One of the sets mails:


Classification: UNCLASSIFIED
Caveats: NONE

Good luck for you, see you soon
Regards,
-Gene

> -----Original Message-----
> From: AJMacDonald [mailto:[email protected]]
> Sent: Thursday, August 22, 2013 2:31 PM
> To: Furst, Eugene P CIV (US)
> Subject: Re: Follow-up, 20130820

> As you see I'm far from this now, but I know our guys did their best.
> I enjoyed catching-up with you. Hope to see you soon again.

> Sincerely,
> Jamie

> On Aug 22, 2013, at 2:14 PM, "Furst, Eugene P CIV (US)"
> <[email protected]> wrote:


>> You're exactly right. We have to work with both theater on the requirement
>> and the organization that owns the contract to ensure we don't have too few
>> or too many contractors.

>> CITP - Rock Island Contract
>> CIAT - DIA Contract

>> By the way, saw your latest success, my congratulations. Good job.
>> [link to www.washingtonpost.com]

>> Regards,
>> -Gene

>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: AJMacDonald [mailto:[email protected]]
>> Sent: Thursday, August 22, 2013 1:00 PM
>> To: Furst, Eugene P CIV (US)
>> Subject: Re: Follow-up, 20130820

>> Gene; CIAT and CITP contracts are MIP funded. I recall the issue that often
>> surfaced was how the drawdown affected demand necessitating our assessment
>> of where we had folks, the quantity of analysts, and costs associate with
>> their employment. My recollection of this is correct is it not? Please
>> advise. Thank you. Jamie On Aug 21, 2013, at 4:19 PM, "Furst, Eugene P CIV
>> (US)" <[email protected]> wrote:

>>> Jamie,
>>>
>>> Next time you come in, I'll grab Katrina in DAMI-RI to help out if needed.
>>> Your comment below is correct. It's just important to remember that
>>> the POM captures our "request". It isn't approved until Congress puts
>>> its stamp of approval on it. Pretty sure you understood that, we're
>>> just at the point where we're covering minor nuances...
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>> -Gene
>>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: AJMacDonald [mailto:[email protected]]
>>> Sent: Tuesday, August 20, 2013 5:13 PM
>>> To: Furst, Eugene P CIV (US)
>>> Subject: Re: Follow-up, 20130820
>>>
>>> Thanks, Gene; ROGER all on the OCO piece - at DIA and with the ISR TF
>>> OCO was always stated; the fun was in determining what color OCO we
>>> would be allocated. End use always mattered in these cases. POM lock
>>> precedes the
>>> CJB: In that case the CJB captures how we were allocating MIP dollars
>>> to support activities within the confines of the approved POM. We
>>> might need a coffee! Jamie
>>>
>>>
>>> On Aug 20, 2013, at 4:59 PM, "Furst, Eugene P CIV (US)"
>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Jamie,
>>>>
>>>> One quick caveat... within the MIP and the NIP there is base and OCO.
>>>> Most, if not all JUONS coming out of theater were addressed using OCO
>>> dollars.
>>>> Some of this OCO was MIP and some was NIP. Within DA G-2 almost all
>>>> of our OCO throughout the years was MIP. Not sure how much MIP/NIP
>>>> OCO DIA utilized. Just bringing this up based on your comment "
>>>> albeit the MIP might have more akin to OCO painted the color of MIP".
>>>>
>>>> You're correct regarding not having the linguist contract presented
>>>> during Congressional MIP/NIP Day... this was funded using non-MIP
>>>> Army OCO
>>> dollars.
>>>> Stable Shadow was actually part of MIP/NIP Day... it was just never
>>>> an issue.
>>>>
>>>> Following MIP/NIP day, DAMI-RI would begin to build the Army's MIP
>>>> section of the CJB. The funding and manpower data within the CJB was
>>>> based upon data provided by the dollars requested/approved within the
>>>> POM (once we had a "POM lock", DAMI-RI was able to plug the numbers
>>>> into
>>> the CJB).
>>>>
>>>> Everything else is spot-on.
>>>>
>>>> I can also run this past Katrina in DAMI-RI for review... I'm pretty
>>>> familiar with the processes, but I'm certainly no expert.
>>>>
>>>> Please don't hesitate if there's anything else.
>>>>
>>>> Regards,
>>>> -Gene
>>>>
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> From: AJMacDonald [mailto:[email protected]]
>>>> Sent: Tuesday, August 20, 2013 4:43 PM
>>>> To: Furst, Eugene P CIV (US)
>>>> Cc: [email protected]
>>>> Subject: Follow-up, 20130820
>>>>
>>>> Gene:
>>>>
>>>> Thank you for making time to see me last week; I enjoyed catching-up
>>>> with you. Additionally, I learned a great deal and you enabled me to
>>>> put a few things back into perspective.
>>>>
>>>> When I was the Chief of Staff of the DIOCC at DIA I was appointed to
>>>> lead the Agency's Intelligence, Surveillance and Reconnaissance (ISR)
>>>> Task Force Tiger Team. The purpose of this Tiger Team was to merge
>>>> the ongoing and competing efforts of the agency's five disparate
>>>> directorates to garner funding from the ISR Task Force to resource
>>>> their stove piped support requirements to the fights in Iraq and
>>>> Afghanistan. They were doing this under the auspices of the JUONS
>>>> process. We got our act together and tightened up things within the
>>>> agency. I always believed that although we were working through the
>>>> ISR Task Force we were actually leveraging available MIP and NIP
>>>> dollars - albeit the MIP might have more akin to OCO painted the
>>>> color of MIP. The NIP piece was always something LTG Zahner, and
>>>> later LTG Kozial, would work out with the DNI. Do you believe I have
>> this right?
>>>>
>>>> The NIP MIP day is clear now as well. Essentially OP served as the
>>>> intelligence operations authority and advocate for Army intelligence
>>>> equities (e.g., Prophet, Guardrail, DCGS-A, ARL, EMRS, PTDS and PGSS)
>>>> during the annual meetings with the Congressional Professional Staff
>>> Members (PSM).
>>>> Our endstate was to ensure that all Military Intelligence Program "
>>>> intelligence capability areas" entered into the Congressional
>>>> Justification Book (CJB), specifically any changes in resource
>>>> allocation, were understood by the PSMs prior to final submission of
>>>> the requirements to Congress for approval. I am not certain we had
>>>> our linguist contract or Stable Shadow $s included in this mix.
>>>>
>>>> However, before all of this kicked off we had to meet with the SMEs
>>>> and action officers to review the submissions and provide counsel or
>>>> guidance on the completion of the individual submissions to ensure we
>>>> "dotted all of the i's" and "crossed all of the t's". Once this was
>>>> complete we would review the proposed submissions with the G-2 for
>>>> approval, guidance and or course changes. We'd conduct another
>>>> internal review before providing read-aheads to the PSMs. Once in
>>>> the book and good to go this would be aligned with the POM - right?
>>>>
>>>> Please let me know if I have this right or missed something.
>>>>
>>>> Again, thank you for your time and patience.
>>>>
>>>> Sincerely,
>>>>
>>>> Jamie
>>>>