Intragovernmental Transactions

Working Group (ITWG)

May 8, 2018

1

Today’s Agenda

Survey Results  (Alex Abshire)

IGT Day Feedback & Observations (Keith Jarboe)

More on Streamlining Government Invoicing (Matt Conrad)

Future Topics for ITWG (Alex)

Survey Questions (Alex)

LEAD ∙ TRANSFORM ∙ DELIVER

Page ‹#›

2

Tentative ITWG Schedule

Jan 9 – Release 2.1 Preparation

Mar 13 –  Streamlining Government Invoicing

Apr 17 – IGT Day – no ITWG meeting

May 8 – IGT Day Highlights; More on Streamlining G-Invoicing

Planned Dates: June 12, July 10, Aug 14, Sept 11, Oct 9, Nov 13

Future Topics:

Advances & Liquidation

IPAC Data Standards

Refunds and Adjustments

Assisted Acquisition

2-3 pm ET

LEAD ∙ TRANSFORM ∙ DELIVER

Page ‹#›

3

Survey Results (from March)

Adjusting Performance Reporting

3:1 agencies prefer replacement over +/- adjustments

Replaced records should be retained for audit purposes

Waiting for feedback from ERP Vendors

Streamlining Government Invoicing

Agency Support split down the middle (11 Yes, 12 No, 3 Unk.)

Larger agencies are generally in support of the change

Single point of settlement eases duplication and timing concerns

Smaller agencies were looking to utilize Invoice Workflow in G-Inv

Biggest concern is loss of option to reject prior to IPAC

Many questions across the board on using Performance Transactions to tighten controls

Some confusion about interaction between IPAC and G-Inv

Concern that new solution won’t reduce the number of IPAC adjustments or address material differences

LEAD ∙ TRANSFORM ∙ DELIVER

Page ‹#›

4

IGT Day Feedback

Agencies are requesting ...

Treasury decision on Mandates

Forthcoming

Walk through business scenarios

How can Performance impact fund movement?

How will Assisted Acquisition work?

How will Advances and Draw-downs work?

Treasury decision on Data Retention

No plans to archive or delete older records, at this time

Any change to an approved Order requires re-approval by both partners

Unit price or quantity? Absolutely!!!

POC phone number or Approver’s title?

Any change to an attachment to an approved Order requires re-approval by both partners

Attachment containing Statement of Work? Certainly!!!

Attachment showing all Servicing Agency’s approvals?

LEAD ∙ TRANSFORM ∙ DELIVER

Page ‹#›

5

IGT Day Observations

Wow! ... G-Invoicing is really coming

Greater sense of urgency this year

Agencies working with software vendors

Agencies asking for demos and other entry points

Agencies want more information

Many agencies are just now considering G-Invoicing

Attendance is heavy on accounting, light on logistics

Uncertainty over transitional (onboarding) period

Continuing IPAC pay/collect allows agencies to “wade in”

Full transition to G-Invoicing will take time

Streamlining Government Invoicing

Some agencies are concerned that Buyers will still be at the mercy of Sellers

Some agencies want hard edits on transactions from the onset

LEAD ∙ TRANSFORM ∙ DELIVER

Page ‹#›

6

Hard Edits for IGT Transactions

Examples:

Limit Payment/Collection to value(s) on Order

No Payment without Acceptance

No Collection without evidence of Delivery

Some agencies want hard edits from the onset, but ...

Relaxed rules allow IGT buy/sell to continue during transition period

Before rules become too rigid ...

Agencies need most of their partners on-board

Order terms must be agreed upon and approved by ITWG

We need to understand and allow agency exceptions

Agencies need their software vendors to support G-Invoicing

Release 2.3 will begin linking IPACs to Orders in G-Invoicing

Data may be used immediately to support accounting entries

Data from early adopters will help provide future direction

Later releases will enforce agreed-upon rules

LEAD ∙ TRANSFORM ∙ DELIVER

Page ‹#›

7

Buyer Control

What controls do Buyers have?

No system controls enforced until after release 2.3

Performance will eventually precede movement of funds

Future possibilities include:

Agree to performance requirements on the Order

Not all Orders will require Performance

There will be exceptions granted for agencies

Could employ hard and soft edits, like GTAS

G-Invoicing will provide more controls, eliminate undocumented IPACs and reduce chargebacks

The content of the buyer-submitted/seller-approved Order will limit Payments or Collections permitted through IPAC (see next slide)

New reports will trace data from G-Inv and IPAC (and potentially CARS) to assist reconciliation efforts

LEAD ∙ TRANSFORM ∙ DELIVER

Page ‹#›

8

Other Controls

Issue: Servicing agency is charging all collections to single SLOA (or more specifically TAS) instead of breaking charges out by office

	Order = O1805-123-234-000345

                Line 1 – Office ABC

                       Schedule 1 = $100 to SLOA-X

                Line 2 – Office DEF

                        Schedule 1 = $100 to SLOA-Y

                        Schedule 2 = $100 to SLOA-Z

In future, Servicing Agency can only collect $100 against SLOA-X

Three IPAC transactions are required to collect all $300 (see next slide)

Assumes IPAC must reference an Order/Line/Schedule in G-Invoicing

Solution: Buyer initiates the Order through G-Invoicing

Set up the Order to meet your requirements

LEAD ∙ TRANSFORM ∙ DELIVER

Page ‹#›

9

Changes to IPAC Bulk File

Transaction Header Record

ALC-1, DO Symbol, Doc Ref Num, ALC-2, Total Amount = $300

Transaction Detail Record

Invoice Number = < supplied by seller, if collection >

Obligating Document Number (or PO Number) = O1805-123-234-000345

Detail Amount = $300

Transaction Secondary Record(s)

Line Number = 1, Schedule Number = 1, SLOA = SLOA-X, Amount = $100

Line Number = 2, Schedule Number = 1, SLOA = SLOA-Y, Amount = $100

Line Number = 2, Schedule Number = 2, SLOA = SLOA-Z, Amount = $100

Precise changes to bulk file layout are TBD

Plan is to support existing Detail Record so agencies can continue to report “as is” before transitioning to G-Invoicing

Secondary Record will reference G-Invoicing and contain new Invoice FIDS

Some “invoice” data elements may move from Detail to Secondary record

ITWG will participate in setting new data standards

LEAD ∙ TRANSFORM ∙ DELIVER

Page ‹#›

10

Future Topics

Enrollment

Multiple Advances

Draw Downs

IPAC Data Standards

Refunds and Adjustments

Assisted Acquisition

LEAD ∙ TRANSFORM ∙ DELIVER

Page ‹#›

11

Survey Questions for Today

Please provide your agency name and (ideally) your contact info so we can address your concerns.

Does your agency think that any change to an approved Order (or an attachment) requires re-approval by both partners?

Does your agency think that changes to the GT&C should follow the same re-approval rules as the Order?

What exception(s) will your agency have to the rule that Performance (e.g., delivery, receipt, etc.) must precede Payment or Collection?

What issues (if any are known) will your agency have negotiating Payment or Collection terms with your trading partners on your Orders?

What does your agency do today to reconcile IPAC to supporting documents (e.g., Orders) and/or to CARS?

LEAD ∙ TRANSFORM ∙ DELIVER

Page ‹#›

12

# image1.png

# image3.png

# image8.png