GOVERNMENT-WIDE

COMMON AVIATION MANAGEMENT INFORMATION SYSTEM STANDARD

(C-AMIS)

PROCESS DEFINITION AND DATA DICTIONARY

VERSION 3.0

September, 2000

Prepared For:

UNITED STATES GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION

OFFICE OF GOVERNMENT-WIDE POLICY

AIRCRAFT MANAGEMENT POLICY DIVISION

18th & F Streets NW, Room G241

Washington, DC 20405

In Behalf Of The:

INTERAGENCY COMMITTEE FOR AVIATION POLICY

Prepared By:

Varone Consulting Group, Inc.

30103 Merchant Court

Great Falls, Virginia 22066

______

C-AMIS Standard September, 2000 171

General Services Administration Interagency Committee for Aviation Policy

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

In 1977 and again in 1983, the United States General Accounting Office (GAO) reported on many cases of wasteful and inefficient aircraft management practices by Federal civilian agencies. GAO found that agencies acquired aircraft without justifying their cost-effectiveness and used them for a variety of missions including routine administrative travel. Following the 1983 report, the Federal Executive branch took positive actions to improve the management and use of Government aircraft resources. The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Circular A-126 requires the Administrator of the General Services Administration (GSA) to maintain a single coordinating office for Government-wide aircraft management that applies to all Government-owned, leased, chartered, and rented aircraft and related services operated by Executive Branch agencies except aircraft while in use or in support of the President or Vice President.

The GSA developed the Federal Aviation Management Information System (FAMIS) to meet its responsibilities pursuant to the OMB Circular A-126 including the ability to annually collect and report Government-wide non-military aviation information to the OMB and Congress. In response to a 1989 GAO follow-up study, the OMB directed the GSA to form a Government-wide committee on aviation policy, the Interagency Committee for Aviation Policy (ICAP). The ICAP then established a Management Data and Systems Subcommittee (MDSS) to emphasize the development of policy and automated tools for the purpose of minimizing operational costs and improving management and use of Government aviation resources.

The ICAP requested a study to determine the current status of Federal aircraft Management Information Systems (MISs), and to develop a new common aviation MIS. The result of that study was a Common Aviation Management Information System (C-AMIS) Concept of Operation (CONOPS) that defined the initial C-AMIS Functions and Processes and an aviation MIS Data Dictionary. GSA Aircraft Management Policy Division (staff symbol MTA) personnel and a contractor, the Varone Consulting Group, Inc. (VCG) performed the study. Conducted in five steps, the study resulted in the following major findings:

·  There was and is a significant overlap in the features and functions of many of the agency-unique aviation support systems.

·  There was a wide range of information technology (IT) system capabilities among systems designed to accomplish the same tasks from agency to agency.

·  Agencies were continuing to actively develop their own systems.

·  There was no single system suited for Government-wide implementation.

As a result of this study, the team recommended that a new Government-wide common, system standard be developed to meet ICAP-directed initiatives while providing agencies with a complete and effective tool to manage their aviation resources as well as to facilitate the GSA/FAMIS reporting function. The GSA further determined that FAMIS would no longer meet the needs of the agencies.

The GSA and the ICAP, through the MDSS, jointly determined that the FAMIS should be replaced with a more modern, web-based, interactive system that would provide user agencies with a tool that could help them to manage their aviation assets more efficiently and effectively. The GSA and VCG then developed the Federal Aviation Interactive Reporting System (FAIRS) based on the C-AMIS standard, modern web-based technology, the need to provide agencies with information and management tools, and the GSA Office of Government-wide Policy (OGP), Office of Personal Property and Transportation (staff symbol MT) information technology (IT) architecture. At this time, MT also rewrote Circular A-126 to incorporate the C-AMIS-based FAIRS reporting requirements. In addition, the GSA with concurrence from the OMB also determined that the reporting requirement covered under FAIRS would be limited to civilian agency aviation assets.

The subsequent definition and development of FAIRS caused several changes that had to be retrofitted to C-AMIS as well as incorporated into A-126. FAIRS caused redefinition of the business rules for managing aviation assets as well as the basic definition of the use of the assets. In addition, the FAIRS rules redefined more precisely, the state of Federal aircraft, i.e., leased owned, bailed, etc. All of the GSA definition and development efforts were reviewed with the MDSS to ensure agency acceptance.

The following table contains the high-level functions of FAIRS that were based on C-AMIS.

High-level Functions /
Capture detail, per flight data that relates to the cost of operating an aircraft. The data must be captured in a manner that places a minimum burden on the agencies and does not interfere with the agency’s ability to meet its operational objectives. The data will become a history repository.
FAIRS has a flexible and powerful query package that will enable GSA/MTA and the user agencies to perform Operations Research and/or statistical analysis on the data to support the development of informed policy.
Captures all aviation data to allow:
·  Establishment of guidelines and “benchmarks” by GSA/MTA for use of aviation assets,
·  Measurement of agency effectiveness against predefined benchmarks and other agency performance,
·  Provide a mechanism for the oversight agencies to measure performance against goals, and
·  Measurement of impact of policy change by GSA/MTA.
Operates in an “open” systems environment without unique information technology requirements that are incompatible with the overall GSA technical architecture.
Incorporates Aircraft Bluebook data to be able to include into cost/price and make/buy analysis.
Incorporates the Aviation Cost Accounting Guide (CAG) narrative to be able to reference when making complex decisions.
Incorporates the Aircraft Residual Guide data to be able to include into cost/price and make/buy analysis.
Incorporates the Aircraft Cost Evaluator data to be able to include into cost/price and make/buy analysis.
Provides interactive communications with the agencies that allows them a way to retrieve the necessary information to more effectively manage their aviation assets.
Provides secure communications for those agencies where it would endanger mission or agents lives to have a security leak.
Enables agencies to gracefully and easily provide data to GSA with a minimum of effort from their existing aviation operations system.
Avoids agency inputting the same data multiple times for their own internal information system and a GSA Government-wide policy making executive information system.

There are two principal differences between the replaced FAMIS and FAIRS. The first is the volume of data. The second difference is that FAIRS is interactive. The agency ability to see their own data as well as to compare their data against aggregated Government-wide data presents a significant new analysis tool to the agencies. FAIRS also will allow GSA/MTA to develop or change aviation policy based on analysis of real data. The most important advantage with FAIRS is that it enables agencies to begin to apply GP&RA to Government aviation.


TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page
1. INTRODUCTION ...... / 1
2. STUDY ENVIRONMENT ...... / 7
3. METHODOLOGY ...... / 9
4. ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS ...... / 15
4.1. C-AMIS Standard High-level Requirements ...... / 15
4.2. C-AMIS Standard Development Issues ...... / 18
4.3. C-AMIS Standard Module Descriptions ...... / 20
4.3.1 Property Management Module ...... / 23
4.3.2 Finance and Accounting Module ...... / 21
4.3.3 Maintenance Module ...... / 21
4.3.4 Logistics Module ...... / 22
4.3.5 Training Module ...... / 22
4.3.6 Contract Support and Acquisition Module ...... / 23
4.3.7 Agency-unique Requirements Module ...... / 23
4.3.8 Communications and Administration Module...... / 23
5.0 RECOMMENDATIONS ...... / 25
APPENDICES / 27
A. ACRONYM LIST ...... / 29
B. C-AMIS STANDARD PROCESSES ...... / 31
C. C-AMIS STANDARD DATA DICTIONARY ...... / 71

LIST OF EXHIBITS

EXHIBIT
/ Page
4-1 / Aviation MIS Issues That Could Impede Success / 20

C-AMIS Standard September, 2000 171

General Services Administration Interagency Committee for Aviation Policy

1. INTRODUCTION

In 1977 and again in 1983, the United States General Accounting Office (GAO) reported on many cases of wasteful and inefficient aircraft management practices by Federal civilian agencies. At that time, GAO found that agencies acquired aircraft without justifying their cost-effectiveness and used them for a variety of missions including routine administrative travel. Following the 1983 report, the Federal Executive branch took positive actions to improve the management and use of Government aircraft resources.

Management responsibility for Government aircraft resources is directed by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Circular A-126 (revised May 26, 1992 and draft revision in August, 2000) and promulgated by the General Services Administration (GSA) Federal Property Management Regulations Title 41 Part 101-37, Government Aviation Administration and Coordination also revised in draft in August, 2000. The OMB Circular A-126 requires the Administrator of the GSA to maintain a single coordinating office for Government-wide agency aircraft management and the office shall:

·  Coordinate development of effective measures and standards, policy recommendations, and guidance for procurement, operation, safety, and disposal of civilian agency aircraft. This is the only restriction that eliminates the Department of Defense (DOD), all other responsibilities include DOD.

·  Operate a Government-wide aircraft Management Information System (MIS).

·  Ensure that all agencies conduct a cost analysis in accordance with the OMB Circular A-76 streamlined aircraft cost studies for all newly acquired aircraft.

·  Identify opportunities to share, transfer, or dispose of underutilized aircraft, reduce excessive aircraft operations and maintenance costs, and replace obsolete aircraft.

·  Develop generic aircraft information system standards and software.

·  Provide other technical assistance to agencies to establish automated aircraft information systems and conduct cost analyses of aircraft utilization.

·  Review internal agency policies for compliance with the OMB guidance and report discrepancies to the OMB.

·  Conduct an annual study of the variable and fixed costs of operating the different categories of Government aircraft.

The OMB Circular A-126 applies to all Government-owned, leased, chartered, and rented aircraft and related services operated by Executive Branch agencies except aircraft while in use or in support of the President or Vice President. However, the GSA and the OMB have mutually agreed that military aircraft resources should not be managed the same way as civilian resources due to their unique national security nature. The GSA originally developed the Federal Aviation Management Information System (FAMIS) to meet its responsibilities pursuant to the OMB Circular A-126 including the ability to annually collect and report Government-wide non-military aviation information to the OMB and the Congress.

In 1989, the GAO did a follow-up study to determine the extent and effectiveness of improvements. The GAO found that, although improvements had been made, many of the problems still existed. As a result of the follow-up study, the OMB directed the GSA to form a Government-wide committee on aviation policy. The resulting Interagency Committee on Aviation Policy (ICAP) was established to develop guidelines and strategies for managing Government aircraft. The ICAP then established a Management Data and Systems Subcommittee (MDSS) to emphasize the development of policy and automated tools for the purpose of minimizing operational costs and improving management and use of Government aviation resources. The ICAP then held a strategic planning session to meet the OMB directive.

The ICAP Strategic Planning Session identified an objective to "...establish an authoritative interagency MIS to meet the requirements of Federal agencies and their aircraft operators". On October 21, 1993, the ICAP established the MIS Task Group for the purpose of pursuing this objective. The group proposed an MIS mission statement as follows:

“The Government aviation MIS will provide accurate standardized information on civilian Federal aviation. This modular system will address aircraft acquisition, utilization, operation, maintenance, and disposal and will be responsive in supporting agencies' and ICAP needs.”

The ICAP also determined it was necessary to widen the scope of the FAMIS software to become more property management-oriented to enable tracking of all Federal civilian aircraft and to make it easier for agencies to report meaningful data. The FAMIS did not support agency management of aircraft and aircraft services. It was intended to be a reporting system that the agencies could use to report required data. It also was intended to be a summary-level tool for agencies to use if they so desired. However, there was no interactive component of FAMIS severely limiting its usefulness. FAMIS collected summary data that was not suitable as an agency-level management tool.

Today, as in the past, Federal agencies manage their own air fleets from a mission-oriented perspective and have a wide variety of information systems to support air fleet mission management. The orientation of management processes is effective from a mission perspective.

The ICAP recognized situation and requested a study to determine the actual current “state of affairs” in Federal aircraft management IT systems. The committee wanted to determine if a Government-wide system for aviation IT systems could increase Federal aircraft resource management effectiveness and efficiency and, if so, develop a concept of an MIS that will meet agency, GSA, and OMB overall requirements.

The study was performed by a study team comprised of the GSA Aircraft Management Policy Division (staff symbol MTA) and the Varone Consulting Group, Inc. (VCG). The study was conducted in five steps as follows:

·  Step I - Develop a survey and conduct data gathering activities to determine current agency MIS capabilities and future plans.

·  Step II - Analyze the gathered data, document findings, and develop recommendations for an upgrade/replacement for FAMIS.

·  Step III - Define the Government-wide C-AMIS Standard system functions and processes and data dictionary.

·  Step IV – Define a Concept of Operations (CONOPS) for the FAMIS-replacement, the Federal Aviation Interactive Reporting System (FAIRS).

The ICAP strategic goal of “... establishing an authoritative interagency MIS” is recognized as a worthwhile endeavor. The establishment of the C-AMIS Standard and the subsequent development of FAIRS enable agencies to realize substantial cost savings and to better measure their effectiveness.