Suchergebnisse

A letter report issued by the General Accounting Office with an abstract that begins "For some time, there has been concern over the increases in the prices of weapon systems spare parts and the adverse impact higher prices have had on military readiness. Prices for aviation spare parts managed by the Navy increased at an annual rate of 12 percent from 1994 to 1999. Several factors have contributed to price increases. First, the cost of repairing an item has generally gone up over time. Second, the surcharge that is charged to customers has also increased over time. The Navy has tried to alleviate customer concerns about high surcharge rates by moving certain overhead costs from the surcharge to repair costs. But this approach simply moved the overhead costs instead of reducing them. Still, the Navy understands the need to control spare parts prices and plans to further investigate the underlying causes of the increases."

According to the National Security Strategy, homeland security is an integral part of national security. Homeland security traces its roots to traditional and historic functions of government and society, such as civil defense, emergency response, law enforcement, customs, border patrol, and immigration. In the aftermath of 9/11 and the foundation of the Department of Homeland Security, these functions took on new organization and urgency. Homeland security strives to adapt these traditional functions to confront terrorism and disasters along with new threats and evolving hazards -- such as proliferation, cyber, transnational crime, violent extremism, stability and security of the space environment, economics, education, climate changes, energy, water and food security, and health threats. Homeland security is not simply about government action alone. It is about the collective strength of the entire country working to create and sustain a homeland that is safe and secure, and in which American interests, aspirations, and way of life can thrive.

The significance of Department of Defense (DOD) Directive 2311.01E, The Law of War Program (DODD 2311.01E), last updated in 2020, is not simply rhetorical. Born in 1974 in immediate reaction to the well-publicized atrocities committed by U.S. service members in Vietnam (such as at My Lai and Song Thang), the original directive represented the most tangible and highest-level expression of the U.S. executive branch's desire that its members comply with the laws and customs of war. Beyond important symbolism, the original regulation created a true law of war program in more than name only by establishing an interrelated set of measures focused on training, reporting, and investigating with designated offices and positions of responsibility—measures expressly crafted to ensure law of war adherence. DODD 2311.01E maintains and improves the original 1974 program's compliance architecture, and in doing so operationalizes, more than any other DOD or military initiative, the U.S. national commitment that its military should live by the law of war's precepts.

The purpose of this study was to determine if the Project Management Professional credential requirements encompass the knowledge for project managers required to effectively manage defense industry projects. This study used a four-round Delphi methodology to solicit opinions of defense industry project management professionals about current project management credential curriculum and if that curriculum reflects the realities of the current project management environment. Two research questions guided this study: 1) Do government contractors working on defense projects use project management knowledge and abilities that are different from what the Project Management Professional credential requires? and 2) Are there additional skill sets needed for project managers to successfully work in the defense industry? Participants in this study were selected from a project management training company based in the southeastern United States. Project management training professionals were selected due to the unique credentials required of participants in this study. From a population of sixteen defense industry project management training professionals, fourteen agreed to serve on the Delphi panel. The first round asked an open-ended question about knowledge and abilities required by defense industry project management professionals. The panel identified thirteen knowledge and abilities as additions to the Project Management Professional credential for project managers to effectively manage defense industry projects. In the second round, participants evaluated the knowledge and abilities identified in the first round, assigning varying ratings from limited relevance to significant relevance. In the third round, the participants compared their evaluations with the evaluations of the other participants in aggregate. Consensus was built on the identified knowledge and abilities which ranged from limited relevance to significant relevance. In the fourth round, the participants were given a final opportunity to decide if the knowledge and abilities are either necessary, supplemental, or neither. Five knowledge and abilities were found to be necessary, six were found to be supplemental, one was identified as neither, and one was identified equally as necessary and supplemental by the panel. The findings of the study identified competencies unique to the defense industry project management field, including Management of Contracts, Developing Positive Relationships with Stakeholders, Knowledge of Customer Organization, Leading a Team of People with Diverse Backgrounds, Knowledge of Communication with Government Customers, and Knowledge of DoD 5000 Series Regulations. Thus it is recommended that the defense industry needs an appropriate project management certification to fit its unique operational requirements. These findings provide knowledge for the project management field that should be included in training programs provided by colleges, companies, and consultants.

The term "project financing" is often used to describe all types of project financing, but in recent years it has evolved towards a more precise definition, so that it implies the financing of a particular economic unit in which lenders are comfortable to rely initially on the cash flow and income of these economic units, which the loans will be repaid from, and on the property of that economic unit as collateral for the given loan. Project funds can be adequately used to finance the defense system. They generally fall into the category of development priorities and usually enjoy numerous benefits (primarily tax and customs benefits) provided by the host country of a project, which generally generates more income for participants in project financing than when it comes to conventional credit. The BOT model for financing infrastructure projects has a number of potential benefits and it is an effective alternative in many countries with a more traditional approach to using government borrowing or state budget, with the government retaining strategic control over the project which will become public sector property.

About the Authors --Preface --List of Abbreviations --Why Germany? --Sources of Law --Structure of Legal System --Forms of Patent Protection: Background on Prosecution --Patentability Standards --Opposition Proceedings --Nullity Actions --Pre-suit Considerations and Infringement Trial --Preliminary Injunction Proceedings --Claim Construction and Infringement --Discovery and Evidence Taking --Damages --Inventorship and Ownership --Customs Actions --Budgeting a Patent Enforcement Case --Samples --Legal Texts.

A letter report issued by the General Accounting Office with an abstract that begins "To control the export of defense items, the U.S. government requires exporters to obtain a license from the State Department. A license is not required to export many defense items to Canada, currently the only country-specific exemption to the licensing requirement. In May 2000, the U.S. government announced the Defense Trade Security Initiative, which included a proposal to grant Canadian-like export licensing exemptions to other qualified countries. Since the initiative was announced, the State Department has been negotiating such exemptions with the United Kingdom and Australia. Exporters have been implementing the Canadian exemption inconsistently. Moreover, some exporters are interpreting reporting requirements about the use of the exemption differently. The U.S. government has mechanisms in place to reduce the risk of defense items being inappropriately exported, but there are associated limitations. U.S. Customs officials attributed these enforcement weaknesses to a lack of information and resources, including inspectors to staff ports. In addition, there are competing demands on the agency, which include the prevention of terrorism, and the interdiction of illicit drugs, illegal currency, and stolen vehicles. Experience with the Canadian exemption shows that three areas need to be addressed when negotiating and executing license exemptions with other countries. First, there needs to be upfront agreement on such issues as what items are to be controlled, who can have access to controlled items, and how to control these items through each country's respective export laws and regulations. Second, the U.S. government needs to monitor agreements to assess their effectiveness and ensure that unanticipated problems have not arisen. Third, enforcement mechanisms need to be in place to monitor exporters' compliance with the exemption and enable prosecution of violators."

Testimony issued by the Government Accountability Office with an abstract that begins "In the past 5 years, DOD has doubled its planned investments in weapons systems, but this huge increase has not been accompanied by more stability, better outcomes, or more buying power for the acquisition dollar. Rather than showing appreciable improvement, programs are experiencing recurring problems with cost overruns, missed deadlines, and performance shortfalls. GAO was asked to testify on ways to obtain a better return on DOD's weapons systems investments. This testimony identifies the following steps as needed to provide a better foundation for executing weapon programs: (1) developing a DOD-wide investment strategy that prioritizes programs based on realistic and credible threat-based customer needs for today and tomorrow, (2) enforcing existing policies on individual acquisitions and adhering to practices that assure new programs are executable, and (3) making it clear who is responsible for what and holding people accountable when these responsibilities are not fulfilled. Past GAO reports have made similar recommendations."

Intro -- Contents -- List of Tables -- Acknowledgments -- Introduction -- 1. Sexual Honor and Republican Law -- 2. National Honor, the Family, and the Construction of the Marvelous City -- 3. "What Virginity Is This?": Judging the Honor of the Modern Woman -- 4. Single Morthers, Modern Daughters, and the Changing Politics of Freedom and Virginity -- 5. Honorable Partnerships: The Importance of Color in Sex and Marriage -- Epilogue -- Appendixes -- Notes -- Bibliography.