Intragovernmental Transactions

Working Group (ITWG)

November 10, 2020
Page 2 L EAD ∙ T RANSFORM ∙ D ELIVER

Today’s Agenda

• Program Updates

• Survey Results

• Agency Proof of Concept (POC)

‒ Recap

‒ GT&C and Order Challenges

‒ Next Steps
Page 3 L EAD ∙ T RANSFORM ∙ D ELIVER

Tentative ITWG Schedule

 September 8 – Program Updates, Primary/Subordinate Groups

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

Primary/Subordinate Groups/Document Inheritance Indicator

 November 10 – Program Updates, In-Flight Orders POC Recap

Planned Dates: Dec 8, Jan 12, Feb 9

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).

‒ Release Overview Webinars

‒ PROD Deploy scheduled for December 3, 2020

‒ QAC Deploy scheduled for December 11, 2020

• Q1 FY21 Implementation Plans are due to Treasury by 

December 31st

• 7600 Forms

• Low Dollar Purchase Working Group
Page 5 L EAD ∙ T RANSFORM ∙ D ELIVER

Q1: What circumstances other than state changes that should 

trigger workflow review?

 Vast majority of responses indicated that change of GT&C state 

should trigger workflow reviews

 Other suggestions for workflow triggers included:

• Funding changes, terms/conditions of work to be performed, change to 

agreement time span (i.e., start/end dates)

Note: additional agency discussions will take place to discuss specific 

GT&C data points as potential optional workflow triggers (configurable)

Q2: Reviewers may add comments. Documents will be sent 

back to the requesting group for edits. Will this satisfy your 

needs?

 Vast majority of responses indicated yes; reviewers may add review 

comments and direct the document back to the requesting group for 

edits

October Survey Results
Page 6 L EAD ∙ T RANSFORM ∙ D ELIVER

In-Flight Orders Proof of Concept (POC) 

• Numerous FPAs have engaged during September/October and 

provided valuable feedback.

• Touchpoints were held 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 the participants 

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 7 L EAD ∙ T RANSFORM ∙ D ELIVER

In-Flight Orders POC Challenges 

GT&C Challenges:

• Some Orders did not have a 7600A or other Agreement documentation

• GT&C data was not completely available or present for associated 

Orders

Order Challenges:

• Some participant’s Orders were not on a 7600 form and didn’t use the 

same data set

• Existing Order data was incomplete and many G-Invoicing data 

elements were not available on documentation or in the agency 

systems

• Statutory Authority, FOB Point/CRD Days, disbursement BETC codes, 

Item Code were examples of data elements that required additional 

work to provide
Page 8 L EAD ∙ T RANSFORM ∙ D ELIVER

In-Flight Orders POC Challenges 

Order Challenges Continued:

• Examples were provided where an Agency had one Order, but the 

trading partner had multiple Orders for that same information

• One Trading could have different breakout of Line/Schedule format

• Trading Partners could be doing a non-referencing Order

• Amounts previously billed in IPAC need to be agreed to so the in-flight 

Order amount can be accurately depicted to avoid duplicate payments

• Providing approvals as each Bureau approves differently

• Participants aren’t sure if/how the vendors will support in-flight Orders

• One Agency could be doing a Value-based Order while their Trading 

Partner could be doing Quantity-based

• Unit of Measurement (and therefore Quantity) can be different
Page 9 L EAD ∙ T RANSFORM ∙ D ELIVER

In-Flight Orders POC Next Steps 

Vendors:

• Discuss the conversion of in-flight Orders with the major ERP Vendors

Treasury Guidance/Recommendations:

• Provide guidance/recommendations to the IGT Governmentwide 

community on reconciling parts of the GT&C and Order
Page 10 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

Jeff Board

G-Invoicing Product Owner, ITRB

Bureau of the Fiscal Service – Fiscal Accounting

jeffrey.board@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/