Intragovernmental Transactions

Working Group (ITWG)

September 11, 2018
Page 2 L EAD ∙ T RANSFORM ∙ D ELIVER

Today’s Agenda

• Survey Results (Wes Vincent)

• Plan for Attachments (Wes)

• Intra-ALC Transactions (Lisa Midcap)

• IGT Data Quality Initiatives (Jaime Saling)

• Survey Questions (Wes)
Page 3 L EAD ∙ T RANSFORM ∙ D ELIVER

Tentative ITWG Schedule

 July 10 – Changes to Performance and IPAC Data Standards

 August 7 – Attachments and Adjustments

 September 11 – G-Invoicing Implementation

Planned Dates: Oct 9, Oct 23, Nov 13, Dec 11, Jan 8, Feb 12, Mar 12

Future Topics:

• Triggering Events

• Conditions for Performance

• Conditions for Settlement

• Assisted Acquisition

• System of Record

• Sensitive Agency Data

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

• Adjustments 

- Some agencies prefer reversal and new issuance, which is supported for 

Settlement and will be supported for Performance

o Reminder: There is no approval/rejection step planned for Settlement or Performance

- A few agencies want Settlement adjustments initiated only by the Seller

o Survey question to provide business cases

- Some agencies want limits on adjusting Settlement and Performance

o Limits on period of performance and/or total number of adjustments

o Survey questions to provide business cases

- One agency questioned the different approaches for adjustments

o IPAC (settlement) adjustments are positive numbers against adjustment BETCs

o G-Invoicing (performance) adjustments are proposed as negative numbers

- Discussion and survey question

- Would positive numbers with an Adjustment Indicator be better?

- (The negative sign will act as an adjustment indicator)

August Survey Results
Page 5 L EAD ∙ T RANSFORM ∙ D ELIVER

• Capitalized Asset Indicator will be added to Order Line Item 

- Provided by Seller (True/False) to assist Buyer for accounting treatment

- No objections in survey results

- 2-3 agencies requested this be optional

o It will be required ... if not applicable, assign a value of False 

• Attachments 

- Agencies see value of attachments on both Orders and Performance

o G-Invoicing will allow attachments to Performance transactions

o Attachments to Performance allowed any time by appropriate partner

- Agencies split on handling of Order attachments

o 40% see absolute need to (re)approve Order if attachments change

o 30% want flexibility to choose which attachments trigger (re)approval

o 30% are undecided

August Survey Results (Cont.)
Page 6 L EAD ∙ T RANSFORM ∙ D ELIVER

• Near Term

– Leave GT&C attachment rules as is

• Attachments can be added or deleted at any time

• Deletions only allowed by the partner that added the attachment

• Attachment changes may be pulled into agency systems

• Agency chooses whether to trigger (re)approval

– Base initial Order rules on GT&C rules

• Next Steps

– Provide e-mail notifications for attachment changes

• Long Term

– Gather feedback from early adopters to consider enhancements

Plan for Attachments
Page 7 L EAD ∙ T RANSFORM ∙ D ELIVER

IPAC News

• November 2018 Release 18.2.3

• Allow Intra-ALC trading

– One ALC can trade with itself in IPAC

– No longer reject transactions when the ALC and the 

Partner ALC are the same

– Bulk file will allow Intra-ALC trading

– ALC and Customer ALC fields are identical

– Will align IPAC with G-Invoicing which allows Intra-ALC

trading

– Offers a paper trail for Intra-ALC trading
Page 8 L EAD ∙ T RANSFORM ∙ D ELIVER

Example IPAC With Intra-ALC Trading
Page 9 L EAD ∙ T RANSFORM ∙ D ELIVER

Account Statement Example- CARS Full Reporter

CARS Example With Intra-ALC IPAC
Page 10 L EAD ∙ T RANSFORM ∙ D ELIVER

IGT Data Quality Initiatives

• IGT Material Difference Remediation Update

– Accomplishments

– Policy Updates – Treasury Financial Manual – Chapter 4700, Appendix 10

– Future IGT Plans

• G-invoicing Mandate

– Treasury Financial Manual Bulletin

– Agency Implementation Plans
Page 11 L EAD ∙ T RANSFORM ∙ D ELIVER

Completing the IGT Model

IGT Accomplishments – Trend Analysis

Pre-JV Differences between FY16 

and FY17 reduced by 23% or 

$321Billion.
Page 12 L EAD ∙ T RANSFORM ∙ D ELIVER

• Section 7.4 Business Rules for DOL FECA – Actuarial 

Liability 

• Section 9 Buy/Sell Transactions 

– Updated to Include G-Invoicing

• Section 9.1.4 Fund Settlement and IAA/Closeout Phase

– Added More Detailed Guidance on IAAs

• Section 9.4.4 Business Rules for Fund Settlement and 

IAA/Closeout 

– Updated Guidance on Allowance for Loss on Accounts Receivable 

TFM Part 2 - Chapter 4700 - Appendix 10

Intragovernmental Transaction Guide 
Page 13 L EAD ∙ T RANSFORM ∙ D ELIVER

• Continue the following initiatives:

o Intragovernmental Scorecard Program

o Monitor the Root Cause Analysis and Corrective Action Plan 

documentation provided by the agencies

o Material Difference Reporting and Certification

• Evaluate the usage of “non-reciprocating” USSGL accounts 

• Enhance TFM 2-4700 guidance (Appendix 10) on 

Intragovernmental Business Rules

• Improve or develop USSGL guidance impacting IGT

• Support the G-Invoicing Initiative aimed at improving 

communication and reducing differences in the Buy/Sell 

Sub-Category

Future IGT Plans
Page 14 L EAD ∙ T RANSFORM ∙ D ELIVER

• Buy/Sell Intragovernmental Transaction (IGT) data quality

– FY 2017 elimination differences of $27 Billion

– Nearly 85% of total volume of differences (over 4,200) 

• Areas contributing to the issue:

– Lack of common repository

– Lack of standardization

– Lack of agreement throughout lifecycle

– Lack of IPAC controls

Current Issue
Page 15 L EAD ∙ T RANSFORM ∙ D ELIVER

• Gathered requirements from Intragovernmental 

Transactions Working Group (ITWG)

• Published requirements as each transaction cycle is 

finalized

• Met with vendors to socialize requirements 

• Leveraged FMSC Steering Committee for ongoing agency 

and vendor collaboration

Collaborative Approach
Page 16 L EAD ∙ T RANSFORM ∙ D ELIVER

Initial Draft Mandate

• Proposed three separate mandates for each transaction 

cycle

- GT&C – January 1, 2019

- Orders – October 1, 2019

- Performance and Settlement – July 1, 2020

• Received varied feedback:

– Most agencies indicated dates were too aggressive, but some were 

supportive 

• Need 18 months for vendors

• Need additional 12-18 months for agency implementation

– Budget timing

– Time to incorporate Procurement/Logistics involvement for change 

management activities
Page 17 L EAD ∙ T RANSFORM ∙ D ELIVER

• Agencies to use G-Invoicing for all transaction cycles by June 

30, 2021

–Window for full compliance is September 2019 to June 30, 2021

–All buy/sell IPAC transactions must have a valid G-Invoicing order 

number and related details by June 30, 2021

• Agencies to submit implementation plans to Treasury by May 

31, 2019

–Plans should address each phase of the transaction cycle

Revised Mandate
Page 18 L EAD ∙ T RANSFORM ∙ D ELIVER

• Continue collaboration with agencies and vendors via FMSC 

and other forums (ITWG, Focus Group Meetings, etc.)

• Start collecting agency implementation plans and publish a 

dashboard visible to all trading partners

Next Steps
Page 19 L EAD ∙ T RANSFORM ∙ D ELIVER

Survey Questions for Today

1. Please provide your agency name and (ideally) your personal contact info so we can 

address your concerns.

2. Working around FYE, which Tuesday in Oct/Nov is best for a single ITWG meeting?

3. What limits (if any) should be placed on Settlement adjustments? Please provide 

business case.

4. What limits (if any) should be placed on Performance adjustments? Please provide 

business case.

5. Do we need an Adjustment Indicator for Performance adjustments, or can the negative 

sign be that indicator?

6. FASAB guidance tells us that the liability/asset (accrual) occurs upon delivery. Should 

that be based upon the shipping terms (source or destination)? Otherwise, how should 

that date be determined?