2

• ACTION: DLA Transaction Services (Mr. Scott Amburgeye) will provide the name of 

their lead contact for republishing the Defense Automated Addressing System (DAAS) 

Manual (DoD 4000.25-10-M as DLM 4000.25-4). 

b. Item Unique Identification (IUID) Status Update – Serialized Item Management (SIM) 

and Levels of Management Intensity. The IUID-enabled SIM briefing by Ms. Kathy Smith 

(ODASD (SCI)) focused on the levels of management intensity for SIM and why there is a potential

for two levels of intensive management. Several other areas of discussion relating to IUID policy 

and implementation were discussed including; cost to manage IUID items including stowage costs, 

managing IUID materiel in ERP systems, and Wide Area Work Flow (WAWF). The current 

expected timeline for IUID implementation is 2015. Significant IUID related discussion is identified 

in the following subsections: 

(1) IUID Policy 

(a) The original assumption was that some items requiring IUID marking actually 

require tracking by UII within selected portions, and not throughout, the supply chain. For example,

items in wholesale storage may only require tracking once the item has left storage and is installed or 

in use. However some items, such as Nuclear Weapons Related Material (NWRM) would require 

tracking within all nodes of the supply chain and during logistics business processes such as 

receiving, issue, maintenance, etc. The OSD-led IUID workshop discussions identified two levels of 

management intensity: standard and high. Recently, however, questions were raised (by the Army) 

regarding the feasibility of a single level of intensity (equivalent to high intensity). The Army 

expressed concern that two level management may not be possible when the wholesale 

owner/manager and retail/tactical locations are supported by the same database. For the standard 

level, the owner has visibly of the quantity (and not the specific items) while the item is within 

wholesale storage (e.g. within the DLA distribution system), and the high level would provide 

visibility of serial number and UII of each item. The UII for standard level would be made available 

during specific business processes. It is the mix of UII availability for a specific NSN that may not 

be supported by the commercial software used for materiel management. The Army noted that their 

intent is to manage retail/tactical level materiel by UII requiring every transaction to list applicable

UIIs. The argument is that this approach would be easier to implement DoD-wide and can be 

adopted in single or multiple database systems. 

(b) Mr. D.C. Pipp, DLA Logistics Management Standards, questioned whether a 

policy decision has been made to direct IUID management using the single level approach. He 

noted that this was an important factor for implementation procedures and will drive the content of

the Proposed DLMS Changes that will address IUID within the DLMS. In her briefing, Ms. Smith 

addressed the two levels of intensity vs. a single level in both combined and separate ERP databases. 

Her office is trying to resolve how to manage using two levels of intensity in a combined ERP 

database. A final decision has not been made. However, Ms. Smith expressed concern that we are 

well into the business rules development, but there are still concerns about feasibility of the twolevel concept. Ms. Smith speculated that the use of a single level might drive us to a smaller 

population of items to manage by UII. Ms. Hilert voiced concern that, rather than the population of 

UII items being smaller, it would move many more items into what was intended to be DoD’s most 
3

intensive management process reserved for our most critical items. During the discussion Ms. Smith 

raised several questions regarding the impact on DLA.

• ACTION: ODASD (SCI) will convene a work group and issue a tasking to specifically 

address the costs to manage a mixed vs. separate environment (no date available for this 

action). This group should address costs associated with managing two levels of 

intensity, including ongoing operational costs and one time sunk costs to change existing 

ERP systems. As an interim measure, ODASD (SCI) tasked the Component ERP leads 

to provide a rough order of magnitude (ROM) cost. Cost estimates need to address 

additional reconciliations (inventory and UII mismatch resolution) will be required if all 

items were managed at a single level of intensity.

• ACTION: Navy (Ms. Emily Burt-Hendrick, Navy SPRC Alternate) will research 

whether the Navy has cracked the code to manage a mixed wholesale/retail environment 

under Navy ERP. Clarification to be provided if Navy ERP will use the FLIS code 

trigger for UII management rather than depending on an internal UII “switch”. 

• ACTION: DLA provide specific details relating to above issues as applicable to Navy 

DLRs under BRAC.

(2) Cost to Manage Items in Standard and High Levels of Intensity. Ms. Renea Burns 

(DLA-J3312) noted that DLA conducted the analysis and developed a cost estimate to manage the 

standard level intensity. However, it is believed that this estimate only reflects the receiving portion 

of the cost. Ms. Burns noted that DLA was having difficulty costing out management of high level 

intensity items, but indicated it would cost more. Her office is working with a DLA Finance contact 

to complete the estimate. Mr. Andy Zeiders (DLA Distribution) noted the estimate was nearly 

complete, but was put on hold pending the discussion on level of intensity. A comment was made

that for the high level, the DLA Office of Operations Research and Resource Analysis mapped and 

timed out what extra steps would be required (it looked like four minutes extra on the High side). 

Additional analysis by DLA Finance is needed to completely cost this out. A preliminary figure 

stated for standard level was two minutes extra at a cost of about $20.00 per item. This was 

qualified as not being applicable to issue by a specific UII. A conflicting comment noted that a DLA 

depot examination of the processing time impact of the levels of intensity determined standard level 

takes about one additional minute, and five minutes for high. It was unclear whether this applied to 

only the receipt. 

(3) Comingling UIIs in Storage. A question was raised regarding comingling of new 

procurement materiel. WAWF and the IUID Registry record items accepted by UII to the Service 

owner. It is not clear if Component owner-level tracking should begin with this step for standard 

level items or can begin upon issuance out of depot storage (thereby allowing for commingled 

(standard level) stock). 

• ACTION: OUSD (SCI) workshop to specifically address the issue of segregated storage 

for IUID items. Components to provide input.

• ACTION: Does DLA plan to segregate all UII items by Service ownership within their 

storage facilities? A cost estimate for additional segregated storage should be provided 

by DLA. 
4

(4) Federal Logistics Information System (FLIS) Code Discussion. The key to 

implementation is a new FLIS UII Intensity of Management Code and the ability of systems to 

access the FLIS code (to determine IUID applicability and intensive management level if 

applicable). At the time of the SPRC meeting, it was understood that the new FLIS UII Intensity of 

Management Code was being developed based upon the two-level concept. It also provided two 

corresponding interim categories for use where legacy items are still being marked or contracts have 

not been updated to require IUID making. An NSN cannot be managed exclusively by UII until all 

items in inventory are marked. The FLIS code will be set at the DOD level (one FLIS code per 

NSN). Mr. Sam Perez (USMC) questioned whether an item’s Controlled Inventory Item Code 

(CIIC) would influence the level of intensity assigned. There are some rules for determining the

level of intensity (i.e. for NWRM), but otherwise Ms. Smith noted there is no intent to perform a 

formal cross walk between CIIC and level of intensity. The Marine Corp noted a concern for 

assignment of UII requirements for non-NSN equipment. DLA Transaction Services asked about 

the stability of the Level of Intensity. OSD does not foresee changing an assigned level of intensity 

other than moving from interim to fully implemented status.

c. ADC 399, Automated Data Capture for Serialized Item Shipments and Preparation of 

the IRRD (DD Form 1348-1A or DD Form 1348-2) Continuation Page. ADC 399 provides the 

business rules for a mandatory continuation page for serialized item shipments. The continuation 

page contains machine readable bar code symbols for the encoded content information including 

serial numbers and UIIs. It also supplements existing rules requiring inclusion of the UII in a 

Portable Data File 417 (PDF417) two-dimensional (2D) symbol for single item shipments with new 

Macro PDF417 symbol(s) including multiple UIIs. The continuation page also lists linear bar codes 

for human readable serial numbers. When a Macro PDF417 symbol is used, the data common to all 

items of the shipment are in the first PDF417 symbol followed by data elements of stand-alone serial 

numbers (that have no associated UIIs), or followed by data elements identifying UIIs and their 

associated serial numbers. When space is exhausted in a symbol’s data capacity, the devise moves

on to next Macro PDF417 symbol to encode additional data. Discussion included review of 

questions posed by the DSS design team and the DLA Logistics Management Standards response

(refer to briefing slides). DLA Distribution is analyzing and costing out this requirement. 

• ACTION: DLA to provide status on the associated systems change request and schedule 

for implementation.

d. DRAFT PDC 476, DLMS Shipment Status and IUID Procedures. PDC 476 will be the 

first of several DLMS change proposals to define procedures and establish coordinated 

implementation of IUID using SIM procedures. The PDC is based on the draft Integrated 

Requirements Set developed by ODASD (SCI) to manage the IUID process. PDC 476 addresses 

MILSTRIP shipments, as well as those documented on a DD 1149. The PDC proposes passing both 

UII and serial number in all shipment status transactions regardless of level of intensity. It also 

includes administrative changes to remove the no longer required capability to pass the component 

elements of the UII and the UII type code. During discussion it was noted that, once fully 

implemented status is achieved, any unmarked items that are picked for shipment would need to be 

segregated and the owner /manager contacted for instructions.

(1) Process Gap. Under the two-level concept, when distribution depots ship IUID items, 

the UIIs will be included on the shipment status provided by the shipping activity. However, if the 
5

customer follows up to the Inventory Control Point (ICP) for shipment status, the ICP will not have 

visibility of the UIIs shipped for standard level (since that information was not provided on the 

materiel release confirmation). This gap was identified during the OSD-led workshops. Alternative 

solutions are available. Ms. Hilert speculated that the most efficient, non-intrusive approach would 

be to maintain procedures as currently performed for the customer. If the ICP has visibility of UIIs 

(due to internal Service shipment), they may respond to the follow-up directly. However, if the ICP 

lacks visibility, the follow-up request would be pushed to the depot for response. The draft PDC 476 

noted three potential alternatives. 

(a) Alternative 1: IUID for High Intensity Only. The source of supply will include 

IUID content as provided on the Materiel Release Confirmation (DLMS 945A) under SIM. It is 

currently envisioned that this will apply only to those items identified for highly intensive 

management because the manager does not require visibility of standard level items while in 

wholesale level storage. Choosing this alternative would leave a gap for standard item IUID content 

on the shipment status provided in response to follow-ups.

(b) Alternative 2: Shipping Activity Responds to Follow-up. The source of supply 

will include IUID content as provided on the Materiel Release Confirmation (DLMS 945A) under 

SIM, but will require the shipping depot to respond to follow-up requests for standard items. 

Choosing this alternative would require additional programming support for the owner/manager to 

request the shipping activity to re-send shipment status and for the shipping activity to trigger retransmission.

(c) Alternative 3: IUID for High and Standard Intensity. The source of supply will 

include IUID content as provided on the Materiel Release Confirmation (DLMS 945A) under a 

modified SIM implementation plan that would require inclusion of all IUID content regardless of the 

level of intensity. The manager will be required to perpetuate the IUID content to the shipment 

status, but would not be required to manage by UII. Choosing this alternative would require 

additional programming support for the owner/manager application to retain IUID content not 

required for item management.

• ACTION: Feedback is requested from the SPRC Representatives and DLA Transaction 

Services on their preferred alternative. 

• ACTION: DLA Transaction Services will research the feasibility for using the 

transaction history for re-transmitting the shipment status (when available) in response to 

a follow-up request.

• ACTION: At the time of the meeting, PDC 476 was expected to be published July 2011; 

however, re-evaluation of the policy for levels of intensity has delayed completion of the 

proposal (revised date not available).

(2) Multiple Freight Pieces. PDC 476 also addresses multiple freight pieces, where a 

single shipment status reflects material that is shipped in more than one box thereby allowing 

association of passive RFID with a particular box. (Multiple freight piece shipments are not suffixed 

by the ICP, nor ‘partialled’ by the shipping activity. The shipment status transactions currently 

provided for these shipments are not distinguishable, since controlling numbers are the same on each 

and no box identification is provided. ) The revised 856S shipment status transaction will also 

provide visibility of UIIs by box and the box count. This will further support receipt process by UII 
6

and passive RFID, as well as identification of UII items when a box is missing. Implementation of 

this change will require that the shipping activity identify the UIIs during the pack process by 

specific box so that this information can be perpetuated to the shipment status.

e. PDC 399, Propose New SCC ‘T’ Serviceable (Training Use Only). This Navy- originated 

PDC proposes establishing a new Supply Condition Code (SCC) T for ‘Serviceable (Training Use 

Only)’. This is intended to identify assets originally intended for combat use which no longer meet 

established criteria for combat applications but which can be safely used for training applications, 

i.e., an armor piercing round determined not to meet acceptable penetration capability for designed 

combat application, but which is acceptable for range training. Currently those items that have been 

reclassified from combat applications to training use only are assigned to SCC “B” (Serviceable 

Issuable with Qualifications) and grouped with all other qualifiers identified by SCC “B.” Ms. 

Johnson provided the Component responses for PDC 399. The Army, Navy and DLA concurred 

with PDC 399; the Marine Corps and Air Force non-concurred. The Air Force noted the cost to 

upgrade legacy systems and the Marine Corps noted the time to implement and a questionable return 

on investment (ROI). Mr. Mark Knowles, (Navy Operational Logistics Support Center (NOLSC)) 

provided an overview briefing of PDC 399 and included a response to the non-concur comments. 

The Navy stressed that the proposed SCC “T” helps advance the common Supply goal for increasing 

accuracy and visibility. Navy was proposing a standard across DOD. Ms. Johnson noted that they 

would not want to do something for a single Service application and expressed a concern that a 

single Service use of SCC T could lead to that code being passed to systems that would not 

recognize it. Ms. Hilert asked if it would it be feasible, if Air Force will not recognize SCC ‘T’, 

would it be acceptable for converting a ‘T’ to a ‘B’ if it happened to be conveyed to Air Force? 

NAVSUP does not believe SCC “T” would likely be used for inter-service beyond Army. 

The Navy suggested that adoption of proposed SCC “T” could be optional. Mr. Perez recommended 

Navy contact Mr. Charlie Black (USMC) for a discussion with the Ammunition Program 

Management Office to address issues from their non-concurrence on PDC 399. Even the nonconcurrences recognize the benefit of the proposal, but have their own ways of addressing the 

situation. A number of examples of non ammunition related items that might also use the proposed 

SCC “T” were mentioned.

• ACTION: Navy to provide more information to the Air Force about the projected $5M 

annual cost savings cost savings, as addressed in the Air Force response. 

• ACTION: Navy to hold a discussion with Mr. Charlie Black (Marine Corps) regarding 

their non-concurrence.

f. Issues Surrounding Suspended Stock

(1) DLA Distribution Suspended Stock Initiatives. Mr. Tom Hoffer and Mr. Chris Lubic

(DLA Distribution) briefed the SPRC to bring attention to two areas of concern: stemming the 

flow of material that has to be suspended, and obtaining timely disposition on open Supply 

Discrepancy Reports (SDRs) and Storage Quality Control Reports (SQCRs).

(a) The briefing revealed suspended stock in Supply Condition Code (SCC) J, K, and 

L is valued at $1.7 billion. The DLA goal is to get stock into issuable condition, and thereby fill 

backorders, reduce storage footprint and related handling costs, prevent re-procurement, and

increase order effectiveness, or, conversely, efficiently dispose of the unneeded stock. DLA 
7

Distribution is working on ways to improve their receiving process and better resolve issues as 

the materiel arrives. Some of the efforts to date involve:

• Establishment of DLA Distribution Services and Military Service Integrated Process 

Teams (IPTs). Root cause analysis points to packaging, labeling and contract 

nonconformance 

• Using a “Tiger Team” at the New Cumberland Depot to identify and properly mark a 

massive amount of previously unidentified returns. 

• DLA Land and Maritime plans to send a Tiger Team to DDSP and DDJC.

• A DLA Continuous Process Improvement Initiative (CPI) focusing on Condition Code 

“L” (Litigation Material) looking for root causes of suspended new procurement materiel. 

(b) Ms. Hilert noted that there is a significant issue with improperly identified 

material being returned by the Services to DLA Depots. It is believed that many of these are 

unauthorized material returns. A pre-positioned materiel receipt is not provided to the depot to 

facilitate preparation of a correct receipt to the correct owner’s account. Many of the items returned 

were originally purchased from DLA, but the receipt and the SDR are being directed to DLA. DLA 

has suggested establishing a dedicated Routing Identifier Code (RIC) for each Service to pick up the 

unidentified returns. Current automated procedures do not support using the returning activity for 

the accountable receipt and the resulting SDR cannot be distributed to Army returning activities. 

(2) Revised Procedures for Processing Depot Returns PDC 403. Mr. Tom Hoffer (DLA 

Distribution) provided a briefing on revised procedures for processing depot returns in several areas

including materiel in SCC H and unidentified materiel, as well as procedures for automatic disposal. 

Portions of PDC 403 are already implemented as a result of an internal DLA review. Mr. Hoffer 

explained the intent was to preclude uncontrolled release of sensitive, hazardous, or NWRM to DLA 

Disposition Services. He also noted there were concerns with using the “Unknown” default stock 

identification that was originally proposed as it would eliminate visibility and control gained by 

using the pseudo NSN for material. Ms. Hilert concurred and indicated that the re-write (PDC 403A 

under development) will require more precise materiel identification. However, she suggested that 

there may be a better way to identify items that carry an IUID data matrix, and suggested a query 

against the IUID Registry. Ms. Hilert also noted the proposal (as submitted by DLA) documented 

the current practice of replacing the original SCC H with SCC K. This is not considered 

procedurally correct and is no longer included. The proposal requires appropriate controls without 

overriding a valid SCC. 

• ACTION: Ms. Hooper (DLA Land and Maritime) will confirm the draft requirement for 

inclusion of a serial number when available on unidentified returns. 

• ACTION: Ms. Hilert noted that there is not a consensus supporting the recommendation to

post the receipt and SDR to a designated Service RIC. Feedback is requested if an 

alternative approach would be more satisfactory. 

• ACTION: Ms. Hilert noted that establishing a simple process to bill back to the returning 

activity for re-packaging and/or disposal costs might help reduce non-compliance with the 

materiel returns program. To facilitate this, Ms Hilert would like to ensure that the returning 

activity is identified on the SDR and will include this requirement in the DLMS change 

proposal. At a minimum, the returning activity should receive an information copy of the 

SDR so that they are aware of the problem. 
8

• ACTION: DLA Logistics Management Standards update PDC 403/403A in coordination 

with affected parties and re-staff (no date available). 

g. Monitoring For Requisition Priority Abuse. 

(1) LT Ben Murphy from the Joint Staff (J4) provided an overview of his role monitoring 

requisition priority abuse, and working with Force/Activity Designator (F/AD) and Project Code 

issues. LT Murphy indicated the annual F/AD review is underway. The F/AD Priority I list was 

scheduled to be published in July, other lists in August. While the F/AD update process is an annual 

occurrence, there are provisions for out-of-cycle updates for operational purposes such as 

deployments. LT Murphy noted that the Navy has the largest number of requests to upgrade F/ADs

based on deployment schedules.

(2) Ms. Hilert reviewed the requirement for the Services to monitor the suspected abuse 

listing, especially for Priority Designator (PD) 01 suspected abuse. She noted that the DoD PD 01

requisitions are not modified because of the risk factors with automatic downgrading. Non-DoD and 

lesser priorities are auto-downgraded. Ms. Hilert indicated that there is a known gap in visibility of 

the authorized F/AD I activity. For example, in the situation where an aircraft is on the ground away 

from the parent unit and a PD 01 requisition is input on their behalf, the requisition may not contain 

the actual requiring activity since it could reflect the requisitioner/ship-to/bill-to values associated 

with its current location. Based upon the recommendation of SPRC during prior meetings, PDC 

29A is under development to specifically address requisitions supporting deployed/off-station F/AD 

I units. It establishes a DLMS capability to provide an additional DoDAAC separately within the 

requisition format to identify the Unit authorized F/AD I. Ms. Hilert expressed her expectation that 

this change will also support the USAF due to the difficulty associated the F/AD I unit with the 

DoDAAC used in the requisition.

• ACTION: Component SPRC member or designated representative review the Unauthorized 

Priority Designator Assignment Report and initiate corrective action as needed. 

• ACTION: DLA Logistics Management Standards finalize PDC 29A for staffing.

h. Standard Financial Information Structure (SFIS) DLMS Transactions. Mr. Bob 

Hammond, who chairs the Finance, DoD Activity Address Directory (DoDAAD) and Military 

Assistance Address Directory PRCs, provided a brief on DLMS support for Standard Financial 

Information Structure (SFIS). SFIS includes a comprehensive data structure that supports 

requirements for budgeting, financial accounting, cost/performance, and external reporting needs 

across the DOD enterprise. The Business Transformation Agency (BTA) hosts the SFIS 

Governance Board meetings as a non-voting member and conducts SFIS compliance verifications. 

Data elements for bill processing are currently derived from the two character Fund Code, via a 

referential table maintained at DLA Transaction Services and updated by Component/Agency Fund 

Code Monitors. Fund code is carried in applicable DLMS/MILS tractions. DFAS systems, GSA 

systems and others are not DLMS compliant and will not be so near term. DLA Logistics 

Management Standards office began meeting with the BTA in 2007, and coordinated briefings to the 

Finance and Supply PRCs. A working group developed SFIS PDC 365, which was staffed in 

November 2010. PDC 365 required Components/Agencies to evaluate two approaches; 1) Add all 

the SFIS data elements to selected DLMS transactions that trigger billing actions, or 2) use 

referential data (in which SFIS accounting data elements obtained from an authoritative source 
9

referential database using the existing Fund Code data element) while adding Business Partner 

Number (BPN) to selected DLMS transactions that trigger billing actions. The 

Components/Agencies selecting the referential data approach, which is being prepared as an ADC. 

Bob Hammond led a discussion of comment resolution for PDC 365. DLA Transaction Services 

will incorporate SFIS elements in an authoritative source SFIS Fund Code to Fund Account 

Conversion Table along with existing fund code data elements. Components and Agencies will have 

responsibility for adding SFIS data elements. Note that non-DoD entities, such as GSA and Special 

Programs such as those under Reutilization Business Integration (RBI) modernization initiative will 

be significantly impacted by inclusion of BPN in DLMS transactions. Note that DLMS compliance 

does not equate to SFIS compliance. DLMS provides a means for facilitating exchange of SFIS 

data. 

i. Country Code. Mr. Bob Hammond provided a brief on developments with Country Code 

standards. OSD(AT&L) Policy Memorandum, dated June 6, 2011, subject; “Department of Defense 

Country Code Standard,” mandates the ISO 3166-1 digraph (2 characters) standard by 30 

September 2012 and migration to the tri-graph (3 characters) by 2020. Currently, there are multiple

country code related standards used by the DoD logistics trading partner’s information systems. The 

codes in use are:

• MILSTRIP “Country and Activity” Code. These two character codes are used within the 

Defense Logistics Standard System (DLSS) and DLMS logistics business transactions 

governed by the DOD 4000.25-M family of manuals. These codes are currently a mixture of 

Defense Security Cooperation Agency (DSCA) “FMS Customer Codes” described below and 

codes assigned in the past to meet other operational needs. See MILSTRIP Appendix 2.18.

• Federal Information Processing Standard (FIPS) 10-4 FIPS has been withdrawn and its 

usage will sunset at the end of calendar year 2012. The General Services Administration 

Federal Supply System uses FIPS internal to its systems.

• ISO 3166-1. The DOD Activity Addressing Directory (DoDAAD) and Military Assistance 

Program Directory (MAPAD) previously transitioned to the ISO 3166-1 standard, both 

digraph and trigraph. The digraph values are currently used as the primary database key in 

DoDAAD/MAPAD and for purposes including constructing the last line of the address in 

some cases. Trigraph values were included for potential mediation.

• DSCA FMS Customer Code. DSCA uses a two digit FMS Customer Code to represent 

“Country, International Organization, and Regional Codes and FMS Eligibility"

• ACTION: Subsequent to the meeting, PDC 474, Implementation of ISO 3166-1 Codes for 

the Identification of Countries and their Subdivisions, was issued. Components to review 

and concur/comment.

j. Standard Addressing. Mr. Bob Hammond provided a brief on developments with 

Addressing Standards. BTA is leading an initiative to standardize addressing within DoD, which 

includes consideration of the recently developed Federal Geospatial Data Committee (FGDC) 

standard. The FDGC standard is a voluntary standard that has not been adopted by the US Postal 

Service nor widely adopted in general. The FGDC standard currently street address as a 
10

concatenated single line and also allows discrete data elements for street address such as house 

number, street direction, street name, and street type. The Business Enterprise Architecture 

currently contains the discrete data elements for street address. This discrete data element approach 

is not supported in the Logistics Domain for ANSI X12 transactions nor for DoDAAD or MAPAD. 

There are significant implementation, cost and interoperability issues with adopting the current BEA 

standard as a DoD enterprise standard Logistics Management Standards supports changing the BEA 

to: Also include a concatenated street line data element to be consistent with the FGDC Landmark 

Standard and ANSI ASC X12 2) recognize the 35 character per line Military Shipping Label 

limitation in the BEA business rules for this new data element.

k. DRAFT PDC 472, Material Receipt Acknowledgement (MRA) Report. Mr. Paul Jensen, 

DLA Logistics Management Standards (contractor support), provided a summary briefing on PDC 

472, which documents changes implemented in the On-Line MRA Reports Tool. The SPRC 

discussed and agreed to a number of changes to improve the On-Line MRA Reports Tool, in the 

2008 – 2010 timeframe. Several of the changes were implemented as “Phase 1” updates to the 

report, but corresponding updates to the MILSTRAP and DLMS Manuals to reflect the changes had 

not been made. PDC 472 will address those manual updates. Ms. Johnson explained that this PDC 

only addresses updating the manuals to reflect implemented changes to the reports. Other MRA 

Report changes that have been discussed as “Phase 2” changes are on hold as higher priority issues 

are being addressed. 

• ACTION: DLA Logistics Management Standards will finalize and staff PDC 472 (no date 

available).

l. DRAFT PDC 464, New MRA Discrepancy Indicator Code for use with Navy Ships. Mr. 

Bill Shaffer (DLA J331) presented PDC 464. DLA developed the PDC after finding, in response to 

MRA follow-ups, a high volume of MRA transactions from Navy ships containing Discrepancy 

Indicator Code ‘F’ (Shortage or partial or total nonreceipt). Investigation revealed the material was 

waiting in the Material Processing Center (MPC) for the ship to return to port from deployment. This 

change proposes a new MRA discrepancy indicator code for use with Navy ships that indicates that 

an MRA is being submitted in response to a follow-up, but that there has not yet been an opportunity 

to pick-up/stow the order due to extended transit times. Receipt of an MRA transaction with the 

new Discrepancy Indicator Code G will signal the ICP to send another MRA Follow-up transaction 

after another 45 days have elapsed. PDC 464 is expected to be released after a few lingering 

questions are resolved. 

• ACTION: Mary Maurer (DLA Transaction Services) will confirm whether there are recent 

existing transactions that have been using the MRA Discrepancy Indicator code G, which is 

currently reserved for DOD assignment. 

• ACTION: DLA Logistics Management Standards will finalize and staff PDC 464 (no date 

available).

m. Direct Vendor Delivery (DVD), Destination Acceptance. Ms. Beth Altman (DLA J33)

provided a briefing on DVD Destination Acceptance. DLAs implementation of WAWF 

functionality for destination acceptance DVDs has been problematic due to lack of compliance by 

the Services and lack of WAWF integration at the retail/tactical level. The Services expressed their 

dissatisfaction with the process for performing acceptance for DLA issued contracts and have argued 
11

that acceptance is not the responsibility of the DVD receiving activity. As a result, DLA initiated a 

research and development project to specifically identify the reasons why receipt and acceptance 

documentation was not being produced for large numbers of DVD shipments and to recommend 

solutions. The ultimate purpose of the project was to identify a cost-effective method of protecting 

the Government from improper payment for DLA DVDs. Ms. Altman discussed project strategy 

and the results. The findings and recommendations are currently under review within DLA and 

OSD. Ms. Altman identified the “key take away: from the LMI report as follows: the value of DLA 

material is low, and these are primarily commercial items, the SDR rate is low, the Services are not 

willing to perform swivel chair acceptance in WAWF and don’t have automated applications to 

facilitate acceptance at the time of receipt. DLA proposed that GAO approve a statistical sample

approach for acceptance. DLA may re-consider assuming responsibility for acceptance based upon 

receipt acknowledgement and no discrepancy since the risk appears to be low. There were numerous 

comments from the attendees. Ms Burt-Hedrick (NAVSUP) noted that it is unrealistic to expect to 

have WAWF on ships afloat and noted that an 18 year old sailor should not be expected to do more 

than complete an MRA indicating the count of the items is correct, and none of them are obviously 

broken. She noted that the Navy had indicated to BTA that the WAWF acceptance requirement was 

impractical and the Navy position is that the MRA is sufficient. 

n. Navy Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) Retail Supply, Storage and Distribution 

(SS&D)/Inventory Management and Stock Positioning (IMSP). Ms. Kathy Duffer (DLA J331) 

provided the committee with an update on the BRAC/IMSP status focusing on Navy Spiral II 

functionality. She explained that the Navy requested functionality for BRAC requires DLA to

assume responsibility for the purchase, supply, and storage functions. The Navy only retained a 

small cadre of contracting staff to support contingencies. Several of the significant process changes 

and DLMS enhancements were discussed to include:

(1) The Navy will send requisitions to DLA for other-Service/Agency managed materiel which 

DLA will purchase and supply to the Navy. DLA assumes a risk in performing this mission because 

the requirement for the materiel is initially identified on an unfunded requisition (referred to as a 

requisition alert). DLA funds the purchase from the manager and will retain ownership if all of the 

materiel is not subsequently purchased by the Navy. As a result, DLA is also planning to implement 

capability to offer any excess to the manager using the Materiel Returns Program.

(2) The Navy requirement is for materiel to be requisitioned and issued at the “unit of use” level 

rather than the standard DoD unit of issue. Stock will be maintained at the unit of issue within the 

DLA depot, but within the industrial activity, supported by the Distribution Standard System, stock

will be maintained by the unit of use (the lowest issuable increment, normally “each”). Here DLA 

assumes a risk in breaking the unit of issue down for unit of use, since it is possible that some 

individual items will not be consumed by the Navy maintenance process and will be retained, or 

returned to DLA ownership.

(3) A DLMS enhancement will allow the requisitioner to indicate that quality deficiencies 

(reported on a Product Quality Deficiency Report (PQDR)) may exist in current stock, thereby 

alerting the ICP to use an alternative source to satisfy the new requisition. 

(4) DLA distribution depots will prepare Supply Discrepancy Reports (SDRs) and PQDRs on 

behalf of the BRAC customer. This is a new process for the depot personnel. 

(5) A new process and supporting DLMS enhancements has been developed for maintaining 

visibility of material offloaded from Navy ships during overhaul at the shipyard.
12

• ACTION: DLA Logistics Management Standards requested clarification of the process 

using an “ODN” on the due-in for dual channel receiving issues identified during Spiral I 

(Air Force).

o. Reutilization Business Integration Project Review. Ms. Judy Mahmat, DLA Disposition 

Services, and Ms. Tiffany Emmons, DLA Logistics Information Service provided an overview of the 

DLA Disposition Services mission and the ongoing Reutilization Business Integration (RBI) 

modernization initiative. Highlights of the overview included a discussion that all inbound material 

must have DD 1348-1A, Disposal Turn in Document (DTID). Generators without a system interface 

can use the Web-Based Electronic Turn-in Document (ETID) tool to generate DTIDs. The ETID 

tool sends the shipment information which is used to establish a pre-positioned materiel receipt 

(PMR) at the local DLA Disposition Services Field Office. This helps speed up the receiving 

process. Material may be turned in by NSN or Local Stock Number (LSN). DLA Disposition 

Services has responsibility to review and/or challenge the Demilitarization (DEMIL) code assigned 

by the generator. Ms Mahmat also explained procedures for the Recycle Control Point (RCP) which 

is a “virtual” process in that the ownership of the property changes to DLA Disposition Services 

while the physical property remains in the custody of the DLA Distribution Depot. Property is made 

available to customers during the screening process and reduces handling and transportation costs. 

Under the RBI initiative, the existing Defense Reutilization and Marketing Service (DRMS)

Automated Information System (DAISY) suite of 56 applications will be replaced. This will be 

accomplished by integrating DLA Disposition Services business processes in the existing DLA 

enterprise suite of applications, specifically, Enterprise Business system (EBS) for the material 

management functions, and the Distribution Standard System (DSS) for the warehousing and 

distribution functions. The existing Reutilization, Transfer, and Donation (RTD) and ETID 

applications will be integrated with the RBI initiative. Ms. Emmons noted that DSS will be used as 

the accountable record system. DSS will be used in all the Field Offices, not just the co-located 

depot sites. EBS will have visibility of the balances and an inventory reconciliation process will run 

daily to synchronize records. Several topics relating to RBI were emphasized during the briefing 

and discussion: 

(1) Standard Local Stock Numbers (LSNs). One or more LSN is being established for 

each Federal Supply Class (FSC) to identify common items. This will help reduce the number of 

material masters. 

(2) Containerization is one of the reengineering efforts that allows for the accumulation of 

multiple related items into a single virtual container for visibility and ease of reuse. It allows 

customers to identify and requisition either the whole container (all items in container) or individual 

items from the container. The customer will be able to order the whole container from the RTD web 

with a single action. Behind the scene, the internal system will generate multiple DLMS

transactions for communicating the order to EBS. The customer’s supply system will receive 

individual shipment status transactions for each stock number/DTID combination included in the 

container.

(3) Supply Condition Code. Under RBI, the SCC will be used instead of the current 

practice of using the Disposal Condition Code. This will affect the Federal Condition Code (SCC + 
13

Disposal Condition Code) used by GSA. GSA indicated that they have a work around. This may 

also affect DOD 4000.25-2-M, MILSTRAP, which publishes the Federal Condition Code.

(4) IUID. There was a brief discussion regarding an upcoming IUID Disposal workshop to 

better understand the impact SIM on the Disposition Services business process. The date of the IUID 

Disposal workshop is pending. 

• ACTION: DLA Disposition Services to provide to the MILSTRAP Administrator the 

resulting policy subsequent to coordination with GSA on supply condition code/removing 

disposal code

p. DoD EMALL 

(1) Funds Verification. Mr. Mike Barnes, representing DOD EMALL, briefed the 

committee on the DOD EMALL implementation of the on-line funds verification process approved 

under ADC 328. DoD EMALL implemented the initial interface with the Army Funds Control 

Module (FCM) in October 2010. This process allows the Service to establish the required financial 

obligation and to block further processing of orders for which funding is not available/authorized. 

The funds verification process for requisitions submitted via the EMALL Manual Order Entry 

System (MOES) process using the legacy 80-record position requisition format is slated for release 

in calendar year 2011. Mr. Barnes noted that in January 2011, Ms. LeAntha Sumpter, DPAP, 

mandated that EMALL send all financial transactions through Global Exchange (GEX) and this 

impacted the FCM interface. Mr. Barnes indicated that a real-time interface should be in place 

before EMALL goes to production using the GEX. It was not known whether this is a requirement 

that will be levied on GSA as well. The requirements for the Marine Corps funds verification 

process are under development. Ms. Hilert reviewed the PDC submission had has recommended 

several revisions. Mr. Tom Scatamacchia, USMC Contractor Support, will write the associated 

procedures and provide clarification/justification for additional data content such as the effective 

date. Standardization of the interface is desirable since changes impact both EMALL and GSA as 

well as future implementations. It was noted during discussion that slide 2 has an error and should 

reflect interfund and not credit card ordering. Mr. Barns reported that the process seems to be 

successfully managing the funds verification and that most Army rejects are due to lack of funds or 

improper DoDAAC (codes 1 or 3), a small number are for duplicate document number (code 4). 

The volume of rejects for lack of funds was surprising to Ms. Hilert and she asked if there is an 

EMALL reporting tool capturing rejects so the Army can analyze the results. Mr. Barnes responded 

that they could add the data elements to the business intelligence analysis tool to provide visibility to 

the Army. GSA noted a similar issue in that two thirds of their transactions are rejecting due to 

insufficient funds. This could have an operational impact since the Army only allows high priority 

items to be purchased through DoD EMALL.

• ACTION: EMALL work with Mr. Dave Berman to assign him an administrative account, so 

he can see the reject information and research enhancement of the analysis tool.

• ACTION: USMC to update the draft PDC with procedures and verify requirements for 

additional data and reject reply codes. 

(2) Material Receipt Acknowledgement. DoD EMALL currently provides an e-mail 

notice that encourages the user to return to EMALL to complete a receipt acknowledgment screen 
14

when the requisitioned material is received. Mr. Bob Vitko (J33 Contractor Support) asked why the 

message is sent on the order and not upon shipment status. Mr. Barnes responded that this process

doesn’t have visibility of when shipment status is generated. A system change is underway to remap the customer’s receipt acknowledgement from a nonstandard transaction (861) to the 

MILSTRAP/DLMS compliant MRA (527R) with a target implementation date of December 2011.

• ACTION: Mr. Barnes will create a test order and the resulting e-mail notice and provide to 

Ms. Hilert an example of the standard email that is sent.

q. Draft Addendum to ADC 221A, Revised Procedures associated with the DLMS 

Enhancement for Communication of Unit Price. This original ADC from 2007 authorized an 

increase in price field length for selected DLMS transactions. It also identified impact the DD Form 

1348-1A, to include bar codes, and AIT devices to collect bar code data. Although systems were 

directed to ensure against AIT misreads within six months, this tasking has not yet been 

accomplished across the Services and DLA. 

• ACTION: Add note to the cover letter for Addendum to ADC 221A to advise PRC 

Committee Members to coordinate this system change requirement with their Component 

AIT shops. 

r. Proposed DLMS Changes under Development. Two changes which are being prepared 

for staffing within the next few months were introduced to the Committee.

(1) DRAFT PDC 425, Revise DoD 4000.25-1-M to Eliminate Use of DD 173-2 

Joint Message Form for Message Transmission of MILSTRIP Transactions, selected Media 

and Status Codes Requiring DLA Transaction Services Mailing, and other Administrative 

Updates. This change will eliminate the use of DD Form 173/2 for message transmission of 

MILSTRIP transactions which is necessary because the Army proponent has canceled the form. Ms. 

Hilert explained that several of the MILSTRIP appendices are being converted to reflect the content 

required for the identified business process without regard to the form. After review of the 

appendices requiring this action, Mr. Vitko suggested the Materiel Obligation Validation be 

reconsidered. The PDC also documents the elimination of DLA Transaction Services mailing of 

readable document formats and deletion of the associated Media and Status Codes. The termination 

of this process was discussed previously during SPRC meetings and DLA Transaction Services 

proceeded with change because the cost of the mailings was prohibitive for the questionable value 

the offered. Ms. Hilert noted that she is trying to publish this change quickly so that the necessary 

updates can be incorporated in the MILSTRIP manual prior to the reissuance as discussed above. 

GSA provided input that the GSA Form 10050 would not be eliminated at this time, but further 

study is needed.

• ACTION: DLA Transaction Services to review the draft PDC.

• ACTION: DLA Logistics Management Standards to updated the documentation per 

comments and publish the change (no date available).

(2) PDC 473, Inclusion of Contract Number in Supply Transactions 

associated with Government Furnished Property (GFP). ODASD (SCI) and DPAP have 

established a requirement for the inclusion of the GFP contract number in shipment status and 
15

materiel receipt acknowledgment (MRA) associated with GFP. ADC 390 has already been issued to 

modify the MRA; however, the DLMS enhancement appears to be unimplemented at this time. A 

new PDC is being prepared for inclusion of the contract number in the DLMS 856S, Shipment 

Status. In order to accomplish this, the DLMS 511R must retain the contract number when it exits 

the Management Control Activity or the system used to validate the GFP requirement prior to 

forwarding to the source of supply (SOS) for processing. The SoS must be able to perpetuate the 

contract number when directing release of DoD stock, making it available to the shipping depot

preparing shipment status for subsequent inclusion in that transaction.

• ACTION: ICPs to ensure that contractors are aware of the GFP contract number 

requirement as soon as feasible.

• ACTION: DLA Logistics Management Standards Office to finalize development for 

PDC 473 (no date available).

s. Preview of Pipeline Measurement (PM) PRC.

(1) Ms. Heidi Daverede, DLA Logistics Management Standards, provided a briefing on the 

PM PRC. The DoD Supply Chain Materiel Management regulation (DOD 4140.1-R), Appendix 13

establishes the PM PRC to develop and maintain the Logistics Metric Analysis Reporting System 

(LMARS). The PM PRC will fill the gap left when the Customer Wait Time (CWT) Committee

ceased to function several years ago. A kick-off meeting is scheduled on August 2-3, 2011 at LMI 

HQ in McLean, VA. The draft agenda is posted on the committee webpage: http://www.dla.mil/j6/dlmso/Programs/Committees/pmprc/pmprc.asp. Updates to the agenda, including briefing slides, 

will be added to the webpage as they become available. Due to the importance of this initial 

meeting, members are strongly encouraged to attend in person (remote access via the Defense 

Connect Online (DCO) and teleconference will not be available).

(2) Mr. Paul Blackwell, ODASD (SCI), chairs the Supply Chain Metrics Group (SCMG), 

which establishes policy for the PM PRC; the mission of the PM PRC is to implement those policies 

in LMARS. LMARS has not been updated since the CWT Committee ceased to function. The first 

goal of the PM PRC will be to update LMARS with regard to operational and functional changes in 

the supply enterprise since that time. Using the established DLMS change process, the PM PRC and 

Supply PRC will coordinate to implement changes in the DLMS and MILS transactions and manuals 

that are identifed as needed to support the metrics requirements in LMARS. Changes that have 

already been identified include DLMS maturation, changes to RFID policies and implementation, 

integration of USTRANSCOM Time Definite Delivery (TDD) standards, integration of raw CWT 

data, and updates to component DoDAACs and RICs. 

(3) Several participants had comments or concerns relating to the Pipeline Measurement 

PRC. Mr. Dan Collins (Navy), enthusisatically endorsed the PM PRC concept. Mr. Sam Perez

(USMC), Ms. Emily Burt-Hendrick (Navy), and Mr. Ken Deans (Army), all concurred that RICs are 

a problem the PRC will need to resolve. Mr. Deans pointed out that other Services do not maintain a 

one-to-one correlation between RICs and DoDAACs as the Arny does. Gloria Torres, Air Force, 

noted that discussions at the SCMG may result in metrics defitinitions or calculation methodolgies 

changing; Ms. Daverede assured her that DLA Logistics Management Standards is monitoring the 

SCMG meetings and will incorprate any changes into the PM PRC process. 
16

(4) In summary, Mr. Pipp noted that today Components are calculating CWT and LRT 

differently; PM PRC standardization of these measures in LMARS will enable DoD to report 

enterprise-wide CWT and LRT metrics to Congress. 

t. Wrap up. Ms. Hilert thanked the Components for their particiaption in the SPRC meeting. 

She announced her plans for future SPRC meetings to be smaller and more focused on individual 

topics using conference call/DCO rather than multi-day meetings. This met with mixed responses 

since the Components appreciate the SPRC meetings as a valuable method of enhancing their 

understanding of a wide range of business processes.

________/s/________ Approved: ________/s/_________

ELLEN HILERT DONALD C. PIPP

Co-Chair DoD Supply PRC Director,

Defense Logistics Management Standards