2

ADC 328 

 “Off-Line” Requisition Processing: 

Internet Ordering Application Request for Component Verification of Funds Availability 

& Recording of the Financial Obligation 

1. ORIGINATOR: 

a. Service/Agency: US Army G-4

2. FUNCTIONAL AREA: Joint Finance and Supply

3. Reference: 

a. U.S. Army Audit Agency report: Management Controls Over Offline Purchases Audit, Report: 

A-2006-0136-ALL 13, dated June 2006 

b. DLMSO memorandum dated July 16, 2009, subject “Off-Line” Requisition Processing: 

Internet Ordering Application Request for Component Verification of Funds Availability and 

Recording of the Financial Obligation (PDC 266/DRAFT ADC 328) Meeting (see Enclosure 6). 

4. REQUESTED CHANGE: 

a. Description of Change: Internet ordering applications, sometimes referred to as “off-line” 

requisitioning systems, have been established by DLA and GSA to allow customer requisitioning 

capabilities using the latest technology. These systems did not include necessary interfaces with the 

requisitioning Component. The lack of such an interface with the Component’s standard supply and 

finance systems caused problems, including bills arriving without prior obligations; lack of supply 

accountability since there were no due-ins established; no record of demands to assist in determining 

proper stockage levels and building future budgets; and a lack of control over authorized users. This 

change requests an interface be established between the various internet ordering applications and the 

applicable Component financial application, so that fund availability can be checked before allowing 

the requisition to be processed, and, as a separate, subsequent action, establish the associated 

obligation within the applicable financial system. 

b. Procedures: Highlighting identifies revisions subsequent to PDC coordination: yellow 

highlighting was used during initial update; blue highlighting represents revision subsequent to the 

Joint Supply/Finance PRC meeting (Enclosure 6). 

(1) An information exchange is required between the Component’s financial application/Funds 

Control Module (FCM), when the DLA or GSA internet ordering application receives a requisition. 

The information exchange will be sent via a web call and the Component’s financial application/FCM 

will respond with the fund availability confirmation or denial. 

(2) Transmission of the requisition to the Source of Supply (SoS) will occur only after 

confirmation that funds are available. 

(3) When Army organizations order supplies and bill to a third party organization, Army will 

conduct a funds check against the ordering organization. That organization is ultimately responsible 

for the obligation until the bill is paid.
 3

(4) Procedures are provided for both on-line ordering and transaction input via DoD EMALL 

Manual Order Entry System (MOES) and batch upload. Where the customer is not available for real 

time response to the funds availability check, DAAS-generated supply status will be used to 

communicate with the customer.

(5) Revised procedures for MILSTRIP/DLMS and MILSBILLS/DLMS manuals are shown at 

Enclosures 1 through 6. This includes a new DLMS chapter specifically for the on-line funds 

availability interface with appendixes for the associated web calls: Verification of Funds Availability 

and Funds Availability Reply.

c. Alternatives: Continue manual process by the requisitioner to establish obligation prior to 

placing the order in the off-line requisitioning system. This procedure lacks controls and is inefficient.

5. REASON FOR CHANGE: 

a. Army: The Army Audit Agency identified $2.3 billion “off-line” purchases by Army 

customers through DLA/GSA (reference 3.a.). $812.7 million resulted in disbursements without prior 

obligations. If the change described above is not completed, more bills will be received without 

obligations and the Army will never be FFMIA compliant. 

b. DoD Wide: The scope of this change is expanded, for phased implementation, to all DoDsponsored internet ordering applications which facilitate submission of MILSTRIP requisitions 

resulting in interfund billing outside the responsible Component’s supply system. The scope is also 

expanded, for phased implementation, to all requisitioning Components. This wide scope will correct 

financial compliance gaps across DoD. 

6. ADVANTAGES AND DISADVANTAGES: 

a. Advantages: The Army will be able to maintain fiscal control, since all requisitions will be 

checked for fund availability prior to processing. There are no tangible benefits; however, the 

intangible benefit of not having fiscal violations is enormous. 

b. Disadvantages: Funds check should be rapid with only a minimum delay in processing the 

requisition. However, if funds are not available, the customer may incur a reject and will not get the 

needed part until funds become available.

7. IMPACT: 

a. Systems: 

(1) Off line requisitioning systems, to include DoD EMALL, GSA Global, and GSA 

Advantage, must be modified to provide the prescribed funds availability interface. The DoD 

EMALL process is applicable to customer ordering, the Manual Order Entry System (MOES), and 

bulk uploads of requisitions.

(2) DLA tailored vendor relationship (TVR) programs which lack a financial interface with 

the requisitioning Service are to be explored for adoption of a comparable funds availability on-line 

check. 

(3) DoD Components: The pilot program implementation will be with the Army Funds 

Control Module (FCM). Army FCM is an interim interface pending full modernization and 

compliances with Standard Financial Information Structure (SFIS) under Army General Fund 

Enterprise Business System (GFEBS). The Marine Corps is also identified as an early implementer of 
 4

this process. The Air Force and Navy are believed to be dependent upon Enterprise Resource Planning 

(ERP) development, and their implementation timeline is unknown. 

(4) DLMSO will evaluate feasibility of exporting the DAAS-maintained third-party billing 

table to make it available to the internet ordering applications. This table would allow for the inclusion 

of the bill-to DoDAAC in the Funds Availability web call at all times. 

(5) As soon as feasible, DoD EMALL and GSA internet ordering applications will integrate 

DoDAAC Authority Code-based edits comparable to DAASC using the replicated DoDAAC table. 

b. Implementation: 

(1) The plan is to develop a standard interface so that each Service/Agency uses the same 

process/format. 

(2) Implementation schedule: Target date for initial implementation is 1st QTR CY 2010 

(DoD EMALL implementation subject to timing of contract award). Initial implementation will begin 

with GSA Advantage, GSA Global, and DoD EMALL interfacing with the Army Funds Control 

Module. The Marine Corps has also requested early implementation. Phased implementation is 

authorized by Component, for additional ordering applications, and for specific ordering capabilities 

within an ordering application.

c. Publication(s): 

(1) Updated DLMS/MILSTRIP/MILSBILLS procedures are shown in the enclosures.

(2) Service/Agency implementing procedures to be determined.
5

Enclosure 1, MILSTRIP Revisions 

1. Revise DoD 4000.25-1-M, MILSTRIP, Chapter 2 to include new paragraph C2.8. The same 

wording will be used in the corresponding chapter of the DLMS manual. 

C2.8 RESERVED PREPARATION/PROCESSING OF REQUISITIONS SUBMITTED VIA 

INTERNET ORDERING APPLICATIONS. Developers and users of internet ordering applications 

which permit MILSTRIP requisitions to be initiated outside the responsible Component’s supply 

system, e.g., direct customer input to DoD EMALL, GSA Advantage/GSA Global, etc., shall take 

precautions to ensure that only authorized personnel place orders and all standard financial and 

logistics procedures are followed. 

 C2.8.1 DoD Components authorizing the use of ordering processes external to the Componentsponsored supply system shall: 

 C2.8.1.1 Establish internal controls to identify/approve authorized users. This may be 

accomplished in coordination with the ordering application program management or independently 

in the absence of a satisfactory registration program for the internet ordering process. 

 C2.8.1.2 Notify users that they are required to manually establish an obligation for 

requisitions dependent on interfund payment procedures, prior to/concurrent with placing orders 

via internet ordering applications, except where an interface is established with the requisitioner’s 

Component application to validate funds availability and establish an obligation. 

 C2.8.1.3 Ensure that appropriate procedures are established to record the demand and 

establish a due-in/pre-positioned materiel receipt under DoD MILSTRAP/DLMS based upon status 

provided by the supply source. Alternative manual Component procedures may be employed 

pending systemic interfaces to support return of supply and shipment status by the supply source. 

 C2.8.1.3 Ensure materiel receipt acknowledgement under DoD MILSTRAP/DLMS 

procedures via systemic interface or, where not available, instruct users to provide receipt 

notification via DoD EMALL (this includes non-EMALL originated orders). 

 C2.8.2 Supply sources authorizing the use of ordering processes external to the customer’s 

Component-sponsored supply system shall: 

 C2.8.2.1 Coordinate with DoD Components to establish controls to ensure users are 

identified and authorized. If a satisfactory registration program is not available, users must be 

alerted to comply with Component-directed procedures. 

 C2.8.2.2 Support adherence to standard financial procedures via systemic interface or 

manual procedures as follows: 

 C2.8.2.2.1 Establish an interface between the external ordering application and the 

appropriate Component-sponsored application to validate funds availability and establish the 

obligation; or 
 6

 C2.8.2.2.2 Pending development of automated processing, alert users to comply with 

Component-directed manual procedures. 

 C2.8.2.2.3 Procedures for real-time funds availability for on-line applications are 

provided under DLMS Vol 5, Chapter 71

. 

 C2.8.2.3 Use standard requisition formats under MILSTRIP/DLMS where necessary to 

transmit the requisition from the external ordering application to the source of supply for further 

processing. 

 C2.8.2.4 Provide order and shipment status information to the customer and applicable 

status recipients in accordance with MILSTRIP/DLMS. 

 C2.8.2.5 Where feasible, internet ordering applications shall integrate use of a replicated 

DoDAAC table to perform validation of requisitions for authorized ordering, bill-to, and ship-to 

activities according to the DODAAC Authority Code. If the DODAAC fails the authority code edits 

in C2.28.11, the transaction shall be rejected. 

 

 

1

 Refer to ADC 328 
 7

2. Revise MILSTRIP Chapter 2 to insert new paragraph C2.28.11: 

C2.28 DEFENSE AUTOMATIC ADDRESSING SYSTEM EDIT OF INCOMING REQUISITIONS 

(intervening text not shown) 

C2.28.12. DAAS shall provide Supply Status (Document Identifier AE9) containing Reject 

Status CX to status recipients in response to requisitions/referral orders containing Status Code CX 

transmitted by DoD EMALL, GSA Advantage/Global, or other authorized internet ordering 

application. Under these conditions CX status shall be provided on behalf of the internet ordering 

application to advise of rejection due to lack of available funds or other criteria associated with the 

funds verification process. The internet ordering application shall be perpetuated by DAAS as the 

RI-From of the Supply Status. Refer to internet ordering application funds verification procedures 

for details (DoD 4000.1-M, DLMS, Vol 5, Chapter 7).1

 

 

1

 Refer to ADC 328. 
 8

3. Revise MILSTRIP Appendix 2 as follows:

 a. Revise Appendix 2. 1, Document Identifier Code, to identify new functionality for the AE9:

AE9 Supply Status From the DAAS: 

 a. To activities identified by M&S (rp 7), and/or distribution code (rp 54) to 

advise of the rerouting or change to a MILSTRIP requisition transaction as 

reflected by the status code (rp 65-66) 

 b. To activity in rp 30-35 when the M&S is “0," and rp 54 is blank or invalid to 

advise of rerouting or change to a MILSTRIP requisition transaction as reflected 

by the status code (rp 65-66) 

 c. To activities in rp 30-35, 45-50, and 54 to advise of rejection of a MILSTRIP 

requisition transaction as reflected by supply status code (rp 65-66) 

 d. To “From” RI (rp 74-76) to advise of the rerouting of a DI A3_ (passing 

order), or DI A4_ (referral order) 

 e. From the DAAS on behalf of an identified internet ordering application with 

Supply Status CX to all status recipients (identified in rp 30-35, 45-50, and 54) 

to advise of rejection due to lack of available funds or other criteria associated 

with the funds verification process. The internet ordering application used by 

the customer for submission of the requisition/referral order is identified as the 

RI-From (rp 4-6). Rejection is the result of the Component responding to the 

funds verification request and not the DAAS or SoS.1 

b. Revise Appendix 2.16, Status Codes, to insert new reject criteria:

Code Explanation 

CX Rejected. 

(1) Unable to identify the bill-to and/or ship-to address as designated by the signal code or the 

signal code is invalid. 

(2) The MAPAC does not exist in the DoD 4000.25-8-M, MAPAD, as a valid ship-to and/or 

mail-to address. (Applicable to ICP/IMM processing only.)

(3) GSA Advantage GY/GZ series AACs are not authorized for use in DoD 

requisitions/orders. 

(4) Activity identified in the requisition is not authorized as a requisitioning or bill-to activity. 

(5) Notification of rejection due to lack of available funds or other criteria associated with 

the funds verification process. Provided in response to the internet ordering application’s 

request for funds verification. The RI-From associated with the internet ordering 

application used for submission of the requisition/referral order is identified in the AE9. 

Rejection is provided by the Component responding to the funds verification request under 

DoD and Component-directed business rules, and not the DAAS or the SoS.1 

(6) If still required, submit a new requisition with valid data entries. 

 

1 Used by internet ordering applications on requisitions, modifications, and follow-ups for subsequent rejection by 

DAAS. Refer to ADC 328.
9

Enclosure 2, MILSBILLS Revision 

Revise DoD 4000.25-7-M, MILSBILLS, Chapter 2, Billing Procedures, to include new subparagraph 

C2.1.7. The same wording will be used in the corresponding chapter of the DLMS manual. 

C2.1.7. Obligations for Requisitioned Materiel. Establishing an obligation for the proper amount 

under the requisition document number is essential for the timely and automated processing of 

interfund bills. Failure to do so is a violation of financial management procedures; and may delay 

processing and increase workload for both DFAS and submitting Component personnel. DoD 

Components that either (1) establish business processes for requisitioning outside their customer’s 

Component sponsored supply system, e.g., via internet ordering applications, or (2) authorize their 

own Component personnel to satisfy requirements through the use of external ordering processes, 

shall support adherence to standard DoD financial business processes. 

 C2.1.7.1 DoD Components may authorize manual recording of the financial obligation by 

the customer as a separate action until such time as an automated interface between the ordering 

application and a Component-sponsored financial system is available. Where an interface is not 

available, external ordering applications shall alert users to comply with their Component-directed 

financial procedures. 

 C2.1.7.2 Procedures for on-line internet ordering application real-time verification of funds 

availability and funds availability response for are provided under DLMS Vol 5, Chapter 7 . 
10

Enclosure 3, DLMS Manual Revision 

1. Add new Chapter 7 to the Volume 5, Finance, of DOD 4000.25-M, Defense Logistics Management 

System (DLMS).

C7. CHAPTER 7

VERIFICATION OF FUNDS AVAILABILITY WEB CALL FOR REQUISITIONS 

SUBMITTED VIA INTERNET ORDERING APPLICATIONS

C7.1 Internet ordering applications which accept MILSTRIP requisitions dependant upon 

interfund billing procedures, e.g., DoD EMALL, GSA Advantage/GSA Global, etc., shall implement 

DLMS procedures for verification of Component funds availability. Components shall establish 

procedures to process the request for verification of funds availability and ensure subsequent 

establishment of a financial obligation. 

 C7.1.1 DoD Components may authorize manual recording of the financial obligation by the 

customer as a separate action until such time as an automated interface between the ordering 

application and a Component-sponsored financial system is available. 

 C7.1.2 Where an interface is not available, external ordering applications shall alert users 

to comply with their Component-directed financial procedures. 

C7.2 The Verification of Funds Availability Request shall be prepared as a web-call for on-line, 

real-time processing in the Appendix 2 format. 

C7.3 Business rules for processing the Verification of Funds Availability Request are as follows.1

 

 C7.3.1 Ordering applications shall not send requisitions, requisition modifications, and 

requisition follow-ups to the Source of Supply (SoS) until the funds availability check is completed 

and positive confirmation is received. 

 C7.3.2. The Verification of Funds Availability Request will be forwarded to the Army when 

the requisition identifies an Army DoDAAC in either the document number or supplemental 

address. 

C.7.4 The Verification of Funds Availability Reply shall be prepared as a web call for on-line realtime processing in the Appendix 3 format. 

 

1 Under the pilot program, implementation is limited to an interface between DoD EMALL and GSA Advantage/GSA 

Global and the Army Funds Control Module and the Marine Corps financial application. Additional Component 

interfaces are projected under future phases. Refer to ADC 328.
 11

C.7.5 Where multiple line items are included in the customer’s “shopping cart,” these shall be 

processed for funds verification as individual requisitions in succession by sequence2 described 

below, thereby allowing funds to be applied appropriately should there be insufficient funds for the 

entire “cart.” Sequence shall be: 

 C7.5.1 Priority Designator (PD). 

 C7.5.2 OSD/JCS project codes. 

 C7.5.3 Special Requirements Code 999 and PD 01-03. 

 C7.5.4 Special Requirements Code N (NMCS) (PD 01-08). 

 C7.5.5 Special Requirements Code E (ANMCS) ) (PD 01-08). 

 C7.5.6 Special Requirements Code 555 and PD 01-08 

 C7.5.4 Required Delivery Date 

C7.6 The receiving Component shall verify funds availability and provide the applicable reply code. 

 C7.6.1. Under the following criteria, the requisition shall be considered acceptable for 

further processing by the internet ordering application and forwarding to the Source of Supply 

(SoS) by citing an alpha Funds Verification (FV) Reply Code. 

 C7.6.1.1. If funds are available for the bill-to DoDAAC and no error conditions 

exist, the requisition shall be authorized for continued processing, the funds available balance 

decremented, and the applicable financial obligation established. Cite FV Reply Code A. 

 C7.6.1.2 If the bill-to DoDAAC is determined under internal Component procedures 

as not applicable to the funds verification process (e.g., funded by an alternative funding source, 

which the Component is not able to verify), the requisition shall be authorized for continued 

processing with no action. Cite FV Reply Code B. 

 C7.6.1.3. If the bill-to DoDAAC is not identified in the web call due to procedures 

for third-party billing (bill-to DoDAAC associated with the Fund Code/Signal Code C or L) ,3 but 

the requisitioner DoDAAC has funds available and no error condition exists, the requisition shall be 

authorized for continued processing, the funds available balance decremented, and the applicable 

financial obligation shall be established under the requisitioner’s DoDAAC. Cite FV Reply Code 

C. 

 C7.6.1.4 If the bill-to DoDAAC is not identified in the web call due to procedures for 

third-party billing (bill-to DoDAAC associated with the Fund Code/Signal Code C or L), and the 

 

2

 Sequencing rules are based upon those established for demand sequencing under MILSTRIP Chapter 3, paragraph 

3.1.2. These rules deviate from demand sequencing to include use of the RDD. 

3

 Procedures for verification of third party bill-to DoDAACs is under consideration for a future enhancement. 
 12

funds verification cannot be approved using the requisitioner DoDAAC, but no error condition 

exists, the requisition shall be authorized for continued processing with no action. Cite FV Reply 

Code D. 

 C7.6.1.5 If the unique message identification number (control number) assigned for 

the web call is a duplicate of a previously processed funds availability request, but funds are 

available, the requisition shall be authorized for continued processing. Cite Funds Verification 

(FV) Reply Code E. 

 C7.6.1.6. Under Component-directed procedures, requisitions may be forwarded for 

funds verification even where the requisitioner’s Component is not responsible for reimbursement 

to the SoS, e.g., a requisition with an Army requisitioner and a Navy bill-to activity. The 

requisitioner’s Component may choose to obligate funds under the requisitioner DoDAAC as a 

precaution. The Army has directed that these procedures be employed for Army requisitioners. 

 C7.6.1.6.1. If the bill-to DoDAAC is identified as another Component, but the 

requisitioner DoDAAC has funds available, the requisition shall be authorized for continued 

processing, the funds available balance decremented, and the applicable financial obligation 

established. Cite FV Reply Code F. 

 C7.6.1.6.2. If the bill-to DoDAAC is identified as another Component, but the 

requisitioner DoDAAC does not have funds available, no action shall be taken by the requisitioner’s 

financial application and the requisitioner will be asked to confirm correct information is used in 

the requisition and that an obligation has been recorded by the bill-to Component. Cite FV Reply 

Code G. Customer may choose to continue or abort processing (subject to bill-to activity’s funds 

verification processing, when available). 

 C7.7.2. Under the following criteria, the requisition shall not be considered acceptable for 

further processing by the internet ordering application by citing a numeric Funds Verification (FV) 

Reply Code. 

 C7.7.2.1. If funds are not available for the bill-to DoDAAC, the requisition shall not 

be authorized for further processing. Cite FV Reply Code 1. 

 C7.7.2.2. If the bill-to DoDAAC is not authorized under Component procedures as a 

valid bill-to DoDAAC, the requisition shall not be authorized for further processing. Cite FV Reply 

code 2. 

 C7.7.2.3. If the Fund Code is not recognized and acceptable to the billed Component, 

the requisition shall not be authorized for further processing. Cite FV Reply Code 3. 

 C7.7.2.4. If the requisition document number (or document number/suffix) is a 

duplicate of a previously established obligation, the requisition shall not be authorized for further 

processing. Cite FV Reply Code 4. 

C7.8. Requisition modifications shall be processed for verification of funds availability to ensure 

that the original requisition obligation is on file and any applicable changes to fund code or bill-to 
 13

activity are acceptable. The materiel identification on the modification must match that on the 

original requisition. The responsible Component shall not reject or establish a new obligation for 

requisition modifications due to a duplicate document number. 

 C7.8.1. Where no action is taken due to previously recorded obligation and there are no 

error conditions, the requisition modification shall be authorized for further processing. Cite FV 

Reply Code H. 

 C7.8.2. Where the materiel identification does not match that of the previously recorded 

obligation matching on document number, the requisition shall be rejected. Cite FV Reply Code 5. 

 C7.8.3. If the Component has no obligation is identified for the document number (or 

document number/suffix), process as a new requisition under above procedures for verification of 

Component funds availability. Cite the applicable FV reply code. Note: The funds verification 

process may result in the rejection of modifications to requisitions that had previously processed 

successfully by the SoS. Direct communication with the requisitioning Component’s financial 

office, and possibly the SoS, may be required to resolve the problem. 

C7.9. Requisition follow-ups in DI Code AT_/DLMS 869F format shall be processed for 

verification of funds available to ensure that the original requisition obligation is on file. The 

materiel identification on the follow-up must match that on the original requisition. The 

responsible Component shall not reject or establish a new obligation for these follow-ups due to a 

duplicate document number. 

 C7.9.1. Where no action is taken due to previously recorded obligation and there are no 

error conditions, the requisition follow-up shall be authorized for further processing. Cite FV 

Reply Code H. 

 C7.9.2. Where the materiel identification does not match that of the previously recorded 

obligation matching on document number, the requisition shall be rejected. Cite FV Reply Code 5. 

 C7.9.3. If the Component no obligation is identified for the document number (or document 

number/suffix), process as a new requisition under above procedures for verification of Component 

funds availability. Cite the applicable FV reply code. Note: The funds verification process may 

result in the rejection of follow-ups to requisitions that had previously processed successfully by the 

SoS. Direct communication with the requisitioning Component’s financial office, and possibly the 

SoS, may be required to resolve the problem. 

C7.10 Customers receiving a reply code indicating their requisition is not authorized for further 

processing shall be provided an opportunity to revise the requisition content. For example, the 

customer may choose to reduce the extended dollar value by reducing the quantity ordered or 

correct the bill-to activity DoDAAC or fund code, as applicable. Subsequent to customer update, 

the Request for Verification Funds Availability shall be re-transmitted. Staffing Note: The 

document number may be reused in the new request because no obligation was recorded within the 

financial application under the original request. Reuse in this situation shall not trigger a 

“duplicate” error condition. 
 14

C7.11 Under conditions where the ordering application is unable to establish a timely interface 

with the responsible Component application, and the customer is awaiting the real-time funds 

availability reply, the ordering application may offer two alternatives: 

 C7.11.1. Unmonitored Funds Verification. The Verification of Funds Availability Request 

shall be transmitted without direct feedback to the customer. The ordering application will re-send 

the request every 15-30 minutes for up to 3-hours4 while the requisition is held in a pending status. 

If the reply is received indicating the requisition is authorized for further processing, the requisition 

shall be forwarded to the SoS with no further action. 

 C7.11.1.1 If the FV Reply Code indicates that the requisition is not approved for further 

processing, the internet ordering application shall retain the FV Reply Code for customer research 

of their requisition status. In addition: 

 C7.11.1.1.1. If the requisition is rejected using FV Reply Code 1-3, the ordering 

application will transmit the requisition to the SoS via DAAS citing Supply Status CX and the 

internet ordering application’s Routing Identifier Code (GSA internet ordering applications shall 

cite “GSA” and DoD EMALL shall site “SME”) in the DLMS requisition. This will be recognized 

by DAAS as a trigger for preparation of supply status indicating rejection of the requisition. DAAS 

shall prepare and return to all applicable status recipients the MILSTRIP Supply Status 

perpetuating the CX status. DAAS will not forward the requisition to the SoS. 

 C7.11.1.1.2 If the requisition is rejected using FV Reply Code 4 (duplicate 

document number/suffix), the requisition shall not be forwarded. 

 C7.11.1.1.3 If the requisition is rejected using FV Reply Code 5 (modifier/followup with miss-match on materiel identification), the requisition shall not be forwarded. 

 C7.11.1.3 If no reply is received after repeated attempts, the requisition shall be 

forwarded to the SoS with no action. 

 C7.11.2 Hold for Later Processing. The customer may choose to place the order (“shopping 

cart”) in a hold status, and retry later. The ordering application will not attempt to re-send the 

request. The order will be saved for later processing to be initiated by the customer. 

C7.12 Where the ordering application accepts batch ordering or input via MILSTRIP/DLMS 

format (i.e., multiple transactions uploaded as a batch, or without real-time direct interaction 

between the application and the customer, such as via DoD EMALL Manual Order Entry System 

(MOES), the ordering application process the Verification of Funds Availability Request as 

described in paragraph C7.9.1, above, using unmonitored funds verification procedures. 

 

4

 Actual time window for repeated attempts to contact the financial application may vary by internet application. 
15

2. Add new Appendix 2 to the Volume 5, Finance, of DOD 4000.25-M, Defense Logistics 

Management System (DLMS). 

Appendix 2

Use the following format for communication of the Verification of Funds Availability Request. 

Data Element Data 

Type 

Length Required

(Yes/No)

Notes Character 

Restrictions

Message Type alpha 3 Y Unique value comparable to Document 

Identifier Code 

FV1 

Message 

Identification 

Number 

a/n 20 Y Unique control number for the web call. 

Starts with E for DoD EMALL; G for GSA 

Global, and A for GSA Advantage. The rest 

of field will be an incremental number. 

A-Z, 0-9 

Requisition 

Document Number 

a/n 14 Y Must be unique a unique document number 

(or document number/suffix, where 

applicable) with no existing obligation. 

A-Z, 0-9 

Document Number 

Suffix 

a/n 1 N Applicable to referral orders only. 

Excludes alpha I, N, O, P, R, S, Y, and Z. 

A-Z, 0-9 

Requisitioner 

DoDAAC 

a/n 6 Y Service/Agency Code used to identify the 

responsible Service where Bill-to activity is 

not separately identified.1 

A-Z, 0-9 

Bill-to DoDAAC a/n 6 N Service/Agency Code used to identify 

responsible Service. Populate from the 

Supplemental Address when signal code is 

B or K. 

A-Z, 0-9 

Signal Code alpha 1 N When signal code is C or L, the third-party 

bill-to DoDAAC will not be available online. 

Note: Third-Party Bill-to DoDAAC is 

available from DAASC table based upon 

the Fund Code and the document number 

Service/Agency Code. 

A-D, J-M, W, 

X 

Materiel ID 

(National Stock 

Number or Part 

Number) 

a/n 32 Y Must be 13 positions if qualifier indicates a 

NSN. 

A-Z, 0-9 

Materiel ID Flag alpha 1 Y N or P indicating NSN or Part Number N, P 

Commercial and 

Government Entity 

(CAGE) Code 

a/n 5 N Identifies manufacturer when part number 

is used. 

A-Z, 0-9 

Quantity Ordered numeric 52 Y 0-9 

Unit Price R9.2 11 Y Up to 11 positions will be transmitted as 9 0-9, decimal

 

1

 Army business rules require the obligation to be established against an Army requisitioner DoDAAC when the bill-to 

activity is identified as another Component or is not available due to third party billing. 2

 Field length limited to legacy MILSTRIP functionality; expanded field length will be considered for future 

enhancement. 
 16

digits dollars, decimal point, and 2 digits 

cents.3

Unit of Issue a/n 2 N A-Z, 0-9 

Fiscal Year numeric 4 Y Format 'CCYY' - applicable to order 

submission date; used for proper 

processing of obligations at end of fiscal 

year where requisitions submitted during 

current and prior fiscal years may be 

recorded in the financial application 

X, 0-9 

Fund Code4 a/n 2 N A-Z, 0-9 

Project Code a/n N A-Z, 0-9 

Source of Supply 

(SoS) Routing 

Identifier Code 

(RIC) 

a/n 3 Y Identified the SoS to which the requisition 

is forwarded for processing. 

A-Z, 0-9 

Requisition 

Modifier/ Followup Flag 

Alpha 1 N M or F indicating requisition modification 

or follow-up; not used on new requisitions. 

M, F 

Staffing Note: Negative values removed from the approved procedures, pending further evaluation 

of the business process used to validate funds availability for “shopping carts” containing multiple 

document number/various items. Negative values or a flag may be used to indicate to the financial 

application that an adjustment is needed to deobligate funds if selected items are removed from the 

final order or quantities reduced. Timing of the web call will impact viability of this process.

 3

 Unit price field length is consistent with ADC 221, Communication of Unit Price and Total Price under DLMS. 4

 Army Regulatory Fund Code
 17

3. Add new Appendix 3 to the Volume 5, Finance, of DOD 4000.25-M, Defense Logistics 

Management System (DLMS). 

AP.3 Appendix 3

Use the following format for communication of the Verification of Funds Availability Reply. 

Data Element Data 

Type 

Length Required

(Yes/No) 

Description Character 

Restrictions 

Message Type alpha 3 Y Unique value comparable to Document 

Identifier Code 

FV2 

Message 

Identification 

Number 

a/n 20 Y Response will use same number as initial 

web-call 

A-Z, 0-9 

Funds 

Verification 

Reply Code 

numeric 1 Y Acceptable for Continued Processing (alpha

codes): 

A – Funds available; continue processing. 

B – No action; bill-to not applicable under 

Component procedures; continue processing.

C- Funds available for requisitioner; third 

party bill-to; continue processing. 

D - No action due third party bill-to; continue 

processing. 

E – Funds available, duplicate message 

identification number; continue processing. 

F - Funds available for requisitioner, other 

Component bill-to; continue processing. 

G - No action, other-Component bill-to; 

Confirm correct information and obligation 

has been recorded. If correct/confirmed, 

continue processing. 

H - No action on modifier/follow-up due to 

previously recorded obligation; continue 

processing. 

Funds Verification Rejection (numeric 

codes):

1 – Order rejected due to lack of available 

funds for bill-to DoDAAC; do not process. 

A-Z, 1-9 
 18

2 – Order rejected due to unauthorized bill-to 

DoDAAC under Component procedures; do 

not process. 

3 – Invalid Fund Code; do not process. 

4 –Duplicate document number (or document 

number/suffix); do not process. 

5 - Modifier/follow-up with different materiel 

identification; do not process. 

Staffing Note: FV reply codes related to requisition modifications and follow-ups are new to the 

ADC. See procedures. 
19

Enclosure 4, DLMS Supplement Revisions 

Revise DLMS Supplements as indicated to support capability to pass the Status Code in the requisition 

related formats: 

# Location 511R Revision Reason 

1 DLMS 

Introductory 

Notes 

Add ADC 328 to DLMS Introductory note 5: 

- ADC 328, “Off-Line” Requisition Processing: 

Internet Ordering Application Request for 

Component Verification of Funds Availability and 

Recording of the Financial Obligation

Identifies DLMS Changes 

included in the DLMS 

Supplement. 

2 2/N101/180 Add qualifier and DLMS Note: 

003 Application Party

DLMS Note: Used with Supply Status CX to 

identify the Routing Identifier of the internet 

ordering application in notification to DAAS that 

the requisition/referral order failed to receive 

authorization for continued processing under 

funds verification procedures. DAAS shall prepare 

CX Supply Status on behalf of the identified 

internet ordering application rather than continue 

processing the requisition. Refer to ADC 328.

Inclusion of the routing 

identifier allows DAAS to 

substitute the internet 

ordering application RIC 

vice the DAAS RIC in the 

CX status. The use of the 

RIC applicable to the internet 

ordering application (i.e., 

DoD EMALL) or host 

Component (i.e., GSA) will 

allow the customer to better 

understand the applicable 

CX rejection rule. 

3 2/LQ01/140 Add qualifier and DLMS Note: 

81 Status Code 

DLMS Note: Used by internet ordering 

applications to notify DAAS that the 

requisition/referral order failed to receive 

authorization for continued processing under 

funds verification procedures. Only Supply Status 

CX is applicable. This is an authorized DLMS 

enhancement. Refer to ADC 328.

Use of the CX notifies 

DAAS to prepare Supply 

Status AE9. By sending the 

requisition/referral order to 

DAAS with the CX, the 

internet ordering applications 

do not need to adopt 

procedures for generation of 

supply status. DAAS 

already has this capability, 

but will need to recognize 

the presence of the status 

code in the requisition 

format. 

 

# Location 511M Revision Reason 
 20

1 DLMS 

Introductory 

Notes 

Add ADC 328 to DLMS Introductory note 5: 

- ADC 328, “Off-Line” Requisition Processing: 

Internet Ordering Application Request for 

Component Verification of Funds Availability and 

Recording of the Financial Obligation

Identifies DLMS Changes 

included in the DLMS 

Supplement. 

2 2/N101/180 Add qualifier and DLMS Note: 

003 Application Party

DLMS Note: Used with Supply Status CX to 

identify the Routing Identifier of the internet 

ordering application in notification to DAAS that 

the requisition modifier failed to receive 

authorization for continued processing under 

funds verification procedures. DAAS shall prepare 

CX Supply Status on behalf of the identified 

internet ordering application rather than continue 

processing the requisition modifier. Refer to ADC 

328.

Inclusion of the routing 

identifier allows DAAS to 

substitute the internet 

ordering application RIC 

vice the DAAS RIC in the 

CX status. The use of the 

RIC applicable to the internet 

ordering application (i.e., 

DoD EMALL) or host 

Component (i.e., GSA) will 

allow the customer to better 

understand the applicable 

CX rejection rule. 

3 2/LQ01/140 Add qualifier and DLMS Note: 

81 Status Code 

DLMS Note: Used by internet ordering 

applications to notify DAAS that the requisition 

modification failed to receive authorization for 

continued processing under funds verification 

procedures. Only Supply Status CX is applicable. 

This is an authorized DLMS enhancement. Refer 

to ADC 328.

Same as 511R. 

Modifications are verified 

because they may be 

processed by the SoS as an 

original requisition if 

unmatched or may modify 

the fund code or bill-to 

activity. 

# Location 869F Revision Reason 

1 DLMS 

Introductory 

Notes 

Add ADC 328 to DLMS Introductory note 5: 

- ADC 328, “Off-Line” Requisition Processing: 

Internet Ordering Application Request for 

Component Verification of Funds Availability and 

Recording of the Financial Obligation

Identifies DLMS Changes 

included in the DLMS 

Supplement. 

2 2/N101/110 Add qualifier and DLMS Note: 

003 Application Party

DLMS Note: Used with Supply Status CX to 

Inclusion of the routing 

identifier allows DAAS to 

substitute the internet 

ordering application RIC 
 21

identify the Routing Identifier of the internet 

ordering application in notification to DAAS that 

the requisition follow-up failed to receive 

authorization for continued processing under 

funds verification procedures. DAAS shall prepare 

CX Supply Status on behalf of the identified 

internet ordering application rather than continue 

processing the follow-up. Refer to ADC 328.

vice the DAAS RIC in the 

CX status. The use of the 

RIC applicable to the internet 

ordering application (i.e., 

DoD EMALL) or host 

Component (i.e., GSA) will 

allow the customer to better 

understand the applicable 

CX rejection rule. 

3 2/LQ01/140 Add qualifier and DLMS Note: 

81 Status Code 

DLMS Note: Used by internet ordering 

applications to notify DAAS that the requisition 

follow-up failed to receive authorization for 

continued processing under funds verification 

procedures. Only Supply Status CX is applicable. 

This is an authorized DLMS enhancement. Refer 

to ADC 328.

Same as 511R. 

Follow-ups are verified 

because they may be 

processed by the SoS as an 

original requisition if 

unmatched. 
22

Enclosure 5, Comment Resolution: 

# Originating 

Component 

Comment Response/Resolution 

1. USTRAN

SCOM 

Description of materiel qualifier says: “N or P indicating 

NIIN or Part Number” --- should be “NSN” 

Concur - corrected 

2 Army Army comments appended below table. 

Include a Document Identifier Code equivalent in the web 

call formats. 

Army non-concurrence 

withdrawn. 

3 Navy Navy agrees with the importance of establishing funds 

availability checks process as alluded to in subject PDC. 

However, in the foreseeable future, limited Navy resources 

prohibit the early implementation of coding and functional 

changes to Navy fleet and shore based legacy or NERP 

logistic systems which would accommodate this funds 

availability check process. 

At present, if Navy requisitions are rejected under this 

proposal it would required the development of new internal 

manual procedures, unless this will only apply to Army 

transactions. 

After reviewing enclosure 1 of subject PDC 'Part 1 

DLA/GSA Initial web-calls to FCM', Navy requests 

DLMSO/DLA consider adding these data elements: 

Priority 

Required date 

Extended value of requisition 

Rationale for data elements are: 

- Priority: for fund prioritization as funds run low or at end of 

year. 

- Required date: for prioritization as funds get low, and to 

determine what year's funds are needed. 

- Extended value of Requisition: if this is the true value of 

what needs approved, it should be included in the availability 

check. 

Whether or not those data elements are on the obligation 

By agreement during the 

July 9, 2009 meeting, the 

Priority Designator, RDD, 

and Special Requirements 

Code (non-date entries in 

MILSTRIP RDD) are 

added to the request 

format. The extended 

dollar value is not added at 

this time, but if sufficient 

justification is provided, 

this field will be 

reconsidered. 

Fiscal Year applies to the 

year in which the 
 23

record should not matter...the data elements were offered to 

support an on-the-fly decision as to whether there are funds to 

apply...not to match a record. 

Has there been any news on the clarification requested on 

definition of Fiscal year (sent or need)? 

Regard the FCM response transaction, is the transaction 

number the same as message identification number on the 

DLA Initial web call? Asking because for the Value of 1, 

why would there be plans for a duplicate transaction number? 

requisition is created. 

Clarification added to 

table. 

The message id is intended 

to match - response value 

same as request. 

Terminology made 

consistent in the ADC. 

4 Air Force Attached is input from SAF/FMP AFAFO. Our office is 

responsible for establishing AF accounting procedures. We 

are non-concurring with the PDC for reasons stated. While 

we agree with the intent of placing financial controls for offline requisitioning, there has been no 

analysis on the impact to existing AF logistics and accounting 

systems, ERP's-DEAMS & ECSS, and what instituting a 

manual process in the absence of an interface would mean for 

the AF and DFAS. 

SAF/FMP AFAFO non-concurs with this PDC for the 

following reasons - 

This PDC institutes a fund availability check and obligation 

requirement through a funds control module when an off-line 

requisition is processed. While the AFAFO agrees with the 

intent of the PDC, to improve funds control over off-line 

ordering, there are impacts to numerous AF accounting and 

logistic systems, costs associated with interfaces, and the 

impact of manual processing, that require further analysis and 

coordination. Unlike the other services where funds control 

and obligations are a component responsibility, the AF is 

responsible for fund certification and DFAS records all 

obligations. 

We recommend this PDC not be implemented for the AF 

until all the necessary coordination and analysis occurs. Even 

manual processing of fund certification and obligations will 

require significant coordination between requisitioners, 

suppliers, AF fund certifiers and DFAS. The AF must begin 

discussion with systems impacted, determine interfaces 

required and develop manual fund certification and obligation 

procedures. These actions require input from many sources, 

This change cannot be 

implemented for any 

Service until the Service 

has ability to receive, 

process, and respond to the 

web call. 

This change is applicable 

to requisitions resulting in 

interfund bills; it is not 

applicable to orders using 

purchase card payment 

method. This change will 

not in itself encourage or 
 24

including but not limited to, AF/A4, AFMC/A4, AFGLSC, 

DEAMS, ECSS, GAFS-BL and DFAS. 

The AF position has been to discourage offline requisitioning 

except when mission dictates. This PDC has potential to 

encourage its use and create manual workload that could 

impact the mission. 

Additional note: AF DoD EMALL transactions are not billed 

through interfund. 

discourage any type of 

ordering. However, it will 

support better, more 

compliant processing of 

internet-prepared 

requisitions resulting in 

interfund bills; thereby 

creating a sounder basis for 

the Services to permit such 

orders. 

5 DASC ...concerned about using the "CX" status when funds are not 

available as there are already several reasons for this status 

making it difficult for the requisitioner to determine the exact 

reason. In addition, DAASC creating an AE9 with a CX 

indicates that DAASC rejected the requisition rather than the 

external process defined in this ADC. Therefore, recommend 

that a new reject status code be established so that it's clear to 

the requisitioner that it's due to funds availability. This will 

also help minimize an increase in the number of 

calls/problem reports DAASC already receives regarding the 

"CX" status." 

Concur. CX narrative 

reworded to clarify that it 

is the internet ordering 

application and not 

DAASC that is responsible 

for the reject. 

Use of the existing reject 

code was intended to 

support rapid 

implementation. Using a 

new status code, which 

might not be implemented 

and recognized in legacy 

systems, could have 

adverse operational impact. 

By agreement during July 

9, 2009 meeting, the 

internet ordering 

application routing 

identifier will be made 

available to DAAS (to 

simplify procedures and to 

be perpetuated to the AE9 

Supply Status Routing 

Identifier From. 

6 DLA J8 From (regarding C2.8.2.1 & C2.8.2.2.2): 

 " How is the Supply Source suppose to alert users to 

comply with their Component-directed procedures?" 

Refer to item 7 below, for 

example of how this may 

be accomplished. 

7 DSCR NOTE: A systems change request was submitted a while 

back to help resolve back-feeding service systems regarding 

obligations. The ticket is still open and is slated for the next 

release (which should take place late this year or early next 

year). 

Concur - this process will 

not be needed for any 

component implementing 

this PDC/ADC (initially 
 25

Title: Remind Fund Code Orderers to Establish an Obligation 

Priority: Critical 

Assigned Version Release: 9.1 

Description: When fund code is used as the form of payment 

add a field to the payment screen that allows the user to check 

a box that acknowledges they know they need to create the 

obligation record in their local accounting system. If the user 

fails to check the box, create a pop up window that advises 

the user: "When using this form of payment (MILSTRIP 

Fund Code) it is your responsibility to ensure that an 

obligation to reserve funds from the correct account is 

processed within your local accounting system. DOD 

EMALL will not feed this data to your local accounting 

system in most cases. DLA will bill your system through 

Interfund Billing. If funds are not reserved they may be 

mistakenly spent on another item. Failure to record the 

obligation for this order may result in Anti-Deficiency Act 

violations." 

Put a button on the pop up labeled "Acknowledged". Record 

in the order record that requirement to create the obligation 

was acknowledged by the user. Do not permit the order to 

proceed with finalization unless the acknowledgement is 

obtained. 

Army only). 

8 DLA The funds will be checked in the Fund Control Module 

(FMC) which is owned by the Army. This document doesn't 

mention EBS; if possible, finance would like clarification on 

the items below. This would give us an idea if modifications 

will be required for EBS. 

Page 2, of the ADC 328 

 

IMPACT: 

Item 2: 

DLA tailored vendor relationship (TVR) programs which 

lack a financial interface with the requisitioning Service is to 

be explored for adoption of a comparable funds availability 

on-line check. 

EBS Concern: Currently EBS doesn't have a funds 

availability check in regards to TVR orders. Would this be an 

object for EBS to adopt? 

Chapter 7, page 2 of the ADC 328 

Item C7.6 

Customers receiving reply code indicating their requisition is 

not authorized for further processing shall be provided an 

opportunity to revise the requisition content. 

Yes, this change is 

intended to provide rules 

for a standard interface; 

however, only the Army is 

currently prepared to 

support implementation. 

Yes, it is intended that EBS 

adopt this process 

(independently or through 

DoD EMALL) for any 

TVR program where the 

customer’s requisition is 

not created from within his 

integrated Component 

application where funds 

availability and recording 

of the obligation are 

systemically required. In 

the absence of this process, 

it is EBS responsibility to 
 26

EBS Concern: When does the customer receive the not 

authorized error? Will this happen outside of EBS? This 

could become a timing issue if this happens after the 

requisition has been processed in EBS. 

ensure that customers are 

aware of the need to 

establish the obligation 

(refer to item 7 above, for 

the planned customer 

notification for DoD 

EMALL for example of 

how this may be 

accomplished.) 

9 All Additional comments discussed during joint Component 

Supply and Finance Process Review Committee meeting. 

Refer to minutes for the 

July 9, 2009 meeting, 

included as Enclosure 6. 

10 GSA GSA does not plan on providing any batch capability in its 

implementation of Funds Availability checking. In light of 

this, GSA does not plan to implement C7.9.1, at least not at 

first. What we plan to do is pass the requisition on (thus 

assuming there is sufficient funding, as is done today) if no 

response is received within the first 10-15 minute no reply 

submission phase and not hold it in a pending status. 

Concur. ADC updated. 

Consolidated Army Initial Staffing Comments/Response

1. The Army National Level Community non-concur with this PDC. Please see the below detail 

comments: 

a. AMC LAISO: Sarah, A review of PDC 266 was conducted with the National Level Community. 

This email provides non-concurrence from the National Level Community for this PDC. Please see 

comments below: 

(1) SCE-BTL - Non-concurs. 

(2) "TACOM B14 - concurs. "I concur, however, I have one concern. In a prior version of this PDC, 

the JONO was included as one of the data elements for funds verification. That element has been 

replaced in this version with only the signal/fund codes. Although those codes identify the type of 

funds, they don't identify which specific programs need to be obligated". Alisa Everson" 

Army HQDA DCS G-4 Response: The process will be, GSA/DLA send a web-call to FCM 

which will check for funds availability, and a valid DODAAC and DOCNO before responding to 

DLA/GSA. After a favorable response, FCM will create the obligation and pass to the appropriate 

Army financial system (STANFINS, SOMARDS or GFEBS). When FCM passes the obligation, 

FCM will use the APC for STANFINS transactions, JONO for SOMARDS transactions and 

GFEBS Document/Line Number for GFEBS transactions. 

 Bottom line, the assignment of the accounting classification code is done after FCM receives 

the request from DLA/GSA and responds. 

 
 27

(3) The TACOM Integrated Logistic Support Center (ILSC) Customer Pay Office - NON-CONCURs 

at this time, for the following reasons. 

 

(a) For Customer Pay (CP) requisitions on DVD items, if DLA/GSA interrogates the FCM using the 

proposed minimum data in Enclosure 1 to the Billing DODAAC, FCM will not be able to identify 

which of the many fund accounts that CP has established within SOMARDS. The only element that 

could possibly identify the correct account would be the project code, but that is not unique to an 

established funding account, and b) SOMARDS does not currently link a project code to funding 

account. Secondly, CP uses a DODAAC plus Project Code combo to point to the appropriate funding 

account, but SOMARDS is also not linked to a specific DODAAC. The two items currently affected 

by this are Tires and Batteries for LEAD. Since there would be no way of matching to a specific 

account, FCM would reject the transaction back to DLA as 'no funding' even though the funds exist. 

Current proposed methodology doesn't have the level of granularity to work with CP. 

(b) For other requisitions to DLA, this procedure would not have an effect since they are actually 

Redistribution Orders to move stock to a dedicated CP warehouse, and no obligations/bills are 

necessary. If this new procedure is going to require a funds check, that would go against the 

philosophy of CP, and would require a rethink of a successful program. 

(c) At time of consumption of a DLA item, DLA requires a D7B (Post-Post) transaction to show a sale, 

decrement stock, and generate a bill to the CP customer. We would need to know if the Funds Check 

would apply to this situation or not. If it does, then the comments in PARA 1 above will apply. 

(d) Enclosure 2, DoD 4000.25-1-M, MILSTRIP C2.8 (to be repeated in DLMS), PARA C2.8.1.2, 

DLA's VMI-EDI program mandated by DLA HQ requires the CP Product Support Integrator to 

requisition and consume parts prior to a funds check/obligation. This direction came directly from 

DLA HQ; something that TACOM-CP Office Non-Concurred. The work-around would be for DLA 

to coordinate this requirement with the express direction of DLA HQ's VMI-EDI office. 

 

(e) Enclosure 2, DoD 4000.25-1-M, MILSTRIP C2.8 (to be repeated in DLMS), PARA C2.8.2.2.1. 

See PARA 4 above. DLA's VMI EDI office's direction directly contradicts this, as it authorizes the 

requisitioner to requisition prior to validating funds availability per this proposed process. For CP, 

there is no work-around for the issues cited in PARAs 1 or 2 above. For PARAs 4 and 5, it may 

require a revision to the direction from DLA HQ on how VMI-EDI transactions are routed. The POC 

is Kennedy How, AMSTA-LC LSAF. 

Army HQDA DCS G-4 Response: Customer Pay does not utilize the retail systems concerned. 

Funds Control processes will not impact Customer Pay. There is no plan to have CP interface with 

FCM. If at a future date, CP requires an interface and the data elements here internal Army 

coordination will determine the data elements required, as was done with the SARSS interface. 

b. NAMI-PSID - non-concurs. We nonconcur with PDC266 as written; our comments are as follows: 

(1) This PDC chiefly addresses the requirement to provide a funds check from the Funds Control 

Module when an offline/call in requisition is processed. While this is certainly necessary, there are 

numerous other systems that must also be updated so that offline requisitions are processed correctly. 

Among these systems are CCSS, SOMARDS, LMP, and GFEBS. We do not recommend that this 
 28

PDC be implemented/adopted until all necessary interfaces, not just those between the wholesale 

supply source and the FCM/STANFINs, are addressed in the same document. The proposed PDC is, at 

best, a start but is not a completed document. Perhaps that is what the statement in the PDC ("Staffing 

Note: This proposal is intended to be a starting point for a standard interface with other Services and 

should be reviewed by all Services and Agencies") was intended to convey, but we are concerned that 

this not be viewed as final and not be implemented until all of the other systemic interfaces are 

covered. As written this document conveys the strong impression that as long as the procedures in it 

are followed, then requisitions will process correctly, all obligations will be recorded, there will be no 

billing problems, etc. This is not true, as the other systems mentioned above also need interfaces with 

this process. Left as it now stands; this procedure could further degrade one of our key NAMI-PSID 

missions of redistribution of Army excesses if one of its consequences is to encourage increased use of 

offline requisitioning procedures without full interface with all required logistics systems (both supply 

and financial). 

 

Army HQDA DCS G-4 Response: Providing a look for potential redistribution within Army is not 

practical, given what I know of the processes. We can provide visibility of the supply transactions; 

we just need to work out how to pass the transactions. Our requirement to use media status code F 

has resolved most of the supply visibility issue. The hang up tends to be when a non Supply 

associated DoDAAC is used and there is no SARSS to route the transaction. I intend to address this 

through a policy message later this summer. Also, our intent is not to open this up for routine repair 

parts ordering. Principle use for repair would be AOG and part numbered items, which don't impact 

redistribution requirements. We can also further restrict use if we identify a problem. 

 

 Bottom line, the assignment of the accounting classification code is done after FCM receives 

the request from DLA/GSA and responds. 

 

(2) It is important to note that the proposed concept is, in effect, at the end of the requisition process. 

Any fiscal accounting interface which results in a funding availability determination and establishment 

of an obligation must likewise provide the logistic transactions or transaction initiators, where 

required, that complement the financial fund availability process and create the applicable logistic 

(supply) system records. In other words, this interface should perform a backward build of both the 

financial AND logistic records for these offline requisitions. Without this logistic system backward 

build, the following undesirable effects will result: unmatched disbursements(materiel receipt 

recorded as Found on Installation (FOI) thus resulting in understated Accounts payable, and 

(b)unsupported obligations resulting from missing accountable logistics on order (Due- in) records. 

These discrepancies (there may be others) require financial and logistic organization expenditure of 

substantial man-hour resources in research to determine the appropriate corrective action. 

Army HQDA DCS G-4 Response: This process is at the front-end. Unmatched disbursements 

and accounts payable will be resolved by this process where the obligation is created in STANFINS, 

SOMARDS or GFEBS. Since FCM will be creating the obligation, unmatched disbursements will 

go away as the IFB will be able to link to an obligation. 

If Army G-4 directs, FCM can provide SARSS with the supply information for demand 

analysis. 

(3) This proposal appears to be designed to reopen the WEB based off-line requisitioning process 

about which HQDA policy prohibits utilization with few exceptions. Army implementation of Single 

Stock Fund provides substantial cost avoidance via redistribution processes of identified Army excess 

materiel. Execution of these redistribution processes, while providing Army with cost avoidance, also 
 29

has reduced the Army demand level on DOD logistics organizations thus improving the accuracy of 

the Army demand history with actual consumption. This improvement in demand accuracy has a 

corresponding impact on future inventory acquisition by DOD national level SOS. We repeat that this 

process as written could be interpreted by customers to encourage the expansion of offline 

Requisitioning and, hence, deemphasize the cost avoidances associated with redistribution of existing 

excess materiel. 

 Army HQDA DCS G-4 Response: Off-line requisition is part of the supply process within 

the Army. This check with FCM will ensure funds are available when orders are made off-line. 

This process will also be creating the obligation. 

DLMSO Response: This DLMS Change adds a new requirement for verification of funds 

availability; it does not make any modify existing Army-directed rules for use of DoD EMALL/GSA 

internet ordering sites. 

(4) Enclosure 1, DLA/GSA Initial Web-Calls to FCM identifies a data element "Document Number 

Suffix" as a not required entity. While follow-on MILSTRIP transactions make use of the suffix code, 

MILSTRIP requisitions (DIC A0_) do not have a document number suffix. This record position (RP 

44) of the MILSTRIP Requisition is the demand code which is to be entered by the requisition 

initiator. This enclosure should be changed to reflect the data element "Demand Code" rather than 

"suffix" as it applies to DIC A0_ transactions. 

 Army HQDA DCS G-4 Response: The exact data elements to be used in this process will be 

refined as software development is undertaken. 

 DLMSO Response: The suffix code is not applicable to the requisition format; however, 

suffix code was included in the web call format because this process is applicable referral orders 

processed via MOES which could include a suffix code. 

(5) In summary, this proposed DLMS change addresses only one aspect of the Army requisition 

initiating organizations which is basically those currently under SARSS. Since this change does not 

address the national level for which implementation of SSF moved funding responsibility to the 

national level and limited FCM to below the SARSS1 level (user), the NAMI-PSID nonconcurs with 

this PDC as written due to the incomplete nature of the document- 

 Gary Amundson, Director, NAMI-PSID, US Army TACOM, Rock Island, IL. 

 

c. Army TACOM Resource Mgmt G8 - The War Reserve Office non-concurs 

for below reasons: 

(1) What if your organization does not use SARSS/FCM today? ASC also uses AMCISS, so some of 

the DODAACs that are used via AMCISS we do not have set up in FCM. Other AMC sub-commands 

utilize other means to pass orders Also, does this mean, any organization that does off-line ordering to 

DLA and GSA must set up FCM/DOJOCONs, and FADRs in order to get their orders cleared? 

 Army HQDA DCS G-4 Response: This process will not affect those systems. This process 

will only impact EMALL and GSA Adv. In an Army owned system, like SARSS, is directed to do a 

funds check with FCM prior to processing an order, that will be internal Army coordination and 

may or may not utilize this format. There is no discussion to have AMC systems, like Customer Pay 
 30

and AMCISS to do this. Based on how these programs are funded, I also don't think this is 

necessary. 

(2) I cannot tell from the document where in FCM it is checking for funds availability. Is the FAS 

switch being checked or the funded target amount in FADR? 

 Army HQDA DCS G-4 Response: FCM will use the FADR to determine if funds are 

available. 

(3) This approved change shows "Regulatory fund code use." If this means the 91 for OMA, this will 

not work. The fund code applicable to the crosswalk DOJOCON table should be used in order to tie 

obligation to correct accounting record - Ruth Sharfe, Army Sustainment Command, Resource 

Management,G8 Integration & Requisition Mgmt Div, Lead Budget Analyst 

 Army HQDA DCS G-4 Response: FCM will not be using the Regulatory Fund Code. DLA 

wanted the Regulatory Fund Code included on the web-call for use by other Services. FCM will use 

the DoJoCon to assign the proper APC, JONO or GFEBS Document/Line Number. 

d. LOGSA - Concurs no impact. 
31

Enclosure 6, Minutes of July 9 Meeting 

DLMSO July 16, 2009 

MEMORANDUM FOR: SEE DISTRIBUTION 

Subject: “Off-Line” Requisition Processing: Internet Ordering Application Request for Component Verification 

of Funds Availability and Recording of the Financial Obligation (PDC 266/DRAFT ADC 328) Meeting 

 On July 9, 2009, the Defense Logistics Management Standards Office (DLMSO) hosted a Supply/Finance Process 

Review Committee (PRC)-sponsored single-topic meeting to provide clarification of the planned business process and 

obtain resolution of comments received from the DLA and the Services during staffing of Proposed DLMS Change (PDC) 

266. The meeting handout, briefing, and attendees list are available on the Supply PRC Web page: http://www.dla.mil/j6/dlmso/Programs/Committees/ Supply/supplyPRC.asp. 

 Ms. Ellen Hilert, Supply PRC Chair, facilitated discussion, with contributing clarification and commentary by 

multiple participants. The following are action items and recommended revisions to the draft ADC resulting from the 

meeting. All recommended changes will be incorporated in the final version to be published NLT July 23, 2009. 

1. DoD EMALL - Incorporate an edit against the ordering authority code on the DoDAAC table to verify that 

customers using are authorized requisitioners. Determine feasibility for near term implementation using the replicated 

DoDAAC file for easy access. This edit is to be applicable to all Components, regardless of implementation of the funds 

verification process and regardless of method of payment. 

2. Pilot Implementation - The Marine Corps offered to participate in the pilot implementation with the Army, DoD 

EMALL, and GSA Global/GSA Advantage. The Navy and Air Force are unable to support this requirement currently. 

DLA internet ordering applications (i.e., non-integrated tailored vendor relation (TVR-programs) are also unable to adopt 

this process at this time, but will be required to ensure that customers are notified of the requirement to ensure financial 

compliance by manual recording of the obligation associated with their order. 

3. DAASC-Maintained Ordering Applications - DLMSO asked DAASC to consider feasibility of future integration 

of the funds verification process for the DAASO Asynchronous Message Entry System (DAMES), DIALOG, and DAASC 

Web Requisitioning (WEBREQ). applications.

4. Navy Proposed Additional Data Elements - Priority Designator, Required Delivery Date (RDD), Special 

Requirements Code (non-date RDD codes) will be added to the web request for funds verification. Inclusion of the 

extended dollar value is considered unnecessary since the price and quantity are provided. The Navy would like to see the 

redundant information because financial applications currently receive extended dollar value. Since the goal is to minimize 

the data included in the web request for technical considerations, the recommendation is that the programming 

development to support this change include capability to perform the calculation. If the Navy has stronger reasons for 

inclusion of the extended dollars, these should be provided to DLMSO. 

5. Prioritization of Orders - The ordering application will use the PD, RDD, Special Requirements Code, and Project 

Code (3 and 9-series) to sequence the order of the request for “shopping carts” with multiple line items. This will help 

ensure that limited funds go to higher priority orders. Prioritization will be comparable to MILSTRIP demand sequence 

rules. 

6. Message Identification Number - Codes will be assigned for the first position of the message identification for 

each separate application (vice Service or Agency, as draft currently states): E = DoD EMALL, G = GSA Global, A = 

GSA Advantage. New codes will be added for any additional ordering applications which adopt this process. 

7. Document Number Suffix - Edit of referral order suffix code values will be included. 
 32

8. Source of Supply (SoS)- Terminology will be corrected in the request (currently says source of order) 

9. Fiscal Year - Clarification will be included in the ADC for purpose of the fiscal year of the requisition submission 

in the request format. It will be used for processing at the end of fiscal year where suspended processing during the last 

days of the current fiscal year will result in establishment of the obligation in the subsequent fiscal year. Inclusion of the

fiscal year of the submission will allow the obligation to be recorded properly. 

10. Original Reply Code 1 - Message Identification Duplicate. Text will be updated to use same terminology as the 

request format for message identification number. 

11. Original Reply Code 2 - Document Number Duplicate. This condition will trigger a reject, but will not be 

forwarded to DAAS using CX Status when the customer is not available for immediate funds verification reply. If the 

customer is available, the requisition may be resubmitted/reprocessed using a different document number. If forwarded 

with no action and the requisition is identified as a duplicate at the SoS, the requisition will not be processed and no 

notification will be provided to the customer under current MILSTRIP implementation. This is considered less risk that 

returning a CX status which could inadvertently cancel the original valid requirement. 

12. Original Reply Code 5 - Third-Party Bill-to. Split into two codes; one for unauthorized ordering DoDAAC (vice 

“unrecognized”), and another for third-party bill-to. The former will be rejected, the latter will be approved. 

13. Original Reply Code 6 - Change terminology from “unrecognized” to “unauthorized.” 

14. Original Reply Code 9 - Modifier/Follow-up. Review codes for possible split; one for modifiers (MILSTRIP 

AM_) and follow-ups (MILSTRIP AT_) that match an existing obligation, and one for those that are unmatched and for 

which the obligation is not matched indicating funds are available (these could also be rejected for any of the applicable 

reasons associated with new requisitions). Add requirement for the funds control application to ensure that materiel 

identification is consistent with a previously recorded document number. Reject if unmatched. 

15. Original Reply Codes - Codes will be re-ordered in a more logical sequence. 

16. Third -Party Bill-To Table - Methodology for obtaining verification of third-party bill-to DoDAACs located on 

the DAAS table in association with the Fund Code will be pursued for a future enhancement of this process. 

17. Status Code CX Reject Notification - For rejected orders that processed without visibility to the customer, the 

ordering application will include both CX and the Routing Identifier Code (RIC) associated with the ordering application in 

the DLMS requisition submitted to DAAS. The inclusion of the RIC will help distinguish the resulting Supply Status with 

CX from those CX Status transactions that are created by DAAS. The definition for the CX will be updated accordingly. 

Note: It was unknown at the time of this meeting whether GSA will use this process or will create their own CX supply 

status. 

18. Negative Values - Negative values (or a flag for this purpose) will not be included at this time. The understanding 

is that funds verification will not occur until the user has determined that the order is ready and “submits.” The use of the 

sequence by priority will help ensure that the most important orders are funded, should there not be sufficient funds for the 

entire order. The alternative (where prioritization was not enough to make sure that the most important order was funded) , 

is for the customer to cancel the order, allow time for the SoS to process the cancellation and return notification to the 

customer’s financial application where the de-obligation will be processed. This will allow funds to become available for 

other orders. Note: The option to evaluate the use of this feature during design will be included in the ADC. 

 This meeting was highly productive in clarifying the business process and resolving comments and concerns. 

DLMSO thanks all participants. The DLMSO points of contact are Ms. Ellen Hilert at 703-767-0676; or, e-mail: 

Ellen.Hilert@dla.mil and Mr. Robert Hammond, 703-767-2117, DSN 427-2117 or e-mail: robert.hammond@dla.mil. 

 /s/ 

DONALD C. PIPP 

 Director 

 Defense Logistics Management 

 Standards Office 
 33

Distribution: 

DUSD(L&MR)SCI 

Supply/Finance PRC Committee and Attendees