Case Study: DHP Logistics (Frank) And DPAS Systems

1808 Words 7 Pages
General Equipment
• DHP Logistics (Frank)/ DHP Facilities (Russ Manning) o DHP confirmed that gaps exist in the DMLSS and DPAS systems. o DHA indicated that there is significant difference in asset amount for GE items (same asset on SMA books) due to purchasing and pricing of the asset. o The definition of pilferable items are component specific; whereas, SMA Navy may deem an item as pilferable and SMA Army may not deem the same item as pilferable. o Equipment in excess of the 250K capitalization threshold is tracked and monitored by each component. o GE purchase process – DHP requests funding based on the mission. The agency is then funded via MIPR to acquire GE assets. GE asset is delivered to the DHP component; which in turn distributes the asset to different locations based on the need. o In instances, DHP have
…show more content…
 DHP needs to identify a trigger within the APSR that transfers assets from GLAC 1832 – IUS in Development, to GLAC 1830 – IUS.

Environmental & Disposal Liabilities
• FIAR (Brian Sykes and Ali St. Clair)/ AT&L (Patricia Hueey) o Current reporting dollar amount is zero. o Brian opened up with discussing the E&DL memo. He went on to explain the differences between event driven Liabilities and asset driven liabilities for purposes of E&DL. o Event driven liabilities are covered through DRRP/ BRAC and compliance programs. o Clean-ups are asset driven liabilities. DHP does not have DRRP; but they may have clean-up that falls outside of DRRP. o Real Property has both event driven and asset-driven related liabilities. o For E&DL, a liability typically occurs when an asset is being disposed of, demolished, or transferred from one installation to another. o E&DL costs can either be reported up-front and or recorded over the life of an asset. o Hazardous waste spilled, waste from GE assets, and or asbestos maintenance all fall under

Related Documents