and fuel conSumption

For Mobile, Ala.-based shipbuilder Austal USA, building life cycle efficiencies with the U.S. Navy often involves a financial balanc-ing act, according to Terry O’Brien, the company’s vice president of business devel-opment and external affairs.

“When you talk about life cycle for the Navy program manager, particularly, the Navy has to balance the acquisition cost in the present with future sav-ings. … I think that is at the core of the argument for the service, and they need to be able to balance that,” he said.

“If they run low on maintenance funding, ships are not maintained at the rate that they were designed [to be], so that can start rais-ing maintenance costs. That throws another factor into the equation,” he added.

Austal focuses on con-trolling the top two factors that drive the life cycle cost of a ship: personnel salaries and fuel costs, O’Brien said.

“From the builder’s per-spective, up front, we try to go in there with that under-standing, and—if we’re building a new design—[the knowledge of] how we can factor in to do more with fewer people,” he said. “And, then, obviously, fuel efficiency. Can we provide a power plant and a ship that runs much more efficiently than ones that have in the past because we understand those two are the [cost] drivers?”

Austal USA is building both the joint high-speed vessel (JHSV) and one of the variants of the littoral combat ship (LCS) for the U.S. Navy.

Intended as a transport platform in col-laboration with the U.S. Army, the JHSV has a crew of 25, while the LCS class of surface combatants has a crew between 60 to 90,

depending on mission packages and other factors, O’Brien said.

“That’s a little bit different than a 200 or 250[-person] crew of a frigate. Going in, we knew that we would have to help the Navy reduce manning by design. What do I mean by that? Obviously, automation plays a big piece of it. Your firefighting systems, things that people do that they may not have to do—we could have other systems do [these things] automatically,” he said.

With its vendors, Austal looks for ways to design in automation or design out some duplicative systems and over-redundancy on the ships, O’Brien said.

“If you took a Spruance-class destroyer, for instance, which underwent several upgrades during its 30-year life, the manning on the ship changed. As they added more sys-tems and other things, you obviously needed more operators—and equally as important,

more maintainers. That has to be managed through the life of the ship as well,” he said. “The builder, at the front end, tries to make the seaframe—and all of the systems—as efficient as possible from a manpower perspective because we realize that is the Navy’s biggest cost.

“…Then throughout the life cycle of the ship as it’s upgraded, as people make deci-sions, that factors in: Is this going to add more crew to the ship? Will this take crew off? Will it remain the same?” he added. “As you upgrade and get further in the 25- or 30-year service life of a ship, are there things you can do during maintenance cycles to come in and maybe reduce manning? Because if you take a couple, three, four, five people off per

ship, it can be impactful in a positive way to reduce your manpower cost.”

The other key goal for Austal is to reduce fuel consumption.

“For Austal, particularly, the JHSV and the LCS are lightweight compared to a steel platform, so they are more fuel-efficient,” O’Brien said. “So any ship that can be made more fuel-efficient—either from the initial design or through the life of the ship through various upgrades or technology insertions, if you can come in and reduce the fuel con-sumption on the ship—those have immedi-ate savings.”

maintaining aircraft more like commercial cuStomerS

At Savannah, Ga.-based Gulfstream Aero-space, the goal of improving life cycle per-formance means helping the U.S. military maintain “their airplanes, more and more, in the way that our commercial customers maintain their airplanes,” said Lee Logan, the company’s government programs strate-gies manager.

“We have established an enormous infra-structure to assist them in doing that,” he said. “We began to focus, two decades ago or so, on not only perfecting the aircraft but perfecting the delivery of product support, which is our term for service on the aircraft after” initial delivery.

For instance, Gulfstream Aerospace oper-ates more than 20 maintenance sites around the world, Logan said.

“We have the single-largest dedicated business jet service center in the world,” he said. “We have a parts-delivery system that’s second to none. We have technicians that actually fly on our own airplanes to where you need them. We bring parts to where you need them. We bring them in our own airplane if we can’t get them to you any other way, on your schedule.”

Gulfstream Aerospace is working to get the U.S. military to begin to embrace some of that—along with using the company’s busi-ness jets themselves “whenever the airplane design and its performance happens to fit their mission,” Logan said.

“We don’t build F-16s or F-15s or F-22s, but occasionally, an aircraft with the kind of performance of the Gulfstream or any other typical business jet becomes a very good choice as a commercial, off-the-shelf aircraft,” he said.

That includes, for instance, what Logan called the “VIP fleet,” which flies out of Joint Base Andrews near Washington, D.C. and other locations. The company makes some minor modifications to enhance onboard communications, “but otherwise, if you walked into one, it would look very much like one of our commercial aircraft,” he said.

Those planes ferry senior administration officials, top military staff and members of Congress on their official travel, he said. O


at www.mlf-kmi.com.

lee logan

terry o’Brien


Compiled by KMI Media Group staffSUPPLY CHAIN

Traditionally, U.S. mili-tary bases have relied on costly permanent bunkers or “stick-built” structures to securely store weapons and ammunition. But most of these are WWII-era bunkers and were not constructed to fit today’s equipment and weaponry. “War in the last 12 years has brought a new line of equipment, but facili-ties built in the 1950s and 1960s—and that’s the norm in many states—can’t support it,” said retired Major General Gus Hargett, president of the National Guard Association of the United States and the former adjutant general of Tennessee.

“In this fiscal environment, state facility managers will have to get creative and look beyond permanent, brick-and-mortar solutions to find more storage space,” said Hargett. “One promising approach is to consider portable, modular weapons and storage vaults over perma-nent structures. Their cost, portability and ease of installation could be attractive for years to come.”

Portable, modular Armag vaults, custom-manufactured by Bardstown, Ky.-based Armag Corporation, are approved for ammu-nition and weapons storage by all branches of the U.S. military in accordance with DoD 5100.76M, AR190-11, and OPNAVINST 5530.13C. The company, a U.S. Federal Contractor Verified Vendor, is

recognized by the U.S. mili-tary as an authority in highly secure, modular buildings, and served as a consultant to the U.S. Navy in developing the Type 2 specification for explosives storage.

“Significant advances in portable, modular weapons storage vaults, including the ability to customize them to a variety of needs and locales, are making them an attrac-tive option over permanent

structures for facility managers,” said Hargett.“Portable, modular weapon and ammunition storage vaults

can be engineered for extreme environments, including hurricane winds and extreme heat and cold,” added Paul Haydon, president of Armag Corp. “They have been used in the Afghanistan desert, which reaches 120 degrees Fahrenheit, and northern Canada and Alaska, where temperatures can drop to -50 degrees Fahrenheit for months.”

Multiplex, multi-compartment storage vaults for modular weapons and ammunition storage can range in size from 200 to 10,000 square feet. These modular multiplexes can be connected in several pieces with open sides where they join. They can offer options from spark-resistant shelving to explosion-resistant lights, AC, heating, ventilation and humidity control.

Boeing and Corpus Christi Army Depot (CCAD) are celebrating 10 years of partnering on the repair and overhaul of U.S. Army AH-64 Apache and CH-47 Chinook helicopters.

The public-private partnership ensures aircraft readiness and avail-ability by supporting the overhaul of complex parts such as transmissions and gear boxes serviced at the depot.

“Our relationship with CCAD is a true partnership where we share best practices that create significant improvements in cost, repair turnaround time and surplus inventory,” said Tim Sassenrath, vice president and program manager for Boeing Rotorcraft Support. “We bring the breadth of Boeing’s resources to ensure the partnership meets the customer’s needs,

and we look forward to continuing our successful legacy of supporting the warfighter.”

The partnership, begun in 2004, capitalizes on Boeing’s expertise in logistics, engineering and material management. During the past 10 years, surplus inventory has decreased from $90 million to less than $30 million and throughput at the depot has improved by 50 percent.

“Being on-site with our customer provides Boeing the agility and flex-ibility to adjust to emerging requirements from supporting routine main-tenance to the unscheduled repairs of battle-damaged aircraft,” said Lisa Stuart, program manager and Boeing site lead at CCAD. “We both benefit from the partnership.

“We are excited to be expanding our foot-print in Kosovo, where we have supported the U.S. Army and other customers for several years,” said Chris Bernhardt, DynCorp International (DI) president and acting vice president, DynLogistics. “We look forward to

continuing our strong partnership with NATO Kosovo Forces.”

DI team members will provide services including repair and maintenance of Motorola land mobile radio equipment, transmis-sion systems and airfield electronics including

handheld accessories, base, and mobile acces-sories equipment to include remote repeater sites.

DI has supported Kosovo Forces and the North Atlantic Treaty Organization since 2007, providing a variety of services including mentoring, avia-tion maintenance and base support.

Radio Maintenance and Repair

Military Modular Weapons and Ammunition Storage

Military-Commercial Partnership Anniversary


Compiled by KMI Media Group staffSUPPLY CHAIN

Ten members of the Ohio Army National Guard’s 1483rd Transportation Company, Walbridge, Ohio, competed in the Ohio Trucking Association’s (OTA) Truck Driving Championship in June 2014. The state-level truck driving championships feed the American Trucking Association’s annual National Truck Driving Championship.

The 10 servicemembers competed in the first-ever mili-tary exhibition class, sponsored by the FedEx Corporation, and demonstrated their skills in pre-trip inspections, a written test and a driving skills challenge course. The 1483rd Transportation Company also set up a static display of a few pieces of military equipment for the public to see and interact with, providing them an opportunity to see just how similar some of our equipment is to civilian equipment.

The military exhibition class served a few purposes. The first was to expose the civilian companies and truck drivers to military equipment. This display was intended to help dispel the thought that our military equipment is too different from civilian equip-ment to qualify for years of experience when military drivers apply for civilian jobs. The second was to showcase the skills that our military drivers have. This provided the drivers an opportu-nity to demonstrate the capabilities of the equipment and show off their driving abilities.

The third purpose was to help start the interaction between military drivers and civilian companies that need good, qualified drivers. Current National Guard truck drivers, current U.S. Army Reserve truck drivers, and recently separated active duty truck drivers are a prime pool of candidates to help fill the looming driver shortage in civilian industry. This interaction provided the opportunity for civilian trucking company managers and recruiters to talk with military leadership and soldiers directly about the time requirement of soldiers with the National Guard, how much time away from the job they can expect, deployments, and other questions that might have been a roadblock preventing companies from hiring more currently-serving National Guard and Reserve soldiers.

In addition to talking about the drivers, the companies began asking about diesel technicians and specialty equipment techni-cians, all of which the National Guard and Reserves currently have. Five drivers walked away with possible job opportunities after the competition concluded. The next logical step is creating a similar partnership with the American Trucking Association’s Technology and Maintenance Council’s SuperTech competition to showcase the military maintainers that keep us moving.

Article by Robert Ahlers, former 1483rd Transportation Company commander.

[email protected]

Ohio Army National Guard Truck Drivers Compete in the Ohio Trucking

Association’s Truck Driving Championship

Halvorsen 25K Aircraft Cargo Loader Support

DRS Technologies Inc., a Finmeccanica Company, announced today that it will provide logistics support to the U.S. Air Force’s Halvorsen 25K Aircraft Cargo Loaders around the globe.

The Air Force awarded DRS Sustainment Systems Inc. a 10-year IDIQ contract valued at more than $175 million for depot-level overhaul, program engineering support and parts management in support of the aircraft cargo loader.

The Halvorsen is a highly versatile cargo loader and handler with a maximum payload capacity of 25,000 pounds of either palletized or rolling-stock cargo. The loader interfaces with all commercial and military cargo aircraft and can be airlifted by C-17, C-5 and C-130 aircraft or surface shipped via rail or flatbed truck. Currently, 443 U.S. Air Force Halvorsens are oper-ating at over 160 locations worldwide.

“The Air Force will benefit from the synergy of efforts by having both the Halvorsen and Tunner logis-tics programs residing with DRS,” said Joseph Matteoni, vice president/general manager of DRS Sustainment Systems Inc. “The opportunity to expand on our great relationship with the airmen in the field is paramount to us, and we look forward to providing world-class support throughout the life of the Halvorsen program.”

The work will be performed at DRS Sustainment Systems’ West Plains, Mo. manufacturing facility, where the company is currently overhauling numerous Tunner systems for the Air Force.


A next generation fighter takes a next generation engine.

Pratt & Whitney is the only company in the world delivering 5th generation fighter engines. Our F135 engine is powering the F-35 Lightning II today, and our decades of operational experience and technology have produced the most capable and reliable fighter engine ever. Ready today and for tomorrow’s challenge. See it for yourself at f135engine.com.

Client: Pratt & Whitney Military EnginesAd Title: CTOL Next GenerationPublication: Military Logistics Forum - SeptemberTrim: 8-3/8” x 10-7/8” • Bleed: 8-7/8” x 11-3/8” • Live: 1/4” inside trim

It’s in our power.™

28093_CTOL_NextGen_MilLogisticsForum.indd 1 8/29/14 11:13 AM

Major General Theresa C. Carter

CommanderAir Force Installation and Mission

Support Center (Provisional)

Effectiveness ImproverProvider of Installation and Expeditionary Support Activities

Q&AQ&A

Major General Theresa C. Carter serves as commander, Air Force Installation and Mission Support Center (Provisional), Joint Base Andrews, Md. She is responsible for establishing the Air Force Installation and Mission Support Center, the single intermediate-level headquarters providing installation and mission support capabilities to Air Force installations. Her duties include the devel-opment and execution of the Air Force Program Action Directive. This directive consolidates common installation and mission sup-port capabilities currently performed at 10 major commands and two direct reporting units into a single center headquarters and also realigns to the AFIMSC six installation support field operating agencies currently assigned to Headquarters Air Force.

Carter entered the Air Force in September 1985 as a distin-guished graduate of the Air Force Reserve Officer Training Corps program at Purdue University. A career civil engineer, she has served in a variety of positions at the base, major command and Air Staff levels, and commanded a civil engineer squadron, mission support group and two air base wings. Her contingency experience includes service in support of Operation Desert Shield and com-mand of a civil engineer unit in support of Operation Southern Watch. Prior to her current assignment, General Carter served as the Air Force Civil Engineer, where she was responsible for instal-lation support functions at 166 Air Force bases worldwide with an annual budget of more than $12 billion. She also commanded the 8,000-person 502nd Air Base Wing and Joint Base San Antonio, the largest joint base in the Department of Defense, which includes nearly 90,000 personnel and over 200 mission partners from all services and multiple DoD agencies. The wing provided installation support services for more than 380,000 military members, family members, veterans and retirees in the greater San Antonio area.

Her major awards and decorations include: Legion of Merit with three oak leaf clusters; Meritorious Service Medal with silver oak leaf cluster; Air Force Commendation Medal; Air Force Achieve-ment Medal with oak leaf cluster; Air Force Outstanding Unit Award with “V” device, seven oak leaf clusters; Air Force Recognition Rib-bon; and Military Outstanding Volunteer Service Medal.

Q: First, can you tell me a little bit about the reasons behind the creation of the Air Force Installation and Mission Support Center (AFIMSC)?

A: In 2013, Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel issued a directive calling for a 20 percent reduction in management headquarters

manpower and operating costs. The Air Force responded by con-ducting a comprehensive management headquarters review to identify programmatic options to reduce overhead costs, increase efficiencies, eliminate redundant activities, and improve effective-ness and business processes.

Regarding the proposal to create an AFIMSC, senior leaders asked a simple question—considering the Defense Secretary’s directive, is there a different, but effective and efficient way to man-age common, day-to-day installation support/base operating sup-port and expeditionary support capabilities … capabilities which are today provided by 10 major commands, two direct reporting units and multiple field operating agencies that report to the Headquar-ters Air Force staff?

Q: So, with this in mind, what functions and capabilities will reside in the AFIMSC?

A: The AFIMSC will serve as the Air Force’s single intermediate-level headquarters, which provides installation and expeditionary support activities in support of 77 major Air Force installations, 10 major commands and two direct reporting units. The AFIMSC will provide program management, resourcing and support for areas such as security forces, civil engineering, base communications, logistics readiness, services, installation ministry programs and operational contracting.


It will also serve as the parent organiza-tion for several field operating agencies: Air Force Installation Contracting Agency, Air Force Security Forces Center, Air Force Civil Engineer Center, Air Force Personnel Center Services Directorate, Air Force Financial Services Center and the Financial Manage-ment Center of Expertise, a part of the Air Force Cost Analysis Agency.

Q: Can you describe more specifically the changes military members might notice across different bases as this center consolidates capabilities?

A: We will work toward providing a standard level of service across all AF installations, no matter which major command they’re asso-ciated with. To date, each of our major com-mands could make different choices when it comes to resourcing their installations—choices driven by the size of their operations and maintenance budget, and balanced with competing mission priorities.

An added complexity is that more than 90 percent of our installations support mul-tiple mission partners in addition to the host wing.

So, for example, if an airman is assigned to an Air Education and Training Command (AETC) wing that resides on a base oper-ated by Air Force Materiel Command, they might see different levels of service and support than an airman assigned to an AETC unit located on an AETC base. The AFIMSC will help us establish a single, Air Force-wide standard of service, applied equitably across all installations and in accordance with the service’s priorities.

Q: As a follow-up to that question, how will AFIMSC affect the organizational reporting structures already in place?

A: The AFIMSC will not change reporting chains for installation commanders who lead what we call the “host” wing at each instal-lation. All host wings stay aligned to their existing parent major command.

What changes is who they will call for support and guidance in AFIMSC-related areas. Today they call their major command staff, and tomorrow they will call the AFIMSC.

Q: Certainly many of the changes happening within DoD are driven by tightened budgets. Does the creation of this center aim to eliminate positions, or will it really improve installation support?

A: While one of the driving forces behind this initiative is the DoD directive to reduce costs and management staff levels by at least 20 percent, it also allows the Air Force as a service to make the best use of the limited resources we have to operate and maintain our installations. Centralizing program management, resourcing and support in a single organization will allow us to look across the entire Air Force and determine best practices, determine appropriate levels of resourcing and support, and apply a consistent

standard for everything, from levels of service to career field educa-tion and training for our airmen.

Q: Why was AFIMSC chosen as a center that reports to AFMC?

A: The Air Force has 12 core functions that include areas such as rapid global mobility, air superiority and agile combat support. Our major commands serve as the “core function lead” and are responsible for integrating programming and planning inputs from all major commands in their core function area of respon-sibility. AFMC, as the core function lead for agile combat support, has responsibility for the five major capabilities that are part of agile combat support—field, base, protect, support and sustain our weapons systems and platforms.

Our installations are the power-projection platforms from which we conduct operations in air, space and cyberspace. Once the decision was made to consolidate installation and mission support capabilities into a center, it made sense to assign that center to the major command already providing programming and planning advocacy for these agile combat support functions.

Q: I understand the Army, Navy and Marine Corps have similar centralized installation support constructs—Installation Management Command, Navy Installations Command and Marine Corps Installations Command, respectively. What did you learn from their experience and is the Air Force model different or the same?

A: The Navy started its journey toward consolidated installation management in the early 1990s. It discovered during the 1988 round of base realignment and closure that it had significant disparities between its installations in the quantity and quality of services provided to sailors and their families. From those Navy

AFIMSC will serve as the intermediate-level headquarters providing installation and expeditionary support activities in 77 major Air Force installations, 10 major commands and two direct reporting units. [Photo courtesy of U.S. Air Force]


value THaT WORKS

:: Textiles and Apparel

:: Mission Support Services

:: AbilityOne Base Supply Centers

:: Commissaries and Exchanges

MAkE iT wOrk fOr yOu.

National Industries for the Blind and its network of nonprofit agencies are the nation’s largest employer of people who are blind.

An AbilityOne® authorized enterprise.

www.NIB.org/value1-877-438-5963

we deliver quality, mission-focused solutions whenever and wherever you need them. you create jobs for people who are blind while defending our nation’s freedom.

Robert Lambert produces uniforms at Blind Industries and Services of Maryland.

His mission is to support yours.

▶

lessons, we’ve learned that we must have uniform, established standards for our installations, and that we must not allow instal-lation commanders’ focus to be diverted from mission readiness to running installations.

Beginning in 1993, the Navy took a series of steps to consoli-date resources, program management and installation ownership, and today it has a single three-star command that serves as “the shore integrator to sustain the fleet, enable the fighter and support the family.”

The Army saw the same issues at its installations, and in 2002 created the Installation Management Agency led by a two-star general who reported to the assistant chief of staff for Installation Management. [This agency] ultimately evolved to the Installation Management Command, led by a three-star general, in 2006.

What were the benefits? The ability to track costs from a ser-vice-wide perspective allowed each service to more accurately know what it costs to operate its installations. When resource reductions were required, the Army and Navy were able to make decisions and apply the results equitably across the service.

For example, I saw that first-hand last summer after giving up command of Joint Base San Antonio and starting duties at the Pentagon as the Air Force Civil Engineer. DoD asked each of the services how they were handling the severe budget restrictions imposed by the Budget Control Act, or sequestration. The Army, Navy and Marine Corps were able to quickly respond and show where they reduced services across all of their installations. The Air Force had 77 unique answers, as each of our installations applied reductions differently.

As a two-time installation commander, I appreciate the desire to make decisions at a local level. Yet, when viewed from a service perspective, or from the perspective of an airman and his or her family moving from one base to another, the lack of standardization can be problematic. The other services have been great partners in discussing their lessons learned and we intend to continue the dialogue as we go forward.

Q: I noticed that AFIMSC includes both installation and mission support as part of its name. Is there any significance to including both terms?

A: One of the reasons why the Air Force has been reluctant to con-solidate these activities in the past is the unique way in which we provide installation and mission support activities, both at home station and in deployed locations around the world. Every day we have young airmen working side-by-side with talented civilians at our installations to service and support the various missions operating at the base. We do this in order to provide those airmen with the training and experience they need to deploy around the world when required to establish, open, operate, sustain and close forward operating locations. Operating installations and support-ing mission units are absolutely integral to how we operate on a daily basis in the Air Force, so it’s natural for AFIMSC to include those capabilities in its job jar.

I also had the opportunity to speak with senior leaders at every major command, and I asked them to define success for the AFIMSC. The most common measure of success was “responsive-ness,” followed closely by the admonition to “never forget that the mission comes first.” I felt strongly about including the mission in the title of the organization so that every time someone says the

name, thinks about the organization or writes down the acronym, they never forget we exist to support the missions that operate from our installations.

AFIMSC doesn’t roll off the tongue easily, so I tell people a good way to remember the acronym “AFIMSC” is to think, “I’M Supporting Commanders,” because that’s what it’s all about.

Q: Some would say that this way of managing installation and mission support capabilities flies in the face of Air Force culture—moving away from the “one base, one boss” concept. How do you respond to that?

A: First, I would highlight something I pointed out earlier, and that is more than 90 percent of our installations support multiple mission partners. More than 40 percent of Air Force mission wings do not own organic mission support groups and therefore rely on another unit to provide the civil engineer, contracting, security, etc., support they need to accomplish their mission. The AFIMSC will provide support at the next level of command in the same way our host wing commanders support multiple mission partners at their installation.

The reality is we no longer live in a “one base, one boss” world, whether at home station or at deployed locations around the world.

The AFIMSC concept also aligns installation and mission support with the tenets of airpower contained in Air Force Basic Doctrine. Our new defense strategy shifting focus toward the Asia-Pacific Theater underscores the value of combat support capabilities across this vast geographic expanse. Projecting power in this theater in an anti-access/area denial combat environment requires a single airman who maintains the broad, strategic per-spective necessary to balance and prioritize the use of a powerful enabling capability—contingency basing—that is in short supply due to recent and projected declines in installation and mission support resources.

Hence, just like we endorse the concept of centralized control and decentralized execution of close air support for ground opera-tions by a single responsible, accountable airman, we endorse this same concept as we apply it to the centralized control and decentralized execution of installation and mission support capa-bilities by a single responsible, accountable commander—in this case, the AFIMSC commander. Our measures of merit will remain those defined by the measure of effectiveness of our supported commanders. We’re committed to delivering what our operational commanders need to be successful.

Q: What closing thoughts do you have for our audience?

A: First, I’m honored to take on this new assignment and appre-ciate the significance this change will have for our Air Force. Second, realizing the budget constraints facing our Air Force and seeing the very difficult decisions we were forced to make in the last few years, I’m committed to ensuring we make the AFIMSC the ready and responsive organization our installations and major commands need and deserve. Finally, this is going to be an evolu-tion in how we support our installations and we will work to be as transparent as possible as we assume our new role.

Thank you again for the great opportunity to talk a little about our Air Force’s new Installation Mission Support Center! O


Military aircraft are kept flying, sustained, modified and extended in their useful lives by an extraordinary set of organizations. There is extensive collaboration among several levels of organic maintenance by uniformed military and non-uniformed government workers. These organic resources are assisted by another set of non-organic, or private, firms that have come to play a critical role in sustaining U.S. dominance of the skies.

The sustainment base is thus highly complex, but hardly hap-hazard. This base is constructed by the decisions of government sustainment planners who examine carefully and model thoroughly all sustainment choices. Both technical and economic aspects of every option are thoroughly scrutinized.

Where private firms are under review for sustainment roles, competition is frequently intense. And often, in today’s sustainment world, even government depots must compete with both private firms and each other for each piece of maintenance or modification work.

So the answer to the question of which entity, organic or non-organic, should perform a particular piece of work is very specific. Nevertheless, experi-ence has revealed some important patterns. It has shown the government is generally better at some tasks while the private sector may offer advantages at others.

And sometimes the real question is not which type of entity, organic or non-organic, does the work, but how it is done. What are the best practices, often developed by private firms in commercial aviation work, which might be applied to military sustainment?

Veterans of recent sustainment work, at both government depots and in private firms, have learned some lessons about what each kind of institution is best at, and how both sides of the sustainment partner-ship can share and benefit from best practices developed elsewhere.

“The Air Force organic capabilities for depot-level maintenance are vast,” noted Colonel Jeffery Meserve, vice director of logistics for the Air Force Sustainment Center at Tinker Air Force Base. The Air Force has three large complexes covering the industrial maintenance requirements for aircraft, missiles, engines, exchangeable components and software. These centers also possess a host of supporting technolo-gies, engineering and weapon system sustainment functions. “There is little that our organic maintenance can’t handle,” Meserve said.

Nevertheless, the Air Force has strong partnerships with industry to bring forth additional capabilities, enable agility and achieve cost-effective readiness, all while sustaining the nation’s defense industrial base.

The special strengths of Air Force organic maintenance include the ability to streamline and sustain legacy weapon systems, engines and components that industry does not view as economically viable. “We’ve become experts at maintaining a fleet that is well beyond its

initial design life and we provide the safety and quality needed for these aircraft to continue flying for years,” Meserve stressed. And along with its maintenance capabilities, the Air Force has several areas in which it excels. These include landing gear, avionics, pneumatics, hydraulics, engines and composites.

Still, “it’s clear that our industry partners bring significant value to the Air Force depot maintenance enterprise,” Meserve said. Industry strengths include independent research and development, as well as development of cutting-edge technologies and processes requiring unique maintenance skill sets. “Private firms also have the creativ-ity and innovation needed to modernize our fleet for future wartime requirements. They also have the ability to leverage resources and experience from both the commercial and military side of the private aviation maintenance business.”

Meserve argued that adoption of best practices is a two-way street. “The Air Force depot enterprise has a history of benchmarking best practices from industry partners in both military and commercial aviation main-tenance, repair and operations.” Conversely, he noted that many industry partners have also learned from Air Force business practices and incorporated them into their production processes.

The bottom line is that successful, efficient and cost-effective depot maintenance is best executed through government-industry partnerships. Every weapon sys-tem and product line brings unique requirements.

“Through partnering, the strengths of government and private sector maintenance can be leveraged,” Meserve said. “Our industrial partner-ships have a strategic role in aligning our resources to the overall mission of the Department of Defense. The strategic combination of organic and industrial partnerships far outpaces anything we can achieve separately.”

Non-organic entities take a similar perspective, but each sees some different details, depending on specific types of work. For example, AAR now handles parts of the supply chains for U.S. Navy depots at Cherry Point, N.C., Jacksonville, Fla. and Hill Air Force Base in Ogden, Utah.

“Government depots perform well when low quantities of parts are involved in combination with a major investment in capital equip-ment,” summarized Robert Sopp, executive vice president of aircraft component services at AAR. Sopp argued that this combination of expensive capital equipment and small part quantity does not usually offer a good business case for a profit-seeking private company. “Mili-tary depots do well on anything they can focus their resources on.”

On the other hand, Sopp called supply chains the Achilles heel of government depots. “A component can sit for a year or more wait-ing on a part. The process is very slow and bureaucratic, and they buy things they don’t need, which they eventually have to sell off as surplus.” Sopp argued that firms like AAR can help depots with supply-chain management so depots can begin repairing and overhauling

By henry canaday, mlf correSpondent

Complementary Talents

organic or non-organic—that iS the queStion.

Colonel jeffery Meserve


items when they arrive at technicians’ benches, rather than putting failed items on a shelf awaiting parts.

“Another area where private firms do better is in maintaining lean supply chains and inventories,” Sopp said. “For example, if AAR is asked to fix a valve on a Boeing 737, it gets taken off at the airport, sent to AAR, fixed there and sent back to the customer warehouse in a reusable shipping container. The private sector supply chain is very lean and has fewer spare components accumulating in warehouses.”

In contrast, Sopp said parts coming off military aircraft first accumulate in government warehouses and are afterwards shipped to designated organic or non-organic depots for repair. He attributed this practice to long contracting cycles and the sheer number of spare units in the supply chain. “The government could save money by re-evaluating their supply chain and adopting many of the best practices from the airlines. Extra spare components could be reduced through attrition.”

Sopp believes private firms are also more efficient due to their profit motive. They can provide better value to the government by investing in equipment and spares to shorten turnaround times on component repairs and overhauls.

Don Davis is now vice president of operations for sustainment and modernization at DRS Technologies, which helps overhaul C-130s. Davis had sustainment experience at Boeing and once worked in maintenance in the Marine Corps. “The government is very good at engineering and contracting,” Davis said.

Davis said government depots and air logistics centers develop very strong relationships with aircraft manufacturers. These relationships enable govern-ment engineers to help determine both the design of aircraft and the long-term sustainment model that will be used to support them. “The government does a good job in both providing sustainment inputs and in sustainment planning. Institutions like the Defense Acquisition University are essential to a long-term vision and sustainment modelling.”

Davis thinks the government is also good at bal-ancing affordability with sustainment requirements. “When an aircraft is called into combat where there will be sand erosion and heavy loading, the govern-ment depots re-model their plans for affordability.” And Davis argued that the government is generally very competent at interfacing with original equipment manufacturers (OEMs) and non-OEM contractors.

Non-organic private firms, in contrast, are good at efficiently executing well-defined work scopes. According to Davis, “Industry is very good at lean, tooling and well-defined work. And private firms can invest more and compete with each other to give the government a quality product at an affordable price.”

Davis said the private sector tends to be better than the govern-ment at managing touch labor, exploiting scale economies, calculating economic order quantities and generally handling the supply chain. “If there is a change in work scope, we can do more accurate predictions and buying. The government must look at historical purchases. We have a sharper edge, because we are less constrained by the process.”

Davis thinks some best practices of industry could definitely be adopted by government. He pointed out that there have been a lot of budget cuts affecting government white collars, yet the workload has continued to run at full steam, putting intense pressure on gov-

ernment sustainment staff. Due to the urgency of needs under tight budgets, government staff has often been forced to continue relying on legacy information systems, while the private sector has been able to modernize its information systems to increase efficiency.

Davis noted several specific areas for possible improvements. For example, the painting of aircraft surfaces is governed by a number of regulatory agencies, such as OSHA and EPA. These regulators assume the availability of very modern technologies and procedures common in the private sector. But many government requests for proposals appear to assume legacy technologies will be used. In many cases, Davis said, the modern painting technologies would make painting easier as well as more consistent with regulators’ wishes.

Another potential improvement is in the difference between pro-duction and repair standards for some military aircraft. Davis said pro-duction tolerances for some faults on new aircraft coming out of the factory are often more liberal than those allowed in repair manuals for aircraft coming into depots. Recognizing that the production standard is satisfactory could save some money.

Davis said government and private firms constantly share best practices. And he believes the current collaboration between organic and non-organic units is generally the best that he has seen in 40 years of aircraft main-tenance. This collaboration has traditionally been rein-forced by frequent symposiums on maintenance. But recent funding cuts may hurt future exchanges of infor-mation. Due to limited defense funds, Davis said he sees more industry participants and fewer government ones at recent symposiums, and that worries him a little bit.

Boeing has engaged in many ambitious sustain-ment partnerships with government depots. Ron Aarns, director of operations and integration, stressed there are key capabilities held by both government and industry. “In the case of Boeing, we bring in-depth OEM knowledge of a wide range of fielded aircraft,” Aarns pointed out. And he said the manufacturer also has established commercial supply chains and possesses volume buying power and global access through its Aviall subsidiary.

“The key to successful sustainment programs is leveraging the best of both government and industry capabilities in a non-duplicative manner,” Aarns said. “That’s why partnerships are so important.”

One example of a productive partnership is joint government-and-industry engineering teams. These can improve readiness through rapid response and resolution of issues partly because they have ready access to OEM design and engineering data.

Still, “it’s important to acknowledge that partnerships do not exclude competition,” Aarns said. He believes competition among different possible sustainment providers is important to ensuring affordability. And it makes sense where sufficient capability exists and it can be carried out through a performance-based contract. “In the end, it is all about reducing or eliminating redundancies and leverag-ing the best capabilities to optimize readiness and drive life cycle cost reductions.” O


at www.mlf-kmi.com.

Don Davis

ron aarns


How the U.S. military purchases installation power and its ability to save money in both fixed-installation and deployed environments has seen a renewal through the use of microgrid systems. With com-panies supplying entire microgrid systems and making distribution boxes for existing and new-build power grids, migrogrid seems to be the future of energy.

In addition to the need to save money in a downsized, post-Afghanistan and Iraq military in a way that reduces the upfront cost investment, there is also an increased interest in cybersecurity and removing any potential vulnerabilities in the power grid in military installations. Through an energy surety model, Department of Defense officials are seeking to provide reliable, safe, cost-efficient energy that can balance employee comfort with cost savings and survive natural and man-made disasters through energy independence.

Modern, small-scale versions of the centralized electricity system, microgrids are one component of the overall smartgrid that can achieve specific installation goals, such as carbon emission reduction, cost reduction, energy source diversification and power reliability. Considered by some as an ideal way to integrate renewable resources on the local level, smart microgrids can distribute, generate and regu-late the electrical flow to users locally.

“In the past, DoD would buy electrical service,” said Andrew Wake-field, director of government and original equipment manufacturer solutions for Lutron Electronics Co. Inc., a dimmer and lighting control company based in Coopersburg, Pa. “Now, they are interested in saving money when the lights are on,” using whatever means are at their disposal, he said.

Founded in 1961 by Navy veterans, Lutron Electronics has seen more Department of Defense interest in reducing energy consumption in the last five years, in part because of the more aggressive mandates issued by the Obama administration, such as through the American Recovery and Investment Act of 2009, to help provide a more green government. Military officials want to learn more about smart grids and digital intelligence and how they can save the armed services money.

According to Wakefield, Lutron Electronics focuses its efforts on fixed DoD installations overseas and in the continental United States. In its work with civilian agencies, Lutron Electronics claims to have helped the 38-floor Jackson Federal Building in Seattle, Wash.—owned by GSA and built in 1974—reduce its energy consumption by 45 percent. According to Wakefield, 20 to 30 percent savings are in the normal realm of possibility for installations, with savings up to 40 percent possible with good sunlight. In a best-case scenario, some government installations could realize energy consumption savings up to 60 percent.

At the Jackson Federal Building, some of the 2,300 personnel in the 854,000-square-foot building were so uncomfortable with the excessive bright fluorescent lighting that they placed cardboard over entire sections of lights. Uncontrolled natural lighting, meanwhile,

could produce glare and heat that would make it difficult to sit near a window, causing some personnel to have headaches and pointing out an obvious need for anti-glare film on windows.

In part through the use of wireless technologies, Lutron Electron-ics can install its electronics systems overnights and during weekend operations so its personnel don’t interrupt the daily functions of tenant organizations. Lutron Electronics government customers include the Army National Training Center at Fort Irwin, Calif., and installations can take six to 12 months. Wakefield noted, however, that some instal-lations can save 10 to 20 percent on electricity through a 15-minute change-out of their lighting control fixtures.

“Budgets are fairly tight now,” said Wakefield, who joined Lutron in 2001 after serving for nine years as an active duty naval flight con-trol officer. He is a commander in the U.S. Naval Reserves and leads Lutron’s Washington, D.C. operations. As the U.S. military pulls out of Afghanistan and further consolidates its operations after the Iraq War, DoD officials are increasingly looking for products and services that can save them money on operations and maintenance functions.

Illuminating interiors accounts for about 40 percent of the typical energy use of a commercial building, according to Lutron Electronics. The company’s products and services have occupancy sensors, so they turn off and on depending on whether people are occupying a space. Through what is known as daylight harvesting, Lutron Electronics EcoSystem daylight sensors dim or turn off electric lighting on each floor of a building in all perimeter facades when daylight is available.

In addition, Lutron’s Green Glance monitoring and display soft-ware for Quantum systems gives facility managers a snapshot and historic view of energy savings throughout a building.

Another Lutron feature, Quantum Total Light Management, maximizes the light usage to save energy, improve productivity and simplify operations via centralized dimming and switching control of all electric lighting. Lighting controls helped to save $289,000 in Jackson Federal Building lighting electricity costs in 2013, accord-ing to Lutron Electronics. The system also integrates well with other building-management systems via BACnet IP, allowing for better optimization of building systems, greater energy savings and more effective monitoring and maintenance.

“Most people can’t discern the difference between 100 percent and 80 percent” light visibility, Wakefield said. Lutron Electronics helps its installation customers set different lighting levels for emergency and normal operations use, according to Wakefield.

In some cases, DoD installations are working with consortiums of energy supply companies (ESCOs) that are working in partnership with product and service providers, such as those that provide model-ing and data analysis, to supply electricity at a reduced rate to the installation.

John Carroll, director of business development at Intelligent Power and Energy Research Corporation (IPERC), a microgrid technology company in Fort Montgomery, N.Y., is seeing third-party financing of

can Smart SyStemS provide SavingS to an organization aS large and far-flung aS dod

and itS ServiceS?

By william murray, mlf correSpondent

Intelligent Power


microgrid installations becoming more important, provided in some cases through limited liability corporations.

“The right-sized military is looking to the private sector to provide that service,” said Carroll, who has worked with IPERC for a year. Military officials are willing to own and operate microgrid models and maintenance materials. “In the commercial world, it’s all about what you can save me. In the military, it’s how you can save me,” he said. IPERC designs and manufactures microgrid controllers, including hardware and software, and provides installation services.

“The interest in cybersecurity is growing and is very important,” since potential cybersecurity attacks could seek to disrupt power sup-plies to critical infrastructure, Carroll said. IPERC has been in business for seven years.

During Phase 1 of the SPIDERS program, IPERC provided a power control management system to a waste water management facility with two diesel generators at Joint Base Pearl Harbor Hickam, Hawaii. SPIDERS Phase 1 sought to protect task-critical assets from loss of power from cyber-attacks. Phase 1 also tried to integrate renewable and other distributed electricity to power task-critical assets during emergency operations. SPIDERS I also sought to sustain critical operations during prolonged utility power outages and manage DoD installation electrical power and consumption efficiently to reduce petroleum demand and carbon bootprint and cost.

IPER officials are now working on Phase 2 of the SPIDERS pro-gram, trying to achieve a 30 percent energy reduction in fuel, opera-tions and maintenance with DoD, Department of Homeland Security and Department of Energy officials in a joint capability technology demonstration. In Phase 2, IPERC officials are trying to determine the economic viability and modeling of a microgrid in Fort Carson, Colo. IPERC also works with the military in California, Hawaii and the East Coast.

IPERC’s microgrid optimization algorithms make intelligent deci-sions and issue control signals to meet peak usage loads and minimize fuel consumption, even turning off unneeded generation through pho-tovoltaic devices until needed. Devices on the microgrid can be added or removed, and GridMaster-distributed Intelligent Power Controllers recognize changes and adjust control algorithms through its network architecture.

Any controller may be the “master” and can operate in isolation, as opposed to having a dependent relationship with devices on the microgrid. GridMaster, according to IPERC officials, can be a control system that integrates power components into a microgrid or an energy security and optimization overlay to existing controls.

IPERC officials are seeing an uptick in requests for proposals for microgrid services in parts of the country with the highest “pain points” for energy consumption: Connecticut, the East Coast, the Gulf Coast, Maryland and Massachusetts. While Carroll considers these procurements “a very cautious approach,” he noted that municipalities appear to be learning from each other and sharing information.

Far from the comforts of installations such as Fort Carson or Joint Base Pearl Harbor Hickam, HDT Expeditionary Systems Inc. of Solon, Ohio provides environmental control units, generators, heaters and shelters for fuel-efficient consumption in DoD expeditionary environ-ments. An operating unit of HDT Global, HDT Expeditionary Systems produces self-powered heaters which use a thermoelectric generator to supply power for combustion and air handling.

HDT Expeditionary Systems has fielded expeditionary solar power systems that generate electronics and lighting in shelters that at least meet military standards. This unit and other renewable power

resources utilize microgrid technology to manage power demands in forward-operating applications.

The company also created one of the first integrated trailers, generator ECU platform in 1994. Additionally, some users report that each component of HDT Expeditionary Systems’ fully-integrated base camp decreases fuel dependency and frees resources such as person-nel. The company’s systems can work together and with other suppli-ers’ products and have gone through years of deployments in austere environments.

DHS Systems LLC of Orangeburg, N.Y., meanwhile, for more than 25 years has produced the Deployable Rapid Assembly Shelter (DRASH), a soft-walled, rapidly deployable tent system with energy-efficient power, heating, lighting, mobility and shelter. The company’s overall focus is providing mobile infrastructure technology.

Used by the Army Standard Integrated Command Post System, DRASH systems have supplied rugged facilities for military personnel throughout the world on a variety of missions, including command and control, medical facilities and life support; DHS Systems also sells DRASH communications equipment and support accessories to assist tactical operations. O


at www.mlf-kmi.com.


OvercOming mrO Supply chain DySfunctiOn

A Critical Element of Operational ExcellenceIsn’t it time to transform your organization into a streamlined machine that adeptly leverages the benefits of solid and reliable MRO data?This White Paper will help you shift your organization’s current MRO mindset while illustrating the economic impact of the silo’ed viewpoint and helping you leverage MRO to:

• Enhance productivity• Reduce inventory• Cut MRO spending

For the complete White Paper, go to: http://bit.ly/1w2tbRD

cOntractOr lOgiSticS SuppOrt Of cOntingency OperatiOnS

A Defense Science Board task force has concluded there is a lack of clarity as to who is in charge of policy, doctrine, resourcing, training, planning and execution for operational contract support (OCS). Without effective leadership and guidance, a persistent lack of urgency has emerged in training for, planning for and execution of OCS. The task force recommended eight areas that require immediate action to ensure proper attention is given to the pervasive role that operational contract support is expected to play in future contingency operations.

to see the complete report, go to:www.kmimediagroup.com/images/magazine-pdf/conloG.pdf

Compiled by KMI Media Group staffWHITE PAPER FORUM

An effective way to have military logistics decision-makers, influencers and program officers follow your pioneering research and focused capabilities while driving our qualified and loyal group of readers to your Web site.

Elements of featured posting includes• Company name• Title of White Paper• Your unique URL • Description/Summary of your White Paper (approx. 140 words)• Image of White Paper cover

Benefits to You• An effective and efficient way for you to communicate your

understanding and commitment to a solution• Build credibility with senior level military logistics decision-makers• Increase traffic to your Web site through qualified White Paper

readership

Your Posting• 4 Featured Postings available per issue in

hard copy of publication• White Paper summary and unique URL to appear on the MLF

Web site for one month• After one month, White Paper to appear in archives for 3 years

For more information on your White Paper submission contact: Jane Engel, Associate Publisher / (301) 670-5700 ext. 120 / [email protected]

White Paper ForumIntroducing...


The

adve

rtis

ers

inde

x is

pro

vide

d as

a s

ervi

ce to

our

read

ers.

KM

I can

not b

e he

ld re

spon

sibl

e fo

r dis

crep

anci

es d

ue to

last

-min

ute

chan

ges

or a

ltera

tions

.

Calendar

September 15-17, 2014Air & Space ConferenceNational Harbor, Md.www.afa.org

September 23-25, 2014Modern Day MarineQuantico, Va.www.marinecorpsexpos.com

October 13-15, 2014AUSAWashington, D.C.www.ausa.org

October 19-22, 2014Logistics Officer Association SymposiumArlington, Va.www.logisticsymposium.org

October 23, 2014DLA Land & Maritime Combat & Wheeled Vehicles Outreach ForumColumbus, [email protected]

October 28-30, 2014NDTA-USTRANSCOM Fall MeetingSt. Louis, Mo.http://ndtahq.com/events_cal_events.htm

October 30-November 2, 2014Annual Tanker Association ConferenceNashville, Tenn.www.atalink.org

Northrop Grumman Technical Services ................................ C2www.northropgrumman.com/kc10Northrop Grumman Technical Services ............................... 2-3www.northropgrumman.com/performance

Special pUll-OUT SUppleMeNT

MLF RESOURCE CENTER

advertisers index

AAR Corporation ....................................................................... 5www.aarcorp.com/government-defenseBanneker Industries Inc. .......................................................... 1www.banneker.comDell Rugged Mobility............................................................... C3www.dell.com/rugged I.H.S ......................................................................................... 21www.ihs.com LOA .......................................................................................... 25www.logisticsymposium.orgLockheed Martin Missiles & Fire Control ................................. 3www.lockheedmartin.com/jltvNational Industries for the Blind ........................................... 19www.nib.org/value Oshkosh................................................................................... C2www.oshkoshdefense.com/jltv Pratt & Whitney ...................................................................... 16www.oshkoshdefense.com/jltv SAIC ......................................................................................... C4www.saic.com SupplyCore ................................................................................ 1www.supplycore.com

Features Deployed MaintenanceThe military would be hard-pressed to do without field service representatives. What will be their role in future programs?

Depot MaintenanceA review of the challenges that the Army depots are facing and what their future holds.

shelters and shelter supportTo be expeditionary means moving fast and taking with you what you need. How small can the shelter and shelter support footprint be?

enhancing Operational readinessImproving rapid deployment capabilities with an efficient supply chain.

Facility Investment strategyArmy Sustainment Command details its Facility Investment Strategy and the way ahead.

Global Combat support system-armyThe Army’s GCSS office gives MLF an exclusive update on the program’s implementation.

October 2014 Vol. 8, Issue 9NEXTISSUE


Insertion Order Deadline: september 19, 2014ad Materials Deadline: september 26, 2014

BOnus DIstrIButIOnAUSA Annual • DoD Maintenance Symposium • Logistics Officer

Association Symposium

speCIal seCtIOn redstone arsenal profileA detailed look at the installation and the elements that contribute to its growth and contribution to the Army Enterprise.

Gen. DennIs l. VIaCommanderU.S. Army Materiel Command

Cover and In-Depth Interview with:

speCIal WhO’s WhO pull-Out suppleMentu.s. army Materiel CommandA special pull-out supplement featuring:

• Exclusive interview with Major General Clark W. LeMasters Jr., AMC’s G3/4/5/7

• Two-page organizational profile of the Army Materiel Command

A handy reference guide with a long shelf life.

ausa Issue


Karl Voepel is a program manager within the National Security Sector at Leidos. His focus is logistics solutions—providing afford-able readiness at the lowest life cycle cost. A retired USMC chief warrant officer, Voepel brings 31 years of innovative program lead-ership to his role.

Q: How would you describe your company’s focus, goals and abilities to meet the needs of the military customer?

A: Our focus is being a leading full-spectrum logistics provider to the warfighters, soldiers, Marines, sailors, airmen and civilians serv-ing worldwide. Our goal is to be a mission enabler by providing efficient, reliable and cost-effective logistics solutions that ensure required equipment and services arrive at the right place at the right time, every time. We continually apply experience and exper-tise gained from current and past programs such as Transportation and Safety Adminis-tration Integrated Logistics Support, United States Marine Corps Counter Radio-Con-trolled Improvised Explosive Device Elec-tronic Warfare Product Support Integrator, and the Mine-Resistant Ambush Protected Joint Logistics Integrator program, to name a few. These large, highly complex and differ-ent logistics programs give Leidos a breadth of experience to draw from when tailoring solutions.

Q: What innovations do you expect to bring online that makes your operations more efficient and better positioned to compete?

A: Accurate and timely information is essen-tial to the military’s success and operations. Leidos developed a Web-based application (ProVM) that collects information from mul-tiple, disparate government and commercial upstream supply chain databases, and com-bines it with near-real-time downstream sup-ply chain and maintenance tools.

Government and contractor personnel get unprecedented total asset visibility from a kind, count, condition and location perspec-tive, and also from an as-built, as-maintained, as-retired perspective. ProVM allows custom-ers access to near-real-time metrics such

as operational availability, mean downtime, logistics response time or any other required statistic through a customizable dashboard and real-time customized reports.

Data collected is used to perform demand analysis to establish appropriate reorder points, perform reliability and maintainabil-ity analysis, and establish an effective failure reporting and corrective action system. Ideal for programs of all shapes and sizes, ProVM is highly tailorable and scalable. Bringing it and other tools to programs as a standard part of our toolkit will be key to helping us compete.

Q: How do you better understand logistical requirements from the military’s perspective to deliver a solution that takes into account best industry practices and the military’s needs?

A: Our greatest strengths lie in our people and their ability and willingness to communicate at all levels of a program. We purposefully recruit former servicemen and servicewomen with recent, real-world, program-relevant experience and match them with industry professionals, ensuring a team that uses a solid blend of best commercial practices and an understanding of today’s military logistics. Open and candid communication is essen-tial. Up front, we’ll speak with stakeholders throughout the supply chain to understand the spirit and intent of all the requirements. After developing the proposed solution, we’ll thoroughly vet the plan to ensure stakehold-ers understand the solution and adjust the plan if necessary prior to implementation.

We continually monitor the process and solicit feedback via integrated product teams and working groups and recommend adjust-ments where and when required rather than doggedly executing the plan.

Q: What challenges do you foresee ahead and how have you positioned yourself to address those?

A: [We are] certain that the DoD budget [in 10 to 15 years] will be (proportion-ally) smaller than today’s. We’ve anticipated decreased defense spending and have taken steps internally to position ourselves. Power-ful analytical tools such as ProVM act as force multipliers, enabling fewer staff to achieve higher output. These tools, coupled with highly experienced staff and mature, lean business processes, give us an edge in tomor-row’s cost-competitive landscape.

Q: Are there any examples that illustrate your capabilities in meeting customer needs?

A: The USMC CREW PSI program is a good example. We reduced the complexity of the Marine Corps supply chain by com-bining the efforts of three separate origi-nal equipment manufacturers’ CONUS and OCONUS logistics support efforts and one government support provider’s efforts under a single, cohesive product support integrator that exceeded performance objectives every month for the five-year contract, without fail. The USMC CREW PSI program is a solid example of our ability to craft and execute tailored logistics support plans that meet or exceed our customers’ requirements.

Q: With potentially reduced DoD spending, do you foresee more or less involvement in joint ventures with other industry partners?

A: Joint ventures allow industry partners to shed non-value-added costs by only bring-ing together complementary capabilities that pertain to meeting customer requirements. In a fiscally constrained future, we’ll need to take a critical look at what is essential. When we assess a requirement outside of our core competency, we approach industry teammates and the public sector to create a partnership that brings a cost-effective solu-tion to meet our military’s future logistics requirements. O

[email protected]

Karl R. Voepel IIProgram Manager, Logistics Solutions Operation

Leidos

INDUSTRY INTERVIEW Military Logistics Forum


For those who thrive in the worst.

The real world can be challenging, but you face the challenges head on and so should your computer. Latitude Rugged Extreme provides the tools you need to stand up to adversity.

Learn More at Dell.com/rugged

MISSION+ TECHNOLOGYCONNECTIONS THAT WORK.

SAIC’s services and solutions, powered by our expertise as a technology integrator, make us ready to help you tackle your most complex challenges and whatever comes next.

We’re the next generation SAIC.saic.com

15-0

230

| S

AIC

Com

mun

icat

ions

© SAIC. All rights reserved. Image Credit: Photo Courtesy of U.S. Army NYSE: SAIC

Documents

Mlf 8 8 final