material (GFM) by blocking visibility of the actual customer; and SP5200 being applied 

to the supplemental address when left blank by customers. Subsequent to the meeting, 

Ms. Gabrielle Zimmerman from the EMALL Program Office indicated the supplemental 

address problem has been corrected. However, the dual use of SP5200 in both 

requisitioner and supplemental address file continues to be a problem for DLA ICPs. In 

addition, Ms. Mosher addressed another issue regarding off-line systems using nonstandard part numbered items or long (greater than 15 characters) part number items, 

neither can be accepted by the Army supply systems. The IPT continues to work on a 

solution to this problem and currently has five options to be considered. DLA Prime 

Vendor contracts are another problem because no status is sent through DAASC to Army 

systems today resulting in the bill being the first transaction received, with no prior 

obligation. Beginning in March DAASC will route purchase order confirmation 

(850/855) to the BSM. However, the Army legacy systems can’t accept these X12 

formats which often contain multi-line orders. The Army, DLA, and DAASC are 

working together to determine if these transactions can be translated to MILs. 

b. Draft Materiel Receipt Acknowledgement (MRA) Report. The MRA 

was not discussed during the meeting. Ms. Johnson indicated comments to the draft will 

be coordinated electronically. 

 c. Draft PDC 208, Revised Procedures for Logistics Accountability 

During Maintenance. BACKGROUND: This PDC incorporates the Joint Group 

Material Management (JGMM) subgroup for Inter-Service Supply Support to Depot 

Maintenance recommended changes to procedures under AMCLs 12 and 43. 

DISCUSSION: The changes include implementation of standard requisitioning 

procedures for the induction of repairables into maintenance. These procedures include 

the use of the A0_ transactions for induction formatted so that the requisition is a fill or 

kill; the deletion of the usage of MILSTRAP Management Code V, which was intended 

to be used to preclude physical storage of the materiel pending its release to the 

maintenance activity; removing the planned use of the FTA transaction by the shipping 

activity for accountability of items identified and scheduled for repair under a Depot 

Maintenance Inter-Service Support Agreement (DMISA). ACTION: Services should 

verify that no systems were programmed to use the FTA transaction. Independent of the 

JGMM subgroup recommendations this PDC also proposes deletion of MILSTRAP 

procurement source receipt transactions added by AMCLs 12 and 43 related to the return 

from a contractor of government owned materiel furnished to the contractor for use in the 

maintenance process. Document Identifier (DI) Codes D4G, D4H and D4L were added 

by AMCLs 12 and 43, however, after further consideration, Ms. Johnson believes the 

return of government owned materiel which had been furnished to a maintenance 

contractor would be accomplished using the corresponding and already existing nonprocurement source receipts (DI Codes D6G, D6H and D6L). ACTION: Services 

should evaluate this recommendation and provide concurrence or nonconcurrence with 

rationale. A question was raised concerning the intent of paragraph 3 of Enclosure 2. 

Specifically, with regard to returns to inventory of GSA managed items. Ms. Johnson 

indicated she would look at this paragraph in the context of AMCL 9 which deals with 

the return of GSA items. 
An overview of the implementation of AMCLs 12 and 43 as augmented by the JGMM 

recommendations was presented by Mr. Mark Crouse from the Defense Distribution 

Center. Mr. Crouse discussed Phase I which is the interfaces between the maintenance 

site, the co-located DLA depot, and the ICP when the Air Force is the owner of the 

material and the Army is the repair site. This interface is between all Air Force Logistics 

Centers using D035K and Tobyhanna Army Depot using LMP. Implementation is 

scheduled for May 1, 2006. During the review there was a question regarding an AS_ 

transaction being sent by the Maintenance Site when material is either being shipped to 

the co-located storage site or to DRMO. This process was not documented in the briefing 

and Ms. Hilert indicated a separate change proposal would be developed and staffed. 

Another process that was not documented was the situation when a depot processes a 

denial (A6_) and an AE_ with “CB” status back to the Maintenance Site. Ms. Hilert will 

add this process to PDC 208. Phase II of the implementation which is the planning 

process will document the procedures and interfaces when Army is the owner of the 

material and Air Force is the repair facility. Updated charts for both phases will be 

provided by Mr. Crouse. 

d. Carcass Tracking using DLMS Transactions. BACKGROUND: A 

proposed DLMS change is under development to move Navy unique MILS-based 

transactions used to track repairables from turn-in by the customer to the Hub which 

closes out the carcass tracking process, into the DLMS format. DISCUSSION: 

Mr. Gerald O’Sullivan, Navy Supply Information System Activity (NAVSISA), 

presented an overview of the current process of carcass tracking. Ms. Hilert requested, 

that in addition to the charts, Navy provide a summary/overview of the process with cross 

references to applicable Navy manuals. Ms. Hilert informed the group that LMI has 

recommended a new Implementation Convention (IC) for the 856 be developed for use in 

this process. During the discussion Mr. Forrest Malcomb, representative from Army, 

indicated it was his understanding that carcass tracking was a part of standard SAP. It 

was recommended that Mr. O’Sullivan ensure Navy is aware of the capability since SAP 

is the software package being used by the Navy ERP. 

In a separate but related discussion, Mr. O’Sullivan indicated the cost to transition Navy 

legacy application into DLMS for RFID and UID is approximately $20M. Most of this 

cost is the building of a translator to support the Navy proposed approach for a 

decentralized translator capability rather than building a front-end process for the 

applications. Navy would like DAASC to perform this translation; however, this would 

entail supporting many unique UDF formats and would still require revisions to the 

systems where Item Unique Identification (IUID) or Radio Frequency Identification 

(RFID) is mandated. Mr. Pipp, Director, DLMSO, indicated he would meet with the 

Navy Program Manager to discuss alternatives. 

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 IUID Registry update or the submission of a Wide Area Work 
Flow (WAWF) 856. DISCUSSION: Mr. Bruce Propert, UID Program Office, briefed the 

PRC on OSD guidance for the Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation (DFARS) as it 

applies to PIPC. Mr. Propert indicated that effective January 1, 2007, submission into the 

IUID registry is required for all Low Value Property (LVP). For PIPC purposes LVP is 

defined as special tooling, special test equipment, plant equipment and agency-peculiar 

property with an acquisition cost less that $5,000. In addition, submission into the IUID 

Registry is also required for all repairables and Government Furnished Material (GFM). 

Mr. Propert also indicated that government resolution for non-compliant contract with 

regard to discrepancies should follow the established path. If there is no UII or the UII 

record and mark are inconsistent, government activities should suspend the materiel and 

submit a Supply Discrepancy Report. More information on this subject can be found at 

http://www.acq.osd.mil/dpap/dars/dfars/changenotice/2006/20060321/E6-3993.htm 

In a separate but related discussion regarding the WAWF use of an “all purpose” 856 

transaction that is used for other than intended X12 or DLMS purpose, Mr. Pipp, 

Director, DLMSO, indicated he would like WAWF and DLMSO to work together in a 

more collaborative manner. 

 f. Business System Modernization (BSM) and Defense Medical Logistics 

Standard Support (DMLSS) for the Tailored Vendor Relationship (TVR) Process 

and Army Medical Materiel Agreement (AMMA). BACKGROUND: In DLA's 

legacy system, AMMA was known as Medical Army Single Stock Fund. The new 

agreement between DLA and Army renamed the program, and to support this supply 

technique in DLA's ERP (BSM), some reengineering of the process has taken place 

which requires additional data to be passed in the associated DLMS transactions. Under 

the AMMA concept, DLA owns the medical materiel all the way down to the retail or 

hospital shelf level until it is issued to a consumer. When it is issued to a consumer, then 

a post-post issue transaction is sent to DLA, inventories are debited, and the customer is 

billed. To replenish DLA-owned "retail" materiel from DLA supply sources, Army 

employs DMLSS/Theater Enterprise-Wide Logistics System (TEWLS). There are 

multiple ordering chains used to obtain materiel depending on how DLA manages the 

item. These range from traditional MILSTRIP stock and DVD orders for medical NSN 

items to TVR direct procurements for part number items. However, the predominance of 

support is via the TVR arrangements. TVRs are business processes where there is a 

direct relationship between the customer and the vendor (e.g., customers place orders 

directly with the Prime Vendor or with an Electronic Catalog (ECAT) Vendor). BSM 

receives copies of the transaction between the customer and the vendor in order to 

maintain line item accountability. Under the AMMA process, when the hospital receives 

the materiel they send a receipt transaction back to BSM so the assets are posted on 

DLA's records as the owner, however, DMLSS/TEWLS maintains the accountable 

record. Four PDCs related to TVR and AMMA are currently being staffed: PDC 204-

Revisions to DS 527R to Support TVR Materiel Receipt Acknowledgement; PDC 215-

Revisions to DS 527R to Support AMMA Receipt Transactions; PDC 216-Revisions to 

DS 867I to Support AMMA Issue Transactions; and PDC 217-Revisions to DS 947I to 

Support AMMA Inventory Adjustment Transactions. DISCUSSION: Mr. Hellion 

Flowers, DLA, provided an overview of the multiple ordering chain processes. Several 
questions/concerns came up during the discussion and are documented by chart number 

and step number (charts available as an agenda link on the DLMSO Web site): 

Chart 1, step 9 – How does billing to the customer take place? 

Chart 1, step 10 – Need additional information on security control for acceptance in DMLSS 

as related to Wide Area Workflow (WAWF). 

Chart 2, step 3 – Is there a step missing that requires the vendor to confirm the order to 

ECAT? 

Chart 2, step 5 – Does DMLSS order by local stock number? 

Chart 2, step 7 – Is there a step missing which requires the vendor to send an 856 Advanced 

Shipping Notice? 

Chart 2, step 9 – Are all ECAT vendors Fast Pay? 

Chart 3, step 4 – Is there a missing step in which the depot sends an 856S to DMLSS and 

does DSS send an 856S as a result of an A2_? 

Chart 4, step 4 – There should be a step 4a which accounts for an 856 ASN being sent to WAWF. 

Chart 7 – Is there a policy against using a Purchase Card to pay for a contract? 

Chart 7, step 5 – Identify the specific transactions involved in this step. 

Chart 7, step 6a – Identify the specific transactions in this step. Verify if steps 2 and 6a are 

manual. 

ACTION: DLA J-332 is requested to provide updated charts addressing/resolving the 

above questions/concerns. In addition, provide procedures for PDC 217, Revisions to DS 

947I to Support AMMA Inventory Adjustment Transactions if there are specific 

procedures related to AMMA. Determine if there is an additional process that has not 

been documented in which the DLA depot does not store the material, but transships to 

the customer. It is also recommended that DLA write a separate chapter in the DLMS 

Manual to document the overall TVR and AMMA concept/process. 

g. AMCLs 10 and 34, Identification of Product Quality Deficiency Report 

(PQDR) Material. BACKGROUND: This approved change provides a standard 

means of identifying and controlling potential/confirmed product quality deficiency 

related material with a staggered implementation. Supply PRC members were asked to 

provide implementation status. DISCUSSION: Air Force: This change was 

implemented in Air Force systems in 1998. ACTION: Air Force is requested to 

reconfirm that the latest version of the policy was implemented. Army: The changes 

were made in legacy systems and implementation is expected in May 2006. Army 

previously reported that their ERP system can accept Condition Code “Q” material, but 

no special processing is done. No update was provided as to when the special processing 

for “Q” will be completed. Navy: Navy will not make changes to legacy systems but 

will include requirements for AMCLs 10 and 34 in their ERP scheduled for 2012. 

DRMS: DRMS has implemented the Condition Code “Q” requirement, however will not 

implement the appropriate management codes until their ERP system replaces the legacy 

system. In the interim, all Condition Code “Q” material sent to DRMS will be destroyed. 

DLA: The change has been implemented in DSS and SAMMS. PQDR Joint 

Instruction: There is a draft republication of the PQDR Joint Instruction in the final 

coordination phase, however, DLMSO identified that Supply PRC requested changes to 

support current procedures for the use of Condition Code “Q”, or future procedures for 

communication of the appropriate management codes to the item manager, are either 
missing or inadequate. ACTION: DLA provide by July 15, 2006, an updated PQDR 

Joint Instruction that provides for current and future procedures. 

h. Service Assignment of Project Codes. BACKGROUND: The Army LMP 

requested a discussion of project code assignment to determine if Services are assigning 

Category A Project Codes inappropriately. Category A project codes are defined by the 

MILSTRIP manual for use when no meaning of the code is applicable outside the 

originating Service/Agency although the code itself is to be perpetuated. Currently, 

requisitions containing Category A Project Codes submitted by other Services are 

rejecting within LMP. DISCUSSION: During the discussion it became clear that LMP 

is editing each requisition for a project code when one is present, including Category A 

project codes for other Services. This is violation of DOD policy and should be 

discontinued. There is also a problem with Category B Project Codes rejecting. 

Category B codes are intended for use when recognition and exceptional processing 

actions have been prearranged between specified Services/Agencies. In some instances 

the Services appear to be using Category B codes without prior agreement/coordination 

with Army. ACTION: All Services provide by July 15, 2006, a list of Category B 

Codes currently applicable for recognition within Army LMP. 

i. DLMS Changes under Development or in Staffing 

(1) PDC 218, Assignment of MILSTRIP Document Number Serial 

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

proposed change would use rp 40 of an A5J to identify a BRAC disposal release order. 

ACTION: Navy, Air Force, and Marine Corps, are requested to provide updated status 

and potential impact of reassignment of code M in consideration of last reported 

unimplemented status AMCL 145 which modified definitions for codes M, R, and S, in 

record position 40. The original definition for code M was: Contractor initiated 

requisitions for government furnished material to support commercially performed 

maintenance contacts. The DDC is to provide a background paragraph and 

recommended procedures for inclusion within the ADC clarifying the intend use of Code 

M within the Distribution Standard System. In the interim, DLA was given approval to 

proceed with implementation actions. 

(2) PDC 203, New Advice Code for the Combination of 2N

(Continuous Length) and 2G (Shelf Life) Advice Codes. This proposed change 

establishes a new advice code 38 which would be used to represent the combination of 

Advice Codes 2G (Shelf Life) and 2N (continuous length). This new code is intended to 

support Navy requisitions of DLA-managed material. Navy specifically requires flexible 

hoses in a continuous length, with a remaining shelf life of 6 years. DDC provided 

comments that indicated the new advice code would not necessarily guarantee the desired 

result. Although the material shipped would be newest, there would not necessarily be 

sufficient shelf life remaining to satisfy the Navy requirements. A long-term solution is 

to use a DLMS transaction which could allow for multiple advice codes, although the 

specific code needed for the Navy shelf-life requirement is not currently available. 

Several suggestions were made for consideration by the Navy in reworking the proposal; 
however, none were perfect solutions for all parties (customer, Distribution Depot, and 

Inventory Control Point). In the interim, exception requisitions can be used to satisfy the 

specific Navy requirements. The proposed change was placed on hold pending further 

discussion between the DOD Shelf Life Administrator and the Navy to determine an 

alternative solution.

 (3) Draft PDC 202, ICP/IMM Material Receipt Status (Material 

Returns Program (MRP)) Credit Reversal Amount. This change documents a current 

Army-unique capability within MILSTRIP DI Code FTZ, ICP/IMM Material Receipt 

Status (Material Returns Program) transaction and perpetuates this capability into the 

DLMS. In addition to the current MILSTRIP purpose to notify customers of the amount 

of pending credit, it is Army practice to also use this transaction to identify the amount of 

credit reversals when applicable after receipt and inspection. Army has identified this 

change as an intra-Army unique. However, it is not clear whether Army would or would 

not generate reversal amounts to other Military Service customers. ACTION: Army 

verify the intent for legacy and DLMS impact and provide response by July 15, 2006.

 (4) ADC 193 Administrative Revision to DS 4030 856S, Shipment 

Status and 4010 870S, Supply Status. This is an administrative update to add missing 

data to the 856S and 870S Supplements. BSM is already using the GP qualifier for their 

DLMS equivalent of the Supply Status (AE8). After distribution of the ADC, the 

question was raised regarding whether both Foreign Military Services Order (FMSO) I 

and FMSO II case numbers could appear simultaneously on a Cooperative Logistics 

Supply Support Arrangement (CLSSA) requisition as envisioned by the DLMS 

enhancement addressed in this change. DLMSO would like to withdraw the 

enhancement if it is not feasible. ACTION: Ms. Linda Kimberlin, DLA Security 

Assistance Office, will coordinate with Air Force, Navy, Army, and the Defense Security 

Cooperation Agency and provide recommendation to DLMSO by July 15, 2006. 

 (5) Request for Implementation Data for Approved Addendum 

ADC44A, 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). The change is in response to a Navy requirement to 

uniquely identify repairable components on an intra-Service basis and for shipments 

between Distribution Depot and Navy. Adding the repairable’s serial number initially, 

and later also the unique item identifier (UII), CAGE and part number, to the DD Form 

1348-1A will facilitate carcass tracking, component induction and disposal, document 

reconciliation and more. The change allows for only one occurrence of such IUID per 

IRRD. Components should identify whether additional IUID per IRRD is required; 

however, subsequent to this meeting the DOD AIT office clarified that the limitation to a 

single set of information is also inherent in the current usage of the PDF 417 standard. 

The primary initial implementation will be between Navy and the Distribution Depot 

supporting depot level maintenance; therefore, responses from Navy and DLA are 

required for determination of an implementation date. ACTION: DLMSO will work