Subordinate Unit Inspection

[41839j]

Does anyone on here have any experience with SUIs from the standpoint of Supply?  I will shortly be facing my first one.  Any pointers would be helpful.  Thanks.

[Eclipse]

Follow the guide and make sure you have the most current one.

Know where everything is, insure your inventories are correct and current.

Insure your Supply Officer is properly assigned in eServices and the CAPF 2a showing the assumption of responsibility is on file.

Don't embellish - answer "yes or no questions" with "yes" or "no", and make sure you can substantiate your responses.

Absent wing supplements, the reg is the authority, regardless of what an inspector might indicate or imply - if you disagree, don't
get into an argument, address it in the response.  SUI inspectors have no authority, and cannot direct you to take any action
contrary to your CC's wishes - they are there to ascertain and report facts.

Remember this is not a "final exam", this is a snapshot of the unit's operations on the day of the inspection.  Do your best,
but don't fixate on the grade, your pay will be the same, regardless.

[arajca]

See if you can get a copy of the results from your unit's last SUI for Supply. If you can, make sure any deficencies are addressed. Corrected if appropriate, explained if not corrected. "I'm new" will get you some leeway with some inspectors, but not all, and generally not with anything major.

Have a current copy of your S-3 (unit inventory) available. If you can pull it up in eServices during the SUI, that's best. Make absolutely sure everything that is issued has been accepted in ORMS. If any non-expendible equipment has been issued to a cadet under 18, make sure you have a CAPF 37 signed by their parent/gaurdian. The SUI folks will generally not ask to see issued equipment, but will typically ask to see any equipment/uniforms/supplies not issued or assigned. The SUI inspector will usually have one, but it'll be a couple of days old, usually. Make sure anything that is MISSING is noted in ORMS under "Condition" and that a Report of Survey (ROS) has been initiated for them. This usually happens as soon as up change the condition to "Missing".

Make sure any expendible supplies (uniforms) are issued on the CAPF 111 in ORMS if they exist in your ORMS inventory.

Unless you are also the Communications Officer, stay away from the radios/df units/practice beacons. If you start bringing them into the discussion, you'll find yourself being inspected on the Communications tab as well.

Read CAPR 174-1(?) which covers all this as well and is the guiding reg for Logistics.

[Eclipse]

^ What he said.  Also...

You're "supply" only right?

Not Transport?  If you're Transport as well and have a vehicle, it'll be inspected.  If you're Transport with no vehicle, there will still be a couple
questions regarding CAP DL's.

[EMT-83]

Have a vehicle? Tire pressure!

[davedove]

Get a copy of the SUI Guide.  It will have the list of questions you need to answer and, in my experience, the inspectors won't ask for anything else.  If you are good on all the questions in your section, you'll do fine.

[41839j]

This is all very helpful and exactly the kind of advice I was seeking.  Thanks to all who posted.  Couple of things;  i am also listed as assistant comm and assistant transportation officer.  There are others above me who are tasked in that department.  I needed them to be able to conduct and submit the inventories.  That is the extent of my involvement.

The no expendable property is not an issue.  The expendable is currently logged in a book when issued to cadets, but I don't have them in ORMS.  Will they want that done?

[arajca]

IIRC, you're supossed to be using the online CAPF 111 for expendable items, which is access through ORMS.

[Laplace]

Great advice so far on this.  I've done about 10 SUIs in the past year and these are the problem areas we've seen in Supply:

• Changeover inventory not done when there was a recent change in CC or LGS
• Non-expendable items not tagged with the red CAP property tag
• Location field in ORMS used to show an item returned to Wing/given to another sqd or issued to a sqd member
• Non-use of the on-line 111a to document uniform issues
• Member owned items at sad building not marked as "on loan" or "property of______"
• Donated or sqd purchased non-expendable items not entered into ORMS

Good luck.  It is not a painful process and can be helpful.  I agree with the "don't embellish" comments, but, then again, this is YOUR time to tell about great and above and beyond things you or your Squadron does. 

[LGM30GMCC]

You can also talk to the wing logistics or supply folks. Hopefully they should have more experience and be able to at least guide/help you. If you have groups, talk to the group supply. This isn't 'breaking the chain.' Staffers can talk to staffers when it comes to matters of mentoring and help. It's really ok and the higher-ups should know any wing-specific policies or whatnot. 

Heck, if a unit hasn't been inspected in a bit there's nothing wrong with having a unit CC request a SAV. They're called assistance visits for a reason.

[Eclipse]

Good luck.  It is not a painful process and can be helpful.  I agree with the "don't embellish" comments, but, then again, this is YOUR time to tell about great and above and beyond things you or your Squadron does.

I've had people who "embellish" and the inspection took 8 hours, when the whole thing should be 1-2 hours and everyone goes home.

No one is reading the best practices, most wings don't publish the inspections to the peer commanders, and no one particularly cares about the grade unless it's a face-flat "unsuccessful" - the only thing that anyone will even mention after the inspection is published is closing the findings.

[Private Investigator]

Heck, if a unit hasn't been inspected in a bit there's nothing wrong with having a unit CC request a SAV. They're called assistance visits for a reason.

SUIs are back to every two years now so everyone knows where the skeletons are hidden.

If you have a vehicle assign, clean it up and check the fluids and tire pressure. It always surprise me that Squadrons would not prepare their vehicles for inspections when it is just a few minutes to square it away.   

[airdad]

maybe in your wing SUIs are at 2 years, I can't say.  Our wing has changed in the past few years.  However CAPR 123-3 provides that SUIs may be done on a 36 month cycle, and if the wing conducts SUIs on the (approximate) 36 month cycle, then the unit is responsible for doing a self assessment (using the SUI guide) in the other 2 years during the anniversary month of the SUI.
Oddly enough, in those wings where SUIs are on a 24 month cycle, self assessments are not required.

[Eclipse]

Oddly enough, in those wings where SUIs are on a 24 month cycle, self assessments are not required.

That's the reason they aren't required, because you're exceeding the minimum inspection cycle.  My wing does this, though I don't agree with it.

[MSG Mac]

I've seen units where the responsible Officer is "not Available" on the date of the inspection. In those circumstances make sure that your assistant or someone is available, up to date, and able to stand in for you. If not you will have flat out failed the inspection.

[Private Investigator]

maybe in your wing SUIs are at 2 years, I can't say.  Our wing has changed in the past few years.  However CAPR 123-3 provides that SUIs may be done on a 36 month cycle, and if the wing conducts SUIs on the (approximate) 36 month cycle, then the unit is responsible for doing a self assessment (using the SUI guide) in the other 2 years during the anniversary month of the SUI.
Oddly enough, in those wings where SUIs are on a 24 month cycle, self assessments are not required.

I did the IG thing for six years. Every two years is better management. Self assessments I liked but you will not have all units doing a legit self assessment. That bad boy is just 'pencil whipped' 50% of the time. Three years the Unit slide and when you go back you wonder how they not did anything.

I always found Units with really poor Safety Programs, before eservices, would put down their safety briefs occurred on Memorial Day, Labor Day or if they meet on Tuesdays they put a few down as Mondays or Wednesdays and others that obviously b.s. because cheaters are never smart enough to go the extra step and at least make it look good. Same thing with vehicle maintenance. The last oil change they said was last month but the door sticker was from three years ago and the dip stick has nothing on it.

IG = good times indeed   

[Private Investigator]

I've seen units where the responsible Officer is "not Available" on the date of the inspection. In those circumstances make sure that your assistant or someone is available, up to date, and able to stand in for you. If not you will have flat out failed the inspection.

Roger that. Some Squadrons are so ill prepared I have spent eight hours on them. It is not rocket science follow the guide and be prepared.   

[brenaud]

Good luck.  It is not a painful process and can be helpful.  I agree with the "don't embellish" comments, but, then again, this is YOUR time to tell about great and above and beyond things you or your Squadron does.

That's a very good point.  Yes, the general rule is "answer the question that's asked" but if you have an outstanding way of managing your area of responsibility it's good to let the inspector know that.  It's one way in which "Successful" and "Highly Successful" are distinguished.  Also be ready for follow-up...the answer to a yes/no question is really "yes, and here's the supporting information". 

Others have said be familiar with the SUI Guide.  As an inspectee, I've had very good luck (and happy inspectors) by providing a packet to the inspector based on the SUI guide for my area(s).  On one page, I write question 1 (along with any a, b, c parts it may have) and I put my answer.  On the following pages, I put the documentation to support that (e-Services printouts, 2As, etc.).  After the supporting info comes question 2 followed by its supporting info, followed by 3, you get the idea.  As an inspector, well, I wish I would've seen that done more often.  Makes things go very quickly in my experience (greatly minimizes the need for searching through unit files, personnel records, and the like).  There are probably other great ways to handle the inspection; I've just found that one to work well.

And I'll second the comments about making sure either you're there or an alternate that knows the information is there.  Otherwise, it can be a long night for the CC (and the inspectors).

[AirDX]

That's a very good point.  Yes, the general rule is "answer the question that's asked" but if you have an outstanding way of managing your area of responsibility it's good to let the inspector know that.  It's one way in which "Successful" and "Highly Successful" are distinguished.  Also be ready for follow-up...the answer to a yes/no question is really "yes, and here's the supporting information". 

Others have said be familiar with the SUI Guide.  As an inspectee, I've had very good luck (and happy inspectors) by providing a packet to the inspector based on the SUI guide for my area(s).  On one page, I write question 1 (along with any a, b, c parts it may have) and I put my answer.  On the following pages, I put the documentation to support that (e-Services printouts, 2As, etc.).  After the supporting info comes question 2 followed by its supporting info, followed by 3, you get the idea.  As an inspector, well, I wish I would've seen that done more often.  Makes things go very quickly in my experience (greatly minimizes the need for searching through unit files, personnel records, and the like).  There are probably other great ways to handle the inspection; I've just found that one to work well.

And I'll second the comments about making sure either you're there or an alternate that knows the information is there.  Otherwise, it can be a long night for the CC (and the inspectors).

CAPR 123-3, 7.a.(3) Each staff position to be inspected will prepare a section Assessment Book as described in Attachment 2.

[Eclipse]

That's for Wing Compliance Inspections, not Unit Inspections.

[AirDX]

Oh, OK.  I belong to too many organizations.  :-)

[brenaud]

CAPR 123-3, 7.a.(3) Each staff position to be inspected will prepare a section Assessment Book as described in Attachment 2.

That's for Wing Compliance Inspections, not Unit Inspections.

Hadn't looked at that section of the reg.  I'll chalk it up to not having experienced the joy of being part of a CI.  Somewhat different organization of the info from what I described but same basic idea.  I never gave much thought to the source of that idea, but I guess now I know (especially considering the fact that the people that gave me that guidance had been on the receiving end of CIs).  Perhaps I'll change formats for the next round.  At any rate, doing the same thing for SUIs is good training for future Wing staffers (albeit on a smaller scale).

[Dracosbane]

I'll give you a tip that we employed from our last SUI.  For each section, we employed a continuity binder.  Put each section with your answers and the supporting documentation. 

Not only will it organize everything, it will all be right there to hand over during each sections inquiry. 

Anyone on an IG team that happens to come to an inspection where the unit has done this, please remember that this is a convienence for you and the unit, and that if there is information that is only required to be up to date in eServices, don't get snotty with the section head when he hasn't printed the information the day of the inspection when you can easily reach over to your laptop and bring up the report because that's where you should be looking for the report anyway.  This is especially true if the section head organized the binder three months prior because the inspection was supposed to happen then and got delayed three times, and especially since the report hasn't changed in the system so the paperwork is still valid.

[LGM30GMCC]

One trick we use with our inspections on AD is you do not simply hand the inspector the binder and sit there. It's a conversation. You talk about what you want to talk about and when they ask to see documentation you show them documentation. The binder is more for your use or the inspector's if they actually request it.

It's a matter of controlling the dynamic of the conversation. If you just hand it to them, they can hone in on any weak spot and start to dig and dig. Now, if you're talking to them and say something wrong, or sound like you are not confident they are possibly going to start digging anyway. This is called 'reeking of fear'. A unit that 'reeks of fear' is likely to have a much rougher inspection then one that is poised, confident, and basically controls the dynamic of the entire inspection.

And you may not like playing the game of having to print out a fresh one because the report is the same as it was three months ago. But printing it out shows you at least checked it within the last 3 months. You don't have any way to prove you have since you printed out that one. Making the inspector do your job is not a way to win points. Happy inspectors go away faster. 

[Phil Hirons, Jr.]

One trick we use with our inspections on AD is you do not simply hand the inspector the binder and sit there. It's a conversation. You talk about what you want to talk about and when they ask to see documentation you show them documentation. The binder is more for your use or the inspector's if they actually request it.

It's a matter of controlling the dynamic of the conversation. If you just hand it to them, they can hone in on any weak spot and start to dig and dig. Now, if you're talking to them and say something wrong, or sound like you are not confident they are possibly going to start digging anyway. This is called 'reeking of fear'. A unit that 'reeks of fear' is likely to have a much rougher inspection then one that is poised, confident, and basically controls the dynamic of the entire inspection.

And you may not like playing the game of having to print out a fresh one because the report is the same as it was three months ago. But printing it out shows you at least checked it within the last 3 months. You don't have any way to prove you have since you printed out that one. Making the inspector do your job is not a way to win points. Happy inspectors go away faster. 

[Eclipse]

You talk about what you want to talk about and when they ask to see documentation you show them documentation.

It's a matter of controlling the dynamic of the conversation. If you just hand it to them, they can hone in on any weak spot and start to dig and dig. Now, if you're talking to them and say something wrong, or sound like you are not confident they are possibly going to start digging anyway. This is called 'reeking of fear'. A unit that 'reeks of fear' is likely to have a much rougher inspection then one that is poised, confident, and basically controls the dynamic of the entire inspection.

Um, no.

It's not supposed to be a "conversation" - ask the questions, get the answers, substantiate when necessary.
Reeking or not, the answers will be the same - this idea that's it's an inquisition, or anything near that, is just wrong, and is why this process
is treated like a final exam, when it's supposed to be a snapshot intended to help upstream commanders identify compliance and program issues.

This isn't supposed to be an exercise in who watched more episodes of "Lie To Me", nor a place to use "influence people skills" garnered on
a website.

Ask, answer, move on.

Hint:  You get the same pay whether you're marginal or outstanding - people seem to forget that.

[a2capt]

The dynamic conversation approach with a binder has worked extremely well for us, and for me as I've been on the other side and been an inspector.

Both ways, you get the foundation established that the subject being inspected has their head on straight, or not. The answers are in the book, and I provide a copy of the answers for the inspector to take, the supporting documentation is in the book, and they can sample it, look and get their copy of the answers which essentially does their job for them. If they're satisfied with the quality of it, you're done, they're done. They can sign that page and put it in their report.

[Dracosbane]

One trick we use with our inspections on AD is you do not simply hand the inspector the binder and sit there. It's a conversation. You talk about what you want to talk about and when they ask to see documentation you show them documentation. The binder is more for your use or the inspector's if they actually request it.

It's a matter of controlling the dynamic of the conversation. If you just hand it to them, they can hone in on any weak spot and start to dig and dig. Now, if you're talking to them and say something wrong, or sound like you are not confident they are possibly going to start digging anyway. This is called 'reeking of fear'. A unit that 'reeks of fear' is likely to have a much rougher inspection then one that is poised, confident, and basically controls the dynamic of the entire inspection.

And you may not like playing the game of having to print out a fresh one because the report is the same as it was three months ago. But printing it out shows you at least checked it within the last 3 months. You don't have any way to prove you have since you printed out that one. Making the inspector do your job is not a way to win points. Happy inspectors go away faster. 

First off, I didn't state that I hand the binder over.  I said that everything will be there organized and ready to hand over.  As opposed to hap-hazard and taking ten minutes to find.

Second, your unit should have already given them a copy of the answers to the SUI guide.  Those answers should be more than just Yes/No and give enough explaination that all the inspector might need is to see the supporting document.

Third, the records in the binder ARE NOT there for the inspectors, they're there for you as section head, and to provide information to the next person who has your position.  I don't care how you keep your records, and if a pile works for you, great.  The binder is for me.

Fourth, with a lot of the paperwork now being done online, there is not a requirement to have paper printouts of every report.  The report that I had not re-printed is a report that is populated online ONLY (in this instance, it was a Safety related report) and as such should be looked at in eServices by the inspector if they have questions.  The inspector (or in this case specifically the inspector trainee) looked at the date and asked why it was old.  I simply stated that it was printed for the first date scheduled, and had not changed.  The inspector trainer (in this case, a former Wing CC) went to that section in eServices as he listened and confirmed that yes, the data was the same.  This is how it should be done due to the way we now handle paperwork and reports.  If it was a report that had changed, I would have re-printed it immediately prior to the inspection.  Trust me, as SQ DA, I killed a tree or two printing and re-printing updated reports due to the three different schedule changes.  The SUI guide has a lot of questions asking IF something has been done, i.e. "has someone been appointed in eServices..."  This being the case, the place to find out if there is compliance aside from the SUI guide answers is to look...in eServices.

You talk about what you want to talk about and when they ask to see documentation you show them documentation.

It's a matter of controlling the dynamic of the conversation. If you just hand it to them, they can hone in on any weak spot and start to dig and dig. Now, if you're talking to them and say something wrong, or sound like you are not confident they are possibly going to start digging anyway. This is called 'reeking of fear'. A unit that 'reeks of fear' is likely to have a much rougher inspection then one that is poised, confident, and basically controls the dynamic of the entire inspection.

Um, no.

It's not supposed to be a "conversation" - ask the questions, get the answers, substantiate when necessary.
Reeking or not, the answers will be the same - this idea that's it's an inquisition, or anything near that, is just wrong, and is why this process
is treated like a final exam, when it's supposed to be a snapshot intended to help upstream commanders identify compliance and program issues.

This isn't supposed to be an exercise in who watched more episodes of "Lie To Me", nor a place to use "influence people skills" garnered on
a website.

Ask, answer, move on.

Hint:  You get the same pay whether you're marginal or outstanding - people seem to forget that.

Exactly.  The answers are all in the SUI guide response you sent to the head of the inspection team before the inspection.  They should already know how things are handled in the unit by the way the answers are presented.  If there are questions, they should only come up during the inspection because the inspector needs clarification or verification.

I do not, as a section head, have to have a binder with my sections answers and related reports printed and ready to show.  I must ONLY be able to verify that the information is accurate in the location it should be, either in a folder in a cabinet (which is becoming obsolete nowadays) or in eServices.  Any inspector now can or should be able to, prior to or at the very least during the inspection, verify that what should be in eServices is infact located in eServices, or WMIRS, or wherever.

Our previous inspection, we didn't use binders.  Each section head used their own organizational method and we had no problem.  Only the CC had a continuity binder (and still does) so that information can be kept updated for the next sucker  CC.  This last one, we decided to have continuity binders for every section for OUR benefit.  It helps make things smoother for us for everything.  If the inspection goes well because of them, then that's a perk and not a requirement.