Intragovernmental Transactions

Working Group (ITWG)

October 13, 2020
Page 2 L EAD ∙ T RANSFORM ∙ D ELIVER

Today’s Agenda

• Program Updates

• GT&C Workflow

• Agency Proof of Concept (POC)

• Primary/Subordinate Groups/Document Inheritance 

Indicator
Page 3 L EAD ∙ T RANSFORM ∙ D ELIVER

Tentative ITWG Schedule

 August 11 – Program Updates, Release 4.0

 September 8 – Program Updates, Primary/Subordinate Groups

 October 13 – GT&C Workflow, In-Flight Orders POC, 

Primary/Subordinate Groups/Document Inheritance Indicator

Planned Dates: Nov 10, Dec 8, Jan 12

Future Topics:

• Low Dollar Purchases

• Loading Active Documents

– Requirements in CY 2020

2-3:00 pm ET
Page 4 L EAD ∙ T RANSFORM ∙ D ELIVER

Program Updates

• Release 4.0

‒ 3rd Organizational Data Access Model Release (R3.2 released in 

April and R3.3 released in June).

‒ Scheduled for December 2020

• 4th Quarter Implementation Plans were due to Treasury by 

September 30th

‒ Thank you for the timely submissions!

‒ Next updates due to Treasury by December 31st

• 7600A/B Forms and Instructions were updated and posted 

to the Fiscal Service G-Invoicing website

‒ https://www.fiscal.treasury.gov/g-invoice/
Page 5 L EAD ∙ T RANSFORM ∙ D ELIVER

• We have spent most of this calendar year working on the 3 

Org Model releases (R3.2, R3.3, and R4.0)

• GT&C Workflow and Seller Facilitated Orders are on the 

horizon as key enhancements

• Seller Facilitated Orders are a key enhancement that 

directly impact the vendors so it’s important to start that 

work and give the vendors time for testing

What’s Next
Page 6 L EAD ∙ T RANSFORM ∙ D ELIVER

• Met with agencies that previously responded to ITWG surveys with 

requests for a G-Invoicing workflow solution using a standard workflow 

questionnaire 

GT&C Workflow – Gathering Feedback

• Guardrails around the Discussion:

– Minimize changes to FIDS or interface 

specifications that would introduce rework for 

Vendors and/or Agencies. 

– Workflow approach should be applicable to 

Orders as well (future work)

– Minimize configurable options as much as 

possible to allow for a streamlined solution

– Workflow solution cannot violate the GInvoicing access model
Page 7 L EAD ∙ T RANSFORM ∙ D ELIVER

GT&C Workflow – Summarized Feedback

• Multiple levels of reviewers are needed 

– Typically two or more on GT&C 

– Each trading partner can determine the appropriate level of reviews for their side 

– Reviews does not change the current G-Invoicing approval process

– Legal/General Counsel is a common reviewer for all agencies 

• Workflow within agencies is currently triggered during their brokering 

processes (e.g., reviewed before sending to trading partner, or reviewed 

before sending for approval).

• Reviews can be concurrent with multiple reviewers, however, there is 

typically a single editor. Only the editor updates the baseline document. 

• Reviewed and demoed several system/tools currently in use (i.e., 

ERP/SharePoint) at agencies to facilitate full workflow cycle Note: GInvoicing solution will augment rather than fully replace usage of other 

systems.
Page 8 L EAD ∙ T RANSFORM ∙ D ELIVER

• Common asks included:

– Automated review process based on the defined workflow

– Reviews occur within G-Invoicing 

– Reviewers provide comments only; reviewers can see 

comments from previous reviewers 

– Intuitive notifications

• Tied to workflow events

– Options to add additional reviewers 

– Escalation path for “stuck” workflow items to keep documents 

moving

• Workflow manager/super user to keep documents moving

GT&C Workflow - Agency G-Invoicing Asks
Page 9 L EAD ∙ T RANSFORM ∙ D ELIVER

• October ITWG Discussion

• Post ITWG Survey

• Document requirements

– Build out stories that capture MVP 

(minimal viable product)

• Design the solution 

– Beginning 4th Quarter 2020

– Craft dashboards/screens 

GT&C Workflow - Next Steps

– Implement using existing G-Invoicing framework to start

- Consider additional BPM (Business Process Model) or Case 

Management tools as additional features are implemented

– Incorporate feedback from User Centered Design sessions
Page 10 L EAD ∙ T RANSFORM ∙ D ELIVER

• Are there any circumstances other than state changes that 

should trigger approval?

• Reviewers will only be able to make comments. In order for 

edits to be performed the document must be sent back to 

the requesting group. Will this satisfy needs?

GT&C Workflow - Survey Questions
Page 11 L EAD ∙ T RANSFORM ∙ D ELIVER

In-Flight Orders – Proof of Concept 

• Numerous FPAs have engaged during September and provided 

valuable feedback.

• Held touchpoints twice a week to discuss progress, answer questions, 

receive feedback from participants.

• FPAs collaborated and reported their effectiveness of locating their 

existing Order data.

‒ This involved a review that showed which elements they were able 

to gather from the existing documentation/forms, systems, and 

which data elements had to be negotiated that weren’t previously 

captured elsewhere.

• Different challenges were reported that are currently being evaluated.

‒ Examples include existing Orders won’t all be from the 7600 forms 

with different data sets, Buyer/Seller having different lines broken 

out, and G-Invoicing required elements not previously captured.
Page 12 L EAD ∙ T RANSFORM ∙ D ELIVER

In-Flight Orders – POC Next Steps

• More FPAs have showed their interest in participating in the POC 

through October.

• Continue to host weekly touchpoints to receive feedback and address 

questions.

• Continue to collaborate with the POC participants and document 

findings to help better understand the challenges that FPAs will be 

encountering when uploading their in-flight Orders that extend into 

FY24.

‒ Due to the mandate structure with new and in-flight Orders being 

phased, this could be used to help reduce the number of Orders that 

exist and need to be converted into G-Invoicing.

‒ The in-flight Orders mandate for Orders extending into FY24 is 3 

years away. FPAs should continue to evaluate the number of 

estimated impacted Orders proactively.
Page 13 L EAD ∙ T RANSFORM ∙ D ELIVER

• September ITWG Survey results were strongly in favor for 

administrative changes as opposed to modifications 

requiring reapprovals by both trading partners for 

Subordinate Groups and Document Inheritance Indicator.

• Treasury’s decision is to move forward with administrative 

changes for both Subordinate Groups and the Document 

Inheritance Indicator.

Primary/Subordinate Groups
Page 14 L EAD ∙ T RANSFORM ∙ D ELIVER

G-Invoicing Program Contacts

For IGT Program Management and Agency Outreach Support

Andy Morris

Manager, Intragovernmental Transaction & Reconciliation Branch (ITRB)

Bureau of the Fiscal Service – Fiscal Accounting

andrew.r.morris@fiscal.treasury.gov

Wes Vincent

Supervisory Accountant, ITRB

Bureau of the Fiscal Service – Fiscal Accounting

wesley.vincent@fiscal.treasury.gov

Keith Jarboe

IGT Agency Outreach, Engagement & Onboarding

Bureau of the Fiscal Service – Fiscal Accounting

keith.jarboe@fiscal.treasury.gov

For Intragovernmental Transactions Working Group Information

IGT@fiscal.treasury.gov

https://www.fiscal.treasury.gov/g-invoice/