1 

MINUTES FROM FINANCE PROCESS REVIEW COMMITTEE 

MEETING 22-1, MAY 4, 2022

Purpose: The Defense Enterprise Data Standards Office (DEDSO) convened a virtual meeting 

of the Finance Process Review Committee (FPRC) via Microsoft Teams and audio 

teleconference on May 4, 2022. Specific discussion topics are noted below. The meeting 

agenda, briefing material, the action item tracker, and evidential matter are available on the 

FPRC web page archive: www.dla.mil/FinancePRC

2. Brief Summary of Discussion: Mr. Nolan Davis and Mr. Paul Macias, DEDSO, facilitated 

discussions during the Finance PRC 22-01 meeting. The action item tracker contains the 

resulting action items. No action items were identified during the meeting. 

3. Opening Remarks: Mr. Davis briefed the group on today’s agenda and introduced Dr. 

Lindsey Saul, Chief Data and Analytics Officer, Info Operations, who welcomed participants 

and provided opening remarks. Dr. Saul emphasized the importance of G-Invoicing in 

intergovernmental accounting, especially during times of financial constraints. Dr. Saul 

reiterated that the ability to make data driven decisions at a moment’s notice remains a core 

vision for the agency. Dr. Saul was followed by Mr. Nelson Alvarez, DEDSO Acting Division 

Chief, encouraging stakeholders to lean on the subject matter experts on the call while engaging 

on the challenges of bringing G-Invoicing to reality.

4. Meeting Topics:

a. OUSD(C) G-Invoicing Implementation Update

Ms. Fatimoh Ajadi introduced herself and proceeded to provide an update of G-Invoicing 

implementation status. Ms. Ajadi introduced her Financial Management Policy and Reporting

(FMPR) Inter Governmental Transaction (IGT) team, organization chart, and responsibilities

which included the following: 

• Monitor: 

o Monitor DoD-wide G-Invoicing Implementation

o Review Component Implementation Plans quarterly 

o Report updates/risks to DoD leadership

• Collaborate:

o Collaborate with stakeholders (Treasury, Components, Other Federal 

Agencies, and Vendors) to disseminate information 

o Facilitate various working groups with different stakeholders to discuss, 

educate and inform users on G-Invoicing and IGT topic areas 

• Enhance:

o Develop policies to address gaps in IGT process

o Develop long-term strategy to assist in G-Invoicing strategy 

o Develop corrective action plans to remediate IGT findings
2

Ms. Ajadi continued briefing the group on historical challenges with intergovernmental 

transactions. Over the past decade, the DoD Inspector General and GAO have reported findings 

where IGT contributes to on-going material weakness. The primary causes for the material 

weakness are the following: Systems are not configured to capture intradepartmental transactionlevel data, lack of periodic IGT reconciliations with trading partners, use of top-side adjustments 

without transaction-level supporting documentation, lack of IGT data standards, and 

decentralized DoD Components operating independently. As of December 31, 2021, DoD 

booked approximately $67B in unsupported journal vouchers related to IGT eliminations.

Ms Ajadi explained G-Invoicing is a long-term solution led by Treasury for Federal entities to 

manage their intragovernmental buy/sell transactions. G-Invoicing provides data standards for 

both governmental parties to record agreed general terms and conditions (GT&Cs), process 

orders and settle funds. Ms. Ajadi reviewed the mandated implementation timeline. By October 

2022, all new IGT orders must be recorded in G-Invoicing. Any existing orders not settled by 

October 2023 must be combined into G-Invoicing by that time. As of October 2022, 

Components doing business with non-DoD Federal trading partners who are G-Invoicing capable 

will have to use the Treasury G-Invoicing “User Interface” method to enter new orders greater 

than $10K.

Ms. Ajadi reviewed projected G-Invoicing deployment dates for Components. The FMPR IGT 

team tracks entry of general terms and conditions (GT&Cs) into G-Invoicing monthly via an 

Advana Dashboard. Ms. Ajadi showed a breakdown of March G-Invoicing data by DoD 

Components involving over $267 billion.

Currently, Interfund transactions are excluded from G-Invoicing. Components will have to rely 

on legacy processes until a decision is reached as to path forward for interfund transactions and 

whether they are in-scope for G-Invoicing. DOD Components and OUSD(C) actively participate 

in Treasury’s Interfund Working Group where Treasury and participants explore a path forward 

for how to handle Interfund.

Mr. Selester Copeland commented his appreciation for a forum bringing experts from the 

logistics and financial management sides to the topic of G-Invoicing. Mr. Copeland said Ginvoicing has mostly been worked in forums looking at the acquiring of goods and services from 

a financial point of view. He sees gaps in G-Invoicing for many common logistical internal 

controls and accountability. Mr. Copland encouraged logisticians from all levels of OSD to

become very involved in G-Invoicing from this point going forward if G-Invoicing is expected to 

help mitigate audit findings as well as operational gaps. He noted there's a lot of work to be 

done to integrate G-Invoicing with supply chain and regulated logistics.

b. G-Invoicing Implementation at GSA

Ms. Gail Bruss, GSA’s Project Lead, briefed the group on G-Invoicing implementation at GSA.

Ms. Bruss presented a visual depiction for the phased deployment of G-Invoicing for GSA 

programs. While manual business lines are progressing to be ready by October 2022, certain 

GSA business lines have target implementation dates over the next couple years. Ms. Bruss 

explained that GSA is delaying implementation in these areas because they need time to have 

their financial system updated along with follow-on updates to the feeder systems. Adjustments 
3

take time to figure out how to fit these business models into G-Invoicing. For instance, the 

vehicle fleet services business model operates on an initial service agreement that does not 

require monthly renewals, but bills monthly over the service term. In terms of timing, GSA is 

dependent on their financial system incorporating three G-Invoicing workflows: Seller 

facilitated Orders, Constructive Order Acceptance, and EZInvoice. GSA needs the ability to 

continue using Intergovernmental Payment and Collection (IPAC) after October 1, 2024, for 

continuity purposes.

Ms. Bruss also discussed negative supply impacts that would have occurred related to the initial 

G-Invoicing requirements. GSA, and other stakeholders, worked with Treasury to develop the 

EZInvoice approach to provide better data than IPAC, but less burdensome than full GInvoicing. When it comes to the development of supply solutions, Ms. Bruss proposed the 

following assumptions be accounted for:

• Customers continue to use same ordering portals 

• Average customer has little accounting knowledge 

• Data required for EZInvoicing could be derived from a middleware or interface 

GSA is also currently working with DLA and Treasury to develop a supply solution that serves 

supply customers and still meets Treasury data needs.

Mr. Copeland complimented Ms. Bruss on her presentation. He stressed it as an example of the 

need for logistics to ensure the front-end ordering systems need to integrate into the ordering 

controls G-Invoicing considerations. The work of ensuring an order is compliant with financial 

audit will occur in the ordering systems, not later in G-Invoicing.

c. G-Invoicing Implementation at DLA

Mr. Michael Lane, DLA G-Invoicing PM, briefed the current state of G-Invoicing 

implementation as context for future discussion on interfacing Interfund with G-Invoicing. Mr. 

Lane reinforced prior briefs on the importance to have GT&Cs recorded by October of this year 

so that orders may be processed in the coming fiscal year. DLA is undertaking G-Invoicing in 

two phases. The first phase is focused on the development of a tool to simplify the transition 

from Military Interdepartmental Purchase Requests (MIPRs) to development of GT&Cs, with a 

target implementation of October 2023. The second phase targets updating DLA’s ERP to 

support the remaining G-Invoicing steps (Orders, Performance, Receipt & Acceptance, and 

Settlement) targeted for October 2024. For DLA, the current transaction level involved is $12B 

of inbound orders and $1.5B of outbound orders.

Mr. Lane emphasized the purpose and importance of G-Invoicing implementation from a Federal 

Government perspective, including the Federal Government’s inability to adequately account for 

intragovernmental activity and balances between Federal entities. He reviewed the DoD’s report 

on causes and corrective action to address material weaknesses tied to timely, matched 

accounting of orders. Mr. Lane reiterated that G-Invoicing is the solution to improve the quality 

of IGT data. G-Invoicing adoption moves DoD to a common language and standards with the 

rest of the Federal Government, making it easier to communicate and match up with Federal 

trading partners. Mr. Lane highlighted the benefits of G-Invoicing include improved quality and 
4 

reliability of buy/sell data, reduced adjustments, simplified reconciliation and elimination, and 

improved transparency. 

Mr. Lane explained why G-Invoicing is so important to DLA is the agency’s role as the IGT 

‘engine’ across DoD for transactions currently settled at Treasury via IPAC (i.e., significantly the 

highest annual dollar amounts). Proper G-Invoicing implementation is critical to DLA’s cash 

solvency (~ $13B at risk). During the first year of implementation, DLA anticipates over 50,000 

inbound orders that must be properly supported by a GT&C. Mr. Lane noted DoD is the driver 

of Federal material weakness based on IGT eliminations, so DLA’s system solution must include 

internal G-Invoicing controls. 

Mr. Lane presented how DLA is defining system supports for the four main G-Invoicing process 

steps whether DLA is the buyer or the seller. In either role, ServiceNow will facilitate GT&C 

data to G-Invoicing, and EBS will communicate data for the rest of the processes via the GEX 

gateway. Mr. Copeland asked about the slides representation of buyer/seller GT&Cs 

applicability within the same Treasury Account Symbol (TAS), which would not need to be 

entered in G-Invoicing. Mr. Lane clarified the slide is representing the capability of DLA to be 

either the buyer or the seller. Only if a two separate TAS accounts within DLA were involved 

would DLA be both roles for an IGT.

Mr. Lane shared that an announcement should be expected around the end of this summer for the 

launch of DLA’s minimum viable GT&C tool for customers to use. The remaining capabilities 

of the tool are targeting release around December of this year. DLA has already trained over a 

thousand employees on G-Invoicing but will be ramping up more training as documentation 

solidifies ahead of launch. Mr. Lane addressed how DLA’s POAM, tackling many notices of 

findings, currently foresees April 2024 as a realistic date for DLA to have G-Invoicing supported 

for orders through to settlement. For this reason, DLA shares GSA’s concern about Treasury’s 

announced plan to shut down the bulk IPAC process as of October 2023. Mr. Copeland asked if 

DLA needs some of the same allowances provided GSA and the Government Printing Office 

(GPO) in the Treasury memorandum sunsetting IPAC. Mr. Lane recalled that the Treasury 

memo allowed GSA and GPO to implement supported G-Invoicing alternatives (i.e., EZInvoice), 

but did not grant extension of IPAC for those agencies. Ms. Bruss concurred with Mr. Lane’s 

description of the situation, and stressed GSA’s concern over the IPAC sunsetting before the last 

GSA business line can compete the transition in 2024. DLA and GSA are in discussions with 

Treasury about extending retirement of the bulk upload feature, as the IPAC manual user 

interface is not considered capable for high-volume business lines to bridge the G-Invoicing 

implementation gap of either agency. 

Mr. Lane shared key treasury information. He encouraged anyone interested in the standards and 

agency implementation status to visit the Treasury’s G-Invoicing Website 

https://www.fiscal.treasury.gov/g-invoice/. DoD’s milBook site is another good clearing house 

on DoD’s G-Invoicing information https://www.milsuite.mil/book/groups/intragovernmentaltransactions. DLA maintains an additional resource for documents, training, and a calendar 

https://www.milsuite.mil/book/groups/dla-g-invoicing-project-information-page 

d. Interfund and G-Invoicing
5

Mr. Davis, FPRC Chair, briefed the group on the developing relationship between Interfund and 

G-Invoicing. He recalled very early on in G-Invoicing efforts; the focus was on MIPR type 

buy/sell transactions. As Interfund is exclusive to DoD, and a few civilian agencies selling to 

DoD, G-Invoicing excluded trying to work on Interfund to keep focus.

Mr. Davis laid out how early in 2022 participants from Treasury, OUSD(C), DLA, GSA, and 

DEDSO started discussions around Interfund reporting to Treasury. Treasury is looking to retire 

the SIBAC reporting interface used by Interfund. Mr. Davis indicated discussions looked at 

what would be a better Treasury system and what would be the proper level of detail to report. 

Mr. Davis noted that the processes and requirements of Interfund and G-Invoicing do not neatly 

align. A challenge for a focused team working ideas to integrate Interfund into G-Invoicing is 

how to get the data and controls aligned without radically, negatively impacting the supply 

community. Mr. Davis hopes future PRCs will see a consensus solution develop.

e. Fund Code XP Discussion

Mr. Paul Macias, DEDSO support contractor, provided a high-level overview of the situation 

with fund code XP regarding G-Invoicing requirements. Mr. Macias explained, any transaction 

between Components citing a non-Interfund fund code (e.g., fund code XP), technically, is not 

supposed to have been exempted from current G-Invoicing requirements the way Interfund has 

been.

Mr. Macias acknowledged that while Interfund is required where Components have the 

capability, not every DoD activity is capable (e.g., OSD Agencies or “H-series” activities) and 

select sales/services to agencies are mixed in the supply process as non-Interfund. Mr. Macias 

noted this slide is intended to provide awareness that the stakeholders working on Interfund 

alignment with G-Invoicing are mindful of the need to solve auditability for DoD supply 

transactions identified as non-Interfund.

Mr. Copeland asked if fund code XP is used between governmental entries. Mr. Macias does not 

know the depth of this use but does understand that non-Interfund is executed between Federal 

entities. Mr. Copeland noted any Federal trading partner allowed to participate in the end-to-end 

Military supply process should be held to the same requirements of any other entity using the 

supply processes supported by Interfund.

f. G-Invoicing Open Discussion

Mr. Davis opened discussions from all attendees for any additional questions/concerns related to 

G-Invoicing.

Mr. Ken Latta inquired about the original Treasury bulletin requirements relying on humans 

making the agreements, compared to the Supply system relying on DoDAACs to engaging in 

transactions. Mr. Copeland pointed out that the original term “agreement” comes from U.S.C. 

1535. He noted interpretation of an agreement has been used to mean a document like InterAgency Agreement, GT&C, Memorandum of Understanding, etc., while others have applied it to 

the MIPR, Orders, 7600B. As Treasury defines an agreement as the GT&C, Mr. Copeland 

recommends when updating policies and procedures around IGTs of all stripes, the language of 

agreement should be standardized on the GT&C between two trading partners. Mr. Copland 
6

advocated for a more matured view of acquiring goods and services as a seamless integration of

supply and financial process steps. Mr. Latta returned his concern of counting a list of 

DoDAACs as having de facto agreements, when it is really a list of authorized participants in a 

system. Copeland agreed the way participants have been identified is not good, but DoDAACs 

do have a logistics accountability role that logistics needs to make understood and incorporated 

with the proper controls into G-invoicing.

Ms. Bruss reflected on GT&Cs being new to the DoD requisitioning process, but that GT&Cs 

establish the agreement between two parties. DLA and GSA did not resist adding GT&Cs as 

requirements to business lines that had not required them before. It is the establishment of the 

relationship and should not dictate the dollar amounts involved in orders. Mr. Lane agreed that 

DLA supports GT&Cs at the highest level between treading partners to encompass as wide a 

scope of applicable terms so that various orders can be linked back to the relevant GT&C 

between the parties involved. He cautioned that GT&Cs at lower levels could result in thousands 

of GT&Cs and make it very difficult to identify which GT&C is applicable.

Mr. Macias raised a question about who has the authority to connect DoDAACs to GT&C so the 

supply system (or mediary system) knows where an order lines up with a particular GT&C. Mr. 

Copeland answered that it is the responsibility of the commanders. Title X establishes who is 

self-sufficient to adjudicate and manage resources, and thus has authority to enter into 

agreements.

Mr. Eric Flanagan, DLA, recalled at a Finance PRC meeting of 2011, Treasury presented on 

IGTs. He relayed from that session; Treasury’s presenter advised all agencies to understand their 

inventory of reimbursable agreements to understand which ones would best fit the interagency 

agreement. The final point Mr. Flanagan shared from that Treasury presentation noted the 

recommended solution that was not a good fit for high volume, low dollar transactions between 

agencies. Mr. Flanagan concluded noting how GSA’s business lines not close to the standard 

solution have further implementation dates as alternatives are being developed to facilitate their 

business process into G-Invoicing. DoDAACs have shared meaning across the government, and 

when having proper authority to requisition is the basis for a source of supply to issue materiel. 

Mr. Flanagan recommended agreements be from one agency and another agency. The supply 

process is not like services to fill a defined need, from a specific program, for a set period. A 

valid requisition, from an authorized activity needs the source of supply prepared to be filled. 

Mr. Flanagan concluded by referencing Treasury’s 2011 statements that it is up to the logistics 

community to understand the business and determine compatibility.

Mr. Lane followed up acknowledging Treasury has made clear their intention to move DoD 

away from Interfund. So, the question now is how to make that transition happen most 

strategically. The DoDAAD issue is a critical issue as it used to be a mandatory element that 

Treasury eventually removed. That lead to discussions about coopting fields to represent 

DoDAACs as secondary references. Mr. Lane noted how DoDAACs are key drivers in the 

supply process and needs to be put back to make sure a DoDAAC is there every time. Mr. 

Copeland agreed and noted that the DLM 4000.25 process is used far beyond just DoD to 

include Federal agencies, corporations, and foreign governments. Mr. Copeland sees those 

processes need to remain largely the same but re-engineering the backend reporting to Treasury 
7

must be updated. He believes the Treasury reporting and general ledger accounts can be 

improved with automated reporting that includes more complete and timely data.

Ms. Bruss analogized the situation to online shopping with the cart representing supply chain 

management and needing to find a way to integrate G-Invoicing as the payment process. Mr. 

Copeland added that what is missing in the analogy are controls to manage up front who, what, 

where when and why so they can be linked to the how much.

Ms. Bruss asked where in the G-Invoicing data fields should the DoDAAC reside. Mr. Lane 

responded that it was originally in the cost center field but is unsure if there is a clear candidate 

field available. It was then mentioned that the Unique Enterprise Identifier (UEI) field was the 

most recent suggestion for capturing the DoDAAC in G-Invoicing. Ms. Bruss questioned if that 

field’s business rules would be too restrictive for a DoDAAC, but encouraged the discussion 

continue. Mr. Copeland advised steering away from UEI as it was created for non-Federal 

entities.

Ms. Kristen Humphrey, OASD(Acquisition), noted in the FIDS order structure there is a 

requesting agency address activity code and a servicing agency activity address code field, which 

she believes is what Comptroller put forward when entities be DoDAACs. She recommended 

Comptroller revisit the issue with Treasury. Mr. Copeland called for a memorandum to make 

explicit exactly how to enter DoDAACs to ensure it is consistent.

Meeting Wrap Up

Mr. Davis wrapped up thanking all presenters and participants for their contributions. There are 

no outstanding action items from today’s meeting. Upcoming PRCs are tentatively scheduled as 

follows:

• Finance- November 2022

• Supply PRC- July 2022, December 2022

• Supply Discrepancy Reporting (SDR)- October 2022

Mr. Copland asked that the Finance PRC participants be consolidated into a contacts list to be 

aware of DoD policy and process developments. Mr. Davis will work with Mr. Copeland on 

making that happen.