CBDAIF Meeting Minutes
23 April 2014
Fort Myer Officers Club, Chaffee Room
Fort Myer, Virginia
0830-0845 Welcome
Mr. Karl Semancik, CBDAIF Chairman
Mr. Carmen Spencer, Joint Program Executive Officer for Chemical and Biological Defense (JPEO-CBD)
Mr. Karl Semancik, Chairman of the Chemical Biological Defense Acquisition Initiatives Forum (CBDAIF),
and Mr. Carmen Spencer, Joint Program Executive Officer for Chemical and Biological Defense (JPEOCBD), convened the quarterly CBDAIF on 23 April 2014 at 0830 hours.



Mr. Semancik reviewed administrative notes.
Mr. Spencer introduced his new Chief of Staff, Mr. Gregg Heilig.
Mr. Semancik reviewed the agenda and noted that Mr. Tony Francis would present “Lessons
Learned from OPETS Acquisition for CBDAIF—Industry Feedback” on behalf of Mr. Bruce Phillips,
Sector Lead of Professional Services (Mr. Phillips was unable to attend).
0845-0900 Review of Previous Actions, Upcoming Sector Lead Transitions, and NDIA Updates
Mr. Karl Semancik
Mr. Armando Lopez, Jr., Protection Sector Lead
CBDAIF Charter (Mr. Karl Semancik)
 The CBDAIF Charter was finalized, approved by JPEO, and forwarded to the National Defense
Industrial Association (NDIA) for final approval. The Charter outlines processes for future CBDAIF
meetings.
 DIRECTED ACTION 1: Provide feedback on the CBDAIF Charter to the CBDAIF Chairman if desired.
Upcoming Sector Lead Transitions (Mr. Karl Semancik)
 The following Sector Leads will complete their term of service in June 2014:
o Detection Sector: Dr. David Cullin
o Small Business Sector: Dr. Ari Giaya
o Systems Integration: Mr. Michael Smith
 DIRECTED ACTION 2: Provide Sector Lead replacement recommendations to the CBDAIF Chairman
and forward resumes of the recommended individuals.
NDIA Updates (Mr. Armando Lopez, Jr.)
 The NDIA has rebooted its Chemical Biological Defense (CBD) Division to promote exchange about
chemical, biological, radiological, and nuclear (CBRN) issues from a technical and operational
perspective. The Division will support business and government organizations on programmatic and
budgetary issues.
 The division’s board is structured slightly differently than before and incorporates representatives
from other divisions:
o Chairman: Mr. Armando Lopez, Jr.
o Vice Chairman: Mr. William Baugh
o Secretary: Mr. Charlie Jennings
1




o CBDAIF Chairman: Mr. Karl Semancik
o Chairman Emeritus: Mr. John Wade
The Chairman of the NBC Industry Group and the CEO/Chairman of CCRA will be invited to every
meeting in order to foster mutually beneficial relationships.
The Division plans to sponsor various activities, including:
o Monthly meetings. The first is slated for May (details forthcoming). Interested parties may
attend, but their corporations must be part of NDIA.
o Quarterly breakfasts. The first is slated for June (details forthcoming).
o Chemical conferences. These will include a 2–3 day CBD forum in Edgewood and a 2-day
conference ending with the Green Dragon Ball on a Friday. Dates TBD.
The NDIA and Gen. Bates both support this effort and want the division to succeed.
The NDIA has commissioned Mr. Brett Lambert (part of DoD leadership for industrial-based studies)
to conduct a DoD-wide, industrial-base study. CBRN will be examined as a cross-cutting sector of
the various disciplines and platforms under review. The NBC Industry Group will also participate.
o Corporations that are interested in participating should contact Mr. Lopez for the website.
o Corporations that are interested in connecting with NBC Industry Group should contact Mr.
Ball.
Review of Actions from Previous Meeting (Mr. Karl Semancik)
o ACTION 1: Identify a method for properly aligning the CBDAIF structure to incorporate Systems
Integration.
o Held meetings with JPEO CBD representatives.
o Refocus Systems Integration Sector based on JPM Guardian briefing.
o Consider establishing Information Systems Sector.
o ACTION 2: Provide a more detailed OPETS briefing that incorporates lessons learned for industry.
o Briefing this meeting.
o ACTION 3: Provide industry lessons learned on recently completed OPETS solicitation with views on
improving IDIQ solicitations issued by JPEO.
o Briefing this meeting.
o ACTION 4: Include the CBDAIF Small Business Sector Lead to provide suggestions on how to resolve
JE-CLaSS EOM contracting issues.
o DIRECTED ACTION 3: Continue working this issue.
0900-0930 Commercial Acquisition Costs and Challenges
Dr. David Cullin, Detection Sector
Introduction
 The vast majority of government does not understand the costs incurred when bidding on a
contract. Government tends to believe that the only cost is the cost of writing a proposal, but in
reality, costs are incurred throughout the entire process.
 The purpose of the briefing is to establish a shared understanding of the cost of doing business (on
the industry side), and to provide suggestions to government to make the process more efficient.
The Capture Process
 The industry capture process is designed to focus and manage time and resources.
 The Capture Manager is responsible for business development. He works in concert with the Project
Manager and the Proposal Manager to capture and develop business leads. The Capture Manager is
2
personally invested in the effort because every time he pursues a bid, he puts his professional
reputation on the line. Winning 1 bid out of 4 is considered a good win rate.
The Business Development Process
 Establishing a prospect pipeline is essential. In some cases, business development can start years in
advance of the anticipated solicitation date.
 Different phases of business development require different investments (e.g., time, money).
 A business must determine how much time and money it wants to invest in pursuing a contract. The
more consistent, factual information it has about the contract requirements, etc., the easier it is for
the business to make an informed decision about whether or not to bid.
o Deciding to bid: What will the bidding process cost? What is the overall value of the
contract?
o Evaluating the competition: What can we do? What can other companies do? Price to win.
o Bidding strategy: Be the prime or find a good prime and subcontract? Be the low-cost
option or the best value option?
o Some industry representatives felt that JRO needlessly withholds known requirements from
prospective industry partners. However, Mr. Spencer noted that JRO is about to go through
a significant transformation and suggested that this would be a good time to bring them into
the discussion.
o Some industry representatives felt that there is a lack of consistency between the strategic
and tactical messages of JPEO (i.e., things that will help further the strategic direction of
JPEO are often not on the “tactical” checklist, so industry will not spend time doing it).
 Writing a proposal accounts for about 40% of the cost of the bidding process. It requires a Capture
Manager, a Program Manager, and a Proposal Manager (as well as other personnel), and involves
building cost models, etc.
o Industry felt that government requirements for businesses to provide detailed, low-level
cost data can be challenging as they fail to account for industry realities at the proposal
stage.
 Once a proposal is submitted, the bidding company has to “keep its team warm” so that the team
can be reconstituted if the company wins the bid. The longer it takes for the government to contact
bidders with a contract decision, the more difficult it is for businesses to reconstitute their teams.
 The cost of the bidding process (e.g., capture costs, proposal costs) is factored into a business’
DCAA-approved rates. Delays on the government side—including amendments to an RFP, delays in
reaching a contracting decision, and cancellations of an RFP—ultimately increase the cost to the
government.
Summary
 Industry understands the price of doing business and recognizes that there are many costs that JPEO
cannot control or mitigate.
 However, JPEO can:
o Help industry by outlining its needs as early and as comprehensively as possible.
o Release solicitations in draft stages well in advance to craft the best possible final RFPs.
o Provide detailed requirements that are clearly articulated in the Statement of
Work/Performance of Work Statement/Statement of Objectives that is included in the final
RFP.
3
Discussion
 Q: Is it more useful for government to send out a less mature RFP earlier (giving industry more time
to prepare their bids), or to wait and release an RFP that is well-developed (giving industry more
certainty with respect to the contract requirements)?
 A: It is better for government to wait and release a tighter final RFP. Better information means that
industry can make a better decision about whether or not to bid. It also allows industry to develop a
clearer, more comprehensive response if it does decide to bid. A tighter final RFP will reduce costs
to industry, and ultimately, to the government.
 A: If requirements are still not fully developed, government should release a draft RFP for industry
comment well in advance of the final RFP. Soliciting specific input from industry should help the
government develop a more complete final RFP, leading to a less costly solicitation in the long run.
0930-1015 WMD Elimination Across the Enterprise: Leveraging the Entire Portfolio
Mr. Edward Lawson, JMP Elimination
Introduction
 Mr. Lawson presented a video demonstrating how new technology has made it possible to destroy
chemical weapons on a ship. Two years ago, this was considered impossible, but the technique is
currently being used to eliminate Syria’s chemical weapons.
 While there may be excellent opportunities with respect to requirements generation, acquisition,
and capability development, expectations and opportunities both need to be managed.
Elements of WMD Destruction and a “System of Systems” Approach
 Elimination is a national objective that has five phases: assess, access, demilitarize, decontaminate,
and dispose.
 JPM-E uses a “system of systems” approach, allowing it to be most flexible in view of current
threats. This approach also allows JPM-E to add value to military operations rather than simply
meeting treaty requirements.
Leveraging the Entire JPEO Portfolio
 For the first time, DoD has been asked to destroy material in support of a COCOM. Now it must
determine whether it will use general-purpose forces or CBRN forces to do so.
 Korea and PACOM are jointly planning nuclear elimination efforts. JMP-E has been involved from
the start and plans to leverage its entire portfolio to achieve program objectives.
 It is critical to develop and manage a portfolio of technologies that respond to mission requirements
while accommodating mission constraints.
WMD-E ATD
 The WMD-E ATD program will focus on developing new capabilities that can destroy or prevent the
proliferation of chemical and biological warfare (CBW) material and threats. Areas of focus will
include consolidation, proliferation prevention, and destruction. However, gaining access to CBW
materials remains a key challenge.
 JPM-E’s efforts have been so successful that the group’s capabilities are being written into COCOM
theater campaign plans and are actively being used by components.
4
Discussion
 The government filled the Syria requirement in one year by putting design and engineering efforts
behind old technology. We cannot even get a contract to industry in that time!


Q: The government thinks industry cannot support a faster process.
A: Industry reflects what government does, but is flexible enough to shorten the process if needed.


Q: How global and mobile do you expect JPM-E’s chemical weapons elimination capacity to be?
A: JPM-E is looking to create practical capabilities that range from an extra piece of kit that can be
used by general-purposes forces (with basic widgets, budgets, and switches); to small, agile
destruction mechanisms that can be housed on flatbed trailers; to temporary shelters that can be
set up for destruction operations.
1015-1045 CBRN IS and Enterprise IM Strategy
Mr. David Godso, JPM-IS
Presentation
 Information management is a significant challenge. More often than not, different services use
different IM and IT platforms.
 Data streams should be open and adjustable (e.g., XML, RDF) so that the government can
automatically map them to their systems. Similarly, data should be presented in a way that it can
easily be marked (meta-data).
 Industry can help government understand the power of networking and information sharing.
Networking can help all parties see what is (or what could be) emerging from a set of pooled data,
even if inputs are not mature.
 Data is only valuable to the extent that it is analyzed, so data arbitration mechanisms must be put in
place.
The Relationship Between CB and DoD
 It is challenging to provide products that are “operational, suitable, and effective” in a joint
environment. This is even more the case when it comes to CB, because CB does not have defined
technology requirements.
 CB is a very small component of DoD. It cannot tell DoD what to do or how to function, so in order
to ensure that critical information is transmitted to DoD in a timely manner, CB must be as
integrated as possible.
 Understanding how CBRN is embedded within the larger mission space should allow industry to
provide improved CB capabilities to the client using the existing infrastructure.
Recommendations for Industry
 BE VISIONARY! Show government where it could be 2-3 years from now. This is especially
important in view of the length of time it takes to process a government contract.
 Encourage government sponsors to fight the T&E process by helping them understand how it could
lead to cost savings. Point out areas where there is overkill and empower advocates with
information that will allow them to make a case for change.
 Educate government about the fact that software requires sustainment, and that this costs money.
While software’s core functions generally remain the same, its interfaces, security boundaries, and
other elements change frequently.
5
Discussion
 Q: Government’s challenge will be to meet mandated technology requirements and get data up to
the cloud.
 A: Government needs to wean itself off of the old C2 systems in a way that is compatible with what
other agencies are doing. Joint issues are especially challenging since there are unique vendors and
system architectures for each service. We have to keep advocating for commonality across the
services.
1045-1115 The Enterprise Architecture and How It Relates to Industry IRD Plans
Mr. David Godso, JPM-IS
Presentation
 The post-9/11 environment has made some stovepipes bigger and some challenges more difficult to
overcome.
 Warfighters need to be able to access their capabilities from wherever they are in the world.
 The best way to align CBRN IT R&D is through Joint Science & Technology Office (JSTO). If there is an
evolving requirement, it is likely that someone from JSTO is working on it.
 Because the environment changes rapidly (sometimes based on threat), it is critical to be actively
engaged and to coordinate with stakeholders to prevent surprises.
 The Joint Effects Model (JEM) has been extremely successful, so JPM-IS are looking to develop
technologies that plug directly into the JEM model (as opposed to technologies that need to be
integrated).
1115-1145 Web-Hosting IA Accredited Government Applications at Various Classification Levels
Mr. Michael Smith, Systems Integration Sector


CHALLENGE: Putting Web-hosted applications in a secure environment, yet one in which they can be
shared across domains.
o There are eight different acts and standards governing the development of government
applications. This means that substantial requirements must be met just to build a widget.
 The tendency to build unclassified widgets before building classified ones creates an
additional layer of complexity.
 It may be less complex to build sensors and small apps that will be hosted in a
specific environment, since that environment may feature certain built-in
protections.
o Opinions about when aggregated data becomes classified are largely subjective. Until the
issue is codified, it will continue to create significant challenges.
Moving across classification systems is a key challenge in government cloud Web-hosting. In a
sense, classification levels run counter to the purpose of participating in the cloud (i.e., sharing
information).
o What happens when there is spillage in the cloud?
1145-1200 JPEO IDIQ Mission and Vision
Mr. Joseph “Mike” Stevens, JPEO-CBD
Mr. Douglas Bryce, Deputy JPEO
6
Vision
 The JPEO plans to create an IDIQ for all of industry that covers its R&D contracts.
 The IDIQ would be solicited as separate domains analogous to the JPM structure.
 Awardees of the IDIQ would then compete for entire development programs as task orders.
 Every program would be competed this way, reducing the 9–14 month contracting process to 60
days.
o JPEO would spend two years putting the IDIQ together.
o Companies would propose for the separate domain IDIQs based on their core competencies.
 JPEO would prefer to get lots of prime contractors who bring on sub-contractors as
needed, rather than a few prime contractors who bring on lots of sub-contractors.
o OCO would then compete each complete developmental program as a task order under the
applicable IDIQ domain vehicle.
 The proposed IDIQ process is intended to save time and allow JPEO to get capabilities to warfighters
more quickly than it has over the last ten years.
 JPEO is considering a different process for Procurement, but this is still in the early stages of
development.
 DIRECTED ACTION 4: Provide comments on JPEO’s IDIQ strategy to the CBDAIF Chairman.
1200-1230 OPETS In-Depth
Mr. Joseph “Mike” Stevens, JPEO-CBD
Introduction
 OPETS has proven to be one of the Army’s best cost-savers.
 Concerns generated by the NSA leaks and the Navy Yard shootings created challenges for the OPETS
roll-out.
Proposals (IDIQ)/Source Selection & Awards
 Government Action: JPEO is pulling two existing RFPs on medical task orders and will be issuing new
RFPs with clearer requirements by June.
 Industry Response: It would be better to amend the RFP. As soon as the RFP is labeled as “new,”
every company will attempt to improve the entire proposal. Ultimately, this cost will come back to
the government because it will be factored into the cost of the contract. Requiring companies to
rebid on the contract has other effects, too. For example, when a company bids on a contract, it
must keep its team “warm” in anticipating of the contract being awarded. The longer the company
has to keep its team warm, the greater the cost to the government.
Post-Award Observations
 Successful proposals included a requirements matrix.
 JPEO maintains regular contact with awardees and speaks with each company every Monday.
 Ongoing challenges include in-processing and security clearances.
Recommendations for Industry
 Optimize transparency.
 Start early.
 Be detailed.
 Keep the schedule conservative.
 Expect the unexpected.
7




Be patient.
Streamline and simplify.
Follow directions.
Have an outside source review the proposal before submitting it.
Discussion
 Q: The perception among industry was that JPEO picked the lowest bidder.
 A: OPETS did not use the “low-cost, technically acceptable” option when awarding contracts.
1230-1245 OPETS Lessons Learned
Mr. Tony Francis (for Mr. Bruce Phillips, Systems Integration Sector)
Industry Assessment of OPETS
 Observation: The fourteen-day bidding period was onerous.










Observation: The blind submission process made it very difficult for companies to differentiate
themselves.
Recommendation: Consider using a different submission process.
Observation: The requirement of making and recording an oral presentation added substantial cost
to the bidding process.
Recommendation: Eliminate this requirement in future iterations of the bidding process.
Observation: Many companies bid in multiple domains, even though JPEO wanted companies to bid
only in areas in which they were strongest. This meant that the selection panel had to hear the
same presentation multiple times.
Recommendation: Companies that want to bid in multiple domains should include all of their
information in one briefing and provide additional information as necessary.
Observation: Every company that provided the requested information and bid at the IDIQ level got
an award.
Recommendation: Select a smaller number of awardees, such that those that are selected at the
IDIQ level are qualified to bid at the task-order level.
Observation: Companies were excited about the financial opportunity that this contract seemed to
present, but actual awards came in much lower. The mismatch between the funds JPMs thought
they would receive and the funds that they actually did receive created tension over labor rates.
Recommendation: Ensure a more accurate alignment of labor categories with task requirements
(especially with respect to medical).
Additional Feedback
 The perception among industry was that JPEO was buying “Level of Effort” under the guise of “Firm
Fixed Price.”
 The bidding process was equally costly for small and large businesses, but losing was
proportionately more costly for small businesses, since they were less able to absorb the loss.
 Some industry representatives say they would never bid again.
8
Discussion
 Q: Industry generally felt that JPEO should not have awarded so many IDIQs, because awardees
expect a return-on-investment (ROI).
 A: Government believes that narrowing the pool of applicants would hurt competition, and more
competition is better for the government. In fact, on the forthcoming R&D contract, the
government expects to grant a large number of IDIQs so a large number of companies can compete
for the task order. If a company meets the criteria for an IDIQ, it should receive one.



Q: Of what use is an IDIQ if the bar for getting one is so low? How do IDIQs make the contracting
process more expedient?
A: An IDIQ allows government to determine a company’s core competencies and find out what its
labor rates are.
Q: The cost of bidding for the IDIQ was more significant than it should have been if the companies
were not going to get an ROI. If government had announced that it would issue a limited number of
IDIQs, companies would have teamed up, distributing the initial cost burden and helping each other
absorb any losses they might have incurred in losing the bid.
1245-1315 Integration of CBRN Sensors and Capabilities into the Future Force Protection Architecture
Mr. Donald Buley, JPM Guardian
Introduction
 Integrated base defense allows approximately 40 disparate sensor technologies to be integrated
into a single network. Initially, Chem-Bio was not up for consideration, and there was no established
method for processing or integrating it.
 The missions of Chem-Bio and Force Protection overlap about 90%. If Chem-Bio is to be seen as an
inherent part of the mission space, stovepipes must be broken down.
 The goal is to open the environment so that CBRN can be embedded into the Force Protection
architecture and be incorporated into force capabilities. This can be accomplished, in part, by:
o Addressing CBRN as part of the process. This may require rebuilding processes, reworking
doctrine, and revising TTPs.
o Understanding where and how to integrate. This allows the right set of applications to be
built.
Integrating CBRN Capabilities into Force Protection
 Integrating CBRN into Force Protection supports risk-based decision making.
 How can we construct integrated, layered solutions that provide identification, detection, warning,
and response?
o The answer should be articulated as an “already-networked” solution that allows sensor
capabilities to be effective, regardless of the level of external support they receive.
 Fusion tools are essential because they allow data to be extracted and analyzed such that it provides
visibility on the next potential event.
A Role for Industry
 Industry can help by identifying opportunities for integrating Chem-Bio capabilities.
 DIRECTED ACTION 5: Provide comments on the concepts outlined in the “Integration of CBRN
Capabilities into Force Protection” briefing to the CBDAIF Chairman.
9
1315-1430 Defining Sub-contracting Goals
Mr. Michael Smith, Systems Integration Sector
Recommendations
 The costs small businesses incur for procuring materials should be included when determining
whether subcontracting goals are being met.
 Managing complex material procurements allows small businesses to develop important skill sets
while providing experience that can be used as past performance.
 Because direct labor tends to be less complex than procurement efforts, direct labor can simply be a
level of effort.
1330-1430 Unplugged Session with JPEO
Mr. Carmen Spencer, Joint Program Executive Officer for Chemical and Biological Defense (JPEO-CBD)

JPM Elimination: What is the split between JPM Elimination (JPM-E) and Chemical Materials
Agency (CMA)? Are CMA operations O&M funded and is JPM-E RDT&E (acquisition) work?
CMA is an office that is under AMC-G4. All acquisition functions of CMA (e.g., stockpile acquisitions,
facility closures) are part of JPPO, which is headed by Mr. Edward Harris. CMA is looking at
providing elimination capability around the world.

JPM Guardian: The CALS EMD procurement has been delayed, in part, due to non-concurrence
between the services on requirements. What is the process for resolving such differences when
they arise, and what process improvements are being contemplated to avoid program delays,
pauses and restarts?
JRO uses a standard format that allows the services to overlay any protection program they offer.
JRO needs to understand how to write commercial-based documents (e.g., presenting certain
capabilities as incremental improvements in technology as opposed to something new).

JPM Rad/Nuc: What role, if any, will the JPM Rad/Nuc play in GCAS now that programmatic
responsibility has been transitioned to DTRA?
Certain capabilities have been transitioned to DTRA (supporting the COCOMS), since DTRA was best
prepared to field the project.

Are there international collaborations of interest in the CBRN domain? If so, how can industry
support the JPEO’s efforts?
The counter-threat program has gone global. OSD has reached out to JPEO to build partner capacity
in nations where they have established partnerships. JPEO is doing a lot of country-to-country
training. The more JPEO can capture FMS work, the better.
Host countries and DoD may prioritize Chem-Bio differently. The U.S. IC has recently reached
consensus on the threat and prioritized it. However, DoD and DHS prioritizations are different, and
overseas, prioritization depends on a country’s national defense posture. Consider the WMD threat
10
to South Korea. While there is a tendency to conceive of it as a DoD-centered threat, it is actually a
health-centered threat. The South Koreans are not vaccinated, their masks are not high quality, and
they have never been tested with live agents.

What is the status of the personnel cuts in DOD staff and JPEO CBD? What impact will this have on
the CBD program?
There has been at 100% increase in OSD staff since 9/11. Therefore, OSD is slated to receive a 20%
cut, and all DoD headquarters offices are slated to receive the same. This will have a tremendous
impact on contractors.

Discuss ways that a deeper group of JPEO personnel (at the GS-12/13/14 level) can interact on a
more regular basis with the commercial sector. Venues for that?
JPEO has stopped training with industry, but it needs to start doing this again. Industry helps
generate some excellent ideas (e.g., JPEO periodically sends people to work with industry and they
often return with good insights). The JPEO Staff and the CBDAIF should develop a way for industry
to interact with mid-level staff as part of the CBDAIF process.
DIRECTED ACTION 6: Develop a CBDAIF proposal to improve interaction between industry and midlevel (GS-12/13/14) program staff.

Impacts of the new DoD 5000, particularly the addition of new decision points, and new costing
and LCM costs requirements for contracts and challenges of asking for total costs too early, yet
making that number the equivalent of a KPP
This will require more innovative ways of accomplishing our objectives. Hopefully it will allow us to
work smarter.

Sustaining the industrial base and the CBDP’s input to the DoD Sector by Sector, Tier by Tier (S2T2)
review
This is a niche mission space. The DoD needs to be smarter about the way it structures procurement
if it is to keep the industrial base strong.
The mission space of the Department of Energy (DoE) and JPEO overlaps (e.g., protection of armed
forces across the globe). Much of what the DoE is doing is dual purpose, and DoE does an excellent
job of marketing and business development. As a result, a greater percentage of DoD funds are
going to DoE. But DoD needs to look out for itself.
Other Comments
 There is an effort underway to consolidate CBRN into one mega-center in Edgewood that shares
resources among the different components.
 Mr. Spencer has been participating in meetings with Congress. The Sequester is off of the table for
the next two year, but there is still tremendous pressure in Congress to find ways to cut the budget.
Therefore, Congress is considering taking a “sequester bogey” off of the top of the budgets. Mr.
11



Spencer and others are trying to prevent the Chem-Bio program from taking those hits. It is
expected that Congress will pass the FY15 budget by 30 June.
The CBDP is currently undergoing an independent review by OSD CAPE, which is examining its
division of resources, the way programs are organized, and the roles of its different program
components (e.g., DTRA, JRO, and others). The results of the review, which are expected to come in
this summer, will be briefed to the Deputy Secretary of Defense.
The DoD IG is also conducting an audit of force preparedness. To date, results have been superficial
(nothing major has been identified).
Many services are looking at reducing funding for Chem-Bio because they do not have the funds.
However, Mr. Spencer believes that Chem-Bio will ultimately remain relatively stable. Within JEPO
HQ, 50% of overhead will be cut. Those funds will then be redirected to warfighting programs.
JPMs have been empowered to do more.
1430-1445 Adjourn
Mr. Karl Semancik, CBDAIF Chairman




The format of this meeting added value to the event.
It was valuable to frame the event ahead of time (e.g., tasking, identifying briefing topics, etc.)
The next meeting will be in August. Location TBD.
DIRECTED ACTION 8: Post briefings to the JPEO website.
12
ACTION ITEMS
DIRECTED ACTION 1
Assignee(s)
Originator
Suspense
Status
Provide feedback on the CBDAIF Charter to the CBDAIF Chairman if desired.
Industry Sector Leads
Mr. Karl Semancik, CBDAIF Chairman
1 July 2014
Open
DIRECTED ACTION 2
Provide Sector Lead replacement recommendations to the CBDAIF Chairman
and forward resumes of the recommended individuals.
Applicable Industry Sector Leads
Mr. Karl Semancik, CBDAIF Chairman
1 July 2014
Open
Assignee(s)
Originator
Suspense
Status
DIRECTED ACTION 3
Assignee(s)
Originator
Suspense
Status
Include the CBDAIF Small Business Sector Lead to provide suggestions on how
to resolve JE-CLaSS EOM contracting issues.
Dr. Ari Giaya, Small Business Sector Lead
Mr. Carmen Spencer, JPEO-CBD
TBD
Working
DIRECTED ACTION 4
Assignee(s)
Originator
Suspense
Status
Provide comments on JPEO’s IDIQ strategy to the CBDAIF Chairman.
Industry Representatives
Mr. Douglas Bryce, Deputy JPEO
1 July 2014
Open
DIRECTED ACTION 5
Provide comments on the concepts outlined in the “Integration of CBRN
Capabilities into Force Protection” briefing to the CBDAIF Chairman.
Industry Sector Leads
Mr. Donald Buley, JPM Guardian
1 July 2014
Open
Assignee(s)
Originator
Suspense
Status
DIRECTED ACTION 6
Assignee(s)
Originator
Suspense
Status
Develop a CBDAIF proposal to improve interaction between industry and midlevel (GS-12/13/14) program staff.
CBDAIF Chairman and JPEO Staff
Mr. Carmen Spencer, JPEO
Next CBDAIF Meeting
Open
DIRECTED ACTION 7
Assignee(s)
Originator
Suspense
Status
Invite the Director of JRO and the Director of DSCA to the next CBDAIF meeting.
JPEO Staff
Mr. Carmen Spencer, JPEO
Next CBDAIF Meeting
Open
13
DIRECTED ACTION 8
Assignee(s)
Originator
Suspense
Status
Post briefings to the JPEO website.
JPEO Staff
Mr. Karl Semancik, CBDAIF Chairman
30 May 2014
Open
14
ATTENDEES
Dr. David Cullin
Mr. Timothy Henry
Mr. Armando Lopez, Jr.
Mr. Michael McNaughton
Mr. Karl Semancik
Mr. Michael Smith
Dr. George Weightman
Mr. Tom Bouchard
Ms. Donna Brown
Mr. Douglas Bryce
Mr. Donald Buley
Mr. Al Burket
Mr. Joseph Cartelli
Ms. Bethany Comley
Mr. David Godso
Mr. Gregg Heilig
Mr. Edward Lawson
Mr. Carmen Spencer
Detection Sector
Consequence Management and
Response Sector
Protection Sector
CB Surety Laboratories Sector
CBDAIF Chairman
Systems Integration Sector
Medical Countermeasures,
Diagnostics, and Biotechnology
Sector
Deputy Division Chief
Executive Officer
Deputy Program Executive Officer
for Chemical and Biological Defense
Deputy Joint Project Manager
Guardian
JPM Radiological and Nuclear Sector
Special Staff
Executive Officer
Chief Information Officer
Chief of Staff
Deputy Joint Project Manager
Elimination
Joint Program Executive Officer
Mr. Joseph “Mike” Stevens PM Omnibus Contracts
Ms. Emma Wilson
Deputy Chief of Staff, Policy and
Strategic Initiatives
Mr. Gary Wright
Chief for Contracting Operations
15
FLIR
Emergent BioSolutions
Tex-Shield, Inc.
Southwest Research Institute
Analytic Services, Inc. (ANSER)
SENTEL Corporation
Booz, Allen, Hamilton
ACC-APG
DJPEO
JPEO-CBD
JPEO-CBD
JPEO-CBD
JPEO
JPEO
JPM-IS
JPEO
JPEO-CBD
JPEO-CBD/Deputy Assistant
Secretary of the Army for the
Elimination of Chemical Weapons
JPEO-CBD
JPEO-CBD
JPEO-CBD