SDV Solutions, Inc’s Post

Top 3 tools for XSS

MOVERS FOR AMERICA TRANSCOM, HomeSafe Detail GHC Rollout Expectations A recent article on Military.com outlined the expectations of TRANSCOM and HomeSafe for consolidation of PCS moves, with TRANSCOM officials promising that the new system will be “a much smoother, modern, and overall improved experience.” But, in fact, the new system is completely unproven and will replace a system that works with a monopoly that may throw military moves into chaos. And why? A recent independent survey soon to be released indicates that satisfaction among military families is up with the current PCS system. HomeSafe touts a “drastically different” customer service experience than exists today. They go on to say – erroneously – that customers who have issues or questions in the current system “are unable to pinpoint the appropriate point of contact who can answer their questions and resolve their issues.” Actually, as part of recent PCS enhancements, when a move is accepted by a TSP in the Defense Personal Property Program (DP3), companies already provide families with a single customer service point-of-contact, including the email address and phone number. It’s working. In contrast, the GHC has struggled with a series of issues and delays, including defective technology and low industry participation ☹️ – to the point where just 1% of moves this busy season will operate under the new system. Given the level of investment in GHC, including a recent additional infusion of $60 million, that level of implementation reflects a shocking (though probably warranted) lack of confidence. Which raises the question: If it ain’t broke, why break it?

We took a poll among Unicorns, and the longest ATO approval experienced during their time in the Military was 🥁 (drum roll please) 🥁 16 MONTHS… are you able to beat that? Recently, the House Armed Services Committee convened on the need for a better software acquisition process within the United States Department of Defense. Do you know what was identified as a key issue? The ATO approval process 🤯 If you want to know more about the hearing, read the Nextgov/FCW article in the comments. And if you want to know our take on necessary improvements for the ATO approval process, well, we have a White Paper for that! 

"[F-35 Lightning II] Block 4 was originally meant to add 66 new capabilities at a cost of $10.6 billion by 2026, Ludwigson said. That has swelled to 80 capabilities costing $16.5 billion, he said, and now isn’t expected to be done until 2029." What is the impact of this on the agreed delivery schedule and maturity of Finland's Block 4 F-35As? Physical changes incorporated to all new-build airframes, software drops integrated as they become available? Will Finnish Lightning II's have the new AN/APG-85 radar, instead of the previously agreed on AN/APG-81? What about the known engine and cooling issues? Is the enhanced F135 engine with improved cooling power already installed in Finnish F-35s as they are rolled out or will the aircraft have to go through a costly engine replacement program at an early stage of its service life with the FiAF?

No wonder no-one refers to us as the Arsenal of Democracy any longer... How about we give "Collection of Used-to-bes", "Conglomeration of Not-so-much these days", "Gathering of 'Meh...get back to us in the fall'" or "Armory of just taking-the-talk" until our Industrial Base writ large and the myriad Captains of Industry are forced to pull their collective heads out of their azzes. And please...no verbose, condescending speeches about the US Industrial Base, Controlled Materiel 101, global sourcing, global economies, supply and demand and defense contracting / sub-contracting 101... none are relevant to this particular snarky point. https://lnkd.in/eGFZ9_8K

WHAT ARE SOME OF THE COMMON CHALLENGES YOU’VE SEEN SELLING SOFTWARE TO THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE? In Summary: A lot of challenges. There’s quite a bit to unpack. Check out our Old Fashioned Short (video below) where Long Capture's Russell Long and Second Front Systems' TJ Rowe attempt to unpack it! For more information on ATO, be sure to check out the whole interview here >> https://hubs.la/Q02j9gnn0

MOVERSFORAMERICA.COM TRANSCOM, HomeSafe Detail GHC Rollout Expectations A recent article on Military.com outlined the expectations of TRANSCOM and HomeSafe for consolidation of PCS moves, with TRANSCOM officials promising that the new system will be “a much smoother, modern, and overall improved experience.” But, in fact, the new system is completely unproven and will replace a system that works with a monopoly that may throw military moves into chaos. And why? A recent independent survey soon to be released indicates that satisfaction among military families is up with the current PCS system. HomeSafe touts a “drastically different” customer service experience than exists today. They go on to say – erroneously – that customers who have issues or questions in the current system “are unable to pinpoint the appropriate point of contact who can answer their questions and resolve their issues.” Actually, as part of recent PCS enhancements, when a move is accepted by a TSP in the Defense Personal Property Program (DP3), companies already provide families with a single customer service point-of-contact, including the email address and phone number. It’s working. In contrast, the GHC has struggled with a series of issues and delays, including defective technology and low industry participation ☹️ – to the point where just 1% of moves this busy season will operate under the new system. Given the level of investment in GHC, including a recent additional infusion of $60 million, that level of implementation reflects a shocking (though probably warranted) lack of confidence. Which raises the question: If it ain’t broke, why break it? Are you a moving professional? We want to hear from you. CLICK HERE to complete a survey of your views. We’re hoping the ongoing independent scientific survey for industry professionals will provide us with insights into the current PCS system and thoughts on the new GHC. Your responses will be strictly confidential. Final survey results will be presented as overall percentages without any personal identifying information, and results may be made available to the media for educational purposes.

In another provision, the committees propose a pilot program for “anything-as-a-service,” which would “explore the use of consumption-based solutions to address any defense need … that is feasible to provide users on-demand access, quickly add newly released capabilities, and bill based on actual usage at fixed price units.” #indopacific #cjadc2 #jwc #dod

Support systems are complicated things. They should be designed but that often isn’t the case. Sure, the amount of documentation and reports might give the impression that it has been designed but the reality is that it is likely to have simply evolved over time. Check out the article below 👇 #integratedlogisticsupport #integratedlifecyclesupport #ils #integratedproductsupport #ips #supportanalysis #logisticsupportanalysis #lsa #productsupportanalysis #psa

𝕌𝕡𝕕𝕒𝕥𝕖 𝔸𝕝𝕖𝕣𝕥: 𝔻𝔽𝔸ℝ𝕊 😲 : The United States Department of Defense is considering revising its Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS) clause 252.227–7027, Deferred Ordering of Technical Data or Computer Software, and the associated guidance to contracting officers at DFARS 227.7103–8 and 227.7203–8. The revision under consideration includes the statutory requirement for a determination that: ⭐ The technical data is needed for the purpose of reprocurement, sustainment, modification, or upgrade (including through competitive means) of a major system or subsystem thereof, a weapon system or subsystem thereof, or any noncommercial product or process; and ⭐The technical data pertains to an item or process developed in whole or in part with Federal funds; or is described in subparagraphs (D)(i)(II), (F), and (G) of subsection (a)(2) of 10 U.S.C. 2320. This revision would address deferred ordering of technical data, including cases when the Government does not challenge a restrictive marking or asserted restriction in technical data consistent with 10 U.S.C. 3772(a)(9) (formerly 10 U.S.C. 2320(b)(9)). For more information, click here: https://lnkd.in/gsk_3yPm #publicprocurement #datarights #alert #dinocorn