Advertisement
Not a member of Pastebin yet?
Sign Up,
it unlocks many cool features!
- Classification: UNCLASSIFIED
- Caveats: NONE
- Good luck for you, see you soonRegards,
- -Gene
- > -----Original Message-----
- > From: AJMacDonald [mailto:ajmacdonald83@yahoo.com]
- > Sent: Thursday, August 22, 2013 2:31 PM
- > To: Furst, Eugene P CIV (US)
- > Subject: Re: Follow-up, 20130820
- > As you see I'm far from this now, but I know our guys did their best.
- > I enjoyed catching-up with you. Hope to see you soon again.
- > Sincerely,
- > Jamie
- > On Aug 22, 2013, at 2:14 PM, "Furst, Eugene P CIV (US)"
- > <eugene.p.furst.civ@mail.mil> wrote:
- >> You're exactly right. We have to work with both theater on the requirement
- >> and the organization that owns the contract to ensure we don't have too few
- >> or too many contractors.
- >> CITP - Rock Island Contract
- >> CIAT - DIA Contract
- >> By the way, saw your latest success, my congratulations. Good job.
- >> http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/syrian-activists-accuse-government-of-deadly-chemical-attack-near-damascus/2013/08/21/aea157e6-0a50-11e3-89fe-abb4a5067014_story.html
- >> Regards,
- >> -Gene
- >> -----Original Message-----
- >> From: AJMacDonald [mailto:ajmacdonald83@yahoo.com]
- >> Sent: Thursday, August 22, 2013 1:00 PM
- >> To: Furst, Eugene P CIV (US)
- >> Subject: Re: Follow-up, 20130820
- >> Gene; CIAT and CITP contracts are MIP funded. I recall the issue that often
- >> surfaced was how the drawdown affected demand necessitating our assessment
- >> of where we had folks, the quantity of analysts, and costs associate with
- >> their employment. My recollection of this is correct is it not? Please
- >> advise. Thank you. Jamie On Aug 21, 2013, at 4:19 PM, "Furst, Eugene P CIV
- >> (US)" <eugene.p.furst.civ@mail.mil> wrote:
- >>> Jamie,
- >>>
- >>> Next time you come in, I'll grab Katrina in DAMI-RI to help out if needed.
- >>> Your comment below is correct. It's just important to remember that
- >>> the POM captures our "request". It isn't approved until Congress puts
- >>> its stamp of approval on it. Pretty sure you understood that, we're
- >>> just at the point where we're covering minor nuances...
- >>>
- >>> Regards,
- >>> -Gene
- >>>
- >>> -----Original Message-----
- >>> From: AJMacDonald [mailto:ajmacdonald83@yahoo.com]
- >>> Sent: Tuesday, August 20, 2013 5:13 PM
- >>> To: Furst, Eugene P CIV (US)
- >>> Subject: Re: Follow-up, 20130820
- >>>
- >>> Thanks, Gene; ROGER all on the OCO piece - at DIA and with the ISR TF
- >>> OCO was always stated; the fun was in determining what color OCO we
- >>> would be allocated. End use always mattered in these cases. POM lock
- >>> precedes the
- >>> CJB: In that case the CJB captures how we were allocating MIP dollars
- >>> to support activities within the confines of the approved POM. We
- >>> might need a coffee! Jamie
- >>>
- >>>
- >>> On Aug 20, 2013, at 4:59 PM, "Furst, Eugene P CIV (US)"
- >>> <eugene.p.furst.civ@mail.mil> wrote:
- >>>
- >>>> Jamie,
- >>>>
- >>>> One quick caveat... within the MIP and the NIP there is base and OCO.
- >>>> Most, if not all JUONS coming out of theater were addressed using OCO
- >>> dollars.
- >>>> Some of this OCO was MIP and some was NIP. Within DA G-2 almost all
- >>>> of our OCO throughout the years was MIP. Not sure how much MIP/NIP
- >>>> OCO DIA utilized. Just bringing this up based on your comment "
- >>>> albeit the MIP might have more akin to OCO painted the color of MIP".
- >>>>
- >>>> You're correct regarding not having the linguist contract presented
- >>>> during Congressional MIP/NIP Day... this was funded using non-MIP
- >>>> Army OCO
- >>> dollars.
- >>>> Stable Shadow was actually part of MIP/NIP Day... it was just never
- >>>> an issue.
- >>>>
- >>>> Following MIP/NIP day, DAMI-RI would begin to build the Army's MIP
- >>>> section of the CJB. The funding and manpower data within the CJB was
- >>>> based upon data provided by the dollars requested/approved within the
- >>>> POM (once we had a "POM lock", DAMI-RI was able to plug the numbers
- >>>> into
- >>> the CJB).
- >>>>
- >>>> Everything else is spot-on.
- >>>>
- >>>> I can also run this past Katrina in DAMI-RI for review... I'm pretty
- >>>> familiar with the processes, but I'm certainly no expert.
- >>>>
- >>>> Please don't hesitate if there's anything else.
- >>>>
- >>>> Regards,
- >>>> -Gene
- >>>>
- >>>> -----Original Message-----
- >>>> From: AJMacDonald [mailto:ajmacdonald83@yahoo.com]
- >>>> Sent: Tuesday, August 20, 2013 4:43 PM
- >>>> To: Furst, Eugene P CIV (US)
- >>>> Cc: genefurst@hotmail.com
- >>>> Subject: Follow-up, 20130820
- >>>>
- >>>> Gene:
- >>>>
- >>>> Thank you for making time to see me last week; I enjoyed catching-up
- >>>> with you. Additionally, I learned a great deal and you enabled me to
- >>>> put a few things back into perspective.
- >>>>
- >>>> When I was the Chief of Staff of the DIOCC at DIA I was appointed to
- >>>> lead the Agency's Intelligence, Surveillance and Reconnaissance (ISR)
- >>>> Task Force Tiger Team. The purpose of this Tiger Team was to merge
- >>>> the ongoing and competing efforts of the agency's five disparate
- >>>> directorates to garner funding from the ISR Task Force to resource
- >>>> their stove piped support requirements to the fights in Iraq and
- >>>> Afghanistan. They were doing this under the auspices of the JUONS
- >>>> process. We got our act together and tightened up things within the
- >>>> agency. I always believed that although we were working through the
- >>>> ISR Task Force we were actually leveraging available MIP and NIP
- >>>> dollars - albeit the MIP might have more akin to OCO painted the
- >>>> color of MIP. The NIP piece was always something LTG Zahner, and
- >>>> later LTG Kozial, would work out with the DNI. Do you believe I have
- >> this right?
- >>>>
- >>>> The NIP MIP day is clear now as well. Essentially OP served as the
- >>>> intelligence operations authority and advocate for Army intelligence
- >>>> equities (e.g., Prophet, Guardrail, DCGS-A, ARL, EMRS, PTDS and PGSS)
- >>>> during the annual meetings with the Congressional Professional Staff
- >>> Members (PSM).
- >>>> Our endstate was to ensure that all Military Intelligence Program "
- >>>> intelligence capability areas" entered into the Congressional
- >>>> Justification Book (CJB), specifically any changes in resource
- >>>> allocation, were understood by the PSMs prior to final submission of
- >>>> the requirements to Congress for approval. I am not certain we had
- >>>> our linguist contract or Stable Shadow $s included in this mix.
- >>>>
- >>>> However, before all of this kicked off we had to meet with the SMEs
- >>>> and action officers to review the submissions and provide counsel or
- >>>> guidance on the completion of the individual submissions to ensure we
- >>>> "dotted all of the i's" and "crossed all of the t's". Once this was
- >>>> complete we would review the proposed submissions with the G-2 for
- >>>> approval, guidance and or course changes. We'd conduct another
- >>>> internal review before providing read-aheads to the PSMs. Once in
- >>>> the book and good to go this would be aligned with the POM - right?
- >>>>
- >>>> Please let me know if I have this right or missed something.
- >>>>
- >>>> Again, thank you for your time and patience.
- >>>>
- >>>> Sincerely,
- >>>>
- >>>> Jamie
- >>>>
- >>>>
- >>>>
- >>>>
- >>>>
- >>>>
- >>>>
- >>>>
- >>>>
- >>>>
- >>>>
- >>>>
- >>>>
- >>>>
- >>>>
- >>>>
- >>>
- Classification: UNCLASSIFIED
- Caveats: NONE
Advertisement
Add Comment
Please, Sign In to add comment
Advertisement