Sign In



Lockheed Martin Looking to Reduce Cost of F-35 Sustainmentstring;#/News/Lockheed-Martin-Looking-to-Reduce-Cost-of-F-35-SustainmentLockheed Martin Looking to Reduce Cost of F-35 Sustainment2018-02-23T12:00:00Z news.jpg, news.jpg news.jpg<div class="ExternalClassA1F98FF472B04393A88FE85096B8361D"><h1>Lockheed Martin Looking to Reduce Cost of F-35 Sustainment</h1> By: Vivienne Machi, National Defense Magazine <br> <br> ORLANDO, Fla. — Lockheed Martin is making efforts to trim the training and logistics costs for the F-35 joint strike fighter program as the Pentagon warns of sustainment issues.<br> <br> Ellen Lord, undersecretary of defense for acquisition and sustainment, told reporters in January, “right now, we can’t afford the sustainment costs we have on the F-35. And we’re committed to changing that.”<br> <br> As the joint strike fighter’s developer, Lockheed Martin is working to cut costs by moving toward more performance-based solutions for the user, rather than purchasing more equipment than ultimately needed up front, said Amy Gowder, the company's vice president and general manager for training and logistics solutions. (<a href="" target="_blank">read more</a>)<br> <br> <br> <br> <em>The photo in the header shows Dan Levin, F-35 Pax River Integrated Test Force, pilots BF-2 during one of the last sloped landing pad flight tests Feb. 8 at Marine Corps Auxiliary Landing Field Bogue, North Carolina. The test flight was flown with the spin recovery chute installed for aft center of gravity vertical landing testing.</em><br> <br></div>string;#/News/Lockheed-Martin-Looking-to-Reduce-Cost-of-F-35-Sustainment
Want soldiers to use advanced tech? Go more disposable and address accountability culture.string;#/News/Want-soldiers-to-use-advanced-tech-Go-more-disposable-and-address-accountability-culture-Want soldiers to use advanced tech? Go more disposable and address accountability culture.2018-02-23T12:00:00Z news pt. 2.jpg, news pt. 2.jpg news pt. 2.jpg<div class="ExternalClass2BAAD514024848468B4E69BD54E604F3"><h1>Want soldiers to use advanced tech? Go more disposable and address accountability culture.</h1> By: Maj. John Spencer, Military Times<br> <br> “You can make mistakes, but lose equipment and you will be fired.” I learned this early in my career, and it has continued to be reinforced on an almost daily basis with tie downs, weekly and monthly inspections, and automatic investigations for just about any piece of equipment misplaced.<br> <br> Keeping track of equipment is vital to being a professional soldier, but there are negative side effects from a culture of accountability. With the U.S. Army facing a potential surge of money to modernize, we need to recognize this culture, or it will detract from our efforts to prepare for the future. (<a href="" target="_blank">read more</a>)<br> <br> <br> <br> <em>The photo in the header shows Soldiers with the South Carolina Army National Guard attend the Pathfinder course held at McCrady Training Center, Eastover, South Carolina, Feb. 14, 2018. The Pathfinder course is a two week class where Soldiers are tested in three different phases to include sling loading, helicopter landing zones (HLZ) and drop zones. (U.S. Army National Guard photo by Spc. Chelsea Baker)</em></div>string;#/News/Want-soldiers-to-use-advanced-tech-Go-more-disposable-and-address-accountability-culture-



Please Tailor Your Acquisition Strategy! Tailor Your Acquisition Strategy!2018-03-31T12:00:00Z,<div class="ExternalClassEABBCB59926041E29913EA0B52F68572">The guidance from Department of Defense (DoD) leadership is very clear when it comes to developing acquisition strategies. Every program should consider and propose tailoring of information, work efforts, and decision reviews if this tailoring will result in a more cost-effective approach. The words tailor and tailoring appear 48 times in the Aug. 10, 2017, DoD Instruction 5000.02. However, as is the case with most complex acquisition tasks, no single cookbook solution will work for every program. <br> <br> As the Michael Porter strategy quote suggests, an important part of any strategy is making good choices, including what not to do or pursue. In the context of a corporate business strategy, a company typically will determine what it is good at and then use that core competency as a competitive advantage to grow its business and increase shareholder value. Companies realize they cannot be everything to everybody, so they play to their strengths and choose to avoid opportunities where they are weak. This mind-set of playing to strengths, choosing opportunities carefully, and determining what not to pursue also applies to DoD acquisition. DoD program managers (PMs) should consider similar factors when developing an acquisition strategy. <br> <br> When I participate in workshops, courses, and other training events with DoD acquisition workforce staff, I often am asked how we should go about streamlining and tailoring the program’s acquisition strategy. This topic is the central theme of our Acquisition Strategy Development Workshop (also known as WSM 014 in the Defense Acquisition University i-catalog). The following discussion captures some of the many of the points I try to convey based on my PM experiences. While the final strategy will reflect the key tailoring decisions, there are some fundamental building blocks that should be considered. <br> <br> Start With Program Priorities. It may seem obvious, but PMs need to determine the priorities that will drive their strategy. These priorities are not to be confused with understanding and analyzing user requirements and the resultant trade-space, some of which will be executed after contract award in a development effort. The starting point should be the upfront analysis to assess the relative importance of cost versus schedule versus performance. For example, there are trade-offs associated with prioritizing schedule over cost and performance and this determination will drive the overall strategy and tailoring decisions. <br> <br> On the other hand, a program may be more willing to accommodate some schedule slippage and cost growth to achieve greater technical performance. Understanding this relative importance can drive other strategy considerations, including scope, constraints and even contract type and structure. This analysis should involve acquisition leadership, user and test communities to ensure a common understanding and alignment of stakeholder expectations. The government is required in the request for proposal (RFP) to state the relative of importance of cost versus no-cost factors, but this should be determined well in advance of developing the RFP. It is useless to tailor a strategy without thinking through the cost, schedule and performance priorities upfront. <br> <br> A few years back, my team managed an urgent surveillance radar program that was to be deployed to support emergent combat operations. Based on the importance of schedule, we structured the program to accelerate tasks and conduct concurrency in site design and radar production. We recognized that some aspects of the program, including quality and cost, would not be optimized based on rushing everything from contract award to production sequencing and site deployment. <br> <br> I have observed programs that were essentially procuring commercial-off-the-shelf (COTS) equipment but had program constraints that resulted in a longer-than-expected fielding cycle. An example was a program with a requirement to conduct a significant operational test on the COTS equipment before it was approved for full-rate production and fielding. This testing would add at least 18 months to the schedule for initial operating capability. Rather than wait for a limited procurement of the COTS items as test assets, followed by a gatekeeper event like Initial Operational Test and Evaluation, this program could consider an alternate path. Since the item is COTS and is used by others, its effectiveness and suitability already have been demonstrated for those users who are operating it. Assessing the test and operational data available from these existing users could eliminate the need for another lengthy test cycle. Using new COTS equipment in operational demonstrations and exercises also could supplement the existing test data to help assess whether the COTS equipment should be acquired. <br> <br> <strong>Perform Prerequisite Tasks and Employ Critical Thinking </strong><br> In order to make informed tailoring decisions, PMs should examine evidence that supports the proposed tailoring. In the context of the acquisition strategy, tasks such as market research, identification of framing assumptions, and risk and opportunity management are good starting points to provide that evidence. PMs and their teams may have some preconceived notions about the best alternative for the strategy and some tasks that could be tailored. While these notions may be based on experience and good judgment, PMs should keep an open mind as to other alternatives and new possibilities. The pace of technological change is so rapid that previously unassessed new approaches now may be relevant for consideration. <br> <br> <img alt="" src="/library/defense-atl/DATLFiles/Mar-April_2018/schultz_figure1.png" style="margin-left:3px;margin-right:3px;float:left;width:784px;height:512px;" />As an example, consider software reliant programs. The traditional waterfall method has been used in DoD (and industry) for decades, and has wide acceptance. Based on recurring information technology acquisition problems, the traditional waterfall method now is being challenged by new methods such as Agile and Agile DevOps. These innovative software development methods are based on the Agile Manifesto and may require policy or regulatory waivers, depending on how the method is implemented. The acquisition strategy is an appropriate vehicle to obtain these waivers but should be based on a sound business case. <br> <br> Many commercial companies have employed cloud computing technology, automated test and development tools, and new methods to rapidly develop and deliver software to their users and customers. Likewise, many DoD programs now either are migrating their existing processes or starting out with this new method. <br> <br> Critical thinking is necessary since it enables a disciplined, rational and structured approach to help design the way forward. There are many critical thinking tools available and we address one in detail during the WSM 014 workshop. The team developing the strategy should ensure that all the key players involved in developing the strategy have the appropriate training in the particular critical thinking approach employed. This will help ensure a clear focus of the thinking process. <br> <br> Another suggested technique is the use of powerful questions related to the strategy from reviewers independent of the program team. These questions can create new awareness and challenge the status quo, generating additional ideas that can help design an effective strategy. The questions help us to think about possibilities to overcome any obstacle that will negatively affect cost, schedule and performance expectations. The WSM 014 workshop conducts topic exercises around questions for the team to consider and they are tailored to fit the program circumstances. <br> <br> Several years ago, my team used brainstorming and critical thinking questions to help identify a way ahead to renegotiate a contract that was tainted by fraud involving a senior DoD acquisition official. What initially seemed an impossible task was unexpectedly executed with very little difficulty. We even reduced the contract price by more than $12 million! <br> <br> <strong>Consider the Industry Perspective </strong><br> Since the targeted customer of the acquisition strategy (and subsequent RFP) is industry, looking at the strategy through their lens is vital to future success. DoD teams that have little or no industry experience should seek assistance with this task. Erroneous assumptions about industry contractors, including their commitment, incentive to control costs, and capability to provide the product or service within the contract terms, can lead to disaster. I suggest to the teams that soliciting comments on a draft RFP is only a small part of this effort.<br> <br> The following are a few examples of pre-RFP information that should be considered and can often be obtained through appropriate research efforts: <br> Financial situation and motivations. Not every company is motivated to control costs with a cost or incentive type contract. I worked in a business unit at a commercial company that made great profit margins on most of our work. I often was more concerned about growing my sales numbers at the expense of margin on many DoD contracts. Teams also should consider a company’s ability to absorb losses on a risky fixed price contract. <br> <br> Strategic alignment. Companies tend to focus on opportunities that are closely aligned with their corporate strategy. PMs and their teams should understand where the new program fits within company priorities. In some cases, industry will invest to not only win the contract but also to enhance the product or service. <br> <br> Leverage. We’ll define leverage as the relative bargaining power of industry to DoD and to a company’s competitors. Knowledge of the mission area and corporate market share are good starting points to consider. Leverage can also apply based on time pressures and ability to meet financial goals. When I worked in industry, I could offer substantial discounts at the end of the quarter when I was trying to hit my new booking goal. <br> <br> Suppliers and outsourced content. Given the ramp-up in outsourcing across multiple business domains, DoD teams need to understand both the potential prime and key suppliers. Many programs have seen cost and schedule issues associated with subcontractors and were surprised at the extent of the prime’s outsourcing. Several strategy considerations will be affected if significant outsourcing is expected. Multiple tools exist that can assist teams, but the supplier management risk mitigations, to be effective, must be planned early and be included in the RFP and contract. <br> <br> The imperative to better understand industry perspectives is gaining momentum. In addition to the DAU course ACQ 315, Understanding Industry, initiatives such as Reverse Industry Days are becoming popular. A Reverse Industry Day is intended to provide an opportunity for government employees to listen to senior industry speakers discuss industry’s view of market research, bid process, evaluation criteria, incentives, bid pricing, and similar topics. <br> <br> <strong>Iterate and Integrate the Strategy</strong><br> The acquisition strategy typically involves a very broad and far looking approach. Bringing everything together in an integrated manner is one of the bigger challenges. The flow of content development depicted in Figure 1 represents one way to develop this integration. The flow begins with requirements and then begins with the technical strategy that often drives other, following strategy elements, including tailoring of these elements to support the technical approach. It is similar to the systems engineering process in that this should be an iterative and recursive effort, repeating steps and at different levels in order to optimize the strategy. <br> <br> <strong>Final Thoughts</strong><br> Developing a tailored and streamlined acquisition strategy often is a difficult task. While many tools and template are available to assist in the development, there is no one-size-fits-all approach. The upfront planning and data gathering are critical and should be aimed at determining parameter importance, conducting prerequisite planning tasks, using critical thinking, and considering the industry perspective. <br> <br> There are not a great deal of data and research on tailoring approaches, lessons learned, and benefits realized. I am very interested to discuss and review your thoughts, lessons learned, and experiences on this subject. Thanks in advance for your consideration. <hr />Schultz is a professor of Program Management at the Defense Acquisition University’s Fort Belvoir, Virginia, campus.<br> <br> The author can be contacted at <a class="ak-cke-href" href=""></a>. <br> <br> <a href="/library/defense-atl/DATLFiles/Mar-April_2018/Schultz.pdf?Web=1"><strong>To print a PDF copy of this article, click here.</strong></a></div>string;#/library/defense-atl/blog/Please-Tailor--Your-Acquisition-Strategy!
Evaluation Lessons From Live Fire Testing Lessons From Live Fire Testing2018-03-01T17:00:00Z,<div class="ExternalClass4AAB4D4271FC4C42AD29DFAF820483DF">Several key Live Fire Testing and Evaluation (LFT&E) lessons were learned from the prime contractor perspective on the F-35/Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) program. The F-35 fighter jet effort includes three variants that increase overall program complexity and risk. The LFT&E component of this development effort is critical to the overall success of the F-35 program.<br> <br> LFT&E is a critical element of the system engineering and test and evaluation processes for Department of Defense (DoD) systems. The current ACQuipedia article on LFT&E provides this straightforward explanation of LFT&E as part of the DoD acquisition process:<br> <br> A test process that evaluates the vulnerability and/or lethality aspects of a conventional weapon or conventional weapon system. LFT&E is a statutory requirement (Title 10 U.S.C. [U.S. Code] § 2366) for covered systems, major munitions programs, missile programs, or product improvements to a covered system, major munitions programs, or missile programs before they can proceed Beyond Low Rate Initial Production (BLRIP). By law, a covered system is any vehicle, weapon platform, or conventional weapon system that includes features designed to provide some degree of protection to users in combat and that is an Acquisition Category (ACAT) I or ACAT II program. (Note: The term “covered system” can also be taken to mean any system or program that is covered by Title 10 U.S.C. § 2366, including major munitions and missile programs.)<br> LFT&E focuses on evaluating the survivability and lethality of a system. With regard to the F-35 program, these two attributes are paramount to the success of this system operating in its intended environment. Although they are similar, each F-35 variant has its own unique survivability and lethality requirements as well, making this an even bigger challenge to getting it right.<br> <br> As the DoD moves closer to a full-rate production decision for F-35, the lessons learned from the LFT&E efforts of the F-35 industry team led by the prime contractor, Lockheed Martin Corporation, can provide other acquisition organizations with valuable insight into how best to conduct LFT&E on their respective programs.<br> <br> <strong>LFT&E Lessons Learned From an Industry Perspective</strong><br> The F-35 LFT&E program was one of the most comprehensive in fixed-wing procurements. The F-35 program consisted of 61 test series, with more than 1,500 events against ballistic threats. The F-35 LFT&E lessons learned from the prime contractor perspective may be grouped into two general categories: Government-Industry Teamwork and Limiting Scope.<br> <br> <strong><img alt="" src="/library/defense-atl/DATLFiles/Mar-April_2018/mills_figure1.png" style="margin-left:3px;margin-right:3px;float:left;width:344px;height:533px;" />Government-Industry Teamwork</strong><br> Lines of Communication. LFT&E requires the efforts of at least four primary entities: The Program Office, Director; Operational Test and Evaluation (DOT&E) Representatives; the primary weapon system contractors; and the government test facility organizations. Contractual relationships provide a formal flow between the four primary entities involved in Live Fire Testing (LFT) (Figure 1), but the formal lines of communication lack the ability to build a team capable of effectively and efficiently executing the LFT Program.<br> In a previous LFT&E program, the prevailing wisdom was to keep control of the program by only allowing the formal lines of communication between entities; in particular, the intention was to limit communication to DOT&E representatives. Much of the success of the F-35 LFT&E program can be attributed to the open communication and informal information flows that were created and maintained throughout (Figure 2).<br> <br> Diverse Organizations. Each of these organizations have differing goals and constraints that sometimes make teamwork difficult. Industry partners want to limit company costs and risk while meeting contractual obligations. The Program Office wants to limit program impacts while delivering value to the warfighter. DOT&E’s objective is to thoroughly test. Their success is sometimes dependent on “findings”: discovering shortfalls or unexpected results. Ultimately, these disparate organizations must come together to produce a test program that meets the objectives while living within the constraints. It is important that each organizational member is at least made aware of the varying goals of the other members.<br> Roles and Responsibilities. It is imperative that roles and responsibilities are established early in the program. On F-35, we determined that the prime contractor should have the responsibility to create all test plans and reports. Test article construction is an activity that should be shared by the contractor and test facilities. The government test facilities have tremendous abilities to quickly design and construct test articles, particularly if these articles are sub-assemblies, and not required to be production representative. The contractors must design and construct the more complicated articles, but can be less efficient in building the simple ones. The test facilities must be the final technical approval for the test plans as they are the ones that must ultimately execute the test. DOT&E representatives must provide timely reviews and constructive comments on each test plan, along with formal signoff on the plans utilizing full-scale and Full-Up, System-Level articles.<br> <br> Establishing Trust. Trust between team members will be established only through time, with open communication, honest discussions, and mutual respect. On F-35, we established weekly telephone calls with all organizations to foster trust. We also established a collaborative workspace on the F-35 Data Library in order to share technical information in the form of test plans, analyses and test reports. These two forums kept the informal lines of communication open throughout the program.<br> <br> <strong>Limiting the Scope</strong><br> Scope Creep. One of the most difficult problems encountered with F-35 LFT&E was the need to prevent scope creep. The cost of each test series is highly dependent on the objectives, test matrix, and complexity of the test article. Open communication helps in that each team’s organization is able to express their objectives, concerns and constraints. The objectives of the test, if defined in detail, will allow the team to limit the complexity of the test article. Spares to replace damaged components must also be taken into account. The order of the events on each test article requires much coordination but will yield the most data without requiring needless replacements and repairs. There was a transition from simple Test Data Sheets on previous programs to full-up Test Plans which were used on the F-35; these comprehensive documents went a long way to limiting objectives and setting expectations for each test series.<br> <br> <img alt="" src="/library/defense-atl/DATLFiles/Mar-April_2018/mills_figure2.png" style="margin-left:3px;margin-right:3px;float:right;width:408px;height:356px;" />Objectives. LFT&E issues and sub-issues are provided to the contractors via the Test and Evaluation Master Plan (TEMP), but the issues provided are very general in nature, leaving much room for interpretation. Therefore, each F-35 test series was designed to specifically address a particular set of objectives within the list of LFT&E sub-issues.<br> Threats. Similarly, the potential threat list is also daunting. It was important early on to define threat types and to limit the scope by addressing only those potential threats (with some exceptions). An underlying purpose of the F-35 LFT&E plan was that the tests were going to meet the objectives in the TEMP as well as provide insights to the F-35 design team. The tests would also provide missing/inadequate data to improve the F-35 vulnerability analysis.<br> <br> Controlled Damage Tests. The F-35 LFT&E team utilized more than just ballistic tests to address LFT&E issues. Wind Tunnel tests were conducted to determine the controllability of the F-35 after loss of a complete or partial control surface. Man-in-the-loop simulation was used to verify the loss of multiple flight control and electrical power components that were in close proximity. The F-35’s Fuel System Simulator was used to provide data on fuel loss and fuel tank explosion prevention. These tests were much less expensive than some of the more complex ballistic test articles, and provided a wealth of information to address many LFT&E issues.<br> <br> Modeling and Simulation (M&S). M&S, once shunned by the Live Fire Test Office within OT&E, is now being used in a significant way. In the F-35 program, a symbiotic relationship was established early in the program between M&S and LFT&E. Early in the program, the contractor team conducted a unique vulnerability uncertainty analysis that gave insights into which damage mechanisms had the largest potential to affect the F-35’s vulnerability assessment results. These uncertainties were folded into the LFT&E test plans, and provided a context for discussions concerning the relative importance of individual test events. For example, testing to determine the vulnerability of the F-35’s flight control computers was determined to be relatively unimportant due to system redundancy, which rendered the potential for loss-of-aircraft to be relatively small. All test events were preceded by test predictions, most of which were conducted via M&S. Tests verified the ability of the M&S in some cases, while providing critical data to allow improvements to be made.<br> <br> <strong>Conclusion</strong><br> DoD acquisition program success hinges on the partnership between both government and industry in the execution of a robust systems engineering process to deliver effective solutions to the warfighter. LFT&E is a key component of this systems engineering effort. This article offers valuable lessons learned from the industry partner perspective on how to effectively execute LFT&E on a very complex acquisition program—the F-35. In the end, the success of our efforts, both government and industry, will be based on our strong partnership, effective communication and teamwork to meet the needs of the warfighter. <hr />Mills is a professor of Program Management and Cybersecurity at the Defense Acquisition University’s South Region in Huntsville, Alabama.<br> Stewart is a Lockheed Martin Fellow specializing in Aircraft Survivability/Vulnerability and Technical Lead of the F-35 Vulnerability Analysis<br> and Live Fire Test Team.<br> <br> The authors can be contacted at <a class="ak-cke-href" href=""></a> and <a class="ak-cke-href" href=""></a>.<br> <br> <a href="/library/defense-atl/DATLFiles/Mar-April_2018/Mills_Stewart.pdf"><strong>Click here to download a PDF copy of this article.​</strong></a></div>string;#/library/defense-atl/blog/Evaluation-Lessons--From-Live-Fire-Testing



Colorado Technical University Patriot Scholarship Technical University Patriot Scholarship2018-02-20T17:00:00Z Patriot Scholarship logo.jpg, Patriot Scholarship logo.jpg Patriot Scholarship logo.jpg<div class="ExternalClass5C8FA1FB74E44950A01BC20DBBAD6CD7">Applications for Colorado Technical University’s Patriot Scholarship open on March 1, 2018. As of January 2018, CTU has awarded 500 scholarships, totaling $8.5 million! This scholarship was created to give back to those whose lives have been changed due to injuries sustained serving in the U.S. military and their families. Service members, veterans, their spouses, college-ready dependents, and caregivers are eligible for the scholarship. Apply today: <a href=""></a><br> <br> <img alt="" src="/partnerships/PublishingImages/CTU%20Patriot%20Scholarship%20Digital%20Flyer%20V1.jpg" style="width:800px;height:1035px;" /></div>string;#/partnerships/blog/Colorado-Technical-University-Patriot-Scholarship
The Excelsior College School of Public Service offers a Bachelor of Science in Homeland Security and Emergency Management. Excelsior College School of Public Service offers a Bachelor of Science in Homeland Security and Emergency Management.2018-02-09T17:00:00Z Security graphic.jpg, Security graphic.jpg Security graphic.jpg<div class="ExternalClass5AFBF188D49E4576A9B7F1F71514DD6A"><strong>Considering a degree in homeland security and emergency management?</strong><br> <br> The Excelsior College School of Public Service offers a Bachelor of Science in Homeland Security and Emergency Management.<br> <br> There are over a dozen categories of critical infrastructure, including sectors such as power (generation, transmission, consumption), banking, food supply, transportation, and medicine. If any of these interdependent systems are disrupted or fail, then the rest of our complex society may be severely impacted. Disruption stems from natural events like floods and earthquakes, accidents like train derailments and faulty sensors that lead to electrical transformer explosions, and malicious acts like sabotage and terrorism. Protecting critical infrastructure requires preparedness, response, disaster mitigation, and recovery.<br> <br> Excelsior College’s BS in Homeland Security and Emergency Management program provides courses that address details of each component in a complex society. These building blocks, taken together, provide the graduate with a broader understanding of the whole system, the interconnections of critical infrastructure sectors, and how we try and protect our society. Required courses include: <ul> <li>Introduction to Homeland Security,</li> <li>Emergency Management,</li> <li>Domestic Terrorism,</li> <li>Security Planning and Assessment, and</li> <li>Infrastructure Security and Policy.</li> </ul> <br> Additional course work is available in the emphasis areas of agency management, counterterrorism, cybersecurity, emergency response health management, or in an open emphasis selected by the student and academic advisor. <br> <br> To learn more about this degree program, visit <a href="">Excelsior College School of Public Service</a><br> <br> To learn more about DAU’s partnership with Excelsior, visit: <a href=""></a> or call 844-843-9296. If you are a veteran or active duty military, call 844-843-9299. Mention you are a member of the Defense Acquisition Workforce to ensure you receive partnership discounts and other benefits. Life Happens. Keep Learning.</div>string;#/partnerships/blog/Excelsior-College-School-of Public-Policy



Special Defense Standardization Program Journal DMSMS Issuestring;#/training/career-development/logistics/blog/Special-Defense-Standardization-Program-Journal-DMSMS-IssueSpecial Defense Standardization Program Journal DMSMS Issue2018-02-21T12:00:00ZBill Kobrenstring;#/training/career-development/logistics/blog/Special-Defense-Standardization-Program-Journal-DMSMS-Issue
Seeking Volunteers to Test New Prototype DAU Mobile Appstring;#/training/career-development/logistics/blog/Seeking-Volunteers-to-Test-New-Prototype-DAU-Mobile-AppSeeking Volunteers to Test New Prototype DAU Mobile App2018-02-20T17:00:00ZBill Kobrenstring;#/training/career-development/logistics/blog/Seeking-Volunteers-to-Test-New-Prototype-DAU-Mobile-App
Digital Engineering, Digital Thread Trainingstring;#/training/career-development/logistics/blog/Digital-Engineering,-Digital-Thread-TrainingDigital Engineering, Digital Thread Training2018-02-19T17:00:00ZBill Kobrenstring;#/training/career-development/logistics/blog/Digital-Engineering,-Digital-Thread-Training
Congratulations to the 2017 DoD Performance Based Logistics (PBL) Award Winners!string;#/training/career-development/logistics/blog/Congratulations-to-the-2017-DoD-Performance-Based-Logistics-(PBL)-Award-Winners!-Congratulations to the 2017 DoD Performance Based Logistics (PBL) Award Winners!2018-02-16T12:00:00ZBill Kobrenstring;#/training/career-development/logistics/blog/Congratulations-to-the-2017-DoD-Performance-Based-Logistics-(PBL)-Award-Winners!-



Lunch and Learn - Effective Communication and Learn - Effective Communication2018-02-28T17:30:00Zstring;#/events/Lunch-and-Learn---Effective-Communication
Joint Enterprise Defense Infrastructure Industry Day Enterprise Defense Infrastructure Industry Day2018-03-07T14:30:00Zstring;#/events/Joint-Enterprise-Defense-Infrastructure-Industry-Day
Lunch and Learn: Leadership and the Contracting Officer and Learn: Leadership and the Contracting Officer2018-03-07T17:30:00Zstring;#/events/DoD-Transition-to-Risk-Management-Framework-(RMF)-
Will be Rescheduled to July 25, 2018 - Lunch and Learn - Improving Service Acquisitions using a Service Acquisition Workshop (SAW) be Rescheduled to July 25, 2018 - Lunch and Learn - Improving Service Acquisitions using a Service Acquisition Workshop (SAW)2018-03-07T17:30:00Zstring;#/events/Lunch-and-Learn---Improving-Service-Acquisitions-using-a-Service-Acquisition-Workshop-(SAW)
Lunch and Learn - Application of Cost Accounting Standards (CAS) and Learn - Application of Cost Accounting Standards (CAS)2018-03-14T16:30:00Zstring;#/events/Lunch-and-Learn---Application-of-Cost-Accounting-Standards-(CAS)
Section 809 Panel Meeting - March 2018 809 Panel Meeting - March 20182018-03-20T12:00:00Zstring;#/events/Section-809-Panel-Meeting-March-2018