1 / 58

CJCS OCS Task Force III

CJCS OCS Task Force III. Preliminary Findings and Recommendations. Agenda. Background Our Objectives Proposed Findings & Recommendations Rules Findings Recommendations Processes Findings Recommendations Tools Findings Recommendations OCS Community of Interest (COI) Feedback

abeni
Download Presentation

CJCS OCS Task Force III

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. CJCS OCS Task Force III Preliminary Findings and Recommendations

  2. Agenda • Background • Our Objectives • Proposed Findings & Recommendations • Rules • Findings • Recommendations • Processes • Findings • Recommendations • Tools • Findings • Recommendations • OCS Community of Interest (COI) Feedback • Discussion

  3. OCS Task Force Background • CJCS desired a more in-depth study to determine the range and depth of contracted capabilities necessary to support the Joint Force • CJCS Intent • Better understand contracted capabilities in Iraq to determine areas of high reliance or dependence • Determine where we are most reliant, and in some cases dependent, on contractor support, informing longer term force structure and potential “buy back” implications • Guide the development of future contingency planning and force development (TF-III Focus)

  4. Our Objectives • Review OCS Task Force III (TF-III) preliminary findings related to OCS planning rules, processes, and tools • Rules Policy, doctrine, guidance • Processes Business process and methods • Tools IT systems and knowledge management • Receive initial OCS planner feedback, thoughts, recommendations, and insights regarding OCS TF-III proposed rules, processes, and tools findings and recommendations • Develop the way-ahead to operationalize findings and recommendations Your expertise will help shape the way ahead

  5. Findings • Rules • Processes • Tools

  6. OCS TF III Summary Template • Findings by area – rules, processes, tools • Recommendations by finding • Summary issue slide – example format shown:

  7. Findings • Rules • Processes • Tools

  8. Rules: Findings • GEF does not specify guidance regarding the use of contracts in planning • 2010 GFMIG requirements regarding RFF/RFC for contracted support are unclear • JOPESdoes not assign a single point of contact for OCS contract integration planning • JOPES is needed at Level 1, 2, & 3 (not just level 3T and 4) enabling comprehensive adaptive planning Strategic guidance drives planning behavior

  9. Findings • Rules • Processes • Tools

  10. Process - Findings • Existing contracts, delivery order (DO), or task order (TO) are not categorized and aligned by JCA • Theater Business Clearance (TBC) processes and contract related systems of record should enhance contract/contracting situational awareness (COP) • Adaptive Planning does not encourage planning of contracted support Planning and management concepts not yet in synch

  11. Findings • Rules • Processes • Tools

  12. Tools - Findings • OCS planning tools non-existent • Existing and emerging IT systems (JCRM, cASM, SPS, SPOT, and others) can support OCS planning with minor modifications • Contract / contractor readiness not measured by DoD OCS planners are hamstrung by inadequate tools and immature OCS planning efforts

  13. CJCS TF IIIFindings Summary

  14. OCS Planning Community of Interest Feedback • Review findings and recommendations • Determine which have merit • Refine findings and recommendations (using COI input) • COI provide informal sense of whether findings and recommendations will gain traction • How important is the item? • Extent of item’s impact? • Ease of implementation?

  15. Sample Scorecard

  16. Discussion

  17. 1st Tier Back Up

  18. Rules – Recommendation 1 GEF does not specify guidance regarding the use of contracts in planning • Recommend: • GEF contain language that directs the CCDRs to consider the use of contracts to support theater engagement where appropriate (Phase 0) • GEF clearly articulate policy regarding use of contractors in support of contingency operations (e.g., phases for use, JCAs and percentage reliance, etc.) • Rationale: In policy and practice, contracting is “last priority” solution; situations exist where contracting may be “first choice” option; doctrine and policy should support this when appropriate

  19. Rules – Recommendation 2 2010 GFMIG RFF requirements are unclear. “In order to maintain visibility on the total demand for forces and capabilities all RFF/RFCs, regardless of sourcing solution, (e.g., linguists, security forces, etc.), will be forwarded for review in the GFM process” • Recommend: Clarify guidance to assist CCDRs in complying with GFMIG as it relates to contracted support • Rationale: GFM envisions use of entire force which requires visibility of the ‘total demand signal’ via the RFF/RFC process; contractors have and will continue to be integral to the entire force. DoD process for managing RFF/RFCs for contracted support unclear.

  20. Rules – Recommendation 3 JOPESdoes not assign a single point of contact for OCS contract integration planning • Recommend: The JOPES designate the JS, J4 as the JS lead for OCS integration for planning and visibility into execution • Rationale: Absence of OCS planning is a recognized shortfall. Unity of effort across J-Dirs for OCS is lacking. Clear guidance on the duties and responsibilities with respect to OCS is required. Placing this in JOPES Volume I, CJCSM 3122.01A, will codify the responsibility.

  21. Rules – Recommendation 4 JOPES is needed at Level 1, 2, & 3 (not just level 3T / 4) enabling comprehensive adaptive planning • Recommend: Annex W required for Level 3/3T, and “essentials” to be addressed in Level 1 and 2 plans • Rationale: Inclusion of friendly forces, assumptions, mission, major tasks, and C2 will enhance contract support integration and contractor management planning. • Recommend: JOPES Volumes I and II direct that ALL level plans include time phased force deployment-like listing (TPFDL) of forces needed to support the CCDR recommended contingency plan CONOPS • Rationale: Requiring the use of a TPFDL-like listing of anticipated forces facilitates automation of Annex W, Tab A preparation, permits rapid quantification of force totals, and quantifies force totals associated with COAs

  22. Process – Recommendation 1 Existing contracts, delivery order (DO), or task order (TO) are not categorized and aligned by JCA • Recommend: • Develop business rules to support requiring activity categorization of a contract, DO, or TO to JCAs (best fit standard) • Refine and sharpen JCA tier definitions where appropriate to account for a contract’s purpose • Rationale: Systems that describe contracts should reflect the JCA(s) that the contract supports improving contract planning (Annex W Tab A), oversight and management and to inform force mix and strategic policy decision-making

  23. Process – Recommendation 2 Theater Business Clearance (TBC) processes and contract related systems of record should enhance contract/contracting situational awareness (COP) • Recommend: • Refine TBC policies, doctrine, processes and tools to provide CCDRs with an OCS COP within the AOR • Ensure systems of record are capable of identifying contingency contracts (e.g., Marker, CJCS Project Code) • Rationale: Current processes do not differentiate between contingency and non-contingency contracts. For example, there is no clear and unambiguous link between a systems support contract and the supported UTC. Assignment of JCS project code to contract, DO, or TO will facilitate reporting.

  24. Process – Recommendation 3 Adaptive Planning processes do not encourage planning of contracted support to a similar level of fidelity as organic forces • Recommend: • Develop a repeatable process, templates and planning factors to enable OCS planning (Annex W, Tab A) • Develop and use contracted capability-related UTCs (JCA unique or existing Service UTCs); alternatively useservice or force provider codes to plan for contracted support • Rationale: Current policy and doctrine stress use of contracts as a last resort after consideration of ACSA, HN, coalition and US force structure. • Global engagement objectives and GFM considerations impact on active planning for contracted support

  25. Tools – Recommendation 1 OCS planning tools non-existent • Recommend: • Investigate contract and contractor situational awareness / common operational picture in GCSS-J via SPOT & TOPPS • Make visibility of contracts evident to planners to preclude duplication of efforts and lessen the cost of contracting • Develop OCS-related planning factors and tools to estimate contract support needs (e.g. for each Phase I-V, military to contractor ratios) • Rationale: OCS planning is an enduring need; planners need tools to facilitate planning and COA development

  26. Tools – Recommendation 2 Existing and emerging IT systems (JCRM, cASM, SPS, SPOT, and others) can support OCS planning with minor modifications • Recommend: • Incorporate JCAs, Contingency Contract markers, CJCS Project Codes and other operational relevant attributes into existing and emerging IT systems supporting OCS (Codify in Requirements Documents, e.g. OCS CBA material solutions) • Rationale: • We need planning processes and IT systems that allow seamless transition between planning and execution. Planning processes and IT systems must feed executable force projection display systems Process and IT development requires cooperation of traditional planning and execution communities

  27. Tools – Recommendation 3 System and External Support contract readiness to support contingencies is not measured by DoD • Recommend: • Investigate whether DRRS can incorporate meaningful contract readiness reporting, and if so propose rules, tools and processes to support • Rationale: DoD reliance on contractors demands insight into their ability to respond to contingency requirements

  28. 2nd Tier Back Up

  29. J1 J2 J3 J4 J5 J6 J7 J8 OSD OCS Rules Issue # 1

  30. OCS Rules Issue # 1 p. 40; Para 15. Change to read: Contractors and Contract Support Integration. Combatant commanders with geographic responsibilities, together with their Service component operations and logistics planners, will identify contractor support to organic forces to include the number of system and external support contractors in OPLAN and CONPLAN force deployment lists, and the number of theater support contractors anticipated in the Area of Operations when planning, deployment and redeployment, for Phases 0 through Phase V in their plans. Specifically, they will address force size, accountability, visibility, training, deployment, protection, support, arming, redeployment, and individual responsibility requirements for contractors. Specific theater support contracting organizational guidance as well as the integration of system and external support contracting, will include command and control relationships and security plans for protection of contingency contractor personnel, must be addressed in OPLANs and CONPLANs.

  31. J1 J2 J3 J4 J5 J6 J7 J8 OSD OCS Rules Issue # 2

  32. OCS Rules Issue # 2 (U) Global Force Management Emergent Allocation Process. This process lays out the roles, missions, and functions to support the sourcing of CCDR requests for capabilities and forces in support of emerging or crisis-based requirements. (1) (U) Process (a) (U) CCDRs submit RFF/RFC to support emerging or crisis based operational requirements to the SecDef via the Chairman, lAW CJCSM 3122.01A JOPES Volume I, Enclosure R, with information copies to other combatant commands and affected Services. Each RFF/RFC force capability requirement will have an FTN assigned to it by the supported CCDR. The FTN construct is provided in CJCSM 3150.16C JOPESREP. Additionally, to be accepted for validation, all RFF/RFCs must include a GO/FO endorsement verifying that the CCDR J3 has reviewed and endorsed the request. 1-(U) In order to maintain visibility on the total demand for forces and capabilities all RFF/RFCs, regardless of sourcing solution, (e.g. linguists, security forces, etc), will be forwarded for review in the GFM process. (b) (U) The Chairman validates the RFF/RFC --validation may include the following actions: 1-(U) Prioritization of the requirement in relation to other existing priorities (e.g., on-going operations, war plan response timelines, and objectives of activities and plans pursuant to JSCP and GEF taskings). ~. (U) Capability and/or force availability substitution guidance on alternate sourcing strategies --to include coalition, DOD, or other federal agency support, or contract.

  33. Annex W Required Content Applicable planning Level Annex W Paragraph / Content

  34. J1 J2 J3 J4 J5 J6 J7 J8 OSD OCS Rules Issue # 3

  35. OCS Rules Issue # 4 J1 J2 J3 J4 J5 J6 J7 J8 OSD

  36. MINIMUM TPFDL-LIKE DATA ELEMENTS UTC

  37. Legend: Red : User input Orange : Derived from input Grey : Desired input Sample TPFDL-like Data

  38. Recommended CRM Input CJCSM 3122.03C, JOPES VOL II FORMATS Commander’s Estimate Format: 2.b. Friendly COAs. …Address the following for each COA (items marked with * provide TPFDL-like data for operational contract support planning): (1) Combat capability required (e.g., urban combat, air superiority, maritime interdiction) (2) Force provider and force description with estimate of auth pers* (3) Potential Destination* (4) Required delivery dates * (5) Coordinated deployment estimate (6) Employment Estimate (7) Estimated transportation requirements Bold : Indicates a recommended add to current JOPES documentation

  39. Recommended CRM Input CJCSM 3122.03C, JOPES VOL II FORMATS Basic Plan: 3. Execution a. Concept of Operations. …Include the entire concept of operations when submitting only a Basic Plan, and provide TPFDL-like data for operational contract support planning, including: force description with estimate of auth pers, potential destination, and required delivery dates… b. Tasks. List the tasks assigned to each element of the supported commands and agencies in separate subparagraphs. Each task should be a concise statement encompassing all key actions that subordinate and supporting elements must perform. Bold : Indicates a recommended add to current JOPES documentation

  40. Recommended CRM Input CJCSM 3122.01A, JOPES VOL I POL/PROC Enclosure C, CONTINGENCY PLANNING PROCESS 3. Types of Contingency Plans. Contingency Planning includes the preparation of four levels of planning detail. …the secretary of Defense may increase or decrease the level of detail required… Of increasing importance is operational contract support (OCS) planning throughout the entire force planning process. OCS is enabled by developing a minimum TPFDL-like data set, including total force description with an estimate of authorized personnel, potential destination, and required delivery dates, as promulgated in CJCSM 3122/03C, JOPES VOLUME II, PLANNING FORMATS Bold : Indicates a recommended add to current JOPES documentation

  41. J1 J2 J3 J4 J5 J6 J7 J8 OSD OCS Process Issue # 1.a.

  42. OCS Process Issue # 1.b.1 J1 J2 J3 J4 J5 J6 J7 J8 OSD

  43. J1 J2 J3 J4 J5 J6 J7 J8 OSD OCS Process Issue # 1.b.2

  44. J1 J2 J3 J4 J5 J6 J7 J8 OSD OCS Process Issue # 1.b.3

  45. J1 J2 J3 J4 J5 J7 J8 OSD Services OCS Process Issue # 2

  46. J1 J2 J3 J4 J5 J6 J7 J8 OSD OCS Process Issue # 3

  47. J1 J2 J3 J4 J5 J6 J7 J8 OSD OCS Tools Issue # 1

  48. OCS Tools Issue # 2.a J1 J2 J3 J4 J5 J6 J7 J8 OSD

  49. OCS Tools Issue # 2.b J1 J2 J3 J4 J5 J6 J7 J8 OSD

More Related