December 21, 2006 

DLMSO 

MEMORANDUM FOR RECORD 

SUBJECT: Defense Logistics Management System (DLMS) Supply Process Review 

 Committee (PRC) Meeting 06-02, November 28-30, 2006 

Purpose: The Defense Logistics Management Standards Office (DLMSO) hosted the 

subject meeting at the Headquarters Complex, Fort Belvoir, Virginia. Specific discussion topics 

are noted below. A list of attendees is shown at Enclosure 1. All meeting handouts and briefing 

material are available on the Supply PRC Web page (refer to the meeting agenda): 

http://www.dla.mil/j-6/dlmso/Programs/Committees/Supply/supplyPRC.asp. 

Brief Summary of Discussion: Ms. Ellen Hilert, Supply PRC (SPRC) Chair, facilitated 

discussion. Ms. Hilert began the meeting with a review of the minutes from the SPRC 06-1 

meeting and provided update on topics not scheduled for discussion during this meeting. 

 (a) Army Off-Line Integrated Process Team (IPT). The Army IPT lead was 

unable to attend this meeting; however, Ms Hilert provided a brief overview of the initiative and 

status. This Amy-led IPT, with representatives from DLA, GSA, DLMSO, and DAASC, 

addresses problems associated with off-line purchases (requisitions processed outside the 

standard Army “retail” supply system). The problems identified by the Army are common to all 

Services and an effort will be made to achieve resolutions with wide application. These 

problems include inadequate/ incomplete information flow between the supply support from 

DLA/GSA and Army financial processes, resulting in disbursements without prior obligations. 

Since the last SPRC meeting the IPT has had one meeting. There have been changes proposed 

for DoD EMALL to correct/minimize problems, to include a pop-up box that reminds the user of 

his responsibility for ensuring that the obligation is recorded when ordering material via EMALL 

and a direct interface with Army Funds Control is being planned. In addition, the Army has 

instituted a process for periodic revalidation of Army users authorized to order material via 

EMALL. The Technical Team for phase II of the IPT has not yet made significant progress on 

the requirement to communicate supply status for prime vendor orders, which would provide a 

means of recording the obligation prior to billing. An effort is also being made to associate the 

part numbers used for many off-line requisitions with cataloguing information to support demand 

history and other Army processes. ACTION: An update by the IPT will be requested for the 

next SPRC meeting. 
 (b) Project Code Validation. The SPRC 06-1 meeting included a discussion of 

business rules for project code assignment and an issue reported by LMP due to an overly 

restrictive project code edit applied to all project code categories. The business rules were 

clarified and all Services were asked to provide a list of Category B Project Codes applicable for 

recognition by Army LMP. Discussion: The Army (LOGSA) reported to Ms Hilert that their 

reported problem appears to have been corrected, although they will know more after expanded 

deployment. The LOGSA representative asked that the SPRC reinforce the requirement to 

coordinate the Category B project codes with the applicable Army Life Cycle Management 

Command (LCMC). NEW RELATED ISSUE: Mr. John Will, TRANSCOM, asked if there 

was a DoD system that tracked project codes. Ms. Hilert told him that DLMSO had identified an 

initiative to the Business Transformation Agency (BTA) to develop and application that would 

store and disseminate project codes. Mr. Will offered for consideration a TRANSCOM system 

called Table Management Distribution System (TMDS) which he indicated could be used for 

tracking and management of the codes. ACTION: DLMSO to investigate with TRANSCOM 

the capability of TMDS to meet envisioned project code functionality. 

 (c) Air Force AIT in the Supply Chain. Mr. Mark Reboulet, who is the 

Program Manager of the Air Force AIT Office, provided the committee with a briefing that 

proposed the use the original manufactures RFID tag throughout the supply chain. Mr. John Will 

from the U.S. Transportation Command (USTRANSCOM) suggested that Mr. Reboulet should 

brief Mr. Fred Lewis, USTRANSCOM. The briefing stimulated a good deal of discussion; 

further study by DUSD(L&MR)SCI and USTRANSCOM would be appropriate. No action for 

the SPRC at this time. 

 (d) Use of Suffix Code X on Requisitions/TCN: BACKGROUND: There is a 

long-standing inconsistency involving the significance of the 15th position of the Transportation 

Control Number (TCN). MILSTRIP allows an X in that position as a valid suffix code and the 

Defense Transportation Regulation (DTR) allows X as a default when the suffix code in the 

document number is blank. DISCUSSION: DLA requested a requirements review to determine 

if the two sets of guidance could/should be de-conflicted. Three options were discussed: (1) 

Modify MILSTRIP to remove X as a valid suffix code. This option is not viable as Supply 

Sources use all suffix codes currently available and, with decentralized sourcing/lateral 

redistribution, occasionally run out of available codes. (2) Expand the Suffix Code to two 

positions and the TCN to 18 positions under a DLMS implementation. This solution would have 

an unacceptable systems impact. (3) Continue to allow the use of X as both a valid suffix code 

and as a default when there is no suffix code assigned. The Committee also discussed the 

possibility of removing the current restriction which prevents the use of values assigned as 

Demand Codes in the Suffix Code data element. MILSTRIP does not permit dual use of these 

values because of a potential for confusion since both data elements are carried in the same 

record position (rp) of various 80 rp transactions. However, normally, demand and suffix codes 

are not found on the same transaction. In addition, selected values (I, 1, 0, and Z) are currently 

not allowed as suffix codes or demand codes due to potential confusion between alpha and 

numeric characters. Removing restrictions on these two sets of values might help alleviate the 

lack of available Suffix Codes and would seem less of a risk with modern automated processing. 
4

In conclusion, agreement was reached to continue the use of X as a valid suffix code and as a 

default when there is no suffix code. However, it was considered appropriate that both the 

MILSTRIP manual and the DTR be annotated to identify the redundancy. ACTION: DLA will 

propose a clarifying note for the DTR, and DLMSO update MILSTRIP. GSA will provide 

clarification of their internal use of position 15 of the GSA-assigned TCN denoting excess 

material. Mr. Bob Vitko, DLMSO, will contact BSM order fulfillment to evaluate whether 

allowing use of the restricted values would be worth pursuing, since even this minimal change 

would impact system edits. 

 (e) Property in Possession of Contractors (PIPC) Initiative: 

BACKGROUND: DOD policy says that solicitations and contracts that include Government 

Furnished Property (GFP) must comply with the new Government PIPC IUID policy 

requirements. The policy requires direct Item Unique Identification (IUID) Registry update or 

the submission of a Wide Area Work Flow (WAWF) 856. A proposed Defense Federal 

Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS) rule requires contractors to report to IUID 

Registry changes in the status, mark, custody or disposition of PIPC for all PIPC delivered, 

shipped consumed, expended or disposed of. DISCUSSION: Ms. Lydia Dawson, from the 

OSD UID Program Office provided the SPRC with an update on accomplishments in 

implementing the IUID registry and PIPC policy. Ms. Dawson explained that several key events 

in the life cycle of an item will require an update to the registry. A list of those events and 

definitions were provided subsequent to the meeting and are at enclosure 2. Currently, these 

events update the registry by input of a flat file or direct update to the web site. Ms. Hilert 

discussed potential for transaction update generated as a by-product of an existing process where 

applicable. ACTION: DLMSO will continue to participate with DUSD(L&MR)SCI and the 

UID Program Office toward synchronization of UID/RFID/SIM policy and provide feedback to 

the SPRC. 

 (f) Jump Start Update: Mr. Dale Yeakel, DLMSO, briefed the group on the 

BTA initiative that would provide a financial incentive to the Services for near-term DLMS 

implementation. The initiative defines a phased, coordinated implementation of current and 

future high priority transactions such as those containing RFID, IUID, and support OSD 

Business Transformation priorities. The goal is to bring about near term process improvements 

and gives Components experience in implementing the DLMS. BTA initially identified the 

Army’s Logistics Modernization Program (LMP) to receive focused support under the Jump 

Start and that effort is now reporting good progress toward full DLMS implementation by the 

December 2007. OSD subsequently set aside $4 million dollars for those systems nominated by 

the Components and which meet selection criteria established by the BTA. It is expected that 

additional funding will be made available for FY 08. 

 (g) Department of Defense Activity Address File (DoDAAF) Table. Mr. 

Jackie Carter, DLMSO, provided a demonstration of the redesigned DoDAAF table. This webbased table provides update and inquiry capability of the DoDAAF. Several new features have 

been added in FY 06 to include the Unit Identification Code (UIC), a link to TRANSCOM for 

Port Codes and Zip Codes. Ms. Wendy Evans from the Defense Distribution Center (DDC) who 

joined the meeting via telephone, indicated she thought the link to the TRANSCOM Port Code 

provided a lists of ports that was too voluminous. She said there are only about 100 port codes 
5

authorized for use and would like the list of codes to show only those. During the 

demonstration, it was noted that none of the DODAACs entered had RICs populated in the file. 

ACTION: Mr. Carter will investigate the possibility of reducing the list port codes made 

available for user selection and look into the missing RIC issue. 

 (h) DLMS Changes. Discussion included a number of DLMS changes currently 

under development, in staffing, and awaiting implementation. Status is also posted to the 

DLMSO Web site: http://www.dla.mil/j6/dlmso/eLibrary/Changes/Qtrly_Status_Rpts/DLMSStatus06_ baseline.doc. Changes below are 

listed in numerical sequence where Proposed DLMS Change (PDC)/Approved DLMS Change 

(ADC) numbers are assigned. 

 (1) Proposal to Delegate Disposal Authority for NIIN Status Code 4 

and 8 at Time of Receipt by the Distribution Depot(DD). This was a preliminary discussion 

lead by Brian Mackie, from the DDC, to determine if the Components are in favor of developing 

a policy that would allow DDs the authority to dispose of material with NIIN status code of 4 

and 8. These NIIN status codes identify items that are either cancelled without replacement (4) 

or cancelled – inactive (8). The problem arises when material is turned into a DD, without a PrePositioned Material Receipt Documentation (PMRD). A receipt transaction is sent to the 

Inventory Control Point (ICP), however since the material is no longer recognized as an active 

item by the ICP no disposal transactions are generated. As a result the material stays in storage 

and the ICPs are charged storage cost for items that are no longer in use. DISCUSSION: The 

correct procedure is for the customer to offer the material to the ICP utilizing the procedures 

outlined in the Material Returns Program (MRP). The ICP would not accept such material for 

credit under MRP. If the DD was then to receive the material without a PMRD a Supply 

Discrepancy Report (SDR) should be sent to the ICP. The ICP should then authorize disposal 

and, under approved MILSBILLS/MILSTRIP procedures, bill the disposal costs to the activity 

responsible for the unauthorized return. Ms. Hilert said that there may be a gap in the current 

procedures for MRP in that this situation is not specifically addressed. ACTION: All 

Components provide by January 15, 2006 current automated system response to reports of excess 

(DI FTE) for cancelled NIINs (are such FTEs rejected or processed for response to customer?). 

DLMSO will review MRP procedures for possible inclusion of a new paragraph and/or status 

code. 

 (2) Proposed DLMS/MILSTRIP Change for Price Notification. 

Customers submit requisitions for acquisition cost-plus items based on pricing data reflected in 

the Federal Logistics Information System (FLIS). Because these prices are often inaccurate or 

priced at 0, as is the case for Acquisition Advice Code (AAC) L items, the customer may 

charged more than is available in their budget. This proposed change, initiated by the Marine 

Corps and with strong support from the FMS community, would establish a new Advice Code 

which would enable customers to request that Supply Sources identify the actual cost and permit 

the customer a choice on whether to proceed prior to contract award. DISCUSSION: Mr. 

Hellion Flowers, the DLA SPRC representative indicated that DLA would not support the 

change until there is an evaluation of the systems impact to accomplish the change. However, 

DLA has proposed several initiatives that would help mitigate some of problems identified by 

the proposed change as follows: 
6

• DLA would perform market survey to get a better idea of the cost of the item. 

• A system change to BSM to update FLIS in a timelier manner. 

• A change to FLIS to allow a price to be recorded for AAC L items where the price is 

currently blank. 

Mr. Bob Vitko, DLMSO, proposed that there be a change in DOD policy that would require 

supply sources to notify the customer when a price change, either by a significant percentage or a 

flat dollar amount, without the customer having to use an advice code to request the information. 

Ms. Hilert discussed a combination approach with a DOD policy change requisitions as well as 

an advice code that customers could use for a tighter variance edit. Ms. Hilert indicated that the 

DoD Supply Chain Materiel Management Regulation, DoD 4140.1R, is currently being rewritten 

and this would be an opportune time to include new policy to require customer notification of 

significant prices change. ACTION: DLMSO will prepare a draft change to 4140 and submit to 

OSD (with coordination of the SPRC). DLA: Provide by January 15, 2007: A list of AACs 

that are identified as Acquisition Cost-Plus (or are otherwise associated with pricing problems). 

DLA will also provide status of the change to FLIS to allow a price for AAC L items. DLA was 

to research policy on this topic, but was unable to locate a copy of policy believed to have been 

previously included in the FAR and later rescinded. Marine Corps and DLA IL Office: 

Update the proposal to reflect the alternatives discussed and provide to DLMSO by January 30, 

2007. All Components provide to DLMSO by January 30, 2007, procedures currently in place 

for communicating to customers significant changes in pricing. Also provide any planned 

changes as the result of implementing ERP Systems. Indicate if these procedures are for 

Security Assistance customers only or apply to all. Subsequent to the meeting the Marine 

Corps raised questions regarding why FLIS does not update prices in a timelier manner and how 

BSM handles these price updates. Currently the updates occur once a year and it was suggested 

that this could be done at least quarterly. Mr. Hellion from DLA responded and indicated that 

FLIS price updates are controlled by OSD guidance. Changes to the effective date policy in 

FLIS has been proposed but was non-concurred in by all the Services. Mr. Flowers 

recommended that this be revisited by the new pricing integrated process team (IPT). In 

addition, Mr. Flowers explained the time delay between BSM and FLIS updates. For a first time 

buy, price challenge or other FMR exceptions that result in a standard price change outside the 

normal annual cycle, BSM creates/changes the price immediately. However there are times 

when there is a difference between the FLIS and BSM price. FLIS must adhere to the DOD 

effective date policy and can’t immediately effect the price change. The price is visible in FLIS 

with the effective date (48 to 78 days in the future). This discrepancy causes a difference 

between the obligation and what DLA bills the customer. 

 (3) Business Systems Modernization (BSM) Automated Stock 

Screening Request/Response. This proposal which for which a PDC is under development, is 

a new automated process using a DLMS transaction in which BSM sends a request for stock 

screening to a DSS depot. The DSS depot will respond with a transaction indicating no stock, no 

defects, or if there is defective material the DLMS 842S/Q equivalent of a DD-1225, Storage 

Quality Control Report (SQCR), will be sent. Ms. Hilert indicated that it might be advisable to 

extend this process to all Services so that a SQCR created in DSS for owners other than BSM, 

could be sent to DAASC WebSDR, which would automatically generate an e-mail to that owner. 
7

ACTION: Ms. Hilert asked all Services interested in this new process to consider sponsoring 

the change and insure that modernization programs are aware of that this non-MILS process falls 

under the DLMS. 

 (4) AMCLs 10 and 34, Identification of Product Quality Deficiency 

Report (PQDR) Material. This approved change provides a standard means of identifying and 

controlling potential/confirmed product quality deficiency related material with a staggered 

implementation. DLA, USAF, and some Army systems have reported implementation. The 

Navy has deferred until modernization. There was a discussion concerning whether the Marine 

Corps is considered to have implemented this change since they use an Air Force-designed 

system which accommodates this process. ACTION: Marine Corps verify by January 15, 2007, 

if this change is considered implemented in all their systems. Implementation includes use of 

Supply Condition Code Q and future capability to include a management code in the disposal 

release order.

 (5) ADC 44A, Inclusion of Supplemental information for UIT/SIM in 

the 2D Symbol On the Issue Release/Receipt Document (IRRD) (DD Form 1348-1A). This 

addendum adds supplemental optional data fields to the PDF 417 2D symbol for the purpose of 

item unique identification (IUID). This approved change does not yet have a planned 

implementation date. Ms. Hilert indicated the Navy should provide a date when they would be 

capable of reading the 2D symbol for UII and serial number, and this could provide some 

impetus to DLA to prioritize the change in DSS. ACTION: The Navy is requested to provide 

by January 30, 2007, an estimated date implementation date. Other Service implementation 

dates should also be identified. Implementation includes capability to read or write UID content 

in the DD 1348 2D symbol. 

 (6) ADC 205, Assignment of MILSTRIP Document Number Serial 

Number Record Position (rp) 40/DLMS Utilization Code M for BRAC. This change 

authorizes RP 40 of an A5J to identify a BRAC disposal release order. ACTION: Since the 

publication of the ADC, the USAF has identified a concern for system integration and competing 

uses of the code M. The USAF representative was asked to report status/provide the impact.

 (7) PDC 206 New DLMS Information Exchange for Tracking NonReady-For-Issue (NRFI) Carcass Return. This PDC was developed in support of the Navy 

NRFI carcass tracking process and will be available for use/adaptation by other Components. 

Since the last PRC meeting, the PDC has been completed and is awaiting final review by the 

Navy. It will be sent to all Components for comments and concurrence. Other Services will be 

asked to review for applicability/enhancement to support their internal processes.

 (8) PDC 208, Revised Procedures for Logistics Accountability During 

Maintenance. This PDC, which is out for review, incorporates changes recommended by the 

Joint Group Materiel Management (JGMM) subgroup for inter-Service Supply Support to Depot 

Maintenance. In addition, this change proposes related revisions recommended during the April 

2006 Supply PRC, as well as administrative changes which insert missing MILSTRIP text and 

provide clarifying language for cancellation of customer asset reports. The changes as a result 

of the PDC fall within the MILSTRIP/DLMS functional area; a separate proposed change is 
8

under development for coordination of revisions and updated procedures in the 

MILSTRAP/DLMS functional area as discussed during the April PRC meeting. 

DISCUSSION: The PDC formally publishes standard requisitioning procedures for the 

induction of reparables into maintenance using requisition transaction and a prescribed format. 

The induction process was adopted under JGMM, but the finalized formats had not yet been 

integrated into standard documentation. New to this process are procedures associated with 

storage activity denial of directed release of the asset for maintenance action and a requirement 

for a shipment notification transaction when material is shipped from the maintenance depot 

(organic and commercial) to a distribution depot or DRMS. Under the proposed change, this 

requirement may be satisfied by a DLMS Shipment Status, 856S, or an Advance Shipment 

Notice, 856, for property transfer. The Committee recommended this PDC for approval. Ms. 

Hilert asked the Army the status of the implementation of Commercial Asset Visibility (CAV). 

The Army representative indicated CAV was being fielded, but has some problems will some of 

the CAV transactions. ACTION: Components are requested to provide confirmation by email 

of concurrence/comments by January 15, 2007. The Army is requested to provide status of the 

fielding of CAV and identify problems with CAV transactions January 30, 2007. 

 (9) PDC 224, DLMS Shipment Status Enhancements: Secondary 

Transportation Number, Initial Shipping Activity, Carrier Identification, and Port of 

Embarkation (POE). This change provides guidance for implementation of multiple 

enhancements to the DLMS Shipment Status (856S) transaction, specifically requesting 

implementation of enhancements identified during the development of the DLMS: secondary 

transportation number and initial shipping activity. It provides clarification on how DLMS 

handles identification of the POE for air or water or the Consolidation and Containerization Point 

(CCP) which are mapped to the same record positions in the MILS and may not be identifiable 

by code characteristics. Additionally, it inserts language in the DLMS manual for RFID and 

IUID content for UIT within the shipment status guidance. DISCUSSION: Ms. Hilert told all 

Components they should be building these enhancements into their enterprise resource planning 

systems (ERPs). She also indicated that this could be a phased implementation with no adverse 

impact if some systems implemented while others did not. All Components agreed to approve 

the change. ACTION: DLMSO to issue ADC. 

 (10) PDC 222, Communication of Unit Price and Total Price under 

DLMS. This PDC expands the field size for the unit price and total dollar value on the Issue 

Release/Receipt Document (IRRD) (DD Form 1348-1A). The change establishes a 

corresponding field size for the unit price in the DLMS transactions. Currently, MILSTRIP 

transactions restrict the size of the unit price due to the space limitation within the 80 record 

position transactions. The current field size is structured with 5 digits for dollars and 2 digits for 

cents. DISCUSSION: Ms. Hilert explained that this problem can’t be corrected within 

MILSTRIP, and therefore DLMS must be used. The PDC was recommended for approval 

during the meeting although there are some comments requiring clarification/correction within 

the final version. Subsequent to the meeting, Ms Hilert learned that DLA Distribution 

Standard System (DSS) plans to expand the field size for total cost to a length different from that 

in the proposal. However DLA did not provide explanation of this during staffing of the PDC. 

ACTION: DLA must provide justification for field size and clarify how much of the proposed 
9

change will be implemented by DSS. DLMSO to finalize and issue the ADC, pending receipt of 

clarification from DLA. 

 (11) DRAFT PDC 235, Revision of MILSTRIP, MILSBILLS and 

DLMS to Add DODAAC Authority Code Edits. This proposed change will establish a new 

edit for DODAACs by Authority Code in order to restrict requisitioning, shipment, and billing 

by DODAAC. It will revise DLMS, MILSTRIP, and MILSBILLS to recognize DODAAC roles 

for requisitioning, shipment, billing and provide the authority for DAASC and the Source of 

Supply to reject for invalid usage. DISCISSION: Mr. George Gray, DLA, discussed having an 

additional authority code that would further limit items that could be requisitioned from the 

Defense Reutilization and Market Service (DRMS). Ms. Hilert indicated that Mr. Gray could 

propose a new code by providing comments to the published PDC. Also discussed was the 

problem of transitioning from the currently process of restricting DODAACs (through DAAS 

edits on the DoDAAC structure) to the new authority codes. Mr. Carter indicated part of the 

conversion would require automated/manual review by DAASC and the Central Service Points 

(CSPs). If the code is left blank, DAASC will default to 00, which has no restrictions. 

ACTION: Ms. Hilert asked everyone to carefully review the PDC to ensure that one authority 

code will work for every situation. 

 (12) PDC 236 (subsequently published as ADC 219), Passive Radio 

Frequency Identification (RFID) Visibility Transactions. This change establishes data 

requirements for registering passive RFID readers at DAAS for the purpose of identifying the 

location of the reader so that subsequent tag reads can be associated with the physical location of 

the read. This change also establishes data requirements for sending scanned tag read 

identification with reader identification to DAAS via middleware (e.g., Savi Site Manager, Globe 

Ranger, etc.). The goal is to associate the tag identification and location with previously 

transmitted logistics transactions containing passive RFID, e.g., 856S, Shipment Status and 

856A, Receipt/Shipment, Consolidation/Due-in Notice. The change is restricted to the Alaska 

RFID Implementation (ARI) program; however the intent is to validate the process for broad use 

in future passive RFID implementations. DISCUSSION: The scope of the project includes 

systems that currently collect supply and transportation data for the DLA and USTRANSCOM 

business processes used to generate that data, technologies to collect new data, software to 

integrate the data and tools to visualize the information. The initial scope of the ARI program is 

limited to DOD prepared shipment transactions (856S and 856A); it is anticipated that future 

expansion will incorporate vendor/contractor prepared advance shipment notices (856). The 

Committee recommended that other code types that should be included to define reader location, 

for example, Water Port of Embarkation, (POE)/Port of Debarkation (POD) and Air POE/POD. 

ACTION: Ms. Laurie Barnhill, DLMSO, was asked to clarify with DAASC if they will be 

sending the latest 856A to the middleware when a reader location requests identification based 

upon a tag read. Subsequently, Ms. Barnhill confirmed that DAASC will provide either or both 

matching 856S or 856A. Both air and water port codes were incorporated in the approved 

change.

 (13) DRAFT PDC 237, New Status Code for Free Issue Post-Post 

Orders. This change establishes procedures that allow the source of supply to modify postpost non-reimbursable requisitions so that they are processed as reimbursable with concurrent 
10

generation of supply status notification. DISCUSSION: The change has not been out for 

comment, but will be sent out for a 45 day staffing. ACTION: DLMSO to finalize and issue 

the proposal. 

 (i) Unit of Issue Errors Identified at DAAS. DAASC is proposing a new 

process to validate the U/I and if determined to be incorrect or invalid/unrecognizable they will 

check the DLIS abstract file resident at DAASC, and replace the U/I in the transaction with the 

U/I of record. (note, if the U/I is invalid/unrecognizable the transaction can’t be translated to 

DLMS). This would be a front-end check and fix, accomplished before passing the transaction 

on to the mapping process. DISCUSSION: Changing the requisitioners transaction with a U/I 

error to FLIS U/I without quantity conversion logic could easily add complications to an already 

suspect order and result in the customer getting the wrong quantity. Accordingly, the decision 

for DAASC edits relative to U/I follows: (1) If the 80 RP transaction contains an incorrect U/I, 

DAASC will pass that incorrect U/I to the source of supply (SoS) in the DLMS transaction and 

allow normal SOS U/I edits . SOS already change incorrect U/I to the correct U/I if the 

associated quantity can be converted and provides status back to the customer indicating the U/I 

has been changed. If the quantity can’t be converted, then the SOS rejects the requisition with 

Status Code CE and the correct unit of issue is provided for reordering purposes. (2) If the 80 rp 

transaction contains invalid/unrecognizable U/I (that can’t be converted to a DLMS transaction) 

DAASC will reject the requisition with “CE” status and provide the correct U/I obtained from 

the DLIS abstract file. No DLMS change is required for this action. ACTION: DAASC will 

modify programs as outlined above and DLMSO will update the DLMS manual accordingly. 

 

 j. DoD WebSDR Update: Mr. Robert Hammond, DLMSO, provided an update 

briefing on the WebSDR Transformation Initiative. WebSDR moves Supply Discrepancy 

Reports (SDRs) into an integrated transactional environment, based on a DAAS hub for 

communication and centralized data management. The benefits include near real time SDR 

reporting for immediate identification and more speedy resolution of reported discrepancies, 

facilitates interoperability internal and external to DoD, supports unique item identification, and 

other DoD initiatives, maximizes the economy, efficiency and effectiveness and provides for the 

future capture of perfect order fulfillment computations. Current interfaces using transactions 

are: DSS (842), BSM (842), Air Force Security Assistance Command (AFSAC) (842), SAMMS 

(UDF) and a one way UDF interface with the Army. In addition, there is an e-mail interface 

with the Air Force. Next steps for WebSDR include testing DLMS X12-based XML interface 

with the Navy with implementation expected in Feb 07; implementing the two-way 

communication with the Army; testing DLMS X12 interface with PDREP for DoD wide 

distribution of Security Assistance quality reports under the product quality deficiency reporting 

process; and completing the interface with GSA. 

 k. SAP Requirements Task Force: Ms. Marva White, DLMSO, briefed the 

PRC on the DOD SAP Enterprise Requirements Task Force. The task force, established by 

OUSD (AT&L) now sponsored by the Business Transformation Agency was chartered to: 

• Leverage the size and buying power of the DoD to influence the design and development 

of SAP. 

14 Enclosure 2 

KEY EVENTS THAT REQUIRE AN UPDATE TO THE IUID REGISTRY 

Ways items leave inventory 

Term Definition 

Abandoned Items left in place by DoD who relinquishes title. 

Consumed Non-reversibly incorporated into another item 

Destroyed - Accident Destroyed during a fire, natural disaster, or other unplanned natural or manmade incident. 

Destroyed - Combat Destroyed by the enemy during combat 

Donated Items provided to an church, club, or other organization without compensation; 

DoD relinquishes title. 

Exchanged Provided to a supplier for an equivalent replacement part. 

Expended - Normal use Such as in the firing of a missile during combat or consumed during a 

manufacturing process. 

Expended - Experimental/Target Such as the firing of a missile during training exercises and for testing; items 

destroyed while serving as a target during training exercises and tests. 

Inactive Still on books; excess. 

Leased Inactivated and leased to a foreign government for a specified period of time 

with title retained by the US Navy 

Loaned Owned by a DoD Component and loaned to contractors, scientific institutions or 

other organizations. 

Lost Items that cannot be located or accounted for that were previously in inventory. 

Scrapped Waste material that will be reused or reprocessed. 

Sold - Other Federal Title transferred to non-DoD Federal Agencies with compensation 

Sold - State/Local Title transferred to non-Federal governmental entities with compensation 

Sold - Foreign Govt Title transferred to non-US governmental entities with compensation 

Sold - Nongovt Title transferred to non-governmental entities such as churches, organizations, 

etc. with compensation. 

Sold - Historic Title transferred to a museum or similar entity with compensation 

Stricken/retired Off the books. 

Stolen Lost via theft.