2. Ms. Hilert asked for inputs and feedback on the way ahead, and requested inputs on
developing a “roadmap” for achieving the long term goals. She would like to form a working
group to achieve this and solicited volunteers.

3. DLMSO will map out alternative flow diagrams for the next discussion. Our intent is
to require the ILCO to act as an initial screening point for determination whether the complaint
constitutes a quality deficiency or supply discrepancy. An immediate goal will be to eliminate
re-keying by the ILCO or the ICP (where required by current Service approach) to accommodate
input to the appropriate processing system.

ELLEN HILERT
DOD SDR System Administrator

sul ante Dp
DONALD C. PIPP

Director
Defense Logistics Management
Standards Office

Attachment, Page 4


b. Ken Carr, from the PDREP team, noted that PDREP does not systemically
reject a discrepancy report for this reason; someone must do it manually. He requested that the
Navy WSS team contact the PDREP team to resolve this issue.

4, AFSAC: All Air Force FMS customers submit all discrepancies, including quality, via
an SDR. For commercial sales, commercial repairs, or organic repairs, the ILCO passes the SDR
to the source of supply (SoS) via WebSDR. When submitted to an Air Force SoS and it is
determined to be a quality issue, the SDR information is loaded into Joint Deficiency Reporting
System (JDRS) for processing as a PQDR (including forwarding to PDREP-AIS where
appropriate).

a. The AFSAC representative indicated that the quality related data elements are
not currently treated as mandatory for quality deficiencies. Ms. Hilert indicated that this was not
the original intent and all elements should be populated. Action Item: Review system design
and report timeline for this incorporating this requirement to DLMSO.

b. Although there are no current plans for adopting the DLMS 842P PQDR
interface for SDR-A with PDREP-AIS, this process could be explored.

5. GSA: The research and resolution of PQDRs for GSA is retained by Supplier
Management within Federal Acquisition Service (FAS)/GSA. GSA has not planned for a DLMS
PQDR interface, but will consider the possibility of establishing such an interface in the future.
GSA does accept DLMS 842A/W with quality-related discrepancy codes; however the VISION
system does not currently handle any of the quality-specific attributes included in the transaction.
Action Item: Research additional functionality to accept the quality-related data elements and
provide possible timeline for implementation to DLMSO.

6. Defense Security Cooperation Agency (DSCA): DSCA is currently developing the
Security Cooperation Enterprise Solution (SCES) Enterprise Resource Program (ERP) to accept
FMS customer discrepancy reports and interface with WebSDR using DLMS. The SCES team
has not yet addressed special processing requirements for quality deficiencies. Action Item: (1)
Research SCES functionality for quality-related data elements carried in the DLMS SDR and
capability to accept the PQDR Report Control Number (RCN) on SDR replies and provide
feedback to DLMSO. (2) Explore feasibility of adopting the DLMS 842P PQDR. (3) Clarify
the plan for integration of SDR-A functionality/system within SCES and its use by all Services.
(The timeline for implementing SCES for all Services must be evaluated against requiring
changes to WebSDR to support development of screens for quality-related data elements for
FMS.)

C. Goals and the Way Forward: Ms. Hilert re-emphasized the long-term goal of the PRC
was to develop a standardized approach to FMS PQDRs, with everyone being on the same page
for system development and policy guidance. Achieving the optimum solution will take time
and it will be a complex undertaking, so interim steps and goals may be essential.

1. Ms. Anita Smith, AFSAC, felt that the FMS customer should not be held responsible
for determining if the discrepancy is a PQDR or SDR. That responsibility should be at the item
manager/ICP level or the ILCO level.

Attachment, Page 3


DEFENSE LOGISTICS AGENCY
HEADQUARTERS
8725 JOHN J. KINGMAN ROAD
FORT BELVOIR, VIRGINIA 22060-6221

March 6, 2014

MEMORANDUM FOR DISTRIBUTION

SUBJECT: Defense Logistics Management Standards (DLMS) Supply Discrepancy Report (SDR)
Process Review Committee (PRC) Meeting 14-01, February 11, 2014

The attached minutes of the DLMS SDR PRC Meeting14-01 are forwarded for your
information and action as appropriate.

The DLA Logistics Management Standards point of contact is Ms. Ellen Hilert,
(703) 767-0676, DSN 427-0676; or email ellen.hilert@dla.mil.

NALD C. PIPP
Director
DLA Logistics Management
Standards Office

Attachment
As stated

DISTRIBUTION:
ODASD(SCI)

DoD PQDR Committee
Attendees


DEFENSE LOGISTICS AGENCY
HEADQUARTERS
8725 JOHN J. KINGMAN ROAD
FORT BELVOIR, VIRGINIA 22060-6221

March 6, 2014

MEMORANDUM FOR RECORD

SUBJECT: Defense Logistics Management Standards (DLMS) Supply Discrepancy Report (SDR)
Process Review Committee (PRC) Meeting 14-01, February 11, 2014

Purpose: The Defense Logistics Management Standards Office hosted the subject meeting at
DLA Headquarters and via Defense Connect On-Line (DCO) for remote participants. This was a
focused topic meeting intended as a preliminary discussion concerning the feasibility of
transitioning policy and procedures for reporting of Foreign Military Sales (FMS) quality
deficiencies to the Product Quality Deficiency Report (PQDR) process/systems, removing the
SDR as the initiating and transfer mechanism. Meeting related materiel is available from the
SDR Committee Webpage at
www.dla.mil/j-6/dlmso/Programs/Committees/Supply/supplySDR.asp.

A. Brief Summary of Discussion: Ms. Ellen Hilert, DOD SDR System Administrator, began
the meeting with a review of current policy and DOD system functionality, including DLMS
procedures, transactions, codes and a previously attempted interface between DoD WebSDR and
the Product Data Reporting and Evaluation Program (PDREP) Automated Information System
(AIS) for FMS quality complaints (refer to the briefing slides). This was followed by a
discussion of each Service’s existing processes for communicating FMS quality complaints .
Participants identified drawbacks and challenges associated with the current approach and
challenges and potential problem areas in the development of a standardized process. Ms. Hilert
summarized that the goals of this meeting: level-set understanding of current procedures for
communicating and processing of FMS quality deficiency complaints as implemented by each
Service/Agency; explore alternatives for improved electronic processing; and reach a concensus
on the next steps toward achieving a more efficient and functionally correct process. Action
items are to be worked within 30 days of this memorandum.

B. Service and Agency Briefings and Discussions

1. DLA: FMS quality discrepancies are submitted by the International Logistics Control
Office (ILCO) as an SDR and forwarded to DLA’s Enterprise Business System by DOD
WebSDR as a Document Type 7 SDR. DLA processes and investigates FMS quality
deficiencies in the same manner as standard PQDRs.

a. Ms. Hilert specifically asked if EBS accepts the enhanced quality deficiency
related data content provided by the Air Force Security Assistance Command SDR Application


(AFSAC SDR-A) in the SDR transaction. Action Items: (1) Verify that EBS will accept all the
quality-related data elements as defined in the SDR implementation convention and listed in the
briefing slides. If not currently accepted, provide possible timeline for process enhancement. (2)
Validate the list of quality-related data elements to confirm that the originally defined minimum
data requirements for processing as a PQDR is still acceptable.

b. DLA representatives noted that EBS does not pass a PQDR to PDREP, but the
discrepancy information is recorded in the DLA Office of Operations Research and Resource
Analysis (DORRA) to support research and analysis.

2. U.S. Army Security Assistance Command (USASAC): The USASAC
representative reported that her office does not process PQDRs because the legacy system
Centralized Integrated System-International Logistics (CISIL) does not have this functionality.
All quality related deficiencies are submitted as an SDR. Customers may submit a PQDR (SF
368) as an attachment and it will be uploaded into WebSDR for visibility to the item manager.

a, The Army team pointed out that various Army Inventory Control Points (ICPs)
process FMS quality deficiencies differently. At the Communications-Electronics Command
(CECOM), the SDR team manually inputs the FMS deficiency into PDREP-AIS.

Action Item: Determine the process at other Army ICPs for the processing of FMS quality
complaints and advise DLMSO.

b. The Logistics Modernization Program (LMP) representative noted that LMP
will accept Discrepancy Codes Q1-Q8, but was not programmed to support any of the additional
quality-related data fields. Action Item: Advise DLMSO on the planned process for LMP with
regards to FMS quality deficiencies, including adoption of the 842P, PQDR and/or adoption of
the SDR quality-related elements, including possible timeline.

3. Naval Supply Systems Command Weapon Systems Support (NAVSUP WSS)
(Navy ILCO): The Navy reported that their approach to processing the customer’s discrepancy
reports varies by the SoS and the scenario involved. For contract or commercially repairable
items, the ILCO manually enters the complaint as a PQDR into PDREP-AIS where it is routed to
the responsible Contract Administrator Office (CAO) at DCMA (NAVSUP WSS acts as the
originator and action point, DCMA acts as the support point). For organic repairs, the complaint
is entered as a PQDR and routed to the organic depot (the repair depot is the action activity).
For Navy aviation stock, the complaint is submitted as an SDR in PDREP. For Navy surface
stock, the complaint is submitted as a PQDR via PDREP-AIS and routed to the responsible
DCMA COA (NAVSUP WSS is the originator, screening point, and action point). For DLA
stock, the complaint is submitted via WebSDR to SMS.

a. Michael Gindraw, NAVSUP WSS, noted that there is an issue with PDREP
closing/rejecting SDRs submitted with a Q1 code. They are getting a reply that noting that items
are being converted to a PQDR, and closing the SDR because it should be submitted as a PQDR.
Closing the SDR out and converting it to a PQDR causes the ILCO to lose visibility of the
report.

Attachment, Page 2