Recommend creating a new Yearly type of recurring method for Maintenance Schedules, it could be Selected Month by Year. Recommend adding to account for inspection requirements of 2, 3, 5, and 10 years. Recommend the ability to select the day and the month and the interval of years for the Maintenance Schedule (i.e., 1 January every 2 years).

 

Mandated, There are several inspections required by manufacturers of equipment that are beyond a year. Many assets require a 2, 3, 5, or 10 year inspection to be completed.

 

There are several inspections that are on a biannual, 3 year, 5 year, or in some cases 10 year basis. It would greatly benefit the enterprise if Work Orders for these inspections were guaranteed to generate on the required day, regardless of when the last inspection was completed. This ability would ensure assets do not inadvertently fall off their inspection cycle. Currently the only way to create a Maintenance Schedule for more than one year it to use the Every X Days recurring method. This method does not guarantee a Work Order will generate on the same day every time it is due, as it generates the next Work Order based of when the previous Work Order was Completed. While it is possible to have Maintenance Schedules generate Work Orders before the Asset Next Maintenance Date, that still does not guarantee that a Work Order will generate on the first of the month that it would be due.  

 

Ensure DPAS depreciation periods are in agreement with the FMR.

 

Yes.  DPAS deprecation periods must be in alignment with the FMR.

 

Provides for accurate computation of depreciation.

 

• DPAS management does not retain evidence that demonstrates that the data used in the performance of the annual review of security and admin users is complete and accurate (i.e., screenshots of parameters/query used to produce the listing its entirety prior to execution within the query tool itself, screenshots of the row count within the query tool prior to extraction to demonstrate data wasn't lost or modified in transfer, etc.). Therefore, EY was unable to determine whether the data that was used in the performance of the annual access review of security and admin user types was complete and accurate. DPAS management is also not properly monitoring that all security and admin type users are properly reviewed. For users identified as requiring access to be removed during the annual review of privileged operating system and database access, as well as DPAS application security and admin user type access, DPAS management has not established a process to:

• Identify the length of time users had access but did not require it commensurate with their job responsibilities; and

• Analyze the activity for these users for that length of time, depending on the nature and risk of the roles held by the users (privileged, elevated-risk roles as identified by management.

 

Control activity 2.8 states: “DPAS PMO requires all IO/AIOs to submit an annual user review report. DPAS PMO performs user account maintenance based on this report. If no report is received by DPAS PMO by the designated due date, all accounts associated with the IO/AIO are deactivated.”

• DPAS management is not properly monitoring the user entity-performed access reviews. Specifically, Management is not verifying the completeness and accuracy of the user listings that are used in the performance of the reviews. Also, DPAS management does not perform a comprehensive retroactive review of activity for users identified with inappropriate access during each application user access review performed by Management or the user entity. Further, in their access reviews, Management has not established a process to:

• Identify the length of time users had access but did not require it commensurate with their job responsibilities; and

• Analyze the activity for these users for that length of time, depending on the nature and risk of the roles held by the users (privileged, elevated-risk roles as identified by management)

Develop a stored procedure that can be used by DBAs to support retroactive user activity requests from IO/AIOs.

 

Mandated - This SCR is required to resolve a NFR in the FY22 SSAE audit.  

 

Passing the next SSAE audit.  

 

 

Completed – Release 2022.2.2 – 23 September 2022

Add a new table, Stored Procedure, and SQL Agent job to support the monitoring.

 

Mandated - This SCR is required to resolve a NFR in the FY22 SSAE audit.  

 

Passing the next SSAE audit.  

 

For Audit purposes and causative research recommend that the requisition number, DTID, Disposition Reference Number, Warehouse Transfer Shipment Reference Number, and Warehouse Issue Request Number column be added to Grid Option columns in inventory activity.

 

Yes this will help with audit purposes and causative research to be able to show the requisition numbers for all stock numbers on a DD1149 instead of searching for document numbers for each stock number.

Having this functionality will help from having to go through multiple steps to get the information we need for Audit Purposes.

 

Add the option to include an attachment when adding or updating a Custodian, similarly to what already exists in the Warehouse Module.

 

Custodians are required to be designated in writing and DOD encourages electronic storage of all Key Supporting Documents. Having the option to upload custodian letters to the applicable custodian would consolidate the documentation and meet any future electronic storage requirements.

 

This change will enable DoDEA, as well as other services, to efficiently retain the required custodian designation letters electronically in the same system as the relevant property record. This will also improve auditability by making it easier to access the documentation remotely reducing the time/effort required when this documentation is requested.

 

 

Review current FAST Vehicle-Level Data Business Rules Reference and perform the required updates to DPAS.

 

Mission Critical - The review / updates are necessary to ensure the DPAS edits are current to ensure successful reporting of FAST reportable assets for FY22.

 

Improves accuracy and accountability

 

Add the option to include an attachment when Transferring, adding or updating assets.

 

Yes.  DOD encourages electronic storage of all Key Supporting Documents. Having the option to upload  transfer documents would consolidate the documentation and meet any future electronic storage requirements.

 

This feature will improve transfer processing time. This will allow the PBO to upload the file during the transaction avoiding going back after transferred and do an asset update after transfer to upload the file.

Add a FAST Indicator value to the Mfr Part Nbr table to identify assets associated with this mfr part nbr record, that the asset is FAST reportable.   Update the process to populate the value, add to grid / inquires, reports. Sync Fast Indicator with M&U.  Modify logic in M&U for determining FAST reportable assets.

 

This change will enable DPAS to validate the asset is FAST reportable at the Mfr Part Nbr level.

 

Improves accuracy for FAST Reportable assets.  Eliminates Maintenance Activities being able to not report commercially designed vehicles.

 

Allow multiply Location Condition Codes for same stock number.  Enables user to chose several locations by quantity they would like to receive/return stock numbers streamlining process.

 

This is not critical or mandated, however improving system efficiencies decreases time warfighter spends performing non-wartime tasks

 

Automation provides a time reduction searching commonly received stock numbers for warehouse location replenishments (e.g.,individual issues).  Additionally, potential to eliminate or reduce misplaced items within warehouse.  Allows warfighter to focus on critical mission tasks vs. assigning warehouse replenishment locations.

 

The catalog tables within the dbo schema will be removed and replaced with a synonym and view to allow the data to be accessed directly from the catalog schema within DPAS. This will ensure no data needs to be synced to the tables referenced by the PA/MU processes and they can function as they do today.

 

Mission Critical. DPAS should not be duplicating data in the system. Proposed changes will increase catalog process performance and ensure consistency of catalog data system wide.

 

DPAS will improve accuracy and accountability by ensuring consistency of data within the catalog

 

Allow for the selection of multiple work orders and enable edit of the selected group of work orders as one transaction.

 

Mission Critical - users need the ability to make the same edit to multiple work orders at once to reduce error and increase productivity.

 

Reduces Time and Cost associated with making the same edit multiple times for different work orders

 

All

 

Warehouse Mgmt - Maintenance Issue