Questions on new CAPR 174-1 Property Management

[badger bob]

Please use this thread to post questions, comments, or suggestions for improvement on CAPR 174-1. I will try to answer every question, or to try to find answers and reply.

Suggestions for improvement are welcome and will also be passed on to the appropriate staff. We will be in a draft regulation comment period thru the Summer Boards, however I would encourage sugggestions at any time that would lead to improvement.

Initial items that may be of concern

Inventories.

Inventories are moved from January-March to July-September. The date change is to coincide with the generally accepted accounting principal of coinciding with the end of the corporate fiscal year- same as the federal fiscal year.

Access

Access to the system will be governed by the E-Services personnel system. Once a communications or logistics job is assigned in the personal system, access to the appropriate modules will be automatic. A commander will automatically have access to all modules with in their command.


Issues


The system will have a electronic issue system. property can be issued to a member and the member will go into the general member access portion of the system to accept responsibility for the property. Issued property will be revalidated annually during the inspection period..


Visbility

All members will have access to view the entire inventory, and to print a summery of the equipment assigned to them. This will be a nation-wide visibility- across wings and regions.


Aircraft


The logistical assignment of a aircraft or a vehicle to a squadron will be done the same as all other property. A squadron property officer/commander will accept the property on behalf of the squadron. This regulation does not affect aircraft operations or responsibilities, logistics is only responsible for the inventory aspects of aircraft. Operations will manage the aircraft the same as current operations.


Nag feature


The ORMS system will have a nag feature built in that will both remind and upchannel a notification that a deadline is missed. If the regulation says a member or squadron has 10 days to login and accept property responsibility, then the computer will notify if incomplete on the deadline.


Chris Klein
National Logistics Advisor

[Spike]

First Question.

When a member accepts responsibility for an item, can they take the item home with them, then log into the system and accept responsibility??  If so, what happens if the property is stolen or breaks before the member accepts responsibility for it, it would fall on the original source to repair/replace said property......... right??

I don't have internet at the Squadron.  I give a member property, but must wait until I get home to assign it to him, then he has to wait until I assigned it, and they get home to accept it. 

See the hole here?

[Spike]

Second question.

In another thread you wrote;

The new CAPR 174-1 will require that expendable issues be tracked- which will be a online issue to a member. Local staff should document an effort to retrieve property from a seperated member, however documentation of a good faith effort will be sufficient for a expendable  item. This is actually a carryover from the current regulations, however not as clearly written in 67-1.

First, will the Free Cadet Uniform be included in this?

Second, Why??  Expendable equates no monetary value lost if said item is lost or damaged.

[Eclipse]

First Question.

When a member accepts responsibility for an item, can they take the item home with them, then log into the system and accept responsibility??  If so, what happens if the property is stolen or breaks before the member accepts responsibility for it, it would fall on the original source to repair/replace said property......... right??

I don't have internet at the Squadron.  I give a member property, but must wait until I get home to assign it to him, then he has to wait until I assigned it, and they get home to accept it. 

See the hole here?

You can always use paper receipts, etc., if you're that concerned. 

I'm not giving anyone property that has such low integrity, ethics, and respect for me that they would accept property, lose it before they get online, and then pretend they never got it.

This is also what IG's and RoS' are for.

[Eclipse]

Expendable equates no monetary value lost if said item is lost or damaged.

Not necessarily.  Expendable simply means that an item is expected to be "used up", or is
subject to loss, etc.  The fact that something may have a negligible or incalculable monetary value
does not negate its intrinsic or operational value.

Further, a lot of CAP property falls into the "pilferable" category which means it has to be tracked on
that basis.

[badger bob]

First Question.

When a member accepts responsibility for an item, can they take the item home with them, then log into the system and accept responsibility??  If so, what happens if the property is stolen or breaks before the member accepts responsibility for it, it would fall on the original source to repair/replace said property......... right??

I don't have internet at the Squadron.  I give a member property, but must wait until I get home to assign it to him, then he has to wait until I assigned it, and they get home to accept it. 

See the hole here?

I believe the member will have 10 days to login and accept responsibility, so that could be done from anywhere with Internet access.

If a member accepts responsibility, that implies that it is in their care and control. If the squadron commander takes the squadron laptop home, the laptop is in his care and control, and the laptop should be issued to the commander. If the laptop is kept on the commanders desk at squadron headquarters, it is not under the commaders control, it is under the squadrons control and should remain on the squadrons inventory.

If an asset is lost, regardless of where it is in the issue process, the ROS process will make a recommendation on responsibility.

[badger bob]

Second question.

In another thread you wrote;

The new CAPR 174-1 will require that expendable issues be tracked- which will be a online issue to a member. Local staff should document an effort to retrieve property from a seperated member, however documentation of a good faith effort will be sufficient for a expendable  item. This is actually a carryover from the current regulations, however not as clearly written in 67-1.

First, will the Free Cadet Uniform be included in this?

Second, Why??  Expendable equates no monetary value lost if said item is lost or damaged.

Some of our confusing definitions go back to the source of funds. Federally funded property will change with the new regulation to a life cycle cost. Once the the property has exceeded its life cycle, CAP disposition procedures will govern the disposal.

Regardless of value, our agreement with DOD to recieve DOD-excess or GSA-excess property is that the property will be returned to the DRMO when no longer used by CAP.

Expendable property can be totally consumed during use (MRE's are eaten) or are of low value, but the agreement to return DRMO property to the DRMO still applies-Also to "found on base" items.

In most cases, cadets out grow uniforms before they wear uniforms out. A good practice is to ask for old uniforms bak and to help cadets find larger sized uniforms.

[Spike]

Thank you for the clarification.

It seems that this "new way of doing things" will allow CAP inside the door to "other govt" programs and sources of material! 

It will be neat to see what is in store for CAP. 

[Johnny Yuma]

Personally, I like the idea of making the supply and comm supply regs read the same, but I'd rather see the separate CATS and CEMS systems continue, or at least be able to track both Supply and Comm separately and lock one out of the other. I've been both Wing Supply and Wing DC and I'd rather both sides play in their own domain with the Wing LG continue supervision over both. I remember the bad old days when a Wing DC had to jump through hoops set up by an anal retentive Wing Supply officer who questioned every decision to issue radios by the DC.

Are the ROS final dispositions and values connected to them staying the same? I didn't see this in the new draft.

Here in the last few months we've taken delivery on equipment from NTC that sat in our warehouse until I was able to check it in. I live 110 miles from Wing HQ and it may be a couple of weeks or longer before I can lay eyes and hands on equipment before acknowledging receipt.

So the way the draft reads, either I take a hit in the new supply system if I can't get to Salina in time or else I'm supposed to acknowledge receipt for items I can't 100 percent be certain are there. IMHO the time needs to be stretched to at least 14 days or even 21 before the nag systems kicks in.

I also believe the way it reads, every repeater site would be tracked as a real property asset and dealt with as such every year. To me that's a mistake. Once we have an agreement to use a repeater site, as tenuous as these are to find and keep these days, it's better if we simply had whatever agreements put on file and left there to collect dust and the fewer people involved the better.

[badger bob]

Personally, I like the idea of making the supply and comm supply regs read the same, but I'd rather see the separate CATS and CEMS systems continue, or at least be able to track both Supply and Comm separately and lock one out of the other. I've been both Wing Supply and Wing DC and I'd rather both sides play in their own domain with the Wing LG continue supervision over both. I remember the bad old days when a Wing DC had to jump through hoops set up by an anal retentive Wing Supply officer who questioned every decision to issue radios by the DC.

Comm inventories will be seperate from logistics inventories. You must have a comm duty position to access the comm module and you must have a logistics duty position to access the the logistics modules.

Are the ROS final dispositions and values connected to them staying the same? I didn't see this in the new draft.

The life cycle cost value will not automatically be the assesment value during a ROS process. A recommendation will be made that could be up to the current life cycle value, but also evaluate whether the loss was negligent or involved gross or intentional negligence.

Here in the last few months we've taken delivery on equipment from NTC that sat in our warehouse until I was able to check it in. I live 110 miles from Wing HQ and it may be a couple of weeks or longer before I can lay eyes and hands on equipment before acknowledging receipt.

So the way the draft reads, either I take a hit in the new supply system if I can't get to Salina in time or else I'm supposed to acknowledge receipt for items I can't 100 percent be certain are there. IMHO the time needs to be stretched to at least 14 days or even 21 before the nag systems kicks in.

The nag system is a reminder system. Because 67-1 was a paper based system, there was no deadline for updating CATS. As long as you had a pice of paper thrown in the suspense file , you were good. CEMS had a nag feature set at 14 days, but the time to complete may not have been in a regulation.

I would suggest that equipment should be shipped directly to the property management officer for check-in. If the wing prefers to have equipment sent to the wing headquarters, the wing administrator could chek serial numbers against packing lists and notify the property management officer that equipment was recieved. If we want a computer based system to avoid paperwork, then we have to make arrangements to update the computer on a regular tiemly basis.

I also believe the way it reads, every repeater site would be tracked as a real property asset and dealt with as such every year. To me that's a mistake. Once we have an agreement to use a repeater site, as tenuous as these are to find and keep these days, it's better if we simply had whatever agreements put on file and left there to collect dust and the fewer people involved the better

Remote installtions are a concern especially for the comm. guys. there will be additional language or a guidance for remote instalations. Comm can ping a repeater and verify that the repeater is operational without going onsite. Determining that a generator for backup power for a mountaintop repeater site is in place and operational is a little more of a challenge.

Suggestions are welcome

[RADIOMAN015]

Well seems to me that this regulation puts individual members more at risk for paying higher damage/loss assessments because in the prior policy there was a differentiation between "simple" & "gross" negligence and this isn't mentioned in the new regulation.  Again from my veiw point most non profit organizations protect their volunteer members from losses & damages to the organizations' equipment/vehicles via an insurance policy/program.  Apparently CAP "self insurance" protection is to go after the individual non paid volunteer member.  Surely CAP volunteers will be real motivated to sign for any property

Also regarding use of hand receipts for property.  IF a squadron has a secure central storage area for portable radios, DF equipment and other equipment, when a misson is activated an individual will report to the squadron & will sign for the equipment on a temporary hand receipt, since there's an expectation that upon mission termination (which normally are less than 24 hours) the equipment will be turned back in.  We don't always have internet access when these potential missions come up.   IF the purpose of the new system is to also track all temporary issues than after the fact input would be necessary, perhaps with a over ride indicating paper hand receipt as source.
     
RM

[badger bob]

Well seems to me that this regulation puts individual members more at risk for paying higher damage/loss assessments because in the prior policy there was a differentiation between "simple" & "gross" negligence and this isn't mentioned in the new regulation.  Again from my veiw point most non profit organizations protect their volunteer members from losses & damages to the organizations' equipment/vehicles via an insurance policy/program.  Apparently CAP "self insurance" protection is to go after the individual non paid volunteer member.  Surely CAP volunteers will be real motivated to sign for any property

Also regarding use of hand receipts for property.  IF a squadron has a secure central storage area for portable radios, DF equipment and other equipment, when a misson is activated an individual will report to the squadron & will sign for the equipment on a temporary hand receipt, since there's an expectation that upon mission termination (which normally are less than 24 hours) the equipment will be turned back in.  We don't always have internet access when these potential missions come up.   IF the purpose of the new system is to also track all temporary issues than after the fact input would be necessary, perhaps with a over ride indicating paper hand receipt as source.
     
RM

from CAPR 174-1 Draft
2-27. Assessments. The loss or damage to any item of CAP property including aircraft, vehicles, communications equipment and other property owned or assigned to CAP shall be assessed in cases of negligence or willful misconduct.

from CAPR 67-1
Individuals who, through their negligence, allow CAP property to become lost, stolen, damaged, or destroyed may be liable to Civil Air Patrol for the fair market value of an item, or its cost to repair, whichever is less.

The primary difference is that the new regulation specifies willful misconduct. CAP remains a orginization with Emergency Services and Cadet Programs as primary missions. Some losses or damage occurs in the ordinary course of of those programs, but those loses are generally not willful misconduct and are not always an assessable situation. A ROS recommendation could conclude that additional training is required or that a change in regulations or procedures is required.

The system will expedite preprinting hand recipts for equipment or kits. Checking out equipment by using a hand reciept when removed from the squadron will be encouraged. The hand recipt system will also be availalbe for use of equipment during a mission.

[fireplug]

I've only read the draft once, quickly. Do I understand that there are no more Parts I thru VI, and that only the CAPF 38, 111 and DRMO1348 files need to be maintained?
And at Wing HQ only for the Wing HQ unit?

Do you have any insight on the inspection cycle from Oct 2009-Sep 2010 using the old or new regs? Thanks.

[badger bob]

I've only read the draft once, quickly. Do I understand that there are no more Parts I thru VI, and that only the CAPF 38, 111 and DRMO1348 files need to be maintained?
And at Wing HQ only for the Wing HQ unit?

Do you have any insight on the inspection cycle from Oct 2009-Sep 2010 using the old or new regs? Thanks.

The new system will be a electronic file system. The parts I-VI were paper files in the old system.

The CAPF 38 was a paper log file of other supply documents. that form will be obselete.

CAPF 111 was a paper expendable issue form. Expendable issues will also be tracked in the new system- tied to the members CAPid# or to a CAP unit number in the case of a transfer.

DRMO-1348 is the paper reciept for issues or returns to the DRMO. The new system will have a upload feature. The 1348 will be uploaded to the CAP asset item master record as a supporting document, then no longer required in papaer form.

Subordinate units will also be paperless.

We completed a fiscal year 2009 inventory March 30 2009. The fiscal year 2010 inventory will be due September 15,2010. We will also do a inventory as a part of the changeover process. All items will require that their location and condition be updated in the database. Individual issues will have to be converted from the signed paper issues to the electronic issue format.  More details to follow.

[fireplug]

Thanks. More information would surely be appreciated.

[RickFranz]

You stated that in order to access the comm side of the inventory you would have to be assigned to comm.  Right now there is no slot on the comm side for a comm supply person.  Any thoughts on makeing that a possibility?

[Camas]

Right now there is no slot on the comm side for a comm supply person. 

It's possible that communications officers at the unit and group level along with wing-level directors will automatically receive permissions within the system - but who knows? I guess we'll all just have to wait and see once ORMS goes online. It would be nice if web security administrators could issue those permissions for units who have no logistic, supply or comm officers but that's probably wishful thinking.

[badger bob]

Right now there is no slot on the comm side for a comm supply person. 

It's possible that communications officers at the unit and group level along with wing-level directors will automatically receive permissions within the system - but who knows? I guess we'll all just have to wait and see once ORMS goes online. It would be nice if web security administrators could issue those permissions for units who have no logistic, supply or comm officers but that's probably wishful thinking.

System permissions will be automatic and only available based on a job duty as designated in the e-services personnel system. There was discussion at the advisory meeting about a designated comm assistant or comm supply officer, at the group and wing level or above. There was a discussion that you could use the comm engineer designated in 20-1 and then enable property management positions for that duty. Alternate was to create a 20-1 position as an assistant.


At the time , I was looking more directly at the logistics side of the regulation. I will research and get additional information.

[M.S.]

Though not something you can directly address in the regulation: how do you overcome the common occurrence of members and units not listing property, furniture, technology and other assets as official CAP property because it's not worth the hassle?  In other words, if the system takes a ton of work and a squadron is understaffed its much easier to just say "yeah that computer belongs to SM Joe on long-term loan... that filing cabinet and desk?  Uh, Lt Smith owns those even though they've been here for a decade", etc.?

[badger bob]

Though not something you can directly address in the regulation: how do you overcome the common occurrence of members and units not listing property, furniture, technology and other assets as official CAP property because it's not worth the hassle?  In other words, if the system takes a ton of work and a squadron is understaffed its much easier to just say "yeah that computer belongs to SM Joe on long-term loan... that filing cabinet and desk?  Uh, Lt Smith owns those even though they've been here for a decade", etc.?

At the squadron level, the new ORMS should relieve the hassle of paper tracking of items. On the other hand, not every piece of property, furniture , technology, or other assets is required to be listed either under the old regulation or the new regulation. In general, furniture is not listed, but most technology items are listed.

All of our members are volunteers and try to do the right thing. I hope that this tool helps make the property management job a little easier

[arajca]

An issue you'll see coming from the Comm side is the new position descriptions for the Comm staff. Comm staff does a WHOLE LOT MORE than track equipment, which is what the new reg says. It removes all mention of developing plans, arranging/conducting training, and the various other operational duties the comm people perform as part of their job.

[badger bob]

174-1 is a property management regulation. 174-1 replaces all or parts of 100-2- the comm property regulation.  Comm officers have a series of regulations that deal with comm issues that are not affected by the property regulation. Comm officers have a seperate wing and region officers that work with the comm area. NHQ has a seperate staff that deals with the comm area.

The property management regulation will have a common set of rules and share a common database, but logistics is and will be a seperate operation from Comm.

[swamprat86]

What is the current status with the release of ORMS?  I haven't seen anything yet and it was brought up last night at our wing staff meeting.  I heard that there are already changes dealing with control of comm assests.

[badger bob]

The target date was  October 1, but the NHQ Logistics staff was working during the month of September with the Air Force on shifting un-expended funds to identified needs CAP has. They were able to purchase  60 additional new vehicles, additional communications equipment, and some additional equipment in the ops area.

We had looked at a mid-month change to ORMS, but it was decided to change at the end of the month. Target date for the ORMS availability is now Nov. 2 with the 174-1 regulation being published at the same time.

[badger bob]

Release of CAP regulation 174-1, CAP Property Management, and launch of the new online property management system are scheduled for Monday, 2 November, 2009. This all-new regulation will supersede CAP Regulations 67-1, Supply; 67-4, Acquiring, Reporting & Disposing of Corporate Aircraft; portions of 77-1, Operation & Maintenance of CAP Vehicles; 87-1, Real Property; 100-2, Comm Equipment Management;: and CAPR 900-6, Hull Self Insurance. The new online system is called the Operational Resource Management System (ORMS) and will replace both the CAP Asset Tracking System (CATS) and the Communications Equipment Management System (CEMS). Our thanks and appreciation go out to all who commented on the draft regulation or assisted with ORMS preliminary testing.

In order to ensure enough time to shift data into ORMS, we will shut down CATS and CEMS on 28 October. At that time no other operations in those systems will be possible. To prepare for the transition, communications and logistics officers should ensure all property has been accepted and all transfers have been completed. We also recommend that units print out a copy of their S-1, S-2, S-3 and S-8 inventories in the days immediately preceding October 28th. This will provide units a reference copy to compare with the data in ORMS.
We are in the process of creating an ORMS User's Guide that we will publish on 18 October. The guide will give detailed instructions for conducting ORMS transactions such as transferring property from one unit to another, issuing property to individuals, conducting annual inventory and submitting reports of survey.

Permissions to various functions within ORMS are automatically granted by duty position. Over the next couple of weeks commanders should check unit rosters to make sure all communications, logistics, supply, and transportation officers have been properly appointed in eServices. Web security administrators will not be able to grant ORMS permissions.
The new online system will remove the requirement for units to continue to use most of their property management paper records. Units should take the next few weeks to update CATS and CEMS to match information for property currently issued to individuals on the CAP Form 37E.

If you have any questions please submit them to ORMS@capnhq.gov.  A copy of this message will be sent to all commanders, logistics, communications, supply and transportation officers.  This message will also appear on eServices News.

Johnny Dean
Director, Plans and Requirements
National Headquarters
Civil Air Patrol

[swamprat86]

Will the Wing Property Manager position be available to assign before the Nov 2nd date?

[badger bob]

The new regulation and ORMS use the existing 20-1 duty designations. Permissions will automatically be enabled in ORMS providing the duty is registered in E-Services Personnel prior to November 1. In the future, permissions will be enabled as soon as the duty is confrmed in E-Services.

An existing commander will have will automaticaly recieve permissions in both the communications and logistics areas.

An existing  (LG) will automaticaly recieve permissions for supply, aircraft, vehicle and real property modules in ORMS.

An existing (LGT) will automaicaly recieve permissions for the vehicle and aircraft modules in ORMS.

An existing  (LGs) will automaticaly recieve permissions for supply modules in ORMS.

An existing coomunications officer will automatically recieve permissions for the communications module.

Any permissions that were granted thru a WSA without a duty assignment will no longer have access to ORMS other than read only.

[Eclipse]

So...supposedly the system is online in a test mode, but for the life of me I can't find a link anywhere.

Pointer?

[SarDragon]

After some valuable input from the field we have decided to make ORMS available in test mode on 2 November

Since today is only the 1st, you might be a day early trying.

[Eclipse]

I'm on Eastern Standard Tribe...

[SarDragon]

It still ain't Monday where you are. It's barely Monday in Europe. I have an excellent understanding of how time zones work.

[badger bob]

Should be visible tommorrow in E-services tommorrow when you log on.

It should be visible to all members on the left side menu.

If you have command or property managemeent duties, it will be also visible in the restricted menu. 

[Eclipse]

Should be visible tommorrow in E-services tommorrow when you log on.

It should be visible to all members on the left side menu.

If you have command or property managemeent duties, it will be also visible in the restricted menu.

Thanks. I have a property issue I'm checking on and thought I would click through.

Eastern Standard Tribe is not a timezone, its a global community of shared circadian rhythms, and while a good read, http://craphound.com/est/download.php, perhaps too obscure a reference even for me.

[badger bob]

Please let me know what you think of the new database and if you can find what you are looking for.

The advantage of the "soft" start is we can still make changes based on feedback before the system goes to the "official" start.

Still working on the tutorial that will be embeded into the ORMS menu.

[Eclipse]

Please let me know what you think of the new database and if you can find what you are looking for.

The links are working and it looks like it works fine, but who chose LIME GREEN for the menus?

MY EYES!  THE GOGGLES DO NOTHING!

[SarDragon]

Eh, not horrible. Could be worse - BofA blue on red.

[Eclipse]

If I might be so bold as to suggest a stocking stuffer for the folks at NHQ this holiday season...

http://designinginterfaces.com/

[arajca]

Actually, I think the obnoxious color makes sense. There is no way you could confuse this test system with live application in Eservices. (Unless you're color blind)

The only problem I am having is the Comm gear reports don't work. I keep getting an "Unexpected Error" message.

[SarDragon]

It may be from too many people trying to access it at the same time. It all worked one time for me, and then I got inconsistent errors, then it all worked again.

[Eclipse]

Actually, I think the obnoxious color makes sense. There is no way you could confuse this test system with live application in Eservices. (Unless you're color blind)

Is that why they are green?

The only problem I am having is the Comm gear reports don't work. I keep getting an "Unexpected Error" message.

Comm gear worked for me, I got the same error on the old S-3.

[arajca]

I got a response from National due to the automatic error reporting. Appearently they found something and fixed it. It works now.

[dhon27]

Same here. Didn't expect that quick a response!

[Eclipse]

Same here. Didn't expect that quick a response!

+1 someone is paying attention.  Two snaps up!

[SarDragon]

Moi aussi!

[Spike]

Same here. Didn't expect that quick a response!

+1 someone is paying attention.  Two snaps up!

Got three separate emails, with apologizes.  Now things are running smooth.

I like the new system.  The color scheme may need to change!!